The Arizona Diamondbacks will not be throwing their name in the hat for the relocated 2021 All-Star Game.
D-backs owner Ken Kendrick squashed the notion of the team potentially hosting this year’s event while on with Arizona Sports’ Burns & Gambo on Monday, calling the relocation of the game from the Atlanta Braves’ Truist Park a sad state of affairs.
“No, we absolutely would not [pursue the All-Star Game],” Kendrick said. “We hosted one in 2011, we’re proud that we were able to do that but I view it as it would be an insult to my friends at the Atlanta Braves for us to take the game that was theirs.”
A bill which would prohibit companies, as well as a state, county, or local government entity from requiring anyone except public school students to prove vaccination status in order to shop, obtain medical services, or receive government aid is on hold while Senate Republicans decide whether to move the bill forward.
Under HB2190, a company conducting business in Arizona would be prohibited from refusing to provide everyday services, transportation, or admission because a person does not divulge whether they have received a particular vaccine. The bill also prohibits a state, county, or local government entity or official from offering anyone a special privilege or incentive to receive a vaccine.
Sponsored by Rep. Bret Roberts (R-LD11) and Sen. Kelly Townsend (R-LD16), HB2190 cleared the Senate Appropriations Committee, the Rules Committee, and the Democrat Caucus last week. However, it has been held up in the Republican Caucus since April 1 due to two issues, AZ Free News has learned.
First, some legislators would like to see the bill amended to ensure certain types of employers can question employees about their vaccination status. Second, a provision of the bill would limit Gov. Doug Ducey’s power to order vaccination of persons diagnosed with, exposed to, or expected to be exposed to certain diseases.
According to Arizona Revised Statues 36-787, a governor can mandate the treatment, vaccination, isolation, and quarantine of persons when there is an occurrence or the imminent threat of smallpox, plague, viral hemorrhagic fevers or “a highly contagious and highly fatal disease” with transmission characteristics similar to smallpox.
HB2190 would revoke the governor’s authority to impose any vaccination requirement during such a public health emergency, but Ducey has been resistant to any attempts by the legislature to diminish his state of emergency powers.
The Senate is expected to reconsider HB2190 later this week. If it passes the Senate it must make it out of the House one more time before being sent to Ducey.
Arizona is not the only state where the question of a vaccination passport is receiving attention. The state of New York is currently sponsoring a smartphone app which can store the user’s COVID-19 vaccination or testing status, although it’s unclear how many companies -and which industries- may wish to utilize such a feature.
In Florida, Gov. Ron DeSantis has already addressed the “vaccination passport” option by issuing an executive order banning businesses in the state from demanding proof of any vaccination in order to receive service. He has also banned local and state agencies from requiring or even issuing such a document.
Similar opposition is growing in Arkansas and Texas.
In addition, the World Health Organization recently took a position against the use of vaccination passports for international travel, citing “critical unknowns” about the effectiveness of the vaccines and the ability to verify the authenticity of the information. The possibility of vaccination passports is also of concern for the ACLU.
“Any immunity passport system endangers privacy rights by creating a new surveillance infrastructure to collect health data,” the ACLU has said. “It is one thing for an employee to voluntarily disclose their COVID-19 status to an employer on a one-off basis. But it is another for that information to be collected and retained, either by the government or by private companies offering immunity certifications.”
After a year of remote learning, there are differences in the learning system that are noticeable today. Firstly, is my new role being the position a hybrid teacher is now a social worker and academic teacher. It is my job to teach and take care of my students social charges/needs. Secondly, there is difficulty conducting parent-teacher communication as it requires flexibility of schedule from both parties, which has proven exhausting. Thirdly, there is a job redundancy since the teacher or records must fill in the social worker invention form to have it returned. The teacher is then required to supply the same answers from the student. That is avoidable by a simple phone call from the counselor to the student’s family to fill the form.
After identifying the problem, I took it upon myself to build a parent academy with the school principal’s approval. The academy is yet in the planning stages, but we plan on launching it in August 2021. The project has been instrumental in bringing parents together to solve some of the problems we face. Notably, there is a lack of counselors in the planning group. Therefore, it is of interest because counselors do not see the project as one that should be of interest towards fulfilling their roles. After following up on this, the most common answers I received were that they were too busy and their commitment to teaching or being called upon to provide substitute coverage and counseling students they could not spare time for the academy. That has raised the question of if bureaucracy in public schools is affecting the delivery of services. That is concerning because the public requires results from the education system.
Nevertheless, the academy is still in the planning stage, and we have engaged the public and business sectors to provide for a mentorship program. The parents and students must work together to ensure the all-round growth of our students.
PHOENIX — Arizona businesses can breathe a sigh of relief now that Governor Doug Ducey has signed legislation providing COVID liability protections to Arizona businesses and healthcare workers. The bill, sponsored by Sen. Vince Leach, “establishes a presumption that a person or provider acted in good faith if they adopted and implemented reasonable policies related to the public health pandemic.”
Leach says the bill was needed to protect businesses and healthcare providers from “frivolous lawsuits.”
Leach said that people are the frontlines of the pandemic “will be targets of meritless lawsuits,” without protection.
“With this bill coming along this summer,” said Leach, “the plaintiff will have the burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that a person or provider failed to act, or acted with willful misconduct and a gross negligence in order to win a civil lawsuit.”
Leach says the bill provides “common sense protections for the frontline workers in healthcare, schools, and businesses, who have been invaluable during the pandemic response in Arizona.”
Nationwide, according to Leach, more than 2000 coronavirus related cases of them brought forward despite businesses following approved guidelines.
The legislation applies during the current public health pandemic and protects health care institutions and other service providers for any act or omission that is alleged to have occurred during a person’s screening, assessment or treatment that is related to the health emergency. Providers include educational institutions, school districts or charter schools, property owners, lessees and lessors, nonprofit organizations, religious institutions, the State and local governments, health care providers and institutions, and nursing and residential care facilities.
The legislation also provides a presumption for health professionals or health care institutions that they have acted in good faith if they relied on and reasonably attempted to comply with applicable published guidance, while also ensuring that such a presumption can be overcome if there is evidence of gross negligence or willful misconduct.
“Small businesses need certainty under the law that if they act in good faith, they’ll be protected from frivolous lawsuits,” said Leach. “I’m grateful to the organizations and fellow legislators who supported Senate Bill 1377, and to Governor Ducey for signing this important legislation.”
SB1377 Provisions
Public Health Pandemic Civil Liability
1. Precludes from liability for damages, during a public health pandemic state of emergency declared by the Governor, a person or provider who acts in good faith to protect a customer, student, tenant, volunteer, patient, guest or neighbor, or the public (litigant), from injury from the public health pandemic for injury, death or loss to person or property that is based on a claim that the person or provider failed to protect the litigant from the effects of the public health pandemic, unless it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the person or provider failed to act or acted and the failure to act or action was due to that person’s or provider’s willful misconduct or gross negligence.
2. Establishes a presumption that a person or provider acted in good faith if the person or provider adopted and implemented reasonable policies related to the public health pandemic.
3. Applies the standard for liability to all claims that are filed before or after the general effective date for an act or omission by a person or provider that occurred after March 11, 2020, and that relates to a public health pandemic that is the subject of the state of emergency declared by the Governor.
4. Exempts claims for workers compensation from the outlined liability standard.
5. Defines provider as:
a) a person who furnishes consumer or business goods or services or entertainment;
b) an educational institution or district;
c) a school district or charter school;
d) a property owner, property manager or property lessor or lessee;
e) a nonprofit organization;
f) a religious institution;
g) the state or a state agency or instrumentality;
h) a local government or political subdivision, including a department, agency or commission of a local government or political subdivision;
i) a service provider;
j) a health professional; or
k) a health care institution.
Health Professionals and Health Care Institutions
6. Precludes from liability for damages, during a public health pandemic state of emergency declared by the Governor, a health professional (professional) or health care institution (institution) that acts in good faith in any civil action for an injury or death that is alleged to be the professional’s or institution’s action or omission while providing health care services in support of the state’s response to the state of emergency, unless it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the professional or institution failed to act or acted and the failure to act or action was due to that professional’s or institution’s willful misconduct or gross negligence.
7. Applies the outlined limited liability to any action or omission that occurs:
a) during a person’s screening, assessment, diagnosis or treatment and that is related to the public health pandemic that is the subject of the state of emergency; or
b) in the course of providing a person with health care services and that is unrelated to the public health pandemic that is the subject of the state of emergency if the professional’s or institution’s action or omission was in good faith support of the state’s response to the state of emergency, including:
i. delaying or canceling a procedure that the professional determined in good faith was a nonurgent or elective dental, medical or surgical procedure;
ii. providing nursing care or procedures;
iii. altering a person’s diagnosis or treatment in response to an order, directive or guideline that is issued by the federal government, the state or a local government; or
iv. an act or omission undertaken by a professional or institution because of a lack of staffing, facilities, equipment, supplies or other resources that are attributable to the state of emergency and that render the professional or institution unable to provide the level or manner of care to a person that otherwise would have been required in the absence of the state of emergency.
8. Establishes a presumption that a professional or institution acted in good faith if the professional or institution relied on and reasonably attempted to comply with applicable published guidance relating to the public health pandemic that was issued by a federal or state agency.
9. Allows a party to introduce any other evidence that proves the professional or institution acted in good faith.
10. Applies the standard for liability to all claims that are filed before or after the general effective date for an act or omission by a person or provider that occurred after March 11, 2020, and that relates to a public health pandemic that is the subject of the state of emergency declared by the Governor.
11. Exempts claims for workers compensation from the outlined liability standard.
12. Specifies, for claims against a nursing care institution or residential care institution, where the care in question did not directly relate to the public health pandemic, the nursing care institution or residential care institution has the burden to prove the act or omission was the direct result of having to provide care to patients needing treatment for the pandemic or due to limitations caused by the pandemic.
According to Mayor Brigette Peterson, the Gilbert Town Council should reconsider offering $75,000 of taxpayer money annually for employee sex changes. The motion failed in a council meeting last week. After the vote, Peterson indicated that the sex change surgery – referred to as ‘gender-affirming surgery’ – would return to committee for review in the future.
Currently, the town benefits cover therapy and hormone treatments.
Councilmember Aimee Yentes spoke up first on the issue. She said she supported the 3 percent premium increases, but not the sex change surgery.
“I think those are policies that deviate from other positions we’ve taken as a community that delve more into social policy rather than strictly providing medical[ly] necessary benefits to our employees,” said Yentes.
Vice Mayor Yung Koprowski only spoke up to mention she’d vote for adding sex change surgery coverage only to align with Affordable Care Act (ACA) industry standard.
Councilmember Scott September said he concurred with Yentes’ assessment.
The question of necessity for such coverage came into play. Councilmember Laurin Hendrix asked the human resources representative, Deputy Chief People Officer Kristen Drew, if any applicants within the past 5 years had refused to apply for or accept employment because the town didn’t offer sex change surgery coverage.
Drew said there hadn’t been any such applicants.
Despite this history, the mayor claimed that not offering this surgery would be a deal breaker for employees in the future. She also urged the council to be more open-minded, to set aside their own values.
“At some point, it might become an issue and we’ll show that this community is forward-thinking, and there are times that we need to make the tough decisions that may not always align with our own thought process when it comes to our personal choices or our political choices or our religious choices, even but we put Gilbert in a position that provides for whatever the future may hold[,]” said Peterson. “I’m going to encourage our council members to be open-minded in this benefit and look to this community moving forward where we can be strong and handle situations like this that come forward and we’re faced with.”
In an interview with AZ Free News, Hendrix raised several points of contention about the added coverage and the mayor’s perspective. He stated that a sex change surgery is cosmetic – not a true health need.
“I see health insurance for health needs. And I don’t see this as a health need. It’s a cosmetic surgery by choice. I don’t see any reason that taxpayers should have to pay for that,” said Hendrix. “They were comparing it to autism syndrome at the meeting. You don’t wake up in the morning and think [you have autism]. That’s not something where you have a choice. The two are not similar.”
Hendrix said he doesn’t have an issue with people having the surgery. Rather, Hendrix said he doesn’t want taxpayers to have to foot the bill for it.
Further, Hendrix assessed that this benefit could be an incentive for people to take an underemployed job just for the surgery – and then leave after they got it.
It was Peterson’s request to council before the vote that stuck out to Hendrix the most.
“The mayor’s comments at the end were shocking. We have to ‘get past’ our moral values, our standards? But what else would I base my vote on, if I’m going to put aside my family values, my moral values, religious values, or personal standards? What’s my vote based on? What’s left? I gotta base my vote on something,” said Hendrix. “I hope she bases her vote on something other than who paid into her campaign.”
Councilmembers voted unanimously for the 3 percent premium increases, but the motion to add sex change surgery coverage failed 4-3. Yentes, September, Hendrix, and Scott Anderson voted against the measure. The Vice Mayor, Mayor, and Councilmember Kathy Tilque voted for it.
