- Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) has promised to issue a statewide ban on “vaccine passports” — digital or physical proof of COVID-19 vaccination that would allow people to travel, enter businesses, attend events, and more.
- His declaration comes amid reports that President Biden is working with the private sector to develop the passports, though administration officials later clarified that the federal government was just providing guidance, not creating a system.
- Many people took to social media to condemn the idea, arguing it would violate personal freedoms and privacy.
- Others also falsely claimed the passports would violate the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), causing misinformation to spread online.
DeSantis to Ban “Vaccine Passports”
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) announced on Monday that he will take executive action to prohibit so-called “vaccine passports” in his state.
The announcement comes amid news that the Biden administration is working with the private sector to develop the “passports,” which are standardized credentials that would let people carry proof that they have been vaccinated against COVID-19, and allow them to travel or access services that have otherwise been shut down or limited.
Vaccine passports are by no means a new idea. For decades, many parts of the world have required international travelers to provide proof they have been vaccinated against certain diseases and viruses.
Already, a number of similar ideas have been rolled out during the pandemic. This month, the European Union announced plans for a “digital green certificate” which would create a digital system — like a smartphone app — to prove vaccinations, negative tests, or recovery from the virus.
IBM is also working with New York state to implement a similar program using blockchain, and Walmart has backed the idea of certificates as well.
Numerous Republican leaders have condemned the idea, a trend that has grown in recent days since the news of President Joe Biden’s involvement.
“It’s completely unacceptable for either the government or the private sector to impose upon you the requirement that you show proof of vaccine to just simply participate in normal society,” DeSantis said Monday, adding that he believes people “have certain freedoms and individual liberties.”
On Monday, Andy Slavitt, a senior adviser to the White House coronavirus team, said that the federal government is not “viewing its role as the place to create a passport, nor a place to hold the data of citizens,” but rather that it will just provide guidance to the private sector.
White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki also told reporters that Biden shared that sentiment.
HIPAA Trends on Twitter as Misinformation Spreads
Still, other prominent conservative figures have echoed DeSantis’ arguments on social media in recent days.
Some, like former Republican Congressional candidate Chris Bish, falsely claimed on Twitter that vaccine passports would violate the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), the federal statute that prohibits doctors, hospitals, health insurers, and other medical institutions from sharing personal medical information with third parties.
“HIPAA and Vaccine Passports don’t really seem to be able to coexist,” she tweeted. “Am I the only one who still remembers HIPAA?”
Her post prompted misinformation to spread across the platform and pushed “HIPAA” to become a trending topic as other users debunked her claims.
“Wait until y’all find out what Hipaa has always had clauses for public health emergencies,” the top response on her tweet reads. “Wait until you find out people have been having to show their kid’s vaccine cards for 30 years to register them for school. Wait until you find out about employment based Heath screenings.”
Additionally, as The Washington Post points out, HIPAA only applies to doctors and medical institutions. The Biden administration’s plan would give people their own immunization records either digitally (likely through an app) or on paper, which they could then be asked to share to travel or gain access to certain places.
“Under that scenario, HIPAA wouldn’t be relevant because it has to do with people sharing their own medical information,” The Post added.
However, as The Post also noted, these facts do not negate other legitimate concerns about vaccine passports.
Many experts also worry about possible privacy issues that would come from third-parties accessing this information.
“Ideally I think the goal would be an individual can take their digital card and be responsible for who they share that information with,” Rebecca Coyle, the executive director of the American Immunization Registry Association told the outlet. “I get nervous when I think about immunization data flowing to any third party entities outside the medical space.”
Others have also noted that there are many significant logistical challenges for vaccine passports to be broadly implemented at all.
Experts have said that in order for the passports to be widely usable, there would need to be standards for the information that is kept, users would need to be convinced to use the same app or set of apps, and those without smartphones would need to be given alternative methods.
Still, according to The Post, there are at least 17 passport initiatives currently underway, which, if implemented will likely be closely watched as litmus tests for broader policy action.
See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (Insider) (CNBC)
Republicans Say They Will Block Bill To Avert Government Shutdown and Debt Default
Democrats argue the bill is necessary to prevent an economic catastrophe.
Democrats Introduce Legislation
Democrats in the House and Senate unveiled sweeping legislation Monday that aimed to keep the government funded through early December, lift the federal debt limit, and provide around $35 billion for Afghan refugees and natural disaster recovery.
The bill is needed to avoid a government shutdown when funding expires next week. It is also necessary to prevent the Treasury Department from reaching the limit of its borrowing authority, which would trigger the U.S. to default on its debt for the first time ever.
For weeks, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has urged Congress to raise the federal debt limit, also known as the debt ceiling, warning that the department will soon exhaust all of its measures to keep the federal government within its legal borrowing limit.
If the U.S. were to default, it would be unable to pay its debts, sending massive shockwaves through the financial system.
Democrats have painted the bill as crucial to avert an economic doomsday that would massively undermine recovery.
They argue that the combination of a government shutdown and a debt default would destabilize global markets and leave millions of Americans without essential aid.
Republicans Vow to Oppose Raising Debt Ceiling
Despite the considerable threats, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has repeatedly said Republicans will not vote to increase the debt ceiling, arguing that Democrats should do it without their help because they are pushing trillions of dollars in new spending priorities.
Democrats have slammed the Republican leader’s stance as hypocritical. They point out that while it is true they are proposing new spending, it has not been approved yet, and the debt that currently risks default has been incurred by both parties.
Democrats also noted that trillions of dollars were added to the federal debt under former President Donald Trump, which is more than what has been added by President Joe Biden. As a result, Republicans raised the debt ceiling three times during the Trump administration with the support of Democrats.
McConnell, however, remains unlikely to budge. On Monday, White House officials said McConnell has not outlined any requests or areas of negotiation in exchange for support of the legislation.
While the bill is expected to pass the House, it appears all but doomed in the Senate, where it needs 60 votes to break the filibuster.
See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (The New York Times) (Politico)
California Gov. Gavin Newsom Survives Recall
Experts say the outcome should act as a warning for Republicans who tie themselves to former President Donald Trump and attempt to undermine election results by promoting false voter fraud claims.
Recall Effort Fails
After seven months and an estimated $276 million in taxpayer money, the Republican-led effort to recall California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) failed Tuesday.
Just under 70% of the votes have been reported as of Wednesday morning, showing that “no” on the recall received 63.9% of the vote. That’s nearly twice as many votes as “yes,” which had 36.1%.
According to The Washington Post, even if the margin narrows as more votes are counted, this still marks one of the biggest rejections of any recall effort in America over the last century.
Analysts say the historic rebuke was driven by high Democratic turnout and broader fears over resurging COVID cases.
While the Delta variant continues to push new infections to record highs in many parts of the country with lax mask rules and low vaccination rates, California, once a global epicenter of the pandemic, now has one of the highest vaccination rates and lowest new caseloads in the nation.
Newsom has continually tried to convince voters that those figures are the results of his vaccine and masking policies, which have been some of the most aggressive in the U.S.
Given that polls showed the pandemic was the top concern for California voters, it is clear that the majority favored his policies over those of his competitors. Larry Elder, the Republican talk radio host of led the field of 46 challengers, ran on a platform of getting rid of essentially all COVID restrictions.
In his victory speech Tuesday night, Newsom painted the recall’s failure not only as a win for Democratic coronavirus policies but also for Democracy at large.
“We said yes to science. We said yes to vaccines. We said yes to ending this pandemic,” he said. “We said yes to people’s right to vote without fear of fake fraud or voter suppression.”
“I think about just in the last few days and the former president put out saying this election was rigged,” he continued. “Democracy is not a football. You don’t throw it around. That’s more like a, I don’t know, antique vase. You can drop it and smashing a million different pieces. And that’s what we’re capable of doing if we don’t stand up to meet the moment and push back.”
“I said this many, many times on the campaign trail, we may have defeated Trump, but Trump-ism is not dead in this country. The Big Lie, January 6th insurrection, all the voting suppression efforts that are happening all across this country.”
A Warning for Republicans
Newsom’s remarks took aim at the efforts by Elder and other Republicans — including former President Donald Trump — who over the last week have claimed falsely and without evidence that voter fraud helped secured the governor’s win before Election Day even took place.
While it is currently unknown whether that narrative may have prompted more Republican voters to stay home, Newsom’s effort to cast Edler as a Trump-like candidate and the recall as an undemocratic, Republican power grab appears to have been effective.
Now, political strategists say that the outcome of the recall should serve as a warning that Republicans who pin themselves to Trump and his Big Lie playbook may be hurt more in certain states.
“The recall does offer at least one lesson to Democrats in Washington ahead of next year’s midterm elections: The party’s pre-existing blue- and purple-state strategy of portraying Republicans as Trump-loving extremists can still prove effective with the former president out of office,” The New York Times explained.
Even outside of a strongly blue state like California, analysts say this strategy will also be effective with similar candidates in battleground states like Georgia, Arizona, Missouri, and Pennsylvania, which will be essential to deciding control of the Senate.
See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (The New York Times) (NPR)
Justice Department Sues Texas Over Abortion Ban
The department claims the Texas law violates past Supreme Court precedents on abortion and infringes on Constitutional protections.
Biden Administration Takes Aim at Texas Law
The Department of Justice sued Texas on Thursday in an attempt to block the state’s newly enacted law that effectively prohibits all abortions by banning the procedure after six weeks, before most people know they are pregnant.
The abortion law, which is the most restrictive in the country and does not provide exceptions for rape or incest, allows private citizens to take legal action against anyone who helps a person terminate their pregnancy after six weeks.
In its lawsuit, the Justice Department argued that the Texas law is unconstitutional because it violates past Supreme Court precedents through a technical loophole.
While numerous other states have passed similar laws banning abortion after about six weeks, federal judges have struck down those measures on the grounds that they are inconsistent with Roe v. Wade and subsequent Supreme Court decisions that states cannot prevent someone from seeking an abortion before a fetus can viably live outside the womb, usually around 22 to 24 weeks.
The Texas law, however, skirts the high court decisions by deputizing citizens to enforce the law rather than state government officials, taking the state out of the equation entirely and protecting it from legal responsibility.
Individuals who do so do not have to prove any personal injury or connection to those they take legal action against, which can range from abortion providers to rideshare drivers who take someone to a clinic.
If their lawsuit is successful, the citizen is entitled to a $10,000 award.
DOJ Lawsuit Targets Constitutionality
During a press conference detailing the DOJ lawsuit, Attorney General Merrick Garland referred to the enforcement mechanism as “an unprecedented” effort with the “obvious and expressly acknowledged intention” to prevent Texans from their constitutionally protected right to have an abortion.
“This kind of scheme to nullify the Constitution of the United States is one that all Americans — whatever their politics or party — should fear,” Garland said, adding that the provision of the law allowing civilians “to serve as bounty hunters” may become “a model for action in other areas, by other states, and with respect to other constitutional rights and judicial precedents.”
The Justice Department argued that the Texas policy violates equal protection guarantees under the 14th Amendment as well as the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, which establishes that the Constitution and federal law generally take precedence over state law.
The lawsuit also claimed that the law interferes with the constitutional obligation of federal employees to provide access to abortion, including in cases of rape or incest, to people who are under the care of federal agencies or contractors such as those in prisons.
Both Sides See Path to Supreme Court
While proponents of abortion rights applauded the Justice Department’s legal challenge, officials in Texas defended the law and accused the Biden administration of filing the lawsuit for political reasons.
“President Biden and his administration are more interested in changing the national narrative from their disastrous Afghanistan evacuation and reckless open border policies instead of protecting the innocent unborn,” a spokeswoman for Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R), said in a statement.
“We are confident that the courts will uphold and protect that right to life.”
The DOJ’s suit will now be decided by a federal judge for the Western District of Texas, based in Austin.
Depending on how that court rules, either opponents or supporters of the abortion ban are expected to appeal the case, sending it to the conservative Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal and likely ultimately placing the matter before the Supreme Court again in a matter of months.
The Supreme Court allowed the law to go into effect by declining to approve an emergency petition to block the measure last week, but it did not rule on the constitutionality of the policy.
As a result, the Justice Department’s legal challenge could force the high court to hear another facet of the law that it has not yet considered if it decides to see the case.