All right, the title is lame, but you get what you pay for. Sen. Doriot has introduced SB 18 and Sen. Alting has introduced SB 68. Sen. Doriot’s bill prohibits local government from imposing bans or similar restrictions that are focused on a specific breed of dog.I’m generally supportive of this, I think. I’m not one to generally embrace state restrictions on local government, but I think the breed-specific prohibitions end up being a little arbitrary. This is typically directed at pitbulls who can be very sweet dogs. I don’t think the problem is with the breed so much as with the people who seek out the breed and treat them in a way calculated to make them mean and destructive. Ideally, you’d go after the people abusing the dogs.

Meanwhile, Sen. Alting’s bill would require animal shelters to make reasonable efforts to contact owners before destroying dogs or cats. It suggests time frames and measures that would be considered reasonable. The “shall” language is that “An animal care facility shall adopt written policies and procedures to ensure that the animal care facility makes a reasonable effort to quickly and reliably return a lost or stray companion animal to an owner.” Some of the “may” language in the bill focuses on checking for microchips, checking reports of lost animals it has received, making efforts to notify the owners within 48 hours, posting notices on the shelter’s website, having available hours on weekends and/or weeknights, and double checking before euthanizing the animal.

Sen. Alting’s bill reminds me of a tragic incident I’d been told about my Aunt and Uncle’s cat, “Chester.” At some point Chester got lost or — there may have been allegations of him being turned over to the shelter by a neighbor who didn’t like Chester in his yard. The way I heard the story, they found the correct shelter just as Chester had been given the euthanasia but before he was dead. (In retrospect, I wonder if I heard this correctly — I’ve had to put several dogs down over the years, and once the chemicals are injected, the death takes place incredibly quickly.) So, obviously a very tragic story. On the other hand, I work a bit with one of our local shelters. It’s a no-kill place, so euthanasia hasn’t been an issue. But, it’s clear that some animal owners are incredibly bad pet owners. And they don’t answer their phone, they promise to show up then don’t, and otherwise end up being indifferent and difficult to contact. None of this makes Sen. Alting’s bill bad, but hopefully shelters can implement reasonable efforts without being unduly burdened by irresponsible pet owners.

 

*Tap* *tap* is this thing on? I haven’t posted in awhile, so I can’t imagine many people will be reading this any time soon, but the General Assembly has released the text of HB 1001-2022 for the upcoming session. This was the subject of some hearings the week before Thanksgiving, and there were some rumblings about the General Assembly convening to vote it through at the beginning of the week before Thanksgiving. I’m awfully glad they didn’t do that. I’m not a huge fan of the substance of the bill but I was really unhappy with the idea of them jamming it through at the end of November. That’s basically unprecedented. (Particularly where, as here, the text of the bill had not been released.) The General Assembly is at least notionally a part-time legislature and, as such, they do business beginning of January each year. During odd years, it’s a “long” session and they can go into May. During even years, it’s a “short” session and they wrap up in March or April. (There are rules on how long they can go, so I might be a little off on the end dates — but I’m not of a mind to look anything up at the moment.) Point being that November and December are absolutely, *not* the time to pass anything remotely controversial.

Like I said, I don’t love the substance, but now that the text of the bill has been released, it’s not as horrible as I’d feared. The first couple of sections have to do with being able to access federal funds and administer COVID vaccines even if the Governor drops the COVID emergency declaration that’s been continued month-to-month since March 2020. Another section expands the knee-jerk “immunization passport” provisions the General Assembly passed last year — to make it clear that it is intended to apply to schools and colleges. The existing law prohibits specified governmental entities from issuing or requiring an immunization passport defined as  “written, electronic, or printed information regarding an individual’s [COVID-19] immunization status.” (The law clarifies that this does not prohibit creating or storing medical records of the immunization.) There was some debate over whether existing legislation covered schools and colleges. Under this legislation, that issue would be resolved.

The big controversial bit has to do with whether employers can require COVID immunization as a condition of employment. There was some confusion about the relationship between this legislation and the federal rule coming out of OSHA. They cover similar territory but they are distinct. The federal OSHA requirements are currently held up in court. If they go into effect, I’m pretty sure they’d supersede this state legislation. But, as written, this state legislation would permit employers to require immunization with some caveats. The employer’s policy would have to recognize medical and religious exemptions and, for a period of six months after recovery, individuals who have had and recovered from COVID. The employer could require these exempt employees to get tested not more than once a week but the testing would have to be at no charge to the employee. The medical exemption and the COVID recovery exemption would require the employee to go through a medical provider and supply the employer with documentation. The religious exemption requires the employee to provide a statement in writing declaring that he or she is declining due to a sincerely held religious belief.

As I see it, the two most problematic pieces of this legislation are making the employer bear the cost of testing (or at least ensure that the employee does not bear the cost of testing) and the risk that an individual will insincerely declare a religious objection. For example, if the person complains that the COVID vaccine was developed using a fetal cell line but the person uses products also made from fetal cell lines like acetaminophen, albuterol, aspirin, ibuprofen, Tylenol, Pepto Bismol, Tums,  Benadryl, and others — one might conclude that their objection to COVID vaccines has its roots somewhere other than religion. Skepticism about people’s sincerity might be offset somewhat by the weekly testing requirement. I have to guess that the insincere would throw in the towel after a few weeks of having to jump through testing hoops.

The Indiana Chamber of Commerce has objected to this legislation which might seem to be a challenge for the mostly Republican group who supports this bill. The Chamber and the state GOP have been fairly well aligned over the years. A fracture in that relationship probably wouldn’t be good news for either. I don’t see it happening, but maybe some kind of state funding for the weekly testing (to the extent it’s not already paid for by other sources) might bridge the divide between Chamber and GOP on this one.

My personal view is that discouraging vaccination is bad public policy that will prolong the pandemic, resulting in additional illness, death, and expense. But, understanding that the political establishment in Indiana has different views on the matter, this bill could be worse.