A King for the People --my criticisms

A King for the People by Alex King I submit, for the people,

of recently passed West Virginia House Bill 335. For those who don't know, HB 335 was crafted with the intent of allowing medical and religious exemptions in this state when it comes to Biden's vax mandate. Although the federal supreme court's decision eventually nixed the need for that piece of state legislation (except for healthcare employees the U.S. government still believes it owns), I had several issues with the so-called "exemption bill" from the moment it was proposed. Critique #1: rather than outright defying the federal mandate, our legislators quickly passed a law that met Biden's mandate partway. They had every opportunity to send a strong message that they will defend the medical autonomy of ALL West Virginia residents, but they instead legitimized the authoritarian decree by choosing to recognize SOME exemptions and not others. Also, while I have no way of knowing if stronger defiance would have influenced the supreme court to protect the bodily autonomy of healthcare staff, I honestly believe it would have helped. Critique #2: as I recall, Biden had already included a few exemptions in his mandate. Employees who didn't want to receive the vax would be required to wear face coverings and submit themselves to regular virus testing. A quick read-through of HB 335 does nothing to cast those imposing requirements aside following the filing of a person's religious or medical status, so I don't understand how it is even considered an exemption. Critique #3: without any expressed limitations of Biden's federal rule, HB 335 does relatively nothing to protect the freedoms of its residents. In fact, by enforcing a layer of bureaucracy that makes people reveal private information to private corporations and government, many residents will be handing over financially lucrative data about themselves. The bill makes no limitations on the sharing of that information at large, for profit, and potentially to insurance companies. Critique #4: the bill states the following: a covered employer shall not be permitted to penalize or discriminate against current or prospective employees for exercising exemption rights provided in this section by practices including, but not limited to, benefits decisions, hiring, firing, or withholding bonuses, pay raises, or promotions. However, this is still an at-will work state, meaning that an employer can fire anyone for no expressed reason. The protection HB 335 pretends to offer is therefore toothless. It's not as if we can place faith in the state government to investigate, adequately and thoroughly, each claim of vax-hesitant discrimination. Much of it will go unproven. Critique #5: religion should not be a narrative for who has a right to medical autonomy and who doesn't. I think, in that regard, HB 335 is as unconstitutional as Biden's initial order. Those who do not want to identify with any religion should be equally protected under the First Amendment and not subjected to the discrimination which our state government has now imposed. Likewise, those who practice a particular religion should not be compelled to label themselves for companies and government. I want to make it clear that I'm not suggesting that those currently in charge have malice toward any specific group of people. Nor do I wish anger toward those in leadership positions. I only want those who seek responsibility over us to be more aware of the abuses that some laws may create at the detriment of overall public wellbeing, the individuals who make up that public, and the constitutional guarantees that are increasingly threatened by fascistic trends. I think HB 335 was nothing more than a hollow virtue signal to placate the masses of our primarily Christian state. As someone who has grown closer to God these last few years, I think more people of faith should be outraged by the bill, which will inspire some people to pose as false Christians merely for the sake of avoiding a "treatment." The bill is therefore not only a reckless disregard of those who don't practice any religion, but it is just as much an afront to any religion abused as a shield in that way. The West Virginia Legislature should have fought harder against Biden's vax mandate and refuted it entirely. Instead-at our doddering governor's request-they created a law that does more harm than good, a law that surrenders your private information and medical decisions to corporations and government while creating a second class of citizens simply because they are in good health and don't practice a religion. And if you still think I'm wrong about how utterly useless the bill is when it comes to protecting the individual, maybe you should consider the fact that the National Guard recently had to assist West Virginia hospitals who were short staffed. While the official narrative seems to be that too many workers were out sick with the virus, Governor Justice joined with other governors to request-from the Biden administration-an appeal of the healthcare vax requirement. If HB 335 was an effective piece of legislation on its own, why is the figurehead of our state seeking permission from the federal government? Even with the supreme court's decision, will people of this state still have to comply with surrendering their religious or medical information should a private employer want to mandate the vax? There are too many questions left unanswered by HB 335, and I'd rather not beat a dead horse. So, I'll conclude by encouraging anyone who agrees with my points to reach out to West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey. Call his office (304-558-2021) and encourage him to release an official statement explaining the constitutionality of House Bill 335…assuming he can.