Bill would prohibit discrimination based on immunization status, but lawmakers balk for now

U.S. Secretary of Defense

REQUIRED FOR WORK?: A bill was introduced at the Statehouse last week that would prohibit discrimination based on vaccination status when it comes to offering employment or services.

A bill was introduced to the Committee on General and Housing last week that aims to prevent discrimination when hiring or offering services to the public based on vaccination status.

“What it basically does is it proposes to prohibit discrimination in employment and public accommodations on the basis of an individual’s immunization status,” said Rep. Mark Higley, R-Lowell, who is the lead sponsor of bill H.364. The bill has five additional sponsors.

Higley introduced the measure earlier in the year, and last week’s hearing was a formality, Higley told True North.

“We’re trying to get as many people to testify on their bills as we can as a courtesy. They aren’t gonna take it up,” he said. “They are just being courteous in letting me speak.”

However, Higley suggested it was an opportunity to get information about this cause to lawmakers and the public. More than a dozen other states already have similar legislation on their books.

Higley told the committee this would fit into existing language regarding the public policy for lending money and other services.

“It just adds that word immunization status,” he said.

Higley added that many constituents have told him they oppose getting vaccinated for a variety of reasons.

Other states are doing it

There are 13 states currently that have similar provisions. Higley said some include carve-outs for industries such as healthcare and long-term care work, such as in Arizona, where the ban applies to all employers except for in health care.  New Hampshire, Montana, Tennessee, Texas and Georgia are some of the other states with such policies.

In Florida, the ban includes all public and private employers and mandates “a substantial fee of $10,000” for each violation.

“I think it’s something that’s been happening across the country and it’s another avenue to stop the discrimination in Vermont,” he said.

A report by HuschBlackwell.com details more about other states’ vaccination laws.

Some legislation would prohibit employer-mandated vaccinations outright, some would permit mandated vaccinations only for employees who work in healthcare facilities or with medically vulnerable populations, and some would expand the federally recognized exemptions to include philosophical objections, objections of the conscience and additional objections for medical reasons. Nearly every bill pertaining to the rights of current or prospective employees prohibits employers from making vaccination a condition of employment or taking adverse actions based on an employee’s COVID-19 vaccination status.

There are 18 states with no policies at all concerning discrimination and vaccination status, and Vermont is currently one of them.

Vermont’s version

H.364 states, “An owner or operator of a place of public accommodation or an agent or employee of such an owner or operator shall not, because of the race, creed, color, national origin, marital status, sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity, or immunization status of any person, refuse, withhold from, or deny to that person any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of the place of public accommodation.”

Higley said that “immunity passport” is another term that is commonly used when vaccination requirements are implemented.

He said this bill would not impact the current status of education requirements in Vermont, which is students should get recommended vaccinations unless they fill out a religious exemption form.

Public trust in COVID vaccinations is low

A new Rasmussen poll that shows 49% of Americans believe it’s “highly likely” that COVID vaccines are contributing to a “significant number” of the new mysterious deaths seen at hospitals nationwide in recent years.

“A new poll shows that nearly half of Americans believe that the COVID-19 vaccines probably caused a “significant number of unexplained deaths,” while over a quarter said they personally know someone whose death may have been caused by vaccination side effects,” Epoch News reported in January.

Michael Bielawski is a reporter for True North. Send him news tips at bielawski82@yahoo.com and follow him on Twitter @TrueNorthMikeB.

Images courtesy of Public domain and U.S. Secretary of Defense

6 thoughts on “Bill would prohibit discrimination based on immunization status, but lawmakers balk for now

  1. Am I the only one who understands COVID does not exist, via air or shot-doesn’t matter.

    And yes I will be the one to scream that out loud. It was a planned shamdemic.

    The jab? It’s got graphene oxide in it. LOOK THAT UP.
    It was a carefull planned and made kill shot.

    KILL SHOT.

    Stop buying into the propaganda. PLEASE.

  2. As always Vermont is again the biggest BULLY in the room. I hereby rescind my consent to be governed by any of these fools. This is yet again a way for someone in the state employment or regulatory agencies to again FORCE or BULLY Vermonters into a killing position or , well let’s see , starve, freeze or better yet just leave, we don’t want your non compliant, self induced freedom delusions around us. Why is this a problem?
    Most of Vermont is about some form of state sponsored healthcare not private. Since they pay the bills (not really) they set the rules regardless of how discriminating a rule is or even if you die , just so you comply.
    We are Vermont State Overlords, “Resistance is Futile” Should be on the flag, Like the “inclusive one” you know, the one that is a rainbow and a triangle for “minor attracted people”. You know PEDOPHILES. This state has become such a hypocritical joke.

  3. On my property, I set the rules. Sure hope the folks doing our Town’s reappraisal this year are not vaccinated – because they aren’t welcome on my land if they are.

  4. Even cdc director Wolensky testified under oath: the vaccine does not prevent transmission, and it does not prevent infection!

    And if you have an adverse reaction to the “vaccine” you have no recourse.
    If a govt has to bribe and coerce its citizens to get an experimental “vaccine” you might want to think twice. Oh, and why is it that Congress and postal employees are EXEMPT?
    And the CEO of Pfizer has not taken it either!

  5. Knowing what we know now about how transmissible COVID is after getting the shot(s), why would anyone exclude healthcare workers, especially those who work with the most vulnerable. Seems like this exclusion is based on either wishful thinking or total ignorance of the truth of the COVID “vaccines”.

    • Really simple. Those without the shot will live longer and if you got the kill shot you transmit the poison (Graphene Oxcide anyone). Even they (those responsible ) need doctors and nurses. The present “voluntary” shot recipients will die off soon enough and we need others to take their place.
      We smart folks want nothing to do w/ the health industry now ,even in an emergency. I have refused an ambulance when my wife could not breath (told must wear mask even though she had trouble breathing. . She is fine now) Some choices are not a choice, but life versus dying.
      Oh and Barbara, Covid is not real it is the flu hijacked nothing more. The shots are the bioweapon that kills.
      https://www.newsweek.com/blood-centers-say-unvaccinated-people-are-refusing-transfusions-tainted-donations-1620236

      seems like a trend.

Comments are closed.