Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Rhode Island Progressive Democrats Introduce Bill To Impose Double-Taxation On Unvaccinated

Rhode Island Progressive Democrats Introduce Bill To Impose Double-Taxation On Unvaccinated

Any person over 16 who is not vaccinated would face fines and “shall owe twice the amount of personal income taxes as would otherwise be assessed”

Laurie Gaddis Barrett, a fearless Rhode Island mom we recently profiled at Legal Insurrection, discovered  a pretty outrageous bill introduced in the state Senate. She tweeted:

ATTENTION #parents in #RhodeIsland: Here’s S2552 that @SamuelWBell wants to use @DanMcGowan faulty reporting to pass. Among other things, he wants your 10 year old to sign a paper and 3 notarized Dr notes to get exemption from mandate. Or, face fines and DOUBLE TAXES. Stop it!

Sure enough, Democrat Samuel W. Bell, joined by seven other progressive Democrat state senators, has proposed a vaccine mandate that, if violated, would impose double taxation.

Primary Sponsor:
RI – Senator Samuel W. Bell
Other Sponsors:
RI – Senator Cynthia M. Mendes (U)
RI – Senator Frank S. Lombardi (U)
RI – Senator James A. Seveney (U)
RI – Senator John P. Burke (U)
RI – Senator Jonathon Acosta (U)
RI – Senator Kendra Anderson (U)
RI – Senator Tiara T. Mack (U)

You can read the bill, introduced March 1, 2022, Senate Bill 2552 (pdf.), which provides, in pertinent part:

23-97-1. Immunization against COVID-19

6  (a) Every person of at least sixteen (16) years of age who is eligible for immunization
7  against COVID-19 and who resides in the State of Rhode Island, works in the State of Rhode Island,
8  or pays personal income taxes to the State of Rhode Island pursuant to chapter 30 of title 44 shall
9  be required to be immunized against COVID-19.
10  (b) Every resident of Rhode Island eligible for immunization against COVID-19 who is
11  under sixteen (16) years of age or under guardianship shall be required to be immunized against
12  COVID-19, with the responsibility for ensuring compliance falling on all parents or guardians with
13 medical consent powers pursuant to § 23-4.6-1.

* * *

21  (e) Any person who violates this chapter shall be required to pay a monthly civil penalty
22  of fifty dollars ($50.00) and shall owe twice the amount of personal income taxes as would
23  otherwise be assessed pursuant to chapter 30 of title 44. All employers must require proof of
24  compliance with this chapter for any employee employed in in-person work within the State of
25  Rhode Island. Employers may choose to waive proof of compliance with this chapter for purely
26  remote work. Any employer found to be knowingly in violation of this section for more than seven
27  (7) days shall be required to pay a monthly civil penalty of five thousand dollars ($5,000) for every
28  violation.

Title 44, referenced in the bill, is the Rhode Island personal income tax law.

Bell is promoting the bill on social media:

But after the controversy, two Senators removed their names.

Bell has not yet responded to my request for comment. But he did tell The Boston Globe:

“The reason I introduced the bill is we have a crisis with the pandemic,” Bell said Wednesday. “Thousands of Rhode Islander have died. I’ve had really painful calls from constituents who can’t go to the store because they’re immuno-compromised, who have lost loved ones to this pandemic, who are really ill and not fully recovered, suffering long-term effects.”

Republican State Senator Jessica De La Cruz issued this statement:

I have not, nor will I ever support, legislation that coerces Rhode Islanders into making medical decisions or face steep financial damages. I hear my constituents and others around the state loud and clear—this is dangerous legislation and sends the message that our government doesn’t trust you to make the right choice for you and your family. This is an unconscionable overreach of legislative powers. The good news is this legislation has little chance of passing. I won’t rule it out, but I don’t believe it will pass, that said, I’m not taking it for granted, and neither should you.

[Correction: A prior version inaccurately stated that Senator De La Cruz was running for Governor. She had been running for Congress, but very recently withdrew from the race.]

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

RI is a small state. People and companies should vote with their feet and let the state lose tax revenue

    henrybowman in reply to geronl. | April 21, 2022 at 3:12 am

    It’s so small that you literally CAN vote with your feet.

    While I was in grade school, during the Kennedy administration (to which “fitness” was a fetish), one of the social crazes of the time was the “50-mile hike.” When I asked my dad how far that was, he told me that if you started at any point on the RI border and walked a 50-mile hike (as the crow flies) in any direction, it was nearly impossible to finish your hike and still be in Rhode Island.

    Currently, I live in a county that is bigger than Rhode Island.

    Unfortunately, if you vote with your feet out of Rhode Island you end up in Massachusetts or Connecticut, which is just demoralizing — so why bother?

George_Kaplan | April 20, 2022 at 10:34 pm

Is disparate taxation like this even constitutional?

    Milhouse in reply to George_Kaplan. | April 21, 2022 at 1:37 am

    Sure it is. Just as it’s constitution to impose an additional income tax on those who choose not to purchase health insurance while exempting those who choose to purchase it.

      The Gentle Grizzly in reply to Milhouse. | April 21, 2022 at 6:00 am

      And, for saying that, you get downticks. I am fairly sure you are stating fact.

      scooterjay in reply to Milhouse. | April 21, 2022 at 8:05 am

      Milhouse, I understand the purpose of insurance. Hell, I paid into it for thirty years before using it.
      That is a lot of money that is profit.
      Multiply that by 12 million.
      Can you understand a mammon?

        Milhouse in reply to scooterjay. | April 21, 2022 at 9:28 am

        Whether it has a purpose is irrelevant. The legislature thinks it has a purpose, or claims to think so, and that’s all that matters. The point here is that if the legislature wants you to do something that it can’t order you to do, such as buying insurance, it can still tax you for not doing it. In this case vaccinating is something the legislature can order you to do, and can fine you for not doing it (so says Jacobson v Massachusetts), so a fortiori it can tax you for not doing it.

          scooterjay in reply to Milhouse. | April 21, 2022 at 10:04 am

          Millhouse, do you pay into Social Security?

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | April 21, 2022 at 11:06 am

          Huh? That’s pretty cryptic. Please explain.

          DaveGinOly in reply to Milhouse. | April 22, 2022 at 1:09 am

          There’s been a lot of legal water under the bridge since Jacobson, both in more enlightened court decisions (concerning such issues as privacy, bodily autonomy, and the subjection of unwilling persons to medical procedures), and in legislation (such as that which is supposed to protect your private health information). Jacobson has been thrashed during the pandemic, to the point the most supporters of mandatory vaccination don’t mention it.

      So, it would be constitutional to require all persons registering to be a Democrat be sterilized or face 10X income taxes ?

        Milhouse in reply to Neo. | April 21, 2022 at 5:14 pm

        No, that would not be constitutional, because it would be punishing political expression, which is protected by the first amendment. Being unvaccinated is not. Also, requiring anyone to be sterilized would be unconstitutional, whereas requiring vaccination is not.

          DaveGinOly in reply to Milhouse. | April 22, 2022 at 1:18 am

          No less an expert than Dr. Fauci has stated that vaccination has been politicized, and it is widely understood that there is a strong component of political ideology fueling vaccine refusal. A very good argument can be made, I believe, to say that vaccine refusal is a form of political protest, and, as such, is protected “free expression.” (Just as I have been saying for decades that firearms ownership is also an exercise of First Amendment rights, as arms have been historically used to demonstrate political status in many societies. I was born in Rhode Island. I know what is at the top of the state house. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out why it is “independent”.)

          henrybowman in reply to Milhouse. | April 24, 2022 at 7:02 pm

          Never forget that Massachusetts was founded by Puritans, who wanted to escape the persecution of England…
          …and that Rhode Island was founded by Roger Williams, who wanted to escape the persecution of Massachusetts.

      GaveUpOnTV in reply to Milhouse. | April 23, 2022 at 6:51 pm

      Believe you are being sarcastic, if not count my “like” as the reverse.
      It’s hard to believe that the proposed law would be considered ‘constitutional’, but just the act of introducing the bill says a LOT.

“Double taxation on the unvaccinated”

It’s unconstitutional to be taxed twice for the same crime.

These people are certifiable and make punitive legislation based on feels rather than logic and reason.

Immunocompromised individuals can safely go to the grocery store with plenty of options. Most can take the vaccine, all can wear an N95, all can socially distance. They have plenty of options to feel safe. Even if they didn’t, how would more tax money save them?

    Longplay in reply to healthguyfsu. | April 22, 2022 at 7:04 am

    Uh, the “vaccine” doesn’t help. At the most, immunity lasts a few months. That lessens with each “booster” and actually goes negative, making you more susceptible to infection. And that’s not even consudering the dangerous adverse reactions.

JackinSilverSpring | April 20, 2022 at 11:49 pm

This is more a comment on the (nutty; misguided?) voters who elect such legislators than the legislstors themselves.

Blaise MacLean | April 21, 2022 at 12:05 am

Isn’t this unconstitutional as it is a form of attainder?

    Milhouse in reply to Blaise MacLean. | April 21, 2022 at 1:41 am

    No, it isn’t. It’s the very opposite of a bill of attainder. A bill of attainder is one that targets a specific person, either directly by name, or by criteria specifically chosen because they apply only to that person. This is a law of general application, based on objective criteria (is the person eligible for vaccination? If so, are they vaccinated?).

      mailman in reply to Milhouse. | April 21, 2022 at 5:42 am

      Specific person – someone unvaccinated.
      Criteria – not being vaccinated.

      Sure does sound like it only applies to one kind of person, someone unvaccinated.

        GWB in reply to mailman. | April 21, 2022 at 9:25 am

        No, Milhouse is right on this one.
        But it’s understandable you reach for that one, as the point of the prohibition on bills of attainder is to prevent revenge/grudge laws. And this is definitely a grudge/revenge law.
        “We’re gonna get those dirty, filthy anti-maskers/anti-vaxxers if it’s the last thing we do! Yeeeeaaaaarrrggghhhhh!!!”

          CommoChief in reply to GWB. | April 21, 2022 at 12:34 pm

          Yes indeed. This bill would probably survive the Courts. Especially since it is using an authorized State power, taxation, to provide incentives that, arguably, provide a public benefit; public health.

          Yes a State or the Congress for that matter could pass a statute that imposed additional taxation based on other heath benchmarks such as obesity and it would likely survive.

          It wouldn’t be good policy and most people would oppose all this sort of legislation but that’s not the question. The question was can they and the unfortunate answer is almost certainly yes. Whether they should is a separate question.

      scooterjay in reply to Milhouse. | April 21, 2022 at 10:06 am

      Millhouse supports taxing obese black women and AIDS/HIV + people.

        Milhouse in reply to scooterjay. | April 21, 2022 at 5:16 pm

        You are either stupid or deliberately lying, and my bet is on the latter.

          If someone doesn’t agree with you, Milhouse, they are not automatically stupid or lying.

          Scooterjay’s point is actually not a bad one. If they can double-tax the unvaccinated on these grounds, why not the obese, smokers, people who use their air conditioning too much, or people who drink too many soft drinks? Considering the vaccinations don’t actually stop the spread of or provide immunity from the WuFlu, how lax can we be in determining what lifestyle choices are verboten and must be double-taxed?

          Please please stop calling people liars and/or stupid just because you can’t conceive of a viewpoint other than your own. This tendency of yours is not only off-putting but shows a lack of imagination, empathy, and logical reasoning that might cause one to suspect your rigid worldview is, perhaps, at least somewhat faulty.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | April 24, 2022 at 3:58 am

          If someone doesn’t agree with you, Milhouse, they are not automatically stupid or lying.

          And now you are either stupid or lying. I have never said, implied, or indirectly indicated, that anyone is stupid or lying, simply for disagreeing with me. You either know that very well, in which case you are lying, or you don’t, which would make you stupid.

          Scooterjay did not disagree with me, he made an objectively and obviously false statement about me. He stated that I support taxing obese black women and AIDS/HIV + people. You definitely know that is not true. And if Scooterjay doesn’t know it’s not true then he’s stupid.

          Scooterjay’s point is actually not a bad one.

          He did not make any point. He simply told a damned lie about me, and if I knew his name and he had any money I would sue him for defamation. Since I’m not a public figure, I wouldn’t have to prove he knew it was a lie.

          If they can double-tax the unvaccinated on these grounds, why not the obese, smokers, people who use their air conditioning too much, or people who drink too many soft drinks?

          Of course they can. Who has suggested they can’t? What kind of “point” is that? And how does it support Scooterjay’s damned lie that I support doing such a thing?

          Please please stop calling people liars and/or stupid just because you can’t conceive of a viewpoint other than your own.

          And once again, you are a damned liar. I’m not even going to do you the courtesy of pretending you might just be stupid. You are lying on purpose. You know I have never done that. You know I can easily conceive of viewpoints other than my own, and that I regularly discuss other viewpoints, intelligently and dispassionately. I call people liars or stupid only when they make statements, particularly personal attacks on me, that are not only objectively false but obviously so.

          And I will continue to do so, because it is the right thing to do. The truth matters. And I will not tolerate being personally attacked without fighting back. Disagree with me all you like and I will not take offense; but call me names, make false and defamatory accusations against me, and I will call you out on them, no matter who you are.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | April 24, 2022 at 3:59 am

          If someone doesn’t agree with you, Milhouse, they are not automatically stupid or lying.

          And now you are either stupid or lying. I have never said, implied, or indirectly indicated, that anyone is stupid or lying, simply for disagreeing with me. You either know that very well, in which case you are lying, or you don’t, which would make you stupid.

          Scooterjay did not disagree with me, he made an objectively and obviously false statement about me. He stated that I support taxing obese black women and AIDS/HIV + people. You definitely know that is not true. And if Scooterjay doesn’t know it’s not true then he’s stupid.

          Scooterjay’s point is actually not a bad one.

          He did not make any point. He simply told a damned lie about me, and if I knew his name and he had any money I would sue him for defamation. Since I’m not a public figure, I wouldn’t have to prove he knew it was a lie.

          If they can double-tax the unvaccinated on these grounds, why not the obese, smokers, people who use their air conditioning too much, or people who drink too many soft drinks?

          Of course they can. Who has suggested they can’t? What kind of “point” is that? And how does it support Scooterjay’s damned lie that I support doing such a thing?

          Please please stop calling people liars and/or stupid just because you can’t conceive of a viewpoint other than your own.

          And once again, you are a damned liar. I’m not even going to do you the courtesy of pretending you might just be stupid. You are lying on purpose. You know I have never done that. You know I can easily conceive of viewpoints other than my own, and that I regularly discuss other viewpoints, intelligently and dispassionately. I call people liars or stupid only when they make statements, particularly personal attacks on me, that are not only objectively false but obviously so.

          And I will continue to do so, because it is the right thing to do. The truth matters. And I will not tolerate being personally attacked without fighting back. Disagree with me all you like and I will not take offense; but call me names, make false and defamatory accusations against me, and I will call you out on them, no matter who you are.

      DaveGinOly in reply to Milhouse. | April 22, 2022 at 1:35 am

      Why is that “objective criteria”? The vaccines don’t prevent infection and transmission. They only thing they do is reduce the severity of the disease in those who become, subsequent to vaccination, infected. This makes vaccination a matter of personal or private health. Only when vaccines are sterilizing (i.e., when they stop transmission) do they serve public health. A medication you take that does not help others does not promote public health, no matter how much benefit you get from it personally.

      Because the “vaccines” don’t sterilize, your “objective criteria” isn’t “objective” at all, it’s arbitrary. The vaccinated pose as much threat to public health as the unvaccinated, yet only the vaccinated pay double tax. Why? Because the state wants you vaccinated? That’s not sufficient. What the state wants you to do must have a public benefit. Without a benefit to the public, either the standard (vaccination) is arbitrary and cannot stand, or the state is all-powerful and can compel behavior from the citizen as it demands, because rational purpose or reason for its demands is unnecessary.

        GaveUpOnTV in reply to DaveGinOly. | April 24, 2022 at 12:27 am

        When the ‘vaccines’ do not have sterilizing immunity, they always lead to variants, especially when you ‘vaccinate’ 3-4-5 billion people. That fact is not even contreversial, it’s INEVITABLE.
        Not like the pharma companys didn’t know this either, or the fact that previous coronavirus ‘vaccines’ (the CDC definition of vaccine had to be changed to include the mRNA vaccines, they removed the word “immunity” and put “helps” in it’s place. That’s not a joke, that’s a fact. They changed the DEFINITION to be able to calll these shots VACCINES)
        Another non contreversial FACT is that OAS (original antigenic sin) and ADE (antibody dependent enhancement) was WELL KNOWN before these ‘vaccines’ were ever created.
        They KNEW (and released FDA information is showing) that they knew OAS and ADE were likely (and inevitable IMO-5 billion people?) shows that all the problems of ‘vaccinating’ were WELL KNOWN in advance.
        Put that together with the facts of how the ‘public health’ agencies (captured) are acting now (refusing to release information for ‘fear’ of information helping ‘anti vaxxers’ create ‘vaccine hesitency’ and rationalizing and dissembling about VAERS information) and you have mens rea (guilty mind) which further goes to show the pharma companies knew exactly the catastrophe that is our large scale ‘vaccination’ situation has become.
        No wonder they insisted on total immunity from lawsuits! Fauci and the role he played in capture of FDA, CDC and his agency deserve life in prison AT THE LEAST. Lots of people have died to enrich Fauci and the pharma companies.
        I hope you understand that Fauci PERSONALLY financially profited from suppressing cheap effective cures in order to push the vaccines. There’s a limit of $100,000 a year (for LIFE) per medicine in the public-private collaboration that is ‘public health’. No doubt Fauci got extra bonuses.
        Read “the REAL Anthony Fauci” by RFK Jr. and you will be SHOCKED, no matter which group (r) or (d) you belong to.

        Milhouse in reply to DaveGinOly. | April 24, 2022 at 4:06 am

        What has any of that got to do with the topic? The criteria are objective: 1. Is the person eligible for vaccination? 2. If so, are they vaccinated? That is all. What the vaccine does, or how effective it is, or how safe it is, or whether it promotes public health, are all completely irrelevant. None of those things make the criteria less objective, and therefore they cannot make this a bill of attainder.

        I can only conclude that you don’t know what the word “objective” means, or what a bill of attainder is.

    M Poppins in reply to Blaise MacLean. | April 21, 2022 at 8:02 pm

    exactly what I was going to say – it’s a bill of attainder

legislation driven by supposed polling data. Yeah, that’s legit.

Notice that the proposed bill does not impact the homeless, the non-working, or those relying on govt relief handouts. Apparently only those who work for a living and pay income taxes get covid in RI.

He did advertise “Real Democratic Values.”
You can’t say he didn’t warn you up front.

Federal Hill, snurk.
What was his name before his daddy anglicized it? Bellario? Belissandro? Bellicosi? Gambello?

    Milhouse in reply to henrybowman. | April 21, 2022 at 1:54 am

    No, he’s an MOT. So it was more likely something like Beilis, Belkin, Belfer, etc.

      henrybowman in reply to Milhouse. | April 21, 2022 at 3:18 am

      I have no idea what that means, and not even the Urban Dictionary is helpful. The closest I could come is a thin-skinned incompetent. He’s certainly not an Irish girlfriend.

        The Gentle Grizzly in reply to henrybowman. | April 21, 2022 at 6:05 am

        MOT: member of (the) tribe. Jewish.

          I haven’t heard that used since my grandfather passed. If he was in public and wanted to let us know that someone was one of ours, he used that term or the term, “Canadians’. He didn’t want to be overheard by a stranger who thought he was being perjorative about Jewish people.

      The Gentle Grizzly in reply to Milhouse. | April 21, 2022 at 6:03 am

      How about Buttinski?

      ;-{)}}}

The guy’s a gun-grabber, who entered politics as a direct outcome of the Sandy Hook shooting, to work for “common-sense gun reforms”.

And he’s a member of the Democratic Socialists of America.

And he and his wife both identify as bisexual. That shouldn’t be relevant to anything, but with today’s politics it unfortunately is.

    GWB in reply to Milhouse. | April 21, 2022 at 9:29 am

    That shouldn’t be relevant to anything
    It’s not relevant, but it means something in the world of virtue-signaling. “I count for something! And you can’t kick me out without suffering the outrage du jour that goes along with it.”

I’ve had really painful calls from constituents who can’t go to the store because they’re immuno-compromised

Which has what to do with covid-19? If you’re that immuno-compromised you wouldn’t be going to the store even if covid-19 didn’t exist.

    henrybowman in reply to randian. | April 21, 2022 at 3:16 pm

    I have two great-nephews who are so immuno-compromised that they were literally bubble boys for the first 15 or so years of their lives. Their parents didn’t dare even let them get near the vax. COVID made zero contribution either positive or negative to the life of these boys. They continue to function just fine, using the skills and protocols they grew up using. It can be done.

    DaveGinOly in reply to randian. | April 22, 2022 at 1:47 am

    What did the immuno-compromised do before COVID?
    I’ll tell you what the state didn’t do before COVID – it didn’t demand particular behaviors of its citizens to protect the immuno-compromised. The immuno-compromised had to look after their own health, as does everyone else.

    Remember David the bubble-boy? The solution to David’s medical problem was to put him in a bubble to protect him from infection. The solution was not to put well people in his town, city, or state into bubbles.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvPKTVK10JE

      henrybowman in reply to DaveGinOly. | April 22, 2022 at 4:12 pm

      But you can’t create any new levers of social tyranny with that model.
      That’s why the vax justification almost immediately morphed into, “it keeps you from infecting other people, it doesn’t keep you from getting infected.” This was the only way they could “make” everyone “responsible” for everyone else’s health, not their own. It “created a village” (or even The Village).
      The pretense was, of course, ludicrous, for two reasons: first, it contradicted every known model of how any vaccine did or could even possibly work; and second, because data was already well-established that this particular vax inhibited neither infection nor transmission. (If anything, it enhanced transmission.)

      Milhouse in reply to DaveGinOly. | April 24, 2022 at 4:12 am

      It started with restricting everyone to cater to those with terrible allergies. Banning peanuts in many places because there are people who would otherwise not be able to attend those places. Traditionally the attitude was, your disability is your problem. If going to school, or boarding a plane, will cause you to drop dead, then don’t. But somehow the response became to make it everyone else’s problem, so that the disabled could go everywhere.

Sam Bell is Small Potatoes.

We also have David Ciccilini and Sheldon (farticus) Whitehouse to ‘represent” us.

    RITaxpayer in reply to RITaxpayer. | April 21, 2022 at 8:29 am

    This was supposed to be a reply to Jack in Silver Spring.

    Someday I’m going to learn how to use this phone, and/or this site.

It’s another extreme attempt to instill fear to get the desired result. I expect to see a lot of this as we head into November where those facing extinction are planning to go down in a blaze of “glory”. Bitter, angry, suicidal people determined to rule over sane people by whatever it takes. Obviously, the only opinion that counts is that of their small, miniscule band of Nazis. Yeah, I really want to take their poison poke now! How about double taxation on the obese who are destroying the public health? Government is over-represented by them. Let’s start there.

Do these Nazis ever offer anything that doesn’t involve fear porn? It’s always hateful, angry ideas or else we are doomed by something. Banning CRT in schools, especially to toddlers, will result in children dying. Has anyone even asked them to walk us through THAT? Jen Psaki started sobbing in an interview Sunday when questioned about states adopting DeSantis’ bill. Could we skip May through October and just go straight to November and get to the voting part?

For a “vaccine” that doesn’t stop transmission! Nuts!

E Howard Hunt | April 21, 2022 at 7:41 am

Not to worry, the taxpayers will be given the option of 4 one-quarter doses contemporaneous with estimated tax payments or 24 bi-monthly doses in keeping with their pay slips. No vaccine will be required for those whose income falls below the filing threshold. All doses to be administered by H & R Block.

Good.
Let’s tax overweight women and AIDS patients next!

Refuse to pay the extra tax or penalty.

Simply cite the statute: you are required to be immunized against covid. That is medically impossible as there are no vaccines at present which immunize.

    Joe-dallas in reply to George S. | April 21, 2022 at 10:37 am

    Words in statute matter (hopefully even in a blue state with blue judges)

    Dont edit the progressive idiots’ proposed statutory language, Hopefully, they wont fix the error and / hopefully the RI SC will notice when it gets litigated. – though if the judges on the RI SC are as stupid as Sotomayer, it is a lost cause.

How are they going to administer this./ The RI Health Dept website admits that there records are incomplete.. I am in the Southcoast Hospital system and RI has no link to their records. So according to RI records I am not vaccinated.

Many people along the RI/Mass border use Southcoast so they will be in the same boat.

I see it as another thinly veiled attempt to increase .gov ranks, much like the proposed contact tracers that Oregon wanted to have. I guess they ran out of downspouts to count.

smalltownoklahoman | April 21, 2022 at 12:03 pm

Nasty bill, hope it get’s shot down and that Rhode Islanders vote out Senator Bell and the other cosponsors at the next opportunity they get. Doubled income tax and fines, nothing but pure petty vindictiveness!

Looks like a violation of the right to life, and probably a direct violation of the ADA. They’re trying to compel me to modify my body to confirm to their wishes.

And for the folks who say, “well if you just jump through a dozen and one flaming bureaucratic hoops, you get to live just fine.” No, losing year’s of my life does not count as “being allowed to live”.

That’s a pretty cold game right there.

    Milhouse in reply to Voyager. | April 21, 2022 at 5:20 pm

    It is not a violation of anything. A state legislature has the right to require you to be vaccinated, and to fine you if you refuse. Jacobson v Massachusetts.

Is it terrible to think that Abbott should load up some buses and send them to Rhode Island?

I do not think it is. Enemies deserve to be punished.

Johnathan Galt | April 21, 2022 at 3:53 pm

Pay the tax, then file felony criminal charges against every individual responsible for this unconstitutional law with violating your Constitutional rights, and civil suits for billions each for the harm they caused you. Put a stop to this nonsense quick!

So long as people keep making this false claim, they need to be answered.

Are you going to tell them to stop making it?

And are you going to allow people to outright lie about me, such as claiming I support taxing people?

    If someone says that you support taxing people and you do not, simply say, “that is not true, I do not favor taxing people.” Why is this hard, Milhouse? If someone says you think something you don’t, correct them, that’s fine. Telling them to kill themselves because they dared disagree with you or calling them liars is simply not acceptable. Why do you not get this? It’s social skills 101.

    M Poppins in reply to Milhouse. | April 21, 2022 at 8:10 pm

    but obviously you do

“I’ve had really painful calls from constituents who can’t go to the store because they’re immuno-compromised,”

Uh, no, they only imagine they can’t go to the store. I’m 68 and immunocompromised and have been out and about without a mask for the duration. Tell these wusses to grow up

1. The current vaccines are protective against the ORIGINAL strains of COVID (not the omicron variants that are currently circulating). Booster vaccination (as demonstrated by the Israeli experience) does provide some protection, whose protection likely only lasts weeks. (see NEJM April 5, 2022)
2. IF big pharma decides to continue monetizing the fear of COVID (we have waves of omicron hitting various states, but I am not hearing about waves of hospitalizations) and creates a new therapeutic by changing the sequence of the mRNA that will need to go through safety testing. However, given the lack of severe illness as the virus attenuates, someone needs to suggest that EUA’s might not be appropriate.
3. Saw an interesting article from 2006 highlighted in Twitter land (Emerg Infect Dis. 2006 Jan; 12(1): 15–22.) This article, written in 2006, suggests that the 1918 influenza strain lives enzootically in pigs and that descendants of the strain circulated in the human population until the 1950s attenuating over time. Because they didn’t have the technology of pcr, they didn’t know. Are we going to let our technology leave us paralyzed in fear, or celebrate the miracle of our own immune systems and get back to living? If we look at the horror of China right now, it becomes obvious that the majority of what is being done is not about population health, it is about population control.

I am not a politician, but this proposal is NOT founded in the reality of attenuating/mutating viruses, does not allow for the power of natural immunity, and does not discuss the rapidly dropping immunity that occurs with successive boosts of the mRNA vaccines.

Most people seem to be ignoring the “employer” part of this bill. Unless I’m reading it wrong, no business would be allowed to employ any unvaccinated person unless they had a medical exemption or were working remotely. The penalty is $5000.00/month for each violation (employee?).

No business will pay that, so this is just like the healthcare worker mandate we had last year – vaccinate or lose your job.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode