3 ms·

Here's my interpretation of the bill after reading it over a couple times. IANAL. - NY state will have the ability to order the detainment of individuals (EDIT

by cj 6y ago

Here's my interpretation of the bill after reading it over a couple times. IANAL. - NY state will have the ability to order the detainment of individuals (EDIT: or groups / classes of individuals) if it's decided they pose an "imminent + significant threat to public health resulting in severe morbidity or high mortality". - Individuals are detained in a medical facility or a facility/premises designed by the governor - If ordered to be detained for more than 3 business days, and the detainee requests to be released, the state will submit an expedited court order to continue detainment. The court order must be granted within 5 business days after the detainee's request, otherwise they are released. If detained less than 3 business days, they are "afforded an opportunity to be heard" (not sure what that actually means) - Individuals with a confirmed case can no longer be detained if they are not contagious. If there's no confirmed case, they can't be detained if they will not become contagious in the future or if the state determines they will not pose a risk to public health - Expanded power of the state to create and enforce new orders, such as (but not limited to) requiring testing / medical evaluation of individuals who are thought to be exposed / infected. Also allows them to force preventative measures such as a vaccine, but with the caveat there must be a court order if administration must be done forcibly. - The above powers only apply during a declared "State of Health Emergency" due to an epidemic

throwawaysea 6y ago
One correction - the bill doesn’t just apply to individuals. It explicitly noted that it can apply to groups that can be described with a “reasonably specific” description. In other words, it can apply to classes of individuals.
chiph 6y ago
> or a facility/premises designed by the governor Interpreting this in the worst light -- this could be a jail or prison if the governor has designated such to be where people charged with violating this law are to be confined. But it does go on to mention home confinement - not sure what the standard is. What I'm not seeing is mention of compensation to people wrongly forcibly quarantined under this law. Or any reference to how they will be treated while quarantined (Will you be fed a Maricopa county jail peanut-butter sandwich, a military ration, or take-out from local restaurants?) From a language perspective - I really dislike the word "Removal" used in the bill. Perhaps it's standard for NY laws, but it's too Orwellian in my opinion. And quarantine isn't mentioned until the last page. Really, it's just sloppily written, perhaps intentionally so - so that the legislator can prove to his constituents that he's doing something while on their dime.

by cj 6y ago

throwawaysea 6y ago

One correction - the bill doesn’t just apply to individuals. It explicitly noted that it can apply to groups that can be described with a “reasonably specific” description. In other words, it can apply to classes of individuals.

chiph 6y ago

> or a facility/premises designed by the governor Interpreting this in the worst light -- this could be a jail or prison if the governor has designated such to be where people charged with violating this law are to be confined. But it does go on to mention home confinement - not sure what the standard is. What I'm not seeing is mention of compensation to people wrongly forcibly quarantined under this law. Or any reference to how they will be treated while quarantined (Will you be fed a Maricopa county jail peanut-butter sandwich, a military ration, or take-out from local restaurants?) From a language perspective - I really dislike the word "Removal" used in the bill. Perhaps it's standard for NY laws, but it's too Orwellian in my opinion. And quarantine isn't mentioned until the last page. Really, it's just sloppily written, perhaps intentionally so - so that the legislator can prove to his constituents that he's doing something while on their dime.