Trending
The mandate issued by the Department of Health Tuesday on masks in schools has one member of the state legislature claiming it's unconstitutional and a member of Williamsport's "Let's End COVID" group praising the Wolf administration's for its leadership.
"I would argue that the way they're rolling it out is actually unconstitutional because they are taking a class of people and claiming they have to do this, but the rest of Pennsylvania doesn't," said Rep. Joe Hamm, R-Hepburn Township.
"They're saying students K-12 and in daycare have to wear masks. So do teachers, so do administrators and so do parents who enter those school buildings. But, they're not requiring any other Pennsylvanian to have to wear this mask. So, if this COVID virus is so danger and such a risk of spreading, they should enforce it on everybody or no one at all. So, I think it's unconstitutional actually mandating only on one certain class of individuals. I would argue it's unconstitutional," Hamm stressed.
Barbara Hemmendinger, a member of the Let's End COVID group had only praise for Gov. Tom Wolf's administration, saying of the issuance of the mandate, "I'm glad he did because we need leadership in a public health crisis such as the one we are facing."
Hamm criticized the governor and Alison Beam, the acting secretary of the Department of Health for taking a "one-size-fits-all" approach by mandating masks.
"One size doesn't fit all. We learned that from March 2020 forward. We learned that one size doesn't fit all. And Pennsylvania spoke loud and clear in May 2021 when they passed two constitutional amendments telling the governor they didn't enjoy his one size fits all. That they didn't want to see the governor rule alone -- that they wanted the governor to work with the state legislature, work with our local elected officials to make sure we were making decisions that were best suited for everyone in their particular region," he said. "And the governor (Tuesday) slapped Pennsylvanians in the face. The governor decided he knows best through the Secretary of Health making this statewide mandate."
Under the Disease Prevention and Control Act of 1955, the secretary of the state's Department of Health does have the power to issue mandates, an action which Hamm said should be handled by local elected officials, such as school boards, in the case of mask mandates for students.
"I argue that she would have to do it to everyone or no one at all. I don't think she has the authority to pick a class of people and say only you have to do it," Hamm said.
Hamm also argued that the decision on mitigation efforts for students, such as masking, is solely the purview of school boards.
To back this argument he cited a recent decision by the Loyalsock Township School Board to mandate masks for students, at least until the next board meeting, Sept. 8.
"They were going to mandate masks in their schools because they looked at the numbers and the numbers concerned their school board enough that they decided to mandate the masks," Hamm said.
"They didn't need the governor. They didn't need the Secretary of Health to make that decision. They made it on their own and quite honestly, that's how it should be," he said.
"These local government officials are elected to serve their communities and make decisions for their communities, their school districts, and we've seen them doing that. It was working effectively," he added.
Hamm, however, would not say if he felt the Loyalsock Township School Board had made the right decision.
Of the opposing view, Hemmendinger believes that schools should stick to their mission of "educating the upcoming generation."
"School boards are not positioned to make medical decisions," Hemmendinger said.
She contended that districts need to defer to medical professionals to make decisions. She also praised the Wolf administration for taking a multilayered approach to dealing with the pandemic by mandating masks for students and staff in public and private schools.
Hamm stated that the mask mandate takes away the rights of parents to choose to mask or not mask their child.
"I am not opposed to people wearing masks. I am opposed to people taking away parental rights, taking away your personal rights. Quite honestly, I would say this mandate is on the verge of taking parental rights away. You're not even giving parents a choice anymore on what their child will or will not do. You're saying you're going to do it, period. I think that's a slippery slope. We have to be careful to not to allow government to overreach in its power," Hamm said.
The local boards, he argued are more accountable for their decisions than the state government might be.
"If the voters don't like you, they'll vote you out. And so, ultimately I believe local elected officials should be making these decisions, not unelected bureaucrats. That's what the Secretary of Health is … she does not answer to the voters, she's not accountable to the voters, she's not answerable to the voters. She can do whatever she wants,' Hamm said.
Moving forward, Hamm said that the legislature is looking at all options to deal what they feel is a problem. Senate Bill 618 was passed, which among other things, would have stripped the Secretary of Health of broad powers. The bill was vetoed by the governor.
"If it was up to me," Hamm said, "we would be Harrisburg tomorrow passing legislation to put in check this governor and any unelected bureaucrat. We'd be filing lawsuits against this administration because I believe their order is unconstitutional."