By Guy Page
A bill scheduled to be introduced into the Vermont House of Representatives would prevent employer, customer, or landlord discrimination based on immunization status.
The lead sponsor of H.60 is longtime Rep. Mark Higley (R-Lowell). All but two others (Tom Oliver, R-Sheldon and Joseph Parsons, R-Newbury) are first-timers elected in the Red Wave of November, 2024: Greg Burt (R-Calais), James Casey (Hubbardton), Voranus Coffin IV (Cavendish), Joshua Dobrovich (Williamstown), Leland Morgan (W. Milton), Todd Nielsen (Brandon), Debra Powers (Waterford), Michael Southworth (Hardwick), and Michael Tagliavia (Corinth).
The bill defines “Immunization status” as an individual’s immunization history, including whether an individual has received a vaccination against one or more infectious diseases.
During the Covid-19 epidemic, some workers in Vermont and nationwide were fired for refusing to be vaccinated. Vermont state employees and health care provider workers, in particular, were an object of termination for failure to be vaccinated.
A companion bill, H.61, would give adults complete bodily autonomy regarding vaccination, and would give parents complete authority to direct vaccination of their children, regardless of school and other regulations.
PFA crackdown – PFAs found in almost one in six public water systems is prompting the State of Vermont to crack down on the carcinogenic chemical.
According to an ANR Power Point shown to the House Environment Committee today, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a carcinogenic class of about 14,000 distinct chemicals. They are present in:
• Nonstick cookware;
• Cleaning products and waxes;
• Food packaging;
• Water and stain resistant everything (clothing, carpets, furniture, etc.);
• Electronics;
• Renewable energy (batteries, solar panels, heat pumps);
• Medicines and medical devices;
• Firefighting Foams; and more.
In Vermont, PFAS contamination was initially discovered in 2016, when perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), one type of PFAS, was found in water supply wells in Bennington and North Bennington. Since then, ANR has tested public water supplies and evaluated PFAS concentrations in surface waters, wastewater treatment facilities, common household products, and agriculture.
19 public water systems (3% of total) have PFAs exceeding current state limits. PFAs are found in 15% of public water systems.
ANR wants to adopt the federal maximum concentration levels, build lab testing capacity, monitor landfills for PFA leachate, further manage application of wastewater treatment biosolids on Vermont lands, and ‘hold PFAs manufacturers accountable.’
Bill would include ‘current use’ land in 30 x 30, 50 x 50 conservation plan – The law requiring Vermont to meet United Nations goals of 30% land conservation by 2030 and 50% land conservation by 2050 should – at least – be amended to include the 2.75 million acres of land now in ‘current use.’
Vermont’s Current Use program, established by law in 1978, sets a lower tax rate for working farm, conservation, and forestry land. Current use has tight restrictions on development. Rep. Mark Higley says these restrictions should make Current Use land count as ‘conserved’ and worthy to be counted towards the 30% and 50% goals.
Higley’s bill is expected to be introduced soon. It may receive a cool welcome from the House Environment Committee, whose chair Amy Sheldon sponsored and shepherded into law, H.126, the 2023 biodiversity law. Allowing 2.75 million acres of land already conserved in practice would reduce the incentive to restrict uses of other categories of private and public land.
Battle of Bennington-1 continues – House Gov Ops since Jan. 14 has been hearing about the pros and cons of three different solutions to the embattled Bennington-1 House election, where – for the second straight election – Republican Bruce Busa officially came in second in a very, very tight race.
This year, he finished second to Democrat Jonathan Cooper by just 23 votes. It was learned a few days afterward that 56 voters in his district actually were given ballots for adjacent House election (in which the margin of victory was not close.)
What to do? The state constitution leaves the final decision to the Legislature. Gov Ops Chair Matt Birong says the committee will take testimony from all concerned parties and then vote on whether to send the election to the full House (as allowed by the state constitution) or direct the Secretary of State to conduct another election.
The revote option raises the question: if there’s another election, who votes? Just the affected 56 voters, or the whole district? The upside of everyone voting is that “voters would have the opportunity to vote on an equal footing to every other voter in the district at the same time with the same information.” But turnout would likely be low. A district-wide re-election also would cost more. Either way, the winner wouldn’t reach the State House until March, due to the time needed to plan, warn and conduct the special election.
While it would be easy to just let the Legislature decide – but that option, of course, “excludes those voters who should have had the opportunity to vote in their district,” SOS Elections Director Sean Sheehan told Gov Ops.
Gov Ops Vice-Chair Lisa Hango (R-Franklin) said both Busa and Cooper and other interested parties will have full opportunity to weigh in before the decision is made. Stay tuned….