Early response to COVID-19 prompts Utah lawmaker to draft bill protecting religious and personal freedoms

SALT LAKE CITY – In March 2020, the world apparently shut itself down as state leaders rushed to protect the Utahns from the rapidly spreading and largely mysterious novel coronavirus. As part of the response, religious services were limited and family members were unable to visit relatives at health facilities.

Almost a year later, a state legislator is trying to prevent this from happening again with a bill he says will protect religious and personal freedoms, even in a state of emergency.

Representative Cory Maloy, R-Lehi, is the sponsor of HB184, which reportedly prevents health services from restricting religious exercise or entering a church. It also prohibits a health care facility from prohibiting individuals from seeing at least one family member or spiritual advisor at a time.

“It doesn’t mean anything negative about our health facilities or our health workers; I know everyone… has worked very, very diligently to do the right things, but we just believe in being able to have those emotional connections, ”Maloy said.

Taking proper health precautions would still be allowed under the bill’s current wording and establishments would be allowed to “do anything to make sure everyone is safe,” Maloy said, but they won’t be allowed to ban completely visitors.

“That doesn’t mean we can’t make recommendations or put the right things in place to keep people safe, just do it without shutting down those places,” he said.

In a written statement, the Utah Department of Health said it is reviewing the bill and will address any potential concerns with Maloy.

“The Utah Department of Health has an important responsibility for responding to infectious disease outbreaks in order to protect the health of Utah residents,” wrote Tom Hudachko, director of communications for the Department of Health. Utah in the press release.

While the bill was inspired by the state’s response to COVID-19, Maloy said he did not feel health or other officials had acted maliciously and recognized the situation was evolving rapidly. and was difficult to resolve; However, he said he felt it was important to reflect on the answer and see if there were any areas where the state could be better in the future.

“I think it’s good for us to look at what we’ve learned over the past year,” he said.

Religious impact

Although Utah has not restricted worship since the spring, other states have faced backlash for strict sanitary guidelines applied to worship. The U.S. Supreme Court recently sided with religious groups in a dispute over COVID-19 restrictions in New York City, ruling that guidelines implemented for churches were much more restrictive than regulations passed for similar secular enterprises. Ahead of the ruling, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo revised the restrictions in response to a lawsuit by religious organizations.

Utah initially restricted in-person religious services, but later allowed them under new guidelines released in May. Since then, the state has largely avoided enacting ordinances on the religious sector in Utah.

In November, former governor Gary Herbert issued a new emergency order to address overcrowding in hospitals that prohibited residents from socializing with those who live outside their homes. Religious organizations were exempted from the order and instead were encouraged to implement the appropriate health protocols in their congregations to limit the spread.

Fortunately, said Maloy, Utah has included its faith-based organizations in making key decisions regarding the response to COVID-19 and there have not been any cases similar to the problems faced in New York and other states; however, he believed it was crucial to guarantee religious freedoms, even in emergencies, and that is why he proposed the bill as a preventive measure.

“It’s a preventative measure to make sure that never happens here in Utah,” Maloy said.

Religious groups in the state have largely followed health guidelines to limit the spread of COVID-19, outside of government orders. But Maloy said “the difference is they weren’t required to do it by the government” and acted because “it was the right thing to do with their congregations.”

Since the start of the pandemic, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been proactive in its response. The world church has suspended in-person church service and did not immediately return to services even after local guidelines allowed it.

Several other religious groups have also implemented their own COVID-19 guidelines outside of state requirements. The Salt Lake Calvary Baptist Church, for example, closed in-person services after briefly opening services.

“I just wanted to be careful,” Rev. Oscar Moses told KSL.com of his decision. “I didn’t want to take any chances with someone maybe even contracting the virus.”

The Lubavitcher Chabad of Utah has also adjusted its services by implementing a hybrid system with some in-person and some online services to maintain public health guidelines. The congregation also held socially remote Hanukkah celebrations in December.

“While we take precautions, we try to be there for people in a way that makes them comfortable,” Rabbi Avremi Zippel told KSL.com.

Zippel said he was grateful for the partnership the state has had with different religious communities to fight the pandemic.

“This is something we are very grateful for here in Utah,” he said. “I know we don’t take it for granted because I know that many of my colleagues who live in other parts of the country, in larger communities, have seen their local governments really beat the hammer on various religious communities in which seems to be completely arbitrary. “

The state’s response to COVID-19 has been largely based on personal responsibility, with a mandatory mask mandate that was not implemented until several months after the start of the pandemic.

For Zippel, he said he believes religious leaders need to strike a balance between leading by example in times of crisis while providing crucial religious and spiritual support.

“We have to be at the forefront; we have to close when we have to close,” he explained, noting that Judaism and several other religions place a high priority on a person’s health.

On the other hand, he noted that it is important for religious leaders to feel supported by their local government for the service they provide to the community.

“I think that as religious leaders we like to feel supported and recognized and recognized by our local governments for the essential services we provide to our communities,” he said. “Some people rely on their faith communities for support, structure, for so many good things in their life, especially when everything is falling apart all around them.

Ultimately, while Maloy said Utah had done a great job balancing religious freedoms while protecting the health of the public, he felt it was important to harden those rights into law.

Protect the elderly in living spaces

Maloy’s bill would also prohibit senior living facilities from restricting family members or religious leaders to visiting residents, which was common practice at the start of the pandemic in an effort to protect residents of the virus.

“The reason is that often they are very fragile due to their age. And locking them up where they can’t have the emotional support system of their spiritual leaders or their families is just something we don’t want to see ”. Maloy said. “It’s supposed to be preventative to protect those rights, and we’ve seen cases in Utah where older people – especially older people – were kept away from family members or spiritual leaders for months at a time. times, and we just feel like it’s too offense. “

Jenny Allred, who went several months without seeing her 95-year-old grandmother, said the bill is extremely important and “absolutely must happen”.

“The health department was so focused on the aspect of physical protection – which absolutely has to happen – however, there is another very important element to this health that goes hand in hand, and that is mental health. and emotional, ”she said. “So I think that will kind of help strike a balance between that.”

While Allred’s grandmother resided in the facility responding to COVID-19 cases in the community, family contact with the 95-year-old girl declined and the family was “very disturbing because we don’t couldn’t reach her. “

Eventually, the family was able to get her an Alexa machine that helped them communicate, but they were still unable, at times, to contact her. In-person visits were also limited and could only take place through a window. Her grandmother contracted COVID-19 at one point and Allred and other family members struggled to get in touch with her for health updates as the facility was overwhelmed and lacking in staff. Fortunately, her grandmother has since recovered.

“I think when you go through these things, to even be able to see her in person and be able to have that connection, to let her know that everything will be fine, to be able to provide her that love, and for her to be able to feel that and to Seeing it in person, I think says a lot, “Allred said.

Maloy agreed and said it was his whole idea behind the bill: to prevent the elderly from isolating themselves during a disaster.

“They may still be able to take precautions to do everything to make sure everyone is safe, (but) they won’t be able to just say, ‘No, you can’t bring in visitors'”, Maloy said.