On Friday, St Louis City Mayor Tishuara Jones and St Louis County Executive Comrade Dr. Sam Page announced that they were lifting a lot of the COVID-19 mandates/restrictions that they have imposed on St Louis City and County residents since March of 2020 with one caveat...you have to be vaccinated. Otherwise, the mask and other previous mandates continue. In other words....get vaccinated with one of the COVID-19 vaccines or else!
Isn't it interesting that this rollback comes just within days of two things happening... St Louis County Executive Comrade Sam Page, the Saint Louis County Health Director Dr. Faisal Khan, and the St Louis County Health Department were (in their official capacities) all sued by Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt's office on Tuesday May 11th over the COVID-19 mandates and religious liberty issues along with the Missouri General Assembly's passage of Missouri House Bill 271, on May 12th which right now is on Governor Mike Parson's desk awaiting for his signature.
What are these two factors? Let me go into a little more detail on what these two factors are causing Comrade Sam Page to roll back his health mandates this time around....
First the lawsuit by Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt which is Schmitt v. Page, which you can read the entire text of the lawsuit by clicking here. On Tuesday, May 11th, Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt file a lawsuit against St Louis County Executive comrade Sam page accusing him, his Health director Dr. Faisal Khan, and health Depart of issuing orders that "impose unjustified burdens on religious, economic, and personal freedom. The Order reflects arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable government action by refusing to consider important aspects of the problem and refusing to consider less restrictive alternatives that are reasonable under the circumstances.”
I have read the entire lawsuit (and I encourage everyone to do so as well) and the lawsuit... At least the religious liberty components of it (among others)....seem to center around two recent United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decisions that were decided in favor churches or religious organizations. In those two cases, Tandon v. Newsom, No. 20A151, 2021 WL 1328507, at *1 (U.S. Apr. 9, 2021) (citing cases) and Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 141 S. Ct. 63, 67-68 (2020) (per curiam), SCOTUS said that government cannot Place more severe and undue restrictions on Andy's such as churches, synagogues, and other houses of worship then other areas such as stores like Walmart and Target, movie theaters, etc. and that the public officials in these cases ....California Governor Gavin Newsom and New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo....far exceed their authority in taking those actions. As a result, injunctions were issued by SCOTUS in favor of the houses of worship in these cases.
This is part of a pattern on Comrade Sam Page's part. Every time that he issues his health edicts (mandates), protests occur and lawsuits are filed. Even if the lawsuit is dismissed he still seems to back down from his mandates from when he issued the order in the first place. From reading the statements issued from the Spokesperson for Sam Page you can tell that Sam Page is absolutely terrified that he is about to kiss his powers to issue these edicts/mandates goodbye.
Let me now go into a little more detail the second of two factors that are causing Comrade Sam Page to roll back his health mandates this time around, which is the Missouri General Assembly's passage of Missouri House Bill 271, on May 12th.
Missouri House Bill 271, which right now is sitting on Missouri Governor Mike Parson's desk awaiting for his signature, is a nearly 100 page Bill designed to change the laws regarding local government on a number of areas ....including a provision submitted by Missouri State Senator Dr. Bob Onder that deals with reining in people like Comrade Dr. Sam Page in regards to their emergency powers and issuing and mandates such as his COVID-19 Health orders. The part of HB 271 that deals with this reads as follows:
67.265. 1. For purposes of this section, the term "order" shall mean a public health order, ordinance, rule, or regulation issued by a political subdivision, including by a health officer, local public health agency, public health authority, or the political subdivision's executive, as such term is defined in section 67.750, in response to an actual or perceived threat to public health for the purpose of preventing the spread of a contagious disease. 6 Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary:
(1) Any order issued during and related to an emergency declared pursuant to chapter 44 that directly or indirectly closes, partially closes, or places restrictions on the opening of or access to any one or more business organizations, churches, schools, or other places of public or private gathering or assembly, including any order, ordinance, rule, or regulation of general applicability or that prohibits or otherwise limits attendance at any public or private gatherings, shall not remain in effect for longer than thirty calendar days in a one hundred eighty-day period, including the cumulative duration of similar orders issued concurrently, consecutively, or successively, and shall automatically expire at the end of the thirty days or as specified in the order, whichever is shorter, unless so authorized by a simple majority vote of the political subdivision's governing body to extend such order or approve a similar order; provided that such extension or approval of similar 18 orders shall not exceed thirty calendar days in duration and any order may be extended 19 more than once; and
(2) Any order of general applicability issued at a time other than an emergency declared pursuant to chapter 44 that directly or indirectly closes an entire classification of business organizations, churches, schools, or other places of public or private gathering or assembly shall not remain in effect for longer than twenty-one calendar days in a one hundred eighty-day period, including the cumulative duration of similar orders issued concurrently, consecutively, or successively, and shall automatically expire at the end of the twenty-one days or as specified in the order, whichever is shorter, unless so authorized by a two-thirds majority vote of the political subdivision's governing body to extend such order or approve a similar order; provided that such extension or approval of similar orders may be extended more than once.2. The governing bodies of the political subdivisions issuing orders under this section shall at all times have the authority to terminate an order issued or extended under this section upon a simple majority vote of the body.
3. In the case of local public health agencies created through an agreement by multiple counties under chapter 70, all of the participating counties' governing bodies shall be required to approve or terminate orders in accordance with the provisions of this section.
4. Prior to or concurrent with the issuance or extension of any order under subdivisions (1) and (2) of subsection 1 of this section, the health officer, local public health agency, public health authority, or executive shall provide a report to the governing body containing information supporting the need for such order.
5. No political subdivision of this state shall make or modify any orders that have the effect, directly or indirectly, of a prohibited order under this section.
6. No rule or regulation issued by the department of health and senior services shall authorize a local health official, health officer, local public health agency, or public health authority to create or enforce any order, ordinance, rule, or regulation described in section 192.300 or this section that is inconsistent with the provisions of this section.
According to The Missouri Independent newspaper, "restrictions (issued) during a state of emergency would be capped at 30 days in a 180-day period. Extensions for an additional 30 days must be approved by a simple majority vote of the local health authority’s governing body — such as a county commission or city council — after a report is provided outlining the need for such an extension. If health orders are issued outside of a state of emergency, then their length would be limited to 21 days in a 180-day period and require a two-thirds majority vote for extensions."
In other words, Comrade Sam Page would have to start all over an he would have to get approval before issuing these mandates with a majority or super majority vote....neither of which is going to happen considering that vast majority of the St. Louis County Council is really mad as heck at Sam Page right now and have been for some time.....even though the council makeup is four to three in favor of the Democrats. Not only that, but the newest Democrat elected to the Council this past November isn't exactly a friend of Sam Page.
These public and health department officials just simply don't get it....or refuse to....and the same thing can be said of the Ancient Media a.k.a. the Mainstream Media. The biggest part of the resistance is that government officials such as Comrades Sam Page and Tishuara Jones keep moving the goalposts. First, it was till beyond the curve. Then, once a vaccine was available. Then, it was till we reached herd immunity. Now, we will still have to "mask up" with 1 - 3+ masks on you.....even after getting the covid-19 vaccine?!? Then why get the COVID-19 Vaccine in the first place if, after getting it, nothing changes in regards to the mandates/edicts?
All of the above and more make me and many others wonder why we should even get vaccinated if, even after being vaccinated and reaching herd immunity, we still have to "mask up" and have all these restrictions.
....and you ask why there is so much resistance to taking the vaccines.
