SPRINGFIELD – Illinois could indefinitely quarantine anyone who refuses vaccination, examination, or observation, under a bill pending in the House.
Cats and dogs would fare worse than people, as the bill would allow the public health department to kill any animal. The state would compensate animal owners, if they cooperate.
Rep. Deb Conroy (D-Villa Park) introduced the legislation in January.
Some opponents call it a “concentration camp” bill.
It would:
-Apply to any person or place, meaning the state could restrict people to their homes or shut off a whole county.
-Provide no means for persons to keep their jobs or feed themselves.
-Apply to citizens of other states who might venture into Illinois and pick a wrong place to visit.
The measure is reminiscent of Governor J.B. Pritzker’s pandemic plan, that included guidelines for a bio-ethics committee.
He claimed he would need big spaces like armories to stack corpses. He claimed he would need to employ corpse counters and he promised to appoint a committee to preserve dignity at mass burials.
None of it happened but Conroy’s bill shows some people believe it still might happen.
It opens with a statement that the public health department has supreme authority in matters of quarantine and isolation.
It states that the department shall investigate causes of dangerous diseases and take means to restrict and suppress them.
It states that the department may act with sufficient promptness when a local health board refuses to do so.
It authorizes the department to take measures it deems necessary and collect the cost from the locality.
It states that the department may order a person or a group of persons to be quarantined or make a place off limits to the public.
This authority would last “until such time as the condition can be corrected or the danger to the public health eliminated or reduced.”
The bill would require an owner’s consent, with an exception.
If the department decided to make a place off limits immediately, it would have 48 hours to obtain consent.
If the owner didn’t consent, the department could file a petition in court.
The department would have to prove that public health was “significantly endangered by a person or group of persons that has, is suspected of having, that has been exposed to, or that is reasonably believed to have been exposed to a dangerously contagious disease.”
The department would have to prove it exhausted other reasonable means of correcting the problem and no less restrictive alternative existed.
A judge would consider evidence that department rules or guidelines of the Centers for Disease Control and World Health Organization provided for quarantine.
Subjects of an order would have a right to counsel, and judges would appoint counsel for indigent subjects.
The bill perceives as much risk in creatures with four legs as those with two.
It would allow the department to examine, test, disinfect, seize, or destroy animals.
An owner would receive notice, and the department might agree with the owner on the value of an animal.
If they didn’t agree, each side would pick an appraiser and the appraisers would pick a third appraiser.
Destruction would follow appraisal immediately.
The Humane Euthanasia in Animal Shelters Act would apply to dogs and cats, and the Humane Care for Animals Act would apply to other animals.
The department or the owner would dispose of carcasses and disinfect or change the premises.
An owner who didn’t cooperate “shall forfeit all right to receive any compensation for the destruction of the animals or related property.”
The bill would grant immunity to facilities and agencies that provide emergency access to health information.
It states that the privileged quality of communication shall not constitute grounds for failure to provide emergency access.
Conroy included a pledge to respect religious beliefs, “to the extent feasible.”
The House referred the bill to the Rules Committee on Jan. 21, and that committee referred it to the Human Services Committee on Jan. 25.