Lead by Loving: Protect People, Not Ideology

Congresswoman Yvette Herrell is providing a tragic example of putting ideology (or political convenience) ahead of her constituents’ welfare.

There’s a Delta-powered resurgence of COVID-19, particularly where vaccination rates lag. The Delta variant is more contagious, and may also cause more serious infections.

I called Herrell’s office Friday to ask about why she had introduced a bill to strip schools of federal money for mandating the COVID-19 vaccine. (This could deny hundreds of millions of dollars to UNM and NMSU. Both have ordered that almost all faculty, staff and students must be fully vaccinated by Sept. 30 (or take weekly COVID-19 tests) to access university programs and facilities in-person.)

When a young gentleman named Riley answered, I asked why Herrell would introduce such a bill. “Because it’s not right to force schoolchildren” into such preventive measures when science says the students are not in much danger from COVID-19. “So it won’t apply to NMSU and UNM?” It would. “Why?” Riley responded, “We’re already getting out of the pandemic successfully.”

In Florida, where the governor is forbidding towns and companies to require masks or vaccines, the COVID-19 daily infection rate is higher than ever. As of May 1, deaths per million residents in the US were about 1.5, in both highly -vaccinated and less vaccinated counties. Between May 1 and early July, both death rates declined. Then the rate in low-vaccination counties jumped from about 0.8 to 2.0 between early July and August 1 – compared with 0.3 in more highly-vaccinated counties. Yeah, a couple of humans per million ain’t much, but six times the death rate?

In early July, Biden announced house-to-house visits to give citizens information about vaccines’ safety, efficacy, and availability. Herrell wrote him to complain that this would “coerce individuals” to get vaccinated, which public health officials and sheriffs did in 1918. Herrell’s website emphasizes the rights of foetuses to be born, but asks Biden to identify “the constitutional and statutory authority” for the door-to-door effort. Our Constitution is silent about abortion, which was not uncommon in the 18^th Century, but does require the government “to promote the general welfare” of citizens.

When I asked Riley why he thought we were “successfully” getting out of the pandemic, he said, “herd immunity is happening, and the rate of hospitalization is down.” Most authorities I read say we’re NOT reaching herd immunity yet because vaccination rates of 50-70% aren’t high enough. The vaccination rate is 65.1% in New Mexico, but 50% or less in several counties in CD-2. A “leader” might promote the general welfare through vaccination; but Herrell doesn’t because “it’s a personal choice.”

It is personal; but making that personal choice can endanger others. More than 3500 health workers died of COVID-19 in the first year. Isn’t Congresswoman Herrell giving them and their families a giant middle-finger? When I asked Riley if he wanted to say anything more to explain the Congresswoman’s actions, he said, “it’s a matter of not having government overreach.”

Riley was polite and responsive; but the conversation reminded me that he and Yvette live in a very different world from mine. I’ve invited Herrell to talk with me on radio and hope she’ll take the opportunity to articulate why she thinks COVID-19 dangers have largely passed and why she’s not encouraging folks to take actions that help their neighbors.

And why vaccination’s “a personal choice,” but women’s health choices are government business.

                                              - 30 -

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 8 August 2021, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website ["Herrell Putting Roadblocks in Path out of Pandemic"] and KRWG's website. A related radio commentary will air during the week on KRWG (90.7 FM) and KTAL-LP. (101.5 FM – http://www.lccommunityradio.org/), and will presently be available on demand on KRWG’s site.]

[Note that, by coincidence, Sunday’s paper also included an Op-Ed (New Mexico Universities Right to Require Vaccines) by Martin Heinrich and a column by Algernon D'Ammassa on his 13-year-old son’s decision to get vaccinated.]

[Herrell’s office said that science indicated masks were no longer necessary. I asked for the source of that. Herrell’s Office cited the CDC. I then checked the CDC website, and read:

Given new evidence on the B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant, CDC has updated the guidance for fully vaccinated people. CDC recommends universal indoor masking for all teachers, staff, students, and visitors to K-12 schools, regardless of vaccination status. Children should return to full-time in-person learning in the fall with layered prevention strategies in place.

I didn’t call back to confer further. Actually, the latest medical observations make it far less clear that kids aren’t endangered by COVID-19. They make up a larger minority of COVID-19 infections than they did before Delta ]

[I also disapprove of “government overreach;” but getting between women and their doctors and telling them what to do with their bodies seems a prime example. With regard to the door-to-door effort, the Biden Administration says the effort is to educate and assist, in that many lack information, have read the rampant misinformation posted by folks for profit-making or political motives, or may not be able to get themselves to a place where vaccine is being administered. There’s no apparent intent to coerce; if Herrell and Greene believe a visit is inherently coercive, I don’t agree; but I would agree that there may not be legal authorization for coercive measures. I’d advise Herrell to wait and see whether we hear widespread reports of coercion.]

[I’d also love to discuss the U.S. Constitution with Herrell. An important discussion, in my view, is to consider the Constitution in light of the intervening centuries. As someone who protested for civil rights and peace, argued for economic equality, and resisted seatbelts, motorcycle helmets throughout my youth, when I also drank heavily at times and used other substances the law didn’t approve of, I am also against “government overreach.” People should be left alone, to the extent consistent with others’ health, welfare, and pursuit of happiness (and with their kids health and growth!).

However (and maybe this should be a column soon) there have been significant key changes since the late 18^th Century. One is that for the mostly scattered population of the U.S., the dangers were primarily powerful older countries such as the U.S., France, and Spain. No need to worry much about the quality of shoes or meat produced, because many folks produced their own, and others bought from a guy down the street. If the shoes pinched and he wouldn’t fix ‘em or refund your money, punch him out; or shout about it loudly in the local tavern. Soon he’s out of business, if he treats a few others the same way. Nor was there much thought that what anyone (or any company) did might seriously affect the health and welfare of others, perhaps even non-customers and non-neighbors.

The change is . . . well, I’ll right the next column; but our government needs to protect us not only against Russia and China, and terrorist groups, but from McDonald’s, gas-and-oil companies, huge food conglomerates, pharmaceuitcal companies, and other huge “private” or corporate entities that affect our lives more than the government does. Right wing entities that want minimal regulation of what they do gain support by complaining of “government overreach” as if regulating air or water pollution, prosecuting the worst of false advertising, and keeping dangerous drugs off the market were equivalent to storm troopers coming over to grab your cigarette or beer out of your mouth, tell you to watch a different TV show, or toss your banjo in the river because your music sucks.]