Please understand that I am actively working to update this page.
CONTENTS WILL CHANGE! But the info will be consistent.
Update on SB4 following committee hearing 3/14 after only 22 hour notice.
They say politics move slow, I disagree. All of these things take time and energy. I am doing my best to keep up but this may be messy for a bit. Thanks for your understanding.
The doubling of required core public health services. Get rid of them. (See h4ml.org/gphcshorts video # 4)
Current statutes are part of the areas where the state is failing.
We have had programs in place for years re: maternal fetal health and NOTHING to show for it. Our rates are abysmal. Why don't we do studies to identify root cause instead of throwing money at the same old things and hoping for something different. Clearly, what we are doing isn't enough...
If there need to be additional core public health measures, then require the counties to do a focused needs assessment and drive public health measures based on issues identified by the people working on the ground. These counties know the needs of their communities, let them do what they do best.
This could be accounted for in the way of grants. "We identify --- need. Our current situation is ---. We feel that interventions --- will address the issue and get us to (SMART goal), and we anticipate a cost of $$$." The total amount of grants could be distributed based on the calculations in the current bill and as long as the county is completing the fiscal and showing forward progression on current smart goals and statutes they can increase the amount per capita over the course of time. Graduated increase in funding directly correlated to results. THAT IS FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE.
The beauty of this plan is that it would empower communities, and then cooperative learning and collaboration could take place based on success. Counties could be highlighted to explain the problem as above, evaluate the interventions, and make recommendations on what they would have done differently or what they learned along the way. Other counties can look at these presentations, take what they feel would work for them and develop county specific interventions so they are tailored to individual needs. (Vaping vs. tobacco vs marijuana)
We have concerns over the cart blanche delegation of authority to the CDC through IDOH to write rules (moving the goalposts) for what constitutes compliance for counties who opt in to funding. (Addressed in the 6/30 videos)
Everything that was disaster about the original bill language could be promulgated by CDC through IDOH utilizing the rule-making process.
They are expected to opt in before these rules are written, and there is no language that clarifies what happens if they later opt out. Despite Sen. Kenly stated there was an opt-out provision today.
For example, County X opts in and 3 months in "the next pandemic" strikes, resulting in rules changes BY IDOH. The county decides that they are going to go against their new rule. Does home rule still apply?
This is perplexing because they technically can decline but then they are in violation of
Pg 26 line 31. Does the county lose funding or does home rule apply? (H4ML.org/gphcshorts video #2)
What is the procedure for leaving, and what happens when they do? (No funding moving forward; expected to refund previous funding; fines; etc etc)
Do the counties know they aren't required to apply?
At what point do "public education campaigns" as suggested by Senator Brooks become coercion? Honestly, this recommendation sounds a lot like the IDOH is planning a tattle tail situation. (See h4ml.org/gphcshorts video #5)
I didn't see anything addressing funding for counties who don't opt in.
Are they then on their own?
In a previous version, there was at least a statement regarding those counties getting the same funding as the year prior.
This did not account for inflation or population changes and should be addressed. If the plan isn't to force participation, this should be immediately addressed and a plan for those counties should be arranged. One might suggest continuing to use the old model and adjusting for inflation and the availability for grants to address specific needs.
Call to action
Great Job, the legislature is showing signs of political respect for Medical Liberty!
We have the chance to kill ❌ the Governor's Public Health Commission!
Do not back down!
Call the committee & tell them: "SB4 undercuts county autonomy through the administrative rule-making process. Vote No."
Join us for our monthly meeting tomorrow, Thursday 3/16, online or in Bloomington, Ft. Wayne, & Mishawaka h4ml.org/meeting
Bradford Barrett 317-234-2993
Cindy Ledbetter 317-234-9139 *If you have faced covid discrimination, she needs to know! (see blog)
Robert Behning 317-232-9753
Martin Carbaugh 317-232-9620
Matt Hostettler 317-234-9452
oanna King 317-232-9657
Gregory Porter 317-232-9875
Donna Schaibley & Ann Vermilion 317-232-9833
Dennis Zent 317-232-9850
In Liberty, Ashley P.S. Thank you to our monthly donors for making this possible. If you are able, please become a reoccurring donor. h4ml.org/membership
North East Indiana- Check it out, the Nisly's will be in Fort Wayne on Saturday revitalizing the republican party! I would love to see you there!
3/23/2023 07:18:55 pm
We read this to late to join . But very interested in getting involved.
Hoosiers for Medical Liberty
3/27/2023 03:32:36 pm
Sorry you missed it!
Leave a Reply.
Ashley Grogg RN-MSN sharing insights, tips, and updates on Medical Liberty throughout the Hoosier state.