COVID-19 anti-discrimination bill dies in House

It would have set aside nearly $848 million from the Legislative Stabilization Reserve Account for the Wyoming Department of Health to replace funding for the Wyoming Medical Assistance and Service Act for one year, and the funds would have reverted back in 2024 if they weren’t needed.

Crago said the appropriation was based on the state reimbursement for Medicaid and Medicare, which may have not been all that was needed.

“I just want us all to have the option to provide an insurance policy for all of our hospitals back home. Because, if this bill passes, and we end up on the wrong side of an argument with the federal agency that provides this funding back to the state, that money will disappear,” he told lawmakers. “And the hospitals back home will be ... struggling isn’t the right word; dying is the right word I would have to use to describe how it will affect our hospitals back home.”

Rep. Jeanette Ward, R-Casper, was the sponsor of the bill, and she was against the amendment.

Her bill was already changed after multiple readings in the House, and it would have prohibited any person in the state from refusing, withholding or denying any “services, goods, facilities, advantages or privileges that are public in nature or that invite patronage of the public” based on a person’s COVID-19 vaccine status, not wearing a mask or refusing COVID-19 testing. It also would have banned publishing or displaying “any communication, notice or advertisement” asking individuals to adhere to vaccination, masking or testing requirements.

Any person in violation found guilty of the misdemeanor could have had to pay a fine of up to $5,000, serve up to one year in jail or both.

“My bill doesn’t keep you from wearing a mask. You just can’t make other people wear a mask,” Ward said. “And my bill doesn’t keep you from getting a vaccine. You just can’t make other people get the vaccine.”

While many recognized the fight for individual freedoms, there were concerns that federal vaccination and masking requirements would place businesses, health care providers and residents in jeopardy. Federal funding could be withheld, and certain entities would have to choose between following state law or federal law.

State representatives cited times when Wyoming didn’t adhere to federal requirements, such as the minimum drinking age or a certain number of staff members in health care facilities, and were close to losing funding.

Rep. Dan Zwonitzer, R-Cheyenne, also reminded lawmakers that hospitals and nursing homes operate on a reimbursement basis. He said they submit receipts, and the federal government could simply not reimburse them. He believed they would “lose the game of chicken,” and there had to be backup funding from the state.

“That’s $75 million a month,” he said. “And that money goes to your critical access hospitals, it goes to your nursing homes, it goes to pretty much everything that provides care for the elderly, the disabled, all of the other population groups we keep talking about on this floor.”

Nonetheless, there were lawmakers who said it was time to fight back against federal control, and it was the responsibility of the hospitals to handle their “poor choices.” Rep. Sarah Penn, R-Lander, argued the amendment would have specifically been a “bailout.”

“Hospitals and places throughout the state and this country have made poor business choices to allow their business to be controlled by an entity that sometimes, you know, controls 65% of their business,” she said. “And when they change the rules, there’s nothing that you can do.”

Others questioned whether the federal government would step in at all, laying out how long the litigation process takes or the fact that other states had not been punished for going against marijuana prohibition.

The debate continued for close to an hour, as representatives argued the amendment gave them the power to pass the bill or that it made the legislation “unpalatable.”

But the final vote on the amendment was 36-25-1 in support. Minutes later, the bill would die.

“This amendment reminds me of an abused spouse that says, ‘Before I can get away from this abuse, I have to have another spouse lined up,’” Rep. John Bear, R-Gillette, said. “I think all of us realize that that’s not a good plan. At some point, we have to have courage and do the right thing. It’s the right thing to stand up to the federal government on this issue.”