Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Health Law topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee repeals 'orders of constraint' language, adds mask‑exemption protections for certain medical disabilities
Summary
A bill to repeal emergency-era 'orders of constraint' and to protect people medically unable to wear masks passed the committee after public testimony on both public‑health tools and individual harms during COVID restrictions.
Representative McPherson presented a bill that would repeal the 2021 statutory language creating "orders of constraint" and restore the older "orders of restriction" framework for local public‑health powers; the measure also creates protections preventing denial of service to individuals who have a diagnosed condition or disability that precludes mask wearing.
McPherson said orders of constraint (enacted during the COVID emergency) covered broad, population‑wide measures and lacked some time‑ and due‑process limits contained in the longstanding orders‑of‑restriction code. "Orders of constraint ... were added into code in 2021 as a response to COVID," McPherson said, and the bill would repeal that section and return to the preexisting statutory framework that includes explicit time and procedural safeguards.
The bill adds a statutory protection similar to previous 2023 vaccine‑status language, stating that entities cannot deny service to people who have medical conditions or disabilities that prevent them from wearing a mask. Several residents testified in favor, recounting personal hardship and medical or developmental reasons that made masking harmful or impossible. Public‑health representatives—speaking for Utah's local health departments—told the committee they had worked with the sponsor on language; the Utah Association of Local Health Departments said repeal of orders of constraint would limit one emergency tool but affirmed local health departments retained other authorities to respond to communicable diseases and disasters.
Representative Bolander offered an amendment the committee adopted; sponsors said the amendment clarifies that the bill does not preempt private-sector or public-sector entities from establishing their own masking rules and preserves 24‑hour emergency powers for public‑health authorities where necessary. After adoption of the amendment, the committee passed HB 294 with a favorable recommendation on a voice vote. Supporters framed the bill as restoring statutory limits on sweeping emergency orders while protecting people who suffered harms from universal masking requirements during the pandemic.
