SALT LAKE CITY – In March 2020, the world seems to have closed as state leaders rushed to keep Utahns safe from the newly expanding and largely mysterious coronavirus. As part of the response, religious services were limited and relatives could not visit loved ones in health facilities.
Almost a year later, a state legislature is trying to prevent this from happening again with a bill that he says will protect religious and personal freedoms, even in states of emergency.
Representative Cory Maloy, R-Lehi, is the sponsor of HB184, which would prevent health departments from limiting religious exercise or church entry. It also prohibits a medical center from prohibiting people from seeing at least one family member or spiritual counselor at a time.
“This does not mean anything negative about our health centers or our health workers; I know that everyone … has worked very, very diligently to do the right things, but we only feel strongly (about) this right to be able to have these connections emotional, ”Maloy said.
Maloy would still be allowed to take proper health precautions according to the current language of the bill and the facilities “could do everything possible to make sure everyone is safe,” Maloy said, but they will not be allowed to ban visitors. completely.
“It doesn’t mean we can’t make recommendations or set the right things to keep people safe, but do it without closing those places,” he said.
In a written statement, the Utah Department of Health said it was reviewing the bill and would address any possible concerns with Maloy.
“The Utah Department of Health has an important responsibility to respond to outbreaks of infectious diseases to protect the health of Utah residents,” wrote Tom Hudachko, communications director for the Utah Department of Health.
Although the bill was inspired by the state’s COVID-19 response, Maloy said he did not feel any health or that other public officials were acting maliciously and acknowledged that the situation was swift and difficult. to approach; however, he said he believes it is important to reflect on the response and see if there are areas where the state could be better off in the future.
“I think it’s good for us to look at what we’ve learned over the last year,” he said.
Religious impact
While Utah has not limited worship since the spring, other states have faced strict health recommendations applied to worship. Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with religious groups in a dispute over COVID-19 restrictions in New York, which ruled that guidelines implemented for churches were much more restrictive than regulations enacted for secular companies. similar. Prior to the resolution, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo reviewed the restrictions in response to a demand from religious organizations.
Utah initially restricted face-to-face church services, but later allowed them under new guidelines issued in May. Since then, the state has largely avoided issuing orders to Utah’s religious sector.
In November, former Gov. Gary Herbert issued a new emergency order to address hospital overcrowding that banned residents from socially reuniting with those living outside their homes. Religious organizations were exempt from order and instead were encouraged to implement appropriate health protocols in their congregations to limit the spread.
Fortunately, Maloy said, Utah included its religious organizations in key decision-making on the COVID-19 response and there have been no similar cases to the problems seen in New York and other states; however, he considered it crucial to guarantee religious freedoms even in the face of emergencies, so he proposed the bill as a preventive measure.
“This is a precautionary measure to make sure this never happens here in Utah,” Maloy said.
Religious groups in the state have largely followed health guidelines to limit the spread of COVID-19, outside of government orders. But Maloy said the “difference is that the government did not force them” and that they acted because “it was the right thing to do with their congregations.”
Since the beginning of the pandemic, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been proactive in its response. The world church suspended face-to-face service and did not immediately return to services even after local guidelines allowed.
Several other religious groups have implemented their own COVID-19 guidelines outside of state requirements. Salt Lake Baptist Church Calvary, for example, closed face-to-face services after opening services briefly.
“I just wanted to be wrong with the precaution,” Rev. Oscar Moses previously told KSL.com about his decision. “I didn’t want to risk someone who could even get the virus.”
Utah’s Chabad Lubavitch also adjusted its services by implementing a hybrid system with some services performed in person and others online to maintain public health guidelines. The congregation also organized socially distant Hanukkah celebrations in December.
“While we take precautions, we try to be there for people in a way that makes them feel more comfortable,” Rabbi Avremi Zippel told KSL.com.
Zippel said he appreciated the collaboration the state has cultivated with the various religious communities to address the pandemic response.
“That’s something we really appreciate here in Utah,” he said. “I know we don’t take it for granted because I know many of my colleagues living in other parts of the country, in larger communities, made their local governments have the hammer on various religious communities in what appears to be completely arbitrary “.
The state’s response to COVID-19 has been largely based on personal responsibility, with a mandatory mask mandate not implemented until several months after the pandemic.
For Zippel, he said he feels that religious leaders must find a balance between setting an example in times of crisis, even though they offer crucial religious and spiritual support.
“We have to go from the front; we have to be closing when we have to close,” he explained, noting that Judaism and several other religions give extreme priority to a person’s health.
On the other hand, he noted that it is important for religious leaders to feel the support of their local government for the service they render to the community.
“I think as religious leaders we like to feel supported, recognized and recognized by our local governments for the essential services we provide to our communities,” he said. “Some people rely on their faith communities to get support, structure, so many good things in their lives, especially when everything is collapsing around them.”
In the end, while Maloy said Utah did a great job balancing religious freedoms while protecting public health, he felt it was important to consolidate those rights through the law.
Protection of the elderly in living facilities
Maloy’s bill would also prohibit facilities for the elderly from limiting the visit of residents to family members or religious leaders, which was a common practice in the early moments of the pandemic in an effort to protect the residents of the virus.
“The reason is that they are often very fragile because of their age. And locking them up where they can’t have the emotional support system of their spiritual leaders or their family is something we don’t want to see.” Maloy said. “It’s intended to be preventative to protect those rights, and we’ve seen cases in Utah where seniors (especially seniors) were away from their relatives or spiritual leaders for months, and we just feel like that’s too much of an offense. “.
Jenny Allred, who spent several months without seeing her 95-year-old grandmother, said the bill is extremely important and is something that “absolutely must happen.”
“The health department focused so much on the aspect of maintaining physical safety (which it absolutely needs), however, there is another very important component in this health that goes hand in hand and is mental and emotional health.” , he said. “So I think that will help find a balance between that.”
Because Allred’s grandmother resides in COVID-19 cases in the community, the family’s contact with the 95-year-old decreased and the family was “very worrying because we couldn’t take it into account.”
Eventually, the family was able to get her an Alexa machine to help them communicate, but they were still unable, at times, to contact her. Face-to-face visits were also limited, they were only allowed to go through a glass window. Her grandmother hired COVID-19 at one point and Allred and other family members struggled to contact her for health updates as the facility was overcrowded and understaffed. Fortunately, her grandmother has recovered since then.
“I think when you’re going through these things, you can even see her in person and be able to have that connection, inform her that things will be okay, be able to provide that love and that she may be able to feel it. and seeing it in person, I think he talks a lot, ”Allred said.
Maloy agreed and said that was his whole idea behind the bill: to prevent the elderly from being isolated during a disaster.
“Still, they can take precautions to do everything to make sure everyone stays safe, (but) they can’t just say,‘ No, you can’t get visitors in, ’” Maloy said.
Lauren Bennett