|
 The Obama administration is silently considering an effort to impose new federal quarantine rules similar to the heavily criticized regulations proposed by George W. Bush during his time in office, according to news reports.
Details about the new plan have not been released to the public, but a spokesperson for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said changes to the 2005 proposal had been made “where appropriate.”
The Bush administration wanted to give federal officials the power to mandate a provisional quarantine of up to six days for individuals suspected of harboring diseases listed in a presidential executive order. The proposal also mentioned quarantining “a large group of persons.”
Bush’s plan would have forced travel companies like cruise lines and airlines to retain more information about passengers. That data would then be subject to review by government officials during a government-defined health emergency.
Other portions of the Bush-era proposal that came under fire include a provision that critics say would have forced anyone who was exposed to certain illnesses to obtain a permit from the director of the CDC before traveling across state lines. And though Bush officials claimed the proposed regulations would have created a new method of appealing quarantine decisions, the only mention of reviewing detainment orders was the suggestion that opponents file a petition of habeas corpus in federal court.
“It’s important to public health to move forward with the regulations,” said a spokesperson for the CDC, which estimated the cost of travel industry data retention plans at between $118 million and $425 million. “We need to update our quarantine regulations, and this final rule is an important step.” Federal officials are hoping to have the new regulations in place by September, marking the first major changes in quarantine policy in about 30 years.
Bush’s quarantine plans were blasted by civil liberties groups and other opponents when they were originally proposed almost four years ago, and opposition to the revised Obama plan will likely be fierce as well. “The proposals to limit liberty represent a dangerous precedent to constitutional theory, particularly when there is almost no evidence it will matter,” said Boston University professor of law and public health Wendy Mariner in a report about the proposed regulations at Politico.com. “It wouldn’t surprise me if they try to sneak this past in August, when people are away.”
Another critic quoted in the Politico article, Christopher Calabrese of the American Civil Liberties Union, said: “The enemy here isn’t the American people or sick people. It’s an illness. … Police officers with guns cannot make people obey a quarantine.”
According to the CDC’s Web site, the Public Health Service Act of 1944 “clearly established the federal government’s quarantine authority for the first time.” But in recent decades, federal quarantines have been rare.
Most of the authority to detain people for disease is still retained at the state and local level, homeland security (DHS) secretary Janet Napolitano said at a press conference earlier this year. But according to multiple reports, in recent weeks the U.S. military has been considering providing assistance to the Federal Emergency Management Agency — part of DHS — in the event of an outbreak.
The list of quarantinable diseases included in the presidential executive order dealing with the subject ranges from cholera and tuberculosis to plague, smallpox, SARS and the most recent addition from 2005: flu that is causing or has the potential to cause a pandemic. The federal government currently operates a nationwide network of “quarantine stations” that stretches from Anchorage to Miami.
The potential consequences of the proposed regulations could be wide-spread and devastating, so the lack of media coverage and public discussion on the matter should be viewed with suspicion. Since, ultimately, these rules could affect every American, the people should be consulted before any changes are implemented. The Obama administration should also live up to its promises of transparency made on the campaign trail – especially on a matter as important as this.
Trackback(0)
 |
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Show/Hide comments
