SUPPORT SB 31: Greater freedom of choice regarding COVID vaccinations

Executive Summary:
Senate Bill 31 would allow for greater freedom of choice regarding the COVID vaccine, particularly in relation to employment. The bill would prevent an employer from requiring one of their employees from getting vaccinated if doing so could be a significant health risk or if it violates the employee’s religious beliefs. The same liberties would be given to prospective employees. The bill would also make it so that employees can not be discriminated against by their employer for their vaccination status through the altering of their compensations or benefits. Civil action could also be brought against an employer for an alleged violation.

Analysis:
Senate Bill 31 respects the liberties of employees, ensuring one’s job security is not affected by a medical or religious determination. Without this bill, many Hoosiers may be forced to choose between obeying their conscience or holding down a stable job. If this is the case, something has gone fundamentally wrong in the way our state provides liberty. Senate Bill 31 would go a long way to maintain medical and religious freedom in our state. People with concerns about the unvaccinated are still free to take whatever COVID precautions they feel are necessary. However, one person’s concern over COVID or support for vaccinations does not give them the right to override the religious convictions of others. Additionally, by extending the same protections to prospective employees as it does to current employees, Senate Bill 31 could encourage some who have been out of a job due to worries over employer’s COVID requirements to reenter the workforce.

Conclusion:
It is a fundamental American and Hoosier value that each individual person is the best judge of what is best for them, particularly concerning their own body and the tenets of their faith. If someone chooses not to get the COVID vaccinations for health or religious reasons, they should not have to fear losing their job. Many government and scientific leaders have of their own accord made the decision that their recommendations hold more value than personal religious convictions. With Senate Bill 31, the Indiana General Assembly gives proper respect to Hoosiers who could face health risks or religious violation from taking the COVID vaccine.

IFI supports SB 31.

  Back

SUPPORT SB 114: Prohibiting vaccination status discrimination

Executive Summary:
Senate Bill 114 would put choices regarding COVID vaccinations back in the hands of individual Hoosiers by cracking down on vaccine discrimination. This bill would make it so that no one can be denied service at any public place like restaurants, concert venues, or transportation based on their vaccination status. It would also ensure that no employees have to fear their job security based on their choice regarding vaccines. Additionally, Senate Bill 114 would prohibit workplaces and universities from providing incentives to be vaccinated, in turn discriminating against those who are not vaccinated.

Analysis:
Senate Bill 114 would make it so that in Indiana, vaccination is truly an individual decision. Each person should be able to evaluate their own age, risk factors, religious beliefs, and opinions on the merits of a medical treatment when deciding whether or not to obtain it. Requirements that one receives a vaccine against their will are not consistent with American freedoms.

Some believe that businesses should have the right to treat employees and customers differently due to vaccination status and that universities can do the same regarding students. Many entities have done just that, telling employees, customers, and students that they want nothing to do with them unless they acquiesce and receive the COVID vaccine. Such mandates force individuals to choose between keeping their livelihood or maintaining their medical freedom, a choice that citizens of a free nation or state should never have to make. Senate Bill 114 would return health decisions to the individual, taking it out of the hands of government and business.

Conclusion:
American liberty rests on the idea that each individual knows what is best for them and that one size does not fit all. It is in line with this that some people have chosen to get vaccinated while others have not. People in both categories must not be treated differently by the government, businesses, employers, or universities. Hoosiers rely on these entities, and access to them must not be determined based on what should be an individual health decision. Senate Bill 114 will end the unnecessary uniformity that so many government officials and other actors have tried to force onto Indiana and will ensure that personal choices stay personal.

IFI supports SB 114.

  Back

SUPPORT SB 17: Restricting Material Harmful to Minors

Executive Summary:
Senate Bill 17 would help protect minors from exposure to harmful material such as sexually inappropriate content while at school or public libraries. In Indiana law, there is currently a special list of entities which have special protection against prosecution for allegations that they exposed minors to harmful material of some sort. Schools and public libraries are currently on that list. Senate Bill 17 takes schools and certain public libraries off of the list with special protections against claims of exposing minors to harmful material. Additionally, colleges and universities are added to the list.

Analysis:
Removing schools and public libraries from the list of entities with a special defense is a wise step to keep children safe. The original intent of having them on this list was likely to promote the broadest amount of expression possible, making sure children weren’t being held back from necessary material. In our current day, however, many schools around the country and in Indiana have exploited their responsibility to teach children by exposing them to material which by any decent standard is wholly unsuited for minors. In a July 2021 meeting of the Carmel Clay School Board, one parent read aloud titles of several books available to minors which feature themes of rape, drug use, graphic sexual acts, as well as promoting masturbation and transgenderism for toddlers. The contents of these books are often so explicit that they can’t be summarized in the news, but yet they are available to minors.¹

Conclusion:
It is reasonable to remove universities from the list of entities with a special defense from allegations of exposing minors to harmful material. Universities are overly focused on sensitivity and need to be encouraged to teach more subjects, even ones that may be “offensive.” Public libraries and schools, however, must get their act together in how they behave towards children. It is extremely psychologically damaging when young children are exposed to pornographic content or taught radical ideologies at such early ages. Sadly, this is happening all too often thanks to the internet, but schools must not be allowed to be part of the problem. It is the duty of educators to protect students, serving as secondary partners to parents in teaching children how to grow up in a healthy and wise manner. Senate Bill 17 would do just that.

IFI supports SB 17.

---

Source 1: https://www.westernjournal.com/graphic-content-warning-crowd-gasps-fed-parents-read-schools-pornographic-books-loud-board-meeting/

  Back