SALT LAKE CITY – In March 2020, the world apparently closed as state leaders scrambled to keep Utahns safe from the new coronavirus, which spread quickly and largely mysteriously. As part of the response, religious services were limited and family members were unable to visit loved ones at health centers.
Almost a year later, a state legislator is trying to prevent this from happening again with a bill he says will protect religious and personal freedoms, even in states of emergency.
Deputy 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 health facility from preventing individuals from seeing at least one family member or spiritual counselor at a time.
“It doesn’t mean anything negative about our healthcare facilities or our healthcare professionals; I know that everyone … worked very, very diligently to do the right things, but we strongly feel (about) the right to be able to have these. emotional connections, “said Maloy.
Taking proper health precautions would still be allowed under the current language of the bill and the facility would be allowed to “do everything to ensure that everyone is kept safe,” said Maloy, but they would not be allowed to ban visitors for complete.
“It doesn’t mean that we can’t make recommendations or implement the right things to keep people safe, but just 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 about 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 in the statement.
Although the project was inspired by the state’s COVID-19 response, Maloy said he did not feel that any health worker or other public official acted maliciously and acknowledged that the situation was moving quickly and was difficult to resolve; however, he said he believes it is important to reflect on the answer and see if there are areas where the state could be better in the future.
“I think it is good for us to look at what we learned last year,” he said.
Religious impact
Although Utah has not limited worship since spring, other states have faced adverse reactions due to strict health guidelines applied to worship. The United States Supreme Court recently sided with religious groups in a dispute over the restrictions on COVID-19 in New York, ruling that the guidelines implemented for churches were much more restrictive than regulations enacted for similar secular businesses. Before the decision, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo reviewed the restrictions in response to a lawsuit from religious organizations.
Utah initially restricted the church’s face-to-face services, but later allowed them according to the new guidelines issued in May. Since then, the state has largely avoided enacting orders in Utah’s religious sector.
In November, former governor Gary Herbert issued a new emergency order to deal with the hospital’s overcrowding that prohibited residents from meeting socially with those living outside their homes. Religious organizations were exempted from the order and were instead encouraged to implement appropriate health protocols in their congregations to limit spread.
Fortunately, said Maloy, Utah included its religious organizations in making important decisions about the COVID-19 response and there have been no similar cases to the problems seen in New York and other states; however, he felt that guaranteeing religious freedoms even in the face of emergencies was crucial, which is why he proposed the bill as a preventive measure.
“This is a preventive measure to ensure that this never happens here in Utah,” said Maloy.
Religious groups in the state have largely followed health guidelines to limit the spread of COVID-19 outside government orders. But Maloy said the “difference is that they were not forced by the government” 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 global church suspended the face-to-face service and did not immediately return to services, even after local guidelines allowed it.
Several other religious groups have implemented their own COVID-19 guidelines outside state requirements, as well. Salt Lake Calvary Baptist Church, for example, closed face-to-face services after opening services briefly.
“I just wanted to err on the side of caution,” Reverend Oscar Moses previously told KSL.com of his decision. “I didn’t want to take any chances with someone, maybe even get the virus.”
Chabad Lubavitch of Utah has 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’re taking precautions, we’re trying to be there for people in a way that makes them feel more comfortable,” Rabbi Avremi Zippel told KSL.com.
Zippel said he is grateful for the partnership the state has cultivated with various religious communities in addressing the response to the pandemic.
“This is something we are very grateful for here in Utah,” he said. “I know it is not taken for granted because I know that many of my colleagues who live in other parts of the country, in larger communities, have had their local governments really hammering out 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 masking mandate not implemented until several months after the pandemic.
For Zippel, he said he felt that religious leaders needed to strike a balance between leading by example in times of crisis and still offering crucial religious and spiritual support.
“We need to lead at the front; we need to close when we need to close, ”he explained, noting that Judaism and several other religions place a high priority on a person’s health.
On the other hand, he noted that it is important that religious leaders feel the support of the local government for the service they provide to the community.
“I think that, 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 for support, structure, so many good things in their lives, especially when everything is falling apart around them.”
In the end, while Maloy said Utah did a great job balancing religious freedoms and still protecting public health, he felt it was important to solidify those rights through the law.
Protecting the elderly in homes
Maloy’s bill would also prohibit homes for the elderly from restricting visits by family members or religious leaders to residents, something that was common practice in the beginning of the pandemic, in an effort to keep residents safe from the virus.
“The reason is that they are often very fragile because of their age. And locking them up where they cannot have the emotional support system of their spiritual leaders or their family is just something we don’t want to see.” Maloy said. “The goal is to be preventive to protect these rights, and we’ve seen cases in Utah where the elderly – especially the elderly – stayed away from their family members or spiritual leaders for months on end, and we feel this is too much of a violation.”
Jenny Allred, who spent several months without seeing her 95-year-old grandmother, said the bill is extremely important and is something that “absolutely needs to happen”.
“The health department was focusing so much on the aspect of keeping physically safe – which absolutely needs to happen – however, there is another very important component to this health that goes hand in hand, which is mental and emotional health,” she said . “So I think it will help to find a balance between that.”
As the facility where Allred’s grandmother resides reacted to COVID-19 cases in the community, the family’s contact with the 95-year-old lady decreased and the family became “very worrying because we were unable to speak to her”.
Eventually, the family got her an Alexa machine that helped them communicate, but they were still unable, at times, to contact her. In-person visits were also limited, allowed only through a glass window. Her grandmother contracted COVID-19 at one point and Allred and other family members struggled to contact her for health updates, since the facility was full and understaffed. Fortunately, your grandmother has already recovered.
“I think that when you’re going through these things, even being able to see her in person and have that connection, let her know that things are going to be okay, to be able to provide that love, and for her to be able to feel it and see it in person, I think it speaks a lot, “said Allred.
Maloy agreed and said that this was his idea behind the project: to prevent the elderly from being isolated during a disaster.
“They can still take precautions to do everything to make sure everyone is kept safe, (but) they won’t just be able to say, ‘No, you can’t have visitors coming in,'” said Maloy.
Lauren Bennett