A sweeping proposal from Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro’s administration to update disease control regulations has drawn sharp criticism from state Republicans, who argue it could allow health officials to enter private homes without a warrant and expand executive authority beyond what voters intended.
Explainer The Attorney General’s Role in Upholding Justice and Election Integrity
The core dispute centers on whether the 502-page regulation, filed with the Independent Regulatory Review Commission (IRRC) in June, would override limits on the governor’s emergency powers that were approved by voters in a statewide referendum in 2021. That referendum limited disaster declarations to 21 days and shifted the power to extend such declarations from the governor to the Legislature.
The proposal comes at a time when Pennsylvania is experiencing its worst measles outbreak in decades, though the filing itself predates the recent surge in cases. The state’s last major update to its disease control regulations was 25 years ago, and health officials say the new rules are needed to address modern public health challenges.
Republican Concerns Over Authority
Republican lawmakers have voiced strong opposition to the proposed regulations. State Rep. Kathy Rapp, the ranking Republican on the House Health Committee, said more than 4,000 public comments—most of them in opposition—were submitted on the proposal. Rapp argued that the regulations would give “broad, unchecked authority to unelected bureaucrats” and could undermine the will of voters who supported limits on executive power.
Rep. Russ Diamond, a frequent critic of pandemic-era health mandates, warned that if the regulation is enacted, it will prompt constitutional lawsuits. He said the proposal is reminiscent of the COVID-19 response and undermines the 2021 referendum that limited disaster declarations and gave the Legislature more oversight.
"If this regulation goes into effect, I guarantee you there will be constitutional lawsuits. With these regulations, it is like COVID 2.0."
— Russ Diamond, Republican state representative
Senate Republicans, in a written statement, claimed the proposed rules would permit state and local health agencies to "enter any home, school, apartment, healthcare facility or other building without a warrant" and allow the Department of Health to "speak to a student in private without the consent or knowledge of a parent." They argue that such powers would represent a significant expansion of government authority and could infringe on individual rights.
Democratic Response and Regulatory Process
Democratic lawmakers have pushed back against Republican criticism, arguing that the regulations are necessary to keep up with new diseases and advances in medical science. Democratic Rep. Arvind Venkat, who is also a physician, rejected Republican claims as “extreme conclusions.” Venkat said, “They are very important to update,” emphasizing the need for modernized rules to address current public health threats.
Democratic Rep. Dan Frankel, chair of the House Health Committee, praised the Department of Health’s work to prevent the spread of disease. He supported expanding the vaccine tracking system and clarifying language about interactions with students in schools. Frankel suggested that the proposal should be adjusted to distinguish between younger and older students, noting, “A first-grader is not the same as a high school senior.”
The IRRC’s executive director, David Sumner, described the filing as “one of the most significant rulemakings to come through our door in the last few years.” The commission will review the proposal for reasonableness, clarity, and compliance costs. This regulatory review process could take up to two years, during which the commission will consider public comments and the potential impact of the new rules.
What the Proposal Would Change
The regulation, signed by Health Secretary Debra Bogen, seeks to expand the list of reportable diseases, address evolving standards and expert guidance, and "ensure the overall public health and safety by reducing the spread of diseases, infections and conditions." The proposal aims to modernize how the state tracks and responds to infectious diseases, reflecting changes in medical knowledge and public health practices since the last major update.
Among the changes, the regulation would update which diseases must be reported to state health authorities, potentially allowing for faster responses to outbreaks. It would also clarify procedures for disease investigations and interactions with schools, including when health officials can speak with students.
The public comment period for the proposal closed Monday. The IRRC, which was created by statute 44 years ago, will now evaluate the proposal. There is no immediate timeline for a final decision, and the process is expected to involve further review and possible revisions. Previous high-profile regulations, such as those related to the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, have drawn even larger volumes of public comment, highlighting the significance and controversy of major regulatory changes in the state.
Supporters of the proposal argue that modernizing disease control rules is necessary for an effective public health response, especially in light of recent outbreaks. Critics, however, warn of potential government overreach and constitutional challenges, setting the stage for a lengthy debate over how best to balance public health needs with individual rights and legislative oversight.
