HOW MUCH POWER IS TOO MUCH? Shapiro Administration’s Proposed Health Regulation Raises Alarming Questions About Government Overreach

Op-Ed by Lazaro L. Castellon raising questions about Pennsylvania’s proposed health regulation #10-242, government authority, parental involvement, privacy and constitutional rights.

This isn't simply about disease control. It's about how much authority we are willing to hand to government over our homes, our children, our privacy and our personal liberties. By Lazaro L. Castellon OP-ED — Opinion by Lazaro L. Castellon Editorial graphic supplied to The Mifflin Report. There is a line between protecting the public and giving government so much authority that citizens begin to wonder who is actually in charge of their own lives. I believe Pennsylvania's proposed Rulemaking #10-242 — Communicable and Noncommunicable Diseases, IRRC #3490 deserves a very serious warning from every parent, homeowner and citizen who believes constitutional rights matter. This is not some internet rumor. It is an actual proposed regulation from the Pennsylvania Department of Health. IRRC lists it as a proposed , not final, regulation, with public comments due September 21, 2026. ( IRRC ) And when you start reading the 502-page proposal, some of the language should make people stop and ask: Where does public-health authority end and government overreach begin? Government entering your home? The proposed regulation says the Department or a local health authority, during an investigation, may enter an “apartment, building, health care facility, school, college or university, or other location” as necessary to conduct contact tracing or partner services. That is precisely the kind of language that should make citizens uncomfortable. Because government authority should never be treated casually when your home and your family are involved. To be clear, the proposal does not say, in those exact words, that the Governor can simply walk into any home and take someone's children. But that doesn't mean citizens should ignore the authority being proposed. When government writes broad powers into regulation, citizens have a responsibility to ask exactly when those powers can be used, against whom, under what circumstances, and what protections stand between a government investigator and your front door. And then there are our children. The proposal specifically creates new requirements concerning contact tracing and partner services in schools. Under proposed §27.60c, schools would have to provide the Department or local health authority with reasonable and timely access to a person for contact tracing or partner services. The Department's own explanation says the requirement would allow access when students are in class, on school premises or attending a school function. The Department further explains that the proposal would allow Department personnel to have access to students “unobstructed” and “in private.” Read that again. In private. When we're talking about someone's child, that should immediately raise questions about parental involvement, consent, privacy and due process. Parents have every right to ask: Why should a government agency have the ability to privately access my child at school for a health investigation, and what exactly are the limits on that authority? Those aren't extremist questions. They're parental questions. They're constitutional questions. They're American questions. And what happens to your personal information? The proposal also expands disease reporting and surveillance requirements. IRRC describes the proposal as expanding the list of reportable diseases, infections and conditions. The Department's proposal contains extensive provisions concerning reporting, investigations, medical records and disease-control measures. ( IRRC ) Government will argue that this information is necessary for public health. Perhaps some of it is. But necessary for public health does not automatically mean unlimited government access. The question should always be: What information is collected? Who gets it? How long is it retained? Who can access it? Under what circumstances can it be shared? And what safeguards exist to protect citizens? Those questions matter because once information is collected by government, the public should demand clear rules governing its use. Remember COVID Pennsylvanians have already lived through what happens when emergency health policy dramatically changes everyday life. Masks. Business restrictions. School restrictions. Gathering restrictions. Isolation. Quarantine. Constant government directives. Whatever someone's political view of those measures, one lesson should be universal: Emergency powers deserve limits. Pennsylvania voters ultimately amended the state Constitution to limit a Governor's disaster-emergency declaration to 21 days without legislative approval. ( Pennsylvania General Assembly ) That amendment reflected a fundamental concern about concentrated executive power. So why would we now be comfortable creating broad administrative authority through regulation that could potentially affect families, schools, medical information and private locations? We shouldn't. The Constitution isn't optional Pennsylvania's Constitution says that people possess inherent and indefeasible rights, including liberty and the protection of property. It also says that political power is inherent in the people. ( Pennsylvania General Assembly ) And Article I, Section 8 provides protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, specifically protecting people in their “persons, houses, papers and possessions.” ( Pennsylvania General Assembly ) Those words mean something. At least they should. Public health is important. But constitutional rights don't become less important because government officials invoke public health. That's exactly when citizens should become more vigilant. And this is where Governor Josh Shapiro comes into the discussion This proposed regulation comes from the Pennsylvania Department of Health under the current state administration. That means Governor Josh Shapiro and his administration should be answering difficult questions about the scope of these proposed powers. Not political slogans. Not talking points. Specific answers. What exactly can health officials do? Can they enter a private residence? Under what circumstances? What constitutes an investigation? When does a health investigation become an intrusion? What protections exist for parents? What protections exist for children? What information can be obtained? Who can access it? What judicial oversight exists? And most importantly: What prevents these powers from being used more broadly by a future administration? Because this isn't ultimately about whether you trust Josh Shapiro. You shouldn't build constitutional protections around trusting politicians. Today's Governor may be someone you support. Tomorrow's Governor may be someone you don't. The power remains. That's the danger of government overreach Government power has a way of expanding when citizens aren't paying attention. A regulation starts with something that sounds reasonable: "We're protecting public health." Then comes: "We're investigating a potential disease." Then: "We need access to the student." Then: "We need information." Then: "We need access to the location." And eventually citizens are left asking: When did government gain the authority to make decisions that belong to families? That is why these regulations must be scrutinized before they become permanent. Not after. This should concern Republicans, Democrats and independents This isn't supposed to be about party. Because government overreach doesn't care whether you are Republican, Democrat or independent. Neither does a government database. Neither does a regulation. Neither does an expanded government authority. The question is whether we want government officials to possess powers that could potentially be used against people who disagree with them. I don't. And neither should anyone who believes the Constitution exists to protect the citizen from government—not the government from the citizen. Don't just take my word for it The proposal is public. Read it. Look at §27.60a, §27.60b and §27.60c. Look at the provisions dealing with investigations, contact tracing, schools and disease-control authority. Then ask yourself: Are there enough safeguards protecting my home, my children, my privacy and my constitutional rights? Because once a government power is placed on the books, getting it back can be much harder than stopping it in the first place. This proposal is not yet final , and public comment remains open through September 21, 2026 . ( IRRC ) That means citizens still have an opportunity to speak. Don't surrender your voice. Don't surrender your constitutional rights. And don't assume government will always know when it has gone too far. Sometimes it is the people who have to draw the line. The Mifflin Report We don't sugarcoat. We ask questions. Read the official IRRC record for Regulation #10-242 / IRRC #3490 Read the complete proposed regulation