In the mid-1980s, former state Rep. David Hollister used to field messages comparing him to Nazis over his proposal to mandate the wearing of seat belts.
In 2020, some protesters of Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s coronavirus restrictions mockingly chanted “Heil Whitmer.”
That isn’t the only example of history repeating itself. Four decades ago, politicians in Lansing argued whether legally requiring drivers to wear seat belts was a violation of individual liberty and responsibility.
As Whitmer and Michigan Democrats argue that masks save lives, Republican opponents question whether such mandates should come from Lansing or from local governments.
“Let me reiterate this: if 95% of the U.S. population wears a mask in public, we will save more than 45,000 lives,” Whitmer wrote in a July 8 tweet. “Wear a mask. Save lives.”
The governor referenced an Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation study from June 2020 that concluded mask use results in a 50 percent reduction in COVID-19 transmission. The study does not align a percentage of mask wearing to a number of lives saved, but it predicts 169,890 coronavirus deaths in the United States by Oct. 1, based on current behavior.
Hollister, who represented the Lansing area, was similarly drawn to seat belt legislation because studies at the time were indicating that thousands of lives could be saved.
“Secretary of State Dick Austin brought me to his office and told me there were two studies he wanted me to read,” Hollister said. “One study said that mandatory seat belts would save lives, cause fewer injuries and they would be less severe... Eventually, we won, because the numbers were eventually just obviously on our side.”
Related: When and where masks are required in Michigan, now
Seat belts saved an estimated 14,955 lives in 2017 and could have saved an additional 2,549 people if they had been worn, a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration study says.
Democratic legislators are making similar points, and in some cases, are directly connecting the safety benefits of donning masks and wearing seat belts.
“You wear a life jacket when on the water,” wrote Rep. Darrin Cammileri, D-Brownstown., in a July 10 tweet. “You wear a seat belt in the car. You wear goggles and earplugs on the factory floor. You wear a hat and gloves when it’s cold... and you wear a mask at stores, restaurants, indoor places, and outdoor gatherings.”
Others followed suit.
“They do not infringe on your freedom,” said Sen. Mallory McMorrow, D-Royal Oak, in a July 13 tweet. “They give us the freedom to keep businesses open, see our family and friends, ensure schools can open safely in the Fall. Just like seat belts gave us the freedom to travel more with less danger.”
Sen. John Bizon, R-Battle Creek, said he definitely sees the health benefit of wearing masks, but views a statewide mandate as too broad an approach. The former otolaryngologist, or ear, nose and throat doctor, and Air Force flight surgeon, said the rules on mask-wearing should not be “one size fits all” throughout Michigan.
“Mandate is a strong word,” he told MLive. “I would argue that oftentimes, what you see in your local community may be very, very different, depending on where you are. If you’re from the Upper Peninsula and you have to drive miles before you see anyone, much less before you see anyone with the disease, it would seem like the need to wear a mask might be less urgent than if you were coming from a city that’s more populated with infected residents.”
The majority vice chair of the Senate Health Policy and Human Services Committee further proposed that county health departments set the policy, not Whitmer. Regardless of whether it’s government-mandated, Bizon urges individual responsibility to wear masks to prevent transmission in high-risk areas.
“If you wear a mask, you not only protect yourself, but you protect others around you,” he said. “If you are at risk, like we might very well may be in the Capitol, and we’re coming across other people in the hallways, than yes, I support it.”
Mask-wearing is not an inherently political issue, said Sen. Peter Lucido, R-Shelby Township, but there must be exceptions for people with breathing issues that could be exacerbated by masks. Under Whitmer’s latest executive order, businesses can’t assume someone without a face covering is medically exempt from wearing one, though they can accept that explanation if the customer offers it.
Related: Whitmer tightens Michigan mask order, says businesses can’t assume customers are exempt
The medical exemption in particular got a lot of attention from legislators such as Lucido, who argued it could violate the Americans with Disabilities Act. Attorneys interviewed by MLive, however, said businesses are unlikely to run afoul of the ADA if they turn away customers who say they are medically exempt from wearing masks. Lucido credited Whitmer for the exception, but requested further nuance and clarity to her statewide orders.
Related: When and where masks are required in Michigan, now
Arguments about civil liberties and local autonomy echo in the ears of Hollister, who said he had to overcome heavy opposition during the seat belt battles.
“One study from the University of Michigan said 65 percent of people opposed wearing seat belts in 1982,” he said. “Legislators got letters upon letters complaining about the legislation, which paralyzed action. It’s hard to change public opinion, and we had to overcome the civil liberty argument.”
To do that, he had a slide built for legislators to experience a collision at just 5 mph, and he passed around grisly crash photos to demonstrate the damage caused by not wearing seat belts. By July 1985, the law was put into effect.
A COVID-19 simulation isn’t necessary in this case, Hollister said, since most government officials seem to be on the same page on the effectiveness of masks. However, he thinks the difference between the 1980s and now is that President Donald Trump is undermining his own party’s “thinking.”
“The message from the White House really undermines the ability for collaboration on this argument,” he said. “The data is all there. It’s all on the side of the science. This is not a data-driven system, though, it’s an emotionally-driven one.”
Rather than changing the minds of the opposition, Hollister instead thinks the decision will be made in November.
“As long as there’s political division, the legislation for mask-wearing will flounder,” he said. “We probably have to wait until the next election is over, and there’s a rejection of Trump’s chaos.”
Read more from MLive:
When and where masks are required in Michigan, now
GOP lawmaker pushing to override Whitmer veto of tax deferral bills