Off the Kuff Rotating Header Image

That was a statewide stay-at-home order

And we’re under it now, even if you don’t want to call it that.

Be like Hank, except inside

Gov. Greg Abbott released a new video Wednesday clarifying that his executive order issued on Tuesday “requires all Texans to stay at home” except for essential activities.

“Now, I know this is a great sacrifice but we must respond to this challenge with strength and with resolve,” Abbott said in the 48-second video.

Abbott’s order goes into effect at midnight on Thursday morning.

With that, Texas now joins 37 other states that have enacted statewide stay-at-home orders. Mississippi, Georgia and Florida were among those to join that list on Wednesday.

On Tuesday, Abbott intentionally avoided using the phrase “stay at home” during a briefing while describing his executive order, leading some to believe he had stopped short of ordering Texans to stay at home.

“In short, what this provides is that Texans are expected to limit personal interactions that could lead to the spread of COVID-19, while also still having the freedom to conduct daily activities such as going to the grocery store, so long as you are following the presidential standard of good distance practices,” Abbott said Tuesday.

Abbott also said on Tuesday he didn’t want to call his order a “stay at home strategy” because he thought that would mean you cannot leave your home under any circumstances.

But on Wednesday he issued a press statement just after 4 p.m. directing the media to the video that makes clear his order requires Texans to stay at home except for essential activities. His executive order makes clear those who don’t follow his decree face up to 180 days in jail and a fine of $1,000.

People are allowed out for basic exercise like running, bicycling or hunting, but must maintain distancing guidelines. The public can also go to grocery stores, pharmacies, hardware stores and the like.

See here for the background and here for the video, which is also embedded in the Chron story. As noted before, this order explicitly exempts churches from the restrictions, to appease sociopathic nihilists like Steven Hotze. Who, by the way, in addition to filing that writ of mandamus with the Supreme Court is also planning to file lawsuits in district courts in Montgomery and Galveston counties to challenge the stay-at-home orders there. Because this is exactly the type of person we need to be appeasing right now. Be that as it may, stay home. If we’re all diligent about this, we can truly hope for a different story in May. The Observer has more.

Related Posts:

9 Comments

  1. SocraticGadfly says:

    That said, Hotze is constitutionally wrong. If a government wants to shutter religious facilities, as long as the cause is compelling, and it’s applied equally, it can do that. Why do wingnuts ignore Romans 13? https://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2020/03/could-government-force-bible-rejecting.html

  2. brad says:

    So much for clear consistent messaging by leadership in a crisis.

    WTF Abbott. Trying to appease the GOP base and not call it a stay at home order in order to not be the “big bad bogey government man” and then having to immediately correct himself.

    Abbott needs to keep his eye on the ball…saving Texans’ lives.

  3. Jason Hochman says:

    It is unfortunate that such orders are necessary. I can’t understand people who think that we can just go back to work with a few precautions, and all will be fine.

    I am going out to work for a little, and working at home, too. Also of course, can’t avoid going to the grocery store, restaurants for take out, pet stores…trying to be cautious, and hopefully doing enough. What is scary though is hearing about people who are sick or suspect they are sick, but not staying at home. Such as Rand Paul who was hanging out with senate friends and swimming in their pool, and the father in New York, who lied about being sick to see his wife after she gave birth.

    If you have the virus and your symptoms are mild, that’s great, but you still need to stay home for a week or two weeks or a month or whatever until you are better How can these people not understand that? Or just inconsiderate?

  4. Jason Hochman says:

    Gadfly, you may be right, but where does the constitution that these rights can be revoked in cases of public safety? What about the right of assembly? Remember, when the constitution was written, medicine consisted of bloodletting. People didn’t expect to live to be 60,70,80, and beyond. So, when the Bill of Rights was written, a pandemic like this would just be another one of the illnesses that made a lot of people sick, and most lived, and some died, that was just the way things went.

  5. Flypusher says:

    You thought Dan Patrick went off the deep end? Apparently some sociopath at the Federalist seems to be willing to write off New York City. Didn’t read it because I won’t give that site clicks, so perhaps at best this could be a Jonathan Swift attempt at satire, but given their reputation for derp, I doubt it. Trouble is, it’s NYC today, but in the next few weeks it’s going to spike in plenty of other places. I think FL can end up even worse, given their inept government.

    While I will still defend the 1A right to say reprehensible things, the people who say things like abandon your fellow Americans need to be blackballed and shunned.

  6. Bill Daniels says:

    Fly,

    Thanks for the tip, the Federalist article was really well written. It compares this crisis to war. We go to war purportedly to protect our way of life, knowing up front there will be casualties. At this point, our government is warring on our own country, by shutting down the economy. We are trying to limit casualties of this war, but we’re curb stomping our liberties and destroying our way of life to do so.

    They also make the very reasonable argument that there’s a big difference between packed cities and rural areas, when speaking about community transmission. Shutting down businesses in rural areas where there have been no infections and social distancing IS possible is a case of the solution is worse than the problem.

  7. Flypusher says:

    You have no way of accurately knowing where infections are and where they are not. That is why this notion of you can shut some places down but not others in the absence of widespread testing is a recipe for big trouble.

  8. brad says:

    Fly,

    What can possibly go wrong with public health science deniers in rural communities who are predominately under insured with more health issues and lacking medical facilities?

    If we don’t test for the virus that will allow these flat earthers to deny there are any problems!

  9. Joel says:

    “Gadfly, you may be right, but where does the constitution that these rights can be revoked in cases of public safety? What about the right of assembly? Remember, when the constitution was written, medicine consisted of bloodletting. People didn’t expect to live to be 60,70,80, and beyond. So, when the Bill of Rights was written, a pandemic like this would just be another one of the illnesses that made a lot of people sick, and most lived, and some died, that was just the way things went.”

    due, ALL rights are subject to balancing, often for reasons of public safety. that’s what the supreme court does. how can you not have noticed? pretending that the founders didn’t expect it to be this way is just imaginary thinking.

    pick one, and there is case law about it. for example, you mention freedom of assembly, so i went and googled this for you:

    ‘No First Amendment rights are absolute, but the right to gather is the only one that includes the most important limit in the actual words of the amendment: “the right of the people peaceably to assemble.” That means law enforcement may break up any gathering that has turned violent or raises a “clear and present danger” of violence or disorder (Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940)).’

    https://www.lawyers.com/legal-info/criminal/the-right-to-gather-has-some-restrictions.html