Upon reading the recent Tribune article titled, “Utah lawmakers join rally for plastic surgeon accused of destroying $28K in COVID-19 vaccine,” I am confused as to Utah House Speaker Mike Schultz’s actual position regarding the conduct of the plastic surgeon, Dr. Moore.
According to the article, Speaker Schultz “thanked the demonstrators for gathering in support of Moore.” This statement appears to express agreement with the defendant. However, the article goes on to quote Speaker Schultz as stating that he does not support Dr. Moore’s actions “one way or the other.” I admit I am confused about the House Speaker’s actual opinion about this situation.
Is not one’s presence at a public rally — especially one organized in support of an individual accused of criminal conduct — reasonably interpreted as implicit endorsement? The inconsistency between Speaker Schultz’s statements and his actions makes it difficult to discern whether he is attempting to maintain political neutrality or obfuscate his views altogether.
More fundamentally, this situation presents a troubling dilemma: Does the speaker condone the apparent violation of law under the guise of individual liberty? Or, is he using the occasion to exploit a politically charged event for personal or partisan visibility?
Russell Mouritsen, Holladay
Donate to the newsroom now. The Salt Lake Tribune, Inc. is a 501(c)(3) public charity and contributions are tax deductible