This you? Weren’t you the AG in Pennsylvania when Gov. Wolf shut our state down and killed thousands of elderly Pennsylvanians? I believe it was @JoshShapiroPA who enforced the depopulation attempt in our state for Herr Wolf? You killed our families and enriched yourselves. @GarrityForPA @richeyforpa

So what is this Gov @JoshShapiroPA ? You blocked Pennsylvania kids from getting scholarships just to stick it to Trump?!? What about our children?! What a HORRIBLE Governor!!! What is it with you and kids? We are SO upgrading to Stacy and Jason!!! @GarrityForPA @richeyforpa

What is this? MORE FRAUD tied to socialist PA Gov. @JoshShapiroPA He will steal, cheat, lie, pander, and coverup the felonious sex crimes of his staff (with OUR tax dollars!!). Pennsylvania NEEDS Stacy Garrity and Jason Richey in Harrisburg NOW to stop the theft and abuse of our tax money. We are all voting for @GarrityForPA 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸@richeyforpa 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸

A beautiful young PA school teacher, Ellen Greenburg was brutally murdered and @JoshShapiroPA was the State AG who called it a SUICIDE, and got the killer off scott free! Who paid you Josh and how much?! 😡 Her family demands answers. Shapiro is CORRUPT! We need ethics back into Harrisburg. @GarrityForPA @richeyforpa

So, @JoshShapiroPA Why are some of your biggest donors George Soros and Reid Hoffman? Soros has been kicked out of multiple countries because of his evil agendas, the other one was a frequent flyer on Epstein’s island. Interesting who his top donors are - and they also heavily invested in TalaFREAKO’s campaign in Texas which tells you exactly who they are and what their agenda is.. Pennsylvania deserves better than this Socialist and his communist donors. They hate America! Do you? If not, then vote for Stacey Garrity and Jason Ritchie. Save Pennsylvania from the socialist monsters. @GarrityForPA @richeyforpa

Why does crazy mad Josh Shapiro want to violate Pennsylvania citizens 4th Amendment rights? And why is he always after our children?! He tried, and we fought back! We are voting for @GarrityForPA @richeyforpa Want the deets? Read below. Critics (especially Republican lawmakers) said this would let state and local health agencies “enter any home, school, apartment, healthcare facility or other building without a warrant.” Related provisions were also flagged for allowing private conversations with students without clear parental knowledge or consent, expanding investigative triggers beyond traditional “cases or outbreaks,” and broadening disease-control measures to include “prevention, containment or mitigation.” The Department of Health stated that the proposal “does not create new legal authority” to enter private residences and only “clarifies the authority that already exists in statute.” Current regulations prohibit interference with credentialed officials seeking entry for certain investigations; the rewrite shifted toward more affirmative “may enter” language and expanded scope. Administration spokespeople also noted that Shapiro did not personally draft or propose the updates. Outcome The public comment period ended around September 21, 2026. It drew an unusually high volume of comments (reports ranged from roughly 4,000–6,000 to over 10,000, the large majority opposed). On or about September 25–26, 2026, Secretary Bogen withdrew the proposal, saying the Department would revise it based on feedback and resubmit a new version later. It never took effect. Is it a Fourth Amendment violation? The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures of persons, houses, papers, and effects. Warrantless physical entry into a home is presumptively unreasonable. Exceptions exist for consent, true exigent circumstances (e.g., imminent danger), and certain carefully limited administrative searches that usually require judicial process or equivalent safeguards. • Broad regulatory language authorizing entry into private dwellings based primarily on officials showing credentials and deeming it “necessary,” without explicit requirements for consent, a warrant, individualized probable cause, or documented exigency, raises serious Fourth Amendment (and Pennsylvania Constitution Article I, § 8) concerns. Pennsylvania courts have been relatively protective of homes in administrative inspection contexts. • Public-health agencies have longstanding police powers for disease investigation and control, and existing statutes/regulations already address some investigative access (with anti-obstruction rules). The Constitution still limits how those powers may be exercised; a regulation cannot authorize an unconstitutional search. • Whether any particular entry under such a rule would violate the Fourth Amendment would depend on the specific facts (true emergency vs. routine investigation, consent, etc.). Critics argued the proposed wording was overbroad, created the appearance of unrestricted authority, and invited constitutional challenges. Supporters said it merely restated existing authority and that any real-world action would still have to comply with constitutional limits. In short, the language was widely viewed as constitutionally problematic (or at least inviting successful challenges), which is a major reason it drew such intense opposition and was withdrawn. A revised version could be proposed in the future. Key contemporaneous coverage includes reports from Just The News/The Center Square, HighWire, and other outlets covering the IRRC process and the September 2026 withdrawal. The full proposed text was available via the IRRC (e.g., the 3490PRO.pdf filing).