STD vaccine mandate passes House subcommittee
By: Sheri Few

A three-member subcommittee of the SC House of Representatives lined up along party lines 2(D):1(R), voting to pass House Bill 3136, March 21st. If passed into law, this bill will require all 11-year-old girls to be vaccinated against a particular sexually transmitted disease (STD) prior to school entry. The STD vaccine mandate legislation now moves forward to the full committee of 18 members who will decide whether to send it to the floor of the House of Representatives for its next round of voting.

During the subcommittee hearing, the bill’s author, Rep. Joan Brady, offered an amendment that will allow parents to “opt out” of their daughter having the vaccine. While this idea seems to make the mandate, less mandatory, the burden will be on parents to educate themselves about any possible risks for their young daughters Testimony during the subcommittee hearing included pros and cons. In favor of the mandate were the State Department of Health and Environmental Control and the SC Medical Association. Testifying against the bill were parents and a practicing physician and House member,Representative Kris Crawford.

The most recent national news concerning the controversy for mandating the vaccine comes from the lead researcher in the development of the vaccine. “Giving it [the STD vaccine] to 11-year-olds is a great big public health experiment,” says Diane M. Harper, who is a scientist, physician, professor and the director of Gynecological Cancer Prevention Research Group at the Norris Cotton Cancer Center at Dartmouth Medical School in New Hampshire. Dr. Harper does not recommend the vaccine before age 18 in her own practice. She says it was not tested in little girls for its effectiveness. She fears that there “is not enough evidence gathered on side effects to know that safety is not an issue”. This internationally recognized pioneer in her field has been studying the STD, human papilloma virus (HPV), and a possible vaccine for 20 years.

Similar legislation is being introduced all over the country as a direct result of the Merck pharmaceutical company lobby to push this billion dollar asset for their company. However, it appears that states have learned about the concerns of health professionals like Dr. Harper and are putting on the brakes for mandating this fast-tracked drug. The Texas legislature is very close to overriding their Governor’s Executive Order, which requires little girls receive the vaccine. A similar bill died in committee in Florida; a bill was withdrawn in Maryland; the bill died in Mississippi; and believe it or not, even liberal California withdrew their vaccine mandate legislation. Virginia and New Mexico have passed legislation that has been sent to their Governors. Neighboring North Carolina has passed legislation that provides funding for distribution of materials on HPV and the HPV vaccine – a far cry from our requisition bill.

In the meantime, federal legislation has been introduced that would prohibit federal funds from being used by states to make the STD vaccine mandatory. This bill (HR 1153) would not prohibit states from enacting mandatory vaccinations, but it would inhibit states' ability to use federal Medicaid or education funds to cover the very expensive three-series immunization. Although there is little chance that Congress will approve this measure, there is talk of it being tagged onto the appropriations bill that could make it difficult for opposition lawmakers to block. If this federal law were passed, it would almost certainly end state vaccine mandates, making it highly unlikely that states could supplant the considerable federal funds.

In my mind, I can’t imagine why any lawmaker would run the risk of the unknown possible adverse effects of a drug that has not been tested for efficacy on the target population – very young, prepubescent South Carolina girls. I wouldn’t want it on my shoulders to have been the sponsor of what the developer of the vaccine herself calls “a great big public health experiment”. Come on South Carolina lawmakers – if liberal California backed off, maybe we should give this a little more time for thoughtful consideration!