SC PIE - Feature Article

"DHEC was going to mandate it anyway," was the rhetoric maintained by the bill sponsor. She went on to insist that because of the prospective DHEC mandate, House Bill 3136 was needed in order for parents to maintain the right to opt their children out of the vaccine that will protect against certain strains of the sexually transmitted infection: HPV. While Rep. Brady continued to repeat the scenario that inevitably DHEC would mandate the vaccine, DHEC Commissioner, Earl Hunter was in the lobby. Rep. Dwight Lofits asked Rep. Brady if she knew the Commissioner had just told him in the lobby that the vaccine mandate was contingent upon ongoing studies required by the FDA for the age group mandated in her legislation (11 year old girls). He also said that this review could take up to 4-5 years, and nothing was definite about mandating at this time.

The irony of the whole issue, in my opinion, is that Rep. Brady, while struggling to keep her bill alive, attempted to convince opponents that her whole intent was to assure parents had the right to decide about the vaccine. We have to ask ourselves, if Rep. Brady was so concerned about the parental right to opt their children out of this vaccine, why did she propose the mandate to start with?

Representative Shirley Hinson made an interesting observation during her testimony opposing the legislation, when she suggested that DHEC has the authority and responsibility for this type of requirement and it shouldn’t be decided by the legislature. She suggested that DHEC knew the controversial nature of the mandate and was attempting to “pass the burden on to this body [the legislature]”.

The leading spokesperson for the problems with House Bill 3136 was Rep. (Dr.) Kris Crawford. He spoke of recent reports in peer reviewed medical journals that pointed out many concerns about the risks of the vaccine, which in his opinion outweighed the potential benefits. Dr. Crawford was the key to the successful defeat of House Bill 3136. He is the only medical doctor among House members and his opinion and knowledge was widely accepted. In fact, his opponents didn’t stand a chance against his expert position.

Freshman House member, Rep. Phillip Shoopman, aided in the debate opposing the STD mandate for 11-year-old girls and is noted as the lead advocate against the legislation in its early stages when everyone seemed to be for it. He is to be commended for his courageous position and steadfastness.
In the end, we won the debate, but the children and parents of South Carolina are the ones who won the opportunity to continue to evaluate this drug as a preventive measure and to decide what is in the best interest of their family without the heavy hand of government breathing down their neck.

Ultimately, it is a moral issue, although many did not want this to be part of the debate. We remain confident that there are consequences to decisions for immoral behavior and sexually transmitted diseases are one of the many consequences that individuals choose when they choose promiscuity. While one sexual encounter could lead to cervical cancer, the odds of this are very, very unlikely. The greatest risk factor for any sexually transmitted disease is multiple sexual partners. Teaching young adults the risks involved with their sexual behavior and recommending STD testing and regular pap smears for sexually active adults, who are not in a monogamous relationship, remains the best prevention for sexually transmitted diseases.