‘Fear’ drives debate on vaccine proposal
A bill barring state and local governments from mandating COVID-19 vaccines is heading to the Tennessee Senate after passing the House on Wednesday. And the debate leading up to the 72-20 vote reflected vaccine attitudes — including misconceptions — that are held across the state.
Though Gov. Bill Lee has said he has no intention of pursuing a statewide COVID-19 vaccine requirement, the extent to which state agencies, local governments and private companies can and might mandate immunizations — be it to control the coronavirus or other vaccine-preventable diseases — has become a key point of contention among Tennessee lawmakers this session.
Rep. Susan Lynn, R-Mount Juliet, praised the bill, saying the potential for governmentmandated COVID-19 vaccine requirements is a “huge concern” for her constituents, as well as her own family.
States’ authority to mandate vaccines to protect public health is well-established by long-standing Supreme Court precedent. All states require vaccines for school children and in some cases college students or health care workers.
Both federal and Tennessee law allow exemptions based on medical conditions or religious objections. However, no state currently mandates vaccinations, including for COVID-19, in the general adult population.
It is also unclear whether a COVID-19 vaccine can be mandated as long as the vaccines
are operating under an emergency authorization from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration — as opposed to being fully FDA approved — since no one has tested this issue in court, according to a policy brief from the non-partisan Kaiser Family Foundation. But 72 House members don’t want to take any chances.
“The fear that lots of folks in my district and [Lynn’s] district, as well, has is that when it does become approved it will become a forced issue,” House Bill 13’s sponsor, Bud Hulsey, R-Kingsport, told members on Wednesday.
Surgeon and Rep. Sabi “Doc” Kumar, R-Springfield, spoke highly of the COVID-19 vaccines and corrected a misconception on the part of several other members that the vaccines were “experimental,” when referring to the emergency authorization.
“Safety and effectiveness of these vaccinations have been proven. To me, it’s God’s gift to science, and I think we should honor that and realize that it is not experimental treatment. Let’s not call it that,” Kumar said.
“Think about the future. We were confronted with this pandemic that was most unexpected,” he said. “The paranoid part of me wonders, ‘Was this chapter one in a subsequent biological warfare against our country by a hostile outside power?’
“Let us maintain the supremacy of our Constitution, but let us not create an atmosphere or part that is antivaccine, because if we are confronted with such a calamity, as a nation, we should be together,” Kumar said.
Others, such as Rep. Bruce Griffey, R-Paris, called the bill “great,” and said his only complaint was that it didn’t go further by also preventing employers from requiring COVID-19 vaccines. He received applause for his remarks.
Rep. Johnny Shaw, D-Bolivar, spoke against the bill, calling it “dangerous.” Shaw said he personally knows people who didn’t think they needed the vaccine only to become infected with the coronavirus and spread it to vulnerable family members.
“There are people who are walking around living today who had this virus that have caused other people to die, and I just think that we need to be very careful,” Shaw said.
Rep. Antonio Parkinson, D-Memphis, diverted from party lines and voted in favor of the bill, saying he believed that everyone should have the freedom to decide for themselves what happens to their own bodies.
“There are many Black folks across this country who are deathly afraid of this vaccination and being forced to take this vaccination,” Parkinson said. “We know the history in the United States when it comes to health care and the treatment of Black folks has been disparate and experimental.”
However, he said the General Assembly shouldn’t support individual freedom only when it’s “convenient,” referring to other bills that would give government power to dictate aspects of a person’s health care.
“You can’t have it both ways. I’m supporting the bill, because this is my body, but we need to keep that same energy when it comes to women’s bodies and when it comes to other things,” Parkinson said.
Government-owned hospitals and medical schools — such as those that teach medical, pharmacy and dental students — would still be allowed to require COVID-19 vaccines should the bill become law.
Those exceptions were added after the Tennessee Hospital Association and University of Tennessee objected to the original bill, saying barring COVID-19 vaccine requirements among those groups could prevent students pursuing health care professions from completing clinical training at health care facilities that may require the vaccines.
However, other schools and universities in Tennessee could not mandate students to take a COVID-19 vaccine against their will.