COLOMBIA – The South Carolina House on March 23 refused to ban public employers from requiring the vaccination COVID-19, after the Republican leader of the chamber warned his colleagues that they could end up killing their own family members.
During the debate over a $ 10 billion state budget proposal, Republican Congressman Steven Long tried to insert clauses prohibiting schools, colleges, agencies and local governments from drafting any policy that would make the COVID-19 vaccination a condition of employment or services.
“It is one thing to recommend and encourage. It is another thing to demand,” said Republican Inman. We follow a dangerous path when we demand vaccines. ”
He argued that placing the bans in the state’s one-year budget law would give people who are hesitant to get the vaccine time to see how it affects others before deciding whether to get the vaccine.
Among those who agreed were Congressman Bill Taylor, R-Aiken, who said that the decision to get vaccinated or not should be a personal choice.
“Do you believe in personal freedom? How about government control over our lives?” he asked rhetorically, noting that he is a co-sponsor of similar legislation supported by 20 other Republicans.
It was the leader of the caucus who started this idea.
Majority leader in the House, Gary Simrill, R-Rock Hill, countered that the budget is no place to place a ban that could have unintended deadly consequences.
There is no reason for that, however, since such a policy does not exist, he said.
Long argued that he wanted the ban enacted before any policy came up.
That may be a good catchphrase, Simrill said, but there are consequences of going through “pieces of happy sound and fury”.
He asked his colleagues if they really wanted to make it difficult for health agencies, such as veterans’ nursing homes, to protect the most vulnerable in the state, telling people who care for them that they don’t need an injection.
“Nobody is saying that you need to get the vaccine unless you work in an area with vulnerable people with comorbidities,” said Simrill, adding that, while defending freedom, “I love South Carolina and I love its people. “
The person who could end up dying could be his own grandfather, niece or nephew, Simrill said at the end of his second podium call.
He seemed to change his mind. Long’s first proposal was eliminated 66-44. His last one was defeated 81-35.
The votes could be a preview of what happens with separate bills in the House and Senate that prohibit mandates on COVID-19 vaccinations – if they advance to the plenary session of any of the houses.
The supply of COVID-19 vaccines from the state is still far below demand, more than three months after launch began.
But public health officials hope that this will change in the not-too-distant future, when vaccines become widely available and the main obstacle to returning to complete pre-pandemic normality will be people who are hesitant or openly refusing to roll up their sleeves.
About 3.7 million South Carolinians are currently eligible for a COVID-19 vaccine injection, representing the vast majority of adults.
On March 21, almost 1.1 million people in South Carolina started the vaccination process and 54% of them completed it.
Less than 60 percent of employees at South Carolina’s long-term care facilities received an injection of pharmacists who come to their homes through a federal program, according to data from the state’s Department of Health and Environmental Control.
The debate over the hour-long budget ended up not altering any of the expenditures in the advanced plan earlier this month by the Chamber’s Means and Resources Committee.
The House voted 112-6 to approve the $ 10 billion package for the fiscal year beginning July 1.
The proposal places an additional $ 500 million in reserves and sends $ 50 million to a new fund for disaster relief and flood control efforts. Expenditures include salary increases for law enforcement officers at state law enforcement agencies, $ 27 million for the state’s share in the construction of two new veterans nursing homes and $ 30 million to continue efforts to expand high-speed internet. across the state.
Superficial votes on March 24 will officially send the package to the state Senate.
It is more an outline of the state budget than what the Chamber normally approves. Legislative leaders are awaiting updated revenue forecasts from state tax experts and details about unexpected profits from the federal relief law COVID-19 and how it can be spent.
House Speaker Murrell Smith, R-Sumter, has promised that “we will start over” with a totally different proposal later this year, no matter what the Senate budget proposal is.
follow Seanna Adcox on Twitter at @seannaadcox_pc.