South Carolina – From California to New York, vaccine mandates during the COVID pandemic were an ordinary thing for years. But South Carolina lawmakers want to make sure that proper law in place would prohibit similar outcomes in the future.
A bill meant to restrict vaccine mandates in South Carolina has advanced in the Senate in a significant legislative development. This measure aims to forbid employers, educational institutions, non-profit organizations, and state agencies from requiring specific vaccinations during future pandemics.
The progress comes from a session where senators resolved to allow pharmacists—with some restrictions—to refuse to fill most prescriptions.
Senator Shane Martin proposed the bill
Read also: Flags at half-staff in South Carolina, Gov. McMaster orders
Suggested by Senator Shane Martin, the measure is a reaction to the COVID-19 vaccination requirements set in place for 2020 and 2021. Republican Martin shared his belief on personal decision about vaccination.
“If they come out with some new shot and you want to stick it in your body, I’m not going to tell you you can’t,” the Republican said. “But the government is not going to tell you you have to.”
Violators risk jail time
Under the proposed law, violators of these restrictions may be subject to harsh fines ranging from $5,000 to $5,000 or imprisonment for up to five years for repeated violations. This builds on a law expired at the end of 2023 that forbade public employers in South Carolina from requiring COVID immunizations.
The measure has been designed specifically to target “novel vaccines,” those not yet approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This clause was introduced in response to concerns expressed by pediatricians about the original wording potentially deterring schools from mandating standard childhood vaccines. Specifically, the bill does not apply to yearly adjusted immunizations such as the flu shot.
While Senator Martin and supporters view the mandates as unprecedented and invasive, opposition exists within the Senate. Democrat Senator Ronnie Sabb argued that given the daily increasing death tolls, the mandates during the COVID-19 pandemic were justified in saving lives.
Changes for pharmacists
Another important feature of the measure also prohibits pharmacists from refusing to fill a prescription for an off-label use of an FDA-approved drug to treat a debilitating or life-threatening disease while a statewide public health emergency is in place. Or, if a pharmacist objects, they can send the prescription to another pharmacist who is willing to fill it, as long as they tell the patient’s doctor.
This clause covers prior disputes including the use of ivermectin during the COVID-19 epidemic, which was recommended experimentally despite FDA warnings against its efficacy and its risks.
The South Carolina Pharmacy Association’s CEO, Brian Clark, pointed out the conundrum pharmacists driven by finding a balance between professional judgment and patient needs must deal with.
“We’re not being given the respect of other health care professionals,” Clark said. “We’re the last line of defense before that prescription is handed to that patient.”
A balance between public health authority and personal freedom
The development of the bill shows a larger discussion on the balance between public health authority and personal freedom. The Senate’s changes seek to narrow the bill’s reach and raise its likelihood of becoming law.
Emphasizing the importance of patient access to recommended therapies, Senator Richard Cash underlined the requirement of clarification in situations whereby a doctor recommends a drug but a pharmacy refuses to fill it.
It is still a topic of intense discussion as the measure passes to the full Senate Medical Affairs Committee for further review. Already expressing doubt on the need of the proposal, Governor Henry McMaster cited current rules prohibiting forced vaccinations without consent. His government cautions that too wide limitations could make it more difficult for the state to react properly to public health crises.
Read also: City of Florence seeks public input to design next-generation parks and activities, you can join too
With potential future pandemics, this legislative attempt indicates a continuous struggle to find the right balance between maintaining public health and preserving freedoms for individuals. Right now, the debate is far from resolved since both supporters and detractors stick to their beliefs.
