The House of Delegates passed a bill saying that if employers have vaccine requirements then evidence of natural immunity or antibodies would suffice.
The bill passed on a 68-28 vote after lengthy debate and now goes to the state Senate.
House Bill 4320 isn’t only about covid-19 vaccination, although the echoes of the pandemic were present throughout debate by delegates. The bill could apply to any workplace vaccination requirement for an infectious disease.
This is one of several bills passed by the House of Delegates the past few days that would loosen precautions dealing with infectious disease, particularly covid-19.
“This does not stop vaccinations,” said Delegate Kathie Hess Crouse, R-Putnam, the lead sponsor of the bill who held up what she described as more than 100 studies showing natural immunity is as good as vaccination. “It does allow them to use their natural immunity if they do not choose to vaccinate for that.”
Delegate Joe Ellington, R-Mercer, a gynecologist, talked about the immunity benefits both of antibodies gained through a recent bout with infectious disease as well as the protections provided by vaccination. He noted that if the effects begin to wear off, that still could result in vulnerability to infection.
“In both cases, you can still get the infection and spread it to anyone,” said Ellington, speaking in favor of the bill. “What this bill says is, if you have protective antibody levels then you don’t have to get the vaccination.”
Delegate Heather Tully, a nurse, said it’s beneficial that the bill is not specific to covid. She cited required checks among healthcare facilities of immunity, for example for chicken pox. “This does not deal specifically with covid, so I would urge passage,” said Tully, R-Nicholas.
Delegate Jim Barach, D-Kanawha, questioned whether consequences had been fully considered.
“I’m afraid this opens the door that if we get another serious pandemic going on or if covid-19 comes back again with another mutation and it decides to sweep the country and we start giving people these passes by saying you’ve got the antibodies, I think we’ve got some real problems.”
Barach asked what scientific studies went into producing the bill.
Delegate Dean Jeffries, R-Kanawha, the vice chairman of the House Health Committee, cited a Jan. 19 study by the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention exploring the effects of natural immunity.
That study concluded “vaccination remains the safest strategy for averting future SARS-CoV-2 infections, hospitalizations, long-term sequelae, and death.”
Delegate Evan Hansen, D-Monongalia, read that conclusion aloud on the House floor. “That’s the study.”
House Judiciary Chairman Moore Capito, R-Kanawha, asked a series of questions about how the bill would work legally. For example, he asked, “Who determines what is a protective level of antibodies?”
Jeffries, the vice chairman of the health committee, said the bill does not address that.
Capito then asked what would settle a dispute between a worker believing they’ve reached a protective level and an employer who disagrees. There is no clear answer.
Delegate Shawn Fluharty, D-Ohio, questioned the purpose of passing the bill and others like it. “Day after day after day we pass nonsensical legislation related to the medical field without any actual input from medical professionals, and that’s what we’re doing again,” he said.
House Minority Leader Doug Skaff, D-Kanawha, said characterized the bill as a mandate on businesses.
“I’m a little confused on what this body is trying to accomplish here. Are we for telling employers what to do, or are we not?” he said. “This is a mandate, telling the employer to allow antibodies.”