Members of the Senate Government Organization Committee declined to advance a bill saying that if employers have vaccine requirements then evidence of natural immunity or antibodies would suffice.
The bill was supposed to go for consideration by the Senate Health Committee next. But on a 6-8 vote, members of Senate Government Organization stopped it.
Much of the committee’s discussion Monday afternoon focused on whether the bill would actually be workable in real-life situations. Members noted that the bill doesn’t define an appropriate level of antibodies for the range of diseases that might be covered. And it doesn’t define what methods would be used as proof of an effective level of immunity.
“It’s broadly written,” said Senate Health Chairman Mike Maroney, R-Marshall.
Maroney, a radiologist, went through some real life applications.
“What would be a protective level of antibodies for the flu virus?” he asked. “There is none. It changes every year.”
Maroney said he agrees, generally, with the strong protection provided by natural immunity. But he said there are huge holes in the bill.
“It’s like a show I used to watch when I was a kid, ‘Dragnet.’ It’s based on a true story that natural immunity is better than vaccinated immunity, but it doesn’t apply to all situations. If they were all spelled out individually, this bill would make more sense and I could actually get behind it.”
House Bill 4320 isn’t only about covid-19 vaccination, although the echoes of the pandemic were present throughout debate by members of the House of Delegates. The bill would have applied to any workplace vaccination requirement for an infectious disease.
“This says ‘if you have antibodies.’ Is there some reference to a level of antibodies?” asked Senator Chandler Swope, R-Mercer. The answer was no, that the bill did not define particular levels.
Senator Mike Caputo, D-Marion, asked for more information about the means of proof. “Would you have to produce medical records?” The answer was that the bill does not specify.
“Is there a list of communicable diseases? How many are there?” continued Caputo, asking how broad the bill’s application would be.
Senate Government Organization Chairman Mark Maynard, R-Wayne, at one point suggested some of the questions could be resolved in the bill’s next intended stop, the Senate Health Committee.
“Since it’s second referenced to your committee, I might let you work on some type of strike-and-insert (amendment) to define antibody levels, etc.,” Maynard said.
But the bill got no farther.