“Anti-Vax Watch:” Tracking Anti-Vaccine Bills in State Houses Across the US
Welcome to the first post in the State Vaccine Policy Project (SVPP)’s new series, “Anti-Vax Watch.” In this series, we will profile bills introduced across state legislatures that we think pose a threat to public health, vaccine uptake, and the spread of infectious disease.
Some of the bills that we will report on throughout this series have only recently been introduced for consideration in state legislatures across the US. Others are making their way through the legislative process. And while some of the bills we profile have been rejected (but, we fear, may return again in future legislative sessions), others have already been introduced into law.
For more information on the total number of anti-vaccine bills introduced, rejected, and passed into law across state legislatures in 2023, please refer to our second report: available here.
Here’s what we’re watching and thinking about, right now:
Tennessee Senate Bill 369 — Stigmatizing mRNA-based Vaccines & Stripping Power from Public Health Experts to Order Livestock Vaccination
Bill Title & Text.
Title: “AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 44; Title 47, Chapter 18 and Title 53, relative to meat.”
Text: https://open.pluralpolicy.com/tn/bills/113/SB369/
Current Status.
Passed Senate; Introduced into the House (no action taken in the House).
What the bill does.
- “Specifies that meat may be labeled as being free of mRNA vaccine if the animals from which the meat was derived were not administered an mRNA vaccine”
- “Removes authorization for the commissioner of agriculture and the state veterinarian to order vaccination of livestock”
- “Specifies that there is no state legal requirement to vaccinate livestock.”
Why We’re Concerned.
In the middle of one of the deadliest outbreaks of avian influenza (H5N1) in recent memory — which has seen unprecedented levels of cross-species spillover, transmission to humans, and (perhaps most concerningly) possible human-to-human transmission — Representative Niceley (R-TN) introduced legislation that would strip credentialed veterinary experts in Tennessee from ordering livestock vaccination. This is alarming, as livestock vaccination could represent a powerful tool in the fight against deadly forms of avian flu and other diseases that pose major public health risks to both animal and human populations.
Additionally, the bill allows food manufacturers to label meat as being unvaccinated with vaccines that use mRNA technology (like the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines used to prevent COVID-19 transmission in humans). Currently, most commonly administered livestock vaccines do not use mRNA technology, and the only approved mRNA vaccine for use in livestock is a swine flu vaccine. However, the safety and efficacy of mRNA-based avian flu vaccines (among others) are currently undergoing scientific evaluation.
Labeling meat products as unvaccinated with mRNA technology risks further stigmatizing public perceptions of mRNA vaccine safety if people come to view meat unvaccinated with mRNA technology as more safe than meat vaccinated using mRNA technology. This is problematic, as public concern about mRNA technology has been shown to motivate vaccine hesitancy. Additionally, mRNA labeling may be misleading, as only pork products (and not other livestock) have the opportunity to receive mRNA based vaccines currently in the first place.
Luckily, although this Bill passed through the Tennessee Senate, it appears to have received no further action in the Tennessee House for the remainder of the 2023 calendar year. But, the SVPP team is worried about the negative public health consequences of legislation like this. If reintroduced in Tennessee, or elsewhere, the bill would not only sow doubt about mRNA vaccine technology, but also take away the power of licensed veterinary experts to help reign in infectious disease threats that not only threaten our food supply, but pose grave public health risks for humans more generally.
Written by: Matt Motta
Texas SB 29 — An “Anti-Mandate” Vaccine Mandate
Title: Relating to prohibited governmental entity implementation or enforcement of a vaccine mandate, mask requirement, or private business or school closure to prevent the spread of COVID-19.
Text: https://open.pluralpolicy.com/tx/bills/88/SB29/
What the bill does.
Restricts governmental entities’ abilities to:
- “implement, order, or otherwise impose a mandate requiring a person to wear a face mask or other face covering to prevent the spread of COVID-19.”
- “implement, order, or otherwise impose a mandate requiring a person to be vaccinated against COVID-19.”
- “implement, order, or otherwise impose a mandate requiring the closure of a private business, public school, open-enrollment charter school, or private school to prevent the spread of COVID-19.”
Current Status.
Signed into law.
Why We’re Concerned.
SB29, which was passed into law in 2023 in Texas, strips government health authorities ability to take action to protect Texans from infection with COVID-19.
It’s important to note that the law is limited in scope to vaccine mandates related to stopping the spread of COVID-19, and carves out exceptions for communal living centers and prisons. Still, the SVPP fears that “anti-mandate mandates” like this one — and similar bills signed into law in other states — not only hamper our ability to respond ongoing public health threats related to the COVID-19 pandemic, but establish a legal precedent for empowering states to override public health authorities in responding to infectious disease outbreaks.
SB29 is also an important reminder that while most anti-vaccine legislation is not ultimately enacted, some bills are passed into law.
Written by: Matt Motta
Indiana SB4 — Public Health Commission
Title: AN ACT to amend the Indiana Code concerning health.
Text: https://open.pluralpolicy.com/in/bills/2023/SB4/
Current Status.
Signed into law.
What the bill does.
1. Require that before administering a vaccine, a local health department must provide education on:
· The immunization data registry, including information concerning exclusion from the registry
· The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System maintained by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the federal Food and Drug Administration
· The Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program
· The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program
2. Makes various other changes to state provisions tied to public health in the state
Why We’re Concerned.
Within a much broader bill about public health, SB 4 — which was passed into law by Indiana in 2023, requires that individuals in the state be educated on how to be excluded from the immunization data registry as well as about programs designed to allow individuals to report and be compensated for vaccine injury. While we believe that education on vaccination broadly is a good thing, the consequences of this new bill could serve to reduce vaccine uptake. Highlighting vaccine injury right before vaccination could serve to sow doubt among some individuals about the safety of vaccines, potentially leading to reduced vaccine uptake.
Simultaneously, highlighting how to exclude yourself from the immunization registry could reduce the quality and accuracy of immunization data collected, with important consequences for vaccination and disease surveillance.
Ultimately, while the SVPP team is supportive of efforts to educate individuals about vaccines, including about what to do in the case of vaccine injury, it must be balanced against providing individuals with information about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines. Without providing this further context, SB 4 could ultimately reduce vaccine uptake and reduce data quality.
Written by: Timothy Callaghan
Idaho S 1130 — The ‘Coronavirus Stop Act’
Title: Relating to Coronavirus; providing legislative intent; amending TITLE 73, Idaho Code, by the addition of a new chapter 5, Title 73, Idaho Code, to provide a short title, to define terms, to prohibit Coronavirus vaccination requirements, and to provide for severability; and declaring an emergency.
Text: https://open.pluralpolicy.com/id/bills/2023/S1130/
Current Status.
Signed into law.
What the bill does.
1. Frame the COVID-19 vaccine as a relatively new medical development, noting that the decision to receive such a vaccine is a personal and individual decision. The legislation notes that individuals should not be treated differently or discriminated against because they have not been vaccinated.
2. Mandates that any business in the state of Idaho cannot refuse to provide any service, product, admission, or transportation to a person because they have not been vaccinated against COVID-19.
3. Mandates that any business entity doing business in Idaho cannot require a COVID-19 vaccine as a term of employment, with limited exceptions.
4. Places limits on the ability of the state, counties, or local governments from requiring COVID-19 vaccination or using COVID-19 vaccination status as a condition for services.
Why We’re Concerned.
S 1130, which was passed into law in 2023 in Idaho, prevents businesses in the state from using COVID-19 vaccination status as a condition of employment or to determine the allocation of goods and services. It also limits the ability of state and local entities from using COVID-19 vaccination status as a condition for services.
While COVID-19 vaccine mandates are a controversial topic, mandates are an effective way to ensure widespread vaccination, helping to reduce the burden of disease from COVID-19. By preventing not just governmental entities, but also private businesses from mandating vaccination, the state is limiting the possibility of mandates being implemented. This decision takes the choice of mandating vaccination out of the hands of private companies as well as political leaders throughout the state, potentially resulting in reduced COVID-19 vaccine uptake.
S 1130 serves as an important example of state efforts to block entities from requiring COVID-19 vaccination.
Written by: Timothy Callaghan
####
SVPP consists of Dr. Matt Motta (mmotta@bu.edu) and Dr. Tim Callaghan (timcal@bu.edu). Please contact Dr. Motta with technical questions about this report. Please reach out to us directly for press inquires.
SVPP is funded by a seed grant from the Boston University School of Public Health. We thank Boston University for their generous support. Coders for SVPP include MPH student Emma Mears, and BUSPH MPH alumnus Ali Rivera. This report is made possible by their hard work and dedication to the project, and for that we are immensely thankful.
