RÉSUMÉ DIGEST
HB 498 2021 Regular Session Edmonston
Proposed law would have prohibited a state or local government official or agency from
distinguishing between individuals based on whether a person has or has not received a
vaccine targeting COVID-19 or SARS-COV2 while an Emergency Use Authorization is
effective for such vaccines. Would have provided examples of discrimination that was
prohibited.
Proposed law would have provided exceptions applicable to providing medical services in
a licensed healthcare facility.
Proposed law would have provided an exception for present law immunization requirements
for students, except for vaccines targeting COVID-19 or SARS-COV2 while an Emergency
Use Authorization was effective for such vaccines.
Proposed law would have allowed any person to commence a suit for the issuance of a writ
of mandamus or injunctive or declaratory relief to require compliance with the provisions of
proposed law, together with reasonable attorney fees and costs.
(Proposed to add R.S. 49:186)
VETO MESSAGE:
"This bill is an attempt to respond to concerns by some legislators and members of the public
around the COVID-19 vaccines. While questions about the safety and efficacy of any
vaccines are understandable, a few bills passed the legislature which undermine the faith of
the public in the COVID-19 vaccines. House Bill 498 is one of them. This is unfortunate
and dangerous. No public official should contribute to the false narrative that the COVID-19
vaccines are anything other than safe and incredibly effective. This is especially true as the
B.1.617.2 "Delta" variant of COVID-19, which is perhaps more transmissible and deadly
than prior variants, threatens to become the predominant strain in the United States.
Current state law already provides for vaccine requirements for elementary and secondary
schools, colleges, universities, proprietary schools, vocational schools, and licensed day care
centers that are based on expert medical advice and schedules put together by the Louisiana
Department of Health. See La. R.S. 17:170 et seq. Current law also provides for exceptions
to those requirements for medical or other personal reasons. This reasonable approach to
vaccine requirements has been in current law without significant controversy for decades.
The same exceptions in current law should apply to any possible COVID-19 vaccine
requirements.
Lastly, the bill attempts to create a back door though which vaccine requirements could be
put in place "if the application for use of such a vaccine has been approved by the secretary
of the United States Food and Drug Administration." This appears to be a way of allowing
vaccine requirements if the vaccine has obtained full approval of the FDA and is no longer
under an Emergency Use Authorization. However, there are significant problems with the
language. First, it is not "the secretary" who grants approval. In fact, the FDA does not even
have a secretary, it has a Commissioner. It is unclear whether the inclusion of this language
was intentional or accidental. Further, when a vaccine is given approval, it is done so by the
FDA, not by the Commissioner’s (or secretary’s) personal approval. Secondly, the language
also describes "a vaccine" being given full approval, as if only a singular vaccine is subject
to these requirements. That is not the case. The bill thus presents several unanswered
questions about what happens if one vaccine receives full authorization while others have
yet to receive it. This does not appear to be contemplated by the bill even though it is almost
certain to occur. This bill is unworkable and would lead to further mistrust of the safety of
the COVID-19 vaccines. It should not become law."