Guest Column: S.C. Republicans Aligning With Democrats On Workplace Vaccine Mandates

Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

by DENICE HILTY, D.C.

While State House Republicans and Democrats may have different reasons for supporting workplace vaccine mandates, the consequences for South Carolinians are the same. 

South Carolinians deserve the freedom to make their own medical choices — without losing their jobs. Yet, many were forced to choose between getting a liability-free vaccine or losing their livelihood. The question is: Why haven’t our elected officials stepped up to protect workers from these mandates? 

***

MANDATES ARE ABOUT CONTROL, NOT CONSENT 

Mandates come into play when one can’t persuade someone on the merits of a product. If a medical product is truly necessary, safe and effective, people will take it voluntarily — no coercion needed. When the government or employers force compliance, they violate the principles of medical ethics and informed consent. 

Last session, South Carolina failed to pass legislation protecting workers from vaccine mandates. Why? Because some State House Republicans sided with the argument that employers should have the right to enforce mandates—aligning with Democrats who view mandating government recommended products as progress. 

Prioritizing employers over constituents is in direct opposition to the state principles of the SCGOP – which has passed two resolutions, one in 2021 and the other in 2023, calling on lawmakers to protect South Carolinians from vaccine mandates. Montana and Idaho Legislatures have already passed protections.

Will South Carolina continue to lag behind other conservative states? 

***

THE SOLUTION…

This legislative session, South Carolina lawmakers have another chance to do the right thing.  A Senate bill – S. 54 – will ensure that no person will be forced to take a liability-free vaccine or gene therapy by an in-state elected official or employer as a condition of employment. 

This bill doesn’t just protect workers—it upholds civil liberties and protects from government overreach in future emergencies. During COVID-19, it was elected officials and employers who enforced workplace mandates. S. 54 will stop this from happening again by prohibiting vaccine mandates and creating essential checks and balances when emergency powers are activated. 

It’s important to point out that many states remained in a state of emergency for years during COVID due in-part to federal financial incentives—even red states. This prolonged emergency status keeps excessive government powers in place far longer than necessary.

***

WHY LAW ENFORCEMENT NEEDS DISCRETION 

A major concern is that current South Carolina law (§ 44-1-100) requires our law enforcement officers to enforce Department of Public Health directives during a state of emergency. While this authority wasn’t fully exercised during COVID, it could be in the future. For example, imagine law enforcement being directed to apprehend unmasked mothers at their children’s outdoor sporting events. 

S. 54 fixes this by giving law enforcement the discretion to reject irrational or unethical public health orders. This critical change ensures that officers serve the people—not blindly follow potentially harmful directives. 

***

WHAT S. 54 WILL AND WON’T DO 

S. 54 WILL: 

• Prevent state elected officials and employers from mandating liability-free vaccines and  gene therapies. 
• Protect workers’ rights and informed consent. 
• Ensure law enforcement has discretion in enforcing public health orders.

S. 54 WILL NOT: 

• Stop anyone from recommending or voluntarily accepting vaccines and gene therapies.
• Stop anyone from participating in any public health recommendation.
• Override federal or out-of-state employer mandates- a federal law is required to do that. 

***

***

THE BIGGER PICTURE 

Federal laws shield vaccine manufacturers and those enforcing mandates from lawsuits if injuries or deaths occur. These federal laws protect pharmaceutical companies’ profits- not people and ensures government recommended vaccines remain on the market indefinitely.  Worse, mandating liability-free products removes any incentive for companies to create safer alternatives. Why improve safety if there’s no legal consequence for harm? 

South Carolinians aren’t just questioning big pharma and government officials like Dr. Fauci— they want to know why lawmakers are allowing mandates of products so risky that they need to be protected from lawsuits to stay in business. 

***

TAKE ACTION TODAY!

If you never want to be forced into a medical decision for the sake of your job again, contact your State House Senator and Representative. Urge them to vote YES on S. 54 and stand for medical informed consent. 

South Carolina has a choice: protect medical freedom or fall behind other conservative states.  Let’s make sure we’re on the right side of history.

_{^{BANNER VIA: GETTY IMAGES}}

***

ABOUT THE AUTHOR…

Denice Hilty, DC is a Chiropractor, mother and wife who is committed to ending the epidemic of preventable chronic illness.  In 2021, Dr. Hilty achieved her dream of moving with her family to South Carolina. 

***

WANNA SOUND OFF?

Got something you’d like to say in response to one of our articles? Or an issue you’d like to address proactively? We have an open microphone policy! Submit your letter to the editor (or guest column) via email HERE. Got a tip for a story? CLICK HERE. Got a technical question or a glitch to report? CLICK HERE.