[{"_1":2,"_97":-5,"_98":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6272700,"mediaKeyId","3026518-d37f67efa1a6bc6ce266e97b2fcf8b20","parentId",3026518,"title","Senate subcommittee amends S.343 to require warning that Pfizer‑BioNTech COVID‑19 vaccine \"may\" contain DNA fragments","audioSeconds",63,"startMs",70000,"endMs",133000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3026518-d37f67efa1a6bc6ce266e97b2fcf8b20&start=70&end=133","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3026518-d37f67efa1a6bc6ce266e97b2fcf8b20/thumbnail_70000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6272700/South-Carolina/Senate-subcommittee-amends-S343-to-require-warning-that-PfizerBioNTech-COVID19-vaccine-may-contain-DNA-fragments","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6272700-5eb38729a2797ba8a7c468c7e33a8615/orig.mp4?Expires=1771195044&Signature=hIq1G0Qx3Uk8qcETaqj~Ovuqj3I9y75DDQ8ift-AooESv~VgcXdZ5LGjWAgZE87HhJrVnwc0oLZhwK8UOE4OEX54rad~Fm3Izkb69Wtx8Cu5WAl4HGxdPoU8XNih2KHVDYQwftLPR-Vp-0Xee7RV3mJx97-E-u3pGy7WfK8RpL1JP0nRY94IaWKrR1YZWMYvreGfdZnd7vQNUuOEkzW8cKBhmGwFq5TFawvm-nRhUEydPaRvRk6Tp6aiP35pWLOZ5Yqt6qhfTfxCsI~5DVXKbhKXgUBfz5dy-InvP5LRmZmDEsfLGmG2LW11vX-Qh6qeELGugGZQDnlYjNQ3JEqy8g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","South Carolina Legislature","date","2025-04-16T00:00:00Z","article","Senate subcommittee amends S.343 to require warning that Pfizer‑BioNTech COVID‑19 vaccine \"may\" contain DNA fragments

The South Carolina Senate Medical Affairs Subcommittee advanced Senate Bill 343 after adopting an amendment that changes the bill's language from saying the Pfizer‑BioNTech COVID‑19 vaccine \"is contaminated\" to saying it \"may be contaminated,\" and adds a line that the contamination \"may be hazardous to your health.\" The measure would also require verbal notice to vaccine recipients and a signed written acknowledgment.

The change narrowed the bill's original, definitive wording and was adopted by the panel before testimony. Supporters said the amendment preserves the subcommittee's goal of informing patients while softening absolute claims; opponents said even the softened language would mislead patients and undermine public‑health efforts.

Senator Corbin, the bill's sponsor, said the measure is intended to inform constituents: \"because the vaccine is, an indemnified product ... has no liability against it from the drug companies or anyone else, I thought it was prudent of us just to inform our constituents that the contamination was in there.\" Corbin told the committee he had an amendment to change the language to \"may be contaminated\" and to use the term \"novel\" instead of \"new.\" The subcommittee voted to adopt that amendment.

Dr. Elizabeth Mack, a pediatric critical care physician and immediate past president of the South Carolina chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, testified in opposition to S.343. Mack told the panel that describing trace plasmid DNA fragments as \"contaminated\" is \"not medically accurate.\" She said the fragments are a known byproduct of mRNA vaccine manufacturing, are nonfunctional and nonreplicating, and that \"regulatory agencies, including the FDA, have reviewed and approved the manufacturing processes and components that are used here.\" Mack also said mRNA vaccines do not enter the cell nucleus and therefore cannot alter DNA. She warned that the bill's wording could be \"misleading and harmful to public‑health efforts.\"

Committee discussion recorded that the amendment replaced two clauses: it changed the statement that the vaccine \"is contaminated\" to \"may be contaminated\" and replaced the term \"new vaccine\" with \"novel vaccine,\" mirroring definitions used in related legislation. The sponsors also proposed adding language that the contamination \"may be hazardous to your health,\" modeled on other public‑warning phrasing.

The panel heard limited public testimony: the only witness listed to speak on the bill was Dr. Mack. Committee members repeatedly asked about peer review and evidence tying the trace fragments to harm; Mack and members disagreed over the meaning and strength of available studies and testing. Mack emphasized that peer‑reviewed literature supports the vaccines' safety profile and their role in preventing hospitalization and death.

The subcommittee adopted the amendment by voice vote and then moved on to a final committee vote on the bill. The record shows an affirmative vote with at least one recorded no vote by Senator Wright Matthews; the transcript identifies Matthews as voting against the bill while remaining in favor of the amendment.

The measure was advanced out of the subcommittee with the adopted amendment; the transcript does not record the final roll‑call tally for every member or the bill's subsequent status in the full Senate.

The committee schedule lists related items (a House bill and a regulatory package) later in the meeting.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Senate Medical Affairs Committee April 16, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The South Carolina Senate Medical Affairs Subcommittee advanced Senate Bill 343 after adopting an amendment that changes the bill's language from saying the Pfizer‑BioNTech COVID‑19 vaccine \"is contaminated\" to saying it \"may be contaminated,\" and adds a line that the contamination \"may be hazardous to your health.\"","taxTitle","Medical Affairs, Standing, Senate, Committees, Legislative, South Carolina","taxId",17644,"location","South Carolina","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6272691,"Committee approves Reg. 5325: administrative rename and code updates for environmental agency",125,3411000,3536000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3026518-d37f67efa1a6bc6ce266e97b2fcf8b20&start=3411&end=3536","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3026518-d37f67efa1a6bc6ce266e97b2fcf8b20/thumbnail_3411000.jpg","/articles/6272691/South-Carolina/Committee-approves-Reg-5325-administrative-rename-and-code-updates-for-environmental-agency","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6272691-210e01919e99652f97b21c2259171acc/orig.mp4?Expires=1771195044&Signature=XXkTEM7TOvae-nbe9eP3RD18D3oLvYClSMq1mAW6ylROo0sTU38PxT6wg-lsYd3jgu7acjoILbLNjHzQl5yoztffftaH0mduwBxGKcP3TZ2EK-TzfcJOw9k48yhKmFpViDOaExWFbJ4cEjWn0MRGigFS1~J~MrWUZfwy3KAP9xQGxfhQeOsHPv571qfHbN1piMR4r2pncR5cIg8nFiENtzrwk1VSuDOWJcf9JFc08SqggyDtR04MCvzsEytOakbr~Uqg7BKoaGICT8IGp0rtzoU1ODANB8JFFR-SNwsQlDvV9hUjOETzAd5Nb2KcuFELAqDcOZclnx0W2YtrNqY~Lg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Committee approves Reg. 5325: administrative rename and code updates for environmental agency

The South Carolina Senate Medical Affairs Subcommittee voted to approve Reg. 5325, a regulatory cleanup stemming from Act 60 that updates agency names and chapter citations. The document replaces references to the former Department of Health and Environmental Control with the Department of Environmental Services and adjusts cross‑references (including an appeals citation moved from Title 44 to Title 48). Committee testimony described the package as administrative and non‑substantive.

Keith Frost, assistant chief for the Bureau of Air Quality, told the panel the regulation is a housekeeping measure to conform administrative code to the agency's new status as a cabinet agency under Act 60. Frost said the changes affect air‑pollution materials, hazardous air emissions provisions, new source performance standards, title V operating permits and asbestos project citations but do not change substantive requirements for regulated entities.

Committee members asked whether any substantive changes to asbestos procedures or compliance were included; Frost and staff said the changes are limited to name and citation updates and do not alter substantive obligations. The subcommittee approved the regulation by voice vote; the transcript records the vote as unanimous.

Reg. 5325 was forwarded from the subcommittee as a technical implementation of Act 60.","The subcommittee approved Reg. 5325, a technical/regulatory package implementing Act 60 that replaces references to the \"Department of Health and Environmental Control\" with the \"Department of Environmental Services\" and updates statutory citation numbers (for example shifting an appeals reference from Title 44 to Title 48).",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":80,"_45":80,"_47":92,"_49":83,"_51":93,"_53":94,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":95,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":96,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6272696,"Panel approves H.4067 to require at least one physician on duty at emergency departments, adds freestanding ED clarification",0,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3026518-d37f67efa1a6bc6ce266e97b2fcf8b20&start=3411&end=3411","/articles/6272696/South-Carolina/Panel-approves-H4067-to-require-at-least-one-physician-on-duty-at-emergency-departments-adds-freestanding-ED-clarification","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6272696-3cd1980efefaa0c326ad7914166468f1/orig.mp4?Expires=1771195044&Signature=jUKy-969HBIuJPP4GYLKiIkncVbhTdEGmMZcH~eZq3rWgP2QQBwlFvfw1c8oFlFs-pYDenZai0eQrd-MJLTxqwMjcXOdqOX3lEhrPtJGdLtbERlDv9OH2Q7m8-3s6yIf7fHXc2i2CeTlSMZtpmFfD8Is~rys2y~Ef0B3KidJ2FLfxu6OowdABxhdqthX~ps8wWTEVvYWU1Juz7YVukP19JQTuxs97zxkJMIiolsaQpSK7SDv4rbo6GsFt7HvXA8lCazDtMqHcf00g34RqJXkJ3EdRN1hrET~mWxmNQ~Dz1k~peITiDO9qT7YH7pM7QszGLuwXzho5tM8fH~s2cGnpg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Panel approves H.4067 to require at least one physician on duty at emergency departments, adds freestanding ED clarification

The South Carolina Senate Medical Affairs Subcommittee unanimously approved House Bill 4067 after inserting language to explicitly include freestanding emergency departments. The bill would require every hospital with an emergency department — and every freestanding emergency department, regardless of classification — to have at least one physician physically present during the department's hours of operation as a condition of licensing and relicensing.

Supporters told the committee the change is a safety‑preserving, largely technical clarification intended to lock in current practice and prevent future facilities from operating without on‑site physicians. Witnesses from the South Carolina College of Emergency Physicians and Prisma Health said South Carolina emergency departments already staff on‑site physicians and that the language will protect patients in rural and non‑trauma settings.

Lee Catherine (Catherine) Moore, a board‑certified emergency physician and president of the South Carolina College of Emergency Physicians, testified that while many South Carolinians already have physician coverage at emergency departments, the bill safeguards access: \"Most people think I'm gonna go there and there's gonna be a physician who knows how to take care of me. And this is what this law would do, was just preserve that for every emergency department.\" Moore said the legislation does not apply to urgent care centers.

Lee Turner, a board‑certified emergency physician representing Prisma Health, told the committee free‑standing emergency departments and rural EDs sometimes create confusion for patients and that the bill eliminates a potential loophole by requiring on‑site physician coverage. Turner said workforce data and local residency programs supply physicians who commonly remain in the state.

Committee members asked about classification and the scope of the definition. The sponsor and witnesses told the panel the bill's language captures existing freestanding emergency departments and that urgent‑care clinics remain excluded. Senator Tedder proposed an oral clarification to insert \"and every freestanding emergency department\" after \"every hospital in the state with an emergency department,\" and committee witnesses voiced support; the committee adopted that modification and subsequently approved the bill by voice vote. The transcript records the final vote as affirmative and unanimous, with Senators Brett Matthews, Martin, and Lieber identified among those recorded as voting aye.

Witnesses said the bill is modeled on language used in other states (sponsors referenced Indiana's model language) and that only a small number of states currently have comparable laws. The discussion also noted EMTALA — the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act — which applies to emergency departments and requires a medical screening exam and stabilizing treatment regardless of ability to pay; committee testimony emphasized that urgent cares are not bound by EMTALA and are not included in this bill.

The subcommittee forwarded the amended H.4067 out of committee.","The subcommittee unanimously approved House Bill 4067 after adding an explicit reference to freestanding emergency departments. The bill would require hospitals and freestanding emergency departments operating emergency services to have at least one physician physically present during hours of operation; urgent cares are not covered.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Senate subcommittee amends S.343 to require warning that Pfizer‑BioNTech COVID‑19 vaccine "may" contain DNA fragments

Committee approves Reg. 5325: administrative rename and code updates for environmental agency

Panel approves H.4067 to require at least one physician on duty at emergency departments, adds freestanding ED clarification