Senate Approves Bill Holding Vaccine Makers Accountable
House Bill 3441, authored by State Rep. Shelly Luther (R–Sherman), allows manufacturers to be held liable if they advertise their vaccines in Texas and it causes an injury.
'HB 3441 was an unexpected and unprecedented success for medical liberty champion Shelley Luther, and represents a huge step toward holding vaccine manufacturers accountable for their products,' Michelle Evans, political director for Texans for Vaccine Choice, told Texas Scorecard.
'We are excited to see this signed into law to protect Texans from products deemed 'unavoidably unsafe.''
According to the legislation's text, vaccine manufacturers can be held liable for actual damages and court costs up to three years after the date of the injury.
The measure does not include doctor-patient discussions, written materials provided by a healthcare provider, or promotional materials found in a provider's office regarding a vaccine.
State Sen. Bob Hall (R–Edgewood), the Senate sponsor of the bill, stated in his opening remarks on the floor that the measure does not concern whether or not someone should be vaccinated. Instead, it simply gives individuals peace of mind by providing accountability that any other company would have.
'Currently, due to the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, vaccine manufacturers hold no liability [for] a vaccine or countermeasure harm or interest in Texas,' stated Hall. 'This is the only product that I know of that cannot be held responsible for any injury to a consumer.'
'Imagine what our society would look like if any other manufacturer had this same protection.'
The proposal has cleared both the Senate and the House. Now, Gov. Greg Abbott must either sign it, veto it, or allow it to take effect with no further action from him.
The bill is set to take effect on September 1, 2025.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
4 minutes ago
- New York Post
Trump's DC takeover is just Step 1 — dysfunctional capital needs a bigger fix
Last week President Donald Trump declared war on crime in Washington, DC, when he sent in the National Guard and federalized the district's police force for the 30-day period allowable under the DC Home Rule Act. Trump's motives were good: He's right that it's shameful our national capital has become one of our most dangerous cities. He's also right that DC's crime epidemic hurts America's competitiveness and prestige. But the president's month-long law enforcement takeover won't fix that problem — because the problem is not, at its core, bad law enforcement. It's the fact that DC's government has for decades now shown itself incapable of even the most basic level of public administration. Blame it, too, on Congress, which transferred control over the district to the city's own elected government in the Home Rule Act of 1973 — but has refused to admit its mistake and reverse course. Both the Senate and the House of Representatives remain aloof from the problems they created, even as federal staffers, visitors and on occasion their own members are routinely harassed and attacked by criminals on the streets and in their homes. But the US Constitution stipulates that DC is a national public resource, not a self-governing city like any other. Under the Constitution, it is Congress's responsibility to competently administrate it — and Congress has abdicated that responsibility. When the 30-day takeover period is up (assuming Congress does not renew his privileges), Trump will turn the keys back over to a capital city government that can't staff a police force, can't keep young violent offenders off the streets and can't run a functioning crime lab. District officials can't claim to have reduced crime without cooking the books, and can't protect visiting diplomats from being shot And they're not just failing at law enforcement: DC can't keep its public schools out of the basement of national performance rankings, and can't prevent huge homeless encampments from forming while thousands of district-owned public housing units go unoccupied. The only possible solution to such a crisis of mismanagement is to overturn the law that gave home rule to DC and start over from scratch. And if President Trump is serious about tackling the district's dysfunction, he should do just that. First, the president should build up some goodwill by ending his police federalization and troop occupation, preferably earlier than planned. No need to make excuses; he can simply explain that he's come to realize DC's dysfunction runs far deeper than anything a few extra officers on the streets can solve. Then he and Republican leadership should begin meeting with members of Congress on both sides of the aisle to generate support for Home Rule repeal. While Trump seems to think the entire district is dead set against him, this is incorrect: Many residents, while no fans of the president, are fed up with not being able to safely walk their dogs at night. Longtime Democratic members of Congress have personally experienced the city's dangers for many years, and they all know the ordeal of their colleague Angie Craig (D-Minn.), who was assaulted in her apartment building's elevator just two years ago. If Trump were to approach this issue firmly but collaboratively, he would find the water warmer than he thinks. Legally, the argument is not a hard sell. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution says that Congress shall have 'exclusive legislation in all Cases whatsoever' over the federal district. Congress has given a 50-year trial to the notion of delegating its power to the people of DC, and that trial has unequivocally failed to produce a district that serves the interests of the federal government, the American people, or the residents themselves. Therefore, we should return to rule by Congress, as the Constitution mandates. Doing so would require a simple act of Congress, passed by both parties, that overturns the 1973 law and dismisses DC's elected representatives. A third section of the new law should establish a congressional committee to appoint exemplary city managers from cities around United States to reconstitute a competent DC government. In many American cities, like Madison, Wis., Phoenix, Ariz., and Wichita, Kan., elected officials appoint professional administrators to oversee day-to-day municipal operations. Washington, DC, should do the same — with Congress taking ultimate responsibility. Some on the left will bemoan the reversal of Home Rule as yet another federal assault on our democracy. But the District of Columbia was never intended by the Founders to be a self-governing state. It was intended to serve the interests of the country as a whole, by providing a safe and orderly place for public administration. Returning DC's governing prerogative to the people of America, not the district itself, will take us one step closer to being the republic the Founders envisioned. John Masko is a journalist specializing in business and international politics.
The Hill
4 minutes ago
- The Hill
Texas House advances GOP-friendly map after weeks of Dem resistance
The Texas state House passed a new set of GOP-friendly congressional lines in a key preliminary vote on Wednesday, putting the party one step closer toward adopting a new map that sparked a redistricting arms race across the country. The lower chamber approved the new maps on party lines, 88-52, in the first of two key votes. The final passage of the map in the House is expected to take place later on Wednesday. Its likely passage marks a key victory for Republicans, who were called into a second special session by Gov. Greg Abbott (R) after efforts to pass their House map stalled during their first 30-day session when Democrats fled the state in protest. The state Senate will next need to pass the map before it heads to Abbott's desk for his signature. Republicans faced pressure from the White House earlier this year to do mid-decade redistricting as the party braces for a challenging political environment next year. The president's party traditionally faces headwinds during midterm cycles. President Trump on Tuesday urged Texas Republicans to move swiftly and pass the new congressional lines. Redistricting, which was not initially included on Abbott's call for a special session, was later added. Republicans sought to quickly pass a new map during their first special session, but Democrats fled the state to block the GOP from having a quorum — or the minimum number of lawmakers needed in order to do business. Texas Democrats rallied in California, New York, Illinois and Massachusetts, drawing national attention over the issue and drawing criticism from Republicans who argued Democrats were being hypocritical about gerrymandering given several of those states also have gerrymandered maps. The redistricting battle prompted California to move forward with introducing their own set of gerrymandered congressional lines in an effort to neutralize expected gains out of Texas with their anticipated new map. A number of red and blue states could also see new House maps, too, including Florida, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri and New York. 2024 Election Coverage Earlier this week, Democrats returned to Texas during the second special session, where the passage of a new House map was all but inevitable. Democratic-aligned and civil rights groups are already getting ready to challenge Texas' maps, while Republicans are seeking to stop California from passing a new House map through a ballot initiative in November. Republicans currently hold 25 House seats in the Lone Star State, while Democrats hold 12, with one seat vacant after the late Rep. Sylvester Turner (D-Texas) died in March. The new map would give the GOP the opportunity to increase their congressional delegation to 30.
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
State board's $10 million fine against Senate President Don Harmon for fundraising is ‘ridiculous,' lawyer says
Calling nearly $10 million in penalties that state election officials issued against Illinois Senate President Don Harmon for exceeding campaign contribution limits 'ridiculous and unconstitutional,' an attorney for the Oak Park Democrat argued Wednesday the longtime legislator did not violate the political fundraising law he helped write. Harmon, who is seeking to have the matter dismissed, did not appear before an Illinois State Board of Elections hearing officer considering his appeal of the penalties the board issued in June. The penalties stemmed from board staff's earlier determination that his Friends of Don Harmon for State Senate campaign fund last year accepted more than $4 million above the contribution limits that he championed years ago as an effort to rein in big money in political campaigns. The board reviewed the issue after a Chicago Tribune inquiry about the fundraising activities of Harmon's state Senate campaign committee. Harmon's attorney, longtime Democratic Party lawyer Michael Kasper, argued the elections board misinterpreted the law that allows candidates to collect unlimited contributions if anyone seeking the same office — themselves or an opponent — exceeds a so-called self-funding threshold. Taking advantage of the frequently used loophole in a law purportedly designed to help candidates compete with wealthy opponents, Harmon, who co-sponsored the law when it passed years ago, contributed $100,001 to his own campaign in January 2023. It was precisely $1 over the contribution limit threshold that allowed him or anyone else running for his Senate seat to accept unlimited funds for that race. In campaign paperwork, Harmon indicated he thought the move allowed him to collect unlimited cash through the November 2024 election cycle. But board officials informed him that the loophole would only be open through the March 2024 primary, meaning campaign cash he received from some contributors between the March primary and the end of the year exceeded the limits. During Wednesday's hearing and in a 14-page appeal filed last month, Kasper argued that the law allows the contribution limits to be lifted through the March 2026 primary, which is the next time Harmon's west suburban Senate seat will appear on the ballot. 'That is the election for which the self-funding candidate is a candidate,' Kasper said. Under the board staff's interpretation, he said, Harmon would have been able to raise unlimited funds prior to the March 2024 primary only to have the contribution limits put back in place afterward, putting anyone who chose to run against Harmon after the primary at a competitive disadvantage. 'The legislature enacted this statute to provide an opportunity to compete against self-funders,' Kasper said. 'The board's interpretation of this does the opposite. It lets the rich get richer and defeats the very purpose of equalization because it allows a self-funder to front-load his coffers and then effectively shut off the spigot at precisely the time where the spigot needs to be open the most for everybody else.' Under the board's interpretation, the law also would treat candidates for the Illinois House and Senate unequally because House members need to run for office every two years and Senate candidates have one, 2-year term and two, 4-year terms each decade, Kasper said. In a filing Friday, the board rejected Harmon's argument that the contribution limits should have remained off through the March 2026 primary, contending the 'plain language' of state election law makes it clear the contribution limits go back into effect at the start of each new 'election cycle' — the day after a primary or the start of a new calendar year after a general election. When the winner of a primary has exceeded the self-funding threshold, however, the limits remain off until after the subsequent general election. Harmon's 'claim that after self-funding, the candidate can accept an unlimited amount of funds from an individual until a year in which he runs for office ignores the crucial role of election cycles in governing both contribution limits and self-funding,' Marni Malowitz, the board's general counsel, wrote. 'Senator Harmon demonstrated he already knew this by self-funding in advance of the 2020 general primary election and, once limits were reestablished, self-funding again to remove contribution limits for the remainder of the year, even though he did not run for office in 2020. The difference between 2020 and 2024 is that Senator Harmon did not self-fund after the general primary as he did in 2020.' The hearing officer, Northbrook attorney Barbara Goodman, asked Kasper whether that history was relevant to this case. It is not, Kasper said, adding: 'If the rules require you to wear a belt, there's no prohibition against wearing belt and suspenders. But if you're just wearing a belt, you're not breaking the rule. It doesn't change the rule.' The board did not present an argument during the hearing, which lasted less than an hour. The next step is for Goodman to issue a recommendation, though she didn't provide a timeline for reviewing the case. The board's general counsel will review that recommendation before the board takes final action, possibly at its September meeting. The $9.8 million in penalties proposed by the board includes a payment to the state's general fund equal to the more than $4 million election officials say Harmon raised in excess of the contribution limits, plus a nearly $5.8 million fine calculated based on 150% of that same amount. Solve the daily Crossword
