SC Senate panel rejects governor's pick to lead public health department over COVID-19 concerns
Dr. Edward Simmer, interim director of the Department of Public Health, answers questions from senators during his confirmation hearing on Thursday, April 3, 2025. (Screenshot of SCETV legislative livestream)
COLUMBIA — A Senate committee on Thursday rejected the governor's pick to lead the state's public health agency over criticisms of the state's response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
After running the Department of Health and Environmental Control for three years, Dr. Edward Simmer was Gov. Henry McMaster's nominee to run the newly created Department of Public Health.
The second day of Simmer's confirmation hearing brought a bigger, louder crowd that several times prompted Chairman Danny Verdin to call for decorum, as he both reminded a freshman senator of Senate rules and warned the audience he would clear the room.
The opposition centered around the state's rollout of the COVID-19 vaccine. Vaccinations were in beginning stages when Simmer took over the department in February 2021.
The 17-member Senate Medical Affairs Committee voted 5-12 against recommending that the Senate confirm Simmer. But that doesn't automatically reject Simmer's nomination. It's essentially on pause indefinitely. The full Senate could decide to take up his confirmation and vote, despite the committee's disapproval, which is what McMaster is encouraging.
Simmer will remain interim director of the department for the time being.
'I remain resolute in my support of Dr. Ed Simmer and am hopeful that the full Senate will see through the falsehoods and mistruths being spread about his service to our state and nation,' McMaster said in a statement posted to X soon after the vote.
Odds appear to be against Simmer if the full Senate, which has a Republican supermajority, decides to take a vote on his confirmation. Only one of the committee's 13 Republicans voted in favor of his confirmation Thursday.
'Outrageously false': Nominated SC health director defends COVID response over opponents' claims
'There's just no way I can sugar coat it,' said Senate Finance Chairman Harvey Peeler, R-Gaffney, before voting against advancing Simmer's nomination. 'I'm not telling you something you don't already know. Your confirmation is facing an uphill battle.'
Unless a nominee has a glaring issue in their background, senators traditionally give the governor deference in confirming Cabinet nominees, said Sen. Tom Davis, the only Republican to join the panel's four Democrats in a favorable vote.
'At the end of the day, do you truly think that the governor is in clear error?' the Beaufort Republican said to his fellow senators. 'Do you think that he truly has put forward somebody who is unfit? Who is not qualified? Who doesn't have the competency?'
This is not the first time the Senate has rejected one of McMaster's nominees to a Cabinet position. In 2020, the full Senate voted 41-2 to reject McMaster's nominee to run the Department on Aging over accusations that he made derogatory comments to women and minorities, which he denied.
The year before, another Senate committee gave an unfavorable report for McMaster's pick to lead the board of state-run utility Santee Cooper, citing a lack of experience working for utilities.
Other Cabinet nominees over the years have withdrawn from consideration, knowing they either wouldn't legally be able to take the role or didn't have the votes. Among them were McMaster's 2020 nominees to lead state departments overseeing veterans' affairs and public safety, as well as former Gov. Nikki Haley's choice to run DHEC in 2015.
Simmer sailed through the confirmation process in 2021, when senators voted 40-1 to confirm him. When he took the agency's helm, it had been without a permanent director for eight months.
In his opening statement two weeks ago, and again in answers Thursday, he said his detractors were spreading lies about him and pointed to his accomplishments aside from the COVID-19 pandemic.
'There have been a lot of falsehoods said about me,' Simmer said Thursday. 'I think, in the end, the results speak clearly.'
Senators didn't ask about his background, and they asked little about other problems the state health department addresses, except to compliment the agency's work. Instead, senators Thursday took aim primarily at the state's COVID-19 vaccine rollout.
'To be clear, what's being scrutinized is not your ability to lead the Department of Public Health during ordinary times but during extraordinary times, should another pandemic arise,' said Sen. Richard Cash, R-Piedmont.
Trying to encourage more people to get vaccinated, DHEC deployed mobile vaccination units, set up vaccine booths at events across the state and offered perks such as free beer to people willing to get the jab.
In each case, people getting vaccinated were advised of the possible rare side effects of receiving the COVID-19 vaccine, Simmer said. He never required people to get vaccinated, nor did he support businesses mandating employees and visitors be vaccinated, he said.
What Simmer did was encourage people to get the vaccine if they chose, based on the information he had about it at the time, he said.
'No one forced anyone to get a vaccine,' he said. 'I've never mandated anyone to get a vaccine.'
What Simmer described as encouragement, Verdin said he and other senators saw as a different sort of mandate, which they opposed.
Some senators repeated debunked claims that the COVID-19 vaccine contains harmful strands of DNA and questioned whether it was wise to offer the shot to children, despite its federal approval for that purpose.
Those concerns demonstrate a larger issue, Verdin said.
Following the pandemic, public trust in the state's health care system — and, by extension, Simmer — frayed. Senators are looking for a nominee who can rebuild that confidence among the state's residents, Verdin said.
'We need to enjoy a greater level of trust than we enjoy now, and that's where I'm going to be putting all my energy and efforts,' the Laurens Republican said.
At issue was not whether Simmer was qualified, Verdin said.
Simmer spent three decades in the Navy, including overseeing Tricare Health Plan, the military's massive health system for care outside military hospitals. As the head of DHEC, outside of pandemic response, he was very capable and accessible to legislators, Verdin said.
As a naval doctor, Simmer worked in psychiatry, which prompted Peeler to ask whether he might be interested in working instead at the Department of Mental Health, though Peeler didn't clarify what role he had in mind.
Simmer said he'd leave that decision up to the governor and his wife.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
38 minutes ago
Nevada GOP governor vetoes voter ID bill that he pushed for in a deal with Democrats
LAS VEGAS -- Nevada Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo unexpectedly vetoed a bill on Thursday that would have required voters in the swing state to show a photo ID at the polls — a conservative priority across the country and something that has long been on the governor's legislative wish list. The move brings a dramatic end to one of the legislative session's most surprising outcomes: A bipartisan deal that combined the requirement for voter identification with a Democratic-backed measure to add more drop boxes for mail ballots that Lombardo had initially vetoed. The bill came together in the final days of the session and passed mere minutes before the Democratic-controlled Legislature adjourned just after midnight on June 3. Lombardo had been expected to sign it. In his veto message, Lombardo said he 'wholeheartedly' supports voter ID laws but that he felt the bill fell short on addressing his concerns about ballots cast by mail, because such ballots could still be accepted 'solely on the basis of a signature match" under the bill. Because it 'would apply voter ID requirements unequally between in-person and mail ballot voters and fails to sufficiently guarantee ballot security, I cannot support it,' he said. The voter ID requirements in the bill mirrored a ballot initiative known as Question 7 that Nevada voters overwhelmingly approved last November. But voters would have to pass it again in 2026 to amend the state constitution. The requirement would then be in place by 2028. Assembly Speaker Steve Yeager, the Democrat who brokered the deal with Lombardo, said when he introduced the legislation that voters seemed poised to give the final approval, and that enacting a voter ID law would have given the state a head start on ensuring a smooth rollout before the next presidential election. In a scathing statement, Yeager called the governor's decision a 'breach of trust," saying that he believes Lombardo gave in to pressure around him to veto the bill, designated Assembly Bill 499. 'Lombardo was for AB499 before he was against it, encouraging all legislative Republicans to support it, which they did,' Yeager said. Voting rights groups condemned the legislation, saying it would have made it harder for some people to vote, including low-income or unhoused voters, people with disabilities and older voters. Let Nevadans Vote, which describes itself as a nonpartisan coalition, said Thursday in a statement that the governor's veto only temporarily stops what it called 'the misguided and ill-conceived implementation of voter ID in Nevada.' 'Come 2026, Question 7 will still be on the ballot," the group said while describing voter ID requirements as 'strict regimes' that 'decide who gets to exercise their constitutional right to vote and who cannot.' Polls have shown that most Americans support voter ID laws, and that has been consistent over the years and across party lines. A 2024 Gallup poll found 84% of Americans were in favor of requirements for a photo ID at voting places, consistent with Gallup findings from 2022 and 2016. That includes about two-thirds of Democrats, according to the 2024 survey. Voters are either required or requested to show ID when voting in person in 36 states, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Not all states require photo ID, though. Some accept documents such as a bank statement, and some allow voters without ID to vote after signing an affidavit. A few states allow poll workers to vouch for voters without an ID. Lombardo on Thursday also vetoed a bill that would have allowed the swing state's nonpartisan voters to cast ballots in Republican or Democratic primary races. The bill sought to include the more than 855,000 voters registered as nonpartisans — the state's largest voting bloc — in the process of nominating major-party candidates for congressional races and statewide offices. A ballot initiative to open up primaries for all registered voters was rejected by voters last November. The sweeping measure, which also attempted to implement ranked choice voting, faced intense opposition from party leaders on both sides who said it was too broad and confusing.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
‘Shut Up!': House Hearing Erupts Into Chaos After Dem Calls Out ICE Barbie
A congressional hearing quickly devolved into a shouting match between two Republicans and a Democrat who sought a subpoena for Kristi Noem over the forcible removal of Senator Alex Padilla from a Thursday press conference. During a Thursday hearing of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, Rep. Maxwell Frost (D-FL) implored his fellow lawmakers to subpoena Noem over the incident, which saw her security team manhandle and handcuff the Democratic senator after he loudly questioned the Homeland Security Secretary about ICE raids that have led to nationwide protests. Rep. James Comer (R-KY), the committee chairman, quickly waved off Frost's concerns over the incident. 'Mr. Chair, also, we were just talking about this. I want to know if you can commit to working with us so we can subpoena,' Frost began to say, before Comer cut him off. 'You're out of order,' Comer replied. The two congressmen briefly spoke over each other until Comer recognized MAGA firebrand Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), who entered the tense scene guns blazing. 'Oh, Democrats can't follow the rules, can't follow the law,' she said twice. 'We need to subpoena Kristi Noem,' Frost repeated. 'It's her staff, DHS federal officers, that threw a U.S. senator to the ground.' Greene continued to talk over the young Democrat: 'There's a privilege of the majority, and that means we're in charge. Not your side because you lost the election because you supported the invasion of our country.' Frost, Greene, and Comer all refused to back down until the chairman grew exasperated with the back-and-forth. 'Shut up. Just shut up,' Comer told Frost, who had repeatedly asked him to commit to subpoenaing Noem. 'No, you're not gonna tell me to shut up,' Frost hit back. 'He's been out of order six times,' Comer said of Frost. 'He is trying to get on MSNBC. You probably knocked somebody off MSNBC to get on there.' The chairman then handed the floor over to Greene, who lobbed a bizarre accusation at Frost without providing evidence. 'I think because he's been arrested as a former Antifa member, right?' she said of Padilla, referring to the far-left movement. 'He's a former Antifa member… Not surprised.' Frost appeared to be in disbelief as he asked for Greene's remarks to be taken off the record. The dramatic interaction ended when Greene turned her attention to New York Governor Kathy Hochul to ask questions. Several Democrats have rallied around Padilla following his wild takedown. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called for an immediate probe into the 'un-American' incident: 'To look at this video and see what happened reeks—reeks—of totalitarianism," he said. 'This is not what democracies do.' House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries echoed Schumer in a post, stating that those behind 'the brazen and aggressive manhandling of Senator Padilla' must be 'held accountable.' Noem called Padilla's interruption 'inappropriate,' while Homeland Security official Tricia McLaughlin slammed the senator for choosing 'disrespectful political theater.' Noem and Padilla spoke for 15 minutes after the incident, McLaughlin said.
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Lean budget threatens to spark public college turf war
Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up At this May's meeting, after a presentation about an upcoming advertising campaign for state financial aid programs, Pedraja expressed concern that helping low-income students attend four-year schools would take money away from free community college. Advertisement 'We are very concerned that shouting from the treetops that our public four-year institutions are free for certain students based on income will further deplete very limited financial aid for the whole system,' Pedraja said. Advertisement Pedraja said that financial aid money is expected to be tight next year, and free community college is codified in statute, while the MASSGrant Plus expansion is not. 'Not to take away from the importance of marketing toward these students and making education available for all, which I do believe, we ought to be cautious about over-promising to students who are most in need of support,' Pedraja said. In a follow-up interview, Pedraja doubled down on his concern that the state is 'over-promising' by advertising free four-year college for low-income students. He again emphasized the distinction between free community college, which is codified in law, and other financial aid, which comes from a pot of money that can run out. Practically, however, this is a distinction without a difference — at least legally, if not politically. Pedraja is correct that free community college is codified in the Department of Higher Education spokesperson Nicole Giambusso confirmed that free community college and the MASSGrant Plus expansion are both subject to annual appropriations. The House and Senate budget proposals for fiscal 2026 both include money for all these programs, although the Senate's funding level is somewhat higher. State Senator Jo Comerford, Senate chair of the Joint Committee on Higher Education, said lawmakers see these programs as coming from different pockets of money. 'One does not cannibalize each other,' Comerford told me. Advertisement When free community college was established, expanding aid for all low-income students was seen as key to ensuring that students who are qualified to attend a four-year university won't be channeled into community college just because it's free. After all, according to There are potential funding sources — like money collected from the surtax on income over $1 million — that could be tapped to keep both programs running. 'I don't think it should be either/or,' Bridgewater State University President Frederick Clark told me. 'I don't think the segments should be working at cross purposes. We should be leaning in to make sure funding is adequate for financial aid for all students.' It is true that in a tight budget year, lawmakers have to make choices. Policy makers should be honest in crafting their budget around what can realistically be funded. In our interview, Pedraja said he 'would love for everybody to have more access to higher education.' But the troubling implication of his statement is that if there is a Sophie's choice to be made, Massachusetts should prioritize aid for community college students, regardless of income, over low-income students at four-year schools. If the state wants to help the most students achieve their academic potential, that is the wrong approach. Instead, the guiding principle should be helping each student attend the college that's right for them. Advertisement As these financial aid programs continue, state policy makers should collect data to determine their impact. Which aid programs are boosting college enrollment and also college completion rates and postgraduation employment? Are other ways of improving college success working, like If hard choices have to be made about funding, they should be based on which programs most help students succeed. Shira Schoenberg can be reached at
