See how a 19-year-old schooled an Idaho legislative committee on vaccine mandates
The reconvened session of the Idaho Legislature was abysmal, but there was at least one highlight from the three days of hectic activity, from which almost nothing concrete emerged.
That was the testimony of Taylor Jepson, who spoke to the House Business Committee as it was considering a variety of legislation in reaction to federal vaccine mandates.
At 19, Jepson has worked for four years in the Legislature as a page and in other roles, had a highly successful high school debate career, lobbied for vaping reform legislation backed by the American Heart Association and to lower the voting age to 16, holds an associate degree in health science and is currently pursuing a bachelor’s degree in public health policy.
“I’ve been working with the Legislature for a long time, and it’s always been really frustrating to me the way they make decisions,” Jepson said in an interview. Too often, she said, emotional testimony and the perceived need to react win the day. There isn’t enough careful study of the problem a policy is meant to address, or of the likely effects of the bill proposed to solve it.
As Jepson was watching the House Business Committee at work last week, where people made outlandish claims, including that vaccines were a plot by Bill Gates to reduce the Earth’s population, those frustrations surfaced again. So, she said, she decided to head down to the Capitol and encourage lawmakers to do their homework.
Her objections to the process were not particularly partisan. She simply insisted that lawmakers use a level of rigor that would be expected in a high school debate.
From the moment she started speaking — clearly, quickly and forcefully — control of the room seemed to shift into her hands. Republican lawmakers argued with her, attempted with little success to push back against what she said, and seemed at every turn grasping for some way to again look like they were the ones in charge.
Jepson took particular issue with lawmakers and supporters of the legislation they had proposed relying on data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, or VAERS, which she rightly likened to Wikipedia. The system logs reports of adverse health outcomes that occur around the same time someone received a vaccine with absolutely no vetting, not even to verify that the patient is real — much less that a health event was actually linked to a vaccine.
How had lawmakers gotten this close to making a law without realizing they were standing on feet of clay?
“I’m not saying that we should do nothing,” Jepson told the committee. “I’m not saying we should wait a month or two weeks or even three days. I’m saying that we should wait until we can get the necessary information. I put this together while I was sitting right there. It can be done, and it can be done in a timely manner. I’m asking for it to be done.”
Rep. Greg Ferch, R-Boise, a chiropractor, attempted to throw Jepson a gotcha question, but what came out barely qualifies as a sentence: “Are you aware that just because the (VAERS) disclaimer says that it’s not been verified, that the converse is also true — that it hasn’t been un-verified?” he said, staring down his nose at Jepson.
Rep. Brent Crane, R-Nampa, finally feigned anger and appealed to how difficult the job of a lawmaker is, taking heated phone calls and visits from constituents.
“The emotional and the physical toll that it has taken on these legislators has been significant,” he said, later adding, “It’s very difficult for me to sit here and listen to you tell me how we’re supposed to do this job.”
Crane then asked to move on to the next person, but Chairman Sage Dixon, R-Ponderay, gave Jepson a chance to respond. She kept a level demeanor, replying that it is important to listen to constituents, but it is also important to know the facts of the situation.
“We may take action because we need to take action, without considering that sometimes that action may cause more harm than good,” she said.
Prohibition is an example, she said in the interview. What started as an attempt to curtail alcohol abuse didn’t do anything about alcohol use, but did provide a lucrative funding stream for organized crime.
It’s understandable that Crane finally resorted to pathos. It is embarrassing to be read the riot act by someone not yet able to buy a beer — especially when she’s right.
This story was originally published November 22, 2021 at 4:00 AM.