A federal judge recently blocked D.C. from enforcing a local law that allows minors to get vaccinated without parental consent. The D.C. Council just took another shot at legislation aimed at withstanding legal challenges, passing emergency legislation on Tuesday to allow certain minors to get vaccines recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention without the consent of their parent or legal guardian, including those who are emancipated or unaccompanied homeless youth. The legislation also allows vaccine providers to accept the consent of a minor if they made a reasonable attempt to notify a parent or legal guardian.

The Council passed the bill in a 12 to 1 vote; Ward 8 Councilmember Trayon White was the only lawmaker to vote “no.” (Emergency legislation requires mayoral review but not that of Congress.)The bill allows the following groups to consent to vaccination: “an emancipated minor, a minor who is married or previously has been married, an unaccompanied homeless minor, a minor who is or has been pregnant, or a minor who is separated from their parents or legal guardian for whatever reason and is not supported by their parents or guardian,” according to the draft bill. A vaccine provider could still inoculate a minor not listed among the groups, so long as they attempted to notify their parent or guardian in person, in writing, or by phone, and no one raises objections.

The bill also clarifies that a minor can seek a court order if their parent or legal guardian objects to their desire to get vaccinated.

Councilmembers Trayon White as well as Kenyan McDuffie (Ward 5) and Robert White (At-Large) voted against a bill passed in 2020 that would allow any minor 11 or older get vaccinated without their parent or legal guardian’s knowledge if a doctor determines they are able to consent. They shared the concerns of Black community leaders who thought 11 was too young to make an informed decision. They also cited concerns about those communities generally distrusting the medical system because of the documented history of racism in health care.

McDuffie and Robert White did not explain what changed their vote. But Trayon White said he remained opposed because the new bill wasn’t fundamentally different from the one two years ago, given that providers can still accept a minor’s consent to vaccination if a parent cannot be reached. He also questioned what is a reasonable way or time to reach out to parents.

Ward 7 Councilmember Vince Gray, who introduced the bill, assured his colleagues his office worked with the Council’s Office of the General Counsel and the new bill should not run into issues with federal law. He also stressed passage was necessary because the Office of the Attorney General decided against appealing the preliminary injunction of the 2020 law.

Councilmembers first took up the issue amid a nationwide measles outbreak in 2019. A significant number of schoolchildren in the city had not been vaccinated against measles, leaving communities vulnerable to infection. Outgoing Ward 3 Councilmember Mary Cheh championed the bill, shepherding it through the legislative process amid pushback from both local and national groups like Children’s Health Defense (a group founded by Robert Kennedy, Jr. that peddled misinformation about the COVID-19 vaccines). Cheh’s bill was endorsed by the Medical Society of D.C. and the local chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics. Her bill ultimately prevailed.

The Minor Consent for Vaccinations Amendment Act (MCA) took effect March 2021, shortly before young people became eligible for the COVID-19 vaccines. That summer, two separate lawsuits were filed by parents taking issue with the D.C. law. The judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia sided with the parents. Judge Trevor N. McFadden argued the law impedes the exercise of free religion and inhibits parents’ ability to monitor a child for negative reactions.

A staff member from the Council’s Office of the General Counsel said at the legislative meeting the new bill addresses the federal judge’s concerns, which “were narrow in scope.”