Human papillomavirus vaccine; eliminates requirement of vaccination for female children. (HB1112)

Introduced By

Del. Kathy Byron (R-Lynchburg) with support from 7 copatrons, whose average partisan position is:

Those copatrons are Del. Mark Cole (R-Fredericksburg), Del. Anne Crockett-Stark (R-Wytheville), Del. Gordon Helsel (R-Poquoson), Del. Keith Hodges (R-Urbanna), Del. Tim Hugo (R-Centreville), Del. Bob Marshall (R-Manassas), Del. Rick Morris (R-Carrollton)


Passed Committee
Passed House
Passed Senate
Signed by Governor
Became Law


Human papillomavirus vaccination; eliminates requirement.  Eliminates the requirement for vaccination against human papillomavirus for female children. Read the Bill »

Looking for Vaccine Info?

When it comes to health, everyone wants reliable, up-to-date information. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has information that can help answer questions you might have about vaccines.

Go to

Richmond Sunlight prohibits comments that spread propaganda about COVID-19 or COVID vaccines. We will promptly delete any claims that COVID isn’t serious, or claims that vaccines are unsafe or ineffective.


Bill Has Failed


01/11/2012Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/11/12 12104038D
01/11/2012Referred to Committee on Health, Welfare and Institutions
01/18/2012Assigned HWI sub: #1
01/19/2012Impact statement from DPB (HB1112)
01/19/2012Subcommittee recommends reporting (6-Y 2-N)
01/23/2012Impact statement from DPB (HB1112)
01/24/2012Reported from Health, Welfare and Institutions (14-Y 8-N) (see vote tally)
01/25/2012Read first time
01/26/2012Read second time
01/26/2012Passed by motion rejected
01/26/2012Speaker ruled Amendments by Delegate Stolle out of order
01/26/2012Previous question ordered (67-Y 30-N)
01/26/2012VOTE: AGREE TO MOTION (67-Y 30-N) (see vote tally)
01/26/2012Amendment by Delegate Stolle rejected (34-Y 63-N 1-A)
01/26/2012VOTE: REJECTED (34-Y 63-N 1-A) (see vote tally)
01/26/2012Engrossed by House
01/27/2012Read third time and passed House (62-Y 34-N 1-A)
01/27/2012VOTE: PASSAGE (62-Y 34-N 1-A) (see vote tally)
01/30/2012Constitutional reading dispensed
01/30/2012Referred to Committee on Education and Health
02/15/2012Assigned Education sub: Health Care
02/23/2012Reported from Education and Health with substitute (8-Y 7-N) (see vote tally)
02/23/2012Committee substitute printed 12105552D-S1
02/23/2012Passed by for the day
02/24/2012Constitutional reading dispensed (38-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/27/2012Read third time
02/27/2012Reading of substitute waived
02/27/2012Committee substitute agreed to 12105552D-S1
02/27/2012Previous question, not ordered (16-Y 23-N) (see vote tally)
02/27/2012Motion to recommit to committee agreed to (22-Y 17-N) (see vote tally)
02/27/2012Recommitted to Education and Health
02/27/2012Pursuant to Senate Rule 20(g)
02/27/2012Continued to 2013 in Education and Health


This bill was discussed on the floor of the General Assembly. Below is all of the video that we have of that discussion, 1 clip in all, totaling 8 minutes.


Angela writes:

This is an "cervical cancer prevention vaccine" that needs to be given before one is sexually active. Insurance covers this expensive vaccine because it is a school requirement. If it is no longer required will insurance still cover it?
Vote no on this bill.

JMB writes:

This bill does not mean that your child will magically become sexually active; only a fool would think that. This will help prevent cancers in both males and females (yes, HPV does cause a type of throat cancer in males). You could marry someone who has HPV and contract it; you don't have to be promiscuous. I seriously doubt that every last delegate in that building waited until marriage. To pass this would be hypocritical; you're saying it was okay for you to do things back in the day but not for a teen or young adult nowadays to make one bad decision. We can raise our children to wait until marriage, but they're going to do what they want and this has been going on since the beginning of time. The only difference is we don't turn a blind eye or our backs on a pregnant teen anymore by shoving them in a "pregnant school"; now we try to educate them since we know that they're going to be stubborn and do what they want. At least they'll be better protected and prepared. I had a boy tell me that he got the shot so that if he got a divorce, his second wife wouldn't be at any risk. There are more kids out there that are responsible than there are irresponsible. Leave the religious agenda out of it and do what's right for the future health of our kids. If this had been around when I was a teen, I would have made sure that I got one even though I was waiting until marriage.

Russell writes:

This bill should become law. Passing a mandate forcing someone to get a vaccine violates individual rights. This decision should be left up to individual families, not Richmond politicians and bureaucrats. We should all have the freedom to make our own health decisions, but we must live with the consequences. Parents can make informed decisions for their own children, we need to law to make this a reality. The two posters above believe people are not smart enough to make their own decisions. If this vaccine is such a good idea, certainly we need no laws and no taxpayers funded police force to enforce it. The information will convince people to get it on their own.

Yvonne Sayres writes:

So, this bill says "no government overreach" for a teenage female (I agree!) - not grasping the hypocrisy with the forced ultrasounds. Explain.

Sarah Williams writes:

Center for disease control has excellent information about HPV and cancer, and there is good reason for both males and females to read that. ( This is a communicable disease, and it belongs on the required immunizations list along with other deadly diseases that have virtually disappeared because of vaccinations, like typhoid. With this immunization we can -- think about this for a long time -- immunize a person, male or female, against common forms of cancer. We are pumping millions of dollars a year into treatments for cancer that do not cure but only prolong life for a little while. The answer to cancer is not cure, but prevention. This immunization needs to be on the required list along with immunizations that prevent other life-threatening and incurable diseases that maim and kill.

Carol writes:

Sarah you are clearly uneducated on immune system and the cellular detoxification systems that exist in all human cells,, not just our liver.

IOW Sarah,
Understand what the Cytochrome P450 metabolic Enzymes are
and then learn what "polymorphisms" of enzymes and other 'genes' are..
you are woefully uneducated on how drugs and immunizations of any and all types, must be 'handled' metabolized, detoxified, and changed into a water soluble 'chemical' that the body can then excrete..

you probably don't know much of anything about AUTOimmune diseases either do you... More people suffer from autoimmune disease than cancers or Heart/cardiovascular diseases. and Majority are women.