Stars and Stripes is a trademark of Stars and Stripes Omnimedia, Inc. This web site is separate and distinct from publications under the same name as published by the Department of Defense.
Stars and Stripes: Former Female Soldier
Fights Bad Discharge for Anthrax Vaccine Refusal
Stripes.com - Home
Former Female Soldier Fights Bad Discharge for Anthrax Vaccine Refusal
Apr 6, 2001
Dave Eberhart
Stars and Stripes Veterans Affairs Editor
When Jemekia Barber joined the Army, the last thing she envisioned
was winding up in federal court fending off an other-than-honorable
discharge for saying no to the anthrax vaccine immunization program
(AVIP). She felt the controversial vaccine could irreversibly
harm her reproductive health.
With a restraining-order suit against the government in limbo,
Maj. Gen. Edward Soriano, commander of Fort Carson, Colo., last
year approved administrative discharges for Barber, her husband
(who also refused the anthrax shots but is not a party to the
suit) and another soldier who refused the shots.
Today, at home in North Carolina, Barber, 27, waits impatiently to see whether U.S. District Judge Edward Nottingham, in Denver, Colo., will order the Army to award her the honorable discharge she feels she earned.
Pfc. Barber and her husband were stationed at Fort Carson when they were told they would have to start taking the mandatory shots. But the young couple was trying to have a child and Barber wanted some answers about the vaccine’s health effects on a mother and an unborn child.
She says she found the Army’s AVIP information on pregnancy unsettling, confusing and contradictory. She refused to be inoculated.
Barber was discharged from the Army with an OTH [other than honorable] characterization despite our best efforts to secure a temporary restraining order.
· Attorney Steven M. Masiello
Barber “was discharged from the Army with an OTH [other than
honorable] characterization despite our best efforts to secure
a temporary restraining order,” Denver attorney Steven M.
Masiello told The Stars and Stripes April 4.
“The case now appears to revolve around securing an order from the court mandating the Army to overturn its erroneous characterization of Ms. Barber’s service and the legality of the AVIP as applied to women of childbearing age,” he said.
Masiello said the case involves a woman’s right to privacy, to her own reproductive choices, and the rights of the unborn—a constitutional issue—and the legality of the military ordering its troops to take a drug—arguably an “investigative new drug” (IND)--unapproved for its intended use.
First Case By A Woman
At a June 1, 2000, hearing, Barber’s attorneys sought a preliminary
injunction to halt the Army’s processing of a “less
than honorable” discharge for Barber. The U.S. attorney’s
office, representing the Army, agreed to temporarily halt its
proceedings against Barber. But all temporary stays by the government
now have been lifted.
The Barber case is only the second of hundreds of instances involving military personnel who refused the vaccine to wind up in federal court.
· Attorney Herbert Fenster
“The Barber case is only the second of hundreds of instances
involving military personnel who refused the vaccine to wind up
in federal court,” attorney Herbert L. Fenster said at the
June 2000 hearing. “It is the first by a woman.”
“The anthrax vaccine label has a warning saying it should not be given to women of child-bearing age,” Fenster said in court papers and to the media last year. “That is a warning developed in response to the thalidomide incident.”
Barber initially agreed to a “less than honorable” discharge, but claims she was pressured by commanders and was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and incapable of agreeing to the discharge.
The government argues that the anthrax vaccine is safe and approved, the order to take the shots is legal, and that “good order and discipline” in the Army requires sanctions for failure to obey.
Barber now is a civilian “struggling to keep her family afloat,” said Masiello.
Anthrax vaccine should not intentionally be given to women who are pregnant or who think they may be pregnant unless the threat of anthrax exposure is imminent.
· AVIP spokesperson
“Anthrax vaccine should not intentionally be given to women
who are pregnant or who think they may be pregnant unless the
threat of anthrax exposure is imminent,” an AVIP spokesman
said. “Specific studies on possible reproductive side effects
from use of anthrax vaccine have not been performed.”
Noninfectious
But the vaccine, he said, “is non-infectious and is not expected
to cause any harm to the fetus. If the vaccine is inadvertently
given to a pregnant woman, no adverse pregnancy outcome or fetal
harm is expected.”
He said that almost all vaccines (including the anthrax vaccine) are listed as Pregnancy Category C with the warning, “Animal reproduction studies have not been conducted with the vaccine. The vaccine should be given to a pregnant woman only if clearly needed.”
Some 400 service members have refused the anthrax vaccine. As politicians and scientists continue to question its safety, the Pentagon says it still plans to inoculate all the nation’s 2.4 million troops.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said last week that he will examine the AVIP but not rush to judgment about it.
Copyright © 1999-2000 Stars and Stripes Omnimedia, Inc.
All rights reserved. Read our terms of use and privacy guidelines.
Stars and Stripes is a trademark of Stars and Stripes Omnimedia,
Inc. This web site is separate and distinct from publications
under the same name as published by the Department of Defense.
Last revised: March 2004