HB 1160 would prohibit a student enrolled in a health profession education program from being required to receive an immunization as a condition of participating in or obtaining required clinical training or clinical experience if the student has a qualifying medical exemption or objects on religious grounds. The bill applies to programs that prepare students for regulated health professions and that require offsite clinical training, and it expressly includes internships, residencies, and graduate programs. It also bars schools from requiring a student to provide specific information about the student’s religious objection.
The bill further amends Indiana’s existing student immunization exemption laws for state educational institutions by broadening the definition of “documentation of exemption” and clarifying that a religious objection must be made in writing and signed, but without requiring detailed explanation of the belief. It creates a private right of action, allowing a student to sue an entity that violates the new protections and to seek injunctive relief, costs, and reasonable attorney’s fees. The bill is effective upon passage and contains an emergency clause, while also limiting application to contracts entered into or renewed on or after May 15, 2025.
Impact
HB 1160 would add new chapters to the Indiana Code governing health profession education programs and would amend existing provisions in IC 21-40 related to immunization exemptions at state educational institutions. Its practical effect is to restrict the ability of schools, clinical sites, and other entities involved in health profession training to condition participation in clinical education on immunization when a student has a medical or religious exemption. It also strengthens enforcement by authorizing civil lawsuits and attorney’s fees, which could affect compliance policies across higher education, hospitals, and other offsite clinical placement providers.
Sentiment
The available context suggests the bill is framed as a student exemption and religious-liberty measure, with no recorded committee testimony or votes provided to show formal opposition or support. Based on the text, the bill appears designed to expand protections for students with medical or religious objections to immunization requirements in clinical education settings. The inclusion of an emergency clause and immediate effective date suggests sponsors viewed the issue as time-sensitive.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the balance between student exemption rights and institutional or clinical-site vaccination requirements for patient safety, public health, and placement eligibility. Health profession programs and offsite clinical facilities may be concerned that the bill limits their ability to enforce immunization standards for students entering clinical environments. Another likely issue is the bill’s restriction on requiring specific information about a religious objection, which may be viewed by supporters as protecting privacy and by critics as limiting verification of exemption claims.