VACCINES/VACCINATION: Prohibits the use of vaccine status to determine admission to public buildings
HB 926 creates the “Louisiana Medical Freedom Act” and prohibits state and local government entities, as well as ticket issuers operating in public buildings, from using a person’s vaccination status or other “medical intervention” status to deny access to public buildings, public services, public infrastructure, transportation, government employment, or events held in public buildings. The bill frames this as a protection for individual autonomy in medical decision-making and a ban on discrimination, coercion, or exclusion by public entities.
The bill defines “medical intervention” broadly to include vaccines, biologics, tests, injections, drugs, devices, and similar medical actions, while excluding medical masks from that definition. It also creates an enforcement mechanism allowing the attorney general or local prosecutors to pursue violations, with possible awards of attorney’s fees and court costs. The bill expressly preserves compliance with existing child welfare laws and states that it does not override applicable laws or legal precedents providing exemptions and reasonable accommodations.
HB 926 would add new provisions to Title 40 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes, creating R.S. 40:1300.81 through 1300.86. In practical terms, it would limit the ability of state and local governments and certain venue operators in public buildings to condition access, services, or employment on proof of vaccination or other medical interventions. It also bars exclusion of healthy or allegedly asymptomatic individuals from public activities for declining a medical intervention during an outbreak or public health emergency, except in educational settings such as childcare or schools. The bill would therefore affect public health policy, government operations, venue access rules, and enforcement authority at both the state and local level.
The House vote suggests the bill had majority support but also meaningful opposition, passing 62-26 on final passage. The bill’s structure and stated purpose indicate strong support among proponents of medical autonomy and opposition to vaccine mandates, while the recorded vote shows that a substantial minority remained concerned about the policy. No committee transcript was provided, so the available record reflects support in the House but does not show detailed debate.
The main point of contention is the balance between individual medical freedom and government/public health authority. Supporters appear to favor preventing discrimination based on vaccination or medical-intervention status and limiting mandates for access to public services and facilities. Opponents are likely concerned that the bill could restrict public health responses during outbreaks, complicate venue and government access policies, and narrow the ability of public entities to require health-related conditions for safety. The bill’s broad definition of “medical intervention” and its application to public buildings, transportation, and government employment are likely the most debated features, though the educational-setting carveout and preservation of existing exemptions and accommodations may have been intended to address some concerns.