Minnesota Senate Bill SF3566

Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/17/26
• Refer: 2/17/26

Caption

Treatments that may harm fertility informed consent requirement provision

Summary

SF3566 would create a new Minnesota statute requiring informed consent before a health care provider performs a medical treatment that may harm a patient’s fertility. The bill defines key terms such as “family building,” “fertility,” “fertility specialist,” and “medical treatment,” and applies to prescription drugs, procedures, therapies, or other interventions that have a certain or potential impact on fertility. Under the bill, a provider must discuss the treatment’s possible fertility effects, offer the patient an opportunity to consult a fertility specialist about fertility preservation and family-building options, and obtain prior written informed consent acknowledging those risks and authorizing the treatment. The bill also prohibits providers from discouraging patients from consulting a fertility specialist, and it directs the commissioner of health to establish compliance monitoring procedures.

Impact

The bill would add a new informed-consent requirement to Minnesota Statutes, chapter 144, affecting health care providers who prescribe or perform treatments with possible fertility impacts. It would create a basis for disciplinary action by the relevant health-related licensing board and allow patients to file complaints if they believe the provider violated the statute. The commissioner of health would also gain responsibility for setting monitoring procedures, increasing regulatory oversight of fertility-related disclosures in clinical care.

Sentiment

Based on the bill text and the limited legislative context provided, the measure appears to be framed as a patient-rights and transparency bill rather than a controversial treatment ban. Its structure suggests support for ensuring patients understand reproductive risks before treatment, especially for medications or procedures that could affect future fertility. No committee testimony or recorded votes were provided, so there is no documented public debate in the supplied materials.

Contention

The main potential points of contention are the scope of treatments covered, the burden placed on providers to identify and disclose fertility risks, and the requirement to offer consultation with a fertility specialist before treatment. Providers and licensing boards may be concerned about administrative complexity, delays in care, or uncertainty over what counts as a treatment with a “potential impact” on fertility. Patients’ advocates, by contrast, would likely support the bill’s emphasis on informed consent, fertility preservation, and family-building options.