SF694 would create a new section in Minnesota Statutes establishing a “vaccine recipient bill of rights.” The bill states that Minnesota policy should protect constitutional liberties, promote vaccine information, and require informed consent before vaccination. It gives individuals the right to decide whether to receive a vaccine without threats to livelihood, school attendance, or freedom of movement, and requires providers to disclose the specific vaccine being administered and give access to vaccine information before consent.
The bill also adds several specific protections and restrictions. It would entitle certain adults over age 65 who are dependent on others for daily living to consult with an independent advocate with medical training before consenting to vaccination. It prohibits coercion or pressure to receive experimental or investigational vaccines, defines that term to include vaccines authorized under emergency use authorization, and bars employers from asking health care providers to promote a COVID-19 vaccine. It further requires providers to educate themselves about the CDC/FDA vaccine adverse events reporting system and give recipients information about it, and it prohibits private businesses from requiring or coercing vaccination unless another law authorizes or requires it.
Impact
If enacted, the bill would add a new statutory section in chapter 145 and would impose new duties on health care providers, employers, and private businesses in Minnesota. It would create a legal framework emphasizing informed consent and vaccine choice, while limiting vaccine mandates and certain forms of vaccine promotion or coercion. The bill would also affect older adults who are dependent on others for activities of daily living by giving them a right to consult an independent medical advocate before vaccination.
Sentiment
The available context shows the bill was introduced and referred to the Senate Health and Human Services Committee, but there are no recorded committee transcripts or votes provided. Based on the bill text, the measure appears to reflect a strong pro-choice, anti-coercion approach to vaccination and is framed by its sponsor as a protection of individual liberty and informed consent. Because no debate or vote history is included, there is no documented legislative sentiment beyond the bill’s stated policy goals.
Contention
The main points of contention are likely to be the bill’s restrictions on vaccine mandates and its broad anti-coercion language, especially the prohibition on private businesses requiring vaccination unless another law allows it. Another likely area of dispute is the requirement that providers rely on “independent” vaccine information from sources other than manufacturers or government entities, which could raise questions about what counts as reliable information. The provisions concerning experimental or investigational vaccines, COVID-19 vaccine promotion, and the special advocate requirement for certain older adults may also draw concern from public health officials, employers, and health care providers who favor broader vaccination authority and public health discretion.
Requires written consent by recipient or parent before vaccine and prohibits discrimination against those who don't vaccinate and fines up to $25,000 for violation. Also prohibits DCYF from investigating their for failure to vaccinate their child.
Requires written consent by recipient or parent before vaccine and prohibits discrimination against those who don't vaccinate and fines up to $25,000 for violation. Also prohibits DCYF from investigating their for failure to vaccinate their child.
Health; prohibit certain health care providers and facilities from discriminating against potential organ transplant recipients due solely to their vaccine status