AN ACT to create and enact a new subsection to section 43-58-03.1 and section 43-60-06.1 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to obtaining criminal history record checks for naturopathic doctors and genetic counselors; and to amend and reenact subdivision d of subsection 2 of section 12-60-24 of the North Dakota Century Code, providing authority to complete the background checks with the bureau of criminal investigation to complete the criminal history record checks.
Summary
SB 2042 authorizes the North Dakota Board of Medicine to require statewide and nationwide criminal history record checks for applicants for licensure and for licensees who are the subject of a disciplinary investigation in two regulated professions: naturopathic doctors and genetic counselors. The bill also ties the nationwide check to the existing process in section 12-60-24 of the Century Code, which governs criminal history record checks through the Bureau of Criminal Investigation.
The measure makes clear that the board may use these background checks, but it does not require them in every case; the board retains discretion to decide when a check is needed. It also places all costs of the criminal history record check on the applicant or licensee.
Impact
The bill amends North Dakota law to expand the Board of Medicine’s express authority to obtain criminal background checks for naturopathic doctors and genetic counselors, both at the licensing stage and during disciplinary investigations. It also updates the general criminal history record check statute to include these professions among the Board of Medicine’s authorized uses of BCI-administered checks. The practical effect is to add another layer of screening and investigative authority for these licensed health-related professions, with costs shifted to the regulated individual.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been broadly supported and noncontroversial. It passed the Senate 47-0 and the House 92-0, indicating unanimous or near-unanimous approval in both chambers. The lack of recorded committee testimony or opposition suggests the measure was viewed as a routine licensing and public-safety update rather than a disputed policy change.
Contention
There is little evidence of substantive contention in the available record. The main policy choice embedded in the bill is whether the Board of Medicine should have discretionary authority to require criminal history checks for licensure and disciplinary matters, and whether applicants or licensees should bear the cost. Because the bill passed unanimously and no committee debate is provided, no organized opposition or major disagreement is apparent.