SB 2099 would add a new section to North Dakota law requiring schools and nonpublic schools to adopt cardiac arrest prevention procedures for student athletics. The bill defines covered “athletic activity” broadly to include interscholastic sports, school-sponsored contests and cheerleading, student-run club sports, and practices or scrimmages. It directs the superintendent of public instruction to create and post on the department’s website an information sheet on cardiac arrest symptoms and warning signs, a parent/student verification form, and a list of educational resources.
Before a student may participate in an athletic activity each school year, the student and a parent or legal guardian would have to sign and return the verification form. Before each athletic season, principals would have to notify coaches of their duties, and coaches would have to complete an approved cardiac arrest training course tied to CPR and AED training. Coaches would also be required to hold a preseason informational meeting on sudden cardiac arrest symptoms and warning signs, with possible input from physicians, pediatric cardiologists, and athletic trainers. If a coach reasonably believes a student is showing symptoms, the coach may remove the student from participation, and the student could not return until cleared in writing by a licensed physician, physician assistant, or nurse practitioner.
The bill’s impact would be to create a new statewide school-athletics safety protocol in chapter 15.1-18.2 of the North Dakota Century Code. It would impose new duties on the Department of Public Instruction, school principals, coaches, students, and parents, while also giving recreational youth athletic sponsors the option to follow the same guidelines. The measure is preventive in nature and would likely affect school athletic policies, training requirements, consent paperwork, and return-to-play procedures.
The general sentiment appears to have been supportive of the bill’s safety goals, but the measure did not advance. On second reading in the Senate, it failed by a vote of 14 yeas to 33 nays on January 22, 2025. No committee transcript is available, so the record does not show detailed debate, but the vote suggests insufficient support for enactment despite the public-health rationale.
The main points of contention likely centered on the added administrative burden and compliance requirements for schools and coaches, as well as the mandatory parent/student paperwork and training obligations. Another possible issue is the bill’s broad scope, which extends beyond traditional school sports to cheerleading, club sports, and practices, and its requirement that students be removed from play based on a coach’s reasonable belief of symptoms until medical clearance is obtained. Supporters would likely have emphasized student safety, early recognition of sudden cardiac arrest, and consistency with CPR/AED education.
SB 2099 would have amended North Dakota’s education code by creating a new student athletics cardiac arrest prevention section in chapter 15.1-18.2. It would require the Department of Public Instruction to publish educational materials, require annual student-parent acknowledgment forms, mandate coach training and preseason safety meetings, and establish removal-from-play and medical-clearance procedures for students suspected of cardiac arrest symptoms. These requirements would directly affect public schools, nonpublic schools, coaches, athletic directors, athletic trainers, students, parents, and potentially recreational youth sports sponsors that choose to follow the guidelines.
The bill’s policy goal appears to have been viewed favorably as a student safety measure, but the final vote shows it lacked enough support to pass. The 14-33 Senate second-reading vote indicates substantial opposition or hesitation, even though the bill was framed around prevention, education, and emergency response readiness. Because there were no committee transcripts provided, the available record shows the outcome more clearly than the underlying debate.
Likely areas of disagreement included whether the bill imposed too many new duties on schools and coaches, whether the training and meeting requirements were too prescriptive, and whether the return-to-play clearance rule was too rigid. Some lawmakers may also have questioned the breadth of the definition of athletic activity and the administrative burden of annual forms and notifications. Supporters likely focused on preventing sudden cardiac arrest, improving awareness of warning signs, and ensuring students are not pressured to continue activity after dangerous symptoms appear.