A BILL for an Act to create and enact a new section to chapter 23-12 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to an exemption to required vaccines.
HB 1457 would create a new section in North Dakota Century Code chapter 23-12 establishing a broad exemption from vaccine requirements. The bill applies to vaccine mandates tied to employment, school attendance, and obtaining licenses, certifications, or degrees. Under the proposal, a person could claim an exemption unless there is an FDA-approved vaccine for the purpose that meets several specified conditions, including a clinical trial with at least one year of post-administration safety evaluation against a placebo or qualifying comparator, public posting by the Department of Health and Human Services of vaccine injury and disease rates, proof that the vaccine’s risk of permanent disability or death is lower than the disease it prevents, and manufacturer liability for death or serious injury caused by the vaccine.
The bill also would require the department to publicize the exemption and inform the public that it may be claimed by an individual for themselves or on behalf of a child or dependent. It further prohibits state agencies, political subdivisions, boards, and commissions from imposing additional conditions inconsistent with the new exemption. In practical terms, the measure would significantly limit the ability of public and private entities to enforce vaccine mandates in North Dakota whenever the bill’s criteria are not met.
If enacted, HB 1457 would add a new vaccine-exemption provision to chapter 23-12 and constrain how state and local governments, as well as institutions relying on state-regulated requirements, could enforce vaccination mandates. It would affect public health administration by directing the Department of Health and Human Services to publicize the exemption and publish vaccine-related injury and risk information, and it would create a legal pathway for individuals, parents, and guardians to refuse required vaccines in a wide range of settings. The bill’s liability language would also attempt to shift risk to manufacturers, which could have broader implications for vaccine policy and mandate enforcement.
The bill appears to have had limited legislative support and ultimately failed on February 20, 2025. Based on the text alone, the measure reflects a strongly skeptical view of vaccine safety, approval standards, and mandate authority, suggesting support from lawmakers and constituents concerned about medical freedom and vaccine injury. The absence of recorded committee discussion or votes in the provided context limits the ability to identify detailed floor or committee sentiment, but the final outcome indicates the proposal did not advance.
The main points of contention are likely to be the bill’s unusually strict conditions for vaccine mandates, especially the requirement for a one-year placebo-based safety trial, public posting of injury rates, proof that vaccine risk is lower than disease risk, and manufacturer liability for serious harm. Public health officials, state agencies, schools, employers, and licensing boards would likely object to the bill because it would substantially narrow or eliminate existing vaccine requirements and could undermine standard immunization policy. Supporters would likely frame the measure as protecting informed consent, parental authority, and exemption rights, while opponents would likely argue it conflicts with established vaccine regulation and public health practice.