Relating to medical interventions; declaring an emergency.
SB 383 would prohibit public bodies and private entities from requiring a person to receive an experimental medical intervention or vaccination, or to present proof of vaccination or immunity status, as a condition of employment, access to services, school attendance, transit, or other participation in public life. It also bars discrimination based on a person’s refusal to receive such interventions or to disclose vaccination or immunity status, and extends those protections to minors and incapacitated persons by requiring legally valid substituted consent before vaccination or other covered interventions can be required.
The bill further restricts public bodies from contracting with, funding, or otherwise providing taxpayer money to businesses that impose such requirements, and it authorizes contract voidability and potential revocation of licenses, permits, accreditation, and other operating authority for violating companies. It also prohibits public bodies and private entities from interfering with religious exercise, commerce, speech, assembly, petition, or protest based on pandemic-related risks, while preserving existing direct-threat rules and existing remedies for negligent or intentional disease transmission. The measure declares an emergency, so it would take effect immediately upon passage.
If enacted, SB 383 would create broad new limits on state and local government authority, as well as on private employers, schools, businesses, and other entities that receive public funds or contract with the state. It would add statutory protections for medical autonomy, vaccination refusal, mask refusal, and privacy regarding immunity status, while also restricting public spending on entities that maintain vaccine or immunity-pass requirements. The bill would also affect contract law and regulatory enforcement by making certain contracts voidable and exposing violators to loss of licenses, permits, accreditation, and other operating authority.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials, the measure appears to be framed by its sponsors as a civil-liberties and anti-coercion bill, emphasizing bodily autonomy, privacy, religious freedom, and protection from pandemic-era restrictions. The findings section strongly criticizes prior COVID-19 emergency measures and suggests concern about future public health mandates. No opposing testimony or vote record is provided here, so the broader legislative sentiment cannot be measured from the context beyond the bill’s own rights-focused framing.
The main points of contention are likely to be the bill’s sweeping restrictions on vaccine and immunity-status requirements, its application to both public bodies and private entities, and its reach into employment, education, transit, and access to services. Another likely dispute is the bill’s treatment of minors and incapacitated persons, because it requires legally binding substituted consent and limits when vaccination can be required. Public health advocates may object that the bill could constrain emergency response tools, while supporters are likely to argue that it protects constitutional liberties, medical privacy, and freedom from coercive mandates. The bill’s provisions tying compliance to public contracts and licensing penalties are also likely to be controversial because they create significant enforcement consequences.