Providing for voluntary mRNA vaccine requirement, for waivers and informed consent, for employer and entity penalties, for Pennsylvania National Guard requirements and for enforcement; and imposing penalties.
SB1018, titled the mRNA Vaccine Choice Act, would prohibit most entities in Pennsylvania from requiring an mRNA vaccine for either children or adults. The bill defines mRNA vaccines broadly to include vaccines using messenger ribonucleic acid technology, including COVID-19, influenza, and other infectious disease vaccines. For children, it would bar the Department of Health from adding an mRNA vaccine to school immunization requirements and would prohibit schools of all types, including public, private, parochial, charter, cyber charter, home education, and career and technical programs, from conditioning admission or attendance on receipt of an mRNA vaccine.
The bill also creates a consent-and-waiver framework. If an entity requests vaccination and the person refuses, the individual or guardian must sign a written waiver releasing the entity from liability if the disease is later contracted. If the person voluntarily accepts an mRNA vaccine, the individual or guardian must sign an acknowledgment that a health care provider explained potential side effects and documented that explanation. Providers must retain these waivers and acknowledgments for at least 10 years, subject to HIPAA and other privacy laws.
SB1018 would impose significant penalties on employers and other entities that terminate or suspend someone for refusing an mRNA vaccine. Private employers could face civil penalties of $10,000 to $50,000 and would have to rehire the worker with back pay or pay a lump sum with liquidated damages. Commonwealth agencies, state-operated health care facilities, and certain private for-profit health care facilities would also have to reinstate affected workers with back pay, and private for-profit health care facilities could face the same civil penalties. The bill further extends protections to Pennsylvania National Guard members serving under state authority, requiring reinstatement and back pay if they are disciplined solely for refusing an mRNA vaccine, while expressly preserving federal authority and federal vaccination requirements.
The bill would create new administrative and court enforcement pathways. Complaints could be filed with the Department of Health, the Office of Administration, or local agencies depending on the setting, and aggrieved individuals could also bring civil actions for reinstatement, back pay, penalties, and attorney fees. The act includes a federal savings clause stating it does not override federal law, federally mandated vaccination requirements, or conditions tied to federal funding or federally regulated sectors.
Overall, the bill appears aimed at limiting vaccine mandates and expanding informed-consent requirements, with a strong emphasis on employment protections and liability consequences for entities that impose mRNA vaccine requirements. No committee discussion or votes were provided, so there is no recorded legislative sentiment in the materials beyond the bill’s text and framing.
SB1018 would amend the practical operation of Pennsylvania immunization, employment, health care, and administrative enforcement rules by creating a statewide prohibition on mandatory mRNA vaccination by schools, employers, health care facilities, government entities, and other covered entities, subject to federal-law exceptions. It would also add new statutory duties for health care providers to document informed consent and retain waiver records, and it would create new remedies including reinstatement, back pay, liquidated damages, civil penalties, and attorney fees. The bill would affect school immunization policy, workplace vaccine policies, health care facility employment practices, and state National Guard personnel actions under state authority.
No committee transcripts or votes were provided, so there is no recorded debate or roll-call history to measure support or opposition. Based on the bill text alone, the measure is clearly framed as a vaccine-choice and anti-mandate proposal, suggesting support from lawmakers and constituents concerned about personal autonomy, informed consent, and employment consequences of vaccine mandates. At the same time, the breadth of the restrictions and penalties indicates it would likely draw opposition from public health, education, employer, and health care stakeholders who favor vaccine requirements in some settings.
The main points of contention are likely to be whether the state should prohibit mRNA vaccine mandates for children and adults, whether schools and employers should retain authority to require vaccination, and whether the bill’s waiver and liability-release provisions are appropriate. Another likely dispute is the bill’s broad definition of mRNA vaccines, which would cover COVID-19, influenza, and potentially future vaccines using the same technology. The penalty structure for private employers and health care facilities, along with reinstatement and back-pay requirements, would also be controversial. The bill attempts to limit conflict with federal law through savings clauses, but questions may arise about preemption, especially in federally regulated sectors and federal military service.