WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

H 2431

An Act prohibiting the requirement of a COVID-19 vaccine, mRNA vaccine, or gene-altering procedure

194th Legislature (2025-2026) Introduced by John Gaskey and 2 co-sponsors

Prohibits requiring proof of vaccination for COVID-19, mRNA vaccines, or gene-altering procedures across public and private sectors in MA, including entry, enrollment, work, and ac

Hearing scheduled for 06/06/2025 from 10:00 AM-05:30 PM in Gardner Auditorium
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · H 2431

Summary: H 2431 — An Act prohibiting the requirement of a COVID-19 vaccine, mRNA vaccine, or gene-altering procedure

Overview

H 2431, introduced February 27, 2025 by Representative John R. Gaskey (and others), would bar the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and its subdivisions, as well as private entities in specified contexts, from requiring proof of vaccination against COVID-19, an mRNA vaccine, or a gene-altering procedure. The bill is currently set for a hearing on June 6, 2025 in Gardner Auditorium and has been referred to the Public Health committee. It is related to House Docket No. 635 (HD 635), which the text notes as a replacement.

Sponsor: Rep. John R. Gaskey (Carver) with cosponsors Daniel Seitz, Justin Thurber, Alyson M. Sullivan-Almeida.

Key provisions

  • Section 1: Creation of new Section 245 in Chapter 111 (Public Health). The Commonwealth, its agencies, authorities, and political subdivisions may not require proof of vaccination for:
    • Entry to the Commonwealth (general access).
    • Entry to any public building.
    • Enrollment, access to campus, or attendance in person at any public or private elementary, secondary, high school, charter school, college, university, or other post-secondary institution.
    • Entry to employment or access to a private business (i.e., no requirement by a private business to prove vaccination as a condition of entry or employment).
    • The section uses “Notwithstanding any general or special law to the contrary,” indicating it supersedes other laws to the extent of these prohibitions.
  • Section 2: Amendments to G.L. ch. 272, §92A. Adds a sentence prohibiting owners, lessees, managers, or employees of places of public accommodation, resorts, or amusements from requiring proof of vaccination (COVID-19, mRNA, or gene-altering procedure) as a condition of entry.

Notably, the bill uses broad language to cover both public and private sectors and a range of venues and institutions, with no explicit exceptions listed in the text provided.

Who would be affected

  • Public sector: Massachusetts state government, agencies, authorities, and political subdivisions would be prohibited from enforcing vaccination proof as a condition of entry.
  • Public buildings and public spaces: Prohibits vaccination proof for entry.
  • Educational institutions: Colleges, universities, and K-12 schools could not require vaccination proof for enrollment, campus access, or in-person attendance.
  • Private businesses and private employment: Prohibits businesses from requiring vaccination proof as a condition of entry or employment.
  • Places of public accommodation: Hotels, resorts, amusement venues, and similar facilities could not require vaccination proof for entry.

Procedural/timeline details

  • Introduced: February 27, 2025.
  • Referred to: Public Health (02/27/2025).
  • Legislative actions indicate: Senate concurrence noted; related to HD 635 (replaces).
  • Hearing: Scheduled for June 6, 2025, from 10:00 AM to 5:30 PM, Gardner Auditorium.

Potential impact and considerations

  • The bill would revoke or preempt any current or future vaccine-proof requirements in broad settings, aligning Massachusetts with a stance against vaccination credential mandates.
  • It could affect institutions or employers currently enforcing vaccination proof for health or safety reasons, requiring them to adjust policies.
  • The applicability to “gene-altering procedure” and “mRNA vaccine” reflects a broad scope beyond traditional vaccines.
  • As written, the bill emphasizes prohibitions with broad “Notwithstanding” language, which could create significant policy shifts in public health, education, and private-sector practices.

If you’d like, I can compare this bill’s language to existing Massachusetts law and summarize potential constitutional or policy considerations.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.