WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 5856

AN ACT RELATING TO HEALTH AND SAFETY -- VACCINATION, TESTING, AND MASK MANDATES PROHIBITION

2025 Regular Session Introduced by Mike Chippendale and 6 co-sponsors

Rhode Island bans mandatory vaccination, testing, or masking without an opt-out; exemptions apply, with the Attorney General enforcing fines for violations.

03/18/2025 Committee recommended measure be held for further study
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 5856

Summary — HB 5856: “Vaccination, Testing, and Mask Mandates Prohibition”

Note: the submitted materials include an unrelated Michigan zoning amendment text. This summary focuses on the Rhode Island bill titled “Vaccination, Testing, and Mask Mandates Prohibition” (introduced 02/28/2025), which is the content matching the bill title provided.

Purpose

To prohibit persons and entities from imposing mandatory vaccination, testing, or mask requirements on others unless an opt‑out process is provided. The bill creates defined exemption categories, prescribes required documentation, sets administrative procedures, and authorizes enforcement and fines through the Rhode Island Attorney General.

Key provisions

  • Broad prohibition: No person/entity may impose vaccination, testing, or mask mandates “for any reason” without providing an opt‑out based on the exemptions listed.
  • Exemption categories and documentation:
    • Medical (including pregnancy/anticipated pregnancy): requires a dated, signed exemption statement from a licensed physician, physician assistant, or advanced practice registered nurse who has examined the individual. The Department of Health (DOH) must adopt rules defining “anticipated pregnancy.”
    • Personal belief or religious: individual must submit a statement declaring a sincerely held belief against the mandate.
    • Immunity: requires competent medical evidence of immunity documented by laboratory test; DOH must adopt a standard for such evidence.
    • Periodic testing: individual may opt out by agreeing to regular testing at no cost to them.
    • Use of employer‑provided PPE: individual may opt out by agreeing to use required PPE per the entity’s reasonable written rules.
  • Standardized forms: entities must accept DOH forms or substantially similar versions for exemption statements.
  • Scope: applies to relationships where one exercises control or responsibility, explicitly including employer/employee, teacher/student, landlord/tenant, business operator/customer, guardian/ward, and healthcare provider/patient.

Enforcement & penalties

  • Complaints: any person may file a complaint with the Attorney General (AG) alleging failure to offer or improper denial of exemptions. AG investigates and allows opportunity to cure noncompliance.
  • If termination of services/rights occurs due to noncompliance, an aggrieved person may file a complaint; AG investigates whether a mandate was imposed.
  • Fines per violation if denial/termination found:
    • Entities with fewer than 100 affected persons: up to $10,000 per violation.
    • Entities with 100 or more affected persons: up to $50,000 per violation.
  • AG will not impose a fine if the entity reinstates the person and makes them economically whole prior to a final order.
  • Fine factors: willfulness, good‑faith compliance efforts, corrective actions, prior violations, and other mitigating/aggravating factors.
  • Revenue: collected fines deposited into the general revenue fund.

Effective date and procedural status

  • Effective upon passage.
  • Introduced 02/28/2025; referred to House Health & Human Services.
  • Committee action: 03/18/2025 — committee recommended measure be held for further study.

Who would be affected

  • Employers, educational institutions, landlords, businesses, healthcare providers, and others who impose health‑related mandates.
  • Employees, students, tenants, customers, patients, and others subject to such mandates.
  • The Department of Health (to adopt forms and immunity/pregnancy standards) and the Attorney General (investigations, enforcement).

Potential implications and considerations

  • Operational burden on entities to accept and process exemption statements and on DOH to issue standards/forms.
  • Medical exemptions require in‑person examination and signed statements from licensed clinicians, which may affect access and administrative costs.
  • Broad scope (applies to many relationships) could limit institutional public‑health measures in workplaces, schools, healthcare settings, and housing unless entities accommodate opt‑outs.
  • Enforcement via AG fines creates a financial risk for entities that terminate services or rights based on mandates.

If you’d like, I can draft a short one‑page explainer for employers or schools describing steps to comply with the bill’s requirements.

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

Sign in to ask a question.