WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 1013

Education; State Board of Education; revocation and suspension of licenses and certificates; effective date; emergency.

2025 Regular Session

The bill bars any required administration of a “qualified substance” (including certain vaccines) to a person, prohibiting mandates by any entity.

Second Reading referred to Rules
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 1013

HB 1013 — Exemption from certain health care mandates

Status: First reading; referred to Committee on Public Health (introduced Nov. 12, 2024). Effective date (as drafted): July 1, 2026.

Main purpose

To create a statutory exemption preventing any person or entity from requiring an individual to receive, ingest, inhale, or otherwise incorporate into their body a “qualified substance.” The bill aims to bar mandated administration of such substances in employment, education, licensing, or other settings.

Key provisions

  • Definition
    • “Qualified substance” (as used in the bill) means a substance — including an immunization — for which the manufacturer has been granted immunity from civil liability under a state or federal statute for acts or omissions connected with manufacturing, distribution, administration, or storage.
    • (The bill therefore targets substances that have been lawfully marketed and whose manufacturers enjoy statutory liability protections — e.g., certain emergency countermeasures covered under federal immunity statutes.)
  • Prohibition (core operative text)
    • Notwithstanding any other law, an individual may not be required to:
    • inject;
    • receive an injection of;
    • ingest;
    • inhale; or
    • otherwise incorporate; a qualified substance into the person’s body.
  • No enforcement or penalty language is included in the introduced text (the draft does not itself specify remedies, administrative penalties, or private right-of-action provisions).
  • Effective date specified in the draft: July 1, 2026.

Who and what would be affected

  • Individuals: the bill affirms a personal right to refuse incorporation of a qualified substance.
  • Employers, schools, licensing boards, government agencies, healthcare facilities, and other institutions that might otherwise impose mandatory vaccinations or other required administrations of covered countermeasures.
  • Public health authorities and emergency response programs: the prohibition could limit the ability of public or private actors to require certain countermeasures during public health emergencies, to the extent those countermeasures fall within the bill’s “qualified substance” definition.
  • Manufacturers: indirectly affected because the definition ties to substances for which manufacturers have statutory immunity.

Potential impacts and legal considerations

  • Public health: if applied broadly, the prohibition could impede implementation of mandated countermeasures during outbreaks or emergencies, potentially affecting infection control strategies.
  • Conflicts with federal law: the bill focuses on state-level prohibitions but may raise preemption or federal statutory interaction questions (especially where federal emergency measures apply).
  • Scope uncertainty: the bill’s reach depends on how “qualified substance” is interpreted — e.g., which statutory immunity schemes qualify and whether common vaccines or emergency countermeasures are covered.
  • Enforcement and remedies: because the draft contains no specified enforcement mechanism or penalties, practical effect and avenues for dispute (judicial review, administrative remedies) would depend on subsequent legislative language, agency rules, or court interpretation.

Procedural/timeline notes

  • Introduced and placed on first reading; referred to the Committee on Public Health for consideration.
  • Not enacted; remains at committee referral stage. If passed, the bill would take effect July 1, 2026 (per the draft).

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

Sign in to ask a question.