Legislative Updates
When our legislature is in session (Jan-Mar), South Dakota Families for Vaccines monitors vaccine-related legislation and informs our partners and volunteers about opportunities to participate in the lawmaking process.
You can join our email list to be notified about our activities. We submit testimony, organize volunteers, and work with leading medical, public health, and community partners to educate South Dakotans about vaccine science, public health, and why safe communities are so important.
Learn how to get involved and make a real difference!
2026 SD LEGISLATIVE SESSION UPDATE
HB 1153 – This bill creates broad “conscience” protections for health care providers, allowing individuals and entities to refuse participation in or payment for medical services that conflict with their ethical, moral, or religious beliefs. It significantly limits the ability of state licensing boards and regulators to discipline providers for related speech or conduct, expands whistleblower-style protections, and shields providers from civil, criminal, or administrative liability. The bill also allows private lawsuits with damages and attorney fees for alleged violations, even when a provider’s refusal creates added burdens for others.
Oppose
HB 1163 – This bill would prohibit employers, schools, public accommodations, and public services from requiring “genetic-based vaccinations,” broadly defined to include mRNA and similar technologies. It bars employment actions, enrollment decisions, or denial of services based on vaccination status, including during a declared public health emergency. The bill allows the attorney general to impose civil penalties of up to $10,000 for violations, with limited exemptions for certain health care settings, school-required vaccines already in law, clinical placements, court orders, and the National Guard.
Oppose
HB 1171 – This bill would require blood donation centers to ask donors whether they have ever received a COVID-19 or mRNA vaccine and to label donated blood accordingly. The bill also allows patients in nonemergency situations to request blood from donors who are vaccinated or unvaccinated, and requires health care providers to honor that request if such blood is available at the facility.
Oppose
HB 1210 - This bill would prohibit any employer, school, state agency, or local government from requiring COVID-19 vaccination as a condition of employment, enrollment, or access to services or benefits. The prohibition applies broadly across public and private entities. Any organization or individual found in violation of the law would be subject to a Class 2 misdemeanor penalty.
Oppose
HCR 6008 - This concurrent resolution urges the South Dakota Attorney General to file a lawsuit against the People’s Republic of China and related entities, alleging responsibility for the COVID-19 pandemic and seeking $100 billion in damages.
Oppose
SB 145 – This bill narrows the authority of municipalities to take action to promote public health or suppress disease. While cities would retain some public health powers, the bill restricts local governments from adopting measures that affect activities in private residences or businesses and from actions that could be interpreted as interfering with constitutional rights, even during a public health response. These limitations would apply to ordinances and resolutions intended to address disease prevention or outbreak control.
Oppose
2025 SD LEGISLATIVE SESSION UPDATE
“An Act to provide for conscience exemptions from certain vaccinations.”
DEFEATED! on the House floor on 2/19/2025 with vote 34-36, and also upon reconsideration 2/20/2025 with vote 35-35, after passing House Health Committee 2/13/2025 with vote 7-6.
Why we opposed it: This bill is targeted at "genetic vaccines", mainly focusing on the mRNA COVID vaccine. It is based entirely on misinformation about mRNA vaccines, which have been studied for decades, have saved millions of lives, and are very safe and effective. If this bill passed it would be dangerous during another pandemic, epidemic, or outbreak that would be dependent on a vaccine using mRNA technology to control. "Genetic vaccines" are the future of many amazing technologies being studied for infectious diseases, as well as other illnesses such as cancer. There are already religious and medical exemptions in place, so conscientious exemption isn't needed. Many could use these vague exemptions, leading to decreased coverage in our state, putting lives at risk, not only in vulnerable populations, and could lead to policies with these kinds of exemptions for other vaccines. This bill would also take away the rights of private employers and business owners to require a vaccine for their employees to keep their families, patrons, and employees safe, even if they are vulnerable individuals. All around, a disastrous proposition.
"An Act to establish provisions related to the disclosure of COVID-19 vaccination status and blood donations"
DEFEATED! in House Health and Human Services Committee 1/10/25. Vote 7-6.
Why we opposed it: Any bill to limit blood donation based on vaccination status is unnecessary and grossly irresponsible. There is no evidence that vaccination has any negative effect on donated blood. This bill would undermine confidence in the rigorously tested and screened blood donation supply that saves lives and would exacerbate shortages. There is no way to test the blood to know if someone was vaccinated, as the mRNA vehicle is fleeting in the blood stream before it's destroyed, just like all the other mRNA in our blood. In addition, the antibodies created to fight off COVID are exactly the same whether one has been vaccinated or contracted the disease itself, leading to close to 100% of our US population having COVID antibodies in their blood. We need to encourage blood donation, not discourage it on a groundless and irrational basis.
“An act to prohibit enforcement & implementation of directives from intergovernmental organizations and provide a penalty therefor”
DEFEATED! on the House floor on 2/18/2025 vote 32-37, after it had passed House State Affairs 2/12/2025. Vote 8-4.
Why we opposed it: This bill proposed to add a new legal section prohibiting intergovernmental organizations like the United Nations, World Economic Forum, and World Health Organization from having jurisdiction or power within South Dakota. State organizations take recommendations and utilize the official guidance of nationally and internationally recognized public health experts when making health policy decisions on behalf of SD families. Such guidance and recommendations have traditionally helped to inform decision-makers in the state so that they can make choices based on as much accurate and up-to-date information that is currently available. Recommendations from intergovernmental organizations are NOT mandated in states anyway. If passed, the bill would effectively create a legal barrier preventing South Dakota officials from acting on directives from specified international organizations, which would affect the state’s vaccine confidence and decrease our vaccination rates even further. An amendment took out a severe penalty for listening to this advice.
“An Act to provide protections for parental rights”
PASSED- Heard on Senate floor where failed to concur on 3/11 and sent to Conference Committee where it passed 3/12 with a vote 5-1. Passed House State Affairs 3/5/25 with vote 10-3. Passed Senate on 2/11/2024, vote 30-4, after passing Senate State Affairs Committee on 2/7/2025 with vote 6-3.
The is a vague bill supporting parental rights, which are already supported federally. Many groups were opposed, including law enforcement and education. Concerns include about children’s rights in abuse and neglect situations, etc. An amendment was added that no part of the bill can override any prior SD statute.
House Concurrent Resolution 6009
“Requesting the attorney general to file a lawsuit against China to seek COVID-19 damages”
DEFEATED- Intent to reconsider but session ended. Heard on Senate Floor on 3/6, last day of session, where it failed with a vote 17-17. Passed Senate State Affairs 3/4/25 with vote 5-3. Passed House of Representatives on 2/12/2025 vote 40-28, after passing House State Affairs Committee on 2/10/2025, vote 9-2.
This is a resolution, which is more of a statement. We believe there isn't enough evidence for this request for a lawsuit, but this is the sponsors' ideas on display.
2024 SD LEGISLATIVE SESSION UPDATE
The following is a list of the 2024 anti-vaccine legislation with brief explanations and our concerns. All were defeated in committee!
Senate Bill 100: An Act to prohibit the imposition of additional immunization requirements on children.
Concerns that this bill would have increased exemptions to vaccination when rates are already decreasing, and would have made it impossible to add any vaccine to the school schedule, leaving our community susceptible to preventable diseases as new vaccines are developed.
House Bill 1166: An Act to clarify determinations regarding the wearing of face masks.
House Bill 1167: An Act to clarify determinations regarding the injection of a COVID-19 vaccine.
Concerns that both of these bills collectively would restrict employers from requiring face masks or COVID-19 vaccines for their employees. These restrictions would hinder employers' efforts to ensure the safety of both customers and staff, as well as to reduce absenteeism.
House Bill 1248: An Act to prohibit a person from coercing an individual to submit to certain vaccinations.
Concerns are the definition of 'coerce' and ensuring children and adults get vaccinated although it is sometimes an unpleasant experience, without fear of penalty for educating and encouraging.
House Bill 1221: An Act to enhance right to work laws and provide a penalty therefor.
Concerns are employer and school rights to require working and learning in an environment for everyone that is safe from vaccine preventable diseases, without penalty.
House Concurrent Resolution 6012: Acknowledging the challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic and committing to accountability and action.
Concerns about the legislation using information that is not evidence-based or factual.