SPONSOR: Hardwick
COMMITTEE ACTION: Voted "Do Pass with HCS" by the Standing Committee on Judiciary by a vote of 6 to 4 with 1 present. Voted "Do Pass" by the Standing Committee on Rules- Administrative Oversight by a vote of 10 to 2.
The following is a summary of the House Committee Substitute for HB 1686.
This bill states that no public entity or person as described in the bill may require for employment a COVID-19 vaccination or otherwise impose a fine, tax, or criminal or civil penalty based on a person's COVID-19 vaccination status. An employee shall be exempt from an employer's requirement to receive medical treatment, as defined in the bill, and free from adverse action by the employer if the employee claims a religious or conscientious objection provided in writing, has received a recommendation from a licensed physician not to receive the required medical treatment.
The following is a summary of the public testimony from the committee hearing. The testimony was based on the introduced version of the bill.
PROPONENTS: Supporters say that this would prevent government vaccination mandates on government workers and would clarify existing rules already in state law. This would also expand conscientious objections. This is not about whether you should get vaccinated, including boosters; it is about whether you should be required to do it and it allows you to decide for yourself whether you put something into your body. Religious exemptions should not be applied everywhere but what goes into your body is a good place for the exemption to be applied. There is a lot yet to be determined in the courts. The bill would prohibit the Governor from requiring it but it would not affect individuals being required by the Secretary of Defense to receive the vaccine. This is also not just about the COVID vaccine. It s about the fact that this is the first time we are having this debate, but it is certainly not the last. Without comparing to different forms of discrimination, it is definitely clear that certain people who make certain health care decisions are villainized more than others are. This vaccine only protects you from serious illness; it does not protect you from getting and transmitting COVID.
Testifying for the bill were Representative Hardwick; Andrew Craig; Angelique Chaverri; Hannah Huff; Mary Cremer; Mary Haley; Scott Heiser; Stacey Heiser; Stacy Griffin; Tammy L O'Connor; Alice Crockett; Angela Brune; Arnie C. Dienoff; Cynthia L Jones; Jaime Johnson; Janet Hennessey; Jennell Houts; Jennifer Stock; Katie Becker; and Cathy Boero.
OPPONENTS: Those who oppose the bill say that the chamber of commerce opposes all mandates, whether they require or prohibit the vaccine because their business-members would prefer that we let businesses decide what is best for their situation. Two-hundred businesses signed on in support of the chamber s letter opposing all government mandates related to the vaccine. Eighty-three percent of the businesses are encouraging this vaccine. Retailers Association is also opposed to all government mandates. Religious exemptions in the state should be the same as the federal ones, even though the states have the ability to provide more protections. Physicians who own their own practices want the ability to require their employees to be vaccinated against various viruses. There should also be a consensus for conscientious objections. Kansas City Chamber members attorneys have told them to broadly interpret the religious exemption to keep themselves out of trouble. This will have a major impact on health care facilities, including nursing homes. Prohibiting them from mandating vaccines when the federal government would require them to would get them into trouble with funding and federal government. Most employers accept an employee s sincerely held religious belief and do not push any farther, trying to define what sincerely held religious beliefs are.
Testifying against the bill were Angela Glazebrook; Labor- Management Council of Greater Kansas City; Ian K. Hornstra, MD, PHD; Julie Gaebe; Paul Leykamp; Kansas City Chamber of Commerce; Sheryl Foster; Missouri Retailers Association; Missouri Tire Industry Association; Missouri Grocers Association; Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry; Lisa Pannett; Mo State Medical Association; Mo Health Care Association; Associated Industries of Missouri; and St. Louis Area Business Health Coalition.
OTHERS: Others testifying on the bill say Article I, Section 5 goes to the religious exemption, and it provides a limit to the religious exemption. Right now, OSHA recognizes an adverse event from a mandated vaccine as a reportable event. Employer liability is different from a workers compensation claim. Are you obligating workers compensation carriers to cover this? The problem is that adverse reactions to vaccines might come months to years or decades later. Most important considerations are property rights considerations, and that includes our conscience, minds, beliefs, etc. Telling a property owner that he must mandate or cannot mandate a vaccine means you are telling him or her how to use his property. Testifying on the bill was Leadingage Missouri.
Written testimony has been submitted for this bill. The full written testimony can be found under Testimony on the bill page on the House website.
Statutes affected: