Minnesota Legislature Threatens to Eliminate Parental Choice in Vaccination Mandate

• First Posted: February 22, 2019
• Updated: February 20, 2020

Quick Summary

Current Minnesota law generally requires K-12 students to receive a standard vaccination schedule, but allows an exemption when parents object on conscientious grounds. A recently introduced bill would revoke the parental choice exemption from current law.

Legislative Analysis

Current Law

• MN Rev. St. 120A.22 Subd. 5 requires: “Every child between seven and 17 years of age must receive instruction unless the child has graduated.”
• MN Rev. St. 121A.15 Subd. 1 requires: “Except as provided in subdivisions 3, 4, and 10, no person over two months old may be allowed to enroll or remain enrolled in any elementary or secondary school or child care facility in this state until the person has submitted to the administrator or other person having general control and supervision of the school or child care facility, one of the following statements [verifying vaccination compliance].”
• MN Rev. St. 121A.15, Subd. 3(d) allows the following exemption from compulsory vaccination (emphasis added): “If a notarized statement signed by the minor child's parent or guardian or by the emancipated person is submitted to the administrator or other person having general control and supervision of the school or child care facility stating that the person has not been immunized as prescribed in subdivision 1 because of the conscientiously held beliefs of the parent or guardian of the minor child or of the emancipated person, the immunizations specified in the statement shall not be required. This statement must also be forwarded to the commissioner of the Department of Health.”
• MN Rev. St. 121A.15 Subd. 9(a) applies the preceding requirement and exemption to private schools and home schools as much as to public schools, by defining “elementary or secondary school” as “includ[ing] any public school, nonpublic school, church, or religious organization, or home school in which a child is provided instruction in compliance with sections 120A.22 and 120A.24.”
• MN Rev. St. 121A.15 Subd. 8 specifically requires that: “The parent of persons receiving instruction in a home school shall submit the statements as required by subdivisions 1, 2, 3, 4, and 12 to the superintendent of the district in which the person resides by October 1 of the first year of their homeschooling in Minnesota and the grade 7 year.”

Proposed Bill

• SF 1520, as introduced on February 21, 2019, would amend current law by striking MN Rev. St. 121A.15, Subd. 3(d)—the section quoted above that currently protects a parent’s right to conscientiously object.
• In view of the other sections of current law quoted above, this revocation of parental rights obviously intends to apply to children ages 7 through 17, regardless of whether they are enrolled in public, private, or home schools.

Call to Action

Get Informed

• There are at least 16 good reasons why a parent might conscientiously object to mandatory vaccination—including reasons supported by peer-reviewed medical research as well as reasons recognized by federal court rulings that have awarded monetary damages to families who suffered vaccine-induced injuries.

Stay Informed

• Track the progress of SF 1520 in the Minnesota legislature.
• On February 21, 2019, Senator Chris A. Eaton (40, DFL) introduced the bill.
• On February 21, 2019, the bill was referred to the Health and Human Services Finance and Policy Committee.
• (No further actions were taken in the 2019 legislative session.)
• On February 20, 2020, Senator D. Scott Dibble (61, DFL) was added as co-author.
• (Check back for future updates....)

Share Your Concerns

• NEW (2/5/2020): Sign this petition opposing SF1520.
• Contact members of the committee(s) identified under “Stay Informed” (above) by clinking the link(s) above.
• Contact legislators from your own district, using this handy directory.
• Borrow some talking points from the 16 good reasons why parental choice makes sense for vaccine policy, or follow the research links in that article in order to discover additional talking points.
• Tell your friends through social media: “I am not anti-vaccine; rather, I am pro-freedom. I oppose vaccination mandates, while remaining open to individuals’ choices of whether to vaccinate themselves and their children.”