Montana 2023 Regular Session

Montana House Bill HB684

Introduced
2/20/23  
Refer
2/21/23  
Engrossed
3/3/23  
Refer
3/13/23  
Enrolled
4/11/23  

Caption

Prohibit use of vaccination status in certain administrative/legal proceedings

Impact

If enacted, HB 684 would significantly alter the landscape of legal proceedings related to children and incapacitated adults within the relevant state laws. By codifying restrictions on the admissibility of vaccination status, the bill aims to prevent any prejudicial assumptions or biases from affecting the outcomes of cases that often involve vulnerable populations. The legislation would contribute to protecting parental rights and ensuring cases are adjudicated based on the merits of the situation rather than public health decisions related to vaccination.

Summary

House Bill 684 is designed to prohibit the use of vaccination status as evidence in certain judicial and administrative proceedings involving children and incapacitated adults. The bill is explicitly aimed at child custody, visitation rights, child support matters, and guardianship decisions, ensuring that vaccination status cannot be used as a factor influencing these sensitive legal determinations. By removing vaccination status from consideration in these cases, the legislation seeks to create a legal environment where parental rights and guardianship decisions are based solely on more relevant factors.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB 684 appears mixed, with some supporting it as a necessary protection for parental rights in a changing societal landscape where vaccination status can be contentious. Advocates argue that decisions regarding children should focus on their best interests and not be influenced by a parent's medical choices. Conversely, there may be concerns among public health advocates who fear that excluding vaccination status from judicial considerations could undermine efforts to assess the overall welfare and safety of children in some cases. This debate reflects broader societal divisions on vaccination and individual rights.

Contention

Notable points of contention regarding HB 684 include the implications for public health and child welfare. Critics may argue that the bill weakens the ability of courts to consider important health-related factors that could affect child safety and welfare. On the other hand, proponents emphasize the need to disentangle personal medical choices from legal judgments regarding family law, positing that the bill protects against potential discrimination based on vaccination decisions. This highlights a significant tension between individual rights and public health considerations in the legislature.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Previously Filed As

MT HB27

COVID-19 vaccination status; mandatory COVID-19 vaccination prohibited, discrimination prohibited.

MT HB2029

Vaccinations; evidence of immunity; prohibitions

MT SB5783

Prohibiting use of vaccination status in certain administrative and legal proceedings.

MT HB253

Prohibits discriminatory practices on the basis of vaccination status or immunity status

MT SB1669

Relating to prohibited discrimination regarding vaccination status and mandates for receiving or participating in the administration of vaccines; authorizing administrative penalties.

MT SB2350

Relating to the prohibited administration of certain vaccinations.

MT AB327

COVID-19 vaccination status: prohibition on required disclosure.

MT HB3304

Relating to a prohibition on vaccination mandates.

MT SB308

Relating to prohibited vaccination status discrimination and requirements for COVID-19 vaccines; authorizing administrative penalties.

MT SB41

Relating to prohibited vaccination status discrimination and requirements for COVID-19 vaccines; authorizing administrative penalties.

Similar Bills

No similar bills found.