Kansas Senate Bill SB19

Kansas 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/16/25
• Refer: 1/17/25

Caption

Enacting the conscientious right to refuse act to prohibit discrimination against individuals who refuse medical care and creating a civil cause of action based on such discrimination and revoking the authority of the secretary of health and environment to quarantine individuals and impose associated penalties.

Impact

The enactment of SB 19 is expected to have significant implications for public health authority in Kansas. One noteworthy provision of the bill is the revocation of the authority held by the secretary of health and environment to enforce isolation or quarantine orders. This aligns with the overall theme of curtailing governmental power regarding individual medical choices and may lead to challenges in managing public health crises. The bill establishes a private cause of action for individuals who face discrimination, which could open the door for a wave of lawsuits seeking redress for perceived violations of the act.

Summary

Senate Bill 19, also known as the Conscientious Right to Refuse Act, is a legislative proposal aimed at protecting individuals who refuse medical interventions based on personal or ethical beliefs. The bill prohibits various forms of discrimination against those who opt-out of vaccinations or other medical procedures. Specifically, it prevents employers, healthcare entities, schools, and individuals from taking adverse actions—including dismissal, demotion, or denial of services—against persons who choose not to undergo these interventions for reasons of conscience. By safeguarding the rights of these individuals, the bill seeks to create a more tolerant environment for personal health decisions.

Contention

Debate surrounding SB 19 is likely to center on the balance between individual rights and public health safety. Supporters of the bill view it as a necessary step in protecting personal liberties, particularly in light of recent public health challenges. They argue that individuals should not be coerced into medical interventions under threat of punishment or discrimination. Conversely, opponents of the bill may express concern that it undermines public health initiatives and could hinder efforts to control infectious diseases. The repeal of pre-existing laws related to health department authorities is also a contentious point, potentially leaving public health responses less robust in emergencies.