Minnesota House Bill HF3219

Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/21/25
• Refer: 4/21/25

Caption

mRNA Bioweapons Prohibition Act; mRNA injections and products designated as weapons of mass destruction, and mRNA injections and products prohibited.

Impact

If passed, HF3219 would create significant legal implications for public health policies within Minnesota. The bill stipulates that anyone who knowingly manufactures or distributes mRNA injections could face criminal charges, thus threatening existing medical practices involved in vaccination and gene therapy. Furthermore, it mandates local officials to enforce this prohibition, potentially complicating healthcare delivery and existing medical protocols that rely on mRNA technologies. The bill's effective date is set for August 1, 2025, making this a pressing issue for regulatory agencies and healthcare providers in the subsequent years.

Summary

House File 3219, known as the mRNA Bioweapons Prohibition Act, seeks to classify mRNA injections and related products as weapons of mass destruction. The bill aims to prohibit the possession and distribution of these products within the state of Minnesota. By defining mRNA injections in a specific manner and asserting legislative intent to combat what it perceives as harmful bio-products, this bill sets a novel regulatory framework around biotechnology and public health interventions related to gene therapy and immunization.

Contention

The introduction of HF3219 has already sparked considerable debate. Proponents argue that it is necessary to protect public health from what they consider dangerous and unproven technologies, reflecting a growing concern about the safety of mRNA vaccines that were rolled out in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Conversely, critics view this legislation as a dangerous overreach that could undermine public health efforts and create barriers to legitimate medical treatments, especially amidst ongoing discussions about vaccine efficacy and safety. The bill represents a clash between ideological views on health regulation and the scientific community's positions on medical innovations.