Jennifer Benson advocates for House Bill 1391 to protect health status rights in North Dakota

The North Dakota Senate Industry and Business Committee convened on March 18, 2025, to discuss House Bill 1391, which aims to protect individuals' health status as a category under the state's anti-discrimination laws. The meeting featured testimony from various stakeholders, highlighting both support and opposition to the proposed legislation.

The session began with a discussion on the implications of health status definitions. Representative Freilich emphasized the need for clarity, arguing that health status should encompass more than just symptoms like coughs or fevers, suggesting it should relate to documented medical conditions and treatments. This perspective set the stage for further testimony.

Jennifer Benson, a proponent of the bill, presented her case, citing her extensive experience in the pharmaceutical industry and as an elected official. She argued that the bill is essential for safeguarding personal liberties and medical freedom, particularly in light of perceived coercion during the pandemic. Benson shared personal anecdotes about the adverse effects of medical mandates and stressed the importance of informed consent in medical decisions. She pointed out that many states have enacted similar protections, advocating for North Dakota to follow suit.

In contrast, opposition testimony was provided by Zachary Greenberg, interim commissioner of the Department of Labor and Human Rights. He raised concerns about the administrative burden the bill would impose, suggesting it could lead to an influx of discrimination claims that the department is ill-equipped to handle. Greenberg warned that the broad definition of health status could create ambiguity, complicating the enforcement of existing laws and potentially overwhelming the department's resources.

Eric Spencer, president of the Greater North Dakota Chamber, echoed these concerns, arguing that the bill could increase legal liabilities for employers and complicate workplace safety protocols. He highlighted the potential for confusion regarding reasonable accommodations for employees who refuse medical treatments, including vaccines.

The committee members engaged in a robust dialogue, weighing the balance between individual freedoms and public safety. Questions arose about the implications of the bill for employers and the potential for increased litigation. Some senators expressed skepticism about the necessity of the bill, noting that existing laws already provide certain protections.

As the meeting concluded, the committee faced the challenge of reconciling the need for personal medical freedom with the practical implications of enforcing such protections. The discussions underscored the complexities surrounding health status and discrimination, leaving the future of House Bill 1391 uncertain as the committee deliberates its next steps.