Kansas committee hears hours of testimony on bill creating conscientious exemption from medical interventions

Senate Committee on Public Health and Welfare Chairman Gossage opened a hearing on Senate Bill 19, which would prohibit employers, health-care entities, schools and others from taking adverse actions based on an individual’s refusal "for reasons of conscience" to accept a vaccination, pharmaceutical, biologic or gene-editing technology and would create a private right of action for alleged violations.

Supporters told the committee they want a statutory conscience exemption that reaches beyond religious denominations. "I support SB 19 because it protects my freedom, my beliefs, and my baby girl," said Jerome Gossage, who testified as a parent. Several proponents urged the committee to allow parents and workers to refuse medical interventions without having to show membership in a faith whose official teachings bar vaccinations.

Opponents, including local public-health leaders, school nurses and pediatricians, warned the bill would weaken tools public health uses to control outbreaks and could lower vaccination coverage. Farah Ahmed of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment said medical exemptions have stayed around 0.25% of students while religious exemptions rose from about 0.75% to about 2.75% in recent years. "Enforcement of those exemptions are completely up to the school and the school districts," Ahmed told the committee.

The bill would give a prevailing plaintiff a choice of recovering three times actual damages or a $10,000 floor, plus attorney fees and costs, language that drew questions from committee members. Jenna, a committee staff member who summarized the bill, said the $10,000 figure operates as a floor so "even if you've sustained $0 in damage ... you could get that $10,000 or three times the amount of your actual damages."

Testimony highlighted competing policy priorities. Proponents framed the bill as a protection of conscience and parental decision-making; Kathy Brown, an attorney and nurse, told the committee, "Our conscientious rights are the foundation of our whole system of jurisprudence." Opponents described public-health and economic risks: Heather Braum of Kansas Action for Children said outbreak responses can cost millions and cited U.S. measles data showing recent cases were largely among the unvaccinated.

Several witnesses described features of existing law. Jenna and others referenced prior statutes and a 2021 special-session provision (K.S.A. 44-663) that governs employee religious exemptions for COVID-19 vaccine mandates, noting courts weigh conscience claims against risks to others. Randy Bowman, executive director of the Kansas Association of Local Health Departments, warned the civil cause of action in SB 19 could increase litigation and raise costs for employers and the public sector.

Health-care and education representatives said current medical and religious exemptions already serve many parents’ needs. Kimberly Martin, legislative chair of the Kansas School Nurses Organization, said the state already uses medical and religious exemptions and added, "We do not need this exemption that allows anyone to opt out for any reason, which has been proven to lower vaccination rates."

The hearing included personal stories about vaccine reactions and medical uncertainty and also accounts warning of harms from vaccine-preventable diseases. Dr. Rebecca Reddy, a Wichita pediatrician and member of the Kansas chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, said the U.S. has suppressed many of these illnesses through vaccination and urged rejection of the bill to "protect the health of Kansas children."

Committee members questioned witnesses about statutory language, litigation risk, religious-exemption processes and practical enforcement in schools. Farah Ahmed clarified KDHE does not collect exemption affidavits and that local districts decide how to review and enforce exemptions. Jenna said the bill would repeal several quarantine- and isolation-related statutes listed in proponents’ materials but the repeal specifics were in the bill packet.

The committee took testimony from both sides and closed the hearing on SB 19 without a vote. No committee amendment or motion was recorded during the hearing record provided.