House Republican Bill Adds “Vaccination Status” to List of Protected Civil Rights

It is so good to see serious reporting on a healthcare freedom bill.

On the other hand, what's up with the bow to CMS rules and federal health policy manipulation? The Constitution reserves domestic issues like healthcare to the states. And under true federalism, the states would defend their turf - and our individual freedoms.

https://www.themidwesterner.news/2025/05/house-republican-bill-adds-vaccination-status-to-list-of-protected-civil-rights/

House Republican Bill Adds “Vaccination Status” to List of Protected Civil Rights
by Victor Skinner          May 12, 2025           

 

Michigan House Republicans have introduced legislation that would make it illegal to discriminate against someone based on their vaccination status. House Bill 4475, introduced on May 8, would add “vaccination status” and possession of an “immunity passport” to the list of protected civil rights under Michigan law.

The bill amends the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act and prohibits employers, schools, and state and local governments from treating people differently based on whether they’ve received one or more vaccines.

The move comes after years of debate and fallout from COVID-19-era mandates. If passed, HB 4475 would ensure that an individual cannot be denied a job, education, or government service just because of their personal medical decisions.

Under the bill, no state or local government, community college, or private university could deny “services, goods, facilities, advantages, privileges, licensing, educational opportunities, health care access, or employment opportunities” based on vaccine status or the presence or lack of an immunity passport. Employers would also be barred from refusing to hire or firing workers based on whether they’re vaccinated.

This push for medical freedom isn’t new. In 2021, Rep. Sue Allor, R-Wolverine, introduced similar legislation, saying, “We should not be discriminating against individuals over a personal choice, or creating two classes of citizens based on that choice.” Rep. Steve Carra, R-Three Rivers, who supported that effort, added, “This plan will protect Michiganders seeking to make medical choices without fear of coercion or discrimination.”

HB 4475 includes narrow exceptions, such as federal compliance requirements for Medicare- and Medicaid-funded facilities, high-risk healthcare environments, and pre-existing contracts.

Supporters of HB 4475 argue that the legislation is a necessary correction after years of emergency policies that blurred the line between public health and personal liberty. They say the bill doesn’t question the value of vaccines but rather affirms that health decisions, especially those involving medical risk, should remain between individuals and their doctors, not dictated by employers or government bureaucrats.

By recognizing vaccine status as a protected category under civil rights law, lawmakers aim to ensure that future crises do not erode the fundamental freedoms Michiganders are entitled to. In their view, HB 4475 isn’t just about COVID-19; it’s about drawing a firm boundary that protects individual choice in the face of collective pressure, now and in the years to come.

The Midwesterner and Mr. Skinner might want to rephrase one sentence: CMS rules are not a "narrow" exemption. It's all well and good to try to defend vaccine choice in higher ed, but good luck trying to achieve that while carving out healthcare. The kicker is that every student who participates in clinicals is required to follow CMS rules for facilities.

On the road to healthcare freedom, I'd estimate we're about halfway there. We're approaching public awareness of some issues. Skilled defense is a long way off.