Representative Koppelman moved and the committee adopted an amendment to House Bill 1454 that would bar state agencies, political subdivisions and other government entities from requiring an individual to take, receive or disclose whether the individual has taken or received a “medical product” unless the individual has first been notified and afforded an opportunity to decline and failed to do so.

The amendment, offered by Representative Koppelman and seconded by Representative Schatz, was approved by voice vote and produced an “amended bill,” after which the committee called Allison Hicks from the Attorney General’s Office for a legal opinion on the revised language.

Allison Hicks, general counsel to the Public Health Division of the North Dakota Department of Health and Human Services, told the committee the department “does still have a lot of concerns about this bill.” She said the amendment’s combination of a broad definition of “medical product” and language that applies to state agencies and political subdivisions raises conflicts with established public-health and correctional authorities. Hicks said the bill’s language could be read to prevent emergency medical services from providing treatment to an unconscious person, to restrict law enforcement or corrections staff from administering naloxone (Narcan), and to interfere with court-ordered medical treatment in custody settings.

Hicks also noted the amendment retains a prohibition on disclosure of whether an individual has received vaccines or other medical products, which she said could impede routine workplace protections — for example, preventing health officials or employers from learning whether a worker has an immunization after a needle stick exposure. She warned the amendment could “hamper the ability of the department to address a public health emergency,” citing scenarios such as active tuberculosis where quarantine or treatment may be enforced by court order.

Representatives on the committee asked whether inserting explicit exceptions — for example, “unless court ordered” — or removing the disclosure prohibition would address the department’s concerns. Hicks said she would need to consult with her client (the public health division) and could work with counsel on tailored language, but reiterated that current law already contains many of the protections sought and that the proposed amendment, as drafted, may be preemptive and overly broad.

After the legal discussion, the committee agreed to “hold that over,” leaving the amended bill pending while staff and counsel review possible revisions and the department pulls relevant legislative history and summaries of prior pandemic orders for the committee.

Ending: The committee adopted Representative Koppelman’s amendment but took no final vote on House Bill 1454. Members requested additional legal review of exceptions (including court orders and emergency public-health powers) before further action.