The Daily Populous Friday February 21st, 2025 day edition
Authored by inforum.com and submitted by -Mystica-

BISMARCK — Distrust in medical institutions and research dominated discussions in the North Dakota House of Representatives on Wednesday, Feb. 19, before lawmakers struck down two bills related to public health — one that would have banned fluoride treatments in public water supplies and another aiming to expand vaccination exemptions.

Denied by a vote of 40-53, House Bill 1605 sought to criminalize the use of fluoride in any public water supply and would have made the act punishable by a $500 fine.

“The fluoridation of our water is a serious health risk and not only endangers our communities, it makes them dumber,” Rep. Nico Rios, R-Williston, said, calling fluoride treatments “unethical” for forcing people to “take a medicine irrespective of their consent.”

“Does a voter have a right to require that their neighbor ingest a certain medication, even if it’s against their neighbor’s will?” he said.

Fluoride treatments are based on “questionable” science, Rios said, posing more health detriments than benefits — from weakened bone density to reproductive impairments.

There was no further discussion on the floor.

In a House Human Services Committee hearing on the bill, sponsor Rep. Matthew Heilman, R-Bismarck, said he was inspired by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to introduce the legislation, citing studies that attribute fluoride to low IQ scores and intellectual disabilities in children.

During the bill hearing, opponents maintained that adding fluoride to water supplies improves oral health. They noted localities already have the option to take fluoride out of public water supplies.

Dentists landed on either side of the issue.

“Forced mass medication” is how Jim Lundstrom of Lundstrom Family Dentistry described adding fluoride to public water supplies in his written testimony in favor of the ban.

In opposing testimony, William Sherwin, executive director of the North Dakota Dental Association, said banning fluoride from water supplies would go against the will of both North Dakotans and health professionals.

Just under half of the online testimony favored banning fluoride, including Washburn City Commissioner Keith Hapip and a handful of North Dakotans.

Those opposing the ban included the state Department of Health and Human Services, Fargo Cass Public Health, the City of Grand Forks and the Menoken Water Plant superintendent.

House Bill 1457 aimed to increase the criteria allowing exemptions for mandatory vaccines and would have required the Department of Health and Human Services to expand the way it educates the public about those exemptions.

Bill sponsor Rep. Donna Henderson, R-Calvin, said its purpose is to protect “medical freedom” and better inform North Dakotans of the risks posed by vaccines.

“No one should be forced to put their health at risk to comply with the mandate if it cannot be proven safe and effective,” Henderson said. “Many people are forced to take the vaccine or lose their jobs.”

The idea that unvaccinated people are a risk to those who are vaccinated is a “fallacy,” according to Henderson.

“If that were true, that would mean vaccines don’t work,” she said.

Rep. Eric Murphy, R-Grand Forks, refuted that statement, saying the purpose of vaccines is to have a high enough immunity rate “to prevent those who cannot get a vaccine from the illness, not the other way around.”

“This is a wolf in sheep’s clothing,” Murphy said. “To make it really simple, this is an anti-vaccination bill.”

A handful of North Dakotans provided supportive testimony in the bill's House Human Services Committee hearing, many of whom took a position based on COVID-19 vaccine mandates.

CHI St. Alexius Health doctors and nurses, the North Dakota Medical Association, North Dakota Hospital Association, North Dakota School Boards Association and other public health professionals opposed the bill.

Opponents said it’s unnecessary because vaccine warnings are already posted by the Department of Health and Human Services, and broad exemptions already exist.

The chamber narrowly rejected the bill with a 44-48 vote.

UncleAlvarez on February 21st, 2025 at 04:26 UTC »

Montana just voted down an MRNA vaccine ban. Shameful that it got past committee, but I sent an email to my R representative today to thank him for voting nay.

https://dailymontanan.com/2025/02/20/montana-lawmakers-reject-ban-mrna-vaccines/

cssc201 on February 21st, 2025 at 04:21 UTC »

If your representative voted against this bill, PLEASE call immediately to thank them! They usually just get negative feedback, so it stands out when they get a lot of calls thanking them.

thinkdeep on February 21st, 2025 at 04:12 UTC »

As South Dakota plans to do the opposite.