A prefiled bill for the Alabama Legislature’s 2026 Legislative Session would make it easier for parents to opt their children out of vaccination or testing requirements for religious reasons.
House Bill 24, filed by Representative Mack Butler, R-Rainbow City, would amend Section 16-30-3 of the Code of Alabama to say that “a written declaration by the parent or guardian of the child… shall be sufficient documentation to exempt his or her child from a vaccine or testing requirement for religious reasons.” Current cosponsors of the bill include Representative Ben Harrison, R-Elkmont, and Representative Mark Gidley, R-Hokes Bluff.
The measure, cited as the Alabama Vaccination Exemption Bill, would apply not only to K–12 public schools, but also to public colleges and universities.
Under the proposed change, a student “enrolled in a public institution of higher education… may be exempted from a vaccine or testing requirement for medical or religious reasons upon written declaration by the student or, if the student is a minor, the student’s parent or guardian.”
Parents or guardians of students would not have to “provide reason for the exemption, certify the exemption with any third party, or otherwise receive approval from the local board of education or any other entity.”
This is not the first time lawmakers have considered this change. During the 2025 session, Senator Arthur Orr, R-Decatur, sponsored Senate Bill 85, which contained nearly identical language.
That bill passed the Senate 26–5 and cleared the House Health Committee but stalled before reaching a final vote. An amendment in the Senate that added physical form requirements drew pushback from some supporters, who said it undermined the bill’s intent.
Butler carried the companion bill in the House during the last legislative session.
By removing the need for supporting documents beyond a signed statement, HB24 would lower the threshold for obtaining religious exemptions, potentially increasing the number of unvaccinated students in both K–12 and higher education settings.
While supporters have framed similar proposals as protecting religious freedom and parental rights, opponents argue that they weaken public health protections and could lead to higher risks of disease outbreaks in schools and on campuses.
