Medical freedom supporters and pro-medical freedom legislators in Columbus are exhibiting a renewed urgency to see strong legislation passed since Democrat Dr. Amy Acton entered the 2026 gubernatorial contest.
“It is long overdue for Ohio Republicans to get HB112 (The Conscientious Right to Refuse Act) and HB12 (The Right to Try Act) done for the citizens who elected them,” according to a statement by Ohio Advocates for Medical Freedom President Stephanie Stock.
Stock noted that President Donald Trump’s administration heavily emphasizes medical freedom initiatives. Ohio Republicans will become more comfortable supporting medical freedom legislation going forward, thanks to the leadership of new Health and Human Services Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr.
If passed, the Conscientious Right to Refuse Act would forbid discrimination against individuals who reject specific medical interventions for reasons of conscience, including religious convictions.
Sponsored by Reps. Jennifer Gross, R-West Chester, and Beth Lear, R-Galena, this legislation responds to vaccine mandates imposed upon Ohio workers in 2021 by employers including Citigroup, Anthem, CVS, General Electric, Microsoft, and Walgreens.
Ohio.com reached out to Lear for comment about the proposed legislation. She responded, “Idaho just passed their medical freedom bill, and research from Canada revealed the devastating effects of mandated vaccinations of their health care workers. Ohio has been leading the way in legislation introduced, but we need it to become law and to pass protection against vaccine status discrimination sooner rather than later.”
Medical freedom advocates are also focusing on the Right to Try Act during this General Assembly. The bill’s primary sponsors are Reps. DJ Swearingen, R-Huron, and Jennifer Gross.
If this bill becomes law, it asserts that “a prescriber may issue for a patient a prescription for any drug, including for off-label use, if the prescriber has obtained the informed consent of the patient or the patient's personal representative.”
The legislation has three key components. First, as is insinuated in the name of the act, it would allow patients to fill a prescription from their provider without obstruction from the pharmacist, as long as there is no life-threatening contraindication with the drug, or the pharmacist has a moral objection to filling the prescription.
Second, it prohibits pharmacists, hospitals, and nursing homes from refusing to fill a drug for a consenting patient due to a "scientific objection." However, if they note their objection in the patient’s chart after discussing their concerns with the prescriber, they will be immune from civil liability and administrative penalties.
Third, it protects healthcare providers’ right to free speech and prevents licensing boards from penalizing providers or revoking their licenses for expressing opinions regarding the risks, benefits, or efficacy of any drug or treatment that differs from the licensing board's views.
Medical freedom proposals have in the past been treated as fringe concerns and not pressing matters to spend political capital upon, often being slow walked to death and downplayed as of lesser relevance.
It is unclear whether Gov. DeWine would sign the legislation into law.
