Late on a Thursday, Governor Mike DeWine of Ohio vetoed a portion of legislation that, according to state legislators, was designed to safeguard the freedom of medical discourse for doctors and other healthcare professionals. However, Governor DeWine has expressed concern that the piece of legislation may severely undermine the state’s ability to manage misdemeanors in the medical field.
While Governor DeWine did not sign off on the previously mentioned language, he did approve another clause. This provision permits law enforcement agencies to impose a rate of up to $75 per hour for the provision of police body cam footage. This decision was made regardless of the issues brought forth by several open government advocacy groups, such as the ACLU and the NAACP.
Governor DeWine’s refusal to support the medical language is indicative of a larger issue – the persistent disputes surrounding medical science on a national scale, which have only been exacerbated in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. DeWine stated in his veto notice that the introduction of specific healthcare oversight language in the bill could potentially be disastrous and even fatal for patients’ health.
Governor DeWine added, in his written statement, that the purpose of the medical licensing boards in Ohio is primarily to safeguard patients and members of the public from potential harm caused by professionals in the medical field. Further, he pointed out that medical practitioners offering detrimental care should not be able to avoid culpability by merely claiming a ‘difference of medical opinion’ as a ‘legal shield.’
Last month, during the final assembly of their lame-duck session (which concluded around 2 a.m.), Ohio lawmakers approved House Bill 315. This particular piece of legislation garnered quite a bit of attention, primarily due to the controversial elements it contained, which were borrowed from other pending legislations.
Additionally, Governor DeWine vetoed factions of the bill that would have made exceptions to new ethical standards and addressed matters related to court clerks. Critics, including the Ohio Ethics Commission’s Executive Director Paul Nick, lauded DeWine’s decision to strike down the provision that would have enabled mayors and other executive officers to possess stakes in public contracts issued by public agencies they were already serving.
Yet, it was arguably the section on medical freedom that could have resulted in the most substantial change. The text sought to prevent the Department of Health, the Pharmacy Board, and the Medical Board of Ohio from reprimanding any pharmacist or other licensed healthcare professional for expressing a medical opinion that did not conform to the viewpoints of any state, county, or city health institution.
Regardless of the conflicts, Governor DeWine chose to uphold a controversial provision of the bill, which establishes Ohio’s autonomy from the World Health Organization’s jurisdiction. He was one of only three Republican governors who refrained from co-signing a communique sent by their fellow Republican governors to the present administration in May, protesting a global response plan for the pandemic.
The governors had contended that the proposal undermined their health-related powers. These claims were later disproven; however, an ensuing backlash was instrumental in derailing the international agreement.
A non-partisan group, Ohio Advocates for Medical Freedom, which has been working tirelessly for years on a constitutional amendment to limit vaccine mandates dictated by businesses, health care providers, and governments, gave its endorsement to the vetoed provision concerning medical free speech.
The group’s campaign was launched in tandem with Governor DeWine’s decision to veto legislation twice during the pandemic. The governor stated that the proposed legislation would thwart the state’s capacity to declare emergency health orders. Although lawmakers fell short of overriding his initial veto in December 2020, they succeeded in reviving a diluted version of the law in March of the following year.
Despite the circumstances, the medical freedom organization has downplayed any influence Sherri Tenpenny’s case may have had in sparking the recent proposal of free medical speech. An infamous figure, Tenpenny drew nationwide criticism for her testimony in which she suggested that COVID-19 vaccinations might be causing individuals to ‘interface’ with cell towers and disrupting women’s menstrual cycles.
As a result of this contentious claim, the state’s medical board initiated an investigation following numerous complaints. Tenpenny was defiant in the face of the ensuing investigation, refusing to cooperate with officers, including a refusal to attend interviews, answer written queries, or submit to deposition.
The fallout from her unwillingness to cooperate was a suspension of her medical license. However, further developments saw her settle on an agreement to cooperate with investigators and pay a penalty, which led to her license being reinstated earlier this year.
In closing, this issue brings to light the challenges inherent in preserving the balance between medical free speech and responsible regulation in the medical field. As illustrated by the case of Ohio and its Governor Mike DeWine, protecting public health while maintaining the professional autonomy of medical practitioners remains an ongoing challenge.