[{"_1":2,"_98":-5,"_99":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,74,86],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":-5,"_68":69,"_70":-5,"_71":72,"_73":72},"mediaId",6695595,"mediaKeyId","2674443-3aa3e454a1b489b66dd32c35e4a147dd","parentId",2674443,"title","Committee forwards constitutional amendment asking voters to decide on a protected right to refuse medical treatment","audioSeconds",2083,"startMs",3288000,"endMs",5371000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2674443-3aa3e454a1b489b66dd32c35e4a147dd&start=3288&end=5371","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2674443-3aa3e454a1b489b66dd32c35e4a147dd/thumbnail_3288000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6695595/Committee-forwards-constitutional-amendment-asking-voters-to-decide-on-a-protected-right-to-refuse-medical-treatment","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6695595-bf849e121cf01e2a7b1c3925de6ca3e9/orig.mp4?Expires=1771154383&Signature=RfPU74-rE35DfndOEjvvKO~-YU-dNi~zhSetmwjEG4Wk16ejgfCYkBa1UfFquWAey9SGrw0q~UkZehaI7NUXmhNgyt06p0iMeR04W0~MiQV26sENfZJ7vVuhNT5bY1uH204OfRjGPOmU2zEJAKtqFi2wWc3o~bcvHkc4ABLj74LRzvtOge2kbK6JnwbJFeIaWIJbMEQA~BirUX2d0znIoz32vYXCUMLiuQtHQ6-AJPELDsLqRyZxGG8TLV8BENMIYlxwIzUDvphlU7IoDAR9~3-MPQrmszRDEIH1BWsxxWlFr08zo8InT3URo3LTnXDv7fGKig~X-196zqH5Z0qTGQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","TN State Legislature","date","2025-03-18T00:00:00Z","article","House Joint Resolution 28, as amended, would place a proposed state constitutional amendment before Tennessee voters asking whether the government may compel a person to undergo medical treatment absent due process of law. The Tennessee House Health Committee voted 14 ayes, 7 nays and 1 present-not-voting to advance the resolution to Finance, Ways and Means.

Sponsor Chairman Bolso told members a successful passage by voters would enshrine “a right to medical freedom” in the state constitution and explained the amendment’s legal impact by reference to due-process jurisprudence. He said the proposal would not eliminate due process; rather, it would make explicit that the state may not compel medical treatment except under constitutionally required procedures. He referenced U.S. Supreme Court precedent (Cruzan and related cases) and Tennessee case law to describe the analysis courts use when a law affects a fundamental right: the courts ask whether a law is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.

Members questioned how the amendment would apply in practice. Representative Kumar asked whether due process could be overridden in a national emergency; the sponsor responded that due process remains required but a court could, depending on facts, find a law justified when narrowly tailored to a compelling interest. Representative Mitchell cited Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905), a U.S. Supreme Court case upholding compulsory vaccination in a smallpox emergency, arguing the state has a right to protect public health; the sponsor said existing case law already subjects such public-health measures to strict judicial analysis and that explicit constitutional language would not remove the due-process inquiry.

Other committee members probed how the amendment would affect incarcerated people, state-funded institutions and routine public-health programs such as school vaccinations. The sponsor and legal staff stated that private institutions and private employers are not controlled by the state constitution in the same way as state actors and that statutory due-process procedures for emergencies remain in place. Legal services explained the bill’s defined term “gender clinic” when it had arisen in prior discussion; committee members also reviewed a fiscal memo that noted limited immediate state fiscal impact.

After approximately an hour of questions and discussion, the committee voted to advance the joint resolution to Finance, Ways and Means. The clerk reported the tally as 14 ayes, 7 nays and 1 present-not-voting.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Health Committee\tMar 18, 2025\t1:06 PM","oneSentenceSummary","House Joint Resolution 28 would place a proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot asking voters whether the state may compel medical treatment absent due process; the committee advanced the resolution 14–7, 1 present-not-voting.","taxTitle","taxId",0,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":75,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":76,"_41":77,"_43":78,"_45":79,"_47":80,"_49":81,"_51":82,"_53":83,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":84,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":85,"_67":-5,"_68":69,"_70":-5,"_71":72,"_73":72},6695603,"House Health Committee advances task force, hospital, caregiver and residential-facility bills",166,896000,1062000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2674443-3aa3e454a1b489b66dd32c35e4a147dd&start=896&end=1062","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2674443-3aa3e454a1b489b66dd32c35e4a147dd/thumbnail_896000.jpg","/articles/6695603/House-Health-Committee-advances-task-force-hospital-caregiver-and-residential-facility-bills","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6695603-e9a32e697d1917264967b4f8e715d2c3/orig.mp4?Expires=1771154383&Signature=e8r5rpoQWue6KLYPBBgwtN1S3ratZ62SRzFq2GS6Iqf2WRCQ9tR3E-6ZoBui2LNeh~EuT4R~nZ3yyU6EC25Glc4irxxRKyoa4TitDg8q3-g-07aVvEHybQdwFBRxWQG-hHC5lS-0zBBVYHoN72vwub1OkkKdNbmWpBVRcE-5kqHJ7RmbUyrwGi-rJYQx4sJ3F6Z3X-gkcSYve3EctZZa~76GdkZolG1I2ej3~EkKgqLTDtUwBdGiGxqwlSmCTaD1M69w0VeDgtSqA9J2zWyWiDwSkShzKCIinIKDU4ZOs3Wmd4HGrjPYmBQZk5Jwhn0SjILV2km0Z-Ig4OTO8~KQQA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Tennessee House Health Committee on Oct. 29 advanced four bills by recorded voice and roll-call votes, sending each measure to the committee or calendar stage specified by the clerk.

House Bill 843, sponsored by Chairman Haston, would designate two hospitals in Perry and Decatur counties as critical access hospitals to help them meet future federal requirements. The sponsor said both hospitals had closed several years earlier and were in the process of reopening. The committee recorded 17 ayes, 0 nays; HB 843 moves to calendar rules.

House Bill 498 reestablishes a task force to examine provider reimbursement rates and recommend changes to state agencies. The 3-year reconstituted panel’s members would be appointed by the speaker and lieutenant governor and would serve without pay, according to the sponsor. The committee recorded 19 ayes, 0 nays; HB 498 moves to calendar rules.

House Bill 133 extends an existing pilot program for residential facilities that serve people with developmental or physical disabilities to an additional region of the state. The sponsor said the expansion would locate a program in Representative Raper’s district and named Real Life Village as the nonprofit organization to lead the effort on the Westmore Church of God campus. The committee recorded 18 ayes, 0 nays; HB 133 moves to calendar rules.

House Bill 717, called the Caring for Caregivers Act and sponsored by Representative Jones, would create a three-year pilot in the Department of Disability and Aging to make $6,000 grants available to family caregivers of people with Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias. The sponsor said the program is intended to serve about 360,000 caregivers statewide and to defray out-of-pocket costs. The committee recorded 20 ayes, 0 nays; HB 717 moves to Government Operations.

No substantive debate was recorded on most of these items beyond sponsors’ explanations and routine questions. All four bills were advanced by recorded votes as noted above.","The Tennessee House Health Committee on Oct. 29 advanced four bills by recorded voice and roll-call votes, sending each measure to the committee or calendar stage specified by the clerk.",{"_33":87,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":88,"_41":89,"_43":90,"_45":91,"_47":92,"_49":93,"_51":94,"_53":95,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":96,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":97,"_67":-5,"_68":69,"_70":-5,"_71":72,"_73":72},6695599,"Committee advances bill requiring insurers who cover transition care to cover detransition care; debate includes personal testimony and legal questions",370,1630000,2000000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2674443-3aa3e454a1b489b66dd32c35e4a147dd&start=1630&end=2000","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2674443-3aa3e454a1b489b66dd32c35e4a147dd/thumbnail_1630000.jpg","/articles/6695599/Committee-advances-bill-requiring-insurers-who-cover-transition-care-to-cover-detransition-care-debate-includes-personal-testimony-and-legal-questions","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6695599-07cb2e7badd70719b262bf8eeff46d74/orig.mp4?Expires=1771154383&Signature=VULpgF2jH1g~Sbb9NXwqQoMOMHKraIiIL~deMb7cc3A17hwQJHO9YHRD-ll3633foMswkIiWbIC3sZyU8YqSuHZSl8SacrsJBIErTE0kZsPO1hT5oN9q0HTOresZLAVnEF77JwPc3-x-SgxFMh6V4iETJq6bTyji4Ig46pjJUn3w7LS3GZDbLUDVF2FlVr2qzCNglrM3C6t66MTpS0vFxb1dSN4zIoBypK~GqtGjzq-n1QU81P5Og7DWGbxygOKjca-hcdJhlMDgd8qJ1uls97JHqAxdDIJsZxsdvEYEVYfF8JrMmGObgJcbJPVAJ3nR22hOfTGufBBfPyxiahbjgw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","House Bill 754, debated at the Tennessee House Health Committee on Oct. 29, would require that when an insurer covers gender-transition procedures or treatments, it also must provide coverage for detransition procedures and treatments. The measure passed the committee by recorded vote, 18 ayes to 5 nays, and now moves to Finance, Ways and Means.

Representative Faison, the bill sponsor, said the proposal is intended to ensure “if an insurance company is willing to pay for you to go through the therapy and medical portions of whatever it takes for you to pursue a transition, that insurance company needs to sell you the same insurance to come back off on the other side if you change your mind.” He described the intent as providing access to care for individuals who later seek detransition services.

Two witnesses testified during the committee’s public comment period. Adam Shoop, identifying himself as a Davidson County resident and the father of an adult transgender child, testified in opposition to HB 754. He argued the bill would “intrude on the patient privacy of adults seeking gender-affirming care” and that the reporting the bill would require could make patients and providers identifiable, especially in smaller communities. Shoop also said the bill could promote “dubious treatment for detransitions such as conversion therapy” and cited a 2019 JAMA Psychiatry study he said found conversion therapy associated with higher suicide attempts and severe psychological distress.

A second witness identifying as Winter Breedlove and as JD described their experience seeking care and later detransitioning. They testified that mental-health concerns and a trauma history were not adequately addressed in prior care and said poor coding and lack of clear billing categories had created obstacles to accessing corrective care. JD urged the committee to “ground the process in thoughtful comprehensive care that recognizes the full complexity of underlying comorbidities.”

Committee members posed technical and policy questions. Heather Espos of legal services told the committee that the bill’s definition of “gender clinic” covered a licensed health-care entity that “provides or prescribes gender transition procedures.” Members discussed whether state funds currently pay for such procedures and whether the bill’s subsection that conditions receipt of state funds on accepting detransition coverage (subsection (c) in the bill draft) was necessary or potentially inapplicable because managed-care and state group plans do not broadly cover transition procedures, according to the committee’s fiscal memo.

Representative Mitchell described the bill as an insurance mandate and raised concerns about creating new mandates or prompting insurers to exclude both transition and detransition coverage. Representative Clemons and others pressed the sponsor about the statutory scope of the bill, whether it would apply to private insurers and private clinics, and how the bill would interact with existing state programs. The sponsor said the bill was intended to apply broadly to insurers that provide coverage for transition care and to require parallel coverage for detransition care; he also said the data reporting provisions were intended to preserve deidentified medical history for future review while complying with patient-privacy rules.

After discussion the committee voted 18–5 in favor; the clerk announced the tally as 18 ayes and 5 nays and the bill was reported to Finance, Ways and Means.","House Bill 754 would require insurers that cover gender-transition procedures to also cover detransition procedures and would establish reporting requirements for gender clinics. The bill passed out of committee 18–5 after public testimony from a father of a transgender adult and a detransitioner who described gaps in care and challenges accessing ","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee forwards constitutional amendment asking voters to decide on a protected right to refuse medical treatment

House Health Committee advances task force, hospital, caregiver and residential-facility bills

Committee advances bill requiring insurers who cover transition care to cover detransition care; debate includes personal testimony and legal questions