Tennessee legislature considers constitutional amendment for medical freedom rights

A proposed amendment to the Tennessee Constitution aimed at establishing a right to medical freedom sparked intense discussions during the House Health Committee meeting on March 18, 2025. The amendment seeks to explicitly protect individuals from being compelled to undergo medical treatment, even during declared emergencies, a move that proponents argue is essential for safeguarding personal liberties.

Chairman Bolso, the bill's sponsor, emphasized that while Tennessee's Constitution already includes a due process clause, it lacks specific provisions addressing medical freedom. He argued that enshrining this right would prevent the government from mandating treatments, such as vaccinations, without demonstrating a compelling state interest through narrowly tailored laws. "If this amendment is adopted, the state may not compel a person to undergo medical treatment," Bolso stated, underscoring the importance of individual choice in healthcare decisions.

The discussion also touched on historical legal precedents, including landmark cases like *Cruzan* and *Quinlan*, which recognized the right to refuse medical treatment as a fundamental right. Bolso reiterated that the amendment would not alter existing due process protections but would solidify the right to medical freedom in the state constitution.

However, opposition emerged from several committee members, including Representative Mitchell, who cautioned against politicizing health decisions. He referenced the *Jacobson v. Massachusetts* case, which upheld the government's authority to mandate vaccinations during public health crises, arguing that community safety should take precedence over individual rights in certain situations. "The rights of a community to defend itself against something like that goes against every moral foundation that our country's been founded upon," Mitchell asserted.

Concerns were raised about the amendment's implications for vulnerable populations, such as prisoners or individuals with infectious diseases, with some members questioning whether it could hinder public health measures. Bolso reassured the committee that existing statutory protections would remain intact, and the amendment would not interfere with necessary actions taken during health emergencies.

As the committee deliberates the amendment's potential impact, the debate highlights the ongoing tension between individual rights and public health responsibilities in Tennessee. The proposed amendment will continue to be a focal point as lawmakers weigh the balance between personal freedoms and community safety in the evolving landscape of healthcare policy.