Tennessee committee advances constitutional amendment to bar most government-required medical treatments

The House Health Committee on March 12 voted to advance House Joint Resolution 28, a proposed constitutional amendment that would ask Tennessee voters whether state or local government may require citizens to undergo medical treatment.

Chairman Boleso, sponsor of HJR 28, told the panel the amendment asks a single question: “Should the people of Tennessee have the right to decide whether their government can require them to undergo a medical treatment?” He said the measure would enshrine “autonomy over his or her own body” in the state declaration of rights and that the General Assembly would still retain authority to pass implementing laws.

Supporters said the measure would return decisions about medical treatment to residents rather than to state officials. Opponents cautioned that longstanding public-health precedents, including Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts (1905), allow governments to impose some medical requirements to protect community health. Representative Mitchell argued that “when you are spreading a disease beyond the tip of your nose that’s harming others around you and it could be life threatening,” the state has a role in protecting the public.

Committee members debated scenarios raised in questions from legislators: whether prisoners or students in congregate settings could be compelled to receive treatment, how private actors and private organizations (for example the NCAA) would be affected, and whether constitutional amendment is the right vehicle compared with faster legislative fixes. The sponsor repeatedly emphasized that the proposal would not change private actors’ policies and that it includes a clause preserving the General Assembly’s authority to enact enforcement legislation.

Committee discussion also covered process and timing for constitutional amendments. Several members said legislative fixes could address gaps more quickly; others said the constitutional route provides stronger, longer-lasting protections and should be presented to voters.

After roughly three hours of discussion and questions, the committee voted. Madam Clerk reported 5 ayes, 3 nays and 1 present-not-voting; the chair declared that HJR 28 moves to the House Full Health Committee.

What the vote means: advancing the joint resolution to full committee is an internal legislative step. If the resolution ultimately passes the General Assembly in the required form in successive sessions and is approved by voters, the amendment would be added to the Tennessee Constitution. The transcript and debate record show committee members split on whether the change is necessary, on its public-health implications, and on whether legislative changes could address the same concerns more quickly.