Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Constitutional Rights topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Health committee advances constitutional amendment on medical freedom amid heated debate
Summary
House Joint Resolution 28, which would place a proposed 'right to medical freedom' on the ballot, advanced to Finance, Ways and Means after a 14-7-1 committee vote following hours of legal and policy questioning.
The Tennessee House Health Committee voted 14-7, with one member present-not-voting, to advance House Joint Resolution 28 to the Finance, Ways and Means Committee. The resolution would place a proposed constitutional amendment before voters asking whether the Tennessee Constitution should explicitly prohibit the state from compelling medical treatment “absent due process of law.”
The sponsor told the committee the amendment would enshrine what supporters view as an existing constitutional liberty — the right to refuse medical treatment — and would require courts to apply strict scrutiny if the state sought to compel treatment. The sponsor cited U.S. and Tennessee case law, telling members that the amendment would make the liberty interest explicit in the state Constitution and would not eliminate due-process analysis.
Opponents warned the amendment could complicate public-health responses and argued that it risked overturning long-standing precedents that allow the state to impose narrowly tailored measures for emergencies. Representative Mitchell cited Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905), the U.S. Supreme Court case upholding mandatory vaccinations in a smallpox outbreak, and urged caution about curbing government authority in public-health emergencies. Several members raised hypothetical scenarios — prison outbreaks, congregate care settings and infectious-disease responses — to probe whether the amendment would unintentionally block established public-health powers.
Supporters countered that the amendment would not remove the state’s ability to act in emergencies if courts find such measures narrowly tailored to a compelling state interest. The sponsor referenced landmark right-to-refuse-medical-treatment cases discussed to describe how courts balance liberty interests and public-safety needs, citing Karen Ann Quinlan and Nancy Cruzan as examples used in committee debate.
After extended questioning on scope and potential consequences, the committee voted to send the resolution to Finance, Ways and Means. The committee record shows 14 ayes, 7 nays and one present-not-voting.
