Mike DeWine Vetoes Controversial Medical Oversight Bill \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ Ohio Governor Mike DeWine vetoed parts of a bill meant to protect medical free speech but which he argued would undermine the state’s ability to regulate medical misconduct. The veto coincides with ongoing national debates over medical science. DeWine approved other provisions, including fees for police body camera footage, despite opposition from transparency advocates.
Ohio Bill Controversy: Quick Looks
- Veto Highlights: DeWine rejected a provision shielding medical professionals from discipline for controversial opinions.
- Key Provisions Approved: The bill allows law enforcement to charge up to $75/hour for body camera footage.
- Ethics Laws Protected: DeWine vetoed clauses weakening Ohio’s ethics laws for public officials.
- Medical Freedom Debate: Supporters of the rejected language argued for free expression; critics warned of patient safety risks.
- Broader Context: The decision follows debates over COVID-19 responses and WHO pandemic authority.
Deep Look
Ohio Governor Rejects Controversial “Medical Free Speech” Bill
Ohio Governor Mike DeWine took a definitive stand on House Bill 315 late Thursday, vetoing a contentious provision that sought to protect the free speech of medical professionals but could have undermined patient safety. The provision, part of a sweeping 325-page bill, would have prohibited Ohio’s medical licensing boards from disciplining health professionals for expressing opinions contrary to public health authorities.
DeWine, a Republican, made his position clear in his veto message, stating that such language would have “devastating and deadly consequences for patient health.” He emphasized the vital role of Ohio’s medical oversight boards in protecting the public from harmful practices and warned against creating loopholes for misconduct.
“Health professionals who give harmful medical care shouldn’t get a ‘legal shield’ to avoid accountability by saying there was a difference of ‘medical opinion,’” DeWine wrote.
The Evolution of House Bill 315
Originally intended to address routine legislative matters, HB 315 transformed into a “Christmas tree bill” during a December lame-duck session. Lawmakers added numerous controversial provisions, ranging from ethics law exemptions to declarations about the World Health Organization’s (WHO) authority. Passed in the early hours of the session’s final night, the bill drew widespread criticism for its lack of transparency and the sweeping nature of its amendments.
One of the most polarizing provisions was the medical freedom clause. This section would have prevented Ohio’s medical, pharmacy, and health boards from disciplining professionals for public or private medical statements that conflicted with state or local health authorities. Supporters of the provision, including Ohio Advocates for Medical Freedom, claimed it was necessary to protect free speech and combat what they saw as overreach during the COVID-19 pandemic.
However, critics argued that the provision would effectively strip oversight boards of their ability to address harmful or deceptive medical practices, leaving patients vulnerable to misinformation.
DeWine Faces Pressure from Multiple Angles
DeWine’s veto comes at a time of heightened national and state-level debates over medical freedom and public health. The controversy over the medical free speech clause mirrors broader tensions lingering from the COVID-19 pandemic, during which public health mandates and vaccine policies became flashpoints of division
Adding complexity to the debate, President-elect Donald Trump recently announced plans to appoint Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a vocal vaccine skeptic, to oversee national health agencies. This decision has fueled further polarization over science-based health policies and free speech.
DeWine, who twice vetoed pandemic-related legislation he said would have undermined Ohio’s emergency health response, has consistently balanced public safety with political pressures. His veto of the medical free speech clause aligns with his past actions to maintain public health safeguards.
The Sherri Tenpenny Connection
The medical free speech provision’s opponents point to cases like that of Dr. Sherri Tenpenny to illustrate the dangers of unregulated medical opinions. Tenpenny, an Ohio-based osteopathic doctor, gained notoriety in 2021 for falsely claiming that COVID-19 vaccines caused magnetism and interfered with women’s menstrual cycles. Her testimony before state legislators, widely shared online, drew sharp criticism and led to an investigation by the Ohio State Medical Board.
After receiving 350 complaints about Tenpenny’s statements, the board suspended her medical license in 2023 for refusing to cooperate with its inquiry. Tenpenny later agreed to pay a $3,000 fine and comply with investigators, leading to the restoration of her license in 2024. Her case became a flashpoint in the debate over balancing free speech with professional accountability, and it undoubtedly influenced opposition to the medical free speech clause in HB 315.
Body Camera Fees and Ethics Exemptions
While DeWine rejected the medical free speech language, he approved other contentious provisions of HB 315. Among these was a measure allowing law enforcement agencies to charge up to $75 an hour for access to police body camera footage. Transparency advocates, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the NAACP, have criticized the provision, arguing it creates financial barriers to public access and accountability.
On the ethics front, DeWine vetoed language that would have created new exemptions to Ohio’s ethics laws. These exemptions would have allowed mayors and other officials to have financial interests in public contracts they oversee, a move the Ohio Ethics Commission warned would weaken safeguards against conflicts of interest.
Ohio and the World Health Organization
Another surviving element of HB 315 declares Ohio outside the jurisdiction of the WHO. This reflects a broader Republican backlash against the organization, particularly regarding its proposed pandemic treaty. Although experts debunked claims that the treaty would undermine U.S. sovereignty, opposition to the measure remains a rallying point for some conservative lawmakers.
DeWine was one of three Republican governors who declined to sign a May 2024 letter from 24 GOP colleagues opposing the treaty. Despite this, his approval of the WHO provision in HB 315 signals alignment with broader Republican skepticism about international health agreements.
Implications for the Future
DeWine’s decisions on HB 315 underscore the challenges of navigating complex and politically charged issues. By vetoing the medical free speech provision, he reaffirmed his commitment to protecting patient safety and maintaining strong oversight of the medical profession. At the same time, his approval of body camera fees and WHO-related language reflects the compromises inherent in governance.
The debates surrounding HB 315 are far from over. Advocacy groups on both sides of the medical freedom and transparency issues are likely to continue pressing their cases. Meanwhile, the bill’s remaining provisions will shape public policy in Ohio for years to come, offering both opportunities and challenges for residents and lawmakers alike.
Mike DeWine
You must Register or Login to post a comment.