Despite physician opposition, lawmakers OK bill allowing denial of care for ‘moral' reasons
A bill authored by Rep. Kevin West, R-Moore, that would allow health care providers to refuse some services if they have moral or religious objections can now be heard on the House floor. West is pictured at the Oklahoma Capitol on Oct. 3, 2023. (Photo by Kyle Phillips/For Oklahoma Voice)
OKLAHOMA CITY — Amid concerns that it could harm patients, lawmakers narrowly advanced a bill that would allow health care providers to refuse to offer specific procedures or care based on moral, religious or conscientious beliefs.
House Bill 1224, authored by Rep. Kevin West, R-Moore, moved through the Health and Human Services Oversight Committee Monday with a 7-6 vote with bipartisan opposition.
Around 30 health care providers from around the state gathered at the Capitol and filled the committee meeting to advocate against the bill. They said they were disappointed by the outcome of the vote.
The legislation, which West said has been successful in a handful of states, could allow a physician, or an entire hospital, to choose not to offer procedures that conflict with personal beliefs. This excludes emergency care, although the bill does not define the parameters that create that situation.
No specific procedures or types of care are outlined in the bill, meaning a health care provider, institution or payor could choose to stop offering STD testing, blood transfusions or elective procedures.
Rep. Trish Ranson, D-Stillwater, asked West if his legislation could allow a pharmacist, or in theory an entire pharmacy, to choose not to provide birth control to their patients if it conflicted with their religious beliefs.
West said it could if they were refusing to provide it to every patient, not just a select few.
He said he thinks his legislation 'falls exactly in line' with the American Medical Association code of ethics.
While one principle does allow physicians, except in emergencies, to 'be free to choose whom to serve, with whom to associate, and the environment in which to provide medical care,' the code also asks physicians to 'support access to medical care for all people' and 'regard responsibility to the patient as paramount.'
House Minority Leader Cyndi Munson, D-Oklahoma City said continuing to legislate and 'criminalize' the physicians and providers in the state will not encourage them to stay and will instead push them out of state when Oklahoma already has some of the poorest health care outcomes in the country.
'We just had a conversation last week about the lack of maternal or the amount of maternal health care deserts in the state, and we know that most of what we're talking about here is abortion, gender-affirming care, those types of procedures and services,' she said. 'And so where will Oklahomans go, even if it's just a handful of people who need care, if there's truly no access, if people decide to take this law and say, 'I'm not going to provide a procedure or service because it goes against my conscience?' Where will Oklahomans go?'
West said Oklahomans could find care with another provider or institution who was choosing to offer the care they were seeking.
He argued the legislation had attracted providers in states where it had become law, but said no data or survey evidence was available to support this claim.
The Republican also ran this legislation in 2024, and while it passed through the House, it died in the Senate. A similar measure in the Senate died in committee Monday, Munson said.
'I would just say that in rebuttal, this will not deny services to just 'anyone,' and what we've seen in other states are that medical professionals migrate toward this type of legislation,' West said.
He said he had not spoken with health care providers in the state about his legislation.
Dr. Angela Hawkins, the chair of the Oklahoma section of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said she was disappointed by the vote.
'I think contrary to (West's) statement that physicians welcome this bill, they don't, and the debate discussing how it will affect patients is true,' she said. 'It will limit care for some patients, and not just in relation to abortion or gender-affirming care. You have people who will have decreased access to contraception, even decreased access potentially to mental health services.'
Hawkins was at the Capitol as part of an advocacy day with physicians and residents from across the state, including Tulsa, Tahlequah and Oklahoma City.
'We have health care deserts all over the state who have one or two physicians,' she said. 'So to say that they can go and see another physician is not true for everyone. They don't have access to a multitude of places they can go for care or treatment that they need, that that particular physician or pharmacist or hospital system may not agree with.'
The bill is eligible to be heard on the floor of the Oklahoma House.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Democrats react to Trump's push for Texas redistricting
AUSTIN (Nexstar) — After reports of President Donald Trump convening a meeting Monday with members of the Texas congressional delegation, Texas Democrats say it shows the party is worried about potential losses in 2026. A report in the New York Times detailed a White House meeting in which the president pushed Texas congressmen to pursue a mid-decade redistricting effort. Republicans who spoke to both the Times and the Texas Tribune did not seem keen on the idea, which would require Gov. Greg Abbott to call a special session of the legislature. None of the 25 Republicans who represent Texas in the U.S. House responded to requests for comment, but a source close to the situation confirmed to KXAN that a meeting at the White House will take place Thursday. Changing the congressional map to advantage the GOP would likely require splitting up districts which currently lean heavily toward one party to create more competitive seats, a move that could backfire if Democrats have a good year in 2026. However, changes to the congressional districts in large metro areas like Houston or Dallas could net Republicans some seats without throwing any of their own into jeopardy. And even without redistricting, Republicans have clear pickup opportunities in Texas' 28th and 34th congressional districts — two south Texas districts which swung heavily to Trump in 2024. The current Texas congressional map is already overwhelmingly Republican, with 25 Republicans to 12 Democrats, though one heavily-Democratic seat is vacant. That leaves Republicans with nearly 66% of seats in a state in which Trump received 56% of the vote. Democrats say that the current map is already unfair, and a mid-decade redraw would be a sign of desperation for Republicans ahead of the 2026 midterms. State Rep. Gene Wu, D-Houston, said that Republicans' policies have been unpopular and that the GOP is trying to minimize losses in next year's House races. 'Donald Trump is desperate to cling on to the power that he's had, and he knows just how upset people are about what the Republicans have done in just a few months that they've been in office,' Wu said. 'People are pissed, and they know what's coming.' Wu cited policies passed out of the legislature in Texas, including a ban on all hemp-derived THC products as well as the school voucher program, championed by Abbott, as ways lawmakers have ignored voters. He attributed this to the safe districts which exist under the current maps. The congressional districts drawn in Texas currently do not favor competition — just two House races were decided by fewer than 14 points in the 2024 elections. The current maps — including for the state legislature — are undergoing litigation in El Paso over allegations that the maps were drawn to disadvantage Black and Latino voters. The Supreme Court has shown opposition to racial gerrymandering in recent years, striking down maps in Alabama and Louisiana for disadvantaging Black voters in those states. Wu described the current map as a 'racial gerrymander' and said that if Republicans want to draw an even more favorable map, they will likely succeed in doing so. This would not be the first time Republicans have attempted mid-decade redistricting in Texas. Back in 2003, as Texas was quickly changing from Democratic to Republican, the legislature redrew the maps to heavily advantage the GOP. Democrats lost five seats in the 2004 elections as a result. Democrats then walked out to try and prevent Republicans from meeting quorum and being able to vote on the maps. When asked what should be done about it in the event Republicans try it again, Wu did not give a clear answer, but accused Republicans of playing politics. 'Anytime you hear them talk about redistricting, especially if it's in the middle of the cycle, all this is about political games and trying to destroy our democracy,' Wu said. Congressman Lloyd Doggett, D-Austin, also did not give a clear strategy, but said he has faith in the Austin-area Democrats. 'I hope they will do everything they can to protect the interest of our neighbors in Central Texas and not let some radical gerrymandering occur just because President Trump is desperate to be protected,' Doggett said. Any attempt by Republicans to redraw the maps would need to happen soon, with the filing deadline for the 2026 primary elections coming up at the end of the year. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Iowa governor vetoes bill restricting private pipelines' use of eminent domain
Gov. Kim Reynolds vetoed a bill Wednesday aimed at CO2 pipelines and eminent domain. She's pictured at her 2025 Condition of the State Address Jan. 14, 2025. (Photo by Robin Opsahl/Iowa Capital Dispatch) Gov. Kim Reynolds Wednesday vetoed a controversial bill pertaining to eminent domain and carbon sequestration pipelines in Iowa. House Republican leaders initiated an effort to reconvene the Legislature to override the veto, but Senate GOP leaders indicated that was unlikely. House File 639 would have increased insurance requirements for hazardous liquid pipelines, limited carbon pipeline permits to one 25-year term and changed the definition of a common carrier for pipelines, making it more difficult for the projects to use eminent domain. Reynolds, in a statement, said she shared the bill's goal of 'protecting landowners' but the bill lacked the 'clear, careful lines' drawn in good policy. 'It combines valid concerns with vague legal standards and sweeping mandates that reach far beyond their intended targets,' Reynolds said in a letter announcing her decision to veto. Reynolds followed her critique of the bill by noting that Iowa could lose its 'leadership position' as a top biofuel production state if legislation stopped the infrastructure necessary to enter ultra-low carbon markets. Central to the bill is a carbon sequestration pipeline project led by Summit Carbon Solutions that would transport liquid carbon dioxide, captured from biorefineries across Iowa, to underground storage in North Dakota. Farmers and the biofuels industry have been supportive of the Summit pipeline, and therefore opposed to the bill, because it would give Iowa access to the carbon capture and sequestration technologies necessary to make products like sustainable aviation fuels. In a statement following the governor's veto, Iowa Renewable Fuels Association Executive Director Monte Shaw said without carbon capture projects, and entry to ultra-low carbon fuel industry, Iowa could face 'very real, very severe economic consequences.' 'This is a classic example of why our system of government has checks and balances,' Shaw said. 'Any thoughtful review of this bill would determine that it would lead to higher energy prices for Iowans, hamper future economic development, hold back job creation, and stifle new markets for Iowa farmers. IRFA thanks Gov. Reynolds for listening to Iowans, studying the actual legislation, and ignoring the rhetoric that was as inaccurate as it was loud.' A press release from Iowa Corn Growers Association said entrance to the aviation fuel industry alone could result in nearly 6.5 million bushels of new corn demand, which it said is necessary for farmers dealing with high input costs and decreased profit margins. Farmers 'need expanded market growth and access to continue raising corn profitably; allowing them to continue growing Iowa's agricultural industry and economy,' the statement said. Opponents of the bill, including several lawmakers, argued the bill was aimed solely at carbon sequestration projects, rather than protecting landowners from eminent domain as supporters claimed. 'Eminent domain' allows the government to force private landowners to allow use of their property, for a fee set by the courts, for infrastructure projects deemed in the public interest. Eminent domain has long been used projects such as public roads and utilities. Leadership from Southwest Iowa Renewable Energy, or SIRE, said its CO2 pipeline project connecting to Nebraska's Tallgrass Trailblazer pipeline would be impacted by the bill's insurance and permit limit clauses, even though the SIRE project secured voluntary easements for 100% of its path in Iowa. Reynolds cited this example in her explanation, and said the 'arbitrary' term limits and insurance requirements would make it 'difficult for companies like SIRE to justify the additional investment' in Iowa. 'Those who crafted the bill said they don't want to stop CO2 pipelines that rely entirely on voluntary easements,' Reynolds said. 'But that is exactly what the bill does.' Summit Carbon Solutions thanked the governor for her 'thoughtful and thorough review' of the bill. In a statement, the company said the pipeline project 'opens the door to new markets and helps strengthen America's energy dominance for the long term.' 'Summit remains committed to working with landowners through voluntary agreements—just as we have with more than 1,300 Iowa landowners to date, resulting in $175 million in payments,' a spokesperson said in the statement. 'We look forward to continued discussions with state leaders as we advance this important project.' Opponents to the pipeline project, who were supportive of HF 639, argue the pipeline would negatively impact their properties and health, and that sequestering CO2 does not constitute a 'public use' deserving of eminent domain rights. Landowners opposed to the project lobbied state lawmakers for four years before a bill was debated, and ultimately passed, in the Senate and sent to the governor. Since the bill landed on the governor's desk, landowners have encouraged Reynolds to support Iowa GOP values on protecting property rights. Reynolds said the debate of when the government, or companies with government approval, can take private property is a 'debate as old as the Republic.' 'I've consistently said that if eminent domain is used, it must be rare, fair and a last resort,' Reynolds said. 'But HF 639 isn't just about eminent domain.' Reynolds said the bill sets a precedent that 'threatens' the state's 'energy reliability, economy and reputation as a place where businesses can invest with confidence.' Mary Powell, a Shelby County landowner opposed to the pipeline, said the veto shows that the state motto of, 'Our liberties we prize, and our rights we will maintain' are 'just empty words' to the governor. 'Governor Reynolds chose to support the millionaires and billionaires at the expense of Iowans and their property rights,' Powell said in a statement. Another landowner, Don Johanssen from Cherokee County, said the governor's decision was 'beyond words,' especially as the bill would have given landowners 'some liability coverage' from hazardous pipelines. The bill would have required pipeline operator to carry insurance that covered any loss or injury from accidental, negligent or intentional discharges from the pipeline, and to cover insurance increases that landowners face due to the pipeline. 'This is a sad day for Iowa that will be long remembered,' Johanssen said. Reynolds said the bill would impact 'more than just CO2 infrastructure' and would change permitting rules 'across the board,' giving 'uncertainty into critical energy projects.' Opponents of the bill called the insurance requirements 'untenable.' The American Petroleum Institute's Midwest Regional Director Mike Karbo said the bill had 'unprecedented and unfeasible requirements' that would have hindered future projects in the state. 'Since there are no refineries in the state, critical energy infrastructure, such as pipelines, are crucial in ensuring Iowans have a reliable source of energy, and certainty is needed to develop the infrastructure network,' Karbo said. 'We thank the Governor for doing what is right for the future of energy development in the state.' Reynolds said HF 639 included 'a few helpful provisions' and the surrounding debate 'highlighted' areas for progress. 'I agree we can do more to limit the use of eminent domain, promote transparency, and ensure responsible land restoration,' Reynolds said. 'We can do better.' Reynolds, who is not running for reelection in 2026, said she is 'committed' to working with legislation to 'strengthen landowner protections, modernize permitting and respect private property.' Taking one element from HF 639, Reynolds will ask the IUC to require all commissioners to be present for live testimony and ensure at least one commissioner is present at every informational meeting. In a statement from Iowa House Republicans, Speaker Pat Grassley said he has requested members sign a petition to reconvene the Legislature in a special session. 'This veto is a major setback for Iowa,' Grassley said in the statement. 'It is a setback not only for landowners who have been fighting across Iowa, but for the work the House of Representatives has put in for four years to get legislation like HF 639 passed. We will not stop fighting and stand firm on our commitment until landowners' in Iowa are protected against Eminent Domain for private gain.' Rep. Charley Thomson, R-Charles City, said he was 'very disappointed' in the governor's decision and that he was supportive of a special session to override the veto. Two-thirds of the Legislature must sign a petition to request a special session, and to override a veto, two-thirds of the members from each chamber must vote to pass the bill again. Sen. Jack Whitver, R-Grimes, the majority leader for the chamber, said he expects most of his caucus will 'not be interested in any attempt' to override the governor's veto. The bill likely would not have advanced in the Senate had it not been for a dozen Republican senators who vowed to block necessary budget legislation until the chamber debated eminent domain. The 12 were also joined by Senate Democrats in pushing for amendments, which were ultimately defeated, and approval of the bill. Senate Democrats said the fight for property rights will continue. 'I'm disappointed by the governor's veto of HF639, but, unfortunately, I cannot say I'm surprised,' Sen. Janice Weiner, D-Iowa City, said. 'There is simply no amount of political posturing or legislative stonewalling that can deny the fact that Iowans' right to private property should never be infringed upon for private gain.' One of the 12 to disagree with the Senate majority, Sen. Kevin Alons, R-Salix, said signing the bill was 'the single option available' to protect the rights of impacted landowners. Alons pledged to 'never quit working' on the issue, but said that means 'very little' to landowners who have been impacted by the 'unprecedented, and unconstitutional land grab.' 'To be clear: the Iowa government has given this private company the right to take people's land for one reason: corporate earnings,' Alons said in a statement. 'This has nothing to do with public use. It's absolutely not necessary for the ethanol industry in our state … And it certainly is not what the founders had in mind.' Alons said when the Legislature returns in January, he and other lawmakers 'will use every tool at our disposal' to 'return property rights back to the people.' Rep. Steven Holt, R-Denison, who sponsored the legislation, wrote in a social media post he was 'profoundly disappointed' by the veto. Holt said the state constitution and the Republican platform are clear in their message that eminent domain is for public use projects. 'Today the Governor has chosen to ignore landowners, the vast majority of the Legislature, the Republican Party Platform and the Iowa Constitution by choosing the economic development argument of special interests,' Holt wrote. Holt said Reynolds, and the Senate had opportunities of the past several years to offer their own suggestions to the eminent domain issue instead of opposing House legislation. 'On behalf of the people of Iowa and their fundamental property rights, the Governor's veto should be overridden,' he wrote. 'This fight for who we are as Republicans is far from over.' House Democratic Leader Rep. Brian Meyer said parties in the House collaborated to 'protect property rights.' 'At the end of the day, there is only one group to blame for the failure of the eminent domain bill: Iowa Republican lawmakers,' Meyer said in a statement. The first phase of the Summit Carbon Solutions project was approved by IUC nearly a year ago, which granted Summit the right to condemn easements from landowners who do not want to voluntarily sign agreements to put the pipeline on their land. Per the Iowa permit, Summit still needs a permit from South Dakota, which it has been denied twice, to begin construction. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Epoch Times
27 minutes ago
- Epoch Times
House Strips Reconciliation-Ineligible Provisions From ‘Big Beautiful Bill' in Procedural Vote
The House of Representatives on June 11 approved a procedural resolution to make changes to the House-passed One Big Beautiful Bill Act, stripping provisions that would make the bill ineligible for a filibuster-proof vote in the Senate. The resolution passed in a 213–207 vote along party lines. This changes the bill without the need for another vote on the full package.
