Ohio lawmakers debate whether to ban fluoride from public drinking water
'I think it's important for an individual to be able to choose what sort of supplements they're taking, what sort of medical care they're doing, things like that,' Representative Levi Dean (R-Xenia) said.
Dean, the freshman lawmaker, is behind House Bill 182. The legislation is short and to the point: 'No public water system shall add fluoride to the water supplied by the system.'
Right now, there is a certain fluoride level that public water must be at. Some plants need to dampen it, some need to hike it up. Dean says those systems should not have that say.
Columbus Public Health terminates some employees early due to federal funding cuts
'Your neighbor or the government shouldn't be able to tell you what you have to ingest into your body,' he said. 'If you want to apply fluoride, this bill still allows you to do that. It's just saying you can't force someone to swallow and ingest fluoride by putting it into the water stream.'
Dean said this bill came about after he heard from some local elected officials 'who were interested in removing fluoride from the water,' but were not allowed to under Ohio law. Then, he said he heard the same from his constituents.
'They didn't want to have fluoride,' he said. 'They wanted to have personal choice.'
What about the health benefits of fluoride? Dr. Matthew Messina, DDS and Associate Professor an The Ohio State College of Dentistry said in short, it helps stop tooth decay.
'Fluoride helps because it makes tooth enamel harder or stronger, more resistant to the acid, which reduces the risk of decay,' he said.
Messina said controlled amounts of fluoride in drinking water helps 'build strong teeth for a lifetime.'
He said one of the big benefits of having it in public water is that it reaches everyone.
Former Ohio governor speaks about current political climate
Dean argues, for the people who want it, it is in many toothpastes and mouth washes.
'I don't know why they wouldn't just brush their teeth with fluoride, which most of them probably already do,' Dean said. 'That's a better application in general.'
'We've been trying to tell people for generations to brush their teeth. But there's a sizable percentage of the people that still don't brush their teeth every day. So, this is a way that helps them get the benefits of fluoride in the water,' Messina said.
But he said he thinks back to when fluoride was taken out of public water in Calgary, Alberta, Canada back in 2011 and where they are now, nearly a decade and a half later.
'They have discovered an increase in the prevalence of [tooth] decay in the community,' he said. There are more cavities which leads to unfortunately more dentistry being done. And so, they're seeing the cost of dental care going up.'
Messina said fluoride in public water was 'hailed as one of the best and one of the most successful public health efforts in the 20th century,' and said going would mean that 'everybody would have to step up their game,' when it comes to oral hygiene.
'A huge achievement like that is something that we just don't ever want to risk going back from,' he said.
Dean said under this bill, those who wanted to add fluoride to water themselves would not be stopped and said he already has an idea for a tweak to the legislation too.
'We could in the bill have an amendment to say, 'hey, your leftover reserve can be distributed to individuals who want to come and pick it up and then add it to their own water stream and drink it if they'd like,'' Dean said.
'Fluoride was added to water because it produced a tremendous effect in reducing decay in some of our most vulnerable populations,' Messina said.
As far as leadership goes, Ohio House Speaker Matt Huffman (R-Lima) said he does not know whether he thinks fluoride should stay in water.
'Lots of people have been talked about that over the last few years and they were dismissed. And now there appears to be some science that says too much fluoride, including adding fluoride, is bad for folks. So, I mean, I not a scientist, I'm not a chemist,' Huffman said. 'We're going to sort of litigate that question, not in the courtroom, in the legislature here, over the next couple of months. So, I don't know the answer to your question.'
On the other side of the aisle, Ohio House Minority Leader Allison Russo (D-Upper Arlington) said as someone who has a background in public health, she thinks the bill is 'misguided.'
'I see this as a basic human right in the United States of America,' she said. 'I think the expectation of every household in this country is that you have access to clean tap water in your household. And anything that threatens that, I'm going to be opposed to.'
The bill is assigned to the Ohio House Natural Resources Committee and awaits its first hearing.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
11 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
California Republicans push Democrats on transparency, timeline for redistricting
SACRAMENTO — California's push to redraw the state's congressional districts to favor Democrats faced early opposition Tuesday during legislative hearings, a preview of the obstacles ahead for Gov. Gavin Newsom and his allies as they try to convince voters to back the effort. California Democrats entered the redistricting fray after Republicans in Texas moved to reconfigure their political districts to increase by five the number of GOP members of Congress after the 2026 midterm elections, a move that could sway the outcome of the 2026 midterm elections. The proposed map of new districts in California that could go before voters in November could cost as many as five Golden State Republicans their seats in Congress. In Sacramento, Republicans criticized Democrats for trying to scrap the independent redistricting process approved by voters in 2010, a change designed to remove self-serving politics and partisan game-playing. GOP lawmakers argued that the public and legislators had little time to review the maps of the proposed congressional districts and questioned who crafted the new districts and bankrolled the effort. In an attempt to slow down the push by Democrats, California Republicans filed an emergency petition at the California Supreme Court, arguing that Democrats violated the state Constitution by rushing the bills through the legislature. The state Constitution requires lawmakers to introduce non-budget bills 30 days before they are voted on, unless the Legislature waives that rule by a three-fourths majority vote. The bills were introduced Monday through a common process known as 'gut and amend,' where lawmakers strip out the language from an older pending bill and replace it with a new proposal. The lawsuit said that without the Supreme Court's intervention, the state could enact 'significant new legislation that the public has only seen for, at most, a few days,' according to the lawsuit filed by GOP state Sens. Tony Strickland of Huntington Beach and Suzette Martinez Valladares of Acton and Assemblymembers Tri Ta of Westminster and Kathryn Sanchez of Trabuco Canyon. Democrats bristled at the questions about their actions, including grilling by reporters and Republicans about who had drawn the proposed congressional districts that the party wants to put before voters. 'When I go to a restaurant, I don't need to meet the chef,' said Assembly Elections Committee chair Gail Pellerin (D-Santa Cruz). Democrats unveiled their campaign to suspend the independent redistricting commission's work Thursday, proposed maps of the redrawn districts were submitted to state legislative leaders Friday, and the three bills were introduced in the legislature Monday. If passed by a two-thirds vote in both bodies of the legislature and signed by Newsom this week, as expected, the measure will be on the ballot on Nov. 4. On Tuesday, lawmakers listened to hours of testimony and debate, frequently engaging in testy exchanges. After heated arguing and interrupting during an Assembly Elections Committee hearing, Pellerin admonished Assemblymembers Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park) and David Tangipa (R-Clovis). 'I would like you both to give me a little time and respect,' Pellerin said near the end of a hearing that lasted about five hours. Tangipa and the committee's vice chair, Assemblywoman Alexandra Macedo (R-Tulare), repeatedly questioned witnesses about issues that the GOP is likely to continue to raise: the speed with which the legislation is being pushed through, the cost of the special election, the limited opportunity for public comment on the maps, who drew the proposed new districts and who is funding the effort. Tangipa voiced concerns that legislators had too little time to review the legislation. 'That's insanity, and that's heartbreaking to the rest of Californians,' Tangipa said. 'How can you say you actually care about the people of California? Berman dismissed the criticism, saying the bill was five pages long. In a Senate elections committee hearing, State Sen. Steve Choi (R-Irvine), the only Republican on the panel, repeatedly pressed Democrats about how the maps had been drawn before they were presented. Tom Willis, Newsom's campaign counsel who appeared as a witness to support the redistricting bills, said the map was 'publicly submitted, and then the legislature reviewed it carefully and made sure that it was legally compliant.' But, Choi asked, who drew the maps in the first place? Willis said he couldn't answer, because he 'wasn't a part of that process.' In response to questions about why California should change their independent redistricting ethos to respond to potential moves by Texas, state Sen. Majority Leader Lena Gonzalez (D-Long Beach) was blunt. 'This is a partisan gerrymander,' she said, to counter the impacts of Trump administration policy decisions, from healthcare cuts to immigration raids, that are disproportionately impacting Californians. 'That's what we're talking about here.' Her comments prompted a GOP operative who is aiding the opposition campaign to the ballot measure to say, 'It made me salivate.' California Common Cause, an ardent supporter of independent redistricting, initially signaled openness to revisiting the state's independent redistricting rules because they would not 'call for unilateral political disarmament in the face of authoritarianism.' But on Tuesday, the group announced its opposition to a state Senate bill. 'it would create significant rollbacks in voter protections,' the group said in a statement, arguing that the legislation would result in reduced in-person voting, less opportunities for underrepresented communities to cast ballots and dampens opportunities for public input. 'These changes to the Elections Code ... would hinder full voter participation, with likely disproportionate harm falling to already underrepresented Californians.'
Fox News
12 minutes ago
- Fox News
The Political Battles Over Redistricting and Mail-In Voting
Texas Democrats have returned after fleeing the state earlier this month to prevent the passage of a new Republican-backed redistricting plan, which could add more GOP House seats in next year's mid-term elections. The fight over redrawing congressional maps in the Lone Star State didn't just spark a national debate over gerrymandering but has also motivated California to retaliate with its own redistricting plan that would favor Democrats. Chuck Devore, a Republican executive with the Texas Public Policy Foundation and former California State Assemblyman, joins the FOX News Rundown to discuss the redistricting battles in Texas and California and how they may impact other states' actions and the 2026 Trump has announced plans to issue an executive order aimed at eliminating mail-in voting to 'bring honesty to the midterms.' His statements have reignited the debate over election integrity. Daron Shaw, a member of the Fox News decision desk and polling team and a professor at the University of Texas at Austin, joins the rundown to discuss how mail-in voting in America compares to other countries, the extent of federal government power over elections, and how the issue has become increasingly partisan. Plus, commentary from the Vice President of the Lexington Institute and Military Analyst, Dr. Rebecca Grant. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Here's how Trump could throw a ‘wrench' into Hill funding negotiations as shutdown looms
President Donald Trump's budget director has talked about attempting the ultimate override of Congress' funding prerogatives during the final 45 days of the fiscal year — and that time is now. With six weeks left until Oct. 1, lawmakers are staring down a government shutdown deadline alongside the threat of a 'pocket rescission,' a controversial White House tactic to cancel federal cash without the consent of Congress. It's also a ploy that the government's top watchdog, along with key lawmakers from both parties, say is illegal. 'The money evaporates at the end of the fiscal year,' White House budget chief Russ Vought said last month in defense of the gambit, adding it has 'been used before.' Lawmakers anticipate Trump will send Congress a formal rescissions request to claw back billions of dollars in federal funding as soon as lawmakers return from recess in September. Already, the threat of the White House then unilaterally canceling the funding in October — regardless of Congress' response to the request — is straining negotiations between Democrats and Republicans desperately trying to head off a shutdown with bipartisan negotiations, which Vought is also actively seeking to undermine. 'He is trying to throw a wrench in this by introducing or sending to us a second rescission bill — by trying to do pocket rescissions,' Delaware Sen. Chris Coons, the top Democrat on the appropriations panel that funds the military, said of Vought in an interview. It also would undoubtedly throw Republicans into another politically dicey balancing act of trying not to buck their president while answering to constituents who are feeling the effects of the administration's mass gutting of widely used government programs. Congress cleared an initial rescissions package of $9 billion in cuts to public broadcasting and foreign aid in July. The White House has stayed publicly mum on what sort of programming it would seek to slash next, but officials have previously signaled the Department of Education will be the target of a second package, which could align with Trump's controversial goal of eventually eliminating the agency altogether. As for the size of this upcoming clawbacks request, Republicans have mixed predictions. Last month, Speaker Mike Johnson told members that a second package would be less than the $9 billion, but other GOP lawmakers said they expect to be asked to revoke much more money than that. Under decades-old budget law, the White House is allowed to send Congress a rescissions request and then withhold the cash for 45 days while lawmakers consider whether to approve, reject or ignore the proposal. If lawmakers don't pass the rescissions bill, the administration must spend the money as Congress intended. These were the conditions under which the administration transmitted its most recent plan. Now, with less than 45 days before the current fiscal year comes to a close, top Trump administration officials argue the White House can send another rescissions package and then treat the funding as expired come midnight on Sept. 30 — regardless of congressional action. And if the White House moves forward with the plan, it could do more than just cause political headaches. It very likely would kick off a high-stakes legal battle over Congress' funding power and whether a presidential administration must spend all of the money prescribed by law or whether the spending levels are simply 'a ceiling,' as Vought has contended. The Government Accountability Office has said repeatedly that pocket rescissions are against the law and would 'cede Congress's power of the purse by allowing a president to, in effect, change the law by shortening the period of availability for fixed-period funds.' Vought has taken aim at the watchdog, and Mark Paoletta, the Office of Management and Budget general counsel, piled on this month. 'Trump Derangement Syndrome is on full display' at GAO, Paoletta said on social media, and 'wrong on pocket rescissions.' 'Congress is well aware' that the law allows the maneuver, he added, pointing out that lawmakers did not bother heeding GAO's urging 50 years ago to fix a loophole leaving the legality question open to interpretation. Yet even some of the Republican lawmakers who are hungry for more chances to kill funding are wary of the Trump administration using the rescissions process to undermine Congress' funding power under Article I of the Constitution. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), who reluctantly voted in support of the rescissions request last month, said he won't support more clawback packages if the White House doesn't provide account-by-account details of how the funding would be cut. 'I'm just not going to aid and abet moving appropriations decisions over to the Article II branch,' Tillis said in an interview. Trump 'just happens to be a Republican,' Tillis continued, but 'we could regret this, just as Democrats would, if they are tempted to do the same thing. That's why you've got to draw lines here institutionally.' Concerns about precedent, legality and political appetite are converging on the reality for members of both parties that Republicans can't afford to alienate Democrats, whose votes they likely need to pass any government funding bill to avoid a shutdown next month. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, when asked about a second rescissions package, stressed he would prefer to handle any more cuts through the regular appropriations process. 'My hope would be that that's the way we deal with a lot of these issues,' he said. Democrats hope so too, and they have warned that any Trump administration effort to claw back money already approved by Congress — 'pocket' or otherwise — would undermine lawmakers' ability to work across party lines to avoid a shutdown. In remarks late last month alongside House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and his party's senior appropriators, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Democrats would try to reach a compromise with Republicans despite GOP lawmakers' approval of the latest $9 billion rescissions package. But, he added, 'Republicans are making it extremely difficult to do that … by talking about rescissions, pocket rescissions, impoundment — which would undo anything that we did in the budgets.'
