To enact section 3792.09 of the Revised Code to prohibit discrimination against an individual for the refusal of certain medical interventions for reasons of conscience, including religious convictions, and to name this act the Conscientious Right to Refuse Act.
HB112 would create a new section of the Revised Code, section 3792.09, titled the Conscientious Right to Refuse Act. The bill prohibits a broad range of entities — including employers, businesses, health care providers, hospitals, nursing homes, political subdivisions, private colleges, state agencies, and public officials — from taking adverse action against an adult or emancipated minor because the person refuses certain medical interventions for reasons of conscience, including religious convictions. The covered interventions include biologics, DNA-based products, drugs, facial coverings, gene-editing technology, medical devices used to track or store personal information, pharmaceuticals, RNA-based products, and vaccines.
The bill bars covered entities from denying employment, services, access to commerce, or public services; from segregating or penalizing the individual; and from treating the individual differently than someone who accepted the intervention. It also provides that an unemancipated minor may not be denied medical care, including organ transplantation, because a parent or other personal representative declined vaccination for the minor on conscientious or religious grounds. The bill expressly preserves the ability to recommend, educate about, or provide access to the listed interventions, and it excludes surgical masks worn during surgery from the definition of facial covering.
HB112 would add a new anti-discrimination and private-enforcement framework to Ohio law, with express priority over conflicting general laws unless a specific exemption applies. It would expose covered entities to injunctive relief, declaratory judgments, private civil actions, attorney’s fees, and enhanced damages, including treble damages or a minimum recovery of $200 in money-damages cases. The bill also grants immunity from civil liability for outbreaks of communicable disease or illness believed to be prevented by a vaccine, except for food-borne illness claims against food-service entities.
The bill appears to have been introduced in the House Judiciary Committee with no recorded votes or committee testimony in the provided materials, so there is no documented floor or committee sentiment in the record supplied. Based on the bill’s sponsorship and framing, it is clearly intended to protect conscientious and religious objectors to vaccination and other medical interventions, suggesting support from lawmakers concerned with individual liberty, religious freedom, and opposition to mandates. At the same time, the breadth of the bill indicates it could draw concern from health care, public health, and employer stakeholders because it limits their ability to impose or enforce intervention-related requirements.
The main points of contention are likely to be the bill’s very broad scope and its application to both private and public actors. Opponents may object that it could undermine workplace rules, health care protocols, school or college policies, and public health measures by allowing refusals not only of vaccines but also of facial coverings and other medical products. Supporters are likely to emphasize conscience protections, religious liberty, and the right to refuse unwanted medical interventions without retaliation. Another likely flashpoint is the private right of action and mandatory fee-shifting/treble damages, which could be viewed as creating significant litigation risk for employers, providers, and government entities.