Relating to participation in medical procedures.
HB 3330 creates broad conscience protections for health care workers, students, facilities, and related institutions that object to participating in certain medical procedures on ethical, moral, or religious grounds. The bill covers procedures related to abortion, physician-assisted suicide, withholding food and water to cause death, gender-affirming treatment, and certain experimental procedures involving in vitro human embryos, artificial wombs, and fetal tissue or organs. It also defines key terms such as “participate,” “health care facility,” and “gender-affirming treatment” to set the scope of the protections.
The measure prohibits employers, health care facilities, schools, and health professional regulatory agencies from discriminating against a person who refuses, or states an intention to refuse, to participate in the covered procedures. It also allows health care facilities to refuse to admit patients or allow use of the facility for those procedures. In addition, the bill creates a private right of action for people who believe they were discriminated against or improperly compelled, allowing them to seek damages and equitable relief, with attorney fees awarded to prevailing plaintiffs.
HB 3330 would add a new layer of statutory protection for conscientious objection in Oregon health care law, limiting when employers, facilities, schools, and licensing bodies may require participation in specified procedures. It would affect hospitals, clinics, physicians, pharmacists, nurses, medical schools, training facilities, and regulatory agencies by restricting discipline, hiring decisions, admissions, and facility access tied to refusal to participate. The bill also creates enforceable civil remedies, including damages, equitable relief, and mandatory attorney fees for prevailing plaintiffs, which could increase litigation risk for covered institutions and agencies.
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of legislative debate or vote outcomes to gauge support or opposition. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears strongly aligned with religious liberty and conscience-rights arguments, while also touching highly contested areas of abortion, assisted suicide, and gender-affirming care. The absence of recorded procedural history makes the overall sentiment in the legislative process unclear.
The main points of contention are likely to be the bill’s broad scope and the balance between conscience protections and access to care. Supporters would likely emphasize protection for ethical, moral, and religious objections by health care workers and institutions, while critics may argue that the bill could allow refusals that interfere with patient access to abortion, gender-affirming treatment, or end-of-life care. The inclusion of schools, regulatory agencies, and facility-level refusals, along with the private right of action and attorney-fee provision, may also be seen as expanding the bill’s reach beyond individual conscience protections into institutional and legal pressure on providers and employers.