As states across the country introduce Medical Freedom Act model legislation, one of the debated provisions is the prohibition on private businesses discriminating against employees based on their medical decisions.
Do private businesses have the authority to compel medical interventions on employees?
The protection of private business rights and the limitation of government overreach are important and well-established principles. At the same time, there is a critical distinction when it comes to medical decision-making.
This issue is not about the government imposing limitations on the private sector; it’s about whether any entity has the authority to compel a medical intervention.
The doctor-patient relationship should remain just that: between a patient and their physician. In fact, all states require physicians to obtain informed consent as a condition of treatment. That standard exists to ensure patients have the right to understand, evaluate, and voluntarily accept or decline medical treatment. If refusal is not a real option, then informed consent ceases to exist, and the medical intervention becomes coercion.
When an employer conditions someone’s livelihood on undergoing a medical procedure, it effectively inserts a third party into the exam room, using economic pressure to influence a deeply personal health decision. That is a line that cannot be crossed.
Employment is an agreement for services rendered, not control over an employee’s individual health decisions.
Individual rights do not disappear in the workplace. While businesses retain operational discretion, they do not have authority over the medical decisions of their employees.
For example, employers cannot dictate personal medical decisions like how a pregnancy is managed, nor can they require genetic testing, or access to deeply personal health information, even if doing so might reduce risk or liability for the business. Risk management cannot justify control over another person’s medical decisions.
“Free markets” is a common argument for limited government interference, but what happens when the market isn’t truly free?
Consider how this principle applies in sectors that are not truly free markets. In theory, individuals can choose where to work and businesses can set their own policies. But in practice, many industries (especially healthcare) are heavily shaped by government regulation, licensing requirements, and institutional control.
In these environments:
- Workers often cannot simply “go elsewhere” without leaving their profession entirely.
- Starting a competing business is often impractical or impossible due to regulatory barriers.
- Employers may be operating under government incentives, mandates, or conditions tied to licensure, funding, or contracts.
When those conditions exist, what appears to be a private decision is often influenced, or effectively dictated, by government policy.
Compounding this dynamic is the unique liability structure surrounding vaccines. Unlike most products in a true free market, vaccines are shielded from traditional liability, meaning manufacturers and, in many cases, institutions are insulated from direct legal accountability for harm. This alters normal market incentives. When liability is removed, risk is not eliminated, it is shifted. The result is a system where employees bear the burden of that risk, while having limited ability to refuse without consequence.
Recent COVID-era mandates provide a clear example of this dynamic. Many so-called “employer mandates” were not purely private decisions, but were driven by federal requirements tied to funding, contracts, and regulatory compliance. Businesses were often placed in a position where compliance was necessary to maintain operations, creating a system in which private entities enforced government policy.
When the system is not truly a free market, individuals should not be subject to coercive medical requirements within it.
Healthcare is NOT a free market.
Many healthcare workers face mandates NOT as a result of independent employer decisions, but due to government-imposed standards, funding conditions, and licensing pressures. At the same time, regulatory barriers restrict the ability to create competing systems.
The result is a system where what appears to be private business action is, in reality, government-driven coercion:
- Independent professionals are excluded
- Competing medical viewpoints are suppressed
In these cases, protecting health freedom requires setting guardrails to prevent individuals from being coerced within systems that are not truly free.
Protecting public health and respecting individual liberty are not mutually exclusive. However, mandates, whether public or private, shift that balance in a way that undermines both.
A society that values liberty must draw a clear line when it comes to medical decision-making and hold that line consistently.
Stand for Health Freedom’s Policy Position: No person, and no entity, public or private, has the right to mandate a medical intervention.
The Medical Freedom Act is the answer to restoring ethical medicine, protecting individual rights, and ensuring that medical decisions remain where they belong: with patients, families, and their trusted healthcare providers, not government mandates or institutional pressure.
For additional information, including other policy resources for lawmakers, visit our Guarding Liberty page. We stand ready to be a resource as you consider this critical legislation.
If you have questions or would like additional research or legislative resources, please contact Jill Hines at jill@standforhealthfreedom.com.
