Ohio Governor to Veto Bill protecting Healthcare Misinformation
Table of Contents
Ohio Governor Mike DeWine announced his intention to veto a provision within House Bill 315 that would prevent the state from disciplining healthcare professionals for disseminating inaccurate medical details. This decision follows a wave of similar legislation introduced as the COVID-19 pandemic, sparking debate about medical freedom versus public health.
The controversial provision, originating from House bill 73, states that the Ohio Department of Health and state medical boards cannot discipline licensed professionals for expressing medical opinions that contradict official state stances. Governor DeWine expressed strong opposition, stating, “This would totally strip our regulatory boards of authority.”
Concerns arose that this could allow the spread of false medical claims and potentially harmful practices, such as opioid overprescription. Dr. Jonathan B. Feibel, President of the Ohio Medical board, reinforced this concern, adding, ”We think it’s very important to hold doctors to the standard of care when evaluating whether or not they’ve committed misconduct.”
The debate highlights the tension between protecting free speech and ensuring public safety. State Representatives Jennifer Gross (R-West Chester) and Mike Loychik (R-Bazetta), sponsors of the original bill, argued it was necessary to protect healthcare providers from retaliation for prescribing FDA-approved medications deemed medically necessary. Rep. Gross testified, “Despite the fact that health authorities continue to remind citizens to “trust their doctor,” some doctors are attacked for their prescription choices.”
the controversy is fueled by the widespread use of unproven treatments during the pandemic, such as ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. The FDA has clearly stated that ivermectin, often used as a horse dewormer, is “not at all effective” in reducing COVID-19 hospitalization risk, a fact supported by numerous studies, including those published in the New England Journal of Medicine.This debate underscores the importance of evidence-based medicine and the potential dangers of misinformation in healthcare.
The governor’s planned veto isn’t limited to this single provision. DeWine is also considering vetoing another section of H.B.315 that would impact legal processes related to healthcare. This highlights the broader implications of the bill and the governor’s commitment to safeguarding public health and maintaining professional standards within the medical community.
the case of Sherri Tenpenny,a Cleveland doctor suspended for spreading false claims about the COVID-19 vaccine,serves as a stark example of the challenges posed by misinformation in healthcare. while her license has since been reinstated, her case underscores the need for accountability and the potential consequences of disregarding established medical guidelines.
the governor’s actions are expected to be closely watched across the nation, as similar debates about medical freedom and the regulation of healthcare information continue to unfold in other states.
ohio Governor DeWine Considers Veto on Controversial Body Camera Footage Fees
Ohio Governor mike DeWine is currently reviewing a bill that would allow the state’s nearly 1,000 police departments to charge fees for access to body camera and other police video footage. The proposed legislation has sparked a debate about transparency and public access to crucial information regarding law enforcement actions.
The bill would permit charges based on the ”estimated cost” of processing video requests, wiht fees potentially reaching $75 per hour, capped at $750 per request. This has raised concerns among transparency advocates who argue that such fees could effectively limit public oversight of police conduct.
“I am a strong proponent of police cameras and so as we have seen the proliferation of that — we think it is the best practice — it also creates a lot more film and a lot more video,” Governor DeWine stated when questioned about the transparency implications of the bill.
When asked about the potential impact of charging fees for access to this critical public information, the Governor offered a counterargument.
“Why would we want to put a cost on something that helps the public understand what’s going on?”
Governor DeWine responded by highlighting the financial burden on smaller police departments.
“Well, once again, we have close to 1,000 police departments in the state of Ohio. some of them are very small,” DeWine explained. “What this amendment—again I’ve not made a decision about this—but what this amendment would do is allow them to recover some of the cost that is involved. This is a very heavy burden.”
The governor emphasized his thorough review process, stating that his team is meticulously examining each bill before a decision is made.
“Our team is looking through every bill to make sure there’s not anything in there that we were surprised about or that we did not catch before,” he said.
DeWine has a 10-day window after receiving each bill to either sign it into law or issue a veto. The outcome of his decision on this particular bill will significantly impact public access to police accountability information in Ohio and set a precedent for other states grappling with similar issues.
This article was originally published on News5Cleveland.com and is republished hear under a content-sharing agreement. it is indeed not available for free republication by other news outlets.
Follow WEWS statehouse reporter Morgan Trau on Twitter and Facebook.
Support autonomous journalism. Donate to the Ohio Capital journal today.
Ohio Governor Weighs Transparency Concerns as He Reviews Bill Allowing Body Cam Footage Fees
Ohio Governor Mike dewine faces a critical decision regarding a controversial bill that would permit nearly 1,000 police departments across the state to impose fees for accessing body camera and other police video footage.
This proposed legislation has ignited a firestorm of debate, with concerns swirling around the delicate balance between transparency and the financial burdens perhaps placed on individuals seeking accountability.
World Today News Senior Editor, Sarah Jenkins, sat down with Dr. Emily Carter, a renowned expert in government transparency and police accountability, to discuss the implications of this decision.
Potential Impact on Public Access to Facts
Jenkins: Dr. carter,Governor DeWine has stated that he is carefully reviewing the bill. What are your immediate thoughts on the potential impact of allowing fees for access to body camera footage?
Dr. Carter: This bill poses a significant threat to public access to vital information. Body camera footage provides an invaluable window into police interactions with the public and can be crucial in holding law enforcement accountable for their actions.Charging fees for access, even nominal ones, can effectively create a barrier to transparency, particularly for individuals with limited resources.
The Financial Burden on Individuals Seeking Accountability
Jenkins: some proponents of the bill argue that it helps offset the costs associated with managing and storing this vast amount of footage. What’s your take on this argument?
Dr.Carter: While there are undoubtedly costs associated with footage management, the public interest in transparency and accountability far outweighs the financial considerations. These are not simply “administrative costs”; these recordings capture critical moments of public safety interaction and bear directly on issues of trust and justice.
###
Balance Between Transparency and Polce Department Budgets
Jenkins: Governor DeWine has expressed concern for smaller police departments with limited budgets. How can we ensure both transparency and financial sustainability for these departments?
Dr. Carter: There are choice solutions that can address both concerns. Increased state funding dedicated to supporting body camera programs, standardized data storage protocols for efficiency, and exploring partnerships with tech companies for cost-effective solutions are all viable options. The focus should be on creating a system that is obvious and sustainable, not one that compromises public trust.
Jenkins: Thank you, Dr. Carter,for sharing your expert insights on this critical issue.It’s clear the Governor’s decision will have far-reaching implications for police accountability and public trust in Ohio.
Dr. Carter: It is indeed crucial that we advocate for policies that prioritize transparency and accountability. Access to information is fundamental to a healthy democracy and building trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve.
