Notes provided by Metriarch unless otherwise noted
2 Replies to “HB 1224 (2025)”
When asked whether a health care worker can refuse care without first notifying their employer, the author stated that employers may ask candidates about potential objections during the hiring process. When questioned whether this violates federal law that prohibits most religion-based questions, the author dismissed the concern, comparing moral objections to asking if someone knows how to use a tool. This overlooks that moral objections are often tied to personal faith, unlike job skills.
The author did not address what happens if an employee’s beliefs change after being hired.
He argued that HB 1224 would not worsen Oklahoma’s health care shortage, stating that partial service is better than none. When asked about financial losses due to refusals, he reiterated that employers should screen for objections in interviews but did not address the cost of covering those tasks. He also cited Oklahoma’s strong employer protections, suggesting employers could dismiss staff for other reasons. When asked about wrongful termination, he again pointed to employer-friendly state laws.
Lastly, he claimed the bill would not apply to school nurses, some of which are RNs. The bill does not include language to support that.
Grants medical practitioners, health care payors, and institutions the right to deny care based on conscience without facing professional reprimand. The definition of a medical practitioner includes anyone in the chain of care, including non-medical staff like receptionists.
Conscience is defined as an individual’s or entity’s ethical, moral, or religious beliefs. Retaliation is broadly defined as discrimination against a person or entity for exercising their conscious.
This is similar to Sen. McIntosh’s SB 959 (2025). However, HB 1224 requires a higher level of transparency from health insurance companies and health systems pertaining to their ethics policies.
2 Replies to “HB 1224 (2025)”
When asked whether a health care worker can refuse care without first notifying their employer, the author stated that employers may ask candidates about potential objections during the hiring process. When questioned whether this violates federal law that prohibits most religion-based questions, the author dismissed the concern, comparing moral objections to asking if someone knows how to use a tool. This overlooks that moral objections are often tied to personal faith, unlike job skills.
The author did not address what happens if an employee’s beliefs change after being hired.
He argued that HB 1224 would not worsen Oklahoma’s health care shortage, stating that partial service is better than none. When asked about financial losses due to refusals, he reiterated that employers should screen for objections in interviews but did not address the cost of covering those tasks. He also cited Oklahoma’s strong employer protections, suggesting employers could dismiss staff for other reasons. When asked about wrongful termination, he again pointed to employer-friendly state laws.
Lastly, he claimed the bill would not apply to school nurses, some of which are RNs. The bill does not include language to support that.
Grants medical practitioners, health care payors, and institutions the right to deny care based on conscience without facing professional reprimand. The definition of a medical practitioner includes anyone in the chain of care, including non-medical staff like receptionists.
Conscience is defined as an individual’s or entity’s ethical, moral, or religious beliefs. Retaliation is broadly defined as discrimination against a person or entity for exercising their conscious.
This is similar to Sen. McIntosh’s SB 959 (2025). However, HB 1224 requires a higher level of transparency from health insurance companies and health systems pertaining to their ethics policies.
Rep. Kevin West introduced this bill as HB 3214 (2024).
Comments are closed.