Provide for medical conscience-based objections

Brief

What this bill does

If it passes, what actually changes?

This is a new stand-alone law, not an amendment to an existing one. It gives health care providers and the entities that pay for care a right to refuse to take part in, or pay for, services that violate their beliefs.

• Sec. 3 lets a provider or payor opt out of participating in, or paying for, any health care service.
• Sec. 3(1) requires written notice to the employer, a note in the patient's file, and warning before scheduling.
• Sec. 2(7) defines "health care service" to include testing, diagnosis, referral, dispensing drugs, counseling, and record-making.
• Sec. 2(5) extends the right to insurers, employers, health plans, and health care sharing organizations.
• Sec. 5 lets providers or payors complain to the Attorney General, who may sue for damages and attorney's fees.
• Sec. 6 bars civil liability for a conscience-based refusal but preserves EMTALA, 42 U.S.C. 1395dd, emergency care.

What it says it is for

Does it do what it claims?

The title mostly matches the text, but two sections reach past conscience objections into speech and whistleblowing. The title also does not signal that insurers and employers are covered.

• Match: Secs. 1 through 3 create exactly the conscience-based opt-out the title names.
• Match: Sec. 3(3) and Sec. 6(1) protect the objector from adverse action and civil liability.
• Divergence: Sec. 4(2) protects disclosing any suspected legal or ethical violation, with no conscience objection involved.
• Divergence: Sec. 7 blocks license discipline for public or social media speech about health policy.
• Broader than title: Sec. 2(5) grants the same right to employers and health insurers, not just clinicians.
• Sec. 2(6) also covers students, so the act reaches educational institutions and scholarship decisions.

Where Scripture bears on it

What does the Bible say about this?

This bill turns on whose conscience governs a shared transaction, and two of the candidate verses sit on opposite sides of that hinge. Paul asks in 1 Corinthians 10:29, "Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another man's conscience?" - a question that cuts both ways here, since the provider asks it of the state and the patient may ask it of the provider. Romans 13:5 supplies the other half - "Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake." That verse treats conscience as a reason for obedience to lawful authority, not only as a reason for exemption from it. What the verses do not settle is nearly everything the bill actually decides: they say nothing about who bears the cost when an objection is exercised, nothing about whether a refusing provider owes a referral, nothing about corporate persons such as insurers and employers claiming a conscience by reference to their bylaws under section 2(2), and nothing about whether an Attorney General should be the enforcer. Scripture here frames the question; it does not draft the statute.

The case each way

What is the strongest argument for, and against?

The disagreement is over whether protecting a provider's conscience shifts the burden onto the patient seeking a lawful service.

• For: A clinician should not be fired, demoted, or expelled for declining a service violating sincere beliefs.
• For: Sec. 3(1) requires telling the patient before scheduling, so objections surface early, not at the appointment.
• For: Sec. 3(2) and Sec. 6(2) preserve informed consent, civil rights limits, and emergency treatment duties.
• Against: Sec. 2(7) counts referral and information as objectionable services, so a patient may leave with nothing.
• Against: Sec. 2(5) lets an employer or insurer refuse payment, binding patients who do not share the belief.
• Against: No section requires transferring records or naming another provider who will perform the service.

What is unsettled

What should I be careful about?

This reading covers only what the seven sections say; it cannot settle how they would work in practice.

• No dollar figure or appropriation appears; the cost of Attorney General enforcement under Sec. 5 is unstated.
• "Sincerely held" belief is never defined, and no test for judging sincerity is provided.
• The text does not say who must prove an objection is genuine, or to whom.
• Sec. 5 says the Attorney General "may" sue, leaving enforcement entirely discretionary.
• Sec. 2(6) borrows the provider definition from section 71-7907, which is not reproduced in the bill.
• "As soon as practicable" in Sec. 3(1) sets no deadline for written notice.
• The text states no effective date and does not address conflicts with existing licensure rules.

Text (1)

• Introduced (application/pdf)

Each link opens the Legislature's own document. The text itself is not in our database yet (fetched lazily); when it lands these pages will carry it verbatim.

All Actions (5)

Votes (0)

There have been no roll call votes on this bill.

Sponsors (1)

• Sen. Dave Murman [District 38] — primary sponsor

Amendments (0)

There are no amendments to this bill.

Fiscal Notes & Statements (2)

• Fiscal Note — Fiscal Note
• Statement of Intent — Statement of Intent

The Legislature's own companion documents; each link opens the official copy.

Committees (1)

Related Bills (0)

No related bill information was received for LB655.