Status: Expired

  • Un-Mask Ohio

    HB617: β€œUn-Mask Ohio”

    HB 617 (Un-Mask Ohio – sponsor: Wiggam) prevents masks from being mandated in any school, college, or any government building or public transit, and in any place of public accommodation or where public services are rendered in the private sector.

    Find HB 617 language and status here:

    https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/legislation/135/hb617

    CURRENT CALL to ACTION for HB617 here:

    Contact House Public Health Services Committee Chair Adam Matthews and ask him to β€œPlease re-schedule the proponent testimony that you cancelled in June for the first scheduled committee date on the return of the House this fall. This legislation is very important to me and my family.”

    Chairman Matthews

    πŸ“« rep56@ohiohouse.gov

    ☎️ (614) 644-6027

  • Prohibit proof-of-vaccination for state buildings

    Bill to a) prohibit the state or state agencies from requiring proof of vaccination for entry into a state building, or a building controlled, operated, or owned by the state, b) prohibits state, county, townships, cities, public schools from requiring proof of vaccination, and c) make an individual’s vaccine status confidential when it is required under other circumstances.

    OhioAMF believes that vaccine choice bills should protect all Ohioans in all circumstances, as such, we support HB248 and believe that any other legislation that claims to have the same or similar goals only serve to distract or undermine HB248.

    Read more about the bill.

  • Vaccine Choice and Anti-Discrimination Act

    Ohio House Bill 248

    HB248 Legislation

    Ohio House Sub-Bill 248 would have guaranteed Ohioans vaccine choice, healthcare privacy, and protection from discrimination based on vaccine status. Unfortunately, the House Health Committee failed to vote this valuable piece of legislation out of committee. Below we have archived details about the legislation and we hope that the legislature will introduce similar legislation in the near future.

    Ohio House Sub-Bill 248 would guarantee Ohioans their right to vaccine choice and to maintain their healthcare privacy. It would also prohibit discrimination based on vaccine status.

    Ohio House Bill 248 has received an unprecedented amount of public support on such an issue. The bill received 1,500 proponent testimonies supporting the bill and a fairly insignificant number of letters opposing the legislation. No similar legislation anywhere else in the United States has ever been as successful in the legislative process as HB248.

    Despite the overwhelming support that HB248 has received, the Ohio legislature has remained impotent in passing any meaningful legislation protecting Ohioans’ medical freedom rights and the bill stalled out in the Health Committee because our legislature cares more about their campaign contributions than they do your rights!

    Archive of VoteYesOnHB248.com HB248 Home Page. πŸ“„

    Archive of VoteYesOnHB248.com HB248 Legislation Page. πŸ“„

    Read more of Rep. Jennifer Gross’ April 6, 2021 Press Release πŸ“„

    Read the Amended Bill that Rep. Gross Introduced at the first Committee Hearing on 5/18/21. πŸ“„

    Read Rep. Gross’ Sponsor Testimony from the Committee Hearing on 5/18/21. πŸ“„

    Read the Amended Bill that Rep. Gross Introduced at the first Committee Hearing. πŸ“„

    2×2 Double-Sided HB248 Info Card (Business Card Size) πŸ“„

    8.5×11 Single-Sided HB248 Info Flyer (Full Sheet Size) πŸ“„

    8.5×11 Single-Sided Freedom Bill Comparison Chart (Full Sheet Size) πŸ“„

    While our interest in the legislature passing HB248 hasn’t waned, we realize that our representatives don’t have our best interest in mind. Therefore, Representative Gross initiated a petition to discharge HB248 from the Health Committee. Read more about the Discharge Petition below.

    HB248 Discharge Petition

    HB248 Discharge Petition would allow House Representatives to move HB248 out of the Health Committee and to the House floor for a vote as-is.

    In United States parliamentary procedure, a discharge petition is a means of bringing a bill out of committee and to the floor for consideration without a report from the committee by “discharging” the committee from further consideration of a bill or resolution.

    So why a discharge petition? Well, about a hundred of Ohio’s multi-million and multi-billion dollar lobbying organizations came out against Ohio House Bill 248. These organizations represent millions of dollars in contributions to the political campaigns of most of the politicians in the state of Ohio, from local mayors to state legislators, from county commissioners to congressional candidates. Without getting into the weeds on the rational, these organizations oppose HB248 because the legislation would prevent their ability to discriminate against individuals who choose not to receive some or any vaccines.

    Although HB248 received an unprecedented number of proponent testimonies in favor of the legislation, some 1,500 letters to the House Health Committee, and received a relatively insignificant number of opposition testimonies, the bill stalled out in the Health Committee because our legislature cares more about their campaign contributions than they do your rights!

    As such, Representative Jennifer Gross, HB248 Sponsor, decided to submit a “discharge petition” in an effort to either circumvent the Health Committee and bring the bill to the House floor for a vote, or expose fellow legislators for the frauds they are as evidence by their objection to signing the HB248 discharge petition.

    Archive of VoteYesOnHB248.com HB248 Home Page. πŸ“„

    Archive of VoteYesOnHB248.com HB248 Discharge Petition Page. πŸ“„

    Read more of Rep. Jennifer Gross’ Press Release 9/10/21 πŸ“„

    Read the Original Bill that would be Discharged πŸ“„

    Read Rep. Gross’ Sponsor Testimony from the Committee Hearing on 5/18/21. πŸ“„

    HB248 Ballot Initiative

    HB248 Ballot Initiative would have brought a refined version of HB248 to the ballot box in November, allowing Ohioans to circumvent the legislature’s impotence. However, due to the Attorney General’s continued effort to block this effort, the Ballot Initiative Team discontinued efforts to bring HB248 to the ballot and instead turned to a new effort, bringing a Constitutional Amendment to the ballot.

    The ballot initiative is a means by which citizens may propose to create, amend, or repeal a state law or constitutional provision through collecting petition signatures from a certain minimum number of registered voters. Successful initiative petition efforts result in the proposal being presented to voters within a state or other local government jurisdiction. Ballot initiatives are also referred to as ballot measures, popular initiatives, voter initiatives, citizen initiatives, and propositions.

    In Ohio, citizens have the power to initiate constitutional amendments, state statutes, and veto referendums. Initiated statutes, in Ohio, begin as indirect initiatives, requiring 132,887 signatures, in 2021, to go before the Ohio State Legislature, which has the option to approve an initiative without a vote of electors. If the state legislature does not adopt an indirect initiative, the initiated statute becomes direct, requiring an additional batch of signatures (132,887 in 2021 for a grand total of 265,774) to go before voters.

    So why a ballot initiative? Well, about a hundred of Ohio’s multi-million and multi-billion dollar lobbying organizations came out against Ohio House Bill 248. These organizations represent millions of dollars in contributions to the political campaigns of most of the politicians in the state of Ohio, from local mayors to state legislators, from county commissioners to congressional candidates. Without getting into the weeds on the rational, these organizations oppose HB248 because the legislation would prevent their ability to discriminate against individuals who choose not to receive some or any vaccines.

    Although HB248 received an unprecedented number of proponent testimonies in favor of the legislation, some 1,500 letters to the House Health Committee, and received a relatively insignificant number of opposition testimonies, the bill stalled out in the Health Committee because our legislature cares more about their campaign contributions than they do your rights!

    As such, a group of dedicated volunteers and freedom-loving Ohioans, decided to pursue a “ballot initiative” to circumvent the Ohio Legislature and bring the protections of HB248 to Ohio voters for a vote.

    Please read on below:

    Archive of VoteYesOnHB248.com HB248 Home Page. πŸ“„

    Archive of VoteYesOnHB248.com HB248 Ballot Initiative Page. πŸ“„

    Medical Right to Refuse Initiative

    The Medical Right to Refuse Ballot Initiative aims to add law to the Ohio Constitution that would ensure that Ohioans maintain health choice autonomy.

    Ohio law permits Ohioans to bring Constitutional Amendments to the general public for a state-wide vote to enact law within the Ohio Constitution. This is what we’re doing. We’re approaching the general public and asking Ohioans to pass law that would ensure they, their families, their friends, their co-workers, all Ohioans, have the final say as to what medication goes into their bodies. Read More…

    The Medical Right to Refuse is an Ohio Ballot Initiative intended to amend the Ohio Constitution to guarantee that Ohioans retain their right to direct their own healthcare decisions as to what medication they put into their bodies.

    WHO SUPPORTS HB248

    To play, press and hold the enter key. To stop, release the enter key.

  • Prohibit COVID vaccine mandates by state and local government

    Bill to a) prohibit a person or the state, county, townships, cities, public schools from mandating a Covid vaccine, and b) prohibits state, county, townships, cities, public schools from requiring proof of vaccination, and c) make an individual’s vaccine status confidential when it is required under other circumstances.

    OhioAMF believes that vaccine choice bills should protect all Ohioans in all circumstances, as such, we support HB248 and believe that any other legislation that claims to have the same or similar goals only serve to distract or undermine HB248.

    Read more about the bill.

  • Vax-A-Million database not a public record

    Bill to specify the information in the Vax-A-Million database is not public record and to declare an emergency.

    Read more about the bill.

  • Prohibit certain mandatory vaccinations

    Bill to prohibit certain mandatory vaccinations and other activities related to an individual’s vaccination status and to make an appropriation related to coronavirus local fiscal recovery.

    OhioAMF believes that vaccine choice bills should protect all Ohioans in all circumstances, as such, we support HB248 and believe that any other legislation that claims to have the same or similar goals only serve to distract or undermine HB248.

    Read more about the bill.

    Subscribe to OAMF’s Contact List

    Basic Contact Info

    (Required)

    Additional Contact Info (Optional)

    Subscribe Now!

    By submitting this form, you agree to receive updates and alerts via email and text message from Ohio Advocates for Medical Freedom.Submit

    Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions

    Tel/fax: 1-877-OHIOAMF | Email: info@ohioamf.org | PO Box 1208, Norton, Ohio 44203

    2015 – Present Β© Ohio Advocates for Medical Freedom. All Rights Reserved

    Web Development By: proVanceTek LLC

    OAMF is an Ohio organization seeking 501(c)(4) non-profit designation from the IRS.
    Donations are unlimited and greatly appreciated, unfortunately they are not deductible for federal income tax purposes.
    Thank you for your generosity.

    DISCLAIMER: THIS WEBSITE DOES NOT PROVIDE MEDICAL OR LEGAL ADVICE
    The information, including but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material contained on this website are for informational purposes only. The purpose of this website is to promote broad consumer understanding and knowledge of various health topics surrounding medical freedom and choice. It is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health care provider with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition or treatment and before undertaking a new health care regimen, and never disregard professional medical advice or delay in seeking it because of something you have read on this website.

    bottom of page

  • Reverse adverse actions against businesses

    Bill to a) reverse and expunge any adverse actions taken by the state et al against a business who was found to be in violation of orders issued under the emergency order, b) restore rights and privileges that were affected by such adverse actions, c) refund businesses any penalties/fines levied.

    Read more about the bill.

  • Vote No on Issue 1 β€” Redistricting (November 2024)

    Vote No on Ohio Issue 1

    This page is an archive of Issue 1

    In the upcoming Ohio election, voters will have the opportunity to make a critical decision on an initiative known as Issue 1.

    This legislation has been advertised as a measure to protect women’s “reproductive health” rights. It is essential to understand the full implications of Issue 1. Beneath the surface, this initiative poses a significant threat to parental rights and the wellbeing of children.

    Call to Action

    1) Download our NO in November content β€œtoolbox” and share them on your social media platforms as well as text them to 10 family members or friends and remind them Voting is on November 7th! Download all our content via Zip file (367MB) or get individual content here (scroll right for more):

    2) You can also print Protect Women Ohio flyers to hand out to voters at least 100 feet from the polling entrance: Downloadable flyer here.

    3) Check your local Republican party headquarters for β€œno one issue one” signs (or make your own) and wave them on voting day at the busiest polling location in your district.

    The Deceptive Nature of Issue 1

    At first glance, Issue 1 may appear to be aimed at addressing what proponents argue are essential rights pertaining to “reproductive” matters. Nevertheless, it is imperative to delve deeper into the legislation’s intricate details, revealing an underlying agenda that extends beyond “reproductive rights”.

    This legislative proposal brings to light legitimate concerns regarding parental rights, an enduring cornerstone of our societal values. Parents traditionally hold a pivotal role in shaping their children’s upbringing and welfare, including decisions of medical significance. Issue 1 raises alarms as it threatens to undermine this longstanding principle, potentially depriving parents of their influence in choices concerning abortion, the use of puberty blockers, or gender reassignment treatment for their children.

    It is crucial to underscore that while safeguarding “reproductive rights” is deemed crucial by some, it should not come at the cost of compromising parental rights β€” a fundamental aspect deeply entrenched within our legal and ethical framework.

    “Reproductive Choice”

    Ohio Advocates for Medical Freedom (OAMF) staunchly advocates for medical freedom, a principle rooted in the fundamental definition of medicine as “the science and art dealing with the maintenance of health and the prevention, alleviation, or cure of disease.”

    Within this framework, OAMF takes a clear stance regarding “reproductive choice”, that – except in cases where the life of the mother is at risk – terminating the life of a fetus contradicts the very essence of maintaining health.

    Furthermore, OAMF maintains the perspective that – once again, with potential exceptions to preserve the life of the mother – a fetus should not be categorized as a disease.

    In aligning our advocacy with this perspective, OAMF underscores the importance of preserving life while recognizing the complexity of the debate surrounding “reproductive choice” and its implications for medical freedom.

    Puberty Blockers

    Another concerning aspect of Issue 1 revolves around its potential impact on the use of puberty blockers, a topic fraught with debate when it comes to their administration to children diagnosed with gender dysphoria.

    Under the provisions of Issue 1, parents may find themselves facing limitations on their ability to make these decisions for their children. This legislative approach raises questions about the balance between parental rights and the authority of medical professionals, particularly when it comes to contested matters such as the use of puberty blockers.

    It is crucial to recognize that the decision to initiate or discontinue puberty blockers should be informed by comprehensive medical assessments, in-depth consultations, and a consideration of the individual needs and circumstances of each young person. Parents often play a pivotal role in this process, collaborating closely with healthcare providers to make decisions that prioritize their child’s physical and psychological health.

    Issue 1’s restriction on parental involvement in these decisions could disrupt this collaborative approach and hinder the ability of families to navigate the complex terrain of medical care for children diagnosed with gender dysphoria.

    Gender Reassignment Treatment

    Issue 1 introduces yet another area of concern by limiting parental input in decisions related to gender reassignment treatment or surgery for their children.

    Gender reassignment is a multifaceted and profound process with far-reaching implications, especially for minors. While it is essential to acknowledge the complexities and sensitivities surrounding these medical procedures, Issue 1’s proposed restrictions on parental involvement raise significant questions.

    Parents play a pivotal role in guiding their children’s lives and well-being, and this includes making decisions about their medical care. The erosion of parental authority in this matter would disrupt the established dynamics of family decision-making, which have traditionally been guided by parents’ understanding of their child’s best interests.

  • Limit emergency-rule extension power

    Bill to a) limit the governor’s power to extend emergency rule, b) implement oversight on emergency rule changes, to specifically mitigate adverse impact on businesses, c) limit the duration of emergency rules.

    While this bill doesn’t prohibit the type of rules that can be implemented (vaccine mandate, mask mandate, vaccine passport, business closures, etc), it does provide further limitations on the state from endlessly perpetuating emergency rules.

    Read more about the bill.

  • Oppose Governor DeWine and the State Health Director’s COVID-19 orders

    Ohio Advocates for Medical Freedom opposes the current Health Orders as issued by Governor DeWine and the State Health Director.

    Please contact the Governor’s Office to voice your opposition to the current orders.

Straight Up · PodcastWatch Medical Freedom Podcast episodes herewith Stephanie StockEast Palestine · Town HallThe Right to Know! — Watch the full town hallRecorded Sept 11 · Firestone Farms, Columbiana