Meeting Public Comments

Subcommittee meeting and times are as follows:

Attendance at subcommittee meetings by lobbyists and the public is via zoom or in-person. See agenda for zoom details. Only authenticated users are permitted access.

HF 571

A bill for an act relating to protections for medical practitioners, health care institutions, and health care payors including those related to the exercise of conscience, whistleblower activities, and free speech, and providing penalties. (Formerly HSB 139.)

Agenda

Subcommittee members: Taylor-CH, Blake, Green

Date: Thursday, January 22, 2026

Time: 10:00 AM - 11:00 AM

Location: Room 315

Comments Submitted:

The purpose of comments is to provide information to members of the subcommittee.

Names and comments are public records. Remaining information is considered a confidential record.

01-19-2026

Fred Dery [Steindler Orthopedic Clinic]

Forcing medical professionals to violate their conscience and their vow to do no harm jeopardizes the safety and standards of care for their patients. The freedom to follow ones conscience is foundational. The commitment to optimal medical care for others is threatened if medical professionals are forced to provide care that conflicts with their principles. The protection of moral, ethical, and religious beliefs is integral to the Constitution and is guaranteed to every American. It is wrong to exclude medical professionals from that protection. No patient wants to be treated by someone whose conscience is not permitted to guide their recommendations. Protection of medical conscience rights is strongly supported by the public, who recognize the importance of ethical and moral beliefs in medicine.o 83% of Americans believe medical professionals should not be forced to perform procedures that conflict with their principles.o 81% believe it is important that they and the clinicians caring for them share moral beliefs. USCCB Conscience Rights Survey 2019 If conscience rights are not protected, the quality of health care will decline as the already significant shortage of medical professionals will worsen.o Clinicians currently in practice will leave their careers rather than violate their conscience.o Medical students will avoid entering certain specialties with higher risks of threats to their beliefs and principles. This is particularly worrisome in OB/GYN, which is a critical shortage already, and particularly in rural and inner city populations.o Our best and brightest college students will opt to pursue nonmedical careers rather than risk threats and intimidations to their conscience, which will further worsen the clinician shortage. Since the passage of the Church Amendment in 1973, the moral principles and religious beliefs of medical professionals, students in health professions, and health care institutions have been protected.o Employees cannot be discriminated against for refusing to participate in a procedure that violates their conscience.o Clinicians and students cannot be required to participate in abortions or sterilizations when they object to those procedures due to their ethical or religious principles. Additional Federal protections for medical professionals and students are already in place, particularly regarding their refusal to participate in abortions.o Weldon Amendment 2009o Coats Snowe Amendment 1996Please do not pass any laws, regulations, or similar that force physicians to violate their morals, ethics, faith, and conscience.

01-19-2026

Morgan Hockey

I attended a subcommittee hearing on this bill in 2025, so I'll repeat the point I made then.If you give an insurance company a legal mechanism for denying payment on the basis of conscience, you incentivize them to find as many procedures as possible objectionable. Insurance companies will suddenly gain a very strong moral compass as a means to deny care in the pursuit of higher profits. This bill would affect far more healthcare than its authors envisioned, and it's all a moot point because we already have these protections for individual providers.I'd also like to note that last year when I made this point about insurance companies abusing this bill, not even a minute later a health insurance lobbyist spoke in favor of it. Senator Taylor, do you remember that? If that doesn't spell it out for you, I don't know what does.

01-19-2026

Lyra Dosch

All medical professionals swear a hippocratic oath to do no harm. They vowed to treat their patients with dignity, respect, and consistency. Cafeteria Christians* like Jean Paul would have you believe that their "sincerely held beliefs" take precedence over an ethical obligation to treat their patients. This is a shrugging of morals. This is a collapse of conscience. This is not how real, active, qualified medical professionals conduct science. This is the antithesis of science.This bill sets a dangerous precedent, giving medical professionals and insurance companies free license to discriminate with impunity.*Christ condemned the stoning and persecution of sinners. He did not permit "othering" in his flock. He did not look down on his followers for straying. He did not withhold his love, his grace, his message, from ANYONE. If you don't serve everyone, you serve no one. Our legislators would do well to remember that.

01-19-2026

John Dolehide [DolehideUrology,PLLC]

Aside from the obvious precedent, the right to hold to my deep conviction to "first do no harm" is paramount to the practice of medicine. I am a physician of over 40 years and continue to practice here in Iowa

01-20-2026

Patricia Goodemote

A medical conscience bill is greatly necessary to protect medical care providers from having to choose between their conscience or giving up medical care. As a physician with 34 years of medical experience, 21 in the military and 13 here in Iowa as an emergency physician in a critical access hospital, I have only had one incident, in which I had to fight in order to be able to both follow my conscience and continue to provide medical care. Fortunately, the leadership allowed me to follow my conscience, because otherwise I might have had to leave my medical practice. This was an extremely stressful time, as I greatly desired to continue caring for patients.With this legislation, a medical care provider does not need to fear being faced with this choice. Please pass this legislation, as without this protection some people may choose not to go into a medical profession or may leave medicine early. Iowa cannot afford to lose solid medical care providers, especially with our aging population. Please protect us, so we can continue to care for Iowans.

01-20-2026

Stacy Volmer

I strongly oppose House File 571, the socalled Medical Ethics Defense Act, because it puts the beliefs of medical providers and institutions ahead of patient health, safety, and civil rights. While framed as a conscience and freespeech measure, this bill grants sweeping immunity to refuse care and weakens accountability, even when those refusals cause real harm to patients.HF 571 would allow providers, hospitals, and insurers to deny participation in careincluding referrals and counselingbased on ideology, with few meaningful safeguards for patients. In many communities, especially rural areas, patients may have no realistic alternative. A right to refuse care is dangerous when it leaves patients without timely or appropriate treatment.The bill is particularly harmful to women, LGBTQ+ people, and others who already face barriers to care, effectively permitting discrimination while shielding it from consequences. It also undermines professional licensing and oversight by restricting the ability of boards to enforce standards of care, eroding public trust in the medical system.Iowa law already protects individual conscience without abandoning patients. HF 571 goes too far, shifting power away from patients and toward institutions and ideology. Lawmakers should reject this bill and reaffirm that health care must be guided by evidence, ethics, and patient wellbeingnot personal belief.

01-21-2026

Ian Udell [University of Iowa]

I am definitely in favor of this bill. As a student at the University of Iowa, which excels in the foundation of healthcare, I firmly believe that no ones first amendment rights should get violated because they choose a job in healthcare. As a Catholic, Ones religious liberty should never be at stake just because you take a job in healthcare. Should this bill fail, whose moral code gets to determine what actions are right and wrong? Personally, I would never want the government to make that decision for me. Keep religious liberty, and conscience in healthcare!

01-21-2026

Ann Thomas

I am in favor. I fear individuals will choose not to pursue healthcare vocations if it is the case they will not be able to act in accord with their own conscience, in addition to losing professionals we already have if their freedom to do whats best for patients is taken away. We are currently dealing with a major shortage of health care providers, and this will make it worse.