The Ninth Circuit’s ruling on Montana’s HB702 is a pivotal moment for medical freedom in America, setting an important precedent for states that value personal liberty. Montana is the only state in the country that explicitly protects individuals from discrimination based on vaccination status—whether in employment, healthcare settings, government institutions, or public accommodations. The court’s decision affirms that individual rights must not be infringed upon, regardless of the circumstances, and that healthcare workers and ordinary citizens alike deserve protection from coercive mandates that force them to choose between their livelihoods and their personal health decisions. Tennessee should take note because while Montana leads, our state lags behind, leaving its citizens vulnerable to discrimination, particularly in healthcare and places of public accommodation.
They were once hailed as heroes, only to be vilified or cast aside when they chose not to comply with vaccination mandates.
At the heart of this ruling is a rejection of the idea that healthcare settings should be exempt from laws protecting individuals from discrimination based on vaccination status. Plaintiffs in the case had sought to enjoin Montana’s HB702, arguing that hospitals and healthcare institutions needed the flexibility to require vaccines for employees in order to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and provide equal protection under the 14th Amendment. But the Ninth Circuit ruled decisively against this, asserting that healthcare workers, like all other individuals, should not face discrimination for their vaccination status. The court recognized that protecting patient safety does not require sacrificing the personal freedoms of healthcare workers. This is a critical win for healthcare workers who have borne the brunt of vaccine mandates, often facing termination or suspension for refusing a vaccine. These are the same workers who risked their health and safety during the COVID-19 plandemic, working long hours and exposing themselves to the virus. They were once hailed as heroes, only to be vilified or cast aside when they chose not to comply with vaccination mandates. Montana’s HB702 ensures that healthcare professionals retain the right to make their own informed medical choices without being penalized. Tennessee, however, has done nothing to extend these same protections to its healthcare workforce.
This is a critical win for healthcare workers who have borne the brunt of vaccine mandates, often facing termination or suspension for refusing a vaccine. These are the same workers who risked their health and safety during the COVID-19 plandemic, working long hours and exposing themselves to the virus. They were once hailed as heroes, only to be vilified or cast aside when they chose not to comply with vaccination mandates. Montana’s HB702 ensures that healthcare professionals retain the right to make their own informed medical choices without being penalized. Tennessee, however, has done nothing to extend these same protections to its healthcare workforce.
Healthcare workers, perhaps more than anyone, understand the risks and benefits of medical treatments and should have the freedom to make informed decisions without coercion. The idea that healthcare workers, who possess specialized medical knowledge, should be stripped of their ability to assess risks and make personal choices is absurd.
While Tennessee has passed some limited measures related to vaccine mandates—such as prohibiting public schools and certain government entities from requiring proof of vaccination for COVID and allowing for religious exemptions — these laws fall short. They don’t extend beyond COVID for private employers or healthcare institutions, leaving workers exposed to discriminatory practices that can force them to choose between their jobs and their right to make their own medical decisions. Montana’s approach is comprehensive, addressing discrimination not only in government and healthcare but also in places of public accommodation, a critical area where Tennessee has also failed to act.
Our state’s lawmakers have, in the past, declined to pass similar legislation, often citing private property rights as a reason to allow business owners to impose vaccine mandates on employees and customers alike. The argument goes that private businesses should be free to make any decisions they want, including enforcing vaccination policies, without interference from the government. But this is a flawed position when we consider how the law already treats places of public accommodation.
When a business chooses to operate as a place of public accommodation, it agrees to a set of rules. The law requires these businesses to be open to the public and to be non-discriminatory in how they serve their customers. That’s why we don’t see businesses refusing service based on race, religion, or sex—it’s illegal. But when it comes to vaccination status, Tennessee hasn’t extended these protections, allowing businesses to discriminate at will. This means that Tennesseans could be denied entry to restaurants, hotels, theaters, or any other place that serves the public based on their personal health choices. It’s not just wrong; it’s a direct violation of the principles of freedom and equality under the law that this state claims to uphold.
There are those who claim that true liberty means allowing complete freedom in all aspects of society, including the freedom to discriminate. In their view, the free market will naturally correct any imbalance—if a business discriminates, the market will punish that business through lost revenue or customer backlash. In theory, this argument holds a certain libertarian appeal: let businesses and individuals act as they choose, and the marketplace will sort it out. But in practice, this notion falls short, especially when applied to the modern, highly concentrated corporate landscape we face today.
First, we must acknowledge that today’s economy is no longer driven primarily by local small businesses operating independently. We live in an era dominated by multinational corporations, many of which wield enormous influence over public policy and consumer choice. These companies are often publicly traded, with ownership stakes held by foreign interests, and they function in a global marketplace that has little concern for the individual rights of American citizens. If we allow these corporate giants to dictate American policies—especially on issues as personal as vaccination—it risks sidelining millions of tax-paying Americans from full participation in the economy.
Allowing discrimination in this context is not only unjust, it’s dangerous. The power dynamics at play in the corporate world today are far too lopsided for the average individual to expect any meaningful recourse if a company decides to discriminate against them based on vaccination status. Think about it: if all the major employers or service providers in an industry collectively decide to enforce vaccine mandates, where does that leave the person who chooses not to comply? Suddenly, their employment options shrink, and their ability to participate in the public sphere diminishes. This isn’t liberty—it’s corporate rule disguised as freedom.
“This isn’t just a violation of personal liberty; it’s immoral. Why should the American taxpayer fund a system that allows large corporations to discriminate against them?”
Moreover, many of these corporations receive tax incentives and subsidies, which means they’re operating on the backs of the American taxpayer. It’s bad enough that foreign-owned companies can influence American policy, but it’s even worse when you consider that these same companies, propped up by public money, could effectively cut a significant portion of Americans out of the workforce or public life simply because of their personal medical choices. This isn’t just a violation of personal liberty; it’s immoral. Why should the American taxpayer fund a system that allows large corporations to discriminate against them?
True liberty isn’t about giving unchecked power to corporations or any other powerful entity. It’s about protecting individuals from unjust discrimination, whether that’s coming from the government or from a corporation that’s so embedded in the economy that escaping its influence is nearly impossible. The free market doesn’t automatically correct these imbalances when corporate power is this concentrated and when government policies continue to shield these corporations from accountability.
A truly free society should ensure that individuals can exercise their rights without being excluded from the economy. And when public money is involved, businesses should not be given a pass to act in ways that are discriminatory or coercive. This is why laws like Montana’s HB702 are so important—they protect individuals from being sidelined by powerful institutions, ensuring that every citizen has the opportunity to participate in the economy without fear of discrimination based on personal medical decisions. Tennessee should recognize that protecting individual liberty means standing up to corporate power, not handing it unchecked authority to dictate the terms of freedom.
Montana has shown that it is possible to protect individual rights while maintaining public health and safety. Tennessee should not only be paying attention but should be leading the charge. Right now, Tennesseans are left vulnerable to discriminatory practices in their workplaces, healthcare institutions, and public spaces because our lawmakers have refused to act.
The Ninth Circuit’s ruling is a wake-up call. Montana’s HB702 provides a blueprint for how states can protect their citizens from being marginalized due to their vaccination status. Healthcare workers deserve the right to make personal medical decisions without fear of losing their jobs. Citizens should be able to participate in public life—whether it’s going to a restaurant, shopping at a store, or visiting a theater—without being asked to show proof of vaccination. And businesses that benefit from taxpayer dollars should not be allowed to discriminate against the very people footing the bill.
