SB 1141 - Under this act, no health care institution, health care professional, or other person shall be required to perform, assist, or participate in medical procedures, treatments, counseling, prescriptions, or surgeries related to sex reassignment or gender identity transitioning if such procedures, treatments, counseling, prescriptions, or surgeries are contrary to the established policy of, or the moral, ethical, or religious beliefs of, such institution or professional or other person. No person shall be denied or discriminated against in the receipt of any public benefit, assistance, or privilege or denied or discriminated against in the public or private employment on the grounds of refusal to perform, assist, or participate in sex reassignment or gender identity transitioning medical procedures, treatments, counseling, prescriptions, or surgeries, as described in the act. No cause of action shall accrue against an institution, professional, or other person on account of the refusal to perform, assist, or participate in such described activities. An institution, professional, or other aggrieved person may bring a civil action for a violation of the rights set forth in this act. This act is similar to HB 1519 (2024). SARAH HASKINS

2026 Regular Session Introduced by Brad Hudson

Missouri bill establishing healthcare workers' right to refuse certain medical treatments without facing discrimination or penalties.

Second Read and Referred S Families, Seniors and Health Committee

Legislative bill overview

SB 1141 establishes legal protections allowing individuals to refuse participation in certain medical treatments without facing discrimination or penalties. The bill creates a framework for conscience-based medical refusals, though specific treatments covered are not detailed in the available information. This legislation would apply to healthcare providers and potentially patients in Missouri.

Why is this important

Medical refusal laws directly affect healthcare access, provider liability, and patient autonomy. They raise questions about balancing individual conscience rights against obligations to provide care, particularly in emergency situations or underserved areas. The practical impact depends heavily on which treatments are protected and what enforcement mechanisms exist.

Potential points of contention

Scope ambiguity: Without knowing which specific treatments are covered, it's unclear whether this protects routine refusals or addresses particular controversial procedures, making predictability difficult for healthcare systems

Patient access concerns: Broad refusal protections could create gaps in care access, particularly in rural areas with limited providers or in time-sensitive medical situations

Provider liability: The bill's language around "penalties" and "discrimination" will determine whether providers face legal exposure for treatment denials, which healthcare organizations will closely scrutinize