House Bill 2248 is designed to protect medical freedom in Arizona schools and workplaces, but it is drawing pushback from lawmakers who say its language reaches further than intended.
The bill, sponsored by Rep. Lisa Fink (R-AZ), would prohibit government entities, schools, and businesses from requiring or coercing individuals into medical interventions. Supporters frame it as a restoration of voluntary, informed decision-making for adults and parents, but not everyone in the chamber is convinced the bill is as straightforward as it sounds.
Rep. Nancy Gutierrez (D-AZ) was among those raising concerns, arguing that the bill's definition of a medical intervention is written so broadly that it could strip schools of tools they routinely use to protect student health.
Under the bill, a medical intervention includes any procedure, treatment, device, drug, injection, medication, or action taken to diagnose, prevent, or cure a disease or alter a person's biological function.
Gutierrez said that the definition opens the door to unintended consequences. To further her point, she highlighted a concern most parents have encountered firsthand. "If your child had lice at school... the school could not send your child home," she said, noting she had dealt with the situation herself.
To her, if a school tells a parent to treat their child for a common condition already runs afoul of this bill, and the language may be far too sweeping.
"I just want to be clear about that," Gutierrez said, signaling that her concerns went beyond any single example.
HB 2248 was introduced in January 2026 and has been debated in the Regulatory Oversight Committee.
While backers see it as a critical protection against medical coercion, critics argue it could make it harder for schools to respond to communicable conditions and manage basic public health situations among students.
Could the bill be amended to address critics' concerns without undermining its core purpose?
