A republic that cannot trust its citizens with their own bodies cannot call itself free.
The Medical Freedom Amendment is more than law; it is the conscience of democracy finding its voice again.       
Medical Freedom Amendment Ballad

Unite to Protect Our Rights

Use this to
Contact your Federal
Legislator Today!

A Possible Letter
with Questionnaire
Picture
As of 01/22/2024 over 17,000 doctors & scientists signed
the Rome Declaration.
This Declaration specifies the harm committed by political intrusion to the relationship of physician/patient and the political obfuscation of the sworn medical Hippocratic Oath,
FIRST DO NO HARM.
It continues to resolve the following:
*The Freedom to prescribe safe and effective treatments.
*The Freedom to practice the art and science of medicine.
*The sanctity of the physician to patient relationship.
*The tenet of the Hippocratic Oath.
You can sign here.

Benjamin Rush, M.D.

"Unless we put medical freedom into the Constitution, the time will come when medicine will organize into an undercover dictatorship...To restrict the art of healing to one class of men and deny equal privileges to others will constitute the Bastille of medical science. All such laws are un-American and despotic and have no place in a republic...The Constitution of this republic should make special privileged for medical freedom as well as religious freedom."
-Benjamin Rush, M.D.-
Signer of the Declaration of Independence, Physician to George Washington, From Autobiography of Benjamin Rush

    Sign up for the Medical Freedom Amendment Broadcast

We do not send marketing materials.  Also check our
Privacy Statement.

National Health Federation
Health Freedom News 

 Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution
 The Medical Freedom Amendment

Statement of the Amendment

"All people have the Right to secure their Health in the manner they choose. Congress, the President, State Legislatures and Executives, Governmental Agencies or Departments shall make no law, rule, regulation, countermeasure, executive order, emergency declaration, or enter into any treaty or international agreement that: 

1. Impedes the Individual's rights to informed consent nor right to medical choice nor freedom of medical choice. The treaty provision of Article VI of this Constitution shall not apply in any way to this amendment.

2. Impedes the Individual's right to medical privacy and freedom without individual and specific judicial warrant supported by Oath and affirmation of necessary cause to protect Society from Harm describing the Individual's condition and danger it presents."

Health is not a collective possession; it is an individual liberty through which the collective thrives.

      For most of our lives we accepted, almost without thought, that government experts, pharmaceutical corporations, and international agencies could decide what entered our bodies, what treatments we must accept, and which questions could not be asked. We were told this was science, but it was in truth bureaucracy wearing the mask of science. Yet a human being is not the property of a program. The flesh that breathes, feels, and thinks belongs first and last to the individual soul that inhabits it. Whenever that simple truth is forgotten, civilization’s moral compass spins into confusion and fear.
     The Medical Freedom Amendment restores balance. It declares that the liberty proclaimed in 1776 and the rights enshrined in 1791 extend all the way to the skin, the cell, and the conscience. It forbids coercion in medicine because coercion breeds error, and it protects informed consent because truth cannot flourish where speech is stifled. To secure one’s own health in the manner one chooses is not a privilege but the cornerstone of self‑government itself. When citizens regain sovereignty over their bodies, they regain the capacity for genuine trust, voluntary cooperation, and the renewal of public virtue. That is the purpose—and the promise—of medical freedom.
     The Medical Freedom Amendment is the proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Time is proving its urgency as AI takes over many facets of medicine and the government continues on its road of personal surveillance, digital ID's, and monetary policy of CBDC’s (Central Bank Digital Currencies).
     The second part of the Amendment, point #1, is the explicit reversal of the Supreme Court’s 1905 decision, Jacobson v. Massachusetts, which upheld compulsory smallpox vaccination on the premise that individual liberty could yield to “public safety.” That 1905 decision has been the legal keystone supporting every mandate, quarantine, and emergency order since. The Medical Freedom Amendment’s warrant clause conceptually overturns Jacobson — it replaces collectivist utilitarianism with personal sovereignty + due process.
     Where Jacobson said, “the community has the right to protect itself,” this Amendment says, “the individual is the community — and must first be proven a demonstrable danger before any intrusion.”
     "The treaty provision of Article VI of this Constitution shall not apply in any way to this amendment.” in point #2 is not a throwaway line in the Medical Freedom Amendment. It is constitutional dynamite. To appreciate just how powerful it is, you need to understand what Article VI actually does, and how global institutions have been using it.           
     Once the U.S. Senate ratifies a treaty, its provisions are binding on every state and citizen — even overriding state laws, and in practice, sometimes being treated as having quasi constitutional weight. For decades, global bureaucracies have exploited this mechanism to bypass Congress and the public under the label of “international cooperation.”
     This Amendment severs the chain of command between international treaties and individual rights. By saying Article VI does not apply, it removes medical autonomy from the scope of any treaty or global regulation. It prevents the federal government from using treaty obligations as justification for restricting domestic freedoms. It creates a new constitutional hierarchy.
     It forces judicial warrant standards for any intrusion, which means even if WHO policies claim an emergency, implementation inside the U.S. would require a case-by-case probable cause warrant. The government can suggest personal health aids but should never supersede the person or the relationship with the health care provider. 

      Historical Overview                     In Depth Meaning (New) 
     Freedom rarely vanishes in an instant; it erodes by a series of seemingly reasonable concessions. A century ago, when epidemics frightened cities and sanitation was primitive, legislators granted public‑health officers new powers to compel vaccination and quarantine. Those powers were meant to be temporary, yet every emergency leaves behind its scaffolding. Over decades, the scaffolding hardened into structure. Agencies multiplied; laws were drafted assuming that the citizen was a subject to be managed, not a participant to be informed. What began as protection became administration, and what was administration became control.
     In time, public health widened beyond clean water and disease control into a vast program over bodies and behavior. Food, mood, sexuality, fertility, even speech about medicine—all were cataloged, regulated, and sometimes monetized. Corporations learned to use regulation as armor; bureaucracies learned to rule by declaration. The consent of the governed was replaced by the compliance of the governed. When crisis returned in our own century, the old emergency powers were retrieved, dusted off, and imposed again—but this time upon a far more complex society, one connected by screens instead of civic bonds. We discovered, to our cost, that fear is as contagious as any germ.
     The remedy cannot be nostalgia or rage; it must be principle. The same insight that animated the Declaration of Independence must now animate medical law: that legitimate authority arises only from the consent of the individual. Just as religious liberty limited the church and free speech limited the crown, so medical liberty must now limit the administrative state. To restore this balance is not anti‑science; it is the only ground on which science and conscience can work together. The Medical Freedom Amendment does not abolish law; it re‑anchors law in the dignity of the person it serves.
     The urgency is paramount and must go forward speedily to secure the necessary affirmation of 38 State Legislatures and 2/3 votes of both Houses of Congress for its enactment.
-Michael LeVesque-