For years, Americans have been told that support for medical freedom is a fringe position, the kind of thing that sinks a candidate in a close race. A new national poll suggests the opposite.
Health Freedom Defense Fund, a Restore the First coalition member, partnered with Brownstone Institute to commission the survey, which Zogby Strategies conducted February 26–27, 2026. The sample was 1,000 registered voters, with 93.6% saying they were definitely or very likely to vote. It was split almost evenly by party: 37% Republican, 36% Democrat, 27% Independent. The margin of error is ±3.2 points (Health Freedom Defense Fund).
The results aren’t close. On the core questions of bodily autonomy, support runs above 80%, which is the kind of agreement you almost never see in American polling right now.
What the poll found
| Question | Agree | Strongly |
|---|---|---|
| Doctors should be able to discuss vaccine concerns openly without fear of medical-board backlash | 88.1% | 64.5% |
| Right to refuse medical treatment | 87.9% | 58.8% |
| Making one’s own medical choices is a basic human right protected by law | 87.2% | 59.5% |
| Adults’ right to refuse vaccines | 80.4% | 50.5% |
| Support investigating thimerosal, aluminum, polysorbate-80, PEG and formaldehyde in medical products | 77.8% | 47.8% |
| Medical or vaccine decisions should never lead to being denied a job | 70.6% | 47.3% |
| HHS is justified in conducting more vaccine safety research | 68.6% | — |
| Parents’ right to refuse vaccines for their children | 65.7% | 37.4% |
The question with the strongest agreement wasn’t about vaccines, mandates or COVID. It was about speech.
of voters say doctors should be able to discuss vaccine concerns openly without fear of their medical boards. Nearly two-thirds agree strongly, the highest “strongly agree” level in the survey (Health Freedom Defense Fund).
The public seems to understand what policymakers often miss: you can’t choose freely if you can’t hear what you’re choosing between.
Informed choice is a speech right
Informed consent is the foundation of medical ethics. It requires three things:
- A clinician who is free to tell you what they actually think, including uncertainty, risks and dissent from official guidance.
- A public that can find, share and debate evidence, including research that challenges the consensus.
- A press that can investigate institutions, manufacturers and regulators without being labeled a “misinformation” threat.
Each of these is a First Amendment right. Free speech protects the doctor. Free press protects the reporter and the researcher. The rights of assembly and petition protect the parents, patients and advocates who organize to change policy. Take any of them away and “informed choice” turns into a choice made with the information someone else allowed you to have.
Recent cases show the risk
This isn’t hypothetical. In 2022, California passed AB 2098, which made it “unprofessional conduct” for physicians to share COVID-19 information that conflicted with “contemporary scientific consensus” (California Legislative Information). A federal judge blocked the law as unconstitutionally vague in Høeg v. Newsom, and the legislature repealed it effective January 1, 2024 (U.S. District Court, E.D. Cal.). The physicians who challenged it argued the law would have kept them from telling patients what they believed patients needed to know to make informed decisions (New Civil Liberties Alliance).
At the federal level, the Fifth Circuit found in the Missouri v. Biden litigation that officials at the White House, the Surgeon General’s office, the CDC and the FBI likely coerced or significantly encouraged social-media platforms to moderate content, and that in doing so they likely violated the First Amendment (Free Speech Center at MTSU). In 2024, the Supreme Court reversed on standing grounds without ruling on the merits (Justia). That left the underlying censorship question unresolved until a 2026 consent decree permanently barred the agencies involved from coercing platforms to remove content (Free Speech Center at MTSU).
These were the topics that got suppressed: pandemic policy, treatment options and vaccine safety. They’re the same questions on which this poll now finds large majorities want open discussion, more research and the freedom to decide. Six in ten voters now say lockdowns and restrictions caused excessive damage to American society (Health Freedom Defense Fund). That’s a judgment the public could only reach because some people kept speaking when it was costly to do so.
A mandate for restoring the First
The poll gives policymakers a clear signal. Medical freedom isn’t a fringe concern. It’s a cross-party supermajority position. As Health Freedom Defense Fund’s Leslie Manookian and Brownstone’s Jeffrey A. Tucker write, when people get plain questions about their own health and their families’ health, “they clearly come down on the side of freedom, transparency, honesty, and choice” (Health Freedom Defense Fund).
But a right to choose without a right to know is empty. That’s why Restore the First is working to:
- Protect clinicians’ professional speech from licensing boards and laws that turn “consensus” into a gag order.
- End government jawboning of platforms, so federal agencies can’t outsource censorship to private companies. The JAWBONE Act is the vehicle.
- Require transparency about government contacts with platforms and “misinformation” contractors, so the public can see who is shaping what it’s allowed to read.
- Defend the press and independent researchers who investigate health agencies, manufacturers and regulators.
- Protect the people’s right to petition, so the supermajority this poll documents can be heard in Congress.
Take action
Eighty-eight percent of Americans agree that doctors should be free to speak. Now Congress needs to hear it.
- Tell Congress through the three actions on our homepage, and tell your representatives informed choice depends on free speech.
- Call your senators and ask them to back the JAWBONE Act.
- Read the full poll and polling documents at Health Freedom Defense Fund.
- Share this article. The most effective response to censorship is more speech.
You can’t have informed choice without restoring the First.
Poll data in this article are reported by Health Freedom Defense Fund, Inc. and Brownstone Institute from a Zogby Strategies survey; the original article is copyrighted by Health Freedom Defense Fund and is quoted here with attribution. Health Freedom Defense Fund is a member of the Restore the First coalition. Restore the First does not endorse candidates.