GOVERNOR DESANTIS' Assignment: Returned for Poor Critical Thinking

A Critical THINKING Review of Governor's DeSantis' Veto of CS/SB 688: Naturopathic Medicine
A claim-by-claim analysis using facts, context, and logic.
By Dr. Marney Johnson, ND, MSCI-TS

Before We Begin...
The Governor has a constitutional right to veto legislation and reasonable people can disagree on public policy.

This assessment isn't about politics, it's about evaluating whether the reasons given in the official veto letter accurately reflect the bill and logically support the decision.

As a professor who teaches critical thinking and a doctor and former researcher who performs expert critical review of scientific and medical research, I ask three questions of every argument:

1. Is it factually accurate?
2. Is it complete?
3. Does the conclusion logically follow?

​To that end, I present an assessment (grading, if you will) of Governor DeSantis’ veto letter. I’ll state his claims and evaluate if they are logical, factual, and complete.

---

claim 1​ ❌

"Current law allows licensed practitioners such as physicians, doctors of osteopathy, acupuncturists, and dietitians to employ naturopathic methods and recommend natural remedies."

Reality

This is partially true, but it does not answer the question before the Legislature.
Many healthcare professions share therapies; this does not mean they receive equivalent education or practice the same profession.

• Family physicians and dermatologists both perform skin biopsies.
• Psychiatrists and psychologists both treat anxiety.
• Physical therapists and orthopedic surgeons both rehabilitate injuries.

Shared tools do not eliminate specialized professions, and the way in which they use them will determine outcomes.

CS/SB 688 was not about preventing anyone else from recommending nutrition or botanicals.
It was about licensing a distinct healthcare profession with accredited doctoral education and national board examinations.
​
In point of fact, healthcare professionals operating under other licenses in Florida have suffered costly and stressful investigations for using the word “naturopathic”, so the governor’s assertion is not entirely accurate.

---

semantic sidetrack:

Bias Check​​​ 🟡

Note that the Governor said “physicians, doctors of osteopathy, acupuncturists, and dietitians”.

This is significant. 

In 2023, FL Representative Ralph Massullo, MD, and FL Senator Gayle Harrell, sponsored CS/HB 583 which attempted to restrict the use of the word “physician” beyond the established professions recognized in Florida statute, and to severely limit the rights of other doctors to use their earned title of “doctor” in verbal, text, and telehealth communications and in advertising. 

To his credit, Governor DeSantis vetoed this bill, but allegedly faced backlash from the Florida Medical Association and some of his major donors from the medical field. Here, the governor may be revealing his allegiance, not to Floridians and their rights to healthcare access, but to big players in allopathic (conventional) medicine.

​The use of “physician” to only indicate MDs and the deliberate omission of Florida’s established legal titles of “osteopathic physician” and “acupuncture physicians”, is not only disrespectful to these healthcare professionals, but seems to suggest the governor’s bias and to be designed to make them appear lesser in comparison to his idea of “physicians”.

---

Claim 2​​ ❌

"Floridians can already access natural remedy treatments because they do not require a prescription or U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval.”

Reality

This confuses access to products with access to qualified healthcare professionals.
Patients are not asking for permission to buy vitamins, they are seeking clinicians trained to:

• diagnose illnesses
• determine whether natural therapies are safe and appropriate
• develop comprehensive treatment plans
• identify herb-drug interactions
• recognize contraindications
• coordinate care with other healthcare professionals, etc.

Supplements have always been available.

​Licensed naturopathic doctors have not.

---

claim

“If enacted, this legislation may negatively impact Floridians who currently work in alternative medicine by mandating post-graduate education that cannot be obtained in Florida and require them to pay costly licensure fees to do the work they are already performing.”

There is a lot to unpack here, so let’s break this down. 

Claim 3​​ 🟡

“…mandating post-graduate education…”

reality

This is correct, under the current bill, only naturopathic doctors who attended qualified naturopathic medical schools accredited by an organization recognized by the U.S. Department of Education would be able to be licensed in Florida. But, critically, this is not a restrictive change.

​Under current Florida law, only licensed naturopathic doctors can practice naturopathic medicine, but…Florida has not issued a license since 1959. So, while this bill would have regulated the training necessary to obtain a license, it also opened up a career field that has been closed (under penalty of felony charges) for decades.

---

Claim 4​​ ❌

“…education that cannot be obtained in Florida…” ​

reality

​Florida currently does not have an accredited naturopathic medical school, that part is true. Under Florida law, practicing naturopathic medicine without a license is a felony. Because accredited naturopathic medical education requires supervised clinical training, Florida’s legal framework prevents that clinical education from occurring here. 

The absence of a Florida naturopathic medical school is therefore not an independent reason to deny licensure, it is a consequence of the very laws the veto leaves in place. 

Additionally, Florida routinely licenses healthcare professionals educated outside the state. In fact, medical education frequently crosses state lines. ​

​In July 2025 the “Graduate Medical Education Committee” annual report was submitted by Florida’s Agency for Health Care Administration, and reported on statistics regarding physician training and retention in Florida.
​
It’s noteworthy that Governor DeSantis’ name appears on the cover page of the report that underscores the very statistics that contradict his position on this claim. ​

​Here are the relevant highlights:

• Florida Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability reported in 2023 that:
  • Approximately 42% of physicians who completed medical school outside of Florida, but completed their residency and/or fellowship in Florida, remained to practice. 
  • Approximately 75% of physicians who graduated from a Florida medical school and completed their residency and/or fellowship in Florida remained to practice. 
  • Overall, they reported an approximated 50% retention rate of any physician who was trained in Florida. This is a typical trend; physicians train where they “match” and then choose to stay or return to their home or other state to practice. 
• Association of American Medical Colleges reported in 2024 that:
  • 58.6% of doctors who completed residency training stayed to practice in the state where they trained. This means that 41.4% of doctors left the state in which they trained to come to other states…like Florida.
  • 66.5% of doctors who completed residency training in Florida stayed to practice.

Florida regularly benefits from the care provided by doctors educated outside the state. Licensure is based on accredited education and demonstrated competency, not the geographic location of a school.

His team also reported on Florida’s desperate need for qualified physicians:

• “Current projections estimate that Florida will face a shortage of nearly 18,000 physicians by 2035 (Iacobucci et al., 2021).”
• “Florida’s physician-to-population ratio remains below the national average, with 262 physicians per 100,000 residents, compared to the national benchmark of 297 per 100,000 (AAMC, 2024).”

---

Claim 5​​ ❌

“…require them to pay costly licensure fees...”

reality

Every licensed healthcare profession pays licensing fees.

Those fees support:

• license verification
• disciplinary oversight
• complaint investigation
• public accountability

This is not unique to naturopathic doctors, it is how professional licensure protects the public.

This is also flawed reasoning, as reestablishing licensing would allow naturopathic doctors to actually practice their profession. This would almost invariably increase their earning potential, making a licensing fee an investment, not a barrier, to practice. 

​Furthermore, this assertion treats the “burden” of paying a licensing fee as equivalent to being denied the opportunity to practice, as though these have comparable effects. They do not. Licensure fees confer legal authority and professional opportunities.

---

claim 6​​ ❌

​“…to do the work they are already performing.”

reality

This statement overlooks why the bill existed.

If qualified naturopathic doctors were already legally able to practice their profession in Florida...there would have been no need for this legislation.

The bill created a pathway for qualified graduates of accredited naturopathic medical schools to become licensed naturopathic doctors under state oversight. It did not simply charge people a fee for something they were already authorized to do.
​
Since 1959, it has been a felony to practice naturopathic medicine in Florida. And thanks to the governor’s veto, it remains a felony. We are not “already performing” this work…we are denied this work. And the Florida citizens he represents? Their elected representatives who voted overwhelmingly in support of this bill? He denied them.

---

Claim 7​​ ❌

"There is no need to create additional bureaucratic hurdles."

​REALITY

​Licensure exists for one primary reason: Consumer protection.

Licensure, as outlined in this bill, would have established:

• minimum educational standards
• verified credentials
• public accountability
• disciplinary authority
• criminal background checks
• transparency for patients

Without licensure, consumers have no straightforward way to distinguish graduates of accredited naturopathic medical schools from individuals with little or no recognized naturopathic medical education.
​
Licensure creates accountability, not unnecessary bureaucracy.

---

​CLAIM 8​​ ❌

"Florida leads the nation in advancing medical freedom and access to care."

​REALITY

​On its face, this is an unfounded claim with no clear way to substantiate it; this is merely a value statement. 

But more than that, medical freedom includes the freedom to choose among qualified healthcare professionals. Licensing naturopathic doctors would have:

• expanded patient choice
• increased transparency
• established educational standards
• improved accountability

​It would not have taken choices away from patients; it would have added another regulated healthcare profession. It would have given patients freedom of choice to receive therapies provided by professionals with an education intentionally designed to support their use. Because, yes, there are currently licensed providers in Florida that have access to “naturopathic methods”, but this in no way means that they are able to apply them as we can.

---

claim 9​​ ❌

“…without creating excessive regulations.”

​REALITY

There is no professional regulation more excessive than one in which you can not practice a profession without a license that is not possible to obtain.

---

what's missing

This veto letter never addresses that naturopathic doctors already appear throughout Florida law, even defining and protecting the scope of practice. The bill had tremendous bipartisan support (33 yeas to 3 nays in the Senate and 85 yeas to 22 nays in the House), clearing all six committees in just three weeks,  and would have opened up opportunities for Florida to close its lagging pace with American national statistics on healthcare. All of this work was undone, all  of these voices silenced, all these opportunities quashed by one opinion, poorly reasoned.

---

What CS/SB 688 Actually Would Have Done

​Passing this bill would have:

• Licensed qualified naturopathic doctors without infringing on the practices and rights of other alternative medicine practitioners.
• Created opportunities for professional collaboration and medical referrals between naturopathic doctors and medical and osteopathic doctors.
• Expanded access to another regulated healthcare profession.
• Provided safer, more complete care for patients outside the conventional medical system.
• Verified accredited education.
• Required national board examinations.
• Protected professional title.
• Created state oversight and accountability.

It was not about regulating supplements.

It was not about replacing allopathic physicians.

It was not about limiting patient choice.

​It was about recognizing a qualified profession through education, accountability, and public protection.

---

final thoughts

Whether you supported or opposed CS/SB 688, healthcare policy deserves careful reasoning and accurate information. As healthcare professionals, educators, legislators, and patients, we should expect our public policy discussions to meet the same standards of evidence and critical thinking that we expect in science and medicine.
​
The bill was vetoed, but the conversation isn't over. Let's continue it with facts, logic, respect, and a shared commitment to do what's best for Florida patients.