AUSTIN, Texas — In a move that’s already igniting national debate, the Texas Legislature has passed a bill that would allow ivermectin, a drug most commonly used to treat parasitic infections, to be sold over the counter in pharmacies — without a doctor’s prescription.
The bill, House Bill 25, passed the Texas House in a 87-47 vote and was subsequently approved by the Senate 20-6 late Wednesday. It now awaits the signature of Governor Greg Abbott, who is widely expected to sign it into law after identifying the issue as a priority during the ongoing special legislative session.
If enacted, Texas would become the fifth state — joining Arkansas, Idaho, Louisiana, and Tennessee — to allow ivermectin to be dispensed without a prescription, marking a significant policy shift in how the drug is regulated.
Not on Open Shelves — But No Prescription Needed
Ivermectin would not be placed directly on pharmacy shelves like aspirin or vitamins. Instead, it would be made available “behind the counter,” meaning customers could request it from a pharmacist without needing a physician’s approval. This model is similar to how medications like pseudoephedrine (Sudafed) are currently distributed in Texas.
The bill’s author, Rep. Joanne Shofner (R-Nacogdoches), argued that the legislation promotes “medical freedom” and increases access to medications in rural communities where healthcare providers may be scarce.
“It’s absolutely important for our rural communities — and there’s a lot of people in urban communities that are not able to get to their doctor — that they have more access to their pharmacist than they would their health care practitioner,” Shofner said during debate.
COVID-19 Controversy Still Lingers
Ivermectin became the center of a cultural and political firestorm during the COVID-19 pandemic, when it was touted by some as a potential treatment or preventative for the virus, despite lacking FDA approval for that purpose.
Early lab-based studies in 2020 suggested the drug might inhibit the virus in petri dishes, but subsequent human studies failed to demonstrate consistent or meaningful clinical benefit. The FDA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have since warned against its use for COVID-19, particularly in the large doses associated with formulations made for livestock.
Despite this, demand for ivermectin surged during the pandemic, with some individuals resorting to veterinary versions of the drug. Poison control centers across the country reported spikes in calls related to misuse.
Even today, ivermectin remains a symbolic rallying point for people skeptical of mainstream medicine, vaccines, and federal regulatory agencies. Supporters view the drug as safe, affordable, and unfairly suppressed.
Supporters Frame the Bill as a Win for Personal Choice
Supporters of HB 25, including conservative lawmakers and activist groups like Texans for Vaccine Choice, say the bill is a long-overdue step toward empowering individuals to make their own healthcare decisions.
“HB 25 is simple and long overdue,” said Michelle Evans, policy director for the group. “It would enable Texans to take their health into their own hands.”
At least 7,000 Texans signed a petition supporting the bill, which was delivered to Gov. Abbott’s office before he added ivermectin access to his special session agenda.
Shofner also defended the drug’s safety, stating it has “a better safety record than Tylenol” and comparing its status to widely used medications like penicillin and aspirin.
Opponents Warn of Risks and Lack of Oversight
But the bill has drawn intense criticism from Democratic lawmakers, medical professionals, and public health experts who warn it could lead to dangerous misuse and undermine the role of licensed physicians.
Rep. John Bucy III (D-Austin), a member of the House Public Health Committee, argued that removing doctors from the prescribing process could put vulnerable Texans — particularly children — at risk.
“You’re taking the doctor out of the equation,” Bucy said. “I do believe in medical freedom for adults, but this bill goes beyond that. I want to have better information, labeling, and we need to protect children — and this bill doesn’t do that.”
Others raised concerns that the bill does not include an age limit, meaning minors could theoretically request the drug. Pharmacists would also be shielded from liability for adverse reactions, placing the burden of safety entirely on the patient.
Dr. Zeke Silva, a radiologist representing the Texas Medical Association, testified against the bill, warning that it sets a dangerous precedent by weakening the physician-patient relationship.
“Prescriptions are written after a doctor evaluates a patient’s full medical history,” Silva said. “Taking that process away increases the risk of inappropriate use.”
What the Bill Actually Requires
While the bill eliminates the need for a prescription, it does still require some pharmacist involvement. Before dispensing ivermectin, a pharmacist must provide basic counseling on potential side effects, including:
- Nausea
- Dizziness
- Skin rash
Earlier drafts of the bill would have required pharmacists to report annually on how often the drug was dispensed, but that provision was removed in the final version.
Notably, no representative from the Texas Board of Pharmacy, which would oversee the new policy, appeared to testify or comment on the legislation during hearings.
What’s Next
Governor Abbott is expected to sign HB 25 into law, in line with his recent public support for expanding access to medications that align with personal choice. Once signed, the law would take effect immediately or on a set date outlined in the bill.
Ivermectin would then be available at pharmacies statewide without a prescription — the first time such access would be legally permitted in Texas.
Public Response Still Deeply Divided
Public reaction has been predictably polarized.
“Ivermectin is extremely safe and has been used all over the world,” wrote Tamara Bergen of Seguin in submitted testimony. “It is effective and should have saved many lives during the COVID pandemic.”
Meanwhile, others view the move as part of a broader trend of politicizing medicine.
“I’m concerned about the politicization of this because I think that is why we are seeing such a push,” said Rep. Bucy. “To pick and choose which drug we want to get behind is confusing to me.”
The Bottom Line
While ivermectin remains a federally approved treatment for parasitic infections in humans, its use as a COVID-19 remedy is not supported by federal health agencies. Nonetheless, Texas is poised to make the drug significantly more accessible, giving residents more control — and more responsibility — over how they use it.
As the debate continues, Texas now finds itself at the center of a national conversation about personal health freedoms, the role of science in public policy, and how we define access to care in a post-pandemic world.
