House State Affairs sends Idaho Medical Freedom Act to general orders after debate on schools and businesses

BOISE — The House State Affairs Committee voted to send Senate Bill 12‑10, known in this draft as the Idaho Medical Freedom Act, to general orders for possible amendments after an extended presentation by its Senate sponsor and nearly 45 minutes of questioning and public testimony.

Senator Dan Foreman (Senate District 6), the bill sponsor, told the committee the measure would replace language in the existing Coronavirus Stop Act with a broader definition covering any “medical intervention” and would bar state and local governments, businesses and educational institutions from requiring medical interventions as a condition of employment, attendance or access unless federal law requires it. “What goes into somebody’s body is his or her choice,” Foreman said in his opening remarks.

The bill would amend chapter 5, title 73, Idaho code and rename the existing statute from the Coronavirus Stop Act to the Idaho Medical Freedom Act, according to Foreman’s presentation. Foreman said the legislation does not change existing statutory school vaccine policies and that longstanding industry standards requiring protective equipment or vaccination (for example, in certain health-care or food-service settings) are intended to remain in scope.

Committee members asked detailed questions about how the bill would apply in practice. Representative Green asked whether daycares or preschools could send a child home if the child has a fever; Foreman replied that a school or daycare could send home children who are contagious but could not force a medical intervention. “They can ask, they can’t force, but they can turn the child away if the child presents with a contagious disease,” Foreman said.

Multiple speakers urged the committee to fix drafting language that could leave private and parochial schools without explicit authority to diagnose and send sick students home. Grace Howitt, policy analyst for the Idaho Family Policy Center, said the current draft cites a statute that grants that authority to public school districts but does not expressly extend the same authority to private or parochial schools. “To ensure that these nonpublic schools are still able to conduct temperature and lice checks and send these kids home, the legislature would need to expressly recognize that private and parochial schools have the same authority as public schools in this area,” Howitt testified.

Representative Josh Tanner, who opened the bill for the House committee, said he recommended sending SB 12‑10 to the amending order specifically so stakeholders could add language to give private and parochial schools the same authority to exclude sick students that public schools already have. Tanner said he expected an amendment addressing that issue would be forthcoming.

Public testimony reflected divided views. David Pettinger and Misty Gardner, both representing health‑freedom advocacy groups, said the bill — with the agreed changes — would protect individual choice and urged the committee to move it forward. In opposition, Kathy Dawes said the bill could force businesses to serve people who pose a public‑health risk and could impose liability on small nonprofit businesses if they refused service; she asked legislators to vote no. Attorney Brian Festa urged clarification around whether long‑standing industry requirements (for example, daycares’ vaccination practices) are preserved in the exemptions language.

Committee members also raised broader drafting concerns: Representative Green and others said the bill’s references to “parochial preschool” are not defined in state law and risk narrowing protections in unintended ways. Representative Keeley and Representative Boyle pressed for narrowing or clarifying the “traditional and accepted industry standards” language in the bill so it would not preclude future public‑health practices.

After questions and testimony, Representative Crane moved to send SB 12‑10 to general orders for possible amendments. The committee first considered and rejected a substitute motion to lay the bill on the table, which failed 12‑3 on a roll call. The subsequent motion to send the bill to general orders passed on a roll call vote. Committee chair remarks set a deadline for public testimony earlier in the hearing at 9:45 a.m., which governed the public‑comment window.

The committee did not adopt or reject the bill on final passage; members sent it to general orders so bill language could be amended to address the drafting issues discussed in the hearing.