Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Newborn Screening topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate Health and Welfare advances bill broadening newborn‑screening exemptions
Summary
The Idaho Senate Health and Welfare Committee approved Senate Bill 11‑79, a trailer bill to SB 10‑14 that moves newborn‑screening rules into statute and expands grounds for parental exemptions, after testimony from medical and parental‑rights advocates and questions about a medical‑exemption clause.
At a meeting of the Idaho Senate Health and Welfare Committee, members voted to send Senate Bill 11‑79 to the Senate floor with a “do pass” recommendation. The bill is a trailer to Senate Bill 10‑14 and would formalize in statute the state’s existing newborn‑screening practices while broadening the grounds on which parents may claim exemptions.
The bill’s sponsor, Senator Camille Blaylock, senator from District 11, told the committee the measure mainly moves existing rules into Idaho code and does not create new screening requirements. “Early detection of these diseases can be life saving, allowing for prompt interventions that can prevent severe health issues or even death,” Blaylock said, describing standard newborn procedures such as the heel‑prick blood test, a vitamin K shot and an eye ointment.
The committee heard technical and personal testimony on both the benefits of screening and the scope of permitted exemptions. Jen Beazer, a registered and licensed dietitian who works in rare diseases, said the blood screens — which she said Idaho currently uses to test roughly 50 conditions — are screening tests, not diagnostic tests, and that positive screens typically lead to diagnostic follow‑up and treatment within weeks. “All of these are absolutely life saving measures for the infants born with these conditions,” Beazer told the panel.
Matt Lowsby, chair of the Libertarian Party of Idaho, testified in favor of SB 11‑79 on parental‑rights grounds. Quoting his party platform, he said, “It is the duty of parents to act as stewards of their children's natural rights and the right of parents to decide how to exercise that stewardship.” He told the committee the bill aligns with reducing state scrutiny of parents’ objections.
Committee discussion focused on subsection 2 of the bill, which would allow a physician‑signed certificate stating that a child’s physical condition is such that requirements of the chapter “would endanger the life or health of the child.” Several senators and witnesses questioned whether that language was necessary or how it would interact with the parental exemption. Some lawmakers said the clause functions as a medical safeguard backing up parental choice; others and one witness said it may be nonessential for the screening tests themselves.
Sponsor Blaylock told the committee she and Beazer had discussed the clause and that because the chapter includes both screenings and treatments (the vitamin K shot and eye ointment), a medical exemption provision is appropriate. During the meeting senators recounted a mix of personal experiences and public comments supporting both parental choice and the public‑health rationale for universal screening.
Senator Keiser moved to advance the bill to the Senate floor with a do‑pass recommendation; Senator Lenny seconded. The committee approved the motion by voice vote; no roll call tally was recorded in the committee minutes.
SB 11‑79 now goes to the full Senate for further consideration.
