Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Administrative Rules Nsgc topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate committee removes a subsection of genetic counselors’ adopted code of ethics from state rules
Summary
The Senate Health and Welfare Committee approved motions to (1) approve a pending docket and (2) reject a subsection of the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) Code of Ethics that had been incorporated by reference in IDAPA rules; committee discussion referenced nondiscrimination language in the incorporated code.
The Senate Health and Welfare Committee approved two related motions on an administrative‑rule docket that removed a subsection of the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) Code of Ethics from the rule as incorporated by reference.
Senators handled the procedural items in two steps: first, the committee approved the pending docket (cited in committee as 24‑2401‑2401). Then the committee voted to reject a specific subsection of the NSGC Code of Ethics that had been incorporated by reference in IDAPA 24.24.01.002 (the transcript later corrected the subsection reference to Section 2, Subsection 3). The sponsor and committee described the contested subsection as a nondiscrimination standard that enumerated a list of protected characteristics; some members said that language had raised concerns during prior consideration and had been held up in the House.
Senator Bierke moved to approve the pending docket and later, Senator Blaylock moved to reject Section 2, Subsection 3 of the NSGC Code of Ethics as incorporated by reference. Committee members said the state licensing authorities had told them removing the incorporated language would not change the actual practice of genetic counselors, but the committee nevertheless voted to strike the subsection from the adopted reference.
Senator Wintrow asked whether the item under consideration related to previous nursing‑exam/DEI discussions; committee leadership clarified the docket item was specific to the genetic‑counselors’ code. The motions to approve the pending docket and to reject the subsection were approved; one senator recorded opposition on the later motion.
