Sponsor proposes broad “Idaho Medical Freedom Act” replacing coronavirus‑specific law; committee sends RS31876 to print

Sen. Dan Foreman, R‑District 6, presented RS31876, a request to amend Title 73, Chapter 5 of Idaho Code by replacing the current Coronavirus Stop Act with a broader measure the sponsor calls the "Idaho Medical Freedom Act."

"The proposed Idaho Medical Freedom Act replaces all references to the coronavirus with the term medical intervention," Foreman said. He defined the term in his presentation as "any pharmaceutical or biological agent or product designed to alter or restrict the biological functioning of the human body," language used in the sponsor’s remarks at the committee.

Under Foreman's description, the proposal would prohibit private businesses, state, county and local governments, and most schools in Idaho from requiring a medical intervention as a condition of employment, attendance or receipt of services, unless federal law mandates the intervention (the sponsor cited exceptions for travel to foreign jurisdictions where entry mandates apply). The draft also would bar differential pay or wages based on whether an employee has received a medical intervention and would prohibit conditioning government benefits on receipt of a medical intervention.

Foreman told the committee the legislation is intended to enshrine a citizen’s choice about what is placed in their body, calling it a "matter involving basic human rights."

Sen. Lenny moved to send RS31876 to print; Sen. Zieterfeld seconded. The committee carried the motion on voice vote after a brief exchange in which Sen. Wintrow said she would support printing to allow further review but raised questions about the scope of "medical intervention" and its potential impact on business requirements and public health exceptions.

The transcript records no committee debate that amended or narrowed the draft; printing the RS will allow the bill to receive a full public hearing and drafting of statutory text for subsequent consideration.