Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Newborn Screening Exemptions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate committee advances bill broadening newborn-screening exemptions
Summary
The Idaho Senate Health and Welfare Committee voted to send Senate Bill 11-79 to the floor with a "do pass" recommendation after debating proposed changes that would authorize nonreligious exemptions and add a limited medical-certification exception to newborn screening and related treatments such as the vitamin K shot and eye ointment.
The Senate Health and Welfare Committee voted to send Senate Bill 11 79 to the floor with a “do pass” recommendation after a lengthy debate over parental exemptions and a medical-certification exception for newborn screening and related postnatal treatments.
Sen. Camille Blaylock, senator from District 11, introduced the bill as a trailer to Senate Bill 10 14, which moved existing newborn-screening rules into Idaho code. “Early detection of these diseases can be life saving,” Blaylock said, describing heel-prick blood tests used to screen infants for conditions such as phenylketonuria, hypothyroidism and cystic fibrosis.
The bill would broaden exemptions beyond religious objections to allow parents to decline newborn screenings and certain treatments on religious, philosophical or conscientious grounds, using language similar to existing vaccine-exemption provisions. It also includes a subsection allowing a physician licensed by the state to certify that a screening or treatment “would endanger the life or health of the child.”
The committee heard from experts and public witnesses on both the medical benefits and the policy implications. Jen Beazer, a registered and licensed dietitian who works in rare diseases, said Idaho’s newborn-screening program tests for roughly 50 conditions and that positive screens proceed to diagnostic testing and treatment within weeks. “All of these are absolutely life saving measures for the infants born with these conditions,” Beazer said, and she told the committee she found no evidence that the screening tests themselves cause harm.
Matt Lowsby, chair of the Libertarian Party of Idaho, urged the committee to expand parental choice. “It is the duty of parents to act as stewards of their children’s natural rights,” Lowsby said, arguing the state should minimize scrutiny of parents’ objections.
Several senators questioned whether the physician-certification language in section 2 was necessary or how it would interact with a parent’s choice. Sen. Melissa Wintrow asked whether the medical exception could be read to let a physician override a parent’s exemption. Blaylock and other supporters said they view the medical provision as a narrow safeguard tied to cases where a child’s medical condition makes a particular intervention unsafe.
Opponents of removing or narrowing exemptions were not represented in the committee hearing record. Several committee members framed the bill as an affirmation of parental authority rather than a comment on the medical value of screening: "I think this has to do with parental authority," Sen. Brian Shippey said during debate.
After discussion, Sen. Dean Keiser moved SB 11 79 to the floor with a due-pass recommendation; the motion was seconded and approved by voice vote. Committee members did not request a roll-call tally in the hearing record.
The bill will next be considered by the full Senate. Committee discussion emphasized that the measure does not create new screening tests but changes who may decline existing tests and treatments and under what documented circumstances.
