Bill Description: Senate Bill 1023 would amend Idaho's "Coronavirus Stop Act" to protect individual medical freedom against all vaccine mandates.
Rating: +1
Does it violate the spirit or the letter of either the U.S. Constitution or the Idaho Constitution? Examples include restrictions on speech, public assembly, the press, privacy, private property, or firearms. Conversely, does it restore or uphold the protections guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution or the Idaho Constitution?
Senate Bill 1023 would rename Chapter 5, Title 73, Idaho Code, currently called the "Coronavirus Stop Act" to the "Idaho Medical Freedom Act" and make numerous amendments throughout to broaden its protections.
The bill would strike specific references to the coronavirus and the coronavirus vaccination, using the term "medical intervention" instead, which the bill defines as "any pharmaceutical or biological agent or product designed to alter or restrict the biological functioning of the body." This definition should include any vaccination.
By updating Idaho's existing law against coronavirus vaccine mandates, this bill effectively bans all vaccination mandates, with certain exceptions discussed under the federalism metric below.
(+1)
Does it expand the government's bureaucratic monopoly on education, reduce family and student choice, or finance education based on an institution or system? Conversely, does it reduce government coercion in education, expand education choice, or finance education based on the student rather than the institution?
Senate Bill 1023 broadly defines the term “school” and declares that "a school operating in the state shall not mandate a medical intervention for any person to attend school, enter campus or school buildings, or be employed by the school."
This provision prohibits educational institutions from violating an individual's medical freedom.
(+1)
Does it violate the principles of federalism by increasing federal authority, yielding to federal blandishments, or incorporating changeable federal laws into Idaho statutes or rules? Examples include citing federal code without noting as it is written on a certain date, using state resources to enforce federal law, and refusing to support and uphold the Tenth Amendment. Conversely, does it restore or uphold the principles of federalism?
Throughout Senate Bill 1023 we find repeated deference to federal law, including blanket exceptions for "entities that receive medicare or medicaid funding." It is always problematic when a bill incorporates changeable federal laws into Idaho statutes or rules, but it is particularly inexcusable when it does not cite any specific federal laws or regulations. Instead, necessary protections of individual rights are subjected to a generic exception of "unless required by federal law".
(-1)
