Bill Description: House Bill 574 would repeal school and daycare vaccine mandates, preempt local laws requiring medical interventions, and make Idaho’s vaccine registry opt-in rather than opt-out.
Rating: +6
Does it violate the spirit or the letter of either the United States 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 US Constitution or the Idaho Constitution?
House Bill 574 would repeal Section 39-1118, Idaho Code, which imposes a general vaccination mandate (albeit with some available exemptions) on minors attending a licensed daycare facility. This section also gives the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare the authority to “randomly select and visit licensed daycare facilities to evaluate compliance with” vaccine mandates.
Repealing this section protects individual and parental rights regarding medical decisions and also reduces the regulatory burden imposed on daycares.
(+1)
House Bill 574 would repeal Section 39-4801, Idaho Code, which imposes a general vaccination mandate (albeit with some available exemptions) on minors attending “any public, private, or parochial school operating in this state.”
Repealing this section protects individual and parental rights regarding medical decisions and also reduces the regulatory burden imposed on private and parochial schools.
(+1)
House Bill 574 would amend Section 39-4802, Idaho Code, to establish state preemption over “the field of medical intervention laws within this state.”
The law would say, “Except as expressly authorized by state statute, no political subdivision of this state or school may adopt or enforce any law, rule, regulation, ordinance, or policy that requires, mandates, advises, recommends, or encourages any medical intervention or that limits or restricts any person's access to or use of any facility or service, including a school or daycare, on the basis of the person having declined or not received a medical intervention.”
It would also provide that “any law, rule, regulation, ordinance, or policy that is in violation of this chapter is hereby declared to be null, void, and of no force and effect.”
Adding this language protects individual and parental rights regarding medical decisions by local governments and other governmental entities.
(+1)
Section 39-4803, Idaho Code, instructs the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare to maintain a “registry of the immunization status of Idaho children against childhood diseases.”
While House Bill 574 does not repeal this section or abolish the registry, it would amend the language to limit who has access to the registry by removing schools and daycares from the list. It also redefines the purpose of the registry to recognize and respect “the rights of parents and guardians to make health care decisions for their children” and to provide “records to parents of children in the registry.”
Current law says the registry should seek to “increase the voluntary immunization rate in Idaho to the maximum extent possible” and provide “timely reminders” to parents and guardians.
The bill would also move from the current opt-out system to an opt-in system where a parent or guardian must choose “to have the child included in the registry upon a specified written statement.”
Current law automatically opts parents in and requires a written statement to opt out.
These changes would minimize the scope and intrusion of the immunization registry.
(+1)
House Bill 574 would amend Section 39-4804, Idaho Code, which requires notification of rights to parents or guardians before the administration of a vaccine. This language would be modified to remove references to repealed sections of code; to clarify that immunizations are truly “voluntary” rather than “not mandatory”; and to make it explicit that parents and guardians do not have to disclose or explain their reasons for declining or refusing a vaccine.
The bill would also add a new subsection saying, “If it is found that any person has violated the provisions of this chapter [which includes the state preemption discussed above], the parent or guardian of the affected child shall be awarded all related attorney's fees and costs incurred.”
The bill would also amend Section 73-503, Idaho Code, to remove references to deleted code and explicitly clarify that “a school operating in the state or businesses subject to chapter 11, title 39, Idaho Code, operating in the state shall not require medical documents, medical records, proof of immunization, or proof of immunity from any disease as conditions of attendance, enrollment, entry, or employment.”
It also adds language clarifying enforcement, saying, “Any person aggrieved by a violation of this chapter may bring a civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction for injunctive relief, damages, or both. If the court finds that a person violated any of the provisions of this chapter, it shall award actual damages plus an amount equal to treble the amount of actual damages, or one thousand dollars ($1,000) per violation, whichever is greater. The court shall also award a prevailing plaintiff reasonable attorney's fees and costs.”
(+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?
In addition to the other changes House Bill 574 would make to Section 73-503, Idaho Code, the bill would strike “Unless required by federal law” from two subsections prohibiting the state, a county, or a local governmental entity or official from requiring an individual to receive or use a medical intervention.
The bill would leave the “unless required by federal law” qualifier in place for its general prohibition against businesses requiring a medical intervention as a term of employment. This concession protects businesses from being caught between facing federal penalties for refusing to enforce a mandate and state penalties for doing so.
The bill also strikes specific exceptions to the medical mandate prohibition for entities receiving Medicare or Medicaid funding. While this removal would not affect businesses due to the qualifier discussed above, it would remove the excuse for governmental entities.
The bill also adds a subsection stating, “The provisions of this chapter shall apply at all times and shall not be suspended, nullified, or otherwise disregarded during any declared emergency, public health crisis, or state of emergency issued by any local, state, or federal authority.”
(+1)
