Bill Description: Senate Bill 1294 would mandate hearing tests for newborns, contingent on continued receipt of federal funding.
Rating: -3
Does it create, expand, or enlarge any agency, board, program, function, or activity of government? Conversely, does it eliminate or curtail the size or scope of government?
Senate Bill 1294 would create Section 39-905A, Idaho Code, to mandate that, “in addition to other tests required by this chapter, all infants and newborns shall be screened for hearing loss prior to discharge from a hospital, health care facility, or birthing facility.”
It would also say that, “for births occurring outside of a hospital, health care facility, or birthing facility, the birthing attendant shall ensure that the infant or newborn is screened for hearing loss no later than twenty-one (21) days from the date of birth.”
The bill would specify the type and scope of testing required, and require reporting of all results to the Idaho Educational Services for the Deaf and the Blind (IESDB) within 7 days “to ensure appropriate follow-up and early intervention.”
(-1)
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?
The chapter of Idaho Code where this law would be added includes only a narrow exception for a parent or guardian to object if a mandate “conflicts with the tenets or practices of a recognized church or religious denomination of which said parent or guardian is an adherent or member.”
No exceptions are provided for philosophical, medical, or other objections. Adding this mandate without broad exceptions violates the fundamental parental right to make all medical decisions for their children.
(-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?
The bill says the “provisions of this section are contingent on continued receipt of federal funding intended to support infant and newborn hearing screening and shall not be enforceable if the loss of such federal funding would result in an increased cost to the state.”
Reliance on federal money compromises state sovereignty, and the inclusion of this provision exposes the cynicism behind the mandate. How could a medical mandate be so important that it justifies expanding government and violating parental rights, but also sufficiently optional that it can be dropped if the federal government won’t pay for it?
(-1)
