Bill Description: House Bill 59 would update and expand Idaho law to recognize that health care providers have the right not to participate in or pay for medical procedures or services that violate their ethical, moral, or religious beliefs or principles.
Rating: +2
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?
In a free market, interactions between providers and consumers of goods and services would always be voluntary, with no one being compelled to serve another in violation of their beliefs or principles. Under our regulated economy, such freedom of conscience has been deprioritized, and providers are increasingly being forced to act contrary to their sincerely held principles.
House Bill 59 would create Chapter 13, Title 54, Idaho Code, which would be known as the "Medical Ethics Defense Act." The act contains a section of "legislative findings and purpose" that says, in part, "The legislature finds that the right of conscience is a fundamental and inalienable right. It was central to the founding of the United States, has been deeply rooted in the nation's history and tradition for centuries, and has been central to the practice of medicine, through the Hippocratic oath, for millennia."
This section also says, "it is the public policy of the state of Idaho to protect the right of conscience for health care professionals, health care institutions, and health care payers."
The stated purpose of the act is to "protect health care professionals, health care institutions, and health care payers from discrimination, punishment, and retaliation as a result of any instance of conscientious medical objection."
The bill contains relevant definitions, including one for "conscience" as "the ethical, moral, or religious beliefs or principles held by any health care provider."
The bill says, "Health care providers shall have the right of conscience and, pursuant to this right, shall not be required to participate in or pay for a medical procedure, treatment, or service that violates such health care provider's conscience."
This right of conscience would be limited to "conscience-based objections to a particular medical procedure, treatment, or service" and this right "may not be construed to waive or modify any duty a health care provider may have to provide or pay for medical procedures, treatments, or services that do not violate the provider's conscience."
The bill says that health care providers and institutions shall not be "civilly, criminally, or administratively liable" for exercising their right of conscience.
An exception is made for cases where an employer cannot "accommodate the employee without imposing an undue hardship on the employer."
The act would allow for a "cause of action for damages or injunctive relief, or both" to be brought by "any health care provider for any violation of any provision of this chapter."
(+1)
A subsection of the "Medical Ethics Defense Act" would deal specifically with free speech, stipulating that, with certain exceptions, "the department of health and welfare, the state board of medicine, or any other department or board regulating the practice of a medical procedure, treatment, or service in the state may not reprimand or sanction a health care provider or deny or revoke or threaten to deny or revoke a license, certification, or registration of a health care provider for engaging in speech, expression, or association that is protected from government interference by the first amendment to the United States constitution."
It further bars these entities from contracting with, recognizing, approving, or requiring "an individual to obtain certifications or credentials issued or approved by, a specialty board or other recognizing agency that revokes the certification of, or refuses to issue certification to, an individual because the individual has engaged in speech, expression, or association that is protected from government interference by the first amendment to the United States constitution, provided such individual was not providing medical advice or treatment to a specific patient."
Health care providers would be provided a copy of any complaints filed against them that "are based on speech, expression, or association that is protected from government interference by the first amendment to the United States constitution" within 21 days of when the complaint was received.
(+1)
House Bill 59 would recognize and protect fundamental rights to speak and act according to one's conscience, even when engaged in business. Freedom of conscience and freedom of association are critical components of a free market and a free society that respects individual rights.
Unfortunately, the rights acknowledged by this section would be limited to health care providers. But perhaps, this bill could serve as a model for future efforts to more fully recognize and protect freedom of conscience for all market participants in Idaho.
(0)
