Bill Description: House Bill 472 would protect Idahoans from most vaccine mandates. It is a replacement bill for Senate Bill 1023, which the governor vetoed.
Rating: +1
NOTE: House Bill 472 is a replacement bill for Senate Bill 1023 (2025), which the governor vetoed. Senate Bill 1210 (2025) is another replacement bill, but it is significantly weaker. House Bill 472 is similar to Senate Bill 1023E2 (the amended version that passed), with one notable change. The subsection dealing with schools is amended with new language that says it doesn't prevent schools from excluding pupils who are contagious or suspected of being contagious.
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?
House Bill 472 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.
The bill would strike specific references to the coronavirus and the coronavirus vaccination. It replaces the later term with "medical intervention," which the bill defines as "a medical procedure, treatment, device, drug injection, medication, or medical action taken to diagnose, prevent, or cure a disease or alter the health or biological function of a person."
This definition would include any vaccination, and within the scope of the bill, prohibit most businesses and government entities from violating most people's medical freedom by mandating vaccines.
(+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?
House Bill 472 would define "school" as "any public, private, or parochial preschool; any kindergarten, elementary, or secondary school; any postsecondary institute of education, including trade schools, colleges, and universities; or any other institute of primary, secondary, or higher learning operating in this state."
The bill would add new language that says, "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."
The bill also says (this is the new language that wasn't in Senate Bill 1023), "provided, however, that nothing in this section shall supersede the authority of a school district, or the board of trustees of a school district, as provided for in chapter 5, title 33, Idaho Code."
The most relevant language from Chapter 5, Title 33 is found in Section 33-512(7), Idaho Code, which says the board of trustees of each school district has the power to "exclude from school pupils with contagious or infectious diseases who are diagnosed or suspected as having a contagious or infectious disease or those who are not immune and have been exposed to a contagious or infectious disease."
There is also a provision related to prescribed inhalers, epinephrine auto-injectors, and insulin or blood glucose monitoring supplies that may be relevant.
The bill would limit the degree to which educational institutions can violate 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?
House Bill 472 includes several broad exceptions for federal law, including a blanket exception for all "entities that receive medicare or medicaid funding."
Another subsection says, "The prohibition on medical interventions shall not apply to any situation where personal protective equipment, items, or clothing are required by a business entity in the public or private sectors based on existing traditional and accepted industry standards or federal law." [Emphasis added]
It is always problematic when a bill incorporates changeable federal laws into Idaho statutes or rules, but it is particularly inexcusable when the bill 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)
