Bill Description: House Bill 520 would prohibit the use of taxpayer funds and government facilities for genital mutilation surgeries. 

Rating: +2

Does it increase government spending (for objectionable purposes) or debt? Conversely, does it decrease government spending or debt?

House Bill 520 would create Chapter 89, Title 18, Idaho Code, to say, "Public funds shall not be used, granted, paid, or distributed to any entity, organization, or individual for the provision or subsidy of any surgical operation or medical intervention described in section 18-1506C(3), Idaho Code, for purposes of altering the appearance of an individual in order to affirm the individual's perception of the individual's sex in a way that is inconsistent with the individual's biological sex regardless of whether the surgical operation or medical intervention is administered to a minor or an adult, except for the surgical operations or medical interventions described in section 18-1506C(4), Idaho Code."

The destructive practices prohibited here include "performing surgeries that sterilize or mutilate, or artificially construct tissue with the appearance of genitalia that differs" from one's "biological sex" and "administering or supplying" certain medications "that induce profound morphologic changes in the genitals" or "induce transient or permanent infertility." 

Subsection 2 of the bill says that "any amount paid by an entity, organization, or individual during a taxable year for the provision of" the destructive practices described above "shall not be tax-deductible." 

Subsection 3 of the bill says Idaho's Medicaid program "shall not reimburse or provide coverage for" these destructive practices.

Subsection 4 of the bill prohibits a "physician or other health care professional in the course and scope of employment by the state or a county or local government" from providing these destructive practices.

Subsection 5 of the bill says, "No state property, facility, or building may be used to provide" these destructive "surgical operations or medical interventions." 

The same exceptions found in section 18-1506C(4), Idaho Code, apply to all the above prohibitions. 

Any violations of these prohibitions would "be considered a misuse of public moneys punishable pursuant to section 18-5702, Idaho Code." This type of violation is a crime. 

This bill would prevent government spending in several ways for specific highly objectionable purposes.

(+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 520 would also create Section 56-270, Idaho Code, to say, "Pursuant to chapter 89, title 18, Idaho Code, the Idaho medicaid program shall not reimburse or provide coverage for any surgical operation or medical intervention described in section 18-1506C(3), Idaho Code, for purposes of altering the appearance of an individual in order to affirm the individual's perception of the individual's sex in a way that is inconsistent with the individual's biological sex regardless of whether the surgical operation or medical intervention is administered to a minor or an adult, except for the surgical operations or medical interventions described in section 18-1506C(4), Idaho Code."

This language represents a meaningful stand by the state of Idaho against federal intrusion, using the Medicaid program, to push destructive procedures and ideologies that run counter to the laws and values of the state. 

(+1)