Bill Description: House Bill 613 would protect medical professionals from being denied a license simply because of their coronavirus vaccination status or what treatments they recommend for a coronavirus.
Analyst Note: House Bill 613 is one of several bills introduced this session that deals with preventing or limiting the scope of vaccine mandates in Idaho.
Over the last two years, governments at every level have engaged in a series of coordinated activities designed to coerce individuals and businesses to comply with the preferences of central planners and self-appointed experts of all stripes. Businesses have frequently been forced into threatening to dismiss employees if they do not comply with the state's ever evolving conception of "the science." Lost in this battle have been the rights of individuals — rights of privacy, self-ownership, and self-determination. What is the remedy? To protect individual rights, legislators must act. The Legislature must ruthlessly excise all medical mandates from society, whether through governments or employers involuntarily deputized by them. Individuals must be free to determine for themselves what is proper and medically necessary. Protecting individual liberty requires recognizing the fundamental right to make one's own medical decisions free from coercion or threats of retribution.
Does it increase barriers to entry into the market? Examples include occupational licensure, the minimum wage, and restrictions on home businesses. Conversely, does it remove barriers to entry into the market?
House Bill 613 creates Chapter 97, Title 67, Idaho Code, titled the "Occupational Licensing Protection Act." It makes two important changes to Idaho law to prevent licensing authorities from imposing their preferences on medical professionals.
The first important provision of this act is to say, "A licensing authority shall not revoke, fail to renew, suspend, or take an action against a physician's, physician assistant's, or advanced practice registered nurse's license based solely on the physician's, physician assistant's, or advanced practice registered nurse's recommendation to a patient regarding treatment for coronavirus, including the prescribing of a drug that the United States food and drug administration (FDA) has not approved to treat coronavirus, as long as the physician, physician assistant, or advanced practice registered nurse exercised independent medical judgment and believes that the medical treatment is in the best interest of the patient and the patient provides written, informed consent."
In other words, a licensing authority cannot discipline or deny a license to a medical professional for the act of recommending or prescribing effective coronavirus treatments, which have not been approved for this purpose by the FDA, such as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin.
The second important provision of this act says, "A licensing authority shall not deny an applicant a license on the basis of whether the applicant has or has not received a specific vaccination, or a series of vaccinations, as shown in the applicant's vaccination history record. A licensing authority shall not require the submission of documents containing medical information for the sole purpose of ascertaining an applicant's vaccination history record as part of an application process for licensure. A licensing authority shall not use any documents provided or information gathered tending to show a vaccination history record as the basis to deny the applicant a license."
In simple terms, this language prevents a licensing authority from using a health professional's vaccination status as a pretext for imposing discipline or denying that person a license.
STAY CONNECTED with the latest news, research and opinions from the Gem State.