Bill Description: Senate Bill 1210 as amended is a replacement bill for Senate Bill 1023, which the governor vetoed. 

Rating: +1

NOTE: The purpose of Senate Bill 1023 was to amend Idaho's "Coronavirus Stop Act" to protect individual medical freedom against most vaccine mandates. Unfortunately, Senate Bill 1210 introduces several significant compromises compared to its predecessor, which would leave many Idahoans vulnerable to violations of their fundamental rights. 

NOTE 2: The Senate Amendment to the bill moved the exemption of daycares from an exception under the definition of business entities to an exception for "a business subject to chapter 11, title 39, Idaho Code" in the subsection dealing with schools.

NOTE 3: The House Amendment improved the bill by adding new provisions addressed in the updated analysis. Due to these improvements, the bill's rating has changed to (+1).

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?

Senate Bill 1210 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, replacing them with the term "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 should include any vaccination, and within the limited scope of the bill, prohibit some businesses and government entities from violating some 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?

Senate Bill 1210 provides an opportunity to effectively ban all vaccination mandates, but the exceptions in the bill limit the scope of these protections. 

The bill 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 or a business subject to chapter 11, title 39, Idaho Code, operating in the state shall not mandate a medical intervention for any person to attend, enter campus or buildings, or be employed, subject to the requirements of the Idaho parental rights act, sections 32-1010 through 32-1015, Idaho Code; sections 39-4801 through 39-4804, Idaho Code; and sections 33-205 and 33-512(7), Idaho Code."

A "business subject to chapter 11, title 39, Idaho Code" is any licensed daycare.

Section 33-512(7), Idaho Code, gives school district boards of trustees 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."

The House Amendment to Senate Bill 1210 adds a provision that says, "For the purposes of this subsection, private and parochial schools shall be considered as having the same authority as school districts under section 33-512(7), Idaho Code."

This language clarifies that both public and private schools may exclude students who are (or appear to be) contagious.

The reference to sections 39-4801 through 39-4804, Idaho Code, is unfortunate, as these sections contradict the fundamental purpose of the bill, imposing numerous vaccine mandates and requiring an immunization registry. 

This code was also made worse by House Bill 290 (2025), which added government-enforced discrimination against the unvaccinated, saying that children whose parents have chosen not to vaccinate and have submitted a signed statement as required by law to exempt the child from these mandates "may be excluded by the department" from their daycare or school "in the event of a disease outbreak."

The House Amendment to Senate Bill 1210 adds another provision that says, "Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, under no circumstance may a healthy person be excluded in a disease outbreak due to such person's vaccination status."

This provision does not fully negate the problems inherent in Idaho's ongoing imposition of vaccine mandates on children and students attending daycare and school in Idaho, but it does improve the bill by effectively reversing one of the more problematic elements of House Bill 290. 

While this bill could be further improved, it does, on balance, increase medical freedom for Idahoans.

(+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?

Senate Bill 1210 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 it 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)