Idaho House passes revised ‘medical freedom' bill, after tense debate
After a long debate Wednesday, the Idaho House passed — on a nearly veto-proof majority — a bill that would ban business, governments and schools from requiring medical interventions.
House Bill 472 is the House's revised version of a so-called medical freedom bill that Gov. Brad Little recently vetoed.
The House's 40-minute debate Wednesday turned contentious and oftentimes definitional. Bill cosponsor Rep. Robert Beiswenger, R-Horseshoe Bend, once refused to answer a question from another lawmaker.
Opening the House's debate, Beiswenger said the bill 'prevents medical force, medical mandates. People can choose them if they want to, but they don't have to if they don't want to. You can ask people to leave your place of business. But you can't force them into medical treatments like vaccines or other kinds of treatments.'
A quarter of the Idaho House's 70 lawmakers rose to debate the bill, which was evenly split in support and opposition. But the House ultimately passed the bill on a 46-21 vote, with one fewer vote in support than the House's vote on the original bill, Senate Bill 1023, two weeks ago. (Three House members were absent for Wednesday's vote. None were absent for the original bill vote.)
Critics' central concern on the bill was that it would prevent workplaces from refusing service — or entrance of their facilities — to sick people.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Asked three times if the bill would prevent that by Rep. Dan Garner, R-Clifton, Beiswenger replied by suggesting he believed it would not.
'Can the business ask someone to leave — force someone to leave, if they feel like they are sick?' Garner asked.
'Again, the bill doesn't address it directly. But I believe a business would be within their rights to ask someone to leave if they are sick,' Beiswenger replied.
Garner didn't seem convinced.
'This bill, to me, goes a step too far (in) that it imposes someone's freedom or rights on their private property or private business,' he said.
Debating in favor of the bill, Rep. Kyle Harris, R-Lewiston, argued that debate was straying from the bill's intent.
CONTACT US
Debating against the bill, Rep. Ben Fuhriman, R-Shelley, and Rep. Todd Achilles, D-Boise, referenced the bill's specific language.
'I don't care what your intentions are. A law is a law,' Fuhriman said. 'And it's written right here on page two, line 29: A business entity doing business in the state of Idaho shall not refuse to provide any service, product, admission to a venue, or transportation to a person — because that person has or has not received or used a medical intervention.'
After Gov. Little vetoes Idaho 'medical freedom' bill, Legislature pursues tweaks
Like the original bill that Little vetoed, two new bills introduced this week in the House and Senate would pursue similarly broad medical mandate bans.
The bills would ban businesses and any Idaho governments — local, county or state — from requiring medical interventions for employment, admission to venues, transportation, or providing products or services.
The bill would've also extended to schools in Idaho — private or public — and colleges, universities and trade schools, blocking them from requiring medical interventions for school attendance, employment, or entrance into campus or school buildings.
Under the bills, medical interventions include 'a procedure, treatment, device, drug injection, medication, or action taken to diagnose, prevent, or cure a disease or alter the health or biological function of a person.' (The House tweaked the bill Wednesday to add a comma between 'drug' and 'injection.')
The House's revised bill, House Bill 472, adds language specifying that the bill wouldn't overrule existing powers of school districts, or school board trustees — as already granted in Idaho law. After passing the House on Wednesday, the bill is headed to the Senate for consideration
The Senate's revised bill, Senate Bill 1210, exempts day cares and adds language specifying the school medical mandate ban provision is subject to various other Idaho laws that let school boards block sick students from attending, spell out parental rights, and more.
The Senate amended its version on Wednesday by tweaking the new language related to schools.
It's not immediately clear when the Senate will vote on the amended bill, or consider the House's version.
To become law, Idaho bills must pass the House and Senate, and avoid the governor's veto.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Chicago Tribune
31 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Redistricting in Indiana: Republicans raise questions, Democrats have limited options if special session called
As Texas Democrats eye an end to their nearly two-week walkout to block Republican efforts there to redistrict, a growing number of Indiana Republicans have been voicing questions and concerns about redistricting in Indiana. The Texas Democrats announced Thursday they will return provided that Texas Republicans end a special session and California releases its own redrawn map proposal, both of which were expected to happen Friday. Democrats did not say what day they might return. Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott still intends to push through new maps that would give the GOP five more winnable seats before next year's midterm elections. Texas House Speaker Dustin Burrows has said that if Democrats don't return the next time lawmakers reconvene on Friday, the session will end and the governor will immediately benign another one. Abbott put redistricting on the agenda at the urging of President Donald Trump, who wants to shore up Republicans' narrow House majority and avoid a repeat of his first presidency, when the 2018 midterms restored Democrats to a House majority that blocked his agenda and twice impeached him. It is unusual for redistricting to take place in the middle of the decade and typically occurs once at the beginning of each decade to coincide with the census. Last week, Vice President JD Vance visited Indiana to meet with Gov. Mike Braun and other state Republican leaders to discuss redistricting Indiana's nine congressional districts. Braun told the Indiana Capital Chronicle Tuesday that he hasn't yet decided if he'll call a special session for redistricting, but said he and state leaders are 'considering it seriously' as they wait to see what comes out of Texas. 'I think mostly what happens here is going to depend on where Texas goes, because I think they've got five seats in play,' Braun said. The Indianapolis Star reported Friday that Trump invited Indiana Republican lawmakers to the White House for an Aug. 26 meeting. Molly Swigart, a spokeswoman for Senate Republicans, said the meeting was scheduled 'to discuss President Trump's agenda.' Indiana University Professor Emeritus of Political Science Marjorie Hershey said the effort to redistrict is 'a power politics move' because the Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives is 'as narrow as it could be.' In the last 100 years, there have been two midterm elections where the party that holds the White House hasn't lost seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, Hershey said. If Republicans lose a handful of seats, they would lose control of the House, she said. 'That would essentially mean the end of President Trump's dominance of the political agenda. He's gotten where he has as a result of having complete control of the Congress,' Hershey said. 'In order to maintain his edge in the House of Representatives in 2026, Trump wants a cushion for Republican House members because he's afraid that otherwise he's almost guaranteed to lose the House.' Historically, redistricting has occasionally occurred between censuses, Hershey said, but it goes against precedent. 'This is not normal in American politics,' Hershey. 'It's not the way that the constitution was written. It's not the way the supreme court has structured election law over time.' Indiana Republican response Indiana was last redistricted in 2021, which left Congressional Republicans with seven seats and Democrats two seats. 'It's not as though Indiana isn't already redistricted in a highly partisan way to favor Republicans, it is,' Hershey said. 'Even squeezing out one more Republican district in Texas or in Indiana might save President Trump from becoming as much of a lame duck as he otherwise would in 2026.' Indiana's First District, held by Democrat U.S. Rep. Frank Mrvan, D-Highland, would be the most under threat for redistricting because it's become more Republican over time — though still Democratically held, Hershey said. The First Congressional District remains Indiana's most competitive seat. In 2022, Mrvan won nearly 53% of the vote against Republican Jennifer-Ruth Green. In 2024, Mrvan saw a small increase in the number of votes to just over 53% when he won against Republican Randy Niemeyer. The problem for Republicans with redistricting the First District, Hershey said, would be Democrats from the First District would be moved into other districts, which could make the other districts more competitive for Democratic candidates. 'Sometimes the majority party in a state gets a little too greedy and thinks, 'we might have a shot at this one additional seat,' and then they end up losing the seat next door and not winning the seat that they had hoped to gain,' Hershey said. Aaron Dusso, an associate professor of political science at Indiana University Indianapolis, said he hasn't seen an appetite from Indiana Republicans to redistrict because of the risk that it will make safe Republican congressional districts more competitive. State Rep. Ed Soliday, R-Valparaiso, said party leadership has reached out to him to gauge his thoughts on redistricting Indiana. Soliday said he told the leadership 'show me the facts, tell me the unintended consequences, then I'll tell you how I'll vote.' 'I haven't seen anyone show me about how this would work,' Soliday said. 'I have a lot of questions before I jump on board with this.' Sen. Rick Niemeyer, R-Lowell, said he's discussed redistricting with his colleagues but he's still thinking about his position on redistricting. 'I'm not committing one way or the other,' Niemeyer said. 'We're looking at it and have not made a decision yet. That's where I'm at.' State Rep. Mike Aylesworth, R-Hebron, said the state legislature 'did a good job' redistricting in 2021, but he's waiting to see what the leadership decides about a special session for redistricting. 'I don't think it's necessary, but we'll wait and see what the caucus says,' Aylesworth said. 'I'm hesitant to change things, but we'll see what leadership says.' State Sen. Dan Dernulc, R-Highland, said he's spoken with leadership about redistricting, but that he needs more facts and the 'why' of redistricting. 'I don't see a need for it. I don't want to say yes or no, we're a work in progress on it,' Dernulc said. Indiana Democratic redistricting maneuvers In the Indiana House and Senate, two-thirds of members — or 67 House members and 34 senators – have to be present to call a quorum, according to each chamber's rules. In the House, Republicans hold 70 seats to Democrats 30. In the Senate, Republicans hold 40 seats to the Democrats' 10 seats. Indiana Republicans have enough members to call a quorum. Indiana Democrats 'wouldn't have a lot of options,' Dusso said, other than short-term delay tactics, like requiring readings of the whole redistricting bill or talking for long periods of time on the floor. Democrats can talk about the issue publicly to try to rally support from voters to put pressure on Republicans to not hold a special session on redistricting. 'It doesn't really stop anything from happening, it just slows it down,' Dusso said. The best move, Dusso said, would be for Democrats and lobbyists to talk with Braun now to persuade him not to call a special session. 'I think that's where they can win. Once it's called, I don't think they have a chance,' Dusso said. 'If you can get Braun to relent, I think that's where they're going to have their success.' If redistricting were to occur in Indiana, Hershey said it's likely that lawsuits would be filed. 'I'm sure that the Democrats will fight as hard as they can because there's a point at which the party that's trying to take this unfair advantage just starts to look bad,' Hershey said. 'It's a game of chicken, and we'll have to see who it is who veers away first.' State Sen. Rodney Pol Jr., D-Chesteron, said it's 'problematic' that President Trump has been pressuring Republican states to redistrict in the middle of a census. Trump's decision to do so shows he's scared to face the voters given the policies he's passed. 'He's afraid of his own base,' Pol said. 'It's not how our democracy works.' Given Indiana's Republican supermajority, Pol said Indiana Democrats couldn't leave the state to delay the vote. If a special session were called, Pol said the Democrats would attend and voice their opposition from the House and Senate floors. 'The only thing that we have is our voice,' Pol said. 'We're going to have to show up.'
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Upset about DC's lack of voting rights? Look to the Democrats.
The deployment of the National Guard in Washington, D.C. has led to a media and political meltdown. In the New York Times, a column lamented that the military had not revolted against the civilian president. Even, so, commentators declared a ' coup ' because the federal government reasserted its constitutional power over the federal district. A Justice Department employee went so far as to scream profanities at federal officers on the street and assault one of them with a submarine sandwich. He was declared a 'freedom fighter' against 'the Gestapo.' The utter lunacy of the left was again triggered by Trump with an almost Pavlovian predictability. Trump rang the bell, and suddenly thousands of Democratic leaders began to salivate. In addition to denying a very real crime crisis in the district, Democrats immediately pivoted on the issue to renew unpopular demands for D.C. statehood. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, insisted that this was only happening because 'American citizens lack the protections of statehood.' Ankit Jain echoed that view. Jain occupies a farcical position as 'D.C. shadow senator,' an unpaid position in which he pretends to be a member of the U.S. Senate. Jain wrote that 'it's entirely possible that people will die as a result' of the deployment. He insisted that this would not occur in states where democracy governs: 'We may not have it in Washington, but if you live in any of the other 50 states, you do.' Over the years, I have testified five times in the House and Senate to argue for the restoration of full representation for residents in Washington, D.C. Residents could have a governor, two real U.S. senators, a voting representative in the House, a state legislature, and every other trapping of statehood. It needs only to go back whence it came. D.C. needs to return to Maryland through 'retrocession.' In academic writings, I have advocated for what I called ' modified retrocession ' where Maryland would take back the land given initially to create what was called 'the federal city.' The Framers did not want the capital under the control of any state, so they created the federal enclave to be under the control of Congress as a whole. Originally, the outlines of the federal city were laid out by none other than George Washington as the surveyor. It was a diamond shape, with territory ceded by both Virginia and Maryland. Within a few decades, Virginians in what is now Arlington County and Alexandria came to regret not having direct representatives and were allowed to retrocede back to their state. That left the triangle of territory from Maryland. However, Marylanders did not agree with their Virginian counterparts. They liked living in the federal enclave and decided to remain without direct representation. Congress previously allowed retrocession and could do so again. Under my prior proposal, the federal enclave would be reduced to the small sliver of land upon which our Capitol, Supreme Court, and the White House rest. It would finally give every Washington resident full representation. Also, in a city notoriously mismanaged for years, D.C. residents would be part of a state that excels in areas like education that could materially improve their positions. So if the lack of representation is so intolerable, why wouldn't Washington return to Maryland? It would give every Washington resident a voting representative in the U.S. House, two senators, a governor in a sovereign state, and a state legislature. The reason is politics at its most cynical and hypocritical. Democrats only want two senators representing D.C. if it boosts their numbers. It's not good enough to give them Maryland's senators. What's more, Maryland Democrats will not suffer a shift in the center of their state's political gravity from Baltimore to Washington. Finally, D.C. Democratic leaders are not eager to share power with Maryland Democrats, as they might gain all the trappings of a state. This is why, for decades, Democrats have settled to leave D.C. voters without direct representation in Congress. They decided it is better to lament the lack of representation on license plates than to give residents such representation through retrocession of the residential sections of D.C. to Maryland. Polling shows that most Americans still oppose statehood for this one city — a Vatican-like city-state. That is why Democrats are not keen on attempting a new constitutional amendment to change the status of the city. They would rather bewail the lack of direct representation while, ironically, trying to achieve effective statehood without a direct vote of citizens on a constitutional amendment. The fact is, Trump has every right to deploy the National Guard in Washington and to take over the D.C. police. Those are entirely lawful and constitutional orders. Yet the New York Times appears to have changed its position on the danger of insurrection. The Times recently ran a bizarre column by former Obama officials Steven Simon and Jonathan Stevenson, ' We Used to Think the Military Would Stand Up to Trump. We Were Wrong.' They complain that 'it now seems clear to us that the military will not rescue Americans from Mr. Trump's misuse of the nation's military capabilities.' The 'rescue' would have meant military personnel disobeying a direct order from the commander-in-chief because they disagreed with the need for the deployment. In fairness to the New York Times, that is not exactly an insurrection — it is more of a mutiny. What is striking about this debate is how entirely untethered it is from anything that touches upon reality. Statehood remains easily attainable for Washington, if Democrats would only stop opposing retrocession. Meanwhile, the deployment is clearly constitutional, regardless of how many columns or submarine sandwiches you throw about in another furious fit. The only thing that is clear is that Washington residents are again being played. They remain political props left stateless because returning them to full representation is not politically advantageous. They are given make-believe 'shadow senators' and protest license plates rather than restoring their prior status. As with the debate over crime, few want to discuss how to solve this problem. Given the opposition of the Democrats, Trump should take the lead and order federal officials to develop a blueprint for retrocession. He should use his office to fully inform the American people, and particularly D.C. residents, of the benefits of returning to Maryland.
Fox News
2 hours ago
- Fox News
Trump advances Russia-Ukraine peace talks as new details emerge
Fox News senior White House correspondent Peter Doocy reports on peace talks between President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin.
