Bill that bans requiring ‘medical interventions’ in schools, businesses advances for potential changes

BOISE – A bill that would place broad restrictions on businesses, governments and schools from requiring any “medical intervention” advanced to the Senate, but to receive possible changes.

The Senate State Affairs Committee on Wednesday voted to send SB 1023 to the 14th order, which is an order of business on the Senate floor in which members may propose and vote on potential amendments.

Committee members were largely concerned over the vague language to define “medical intervention” and the potential negative impacts on business owners.

The bill was sponsored by Sen. Dan Foreman, R-Moscow, but presented by Leslie Manookian, a Ketchum resident and president of the Health Freedom Defense Fund. She said she wrote the bill to avoid restrictions that were in place during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“Public health should be restricted to public concerns, where it was originally intended,” Manookian said.

The bill amends an existing law, passed in 2022, that prohibits businesses and government entities from requiring a COVID-19 vaccine for employment or entry to a facility. It expands restrictions to public and private schools, which were not included in the original law, and to all medical interventions, which is defined as “any pharmaceutical or biological agent or product designed to alter or restrict the biological functioning of the body.”

Senate President Pro Tempore Kelly Anthon, R-Rupert, questioned the definition, and what kinds of interventions it would prevent, such as masking or washing hands.

Manookian responded that masks would be included but argued using soap was “more performative” and would not alter functioning enough to be affected. Many studies over the years have shown hand washing with soap is an effective way to prevent illness and the spread of infections, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Representatives from a number of industries spoke in opposition, specifically because of the broad restrictions they would be placed under and uncertainty about how they could continue with basic safety protocols, such as requiring food service workers to wear gloves and wash their hands.

“If you do not want to submit to an employer’s procedures designed to keep other employees and customers safe, you are free not to work there,” said Alex LaBeau, president of the Idaho Association of Commerce and Industry.

Groups such as the Idaho Freedom Foundation and Health Freedom Idaho, which Manookian serves on the board of, spoke in favor of the bill. A student who had to wear a mask while playing basketball, Cathrien Jones, also testified in support.

Sarah Clendenon, of the anti-vaccine group Health Freedom Idaho, said the bill protected bodily autonomy and that it was important to have the “inherent right of medical freedom clearly stated in Idaho law.”

Multiple mothers of young and school-aged children spoke in opposition, especially in regards to schools and day cares, and said the current vaccine opt-out options were adequate to protect parents who choose not to vaccinate their children.

Two noted that Idaho communities experienced outbreaks over the last couple of years — of pertussis, known as whooping cough, in 2024, and measles in 2023.

“Back in 1827, there were actually rules for vaccines in schools,” said Heather Gagliano, a mother and nurse. “This is a traditional value … no one is being forced to get a vaccine to go in a school.”

Others brought up concerns that requirements to administer epinephrine for severe allergy attack would be prohibited.

Seven testifiers supported the bill and eight opposed it.

Sen. Ben Toews, R-Coeur d’Alene, noted that the bill included an exemption for government entities to comply with federal laws but that same exemption did not apply to private businesses, which need to comply with requirements such as under the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). That exemption would not apply to schools either, under the bill.

Nearly all the members spoke of the need to re-work the language. Foreman said he was amenable to sending it for changes.

Assistant Minority Leader James Ruchti, D-Pocatello, said he opposed sending it to the 14th order.

“Sometimes I think bills just have a flawed basis and should be rejected by the committee for that reason, not put in the 14th order where anything could happen, it’s just not a place to create legislation,” Ruchti said. “This legislation, it seems like it’s putting us in a race to bring back the diseases our grandparents worked so hard to eliminate.”

The bill heads to the Senate floor, where members will be able to bring forward proposed amendments that will be voted on by the entire chamber.

Guido covers Idaho politics for the Lewiston Tribune, Moscow-Pullman Daily News and Idaho Press of Nampa. She may be contacted at lguido@idahopress.com and can be found on Twitter @EyeOnBoiseGuido.