Despite heated debate, Idaho House passes updated ‘medical freedom bill’

BOISE, Idaho (KIFI) - After heated debate and dodged questions, the Idaho House passed a bill that seeks to ban medical mandates in governments, schools, and businesses.

House Bill 472 is an updated version of the "Medial Freedom Bill" vetoed by Governor Little earlier in the 2025 legislative session.

The bill's co-sponsor, Representative Robert Beiswenger, R-Horseshoe Bend, says the revised bill prevents forced medical mandates.

According to the bill's language, "medical intervention" is defined as "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."

Ultimately, the House voted 46 to 21 to pass the bill after nearly an hour of tense debate.

"Medical Terrorism" - Republican representatives stand up for Idaho businesses

The main debate around the bill centered around whether or not the legislation would prevent Idaho businesses and workplaces from refusing services or entrance to people who are sick.

Representative Dan Garner, R-Clifton, asked the bill's sponsor point blank no less than three times to clarify if private industries, such as airlines, could ask sick people to leave.

"The bill does address it directly, but I believe a business would be within their rights to ask someone to leave if they are sick," responded Beiswenger.

However, the bill's text says, "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 a medical intervention," contradicting what Rep. Beiswenger told members of the House.

"This bill goes a step too far in that it imposes someone's freedom or rights on their private property or private business, and it imposes your rights over theirs," critiqued Garner.

Overall, HB 472 passed the House with less support than the House vote on the initial bill, as several Republican lawmakers joined Democrats in opposition. Representative Lori McCann, R-Lewiston, told members of the House that while she chose not to receive the COVID-19 vaccination, she believed the bill went too far for Idaho's private industries.

Arguing in favor of the bill, Representative Josh Tanner, R-Eagle, said the bill evened the playing field after businesses went too far during COVID.

"The individual is the person you're trying to protect," argued Tanner. "That is who we're always trying to protect. That is who the law, the Constitution everybody is protecting is our individual rights, not a business."

Representative Stephanie Mickelsen, R-Idaho Falls, argued that the bill shifted the liability of medical risk to Idaho's private businesses versus the individuals exercising their private freedoms.

"I have no problem having people have medical freedom, but this isn't medical freedom. This is medical terrorism," said Rep. Mickelsen. "It's terrorism by those that don't want to have any kind of medical intervention against everybody else in this state."

What does House Bill 472 change?

In response to Governor Little's veto, House Bill 472 addresses the governor's concerns by adding language clarifying that the bill won't override the powers of Idaho school districts and school board trustees under Idaho law.

"It specifically references the state code, which allows schools to send home a child who is sick," said Beiswenger.

The Senate has also drafted a revised legislation in response to the governor's veto, Senate Bill 1210. As HB 472 has now passed the Idaho House, it now heads to the Senate for further approval.