Idaho lawmaker wanted to ‘finish what we started’ on vaccines. Here’s what happened
After two days of at-times emotional public testimony, Idaho lawmakers narrowly voted down a proposal to expand on a “medical freedom” bill Gov. Brad Little signed into law in 2025.
Rep. Rob Beiswenger, R-Horseshoe Bend, brought forward House Bill 808 to declare compulsory medical treatments, including vaccines, as contrary to Idaho values, he told members of the House Health and Welfare Committee on Thursday.
“Six years ago, this month, we entered the (COVID-19) debacle, and then one year ago, we started the process of the response to that,” he said. “This bill is an attempt to finish what we started last year.”
But Beiswenger’s bill would have applied to all vaccines, not just COVID shots.
Among other changes, his bill would have classified vaccinations as voluntary, rather than deeming them mandatory with religious and philosophical objections. It also would have barred cities and local governments from establishing their own vaccine mandates, and this would have included day cares and schools, which rely on childhood immunizations.
Finally, it would have reframed participation in the state’s immunization registry, allowing patients to opt in rather than opting out.
“I think, honestly, this will build trust in your medical system,” Beiswenger told committee members. “You don’t build trust by forcing people to take your products. You build trust by having a back-and-forth, just like we do for any other service here, and you can argue whether this medication is good or vaccines are good.”
Several people who testified said they had negative experiences with vaccines, blaming the immunizations for subsequent medical conditions. Others, including several medical practitioners, argued that the bill would put them in a legal bind and make it more difficult to care for patients.
Toni Lawson, a spokesperson for the Idaho Hospital Association, said that her organization didn’t oppose last year’s bill because it included carveouts for health care providers, but this year’s bill would have removed those exemptions.
Because some hospitals, like cities and counties, are classified as “political subdivisions,” Beiswenger’s refusal to allow local governments to institute their own medical mandates would have meant that hospitals could not require certain medical interventions among their own staff members.
“Providers in those hospitals could not adopt a policy that advises, recommends or encourages any medical intervention,” she testified. “Given that the definition of medical intervention includes any medical action taken to diagnose, prevent or cure disease, this makes it basically impossible for health care providers and hospitals to fulfill their role in the community.”
Beiswenger’s bill also would have pushed hospitals into conflict with federal law, Lawson added. Rep. Jordan Redman, R-Coeur d’Alene, asked Lawson how those kinds of conflicts have been handled in the past.
“Sometimes the questions I get from my members are, ‘Who’s going to arrest me? The feds or the state police?’ ” she responded. “Because they don’t know what to do.”
A motion to send the bill to the House floor failed Friday, with the vote 9-7, and the bill was held in committee, effectively killing it for the 2026 legislative session.