Repeals existing law relating to genetic counselors.
Summary
House Bill 118 is a short repeal bill that removes Chapter 56, Title 54 of the Idaho Code, which is the state’s existing statutory framework for genetic counselors. The bill does not replace the repealed chapter with a new licensing or regulatory scheme; instead, it simply eliminates the current law governing the profession.
The measure includes an emergency clause and is set to take effect on July 1, 2025. As written, it would end the specific statutory provisions in Idaho law that currently address genetic counselors, affecting the legal status of that profession and any state-level regulation tied to the repealed chapter.
Impact
If enacted, the bill would repeal Idaho’s chapter on genetic counselors, removing those provisions from Title 54 of the Idaho Code. That would affect the statutory basis for regulating, recognizing, or otherwise governing genetic counselors under state law, and could alter how the profession is treated by licensing authorities, employers, and health care systems in Idaho. Because the bill is a repeal rather than an amendment, it would leave no replacement language in place within the cited chapter.
Sentiment
Based on the available record, there is little direct evidence of debate, opposition, or support beyond the bill’s introduction by the House Business Committee. There are no committee transcripts or recorded votes included, so the overall sentiment cannot be measured from discussion. The bill’s straightforward repeal language suggests a procedural or policy cleanup approach rather than a highly contested measure, but the absence of recorded testimony limits certainty.
Contention
The main point of contention, if any, would likely concern whether Idaho should continue to maintain a separate statutory framework for genetic counselors at all. Stakeholders potentially affected include genetic counselors, health care providers, licensing or regulatory agencies, and patients who rely on genetic counseling services. Without committee discussion or votes, however, no specific arguments for or against the repeal can be identified from the record provided.