States findings of the Legislature and rejects certain rules of the Division of Occupational and Professional Licenses relating to genetic counselors.
Summary
House Concurrent Resolution 14 is a legislative disapproval measure aimed at a specific administrative rule governing the Idaho Genetic Counselors Licensing Board. The resolution states that the Legislature finds one incorporated ethics provision in the Division of Occupational and Professional Licenses’ rules to be inconsistent with legislative intent and Idaho’s code of ethics, and therefore rejects that rule. The targeted provision is a section of the National Society of Genetic Counselors Code of Ethics incorporated by reference into IDAPA 24.24.01.
If adopted, the resolution would nullify only the identified rule item, making it void and without effect as of July 1, 2025. It does not create a new licensing framework or change the underlying genetic counselor licensing statute directly; instead, it uses the Legislature’s authority under Idaho Code section 67-5291 to invalidate an executive agency rule. The practical effect is limited to the regulatory standards applied to genetic counselors and the Division of Occupational and Professional Licenses.
Impact
The resolution would affect Idaho’s administrative rules, not the state code itself, by removing one incorporated ethics requirement from the Genetic Counselors Licensing Board rules. Its impact falls on the Division of Occupational and Professional Licenses, the Genetic Counselors Licensing Board, and licensed or prospective genetic counselors subject to those rules. By rejecting the specified rule item, the Legislature would limit the enforceability of that ethics provision beginning July 1, 2025.
Sentiment
The available text suggests a largely procedural and corrective posture rather than a broad policy dispute. The Legislature’s stated view is that the rule conflicts with legislative intent and Idaho’s code of ethics, indicating support among sponsors for narrowing or removing the agency-adopted provision. No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no evidence here of broader public controversy or divided sentiment beyond the Legislature’s formal objection to the rule.
Contention
The main point of contention is the substance of the incorporated National Society of Genetic Counselors Code of Ethics provision and whether it aligns with Idaho law and legislative intent. Supporters of the resolution appear to believe the agency exceeded or misapplied its authority by adopting that ethics standard, while the affected licensing board or agency would likely favor retaining the rule as part of professional regulation. Because no debate transcript or vote history is included, the specific arguments on either side are not documented in the provided materials.