Camille Blaylock — Moved to approve the minutes from February 10th, 2026.
Camille Blaylock — Senator Blaylock follows up on concerns about stronger data and placebo-controlled trials, referencing RFK Jr.'s comments and the desire to push the federal government to act. She then raises broader concerns about legislators not being experts, noting that experts are scheduled to meet soon to review the data, and clarifies that she is making a comment rather than asking another question.
Camille Blaylock — Camille Blaylock was asked for her vote and responded no.
Brandon Shippy — Brandon Shippy is introduced as the senator who will open the bill presentation, is invited to present, and then thanks the committee before introducing Senate Bill 1346.
Brandon Shippy — Senator Shippy responds to a series of committee questions about the bill, explaining that it applies only to human gene therapy products for infectious disease indications and that the bill will be clarified to define credible data and allow committees to evaluate it. He notes he was not the primary author and may need help on some definition details, but reiterates that the measure is limited to infectious disease uses, not genetic disorders. Shippy then argues the bill reflects a preemption-style principle in which states can make their own safety judgments rather than simply follow federal or CDC guidance, citing examples of states forming alternative associations and independently reviewing safety data. He further explains that FDA authorization occurred through an emergency pathway, says states should have authority to review the data and decide for themselves, and acknowledges uncertainty about interstate commerce implications. He closes by noting that not all gene therapies are under emergency authorization and that he is not an expert on every technical detail, offering to look up additional answers for the committee.
Brandon Shippy — Senator Shippy closes the discussion by thanking the committee and summarizing the bill’s purpose: to address concerns about experimental treatments, seek long-term safety data, and protect children and vulnerable populations. He explains why the bill uses a two-year moratorium, notes that the language should be refined to avoid unintended consequences, and responds to questions about the scope of the bill, including that it is not intended to target other vaccines. He also emphasizes the state’s duty to act, suggests the bill could encourage federal action, and participates in the motion/discussion as the committee continues.
Brandon Shippy — Voted aye.
Melissa Wintrow — Senator Wintrow is called on and asks a process question about how legislative review and rulings on exemptions work. Senator Shippy responds to her question.
Melissa Wintrow — Expresses concern that the legislature is not equipped to review scientific evidence and says she is wrestling with whether to hold the bill in committee.
Melissa Wintrow — He referred to Senator Wintrow's concerns about how the legislature would review safety data.
Melissa Wintrow — Voted aye.
Carl Bjerke — Senator Bjerke asks the witness to explain the bill's definitions in layman's terms, noting that he is not a medical person and wants a clearer explanation of those terms.
Carl Bjerke — Senator Berkey asks Senator Shippy for clarification on whether all gene therapies fall under emergency authorization, and the discussion continues with follow-up references to the same question and response.
Carl Bjerke — Castro addressed the Vice Chair.
Carl Bjerke — He supported the bill's intent but said the language and gene therapy definition need clarification.
Carl Bjerke — Voted aye.
Glenneda Zuiderveld — Senator Kaiser asks whether the bill applies only to vaccinations and immunizations, and receives confirmation that it does.
Glenneda Zuiderveld — Senator Zuiderveld questions the rationale for the proposed two-year moratorium, asking why that timeframe was chosen and what would happen if the desired results are not found within two years. The discussion centers on whether the moratorium period is appropriate and how the policy would function if results come sooner or later than expected.
Glenneda Zuiderveld — She responded in support of further work on the bill and noted that legislators are not experts on the subject.
Glenneda Zuiderveld — Voted aye.
Glenneda Zuiderveld — The roll call continues with her vote recorded as aye.
Mark Harris — Senator Harris follows up with a question about how the state approach affects interstate commerce, and the response continues addressing interstate commerce implications and regulations.
Mark Harris — Mark Harris asks why the bill’s exemption for human gene therapy applies to cancer genetic disorders but not infectious diseases, pressing for an explanation of the distinction. A response follows, noting that it would have been a question better addressed by experts.
Mark Harris — Senator Harris asks whether the bill is limited to mRNA vaccines or whether it would also apply to other vaccines, specifically mentioning chicken pox, rabies, and hepatitis A.
Mark Harris — He said he sees the bill as government overreach in medical decision-making and is concerned the definition of human gene therapy products is too broad.
Mark Harris — Voted no.
Nicholas Holster — Nicholas Holster, an epidemiologist with the McCullough Foundation, testified in support of the bill. He argued that mRNA COVID-19 products are hazardous to human health, citing peer-reviewed studies and alleged findings about microclots, mortality signals, elevated risks of cardiovascular and neurological events, plasmid DNA contamination, genomic integration, and cancer-related concerns. He concluded that the bill is a necessary public health safeguard.
Christina Parks — Introduced as the next presenter.
Dr. Christina Parks — Dr. Christina Parks introduced herself as a cellular and molecular biology Ph.D. with experience studying gene therapy, then addressed questions about the bill language and distinguished traditional vaccines from gene therapy-style vaccines. She argued that the technology carries serious risks, citing tissue accumulation and potential inflammatory or cancer-related harms, and urged lawmakers to pause its use in pregnant women and children until long-term safety studies are completed and liability is established. She concluded by offering to answer additional questions and clarified that Novavax is the protein vaccine, while the bill language refers to multiple types of gene therapy.
James Thorpe — Introduced as the next presenter.
Dr. James Thorpe, MD — Dr. James Thorpe, MD, introduces himself as a practicing OB-GYN and maternal-fetal medicine specialist with over 46 years of experience and prior Senate testimony. He then cites published literature and his own work to argue that COVID-19 vaccines have caused serious harms, particularly affecting women of reproductive age, pregnant women, and newborns. He concludes by directing the committee to his slide set available from Laura Dembray and inviting private follow-up discussion.
Stephen Montemot — Introduced as the next in-person presenter.
Stephen Montematt — Stephen Montematt, a physician who has practiced in Idaho since 1988 and volunteers at a clinic serving uninsured patients, testifies against the bill. He argues that legislators should not prohibit FDA-approved medical treatments and urges the committee to vote against the dangerous bill.
Laura Demeray — Laura Demeray introduces herself as an Idaho resident and states her support for S 1346. She argues that the products at issue are harmful and experimental, saying her group has done outreach and presented science and data to local communities and boards. She emphasizes concerns about the lack of long-term studies, manufacturer liability, and compensation for injured people, and concludes by calling for the products to be removed and thanking the committee.
Amaya Donahue — Testified as a parent from Idaho in support of personal medical decision-making and against the bill.
Gordon Wilkerson — Gordon Wilkerson was introduced as the next witness, identified himself as a Washington County Commissioner, and testified in support of the moratorium, emphasizing opposition to the COVID injection and limiting government involvement to protect citizens from government harm.
Primo Castro — Primo Castro was introduced as the next witness and then testified on behalf of the Biotechnology Innovation Organization, representing more than 1,000 biotech companies, research institutions, and vaccine developers, in opposition to SB 1346. He argued that restricting entire categories of scientifically validated technology would put Idaho at a significant disadvantage.
Julie VanOrden — Castro addressed Chair Van Orden at the start of his remarks.
Julie VanOrden — As Chair, she asks Mr. Figueroa whether mRNA technology is gene therapy.
Julie VanOrden — Voted no as chair.
Javier Figueroa / Xavier Figueroa — Introduced as Xavier Figueroa, but the witness identified himself as Javier Figueroa; he testified in favor of SB 1346.
Brian Lenney — Senator Lenney is identified as asking a question after the testimony.
Brian Lenney — Makes the motion to send Senate Bill 1346 to the 14th order.
Brian Lenney — Referenced earlier as making the motion to send the bill to the 14th order.
Brian Lenney — Cites VAERS data and historical vaccine incidents to raise safety concerns.
Brian Lenney — Brian Lenney requested a roll call vote and then voted aye during the roll call.
Mr. Figueroa — Mr. Figueroa states that Pfizer and Moderna described mRNA technology as gene therapy in their S-1 filings and argues that the underlying scientific reality has not changed, only the FDA-related language did. The chair then closes the exchange by thanking him for his testimony.
Stephanie Nemore — The chair introduces the next witness, though the name is later spoken as Stephanie Neymour.
Stephanie Neymour — Stephanie Neymour testifies in opposition to the bill as a parent. She says she and her husband should retain the right to make medical decisions for their children in consultation with their chosen pediatrician, and she supports broad access for Idaho families to vaccines, preventive health tools, and other medical treatments. She concludes by asking for a no vote on the bill.
testifiers — The senator referenced testimony from earlier witnesses in support of his view.