Dori Healey — Representative Healy raised concern about the motion by arguing that the committee should be worried because a report had already been submitted regarding how the money would be spent. Other speakers then referenced and praised Healy’s point, noting that he had validly highlighted the oversight issue and that the Department and executive branch had already decided where the funds would go.
Dori Healey — Dori Healey asked for clarification on whether the bill’s definition of medications would include common and emergency treatments such as antibiotics, insulin, inhalers, and epinephrine. She followed up by raising anaphylaxis as an example, noting that a person in that condition may be unable to request epinephrine themselves.
Dori Healey — Representative Dori Healey asked about IRIS in the context of health care enrollment practices, first questioning whether most health care processes are opt-in rather than opt-out, and then following up by asking the witness whether IRIS is unusual because it operates as an opt-out system.
Dori Healey — Representative Healy repeatedly pressed the point that if IRIS is widely liked, it should be made opt-in rather than opt-out, asking several times why that approach could not be adopted and what the concern would be. The exchange remained focused on the same opt-in versus opt-out issue throughout.
Kevin Watson — Kevin Watson testifies in support of the bill, stating that he is speaking for himself. He explains that he and his wife spend significant time supporting new foster parents and emphasizes the need for better training. He then gives an example of meeting with a couple in crisis to illustrate how lack of training can contribute to foster placement disruptions.
Josh Wheeler — States support for the motion and praises the bill as a middle ground.
Josh Wheeler — Representative Wheeler asked whether deleting the section under discussion would resolve the problem, then followed up by expressing concern that similar language in later subsections on page five could still have the same effect. He worried that the bill language might prevent EMTs and county- or district-owned hospitals, especially in small rural areas, from performing their normal duties.
Ilana Rubel — Representative Rubel is called on during the discussion and asks for confirmation that the committee will include a minority party member, with the exchange centered on committee composition and assurances from the chair.
Jordan Redman — Introduced House Bill 862 and identified himself as representing District 3 in Kootenai County.
Jordan Redman — Responded that leadership said the committee would include a minority party member.
Jordan Redman — Question directed to Representative Redmond about the program's future after funding ends.
Jordan Redman — Responded that he did not think committee members would be paid beyond normal legislative pay.
Jordan Redman — Said interim committee members likely would not receive additional pay beyond legislative pay.
Jordan Redman — Explained that sustainability would be evaluated through the application process and committee review.
Jordan Redman — Question directed to Representative Redmond about whether the funds must be repaid.
Jordan Redman — Asked whether the bill restricts people who want vaccines from getting them.
Jordan Redman — Follows up by asking whether students can still get vaccinated if parents choose.
Jordan Redman — The transcript appears to intend a representative asking the question; the name is unclear in this section and may not match the speaker label exactly.
Jordan Redman — The transcript appears to intend a legislator asking about the effect on first responders; the exact name is unclear in the caption, but the question is directed to the witness.
Jordan Redman — Jordan Redman asked the witness to explain, in more detail, how the city of Moscow was able to work around the law.
Faye Thompson — Asked what happens to programs after the five-year funding sunset.
Steven Tanner — Steven Tanner asked whether committee members would be paid and then followed up by asking how sustainability would be built into the proposal, continuing the same exchange with Representative Redmond.
David Leavitt — Representative Redmond responded to a series of questions about House Bill 862, explaining that the bill creates a legislative oversight committee and fund only if the federal money is appropriated. He clarified that if Idaho fails to meet the criteria or purpose of the funds, the money would have to be returned to the federal government, and that if the bill itself did not pass, the executive branch and Department of Health and Welfare would still move forward with submitting the grants. He emphasized that objections to accepting or rejecting the funds are better addressed through JFAC or a separate policy decision, not through this bill, and confirmed the funds would come through the Department of Health and Welfare, possibly under a separate Rural Health Transformation Program budget. He then closed by thanking the committee and asking for support on the motion to send the bill to the floor with a due pass recommendation.
David Leavitt — Representative Levitt asked a series of related questions about the opt-out process: whether patients are informed about their opt-out options, and whether a person who opts out once must do so again for later visits or additional issues involving the same child or patient.
Trevor Carlson — Identified as the next virtual witness to testify.
Tric Carlson / Trevor Carlson (questionable) — A virtual witness testified on behalf of FGA Action and argued in favor of legislative oversight.
Tanya Burgoyne — Representative Kaler commented on the motion, arguing that the bill language already gives the legislature oversight, specifically pointing to page 2, line 14, subparagraph H. The exchange then moved to a response directed at him.
Julie VanOrden — Recognized Representative Kaler to speak.
Robert Beiswenger — Representative Byswinger is introduced and then identifies himself as Robert Beiswenger, sponsor of House Bill 808, representing District 8. He begins presenting the bill, describing it as the expanded Medical Freedom Bill.
Robert Beiswenger — Referenced as someone who spoke with the Attorney General's office and, according to the speaker, agreed with her assessment.
Leslie Newkin — The speaker asks to give Leslie Newkin a minute to follow up, but there is uncertainty about whether she is on the testimony schedule.
Leslie Manukian — Leslie Manukian identifies herself as president and founder of the Health Freedom Defense Fund, an Idahoan in District 26, and the author of the Medical Freedom Act last year.
Christopher Flynn — Christopher Flynn, speaking for himself as an Idaho resident, father, husband, son, and RN, gave his first testimony before the committee. He explained that his family followed medical guidance and chose vaccination, and he opposed House Bill 808 because he believes it would put medically fragile and immunocompromised students, as well as his own immunocompromised father, at risk. He argued the bill would weaken school immunization monitoring and slow outbreak response, and he closed by saying his mission as a nurse is to protect life and advocate for vulnerable people, urging opposition to the bill.
Tasha Hussman — Tasha Hussman, a registered nurse and Idaho school nurse with three children in public school, testifies virtually in opposition to the bill. She argues that immunization requirements are a simple and effective way to protect community health, keep schools functioning, and safeguard vulnerable children. Drawing on her experience as a school nurse, she describes rising illness, school closures, measles in Canyon County, and changing immunization and exemption rates. She says the bill weakens public health messaging by removing documentation requirements, draws a line between medical freedom and children’s safety, and urges lawmakers to vote no because the decision will directly affect children in classrooms.
Michael Cain — Michael Cain, representing ICRMP, testified in opposition to the bill’s medical-intervention language. He warned that the definition is overly broad and could create a legal "landmine" by preventing county hospitals and first responders from advising, recommending, or otherwise encouraging medical treatment unless expressly authorized by Idaho statute. He argued the language could conflict with federal requirements, create liability and enforcement risk, and force responders into dangerous situations involving intoxicated, impaired, or combative individuals. Cain said the section is unnecessary for vaccines, could expose entities to lawsuits or Attorney General action, and should be removed.
Megan Egbert — Representative Megan Egbert responded to the witness’s testimony by saying it raised a new concern about the bill’s scope and implications. She indicated that the testimony helped her see a potentially problematic portion of the bill and followed up with a question about how the bill interacts with state-statute exceptions.
Megan Egbert — Representative Megan Egbert is part of a continuous question-and-answer exchange on the bill. She is referenced as the member asking questions, then addressed in Mr. Cain’s response, and the discussion continues immediately afterward without a substantive topic change.
Megan Egbert — Asked whether people outside a hospital setting, including schools, can access IRIS data and whether it has other uses.
Lori McCann — Lori McCann followed up on the discussion by asking about the bill’s practical scope. She first raised the issue of whether a person must have mental capacity to refuse treatment, noting that intoxicated people may not be able to validly decline care. She then asked whether a doctor recommending childhood vaccinations to a parent would count as a violation of the bill, probing whether ordinary medical advice to a parent about a child’s care would be prohibited.
Mr. Cain — Mr. Cain argued that the bill would still let a parent make their own choice but would bar government entities such as county hospitals from making the recommendation. He reiterated that a government hospital could not make the recommendation at all, and warned that under a literal reading of the law providers could be exposed to attorney general action or lawsuits. He then said medical providers present could better address a separate page five issue, but emphasized that his main concern remained this earlier provision, which he described as a huge landmine that should be removed.
David Peterman — David Peterman was introduced, corrected the spelling of his name, and identified himself as a pediatrician who has practiced in Idaho for 40 years, with fellowship and board certification and decades of service on immunization committees. He thanked the committee for supporting foster children training, then testified in opposition to House Bill 808. He supported his opposition with personal medical experiences, including seeing the effects of polio and treating a child who died from pertussis, arguing that immunization is one of the most important protections for children and warning that the bill would reduce vaccination rates and increase the risk of serious disease and death.
Chair — Reminded the committee that many people were waiting to testify and introduced the next witness.
Sue Millie — Named by the chair as the next virtual witness.
Sue Mali — Sue Mali, a self-represented pediatric nurse and mother, testified against House Bill 808 and focused on the proposed changes to the Idaho immunization registry (IRIS). She said the registry has repeatedly protected children, helps health care professionals avoid over-vaccinating, and gives providers accurate information to educate parents when records are missing or incomplete. She argued that parents can already opt out if they do not want to share information, noted her 30-plus years of experience, and said IRIS is unusual because it is opt-out rather than opt-in, unlike most other health care consent systems.
Doug Cameron — Doug Cameron testified in favor of the bill, explaining that he supports it because people should have personal choice without coercion. He said coercion, rather than a mandate, was what harmed him, and argued the bill is meant to prevent coercion while still allowing people to act as they choose. He added that the bill gives everyone—whether doctors, parents, or others—the same treatment and recommended a yes vote.
Kate Thompson — Kate Thompson is identified as the next witness, though Doug Cameron is allowed to testify first before the chair returns to call Kate Thompson up and ask her to state her name and representation.
Katie Thompson / Kate Thompson — Katie Thompson testified in support of House Bill 808, introducing herself and explaining that she represents herself. She described a severe adverse reaction to Gardasil that affected every system in her body, led to brain surgery and a lupus diagnosis, and shaped her opposition to adding the vaccine to childhood schedules. She also said she and her husband moved from Washington to Idaho, recounted job loss and exclusion from establishments because of vaccine and mask status, and argued for medical freedom and the right for individuals to make their own health decisions without government coercion. The chair then thanked her and closed her testimony.
Sydney Buffington — Sydney Buffington, a Boise resident and long-time registered nurse, testified against House Bill 808. She urged a no vote, arguing that reducing barriers to immunization participation saves lives and that the bill’s changes to IRIS would shift Idaho’s immunization registry from its current opt-out model to an opt-in system.
Ms. Buffington — Ms. Buffington explained that school nurses are among the authorized users who can access IRIS, and added that when vaccinations are given, families are told the information will be entered into IRIS, described as a state-run immunization database, and that they may opt out if they have concerns.
Katie Rice — Katie Rice, a Boise school nurse, testified that she uses IRIS to track student vaccination status and quickly identify and contact families during outbreaks. She explained that the system helps her know which students may be vulnerable, including medically fragile children such as one fighting leukemia, and said this information is important for protecting students if diseases like measles appear at school. She concluded that House Bill 808 feels like irresponsible public health and urged a no vote.