Brian Lenney — Senator Lenney first moves to send House Bill 928 to the 14th order for possible amendment, then continues in the same debate by responding to Senator Wintrow and arguing that the problem the bill seeks to address has been demonstrated, including a pointed claim that the discussion itself illustrates the issue.
Kathy Canty — Kathy Canty, a family practice doctor in Twin Falls, testified in opposition to House Bill 928. She explained that equity or cultural training can improve patient care by helping providers understand patients’ backgrounds and health practices, using an example involving tribal healing ceremonies and fasting that could affect treatment decisions and prevent hospitalization. She concluded that such training can save money in health care and clarified that her point was specifically about funding for equity training, again urging a no vote on the bill.
Dr. Kathy Canty — Wintrow addressed Canty directly about her testimony.
Richard Bousart — Richard Bousart testified in support of House Bill 928, describing himself as a board-certified plastic surgeon and senior fellow at Do No Harm. He argued that diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives have shifted medicine away from merit and excellence, diluted medical education, and contributed to weaker licensure outcomes. He emphasized that physicians should be selected and trained for commitment to excellence rather than immutable characteristics, and concluded by urging support for the bill and offering to answer questions.
Dorothy Boone — The committee announced the next in-person testifier.
Dr. Dorothy Boone — Dr. Dorothy Boone, a family medicine physician in training in the Treasure Valley, testified in strong opposition to House Bill 928. She argued that evidence-based training on implicit bias and health disparities helps physicians recognize barriers to care, improve communication, make more accurate diagnoses and treatment decisions, and ultimately improve outcomes. She warned that the bill would interfere with professional standards and medical training, worsen Idaho’s physician shortage, and discourage providers from practicing in the state, saying it made it unlikely she would return to practice in Idaho.
Brandon Shippy — Brandon Shippy questioned the witness about how the bill would affect someone like her and whether it would address situations where people are hired or trained based on factors other than merit.
Brandon Shippy — Recognized by the chair to ask questions about the bill.
Brandon Shippy — References prior versions of similar legislation and asks about the composition of the committee.
Brandon Shippy — Referenced in the discussion about how members for the committee would be selected.
Brandon Shippy — Asked a follow-up question and was addressed in the response.
Brandon Shippy — Returned to close out the presentation on House Bill 916 and reiterated the oversight committee purpose.
Brandon Shippy — Continues closing remarks and offers to answer questions.
Brandon Shippy — Introduced as the next member to ask questions; likely a transcription error for a committee member name.
Brandon Shippy — Addressed by the questioning senator regarding committee selection.
Brandon Shippy — Called on to discuss the motion.
Brandon Shippy — Explains concern that at least half of the committee should come from rural areas.
Brandon Shippy — Continues arguing that rural representation adds advocacy and wisdom to the committee.
Brandon Shippy — Says he could support the bill if amended to require 50% rural district membership.
Brandon Shippy — Criticized for advocating geography-based preference rather than merit-based assignments.
Rory Cole — Rory Cole was introduced as the next witness and then testified against HB 928, arguing that it would harm patient care and rural medicine. He said he is from District 26, is representing himself, and hopes to practice in rural Idaho. He added that he is a born-and-raised Idahoan and has been taught throughout his medical education that his Idaho identity helps him build trust and care for Idaho patients, though he expressed concern that identity alone may not be enough.
Ms. Cole — Ms. Cole was asked to explain the bill’s impact on rural care and responded that it would make it harder to recruit physicians to rural areas and could weaken patient-doctor identification and trust. She also confirmed that she had read the bill.
Ms. Call — Ms. Call said the bill’s definitions are unclear and could be interpreted differently by physicians and enforcers, then responded to follow-up by explaining that implicit bias training is often grouped with DEI but can help clinicians communicate better across differences in upbringing and identity, improving patient care.
Edward Clark — Introduced himself as a policy analyst with Idaho Family Policy Center.
Liz Woodruff — The chair introduces Liz Woodruff as the next witness, and Liz Woodruff then identifies herself as the executive director of the Idaho Academy of Family Physicians.
Ms. Woodruff — Ms. Woodruff responded to questions about confusion over the bill’s impact on implicit bias training and clinical practice. She explained that implicit bias helps physicians understand patients’ perspectives and that the bill’s language could be read to limit the use of data to identify disparities and target care. She gave an example involving cervical cancer screening follow-up, saying that identifying lower return rates among Latina patients can help clinics make follow-up calls and prevent cancer progression. She argued that the bill’s confusion could discourage such preventive outreach. In a follow-up exchange, she added that medicine is highly merit-based, noting that residency placement is based on scores and performance.
Grayson Martin Roland — Grayson Martin Roland, a 15-year-old student from Boca Tello, testified against the bill. He argued that legislating against DEI language or practices is discriminatory and violates free speech rights. He also warned that if the bill passes, his family may have to leave Idaho because his mother is the main provider and a private practice family medicine physician. He closed by urging lawmakers not to let the bill pass or advance further.
Jordan Redmond — Introduces himself as representing District 3 in Kootenai County and presents House Bill 916.
Trevor Carlson — Trevor Carlson is introduced as the first witness and then testifies on behalf of FGA Action, supporting stewardship and oversight of federal funds.
Mr. Carlson — Thanked after his testimony concluded.
Luke Lukusha / Lou Cuccia? — A new in-person witness is announced, but the name is unclear in the transcript.
Luke Lukusha / Cuccia? — The chair attempts to confirm the next witness's name; it remains unclear.
Glenneda Zuiderveld — Asked Ms. Cole for examples of how the bill would harm rural care, noting her own district is rural.
Glenneda Zuiderveld — Referenced as having previously mentioned the issue.
Mark Harris — Senator Harris asked whether the bill would prevent a clinic from hiring a female OB doctor to make patients more comfortable. Senator Cole then deferred the question to his co-sponsor, and Harris was identified as the questioner before the discussion moved into a follow-up on her original question.
Mark Harris — Senator Lenney is identified as asking a question after Boone's testimony.
Mark Harris — Named as one of the senators requesting to be recorded as opposed on the motion.
Mark Harris — Named as the second on the motion to hold House Bill 916 in committee.
Julie VanOrden — The Chair transitioned the committee from questions to testimony, announced that questioning was complete, welcomed the first witness, instructed them to identify themselves, explained the two-minute timer, and then thanked the witness before opening the floor for questions.
Melissa Wintrow — Senator Wintrow questions the bill from the perspective of patient choice and health outcomes, asking whether sex can be considered in hiring when doctors are equally qualified, noting her own preference for a female OBGYN, and challenging what problem the bill is meant to solve. She then asks how the bill would improve health outcomes for Idahoans and later follows up with Dr. Fields about how geography—such as rural versus urban location and area codes—affects individual and maternal health outcomes.
Melissa Wintrow — Senator Wintrow asks Dr. Canty whether the bill’s prohibited acts would cover the kind of equity training described in Canty’s example involving a tribal member. She follows up by clarifying that she is specifically asking about the funding of the equity training, prompting Canty’s clarification.
Melissa Wintrow — Senator Melissa Wintrow thanked the witness and then raised concerns about the bill’s penalty section, pressing for clarification on how the bill may create fears or misconceptions, particularly around social determinants of health and related DEI concerns.
Melissa Wintrow — Senator Melissa Wintrow questioned Ms. Woodruff about concerns that confusion over implicit bias training could create penalties or discourage practice in the state. She then followed up by asking whether doctors are hired based on race or merit, and Ms. Woodruff responded that medicine is highly merit-based. The exchange centers on clarifying the intent and implications of implicit bias discussions in medical hiring and practice.
Melissa Wintrow — Says she is unsure whether she will support the motion and wants to clear up confusion.
Melissa Wintrow — Argues that the prohibited concept is the basis of white supremacy and says there is confusion about implicit bias training.
Melissa Wintrow — Her concerns about penalties and confusion are directly rebutted by the next speaker.
Melissa Wintrow — Interrupts to say she has the microphone and explains her view of implicit bias training.
Melissa Wintrow — States that implicit bias training teaches systemic racism as a clinical fact and says it affects hospitals and medical schools.
Melissa Wintrow — Says implicit bias training has no place in medicine and supports the bill.
Melissa Wintrow — Named as one of the senators requesting to be recorded as opposed on the motion.