The Idaho Medical Freedom Law Passed — But a Key Protection Almost Didn’t

Behind the scenes, there was a push to carve out daycares. Now, a court case will determine whether those protections hold — A message from the Gang of 8.

One of the most significant victories of the session was the passage of S1210, the Idaho Medical Freedom Act.

You may recall that the original version of the bill, S1023, was vetoed by the governor. In his veto message, he claimed the bill:

“…removes parents’ freedom to ensure their children stay healthy at school because it jeopardizes the ability of schools to send home sick students with highly contagious illnesses including measles, lice, ringworm, pink eye, strep throat, stomach viruses, the flu, and other illnesses that disrupt families’ lives.”

But that reasoning didn’t hold up under scrutiny.

Idaho law already gives schools clear authority to send home students who are sick. Idaho Code § 33-512(7) specifically empowers school boards to “exclude from school pupils with contagious or infectious diseases who are diagnosed or suspected as having a contagious or infectious disease…” That authority has long been in place and wasn’t affected by the bill.

To address the governor's concerns, legislative sponsors added language clarifying that authority in the revised bill. That compromise led to the successful passage and signing of S1210.

Why This Still Matters

Even though the session has ended, what happens next with S1210 still matters, especially with a major court case coming up. On May 5, the Idaho Supreme Court will hear a case that could affect how vaccine exemptions are applied in daycare settings. That’s why it’s important to understand what was almost left out of the bill, what ultimately made it into law, and why it continues to matter for Idaho families.

Watch: What They Tried to Sneak In

While the final version of the bill passed with strong protections, an effort was made behind the scenes to weaken it, and it nearly succeeded. In the video below, Leslie Manookian, president and founder of the Health Freedom Defense Fund, explains what happened during those final days and why the fight to protect Idaho families is far from over.

“They want to put our children on the chopping block in exchange for our freedom,” she says. “This is disgusting. It’s diabolical.”

Manookian warns that after the governor’s office initially signaled support for the revised bill, they later tried to push a carve-out for daycares, effectively stripping protections from the very population that receives the majority of childhood vaccines. She explained that an estimated 75–80% of all childhood vaccinations are given before age six, making daycares a prime target for pharmaceutical mandates.

On May 5, the Idaho Supreme Court is set to hear Tipton v. New Horizons Daycare, a case focused on whether private daycare facilities must honor Idaho’s vaccine exemption law. The lawsuit was brought by a mother whose child was expelled from a daycare after she submitted a religious exemption to immunization requirements, something state law appears to allow. The district court sided with the daycare, and now the state’s highest court will weigh in.

If the legislature had carved out daycares from S1210, it could have signaled to the Court that lawmakers intended to exclude daycares from medical freedom protections, potentially undermining the lawsuit and weakening existing exemption rights for Idaho families.

Thankfully, that language was rejected. S1210 passed without exceptions for daycare-aged children.

What S1210 Says

The new law reads, in part:

“A school operating in the state or a business subject to chapter 11, title 39, Idaho Code, operating in the state shall not mandate a medical intervention for any person to attend, enter campus or buildings, or be employed…”

This creates a broad prohibition against requiring medical interventions, such as vaccines, testing, or treatments, as a condition for accessing education, employment, or public spaces.

It then includes this important qualifier:

“…subject to the requirements of the Idaho Parental Rights Act, sections 32-1010 through 32-1015, Idaho Code; sections 39-4801 through 39-4804, Idaho Code; and sections 33-205 and 33-512(7), Idaho Code.”

This language makes clear that the protections in S1210 are:

• Aligned with existing law, including the authority of schools to exclude students who are actually sick;

• Respectful of parental rights and Idaho’s broad exemption policies under § 39-4801;

• Not in conflict with statutes already on the books, but intended to clarify and reinforce them.

What About H290?

Earlier in the session, H290 added new language to Section 39-1118 of Idaho Code, which applies to licensed daycare facilities. It states:

“A child not meeting the conditions of this section shall be excluded by the licensed daycare facility operator until the child is in compliance. A child exempt from the provisions of this section pursuant to subsection (2) of this section may be excluded by the department in the event of a disease outbreak.”

This added two key provisions:

• Daycare operators must exclude children who are out of compliance with immunization rules;

• The Department of Health and Welfare may exclude children with exemptions (i.e., unvaccinated for religious or medical reasons) during a disease outbreak.

So, Is There a Conflict?

At first glance, yes, but S1210 resolves it.

S1210 includes this unambiguous directive:

“Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, under no circumstance may a healthy person be excluded in a disease outbreak due to such person’s vaccination status.”

Here’s what that means:

• H290 says the department may exclude an exempt child, even if they’re healthy;

• S1210 says they can’t, period.

The phrase “notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary” is legally significant. It overrides any earlier or conflicting law, including the new language added by H290.

What It Means for Idaho Families

Under S1210, healthy children cannot be excluded from schools or daycares solely because they are unvaccinated. That’s the law. The bill protects families who choose legal exemptions, ensuring children can access care and education without discrimination based on vaccination status.

Bottom Line

S1210 is now law, a hard-won protection of medical freedom that upholds parental rights and ensures Idaho families aren’t punished for making lawful, personal health decisions.

Stay informed. The next battle for medical freedom may be decided in the courts, not the Capitol.

In Liberty,

Senator Christy Zito, District 8
CZito@senate.idaho.gov

Senator Glenneda Zuiderveld, District 24
GZuiderveld@senate.idaho.gov
Substack: @glenneda

Senator Josh Kohl, District 25
JKohl@senate.idaho.gov
Substack: @joshkohl4idaho

Representative Faye Thompson, District 8
FThompson@house.idaho.gov

Representative Lucas Cayler, District 11
LCayler@house.idaho.gov
Substack: @lucascayler

Representative Kent Marmon, District 11
KMarmon@house.idaho.gov
Substack: @kentmarmon

Representative Clint Hostetler, District 24
CHostetler@house.idaho.gov
Substack: @theidahoresolve

Representative David Leavitt, District 25
DLeavitt@house.idaho.gov
Substack: @leavitt4idaho

Paid subscribers to this Substack will be recorded on Zito For Idaho’s sunshine report as a contribution to a political candidate. Subscribers don't have special access or content. I appreciate your support.