BOISE, Idaho — "We negotiated with the governor’s office and made a few mutually agreed-upon changes to the bill," said Senator Daniel Foreman (R), the bill’s sponsor.
Senate Bill 1210 — the new version of the Idaho "Medical Freedom Act" — is now moving through the legislature just days after Gov. Brad Little vetoed its predecessor, Senate Bill 1023.
RELATED: Governor Brad Little vetoes Medical Freedom Act — how his veto could be overturned by lawmakers
This is the first and only veto of this legislative session.
In a letter explaining his decision, Little wrote, "This 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 conditions including measles, lice, ringworm, pink eye, and strep throat."
The updated version attempts to clarify those concerns by specifically stating that schools can still send sick students home and referencing existing laws that allow parental vaccine opt-outs.
Senator Foreman said, "There's only a couple of substantive changes there. And the language concerning daycare facilities was entirely struck from the bill. A licensed daycare facility is now considered a business as per the bill."
Senator Foreman also noted that the daycare exemption, which sparked confusion earlier this week, has been removed. The revised bill originally included a line that would have exempted daycares from being subject to the same medical mandate restrictions as other businesses, raising concerns among activists like Brian Festa, who testified in front of the committee on Wednesday.
"The first version of the bill wasn't perfect, but it was a lot better than the amended version," said Festa, with We the Patriots USA. "The good news is, that language is taken out. So, I think it's a great bill. Honestly, it would provide the strongest protections for health freedom in the entire United States."
Opponents, such as Democratic Senator James Ruchti, who voted against the original bill, plan to do so again.
"I think it violates the principle of local control. It intervenes in the rights of businesses to run those businesses in a way that they think is safe and proper," Ruchti said.
