Article posted with permission from the author, Suzanne Hamner
Vaccine mandates – a violation that continues to be forced upon a free people, particularly school-aged children, under the guise of “protecting all from dis-ease” without proper informed consent, despite all States having specific informed consent laws. With the National Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 removing all pharmaceutical company liability from harm caused by their products and the States mandating vaccination for children attending the government brainwashing/indoctrination centers, informed consent laws were invalidated for this medical intervention while parents’ children were punished for exercising the right to choose by denying entry into government brainwashing/indoctrination centers (which is not a bad thing, but many think it is). According to The Epoch Times, a coalition composed of 15 groups, including Children’s Health Defense and members of the Medical Freedom Coalition, are seeking to take aim at vaccine and mask mandates across the united States through urging every state “to introduce and pass medical freedom bills”.
“I think it’s the first time we’ve seen this kind of effort in the kind of freedom and health movement,” Leslie Manookian, who founded the Health Freedom Defense Fund, told The Epoch Times.
The model state is Idaho, which in 2025 enacted a law that prohibits businesses and schools from requiring customers, employees, and students receive vaccines or other medical procedures. Manookian helped write the legislation, called the Idaho Medical Freedom Act.
The Idaho legislation that was passed can be read here.
While there are those celebrating the Idaho legislation, calling it a “medical freedom act”, the legislation has carved out exceptions and totally ignores the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution for the united States of America – “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” God-given rights covered in this highly overlooked amendment include, but are not limited to, the right to informed consent, the right to choose, and the right of parents to determine any medical interventions to be performed on their children. Remember, vaccine mandates not only affect children, but adults as well. Many believe this Idaho legislation removes certain mandates; however, the exceptions cited in the legislation still subject many to vaccine mandates.
One exception in the legislation includes business entities that receive Medicare or Medicaid funding. This could include hospitals, doctors whose practice is owned by the hospital, doctors who receive reimbursement from Medicare or Medicaid for some patients served, home health and hospice agencies, and other health care services that receive reimbursement from Medicare or Medicaid, which could include government programs such as Head Start and early education programs.
Another exception carved out is for business entities where employees are traveling to “foreign jurisdictions”, which is defined as “any state, commonwealth, country, or nation outside the State of Idaho”.
All businesses may continue to issue vaccine mandates when required by federal law. Moreover, when required by federal law, state, county and local officials “shall” require individuals to receive medical intervention, which includes vaccines. Medical interventions can also be imposed, when required by federal law, for receipt of government benefits and services; receipt of any government-issued license or permit; entrance into any public building; use of public transportation; or, a term of employment, “provided that such entities that receive Medicare or Medicaid funding shall be exempt from the requirements of this paragraph.”
The prohibitions of this piece of legislation do not apply to a situation where personal protective equipment (PPE), items, or clothing are required by a business entity in the public or private sectors based on existing traditional and accepted industry standards or federal law. And it does not apply to any vaccines, mask mandates or other medical interventions introduced during the CONvid-1984 planned scam-demic.
What are the “existing traditional and accepted industry standards for PPE, items or clothing? Would those “standards” be ones prior to the CONvid-1984 planned scam-demic or afterward? Who determines those “standards”?
How does this protect babies, infants and young children under school age from childhood vaccine mandates or mask mandates? In this writer’s opinion, it doesn’t. Remember, the legislation states “does not apply to ANY vaccines, mask mandates or other medical interventions introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic”. It says “introduced during”, not “introduced for”, and any vaccines means “any”, which would be new vaccines, not just CONvid-1984 planned scam-demic injections. It also means “any mask mandates or any other medical interventions”.
The Idaho legislation amended 73-503 to include “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, 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; sections 33-205 and 33-512 (7), Idaho code. For the purposes of this subsection, private and parochial schools shall be considered as having the same authority as school districts under section 33-512 (7), Idaho code.”
Pertinent to this particular section of the Idaho legislation is the Idaho Parental Rights Act, Idaho code 32-1013, 32-1014, and 32-1015.
32-1013. INTERFERENCE WITH FUNDAMENTAL PARENTAL RIGHTS RESTRICTED. (1) Neither the state of Idaho, nor any political subdivision thereof, may violate a parent’s fundamental and established rights protected by this act, and any restriction of or interference with such rights shall not be upheld unless it demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the restriction or interference is both:
(a) Essential to further a compelling governmental interest; and
(b) The least restrictive means available for the furthering of that compelling governmental interest.
(2) The foregoing principles apply to any interference whether now existing or hereafter enacted.
….
So, the state of Idaho or any political subdivision can violate a parent’s rights when it is essential to furthering a compelling government interest with the least restrictive means available when the principles apply to any interference currently existing or hereafter enacted.
What compelling government interest would override parents’ God-given unalienable right to make choices on behalf of their minor children? That is not defined nor is it established who decides what a compelling government interest entails. Who decides when this applies?
This comes almost straight from the Michael Farris Parental Rights Amendment from parentalrights.org. Remember, “fundamental and established rights” are not the same as God-given unalienable rights. “Fundamental and established rights” are the terms for “government issued and approved”.
Parents’ rights are not secured by section 32-1013.
Under Idaho code 32-1014, it states:
32-1014. EMERGENCY ORDER NOT JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH PARENTAL RIGHTS. At no time shall the existence of any order, proclamation, or declaration issued pursuant to chapter 6 or 10, title 46, Idaho Code, be considered essential to further a compelling governmental interest to justify:
(1) Forced medical action on a child;
(2) Forced removal of a child from the home; or
(3) The violation of or interference with a parent’s fundamental and established rights protected by the Idaho parental rights act.
Title 46 covers authority over militia and military affairs. Chapter 6 covers the governor’s authority under militia and military affairs when it comes to a state of extreme emergency. Chapter 10 involves the state disaster preparedness act. It appears the existence of any order, proclamation or declaration by the governor is not enough to establish a compelling government interest. But, it does not declare what IS needed in addition to the order to establish a compelling government interest or override the Idaho Parental Rights Act.
The Idaho code 32-1015 has the following little caveat inserted.
(3) Except as otherwise provided by court order, an individual shall not furnish a health care service or solicit to furnish a health care service to a minor child without obtaining the prior consent of the minor child’s parent.
(4) Subsection (3) of this section shall not apply, and a health care provider may authorize or furnish a health care service without obtaining the informed consent of the minor child’s parent, if:
(a) A parent of the minor child has given blanket consent authorizing the health care provider to furnish the health care service; or
(b) The health care provider reasonably determines that a medical emergency exists and:
- (i) Furnishing the health care service is necessary in order to prevent death or imminent, irreparable physical injury to the minor child; or
(ii) After a reasonably diligent effort, the health care provider cannot locate or contact a parent of the minor child and the minor child’s life or health would be seriously endangered by further delay in the furnishing of health care services. [Emphasis mine]
According to this section of the Idaho Parental Rights Act, a court order can be obtained to overrule parents’ decisions and a health care provider can furnish and authorize a health care service IF the parents have given “blanket consent”.
What is “blanket consent”? Unfortunately, that is not defined and open to interpretation. It could be as simple as signing a document consenting for a health care provider to examine your child, which is “furnishing a health care service”. Recall that in the case of Grace Schara, the judge indicated there was an “implied consent” to treatments when signing a form for hospital admission. This “blanket consent” could be used by the physician to justify vaccination of minor children.
Technically, this piece of legislation does not remove all mandates as the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare indicated to The Epoch Times.
The Idaho Medical Freedom Act says in part that a school “shall not mandate a medical intervention for any person to attend, enter campus or buildings, or be employed.” It also says that a business “shall not refuse to provide any service, product, admission to a venue, or transportation to a person because that person has or has not received or used a medical intervention.”
But according to the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare (DHW), parents are required to have their children vaccinated against certain diseases for school and daycare attendance in Idaho. [“required” means “mandated”]
The department points to another law that outlines vaccine requirements for children.
“DHW encourages school districts to consider the Medical Freedom Act … when implementing vaccine requirements at schools,” a spokesperson told The Epoch Times in an email.
While Idaho code 39-4804, Section 2 (c) states immunizations (vaccines) are not mandatory and may be refused on religious or other grounds, DHW states parents are required to vaccinate their children against certain diseases for school and daycare attendance.
The devil is always in the details. While this legislation, former Senate bill 1210 which was enacted, prohibited schools from mandating medical interventions, and it clearly stated that “unless required by federal law, no state, county, or local government entity or official in Idaho shall require any person to receive or use a medical intervention”, which would include vaccinations, the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare (DHW) maintains vaccine mandates continue to exist for children to attend government brainwashing/indoctrination centers, falsely called schools, and daycare centers.
Does this mean the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare is a federal organization in the State operating under a federal law? Is the Idaho DHW exercising the “compelling government interest” in order to mandate vaccines for children in order to attend daycare centers and government brainwashing/indoctrination centers, aka schools?
If this supposed Medical Freedom Act in Idaho is the “model”, this is a poor model to support and attempt to implement in other States.
This is the deception of the “medical freedom” movement, the MAHA agenda, and parental rights amendment. Nothing about any of this protects and defends medical freedom or God-given unalienable rights of parents. Somehow, slick tongued devils have convinced the gullible that legislation is needed to protect, defend, and maintain freedoms and rights given by God to the people already recognized, protected, and guaranteed by the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution for the united States of America. Because our rights given by God are innumerable (too many to list), the Ninth Amendment covers all those not explicitly outlined in the First through Eighth Amendments.
Those who bought into the deception and pushed for these unconstitutional pieces of garbage legislation have limited the rights of parents and everyone else and done nothing to protect medical freedom. Caveats have been carved out carefully for the State(s) to continue the status quo.
You know the old saying, “fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me”? It appears the majority of the American public has gone WAY past “shame on me”. The majority of the American public continues to demonstrate themselves as fools, since they have not learned that government has strayed from its constitutional restraints because we the people failed to hold those in government to the Constitution. As a result, the government keeps feeding we the people the rope so we will have enough with which to hang ourselves. So far, it’s working as we continue to forfeit rights and liberties for the falsities peddled by silver-tongued devils and supported by those who have been deceived. It seems the majority of American will have to learn the hard way through the school of hard knocks, which is a well-earned education when fools will learn no other way.
Landmark $2 Million Trans Surgery Verdict Marks a Turning Point
Cartels Use Animal Tranquilizer Produced in China to Make Fentanyl More Addictive
Las Vegas Neighborhood Shaken by Suspected Illegal Biolab
But according to the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare (DHW), parents are required to have their children vaccinated against certain diseases for school and daycare attendance in Idaho.
The department points to another law that outlines vaccine requirements for children.
“DHW encourages school districts to consider the Medical Freedom Act … when implementing vaccine requirements at schools,” a spokesperson told The Epoch Times in an email.
Article posted with permission from Sons of Liberty Media
