Mask bill OK’d by Senate committee

BOISE — Idaho lawmakers have again advanced a bill that would ban government entities from issuing mask mandates.

On Wednesday, Senate State Affairs Committee members heard public testimony on House Bill 32. The bill would prohibit all government offices from requiring people to wear medical face masks, face shields, or other face coverings for the purpose of preventing disease spread, as previously reported by the Idaho Press. Exemptions are provided for employment in roles in which face masks are an “integral and compulsory safety component of required job duties,” such as health care and industrial professions.

The Senate State Affairs Committee members voted 7-2 to advance the legislation after it previously cleared the House State Affairs Committee and House floor.

Bill sponsor Sen. Brian Lenney, R-Nampa, argued against what he described as “government overreach and medical tyranny,” saying Idahoans are entitled to protection from oversight.

“These feelings and these sentiments about the pandemic are still with us,” Lenney said. “Although many of us suspected at the time when all these things were going on … new research has now proven what we thought all along, that much of it was pointless.”

To date, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention maintain that masking guidance is sound, with varying degrees of effectiveness depending on what kind of mask is used. While CDC guidelines on specific masking circumstances and settings have changed, research has not disproved masks as a tool that can help slow viral disease spread, with the World Health Organization issuing similar guidance to countries apart from the U.S.

Committee Chairperson Sen. Jim Guthrie, R-McCammon, expressed concerns about the bill’s lack of definition for “health care facilities” exempt from its scope, and the inclusion of public health districts as barred government entities.

“Public health districts are in the ‘health care lane,’ so to speak,” Guthrie said. “They do a lot in that arena.”

Lenney responded that his inclusion of public health districts was intentional, with no exclusions.

“They don’t get an exemption under this bill,” Lenney said. “I would include them still as a political subdivision.”

In a testimony block stretching over an hour, supporters of the bill — the majority of whom also spoke at the House committee hearing — expressed scientific distrust and personal interpretations of religious freedoms as reasons to approve the bill.

Miste Gardner-Karlfeldt read prolonged passages from the Bible’s book of Genesis. Another testifier, Garth Gaylord, refused to stop speaking after his allotted time passed and repeated warnings from Guthrie. David Pettinger dedicated his entire testimony time to repeatedly thanking the Senate for the “180 degree” change that it has experienced in the last few sessions. It is unclear what Pettinger was referring to, though the same bill last year passed the House and died in the Senate without a hearing. Several directed criticism and attacks toward the CDC and health experts. All testifiers in support came from Health Freedom Idaho, an antivaccine group that has co-staged antimask and COVID-19 protests with the Idaho Freedom Foundation, John Birch Society and antigovernment activist Ammon Bundy.

Bill opponents addressed local authority and government overreach. Kelly Packer, executive director for the Association of Idaho Cities, argued that, in the event of future disease spread, local authorities need to maintain autonomy over their dealings.

“It has nothing to do with mask mandates for us, it has everything to do with local authority to be able to manage in all circumstances, and especially emergency circumstances,” Packer said. “It’s really easy to look back in hindsight and say ‘we could have done’ and ‘we should have done,’ but moving forward, we have no idea what we’ll face. Allowing locals at the local level to protect their communities in the way that they feel is most appropriate and based on scientific data is very important.”

Those concerns were echoed by Guthrie and Assistant Minority Leader Sen. James Ruchti, D-Pocatello, who both voted against the bill on similar objections.

“I’m concerned by some of the things that are driving this discussion,” Ruchti said. “I think we very quickly assume expertise where we have none. Just because you know a little about something doesn’t mean you appreciate the full gamut of what’s trying to be accomplished, how a pandemic functions in society, and what things our greatest scientists understand and don’t understand.”

Guthrie followed suit, saying that despite his personal inhibitions toward masks, he would vote against the bill.

“I will tell you up front that I did not get vaccinated, I hated masks as much as the next guy, and I was every bit as much of a rebel as many that are out there,” Guthrie said. “But that isn’t what this is about. This isn’t about whether masks work or whether they don’t. It’s about usurping local control, and it’s about even borderline disrespect of local control.”

HB 32 now heads to the full Senate for consideration.

Schwicht may be contacted at newsroom@idahopress.com.