Category: Politics

  • Oppose SB1380 A Threat to Transparency and Accountability

    CTA SB 1380 MUST BE STOPPED‼️ We have 1 chance to stop this bill. It will likely be heard on the house floor on Monday. This bill creates a new agency It expands beyond legislative or judicial oversight with the ombudsman for health and human services appointed by the governor (not elected by the people). This bill threatens transparency and accountability by allowing the ombudsman to operate in secrecy, shielded from public scrutiny. Act now to defend our rights and demand accountability from our representatives.

    Send an email today urging them to oppose SB 1380 and protect our freedoms!

    HFI is very familiar with the problem we face with Idaho CPS and helps parents regularly. Educational information attached below.

    ~CPS is used as the stick to coerce parents into medical treatments including vaccines.
    ~CPS medically kidnaps our children if we decide to explore other treatment options.
    ~CPS steals our children under the guise of medical neglect when the parent takes their babies into the hospital for care.

    ***This is outrageous and should not be tolerated but SB 1380 is not the solution and will only create more of a problem.

    You should read the 5 page bill.

    We will focus on a few key points.

    1.) SB 1380 grows the executive branch by creating a new self-governing agency with an ombudsman for health and human services appointed by the governor. See 67-2601. It will operate independently of the legislature, the courts, the H&W Dept and any other state agency or department. See 56-1902 (1).

    2.) SB 1380 protects the ombudsman from redress by the citizens of Idaho. See 56-1906.
    It states that an individual who willfully interferes with or impedes the ombudsman in the performance of their duties will face a fine of up to $1,000 and up to 6 months in jail.
    They may explain this away as being intended to not hinder the work of the ombudsman but will undoubtedly be used against the people to impede the exercise of our 1st amendment rights.

    3.) SB 1380 allows the ombudsman to operate in secrecy and makes them untouchable by protecting them from public records requests. See 56-1908.

    ❌You can’t fix BAD government with MORE government.

    🤔Why is a supposedly conservative legislature attempting to grow the executive branch?

    Read the bill:
    👉🏼 https://legislature.idaho.gov/sessioninfo/2024/legislation/S1380/

    IFF rates the bill -3:
    👉🏼 https://idahofreedom.org/senate-bill-1380-health-social-services-ombudsman/

    Email ALL of the Representatives:
    👉🏼 https://hfi.designbyparrish.com/2024-representatives/

    CPS info including Miste’s presentation about what to do if CPS shows up at your door:
    👉🏼 https://hfi.designbyparrish.com/the-corrupt-business-of-cps

    To avoid spam filters on the Legislative email system, it’s best to email representatives in groups. Simply compose your email, make duplicate copies, and send each copy to different groups of legislators. This ensures they receive your email without it being caught in a spam filter.

    GROUP1

    JAlfieri@house.idaho.gov, CAllgood@house.idaho.gov, KAndrus@house.idaho.gov, VBar@house.idaho.gov, SBerch@house.idaho.gov, MBlanksma@house.idaho.gov, JBoyle@house.idaho.gov, MBundy@house.idaho.gov, NBurns@house.idaho.gov, 

    GROUP 2

    DCannon@house.idaho.gov, RCheatum@house.idaho.gov, SChew@house.idaho.gov, mwilson@house.idaho.gov, LClow@house.idaho.gov, JCornilles@house.idaho.gov, BCrane@house.idaho.gov, JCrane@house.idaho.gov, CDixon@house.idaho.gov, SDixon@house.idaho.gov

    GROUP 3

    MDurrant@house.idaho.gov, BEhardt@house.idaho.gov, JEhlers@house.idaho.gov, Erickson@house.idaho.gov, RFurniss@house.idaho.gov, SGalaviz@house.idaho.gov, JGallagher@house.idaho.gov, JGannon@house.idaho.gov, DGarner@house.idaho.gov, BGreen@house.idaho.gov,

    GROUP 4

    CHandy@house.idaho.gov, DHawkins@house.idaho.gov, DHealey@house.idaho.gov, THill@house.idaho.gov, JHoltzclaw@house.idaho.gov, WendyHorman@house.idaho.gov,  MKingsley@house.idaho.gov, TLambert@house.idaho.gov, GLanting@house.idaho.gov,  DManwaring@house.idaho.gov,

    GROUP 5

    CMathias@house.idaho.gov, LMcCann@house.idaho.gov, RMendive@house.idaho.gov, SMickelsen@house.idaho.gov, SMiller@house.idaho.gov, BMitchell@house.idaho.gov, JMonks@house.idaho.gov, MMoyle@house.idaho.gov, CNash@house.idaho.gov, LNecochea@house.idaho.gov, JNelsen@house.idaho.gov, JPalmer@house.idaho.gov, JPetzke@house.idaho.gov, DPickett@house.idaho.gov, 

    GROUP 6

    EPrice@house.idaho.gov, BRaybould@house.idaho.gov, JRaymond@house.idaho.gov, JRedman@house.idaho.gov, NRoberts@house.idaho.gov, IRubel@house.idaho.gov, MSauter@house.idaho.gov, HScott@house.idaho.gov, CShepherd@house.idaho.gov, BSkaug@house.idaho.gov, JTanner@house.idaho.gov
    JVanderWoude@house.idaho.gov, JWeber@house.idaho.gov, JoshWheeler@house.idaho.gov, TWisniewski@house.idaho.gov, KWroten@house.idaho.gov, JYamamoto@house.idaho.gov, JYoung@house.idaho.gov,

  • Oppose H653 Do Not Protect Profit Over People

    If enacted, this H653 would absolve pesticide manufacturers of any accountability for harm caused by their products, regardless of the evidence of harm. Just two weeks ago, this crucial bill was defeated by a full Senate vote. Yet now, it resurfaces under a different number. Why the sleight of hand? To shield manufacturers from the repercussions of their unsafe products, placing profit above safety. Supported by Bayer, the company behind Monsanto’s Roundup, which has been embroiled in countless lawsuits due to its glyphosate-containing herbicide. Despite a staggering $10.9 billion settlement in 2020, H 653 seeks to grant sweeping legal immunity to pesticide manufacturers.

    We staunchly oppose this bill as it blatantly disregards public health in favor of protecting corporate interests.

    “If we have learned anything over these past few years, it is to not blindly trust the so-called experts; the mere fact that something has been designated as EPA compliant does not mean it isn’t causing cancer. I am hopeful that, with the preservation of the common citizen’s right to his day in court, the truth of actual health impacts will organically come to light through evidentiary proceedings.

    – Ben Toews Idaho State Senator District 4 (about the previous immunity granting bill sb1245 voted down in the Senate.)

    TAKE ACTION!

    SEND EMAILS TO ALL THE SENATORS

    Then the bill will be heard in the HOUSE BUSINESS COMMITTEE

    Do you have more to say on this bill?
    Send a personal email to the committee members:

    LClow@house.idaho.gov, JCrane@house.idaho.gov, BCrane@house.idaho.gov, JPalmer@house.idaho.gov, VBar@house.idaho.gov, SDixon@house.idaho.gov, KAndrus@house.idaho.gov, RFurniss@house.idaho.gov, BMitchell@house.idaho.gov, JCornilles@house.idaho.gov, JEhlers@house.idaho.gov, GLanting@house.idaho.gov, JPetzke@house.idaho.gov, JRedman@house.idaho.gov, SBerch@house.idaho.gov, BGreen@house.idaho.gov, IRubel@house.idaho.gov

    BAYER IS IN THE WRONG AND THEY ARE TRYING TO LEGISLATE IMMUNITY

    Granting immunity to large corporations through legislation is a betrayal of justice. When profit is prioritized over human life, accountability and informed consent is abandoned. Let’s demand that companies prioritize safety over dollars and uphold the sanctity of every individual’s well-being.

    Miste Karlfeldt, Health Freedom Idaho

    Bayer, which acquired Monsanto in 2018, has faced numerous lawsuits related to its product Roundup, which contains the herbicide glyphosate. In June 2020, Bayer agreed to a settlement of $10.9 billion to resolve about 125,000 lawsuits related to Roundup23. The settlement was intended to resolve approximately 75% of the claims made against the company, with individual plaintiffs estimated to receive between $5,000 to $250,000, depending on their circumstances and the strength of their cases.

    The bill would eliminate the ability for Idaho farmers, farmworkers, landscapers, neighbors, or others to participate in these suits. Instead, Idaho taxpayers, insurance companies, and individuals would be responsible for covering the costs associated with these damages. Local research in Idaho has shown elevated levels of pesticides in pregnant women who live close to agricultural fields.

    The studies found a correlation between agricultural pesticides and cancer in Western states, including Idaho23. The specific pesticides and their effects may vary, as one study highlighted a strong connection between the fumigant pesticide metam sodium and total cancer rate4. –Read More Here

    Communities with larger populations, such as Caldwell and Nampa, are also exposed to cancer-causing chemicals. A study conducted in Idaho revealed an increased occurrence of cancer linked to pesticide exposure. Consequently, the threat extends beyond rural areas to impact urban residents, where neighborhoods often border agricultural fields. Recent reports highlight that individuals living in Nampa and Caldwell are exposed to these chemicals simply by residing near these fields.

    Testimony from Senator Brian Lenny

    Idaho’s has a bill on deck that basically throws a giant, indestructible shield around Big Pharma, (in this case, Bayer) RE: their cash cow, glyphosate in Roundup. Are you kidding me?! Where’s the accountability? Where’s the protection for the little guy… the everyday person who trusts these products are safe? Are we trading crops for cancer? Slamming the door on this one isn’t just a no; it’s a HELL NO. Corporate immunity on this level isn’t just over the top; it’s a leap into a realm where consumer safety takes a backseat to profit. And that’s a ride I’m not willing to take.

    Senator Brian Lenny

    Key Concerns:

    1. Lack of Accountability for Harmful Products: H653 essentially grants blanket immunity to pesticide manufacturers, regardless of the harmful effects their products may have on human health. This undermines the principle of corporate responsibility and leaves affected individuals without recourse for seeking justice.
    2. Health Risks Associated with Pesticide Exposure: Numerous studies have linked exposure to certain pesticides with serious health ailments, including cancer, Parkinson’s disease, and neurological disorders. By shielding manufacturers from legal consequences, H653 disregards these well-established health risks and prioritizes corporate interests over public health.
    3. International Discrepancies in Pesticide Regulation: While many countries have banned certain pesticides due to their harmful effects, the United States continues to approve their use. H653 further exacerbates this discrepancy by preventing affected individuals from seeking legal redress, thereby perpetuating a cycle of harm.
    4. Financial Implications: The bill shifts the burden of covering damages associated with pesticide exposure onto Idaho taxpayers, insurance companies, and affected individuals. This not only undermines accountability but also imposes additional financial strain on already vulnerable populations.
    5. Environmental Impact: Pesticides not only pose risks to human health but also contaminate groundwater and harm wildlife. The lack of accountability for pesticide manufacturers perpetuated by H653 exacerbates environmental degradation and threatens the long-term sustainability of Idaho’s ecosystems.

    CONTACT YOUR LEGISLATOR TO TELL THEM TO OPPOSE 1245 IMMUNITY FOR CHEMICAL COMPANIES

    In conclusion, Health Freedom Idaho urges the Idaho Legislature to reject H653. By opposing this bill, legislators can uphold the principles of public health, corporate accountability, and environmental protection. It is imperative that Idahoans retain the ability to seek legal recourse for damages caused by pesticide exposure and that pesticide manufacturers are held accountable for their actions. We stand firm in our commitment to promoting health freedom including freedom from toxins for the health and well-being of all Idaho residents.

    MORE TO READ: https://hfi.designbyparrish.com/gut-wrenching-dangers-of-glyphosate/

    RESOURCES ON PESTICIDE HARM

    The studies found a correlation between agricultural pesticides and cancer in Western states, including Idaho23. The specific pesticides and their effects may vary, as one study highlighted a strong connection between the fumigant pesticide metam sodium and total cancer rate4.

    https://www.uidaho.edu/news/news-articles/news-releases/2022/062122-chemicals-cancer

    https://idahocapitalsun.com/2022/07/08/university-of-idaho-researchers-find-correlation-between-pesticides-and-cancer/

    Research conducted by Boise State University, as reported in various sources. The study found that pregnant women living near agricultural fields in southern Idaho had significantly increased concentrations of the pesticide glyphosate in their urine, especially during the spraying season. The research team collected 453 urine samples biweekly from 40 pregnant women for this study24.

    Several countries have banned or restricted the use of glyphosate due to health concerns. Some of these countries include:

    1. Austria: The Austrian parliament voted unanimously on a partial ban of glyphosate, prohibiting its use on “sensitive” areas and for private use13.
    2. Belgium: Banned the individual use of glyphosate3.
    3. Germany: Has banned glyphosate in public spaces and plans a total ban by 202424.
    4. France, the Netherlands, and Belgium: Glyphosate is banned for household use2.
    5. Mexico: The Supreme Court denied appeals from major agrichemical corporations, affirming the country’s glyphosate ban14.
    6. Vietnam: Is the only country in Asia to have fully banned the use of glyphosate15.

    These bans and restrictions are often due to concerns about the potential link between glyphosate and health issues, including cancer and environmental impact

  • CPS Notification S1232 Passed!

    S1232 WAS SIGNED INTO LAW EFFECTIVE JULY 2024


    This legislation creates a new section in the Idaho Code to provide for the notification of parents or guardians of their legal rights concerning child protection investigations.

    This law will require that child protective services workers to inform parents of their legal rights before interviewing them.

  • S1287 should be amended

    Both the US and Idaho Constitutions exist to protect the rights of the people by CONSTRAINING government. The government has no rights –  only people do. This bill would grant the legislature the authority to do ALL things which is unconstitutional as per Article 1, Section 1 of the Idaho Constitution.
    THIS BILL WILL BE HEARD Feb 21, 2024, in the Senate Health and Welfare Committee.

    TAKE ACTION

    Public Testimony Will Be Taken by Registering Through the Following Link:
    Register to Testify

    TAKE A MOMENT TO CONTACT THE SENATE HEALTH AND WELFARE COMMITTEE:
    JVanOrden@senate.idaho.gov, ALee@senate.idaho.gov, MHarris@senate.idaho.gov, CBjerke@senate.idaho.gov, GZuiderveld@senate.idaho.gov, MWintrow@senate.idaho.gov, RTaylor@senate.idaho.gov,

    Listen to the Discussion:

    For members of the public to observe the meeting, please click on the following link:
    https://www.idahoptv.org/shows/idahoinsession/ww54/

    CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS

    Nowhere do the US or Idaho Constitutions say that any branch of govt has the right to dictate the health behavior of individuals. In fact, Article 1, Section 1 of the Idaho Constitution specifically states: INALIENABLE RIGHTS OF MAN. All men are by nature free and equal, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property; pursuing happiness and securing safety.

    The CDC and state health departments were created to ensure a clean environment. They do not have the power or authority to dictate individual health behavior. In fact, they were created to control contaminated, toxic or infected animals and articles and effluent, toxic emissions, and waste.

    When has IDHW EVER mandated the health behavior of Idahoans?

    IDHW has never issued individual health mandates because it does not possess the power or authority to do so.

    Senate Bill 1287 would grant the legislature the authority to do ALL things which is unconstitutional as per Article 1, Section 1 of the Idaho Constitution.

    https://legislature.idaho.gov/sessioninfo/2024/legislation/S1287/

    As written, this bill would presume to take power from the executive branch and grant it to the legislative branch but neither branch possesses that authority – both are wrong and unconstitutional.

    As written, the language now states that no mandates from HHS or IDHW will have any effect without an affirmative vote of both chambers of the Idaho legislature. Conversely, this means that with an affirmative vote, the Idaho legislature has the power to authorize ANY and ALL mandates from HHS, CDC, and IDHW. This is patently absurd.

    Proposal

    1) We support subsection (1) of what would be the new §39-7301, but not subsections (2) and (3).

    2) We believe the remaining subsections (2) and (3) of SB 1287 violate the Idaho Constitution and confer authority to the Idaho legislature which it cannot possess, and as such, should be stricken.

    3) We would support a bill using the following language:

    United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and World Health Organization; Jurisdiction.  The United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization shall have no jurisdiction in Idaho. The state and its political subdivisions, including, but not limited to counties, cities, towns, precincts, water districts, school districts, school administrative units, or quasi-public entities, shall not engage in the enforcement of, or any collaboration with the enforcement of, any requirements, mandates, recommendations, instructions or guidance provided by either organization. Furthermore, any requirements, mandates, recommendations, instructions, or guidance by either organization shall not be used in this state to justify any mask, vaccine or medical testing requirements and shall have no force or effect in Idaho.

  • 2024 Representatives

    To avoid spam filters on the Legislative email system, it’s best to email representatives in groups. Simply compose your email, make duplicate copies, and send each copy to different groups of legislators. This ensures they receive your email without it being caught in a spam filter.

    GROUP1

    JAlfieri@house.idaho.gov, CAllgood@house.idaho.gov, KAndrus@house.idaho.gov, VBar@house.idaho.gov, SBerch@house.idaho.gov, MBlanksma@house.idaho.gov, JBoyle@house.idaho.gov, MBundy@house.idaho.gov, NBurns@house.idaho.gov, 

    GROUP 2

    DCannon@house.idaho.gov, RCheatum@house.idaho.gov, SChew@house.idaho.gov, mwilson@house.idaho.gov, LClow@house.idaho.gov, JCornilles@house.idaho.gov, BCrane@house.idaho.gov, JCrane@house.idaho.gov, CDixon@house.idaho.gov, SDixon@house.idaho.gov

    GROUP 3

    MDurrant@house.idaho.gov, BEhardt@house.idaho.gov, JEhlers@house.idaho.gov, Erickson@house.idaho.gov, RFurniss@house.idaho.gov, SGalaviz@house.idaho.gov, JGallagher@house.idaho.gov, JGannon@house.idaho.gov, DGarner@house.idaho.gov, BGreen@house.idaho.gov,

    GROUP 4

    CHandy@house.idaho.gov, DHawkins@house.idaho.gov, DHealey@house.idaho.gov, THill@house.idaho.gov, JHoltzclaw@house.idaho.gov, WendyHorman@house.idaho.gov,  MKingsley@house.idaho.gov, TLambert@house.idaho.gov, GLanting@house.idaho.gov,  DManwaring@house.idaho.gov,

    GROUP 5

    CMathias@house.idaho.gov, LMcCann@house.idaho.gov, RMendive@house.idaho.gov, SMickelsen@house.idaho.gov, SMiller@house.idaho.gov, BMitchell@house.idaho.gov, JMonks@house.idaho.gov, MMoyle@house.idaho.gov, CNash@house.idaho.gov, LNecochea@house.idaho.gov, JNelsen@house.idaho.gov, JPalmer@house.idaho.gov, JPetzke@house.idaho.gov, DPickett@house.idaho.gov, 

    GROUP 6

    EPrice@house.idaho.gov, BRaybould@house.idaho.gov, JRaymond@house.idaho.gov, JRedman@house.idaho.gov, NRoberts@house.idaho.gov, IRubel@house.idaho.gov, MSauter@house.idaho.gov, HScott@house.idaho.gov, CShepherd@house.idaho.gov, BSkaug@house.idaho.gov, JTanner@house.idaho.gov
    JVanderWoude@house.idaho.gov, JWeber@house.idaho.gov, JoshWheeler@house.idaho.gov, TWisniewski@house.idaho.gov, KWroten@house.idaho.gov, JYamamoto@house.idaho.gov, JYoung@house.idaho.gov,

    If you want to email specific individuals visit the Idaho legislature page. https://legislature.idaho.gov/house/membership/

  • HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE


    EMAILS FOR THE COMMITTEE 

    EMAIL FOR THE House State Affairs Committee

    BCrane@house.idaho.gov, JYoung@house.idaho.gov, JGannon@house.idaho.gov, CNash@house.idaho.gov, JPalmer@house.idaho.gov, VBar@house.idaho.gov, JHoltzclaw@house.idaho.gov, HScott@house.idaho.gov, KAndrus@house.idaho.gov, BSkaug@house.idaho.gov, JAlfieri@house.idaho.gov, CAllgood@house.idaho.gov

  • STOP FUTURE MASKS MANDATES IN IDAHO H493

    HFI SUPPORTS THIS BILL
    H 493 Mask mandates, prohibition Rep. Gallagher

    Feb 14 this bill passed the Committee Unanimously Approved to be heard on the House Floor!

    Now it moves to the Senate State Affairs Committee

    JGuthrie@senate.idaho.gov, TBernt@senate.idaho.gov, CWinder@senate.idaho.gov, KAnthon@senate.idaho.gov, MHarris@senate.idaho.gov, ALee@senate.idaho.gov, BToews@senate.idaho.gov, MWintrow@senate.idaho.gov, JRuchti@senate.idaho.gov

    Last year a similar bill passed the House but died before it got a vote in Senate. The bill was introduced again this year and it prohibits the state government and any of its political subdivisions from mandating the use of a face mask, face shield, or other face covering to prevent the spread of disease even in the state of emergency. Political subdivisions include county and city governments, school districts, and public health districts, but does not include hospitals or health care facilities.


    “The government doesn’t have the right to tell the people how to care for their bodies during times of sickness or health because the government doesn’t have rights, the people do.
    When it comes to requiring masks the government must be constrained from infringing on people’s natural rights like it did during the Covid debacle.”

    Miste Karlfeldt

    Government was instituted to protect the inherent rights of the people. Those rights include how people choose to care for themselves. Illness and risk are part of life. Each person is responsible for deciding how to handle them. The government has no authority over our health decisions. Each person is sovereign, with bodily autonomy. Forcing a medical procedure or medical device on a person is a violation of their autonomy and inherent right of self-determination. Masks are dangerous and ineffective at preventing the spread of disease. But regardless of efficacy, forcing them on the people is tyrannical and a completely unacceptable overreach.

    Sarah Clendenon

    We remember the mask mandates which recently blanketed our cities and counties, many which carried the possibility of fines and imprisonment. We remember when the city of Moscow arrested three Christians peacefully singing psalms outside without masks, and when two men were arrested in Ada County for allegedly failing to appear in court when they would not mask up while trying to perform their duty of entering the courthouse. We remember witnessing a litany of abuses of power on a shocking scale with our own eyes, and we will not return to sleep.

    Not only did the mandates constitute a basic violation of individual liberty, but citizens were justified in feeling insulted as well. The CDC which we were told to blindly obey has waffled on the effectiveness of masks. It is very easy to get mechanistic studies to say whatever one wants by failing to control for any one of hundreds of variables; however, randomized controlled trials, the gold standard of effectiveness research, clearly indicate that masking doesn’t work. Evidence on a policy scale also shows that mandates don’t work.

    The fact that mandates tended to allow masks of very low quality raises questions as to what the actual goal was. The required “coverings” undoubtedly resulted in a moist petri dish on one’s face, with the expected consequences. The emotional toll it took on children should have been a consideration along with the impact on their mental health and social development. Avoiding the many cognitive and health issues associated with cortisol levels increased by mask-induced mouth-breathing should also have been considered. The list of severe concerns goes on. Keeping in mind the utter confusion of the whole ordeal, it is understandable that many wondered if this effort to occlude the human face was not below the surface a more fundamental attempt to obscure the image of God with which we were made, and the requirement to blindly obey not a precursor to something worse.

    Overall, no matter the rationale of various mandates, I have already been given ample evidence not to put too much trust in government, and I also believe that those coercive policies are outside the valid role of government. House Bill 493 responds to this reality by prohibiting government entities from mandating masks, with the exception of vocations where it is already integral to wear them. Local jurisdictions retain all powers that would not infringe on the individual’s rights. This legislation has my full support.

    Ben Toews Idaho State Senator District 4

    TALKING POINTS:

    **1. Effectiveness of Surgical Masks:**

    The efficacy of surgical masks remains inconclusive despite widespread belief in their effectiveness. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have struggled to provide definitive conclusions, with cumulative reviews highlighting the limitations of available evidence

    **2. Hazards of Wearing a Mask:**

    Wearing masks may inadvertently create conducive environments for the proliferation of pathogens, as increased sweating around the mouth can encourage bacterial survival. Additionally, prolonged mask-wearing, especially among children, poses risks to respiratory health, including discomfort, skin irritation, and breathing difficulties.

    **3. Psychological and Societal Impacts:**
    The psychological and societal impacts of prolonged mask use cannot be overlooked. Studies suggest that extended mask-wearing can lead to mental fatigue, decreased cognitive performance, and heightened psychological distress, particularly among vulnerable populations. The imposition of mask mandates may exacerbate existing disparities and contribute to societal tension.

    **4. Ethical Considerations:**

    Mandating universal mask use raises ethical concerns regarding personal liberties and autonomy. Individuals should retain the right to make informed decisions about their health without undue government intervention. Mandates that infringe upon personal freedoms without clear evidence of benefit risk undermining trust in governmental authority and eroding social cohesion and trust in the government.

    The imposition of blanket mandates without due consideration of their limitations and potential drawbacks raises significant ethical and practical concerns. Alternative strategies, such as mask recommendations and targeted interventions, should be explored to strike a balance between public health imperatives and individual rights.

    The impact of mandating universal mask use stretches beyond mere inconvenience—it delves deep into our fundamental rights and the very essence of our humanity.

    Imagine a world where children, innocent and impressionable, are born into a reality where faces are hidden behind layers of fabric. For these little ones, learning the subtleties of social interaction becomes a daunting challenge. Their tiny minds, eager to absorb the world around them, are met with a barrier—literal and metaphorical—hindering their ability to connect, communicate, and comprehend.

    Now the tender age of four, these children struggle, stifled by masks that obscure smiles, muffle laughter, and dampen the warmth of human connection. The very fabric of their social development is frayed, as they grapple with the frustration of deciphering emotions through a veil of uncertainty.

    Concerns about long-term adverse effects of wearing masks and being surrounded by individuals in masks and its impact on children’s development warrant careful consideration.

    CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT

    Long-term mask-wearing can hinder language development, particularly among young children who rely heavily on visual cues for language acquisition. 

    • Masks obscure facial expressions and mouth movements, making it challenging for children to learn and understand speech. This impediment to clear communication may have lasting effects on language development and interpersonal skills.
    • Social Cues and Interaction: Masks obscure facial expressions, making it difficult to interpret social cues and emotions during interactions. This can lead to misunderstandings, miscommunication, and decreased social connection.
      • Prolonged exposure to masked individuals may result in diminished social skills and increased feelings of isolation, particularly among children and adolescents who are still developing social competencies.4

    But the impact doesn’t stop there. For every child forced to navigate a world where facial expressions are shrouded, a parent is agonizing over the implications. Will their child’s speech development suffer? Will they grow up lacking the essential skills to navigate the complexities of human interaction? The weight of these questions hangs heavy, as families grapple with the unforeseen consequences of mandated mask-wearing.

    And let’s not forget the toll on our collective psyche. Beyond the physical discomfort and respiratory hazards lies a deeper, more insidious threat—the erosion of trust, both in our institutions and in each other. Mandates imposed without due consideration for individual liberties sow seeds of discontent, breeding resentment and suspicion where trust once flourished.

    At its core, the debate over mask mandates transcends mere policy—it’s a battle for our autonomy, our freedom to make choices that shape our lives. We must tread carefully, mindful of the ethical implications that accompany such sweeping measures.

    For in our quest to safeguard public health, we must not sacrifice the very principles upon which our society is built—freedom, autonomy, and the unyielding belief in the inherent dignity of every individual.

  • 2024 Idaho Senate

    Send your emails to Senate this list is broken down into groups to avoid the legislature’s spam filter.

    Write your email and copy it several times changing the SEND TO group to make sure that EACH SENATOR HEARS YOU!

    Group 1

    BAdams@senate.idaho.gov
    KAnthon@senate.idaho.gov
    TBernt@senate.idaho.gov
    CBjerke@senate.idaho.gov
    VBurtenshaw@senate.idaho.gov
    CCarlson@senate.idaho.gov
    KCook@senate.idaho.gov
    LDenHartog@senate.idaho.gov
    DForeman@senate.idaho.gov
    SGrow@senate.idaho.gov
    JGuthrie@senate.idaho.gov

    GROUP 2

    MHarris@senate.idaho.gov
    Phil.Hart@senate.idaho.gov
    LHartgen@senate.idaho.gov
    SHerndon@senate.idaho.gov
    RJust@senate.idaho.gov
    TLakey@senate.idaho.gov
    ALee@senate.idaho.gov
    BLenney@senate.idaho.gov

    GROUP 3

    DLent@senate.idaho.gov
    TNichols@senate.idaho.gov
    DougO@senate.idaho.gov
    ARabe@senate.idaho.gov
    DRicks@senate.idaho.gov
    JRuchti@senate.idaho.gov
    GSchroeder@senate.idaho.gov
    CSemmelroth@senate.idaho.gov



    GROUP 4

    RTaylor@senate.idaho.gov
    BToews@senate.idaho.gov
    CTrakel@senate.idaho.gov
    JVanOrden@senate.idaho.gov
    JWardEngelking@senate.idaho.gov
    CWinder@senate.idaho.gov
    MWintrow@senate.idaho.gov
    GZuiderveld@senate.idaho.gov

  • Oppose Senate Bill 1245 and Hold Pesticide Manufacturers Accountable

    This bill aims to provide sweeping legal immunity to pesticide manufacturers. This bill, if passed, would shield pesticide manufacturers from legal accountability for any harm caused by their products, even in cases where individuals can prove direct harm from pesticide exposure. We firmly believe that this bill undermines public health.

    THIS BILL WAS DEFEATED BY A FULL SENATE VOTE 15-19-1

    An almost identical bill H653 is currently being sponsored by Representative Blanksma Health Freedom Idaho strongly opposes this bill.

    TELL LEGISLATORS TO OPPOSE 1245

    TAKE ACTION!

    SEND EMAILS TO ALL THE SENATORS

    Then the bill will be heard in the HOUSE BUSINESS COMMITTEE

    Do you have more to say on this bill?
    Send a personal email to the committee members:

    JHoltzclaw@house.idaho.gov,MBundy@house.idaho.gov, MKingsley@house.idaho.gov, TWisniewski@house.idaho.gov, JWeber@house.idaho.gov, LMcCann@house.idaho.gov, RCheatum@house.idaho.gov, DHawkins@house.idaho.gov, DHealey@house.idaho.gov, SMiller@house.idaho.gov, EPrice@house.idaho.gov, JoshWheeler@house.idaho.gov, NRoberts@house.idaho.gov, mwilson@house.idaho.gov, SChew@house.idaho.gov

    BAYER IS IN THE WRONG AND THEY ARE TRYING TO LEGISLATE IMMUNITY

    Granting immunity to large corporations through legislation is a betrayal of justice. When profit is prioritized over human life, accountability and informed consent is abandoned. Let’s demand that companies prioritize safety over dollars and uphold the sanctity of every individual’s well-being.

    Miste Karlfeldt, Health Freedom Idaho

    Bayer, which acquired Monsanto in 2018, has faced numerous lawsuits related to its product Roundup, which contains the herbicide glyphosate. In June 2020, Bayer agreed to a settlement of $10.9 billion to resolve about 125,000 lawsuits related to Roundup23. The settlement was intended to resolve approximately 75% of the claims made against the company, with individual plaintiffs estimated to receive between $5,000 to $250,000, depending on their circumstances and the strength of their cases.

    The bill would eliminate the ability for Idaho farmers, farmworkers, landscapers, neighbors, or others to participate in these suits. Instead, Idaho taxpayers, insurance companies, and individuals would be responsible for covering the costs associated with these damages. Local research in Idaho has shown elevated levels of pesticides in pregnant women who live close to agricultural fields.

    The studies found a correlation between agricultural pesticides and cancer in Western states, including Idaho23. The specific pesticides and their effects may vary, as one study highlighted a strong connection between the fumigant pesticide metam sodium and total cancer rate4. –Read More Here

    Communities with larger populations, such as Caldwell and Nampa, are also exposed to cancer-causing chemicals. A study conducted in Idaho revealed an increased occurrence of cancer linked to pesticide exposure. Consequently, the threat extends beyond rural areas to impact urban residents, where neighborhoods often border agricultural fields. Recent reports highlight that individuals living in Nampa and Caldwell are exposed to these chemicals simply by residing near these fields.

    Testimony from Senator Brian Lenny

    Idaho’s has a bill on deck that basically throws a giant, indestructible shield around Big Pharma, (in this case, Bayer) RE: their cash cow, glyphosate in Roundup. Are you kidding me?! Where’s the accountability? Where’s the protection for the little guy… the everyday person who trusts these products are safe? Are we trading crops for cancer? Slamming the door on this one isn’t just a no; it’s a HELL NO. Corporate immunity on this level isn’t just over the top; it’s a leap into a realm where consumer safety takes a backseat to profit. And that’s a ride I’m not willing to take.

    Senator Brian Lenny

    Key Concerns:

    1. Lack of Accountability for Harmful Products: SB 1245 essentially grants blanket immunity to pesticide manufacturers, regardless of the harmful effects their products may have on human health. This undermines the principle of corporate responsibility and leaves affected individuals without recourse for seeking justice.
    2. Health Risks Associated with Pesticide Exposure: Numerous studies have linked exposure to certain pesticides with serious health ailments, including cancer, Parkinson’s disease, and neurological disorders. By shielding manufacturers from legal consequences, SB 1245 disregards these well-established health risks and prioritizes corporate interests over public health.
    3. International Discrepancies in Pesticide Regulation: While many countries have banned certain pesticides due to their harmful effects, the United States continues to approve their use. SB 1245 further exacerbates this discrepancy by preventing affected individuals from seeking legal redress, thereby perpetuating a cycle of harm.
    4. Financial Implications: The bill shifts the burden of covering damages associated with pesticide exposure onto Idaho taxpayers, insurance companies, and affected individuals. This not only undermines accountability but also imposes additional financial strain on already vulnerable populations.
    5. Environmental Impact: Pesticides not only pose risks to human health but also contaminate groundwater and harm wildlife. The lack of accountability for pesticide manufacturers perpetuated by SB 1245 exacerbates environmental degradation and threatens the long-term sustainability of Idaho’s ecosystems.

    CONTACT YOUR LEGISLATOR TO TELL THEM TO OPPOSE 1245 IMMUNITY FOR CHEMICAL COMPANIES

    In conclusion, Health Freedom Idaho urges the Idaho Legislature to reject Senate Bill 1245. By opposing this bill, legislators can uphold the principles of public health, corporate accountability, and environmental protection. It is imperative that Idahoans retain the ability to seek legal recourse for damages caused by pesticide exposure and that pesticide manufacturers are held accountable for their actions. We stand firm in our commitment to promoting health freedom including freedom from toxins for the health and well-being of all Idaho residents.

    MORE TO READ: https://hfi.designbyparrish.com/gut-wrenching-dangers-of-glyphosate/

    RESOURCES ON PESTICIDE HARM

    The studies found a correlation between agricultural pesticides and cancer in Western states, including Idaho23. The specific pesticides and their effects may vary, as one study highlighted a strong connection between the fumigant pesticide metam sodium and total cancer rate4.

    https://www.uidaho.edu/news/news-articles/news-releases/2022/062122-chemicals-cancer

    https://idahocapitalsun.com/2022/07/08/university-of-idaho-researchers-find-correlation-between-pesticides-and-cancer/

    Research conducted by Boise State University, as reported in various sources. The study found that pregnant women living near agricultural fields in southern Idaho had significantly increased concentrations of the pesticide glyphosate in their urine, especially during the spraying season. The research team collected 453 urine samples biweekly from 40 pregnant women for this study24.

    Several countries have banned or restricted the use of glyphosate due to health concerns. Some of these countries include:

    1. Austria: The Austrian parliament voted unanimously on a partial ban of glyphosate, prohibiting its use on “sensitive” areas and for private use13.
    2. Belgium: Banned the individual use of glyphosate3.
    3. Germany: Has banned glyphosate in public spaces and plans a total ban by 202424.
    4. France, the Netherlands, and Belgium: Glyphosate is banned for household use2.
    5. Mexico: The Supreme Court denied appeals from major agrichemical corporations, affirming the country’s glyphosate ban14.
    6. Vietnam: Is the only country in Asia to have fully banned the use of glyphosate15.

    These bans and restrictions are often due to concerns about the potential link between glyphosate and health issues, including cancer and environmental impact

  • Health Districts Hold Unlimited Power under 39-414

    Unfortunately Idaho’s Health Code 39-414 grants staggering power to a select few, influencing every aspect of your life without you even realizing it. Imagine a world where compliance with health mandates could determine life-saving medical care access or even authorize separating families and shutting down businesses. Shocking, right? This isn’t a dystopian vision; it’s a sobering reality staring us in the face.

    👏🏻H525 passes the House! 👏🏻 Now On to the SENATE

    MARCH 12, 2024

    This bill will be heard in Committee. You can testify in person at W54 at 2 pm or register to testify remotely!

    ONCE THE BILL PASSES COMMITTEE IT HEADS TO THE SENATE

    Write your email and copy it several times changing the SEND TO group to make sure that EACH SENATOR HEARS YOU!

    Group 1

    BAdams@senate.idaho.gov
    KAnthon@senate.idaho.gov
    TBernt@senate.idaho.gov
    CBjerke@senate.idaho.gov
    VBurtenshaw@senate.idaho.gov
    CCarlson@senate.idaho.gov
    KCook@senate.idaho.gov
    LDenHartog@senate.idaho.gov
    DForeman@senate.idaho.gov
    SGrow@senate.idaho.gov
    JGuthrie@senate.idaho.gov

    GROUP 2

    MHarris@senate.idaho.gov
    Phil.Hart@senate.idaho.gov
    LHartgen@senate.idaho.gov
    SHerndon@senate.idaho.gov
    RJust@senate.idaho.gov
    TLakey@senate.idaho.gov
    ALee@senate.idaho.gov
    BLenney@senate.idaho.gov

    GROUP 3

    DLent@senate.idaho.gov
    TNichols@senate.idaho.gov
    DougO@senate.idaho.gov
    ARabe@senate.idaho.gov
    DRicks@senate.idaho.gov
    JRuchti@senate.idaho.gov
    GSchroeder@senate.idaho.gov
    CSemmelroth@senate.idaho.gov

    GROUP 4

    RTaylor@senate.idaho.gov
    BToews@senate.idaho.gov
    CTrakel@senate.idaho.gov
    JVanOrden@senate.idaho.gov
    JWardEngelking@senate.idaho.gov
    CWinder@senate.idaho.gov
    MWintrow@senate.idaho.gov
    GZuiderveld@senate.idaho.gov

    More information about the bill:
    https://hfi.designbyparrish.com/health-districts-hold-unlimited-power-under-39-414/


    H 525 would amend Section 39-414, the Idaho Code, which defines the powers and duties of the boards of Idaho’s seven health districts. The current statute says the boards have the duty to “do all things required for the preservation and protection of the public health and preventive health. …”
    Health Freedom Idaho is calling for a balanced approach of changing the wording to what is necessary is reasonable as this demands accountability. Safeguarding individual rights.

    Can you believe the power our health districts have? It’s kind of crazy how they can make decisions that affect every part of our lives. We saw how a few individuals could destroy long standing businesses and companies by from shutting down the small shops (but allowing big box stores to operate). The health districts attempted to limit our freedom to travel, our ability to attend religious services and even took away our children’s ability to play at the park and attend school.

    Ada County attempted to force mask mandates with the threat of fines and even imprisonment. https://idahofreedom.org/central-district-health-approves-jail-time-up-to-1000-fine-for-mask-non-compliance-in-ada-county/

    It was completely out of control.

    The Power to DO ALL THINGS is overly broad. Health Freedom Idaho is calling for a balanced approach of changing the wording to what is necessary is reasonable as this demands accountability. Safeguarding individual rights.

    Picture this: following health mandates could end up deciding who gets life-saving medical care or, worse, splitting up families and closing down businesses. It’s not some dystopian nightmare; it’s happening right now.

    We’re not just sitting around complaining, though. We’re rolling up our sleeves to tackle this issue in the 2024 Legislative Session. And guess what? We can’t do it alone.

    1. Contact your legislators and demand amendments to Idaho Code 39-414 that establish clear boundaries for health districts, ensuring that their actions are proportionate to the situation.
    2. Share your concerns with your friends, family, and community, encouraging them to join the cause.
    3. Stay informed and engaged with organizations and advocacy groups committed to safeguarding your rights and freedoms.

    #RestoreBalance #AccountabilityMatters #IdahoRights