Testimony of Leslie Manookian on the Idaho Medical Freedom Act

Senate State Affairs Committee

February 5, 2025

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee:

My name is Leslie Manookian. Although I am the founder of a nationally recognized nonprofit, I am here in my personal capacity as a long-time resident of Idaho. My family moved here in 1976 when I was twelve and I’ve called Idaho home ever since. Growing up, I could have never imagined that Idaho would become a place that locked its people down, forced citizens to cover their faces, stand on floor markers 6 feet apart, or produce proof of vaccination in order to enter a venue or business, but that is exactly what happened. Idahoans lost their jobs, suffered isolation and mental health issues, were denied participation in normal society, and dozens even died - all on the basis of empty promises, if not outright dishonesty. These are the reasons I am here today, because I want Idaho to lead the nation in ensuring that such intrusive and authoritarian infringements never happen again and in recognizing that no right is more fundamental than the right to choose what medical interventions we accept.

This right, medical freedom, is foundational to our nation, our Constitution, and our shared human dignity. The Idaho Medical Freedom Act, sponsored by Senator Dan Foreman, would restore this ethical principle in Idaho and ensure that Idaho stands as a beacon of liberty in declaring that no individual will be coerced into receiving a medical intervention against their will, with the exception of those organizations which receive CMS funds. It ensures that employment, education, entertainment, and public participation remain accessible to all, regardless of their medical choices.

The right to bodily autonomy is enshrined in the very fabric of the American legal system. The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the American ideal that individuals have the right to make deeply personal medical decisions without interference or coercion.

The Constitutional Foundation of Medical Freedom

The principle of bodily autonomy is so deeply embedded in American jurisprudence that even forced medical procedures in the name of law enforcement have been struck down as unconstitutional. In Rochin v. California (1952), the Court ruled that forcibly pumping a suspect’s stomach to retrieve evidence was a violation of bodily integrity.

In Griswold vs. Connecticut (1965), the Supreme Court ruled that every American enjoys a zone of privacy around them into which the state may not intrude.

In Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health (1990), the Court held that “a competent person has a constitutionally protected liberty interest in refusing unwanted medical treatment.” This ruling reaffirmed that the right to refuse medical intervention is not a privilege—it is a fundamental right.

In Washington vs. Harper 1990, the Court ruled that even prisoners have a liberty interest in refusing unwanted medical interventions unless they pose a threat to themselves or others due to their mental state.

Finally, in Washington v. Glucksberg (1997), the Court reaffirmed the fundamental nature of deeply personal medical decisions, recognizing that autonomy over one’s body is an essential aspect of liberty.

The right to make one’s own medical decisions is not granted by the government. It is not a privilege subject to approval. It is a sacred, God-given, inalienable right, woven into the very fabric of our constitutional republic. And it is a right that has been consistently upheld by our Supreme Court. This bill is in no way radical, it is merely a codification of our basic human rights.

This right is as fundamental to a free and just society as are our cherished rights to freedom of expression, religion and assembly. I would argue it is the most basic human right because absent the right to control what medical interventions we allow into and onto our bodies, what meaningful rights do we truly have? I care not about my speech if my body and the direction of my health do not belong to me.

Furthermore, if the government may not force a person to undergo a medical procedure for the sake of another, how then can we justify forcing individuals to accept medical interventions to participate in society?

The Dangers of Medical Coercion

When we allow medical coercion—whether by the government, employers, or businesses—we set a dangerous precedent and history has shown us that whenever bodily autonomy is sacrificed for the greater good, injustice follows. Just consider, for a moment, how those engaged in worship outdoors in northern Idaho during Covid were arrested. Or how the family whose newborn baby was kidnapped by hospital staff and CPS when the parents declined a hepatitis B shot in the first few days after birth, although hepatitis B is a disease for which only IV drug users and the sexually promiscuous are at risk.

Consider the Supreme Court case of Buck v. Bell (1927), in which the Supreme Court upheld the forced sterilization of individuals deemed “unfit” to reproduce. In his opinion, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, “Three Generations of Imbeciles are Enough” – all for the greater good of society, of course. That decision, later recognized as a moral stain on our society, serves as a grim reminder of what happens when government is given power over personal medical decisions.

It is a slippery slope when we allow even well-intentioned policies to infringe upon individual rights. The Idaho Medical Freedom Act ensures that such infringements will not happen in our great state. It ensures that no business, school, or government entity may force an individual to choose between a medical intervention and their livelihood, education, or access to public life.

What This Bill Protects

Under this act, no individual may be:

• Denied employment or forced to undergo a medical intervention as a condition of employment, except in very limited circumstances involving federally funded entities.

• Excluded from schools or universities for their personal and private medical decisions.

• Refused entry into public buildings or services due to their medical choices.

• Discriminated against based on their medical choices.

Addressing the Public Health Argument

Some may argue that public health concerns justify medical mandates. But our freedom is not conditional. Our Constitution does not grant rights that are subject to the whims of fear or political pressure. It guarantees them outright. The Covid era serves as a stark reminder of what happens when we sacrifice our principles due to fear, pressure, or money.

Public health should be restricted to public concerns such as controlling waste in our public spaces or effluent from businesses. The intrusion of public health into our intimate private health matters must never be tolerated again and was never envisioned when public health laws were originally enacted.

Nowhere in state or federal law do we find the power or authority to dictate personal medical choices, but during recent years, the scope of public health has been increasingly and alarmingly construed to include private health. This must be stopped.

The Role of Informed Consent

At the heart of medical freedom, is the ethical principle of informed consent—a pillar of modern medical ethics. It has been universally acknowledged that every individual has the right to evaluate the risks and benefits prior to any medical intervention and to make a voluntary decision which means free of any type of coercion.

The Nuremberg Code, established after the horrors of forced medical experimentation under the Nazis wisely and resolutely determined that voluntary consent is “absolutely essential” in medical decision-making. This principle is echoed in international law and treaties such as the Declaration of Helsinki, the US Belmont Report, and UNESCO’s Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights in more recent decades.

When a person is forced to undergo a medical intervention under threat of losing their job, education, or public services, that is not consent—it is coercion and it does not belong in a free or just society.

My dear family friend, Doug Cameron, is here today. Doug was a vital and fit man until he was catastrophically injured and paralyzed by the Covid shot which his employer pushed on him due to his employer’s fear. That employer fired Doug after Doug was disabled by the shot as he was no longer able to do his job as well. Doug’s employer has since passed away but Doug will have to live the rest of his life in a wheelchair for a medical intervention he categorically did not want.

This must never be allowed to happen again.

Time to Codify Medical Freedom

I urge you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee to vote yes on S-1023. Medical freedom should not be a partisan issue. This is not about whether you personally choose to accept or decline a medical intervention. This is about the fundamental right of every individual to make that decision for themselves. Idaho already banned Covid shot mandates in the Coronavirus stop act, why should we treat any other medical intervention any different?

If we fail to defend this principle now, what comes next? Will someone decide we need to be chipped to participate in society? Will an employer require us to alter our DNA to enhance our productivity? Will we be barred from society if we don’t take some pill or injection? If we accept the idea that bodily autonomy can be sacrificed for the “greater good,” where do we draw the line?

I ask you to consider: Do we want to live in a society where other people, entities, or organizations have the power to dictate what medical interventions we receive or do we want to live in a society where individual choice is not just respected but held sacred, and where medical freedom is upheld as an inviolable human right?

I believe in the latter. I believe in freedom. And I believe that this bill is necessary to protect that freedom.

I urge you all to support the Idaho Medical Freedom Act—because Idaho rejects coercion. Because we recognize that no one—no employer, no business, no government—has the right to override the personal medical decisions of an individual or to condition our lives on them. Because no one else knows our medical background or health needs. And because no one else has to live with the consequences of our medical choices.

Let us stand for liberty. Let us stand for bodily autonomy. And let us ensure that Idaho remains a state where medical freedom is not negotiable—because in a free society, it is not a privilege, it is a human right. S-1023 will enshrine this most sacred and basic human right in law.

Originally posted on lesliemanookian.com.