Last week, I watched the Senate Health & Welfare Committee spend two hours hearing testimony on House Bill 131, which would require disclosure of blood donated by individuals who have received an mRNA injection. In the end, the committee voted against the bill, with several senators expressing concerns about its logistical challenges.
Sen. Brian Lenney explained his reasons on his Substack, which I reposted at the Chronicle:
Two hours of this—scientists, blood bank reps, hard stats—convinced us: H 131 was a good idea that wouldn’t work in the real world. No test can tag mRNA-vaxed blood with certainty, and interstate flow can’t survive a lone state’s rule.
We killed it to protect Idaho’s supply, full-stop.
Rep. Chris Bruce, the bill’s sponsor, disagreed. You can watch his closing arguments and responses to questions here:
Rep. Bruce, a leukemia survivor, has received numerous blood transfusions and is well acquainted with the process. He made several strong points in his presentation, many of which critics did not address. mRNA therapy is an evolving technology, and we simply don’t know what side effects might emerge months or even years down the road. It is reckless to dismiss concerns outright by calling the technology “safe and effective” without the benefit of long-term observation.
Personally, I like the idea behind the bill, but I also understand the concerns raised by Sen. Lenney and others. If I had been in their position that evening, I honestly don’t know how I would have voted. Being a political commentator rather than an elected representative gives me much more freedom of opinion than those who must actually make these difficult decisions. It’s always easier to be a Monday morning quarterback or armchair general than to be the man in the arena.
I saw a great deal of frustration from conservatives over this vote. To me, it’s a reminder that legislation often involves tough choices. Some bills sound good or have noble intentions but could carry unintended consequences. That’s why we send legislators to the Capitol: to weigh those consequences.
Last year’s debate over the old headquarters of the Idaho Transportation Department is a good example. Proponents of the sale argued that taxpayers would save money by selling the building rather than renovating it. Many conservatives also believe the state government shouldn’t hold on to unnecessary property. However, opponents questioned the financial calculations and pointed out that the city of Boise planned to use the land for so-called affordable housing, which could conflict with conservative free-market principles.
Which was the right choice? As with many bills lawmakers consider, there was no easy answer.
Consider also the recent debate over increasing the grocery tax credit. The so-called Gang of 8 opposed House Bill 231, which would raise the credit from $120 to $155 per person. They preferred full elimination of sales taxes on groceries and accordingly attempted to send the bill to the amending order in both chambers. In the end, all eight members voted against the bill, holding out for complete repeal. However, this decision exposes them to campaign ads that, while technically accurate, will claim they voted against tax relief.
Politics always operates on multiple levels. Most voters are not as tuned in as you or I, making them more susceptible to fliers and attack ads with exaggerated claims. Unfortunately, these tactics influence many elections. However, responsible governance requires looking beyond bumper-sticker slogans to ensure legislation achieves its intended purpose.
As conservatives, we want lawmakers who share our beliefs and principles, but we also need legislators who can effectively translate those principles into sound policy. I hope Rep. Bruce doesn’t abandon the issue of full disclosure for donated blood. Many people care about this issue, and it is worth crafting a bill that addresses every possible contingency.
No matter how good an idea may be, it must be structured in a way that can win the support of a House committee, 36 representatives, a Senate committee, 18 senators, and finally, the governor. It took years to pass a school choice bill that survived that gauntlet, a process that required replacing some intransigent lawmakers with new faces.
This year has seen other successes, such as prohibiting mask mandates and passing an anti-SLAPP provision. Both measures, like school choice, failed multiple times before finally clearing both chambers and earning the governor’s signature. Hopefully, H131 returns in some form, especially as we learn more about the potential side effects of mRNA therapy.
Legislating is hard work, and I appreciate everyone who steps up to the task. I will continue doing my best to explain what is happening. As citizens of our Republic, we have the awesome responsibility to be as informed and engaged as possible. That means looking beyond the bumper stickers and diving into the complex and bloody business of governing.
About Brian Almon
Brian Almon is the Editor of the Gem State Chronicle. He also serves as Chairman of the District 14 Republican Party and is a trustee of the Eagle Public Library Board. He lives with his wife and five children in Eagle.
