Get a free copy of Parental Rights & Education when you subscribe to our newsletter!
The legislation allows doctors and other medical staff to not only refuse to take part in abortion and sterilization but also assisted suicide, gender treatments and surgeries, and other non-emergency procedures that violate their moral, ethical, and religious principles.
Idaho Gov. Brad Little, R, signed the Medical Ethics Defense Act (House Bill 59) on March 19, a law designed to protect healthcare professionals from being compelled to perform medical procedures that conflict with their sincerely held religious, moral, or ethical beliefs, including assisted suicide, gender transition treatments, and genetic modifications.
House Bill 59 was sponsored by state Rep. Bruce Skaug, R, and state Sen. Carl Bjerke. On February 11, the Idaho House of Representatives approved the bill 58- 11, and the Idaho Senate passed the measure a month later 28-6. In both chambers, the votes reflected party affiliations, with Republicans supporting the bill and Democrats opposing it.
The MED Act provides legal protections against discrimination or liability for those exercising their right of conscience. The legislation also includes provisions that allow religious healthcare providers to make employment and administrative decisions consistent with their religious beliefs. Individuals who believe their conscience rights have been violated can seek civil remedies under this law.
Supporters of the law argue that it is essential to uphold the ethical integrity of healthcare professionals. Greg Chafuen, senior counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, praised the enactment of the MED Act, stating,
“Patients are best served by healthcare professionals who are free to act consistent with their oath to ‘do no harm.’ Unfortunately, doctors and nurses have been targeted for caring for their patients by refraining from harmful and dangerous procedures. What may be worse, countless young professionals are kept out of the healthcare field because of fear that they will be forced to violate their conscience.”
Skaug noted that the MED Act builds upon existing protections in Idaho law that shield providers from being compelled to perform abortions. “There’s a whistleblower protection here,” Skaug explained. “It allows injunctive relief from the court to say the person cannot be forced to perform the objected practice.”
Although the bill safeguards conscience rights, supporters stress that it does not allow for discrimination against patients.
“No one can refuse treatment to someone because of the type of person they are for their beliefs. It’s about the practice that would violate their conscience,” Skaug said.
Opponents of the legislation contend that it could lead to the denial of essential medical services to patients. Sen. Ron Taylor, D, expressed concern that the bill confuses the relationship between personal conscience and professional duty.
“This bill, in its current form, I believe, would transform Idaho’s health care system from one based on patient needs to one based more on provider preferences,” Taylor said. “It would allow any health care provider, any worker, any ambulance operator, hospital employee or health care payer, the ability to deny anyone medical care based on claiming an objection due to their conscience.”
Proponents, however, say that the law’s language clearly indicates that objections are limited solely to the type of procedure being done.
With this law, Idaho joins other states that have implemented similar conscience clause laws. The earliest national conscience clause law in the United States was the Church Amendment of 1973, which exempted private hospitals receiving federal funds from being required to perform abortions or sterilizations if they objected on religious or moral grounds.
In recent years, debates over conscience protections have become increasingly contentious, particularly regarding services such as abortion and gender-related medical procedures. For instance, in 2023, a federal judge ruled that a Catholic hospital violated the Affordable Care Act by declining to perform a hysterectomy on a biological female identifying as male.
These conflicts have also extended to the pharmaceutical industry. Robyn Strader, a nurse practitioner who previously worked at a CVS Pharmacy MinuteClinic, was dismissed from her position after refusing to prescribe contraception due to her religious convictions.
The passage of the MED Act in Idaho is a significant moment for religious liberty. It reaffirms both the constitutional and biblical principles that conscience should never be coerced. From a Christian perspective, this law upholds the moral convictions of healthcare professionals who seek to practice medicine without violating their deeply held beliefs (Acts 5:29).
Scripture teaches that believers are called to live according to God’s commandments, even when faced with societal pressure to conform (Romans 12:2). The MED Act protects Christian doctors, nurses, and medical staff from being forced to participate in procedures that conflict with their faith, such as abortion or gender-altering treatments. This aligns with the biblical mandate to preserve life (Psalm 139:13-16) and uphold God’s design for humanity (Genesis 1:27).
The new Idaho law also fosters an environment where Christians in healthcare can serve with integrity. Jesus calls His followers to be salt and light (Matthew 5:13-16), meaning they should influence the world while staying true to their convictions. By protecting medical professionals from legal consequences for their faith-based decisions, the MED Act enables them to fulfill their vocational calling without compromise.
Critics argue that such protections might lead to the denial of care. Still, the bill ensures explicitly that no one is refused treatment based on their identity — only that providers cannot be compelled to perform procedures that they deem morally wrong. This enables a perfect balance between exercising religious liberty and providing compassionate healthcare.
Ultimately, the passage of the MED Act highlights the ongoing reasons why Christians must advocate for conscience rights, especially in an increasingly secular culture that doesn’t understand, appreciate, or tolerate principled faith.
Christian healthcare providers everywhere are being pressured and manipulated, in the name of compassion, to perform and take part in procedures that undermine God’s created order and the sanctity of life. Laws like this allow Christians in America to live out their faith boldly without fear of losing their livelihood.
If you like this article and other content that helps you apply a biblical worldview to today’s politics and culture, consider making a donation here.
Notifications
