The app for independent voices
Idaho Legislature – VOTE YES on H0528 - Directed blood product transfusion (Posted: 01/27/26). Last updated 02/11/26 🆕
Link: legislature.idaho.gov/s…
See bill link above for current status and committee assignment
See Idaho Insider for links where you can send group emails based on current status and committee assignment: gemstatechronicle.com/l…
Summary (ai assisted)
H0528 states that health care providers and facilities may not prohibit patients from supplying their own blood (aka “autologous donation”) or blood products from a directed donor for potential transfusion, so long as the blood is collected through a federally compliant blood establishment. The bill also establishes limited exceptions and liability protections for providers and facilities.
H0528 does not conflict with US or Idaho Constitutions, nor with federal law governing collection, donation, sale, or use of blood products. Regulation of health care practices and patient consent falls within traditional state authority.
Key Provisions: Patient Rights, Provider Restrictions, Exceptions, Immunity
Blood products include whole blood, blood plasma, blood derivatives, blood platelets, and blood clotting agents.
Health care provider or facilities may not prohibit a patient from providing patient’s own blood or blood products from a directed donor.
Blood must be obtained through a blood establishment that complies with all federal requirements.
Prohibition against autologous or direct donation does not apply if:
Donation or transfusion would be detrimental to donor or patient.
Insufficient time exists to coordinate the blood product prior to a surgery or procedure.
Surgery or procedure involves emergency medical services.
Health care providers and facilities are immune from liability for injury, damages, or death resulting from use of patient-provided blood products EXCEPT if gross negligence related to the blood product or transfusion contributed to the harm.
Reasons for Recommendation to VOTE YES
“Informed consent does not exist if a patient cannot choose what enters their bloodstream.”
Blood transfusion medicine has long operated on trust in screening systems, infectious disease testing, and regulatory oversight. What has changed since 2020 is not the importance of those safeguards, but the biological variables introduced into the donor population and the lack of transparent evaluation of how those variables may affect transfusion recipients.
– Source (first reference below): Is Your Blood Supply Safe? The Hidden Dangers of mRNA-Contaminated Transfusions. R. Clinton Ohlers, PhD, Vice President and Director of Media Relations for SafeBlood Donation (01/27/26)
America’s safe blood supply is in crisis, especially since the COVID-19 shots rolled out. Much scientific evidence is behind this assertion (see related references).
H0528 enables individuals to choose donors whose blood safety is known, or their own blood, without unduly burdening the blood donation industry or those who administer the autologous or self-directed blood.
Here are just a few reasons for supporting this bill:
Reduces blood shortages by not tapping into the existing blood supply. Any leftover autologous or direct donation blood not used during the procedure could be used to replenish the existing blood supply.
Those concerned about safety of donated blood, for whatever reason, can use their own blood or blood from a directed donor.
Those with religious objections to receiving outside blood (for example, Jehovah’s Witnesses) can use their own life-saving blood.
Increases informed consent because recipients will know what’s in the blood they receive.
Please vote YES on this crucial bill!
________
🆕 Talking Points for Testimony (added 02/03/26, material courtesy of Laura Demaray, RN, and Sierra Hamm of The Reconciliation thereconciliation.org).
For a downloadable version with colored and bold text, see Health & Health Freedom section of our 2026 bills page at tinyurl.com/5fmnc6m8)
_____
Equity in Directed and Autologous Blood Donation Act
What This Bill Does
Protects a patient’s right to choose directed (from a specific donor) or autologous (their own) blood for transfusion when FDA safety standards are met.
Affirms bodily choice and informed consent in transfusion decisions
Prevents hospitals or blood banks from blocking or discouraging directed donation ordered by a licensed physician
Prohibits retaliation against physicians who honor patient requests
Ensures transparency in blood establishment policies
Preserves the community blood supply while allowing choice, not replacement
Why This Bill Exists
Directed blood donation has been used safely for decades, particularly during periods of uncertainty (e.g., HIV/AIDS). It exists to protect patients when:
scientific knowledge is evolving,
screening gaps exist,
or deeply held medical, ethical, or spiritual concerns are present
Blood Industry Core Objections and Facts to Counter Them
1. “Directed donation is unnecessary — the blood supply is already safe.”
Industry claim: Modern screening makes directed donation obsolete.
FACT: Screening only exists for known risks. History shows blood safety evolves after harm occurs (HIV, HCV, Zika, Babesia, Hep B, C, Human T Lymphotropic, Chagas, West Nile Virus). There is no routine screening for Monkey Pox, spike protein, residual synthetic mRNA, or prions, mold, or emerging diseases like Covid 19, Marburg, Ebola, Bird Flu or screened for genetic editing/CRISPR technology or synthetic gene therapy. Absence of evidence ≠ evidence of absence. Directed donation is a precautionary option.
2. “Directed donors are more dangerous than community donors.”
Industry claim: First-time directed donors have higher marker positivity.
FACT: All positive units are discarded before transfusion. There is no evidence of increased transmission risk to recipients. In pediatric and neonatal settings, directed donation often reduces donor exposure and adverse events. Risk should be disclosed — not used to eliminate patient choice
3. “Patient requests are driven by misinformation and bias.”
Industry claim: Requests (e.g., vaccination status) are non-medical and discriminatory.
FACT: Ethical medicine distinguishes choice from discrimination. Patients routinely make medical decisions based on personal risk tolerance, religion, or conscience. Labeling patient concern as “bias” undermines informed consent and repeats historical ethical failures (e.g., Tuskegee, HIV blood scandals)
4. “Directed donation harms the blood supply.”
Industry claim: It diverts donors and worsens shortages.
FACT: Evidence shows directed donation often increases total donors, many of whom become repeat community donors. Unused directed units are frequently released into the general pool. The bill explicitly allows fallback to community blood when necessary, protecting supply integrity
5. “It is too costly and logistically burdensome.”
Industry claim: Separate labeling and tracking are expensive.
FACT: Directed donation has existed for 40+ years under FDA regulation. The cost of accommodation is minimal compared to the legal, financial, and ethical cost of another blood safety scandal (e.g., £12 billion UK settlement). Financial inconvenience does not justify restricting constitutional rights
6. Idaho in particular: When blood organizations or hospitals convey that “it is not illegal in our state to have direct donor blood”
Many Idaho citizens have tried but the Red Cross, the primary contractor in Idaho, does not facilitate or allow the freedom to choose a direct donor. Most states have approval but the Red Cross allows the director of the state to decide at their whim and the director over Idaho refuses to allow direct donor blood donations and coordination.
A Few References and Resources:
Dorsey KA, Moritz ED, Steele WR, Eder AF, Stramer SL. A comparison of human immunodeficiency virus, hepatitis C virus, hepatitis B virus, and human T-lymphotropic virus marker rates for directed versus volunteer blood donations to the American Red Cross during 2005 to 2010. Transfusion. 2013;53(6):1250-1256. doi:10.1111/j.1537-2995.2012.03904.x
Ueda, Jun & Motohashi, Hideyuki & Hirai, Yuriko & Yamamoto, Kenji & Murakami, Yasufumi & Fukushima, Masanori & Fujisawa, Akinori. (2024). Concerns regarding Transfusions of Blood Products Derived from Genetic Vaccine Recipients and Proposals for Specific Measures. 10.20944/preprints202403.0881.v1.
Helpful Links:
Blessed by His Blood: blessedbyhisblood.com
Safe Blood: safeblood.com
America’s Blood Centers: americasblood.org
The Reconciliation Substack: thereconciliation.org
__________
Related
🆕 Direct donor blood legislation passes committee to the floor on a 10-6 vote. More… tinyurl.com/3ruy8ysd
🆕🔥Idaho Legislature — Call to Action — H0528 - Directed blood product transfusion: tinyurl.com/ahamvncb
Is Your Blood Supply Safe? The Hidden Dangers of mRNA-Contaminated Transfusions. Interview with Liberty RoundTable on 1-14-26. R. Clinton Ohlers, PhD (01/27/26, includes video 01:18:38 and transcript): tinyurl.com/36x5wcnd
Health Freedom Solutions for Idaho & Beyond > Autologous And Direct Blood Donations Allowed (includes links to several relevant articles and videos): tinyurl.com/3kacvk7b
Idaho Legislature 2026 Bills to Support or Oppose: tinyurl.com/yc2jpkeh
