I think the Iowa legislature bill HF 2676 (Governor Reynolds’ MAHA bill) has just been sent back to the Senate, maybe based on fiscal issues, according to the most recent information I could find on the web. The ivermectin piece probably isn’t in a section that bears heavily on fiscal matters, so if the Senate approves it this time, it might either go back to the House for more debate about budgetary issues—or it might go to Governor Reynolds’ desk to sign (if it even has to be signed by the governor).
The ivermectin part of this bill would allow pharmacists to decide (it’s not mandatory; it’s permissive) on whether or not to offer ivermectin over-the-counter—for whatever reason a patient wants it, which could be for treating Covid-19 infection for which there’s no evidence of its effectiveness.
Because the language of the bill states that pharmacists would be immune from civil and criminal liability for bad outcomes from using ivermectin for treating Covid-19 infection, it would be up to individual pharmacists to choose whether or not to provide it for that purpose, based on their ethical principles to act out of their sense of clinical duty to ensure patient safety.
The ivermectin part of the bill is in Section VII and, in my opinion, should be removed.
Go Retire Psychiatrist 
Wow! Making someone immune from liability for handing out a prescription drug for whatever the customer wants to use it for has to be the ultimate political manipulation of the regulation of medicine. It makes a dynamic explicit that we have been dealing with for decades and that is politicians and business people know more about medicine than trained medical professionals.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’re right on target, George. Politicial manipulation is exactly what this is. Neither the House or the Senate seem willing to take this out and I think it’s because republicans control both.
LikeLiked by 1 person