NH Senate rejects bills targeting vaccines, but passes bill on local health measures

Yahoo

01-05-2025

If HB 230 becomes law, it would be up to city councils, select boards, and other governing bodies to pass public health measures. (Photo by Dana Wormald/New Hampshire Bulletin)
The New Hampshire Senate shut down a pair of bills Thursday that would restrict the state's ability to mandate vaccines for children, but passed legislation that would take away local health officials' authority to enact public health measures.
House Bill 230 is a Republican-backed bill that, if enacted, will revoke the authority of town and city health officers to enact public health measures, a power they currently have under state law. If HB 230 becomes law, it would be up to city councils, select boards, and other governing bodies to pass such health measures.
The Senate approved the bill in a voice vote Thursday, and it is now headed to Gov. Kelly Ayotte's desk. The House approved the bill in early March.
Sen. Rebecca Perkins Kwoka, a Portsmouth Democrat, was the only person to speak on the Senate floor about the bill. She argued it would hurt towns' and cities' ability to react quickly to local incidents. As examples, she listed the need to spray for mosquitos or address a rodent infestation, 'things that a health officer just needs to do as a normal course of business.' She noted that in 'the vast majority of these situations' recommendations made by a health officer already need to be approved by a local board of health in a public meeting.
During a hearing for the bill last month, the Senate Election Law and Municipal Affairs Committee — which ultimately voted, 3-2, to recommend this bill for approval — heard from Wayne Whitford, with the New Hampshire Health Officers Association, who said that health officers in the state oppose this bill. He argued that the current procedures have been in place for 40 years and are well understood. Margaret Byrnes of the New Hampshire Municipal Association also opposed the bill at the hearing.
The bill is a response to public health measures imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic, such as masking requirements and social distancing meant to mitigate the spread of the virus. However, the bill's sponsors say it goes beyond the pandemic and is aimed at preventing future public health measures.
One constituent, Julie Smith of Nashua, at the March hearing said she supported the bill in hopes that it would end 'mask madness,' referring to masking requirements municipalities put in place during the pandemic. She hopes this bill can 'quash out future opportunities' for such requirements. Those measures became controversial, mostly among conservatives who argued they were government overreach.
The Legislature tried to enact very similar legislation, Senate Bill 63, last session, but then-Gov. Chris Sununu vetoed the bill. Sununu said the bill's wording was confusing and argued it would create uncertainty during emergencies like a pandemic. Ayotte replaced Sununu in the corner office in January.
House Bill 679 would have forbidden the state from requiring that children receive vaccines that haven't been shown in clinical trials to prevent transmission of a disease. The Senate rejected this bill as part of the consent agenda.
The bill originated in the House, where it was approved by a 204-165 vote. There, it was supported almost entirely by Republicans. Only one House Democrat, Rep. Jonah Wheeler of Peterborough, voted in favor of it.
Bill opponents — including members of the Senate Health and Human Services Committee and House Democrats — argued that the purpose of vaccines isn't necessarily to directly prevent transmission of the illness but rather to reduce the severity of the illness and help reduce transmission through herd immunity. They also feared it would limit the availability of vaccines in the state.
House Republicans backing this bill included Manchester Republican Rep. Matt Drew, who said on the House floor last month that the bill 'is not about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines,' but rather it 'is about whether the state should mandate — force — children to get certain vaccines.' The Senate rejected that argument.
House Bill 357 received more consideration from the Senate, but was ultimately rejected as well. The bill would have taken away the authority of the state's Health and Human Services commissioner to choose which vaccines New Hampshire children must receive. Under HB 357, the state Legislature would decide which vaccines are required for children.
The immediate result of this bill being enacted would have been varicella, Hepatitis B, and Haemophilus influenzae type B (Hib) vaccines no longer being mandatory for children starting July 2026. Diphtheria, mumps, pertussis, poliomyelitis, rubella, rubeola, and tetanus vaccines would've remained mandatory as they're required by state statute, not a rule created by the commissioner. For vaccines to be added to that list under this bill, the Legislature would have had to approve legislation to that effect.
The Senate Health and Human Services Committee previously voted unanimously, 5-0, to recommend the entire Senate reject this bill, and on Thursday the Senate heeded that advice and killed it through a voice vote. The Senate's vote goes against the wishes of Republicans in the House, which voted 195-174 to pass it. Wheeler was again the only Democrat to vote in favor.
Prior to Thursday's vote, Sen. Keith Murphy, a Manchester Republican in favor of the bill, argued it was not 'about the efficiency of vaccines.'
'It's a bill about who gets to make the decision,' Murphy continued. 'You may hear the commissioner has not abused the authority and has rarely used it. And that may well be true, but departments change and commissioners and cultures over time. And the wrong person could well begin enforcing those vaccinations in the future.'
Sen. Kevin Avard, a Nashua Republican, said that despite being 'one of the most vocal critics of vaccine mandates in the Senate,' he doesn't support this bill because the process the Health and Human Services commissioner follows is already working well and gives the Legislature an oversight authority to monitor any decisions made by the commissioner. He noted that the commissioner has not exercised the power to mandate a new vaccine in the past 20 years. And he's confident that if they were to do so, the Legislature's oversight committees would examine that closely.
'HB 357 would in fact short-circuit the rules process that has been working really well and which maintains legislative authority,' Avard said.