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

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

40 minutes ago
New York lawmakers approve bill that would allow medically assisted suicide for the terminally ill
ALBANY, N.Y. -- Terminally ill New Yorkers would have the legal ability to end their own lives with pharmaceutical drugs under a bill passed Monday in the state Legislature. The proposal, which now moves to the governor's office, would allow a person with an incurable illness to be prescribed life-ending drugs if he or she requests the medication and gets approval from two physicians. A spokesperson for New York Gov. Kathy Hochul said she would review the legislation. The New York Senate gave final approval to the bill Monday night after hours of debate during which supporters said it would let terminally ill people die on their own terms. 'It's not about hastening death, but ending suffering,' said state Sen. Brad Hoylman-Sigal, a Democrat who sponsored the proposal. Opponents have argued the state should instead improve end-of-life medical care or have objected on religious grounds. 'We should not be in the business of state-authorized suicide,' said state Sen. George Borrello, a Republican. The state Assembly passed the measure in late April. The proposal requires that a terminally ill person who is expected to die within six month make a written request for the drugs. Two witnesses would have sign the request to ensure that the patient is not being coerced. The request would then have to be approved by the person's attending physician as well as a consulting physician. The legislation was first introduced in 2016, Hoylman-Sigal said, though it has stalled year after year in the New York statehouse. Dennis Poust, executive director of the New York State Catholic Conference, which has opposed the measure, said 'This is a dark day for New York State." Eleven other states and Washington, D.C., have laws allowing medically assisted suicide, according to Compassion & Choices, an advocacy organization that backs the policy. Corinne Carey, the group's local campaign director, said lawmakers had 'recognized how important it is to give terminally ill New Yorkers the autonomy they deserve over their own end-of-life experiences.' 'The option of medical aid in dying provides comfort, allowing those who are dying to live their time more fully and peacefully until the end,' said Carey.


New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
113 House Democrats vote against GOP resolution denouncing the antisemitic terrorist attack in Colorado
More than 100 House Democrats voted against a Republican-led resolution condemning the antisemitic terrorist attack in Boulder and Colorado's sanctuary state laws on Monday. The resolution, introduced by Rep. Gabe Evans (R-Colo.), cleared the lower chamber in a 280-113 vote, with 75 Democrats joining Republicans to pass the measure. Democrats fumed over language in the resolution expressing 'gratitude to law enforcement, including US Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel, for protecting the homeland.' 3 House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., speaks with reporters about the spending and tax bill embraced by President Donald Trump and Republicans, at the Capitol in Washington, Friday, June 6, 2025. AP The National Republican Congressional Committee, the House GOP's campaign arm, charged that Democrats voting against the bill 'sided with terrorists over police officers and flat-out refused to condemn antisemitism.' 'Democrats have become the pro-terrorist, anti-cop, antisemitic caucus. And they're proud of it,' the NRCC wrote on X. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) slammed Evans as a 'joke' ahead of the vote. 'Who is this guy? He's not seriously concerned with combating antisemitism in America. This is not a serious effort,' Jeffries told reporters. 'Antisemitism is a scourge on America. It shouldn't be weaponized politically.' Evans shot back that the 'wildly offensive sentiment' expressed by Jeffries is 'why antisemitism persists.' 3 This image provided by the Boulder Police Dept. shows Mohamed Sabry Soliman. AP 'The Left is unserious about finding real solutions,' the congressman argued on X. 'Condemning terrorism is not a joking matter.' Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY), who is Jewish and voted no on the resolution, argued on the House floor that the measure was being put forward to simply 'score political points.' 'You weren't here, Mr. Evans, last term, but there were about 10 antisemitism resolutions that effectively said the same thing solely to score political points,' Goldman said. 'We Jews are sick and tired of being used as pawns.' 3 Gabe Evans, R-Fort Lupton, speaks to reporters during a news conference on the steps of the Colorado Capitol in Denver on Thursday, May 29, 2025. In his floor speech, Evans stated: 'As a former police officer and Army veteran of the Global War on Terror, I know how Colorado's radical leftists leaders and laws prioritize illegal immigrants over public safety — allowing antisemitic terrorists like Mohammed Sabry Soliman to strike.' Soliman, an Egyptian national who overstayed his visa, allegedly used Molotov cocktails and a makeshift flamethrower during the June 1 attack targeting peaceful marchers who were calling for the release of Hamas-held hostages in Gaza. Fifteen people were injured in the firebombing, during which Soliman allegedly shouted, 'Free Palestine.' 'The passing of my resolution ensures we condemn all acts of antisemitism and affirms that the free and open collaboration between state and local law enforcement with their federal counterparts is key in preventing future attacks like this,' the congressman continued. A separate resolution introduced by Reps. Jeff Van Drew (R-NJ) and Joe Neguse (D-Colo.), who more generally denounced the uptick in antisemitic attacks in the US, passed in a 400-0 vote.


Business Journals
an hour ago
- Business Journals
Employers: Use these guidelines to create benefits for the modern workforce
It's impossible to forget the disruption of the COVID-19 pandemic. It reshaped how we live and work, forcing companies to rapidly adapt to remote models and prioritize health and safety in new ways. The crisis made one thing clear for employers: Affordable, meaningful health care benefits are vital — not only for supporting employees but also for ensuring long-term business stability. In the post-pandemic workplace, high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) continue to present challenges, especially for hourly and lower-wage workers. Recruiting and retaining top talent now hinges on offering benefits that go beyond basic coverage — they must be affordable, accessible and relevant. Employers are shifting from cutting costs to investing in benefits that support the whole person. A new framework: Mind, body, money To meet the demands of today's workforce, I use a simple yet powerful framework to guide benefits strategy: Mind, body and money. These three pillars reflect the needs of employees and can help employers design plans that truly make a difference. 1. Mind: Prioritizing mental health Mental health challenges spiked during the pandemic, and they haven't gone away. Today, one in five adults report struggling with mental health, while nearly a third say they don't have a primary care provider (PCP), leading to overall poor well-being. Telehealth has provided a lifeline, but access to in-network mental health providers remains limited. The need for robust mental health support has never been greater, and addressing it must be a priority. 2. Body: Access and prevention Roughly a third of Americans lack a primary care provider (PCP), leading many to rely on urgent care instead. This not only drives up claim volume and employer costs but also increases the risk of chronic conditions going undetected. Consider this: nearly 40% of Americans are pre-diabetic, and managing diabetes can cost $8,000-$10,000 per person annually. For an employer with 50 employees, that could mean $200,000 in preventable expenses. It's critical to ensure employees have access to high-quality preventive care at a price they can afford. Prevention isn't just a health strategy — it's a financial one. 3. Money: Real incentives that work A recent survey by Imagine360 found that 25% of employees would accept a pay cut in exchange for better benefits. That's a powerful signal. But incentives must go beyond surface-level perks like gym memberships. Instead, they should encourage real engagement with health care — rewarding participation in preventive care, screenings and chronic condition management. At the same time, health care costs are climbing fast — especially when it comes to prescriptions. GLP-1 medications are up 200%-300% year over year, prompting employers to reassess pharmacy strategies. Real savings start with aligning incentives to promote smart utilization. The retirement factor Older employees are increasingly delaying retirement — not because they want to, but because they can't afford to stop working. 28% regularly find themselves out of money before payday arrives. 60% of full-time employees are stressed about finances. 56% of financially stressed employees spend three or more hours a week thinking about finances. Consultants must help employers address this early with smart retirement planning tools like 401(k) plans and Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). Financial wellness isn't a separate issue — it's deeply tied to mental and physical health. Supporting employees across all three areas helps ensure smoother, more cost-effective transitions into retirement. Implementing reference-based pricing, a sustainable cost strategy Reference-Based Pricing (RBP) has evolved significantly over the years. What was once viewed as a heavy lift for companies and employees is now gaining momentum as a sustainable solution to out-of-control health care costs, and a great experience for employees. Like HSAs, RBP has continued to garner more adoption — and it's delivering real results. With rising health care 'tariffs,' more employers are turning to RBP to regain control. For example, a nursing home with 800-900 employees implemented RBP and saw health care costs drop by 40%. Four years later, they've maintained those savings, and employees have embraced the model.* RBP is particularly effective for companies with high turnover or low plan engagement. It allows employers to lower deductibles and build a more budget-neutral benefits strategy. While switching any health plan carrier requires change management, the right consultants can guide the process and help ensure both employer and employee success. What consultants must do now It's time for consultants to step up. That means vetting vendors rigorously and recommending only those that align with the employer's core goals — whether it's improving retention, reducing costs or boosting care quality. Employees care deeply about their take-home pay and their health. If a benefit strategy isn't working for them, they'll leave. Strong benefits aren't nice to have — they're a competitive advantage and a critical part of your business strategy. Want to talk about building a smarter benefits strategy that works for your team and your budget? Connect with me on LinkedIn.