Relative to exemption from immunization requirements on the basis of religious belief.
Summary
HB 358 amends New Hampshire’s immunization exemption law to make the religious-belief exemption easier to claim. Under current law, a parent or legal guardian may object to a child’s immunization on religious grounds; this bill keeps that exemption but replaces the prior requirement to sign a specific form with a simpler written statement and signature. The bill also removes the statutory reference to the form itself.
The bill does not change the medical exemption process, which remains available when a licensed physician certifies that a particular immunization may be detrimental to the child’s health. The effective date is 60 days after passage, meaning the revised exemption procedure would take effect relatively quickly after enactment.
Impact
The bill amends RSA 141-C:20-c, the state statute governing immunization exemptions for children, by narrowing the administrative requirements for claiming a religious exemption. It eliminates the need for a prescribed form and instead allows a parent or guardian to submit a written statement and signature asserting that the child has not been immunized because of religious belief. This change affects parents, guardians, schools, and public health administrators who process immunization records and exemption requests, while leaving the underlying religious exemption and medical exemption categories intact.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have received majority support in both chambers, passing the House on March 27 by 206-169 and the concurrence vote on June 12 by 194-153. Those margins suggest the measure had solid backing but also significant opposition. The available record does not include committee testimony, but the voting pattern indicates the bill was generally supported by lawmakers favoring broader or simpler religious exemption procedures and opposed by members concerned about immunization policy and public health.
Contention
The main point of contention is the balance between religious accommodation and public health protections. Supporters likely viewed the bill as reducing paperwork and making the religious exemption process more straightforward, while opponents likely objected to easing access to exemptions from childhood immunization requirements. The bill’s focus on removing the form requirement, rather than changing the substantive right to claim a religious exemption, suggests the dispute centered on whether the state should maintain more formal administrative safeguards or allow a simpler declaration process.