repealing statutory immunization requirements for children.
Summary
HB 1811 would repeal New Hampshire’s statutory childhood immunization requirements and replace them with a framework in which the Department of Health and Human Services may only recommend vaccinations as advisory guidance. The bill removes the current legal requirement that parents immunize children against specified diseases and eliminates the existing school and child care enrollment conditions tied to immunization status, partial immunization, or exemptions. It also states that the state and its political subdivisions may not require vaccinations under any circumstance for access to public facilities, benefits, or services.
The bill further repeals several related provisions governing childhood immunization records, exemption procedures, outbreak attendance rules for unvaccinated children, reporting requirements from schools and child care agencies, and DHHS rulemaking authority over childhood immunization standards. It also broadens the existing “medical freedom” language by removing the COVID-19-specific reference and making the anti-compulsion rule apply to immunizations generally. The effective date would be 60 days after passage.
Impact
If enacted, HB 1811 would substantially alter RSA chapter 141-C by removing the state’s mandatory childhood vaccination regime and the administrative structure that supports it. Schools and child care agencies would no longer be able to rely on statutory immunization requirements, exemption documentation, or outbreak-related attendance restrictions, and DHHS would lose authority to enforce or regulate childhood vaccine mandates through rulemaking. The bill would also affect public health operations and funding, with the fiscal note projecting reduced vaccine-purchase expenditures but possible new costs for outbreak investigation, staffing, and potential loss of federal funds.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have faced significant opposition in the House. In the recorded vote on an OTP motion, it failed 155-191, indicating that a majority of representatives did not support advancing it. The bill’s text reflects a strong pro-medical-freedom and anti-mandate posture, but the voting outcome suggests that many lawmakers were unconvinced by the proposal’s approach to public health and school immunization policy.
Contention
The central point of contention is the balance between individual bodily autonomy and informed consent, on one hand, and the state’s traditional role in preventing communicable disease and protecting school and child care settings, on the other. Supporters frame vaccine mandates as coercive government overreach, while opponents are likely concerned about reduced immunization coverage, outbreak risk, and the loss of established public health tools such as exemptions, reporting, and outbreak attendance rules. The fiscal note also highlights disagreement over practical consequences, including possible increases in outbreak response costs and the risk of federal funding losses.