Doctors, infectious disease experts and union representatives rallied in opposition to an amendment this week to a state Senate bill that would prevent various institutions from requiring employees and students get the COVID-19 vaccine.
The House Executive Departments and Administration Committee held a public hearing Tuesday for an amendment to a SB 155, which would prohibit public and private schools to require vaccines unless they’ve been in use for at least 10 years. It would also prevent businesses from making employment related decisions based on the vaccine status of their employees, though the legislation makes an exemption for health care providers if the “direct threat cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation.”
Rep. Terry Roy, the sponsor of the amendment, said he proposed it to protect Granite Staters’ rights to decline a medical proceedure.
“We cannot make excuses to take people’s bodily autonomy away from them because its for the common good,” he said.
Raymond Walston, a pediatrician from Dartmouth-Hitchcock, said he’s seen first hand how the choice to be unvaccinated has impacted his patients’ health. Once, a four year old leukemia patient with a compromised immune system from chemotherapy died from a vaccine-preventable disease.
“People have the right to decide but we as a public should be taking care of those who can’t take care of themselves – taking care of the little four year olds who can’t have an immune response,” he said.
Beth Daly, the chief of the state’s bureau of infectious disease control, said she worried how the legislation would affect the state’s ability to require other vaccines that keep schools and work environments disease free.
“Letting children attend school without regard to vaccination status will set us back 100 years before we had safe and effective vaccines, when millions of children were infected and disabled by vaccine-preventable diseases,” she said.
She also worried that one piece of the amendment, which would prevent the state from keeping records of residents who are vaccinated. She said vaccine documentation is required by federal law and flouting these laws could result in the state losing access to the COVID-19 vaccines.
Ahni Malachi, the executive director of the state agency responsible for enforcing discrimination laws, said the overly broad language in the amendment had the potential to create a logistical nightmare for her staff.
“It’s not simply about freedom, it’s not simply about medicine, but there is a large enforcement question,” she said.
Curtis Barry, who spoke on behalf of the New Hampshire Retail Association, he said his members thought of the amendment as a prime example of government overreach. Without knowing who is and isn’t vaccinated, he said employers will have a difficult time protecting vulnerable employees.
A couple members of the public spoke in support of the amendment, noting that it protects the individual freedoms of New Hampshire residents.
Hooman Noorchashm, a Philadelphia-based physician, said he worries about blanket legislation that mandates the shot could backfire. He said education, rather than coercion should be used to get the public on board.
Furthermore, he said vaccine requirements could disproportionately effect minority populations that have historically had less access to health care.
“What I’d like to clarify on this record is my strong opposition to the vaccine mandates, not to the vaccine itself,” he said.