Prohibits state agencies and political subdivisions from advertising vaccines, expending funds to advertise vaccines, or paying any person or entity to advertise vaccines on their behalf in New Hampshire.
prohibiting state agencies and political subdivisions from advertising or expending funds to advertise vaccines in the state of New Hampshire.
HB 1616 would bar state agencies and political subdivisions from spending funds to advertise or communicate about vaccines. The overwhelming majority of submitters oppose the bill, arguing it would silence public health agencies and professionals, jeopardize federal funding, and raise the risk of vaccine-preventable disease outbreaks. A small number of submitters support the bill, generally arguing that public funds should not be used to promote pharmaceutical products and that vaccination is a personal medical decision.
Some supporters argue that taxpayer money should not be spent advertising vaccines because they are commercial pharmaceutical products, and that the state should remain neutral on what they view as a personal medical decision.
“I do not believe we should be using tax payer money to advertise or support any corporate company. Vaccines are a product made by drug companies and taxes should never be used to fund things that have nothing to do with our state.”
— Caitlen Hutson, Epsom · #533923 — read full submission →
“I also don't think that advertising any medicines or vaccines should be allowed.”
— Susan Tufts-Moore, Bedford · #538323 — read full submission →
A small number of supporters describe vaccines in distrustful terms and want the state to stop what they view as promotion of a harmful product.
Submitters argue that preventing state agencies from communicating about vaccines removes a trusted, evidence-based source of health information, allowing misinformation to spread and undermining public health broadly.
“Prohibiting all State agencies from advertising or educating the public about vaccines is not only foolhardy; it is dangerous to the health and wellbeing of all NH residents.”
— Susan Smith, Gilford · #532956 — read full submission →
“It is the job of State public health experts to provide science-based information to the public about health and safety issues and NH residents expect this.”
— Marie Kiely, Portsmouth · #536519 — read full submission →
“I oppose muzzling public health professionals. Informing people about recommended vaccines is part of keeping our society healthy.”
— Corinne Gordon, Salem · #529954 — read full submission →
Many submitters cite personal or family memories of polio, measles, smallpox, pertussis, or other vaccine-preventable diseases, warning that reduced public education could allow these illnesses to resurge.
“I’m old. I almost died from measles as a child. I remember classmates contracting polio; they were crippled for life.”
— Marilyn Learner, Hollis · #534233 — read full submission →
“Ladies and Gentlemen....I am old enough to know people who have had polio and suffer lifetime disability, who have died of influenza and Covid”
— Elizabeth Mooney, Portsmouth · #528826 — read full submission →
Submitters argue the bill would disproportionately endanger infants, the elderly, pregnant people, and the immunocompromised, who rely on herd immunity and timely public health information.
“This Bill has the potential to harm all Granite Staters but especially the most vulnerable in our communities - infants, the elderly, immune compromised, and pregnant women.”
— Royal M. Richardson, Chester · #531989 — read full submission →
“This bill will harm all Granite Staters but especially the most vulnerable in our communities - infants, the elderly, immune compromised, and pregnant women.”
— Valerie Danielson, Bedford · #525673 — read full submission →
Nurses, physicians, and other health professionals argue the bill would interfere with their ethical obligation to provide patients with evidence-based education and informed consent about vaccines.
“As a registered nurse, I have an ethical obligation to provide informed consent to patients. Informed consent requires patient education.”
— Sascha Stroms, Mason · #523130 — read full submission →
“As a nurse I vehemently oppose this bill. Evidence based and scientifically accurate education regarding vaccines and immunization needs to remain readily accessible to every person in our state.”
— Tiffany Newell, Pittsfield · #537605 — read full submission →
Submitters point to the fiscal note indicating the bill could cost New Hampshire federal funding (commonly cited as up to $3.5 million, with one submission citing $61,000) tied to vaccine education and communication grant requirements.
“I oppose HB 1616. Prohibiting all state agencies from advertising or educating the public about vaccines will silence public health communication, potentially costing the state $3.5 million in federal funding.”
— Laura Bonner, North Hampton · #532729 — read full submission →
“This bill could also jeopardize up to $3.5 million in federal immunization funding if the state cannot meet federal requirements for public education and communication.”
— Carolyn Eastman, Hampton · #523092 — read full submission →
Several submissions, including a recurring near-identical passage, describe public service announcements as a long-used, effective, cost-efficient tool for disease prevention that this bill would eliminate.
“It has been long-standing policy that Public Service Announcements are an effective tool in the area of public health and disease control.”
— Royal M. Richardson, Chester · #531989 — read full submission →
“Public Service Announcements are an effective and long-used tool in the area of public health and disease control.”
— NEIL MARTIN, Greenland · #533110 — read full submission →
Submitters argue that withholding vaccine information restricts individuals' and parents' ability to make informed, autonomous health decisions, framing access to information as consistent with New Hampshire's "Live Free or Die" values rather than opposed to them.
“New Hampshire is founded on the principle of “Live Free or Die.” Restricting health agencies from advertising about vaccines, which are safe and effective tools to prevent disease, undermines that value by limiting individuals’ ability to make knowledgeable, autonomous choices.”
— Sarah Aissis, Nashua · #539417 — read full submission →
“Let individuals decide whether they want a vaccine or not. Let them get the information.”
— Louise Ewing, Antrim · #526581 — read full submission →
Some submitters characterize the bill as part of a national, politically driven anti-vaccine movement, at times referencing federal officials, and argue the legislature should not override scientific consensus for political reasons.
“It would only serve to further the anti-vaccination diatribe that RFK Jr. is trolling through the country - a man wholly unqualified to determine what has scientifically been proven to keep us safe from historically eradicated illnesses.”
— Morganne Blanchard, Mont Vernon · #538354 — read full submission →
“Just because the Trump administration has put an incompetent with brainworms in charge of health and human services, that is no reason for state governments to abandon their duty to safeguard their own citizens.”
— Kavita Finn, Bedford · #536566 — read full submission →
Several submitters object to the bill's framing, arguing that state vaccine communication is education and information rather than commercial advertising, and should not be regulated as such.
“State agencies don't "advertise" they inform and communicate. This is another petty bill. And fiscally irresponsible.”
— Deb Baker, Concord · #524721 — read full submission →
“Granite Staters deserve factual information (not "advertising" as this bill implies) about health recommendations and they need information quickly during outbreaks, emerging threats, or changes in recommendations.”
— Suzanne Allison, Barnstead · #535587 — read full submission →
Rather than taking a clear position for or against the ban, a few submitters focus on ensuring that any vaccine-related advertising, if permitted, be limited to accurate, scientifically supported information.
“Amend to include a requirement that ALL advertising, no matter who is producing it, MUST include citations to scientific, factual, peer reviewed research.”
— Jennifer Tetreault, Whitefield · #534565 — read full submission →
“The decision to vaccinate should be left up to doctors and families without subjecting them to falsehoods with advertising.”
— Marie Straiton, Pembroke · #527411 — read full submission →
Generated by claude-sonnet-5 (claude code agent) on Jul 20, 2026. Quotes are verbatim excerpts, verified against the cited submission before publication. Summaries are AI interpretation of the record, not part of it.
I strongly oppose this bill! Vaccines are a very necessary component of community health for EVERYONE! We need to do all we can to encourage everyone to get the recommended vaccines for our health and and the health of our family and community!
Vaccines save lives!
Vaccines save lives. Any attempt to limit vaccine awareness is public health malpractice.
Advertisements for vaccines allow hospitals, medical facilities, and public health agencies to educate the public about the health benefits of vaccination. They help raise awareness about options that individuals have to protect themselves and their loved ones from preventable illnesses. If someone chooses not to receive a vaccine, such as the flu shot, that is their personal choice. However, there should not be laws preventing medical facilities and public health organizations from sharing educational information about vaccines. Access to accurate information empowers people to make informed decisions about what is best for their health and their bodies. New Hampshire is founded on the principle of “Live Free or Die.” Restricting health agencies from advertising about vaccines, which are safe and effective tools to prevent disease, undermines that value by limiting individuals’ ability to make knowledgeable, autonomous choices. Limiting access to information is not freedom. I strongly oppose HB 1616 and urge you to vote against this bill.
I oppose this bill for the health of my community
Public health communication is not advertising—it is education
As a public health nurse, the immunization coordinator for The City of Nashua Public Health Department, and as a community member who is also a parent and grandparent, I strongly oppose HB1616. This bill proposes taking away the voice of public health by prohibiting state agencies from advertising or expending funds to advertise vaccines in the state of New Hampshire. When Public Health is unable to be proactive in informing the community with transparent, evidence-based information, misinformation and disinformation have the potential to spread rapidly- as it often does through unrestricted social media platforms. Disallowing a core function, such as educating the public with pamphlets about important immunizations, could lead to reduced vaccination rates, and ultimately to outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases that other states are currently experiencing. Our goal in the State of New Hampshire should be to EDUCATE our population with accurate, science-supported health information through any and all means that meet the needs of our population, and this includes pamphlets and media communication about vaccines that prevent illness, hospitalizations, and death. Patricia Glastetter, BSN, RN Public Health Nurse
I strongly oppose house Bill 1616 which prohibits all state agencies from advertising or educating the public about vaccines, silencing public health communication and potentially costing the state $3.5 million in federal funding Trust of the public is crucial surrounding vaccine preventable disease education. As public health professionals, we are providing this education everyday to inform clients of the risks and benefits of every vaccine. To silence this voice, is not only unethical, but is dangerous to our community. Misinformation is not making our community heathier. Following evidence based practice guidelines and education our community based upon the science is what will keep our vaccine rates up and decrease the chances of preventable disease and death in NH.
As a finance professional and a parent, I know that vaccines are both life-saving and cost-effective. The widespread use of the Polio vaccine proved this over seventy years ago. Vaccines have been a God-send since with overwhelming evidence of their ability to mitigate the health risks and the costs associated with numerous preventable diseases. I support the free speech needed to educate health care providers and New Hampshire families on them. Also, I am disturbed that DHHS states in HB1616-FN that up to $3.5 million in federal funding could be jeopardized “if the Department is unable to fulfill grant requirements related to education and communication on vaccines”. Therefore I oppose HB 1616.
Vaccines are proven safe and effective and very necessary to keep the public healthy and productive and keep our healthcare costs down. Communities benefit from information contained in advertisements that we wouldn't ordinarily be exposed to.
As a mother of an immunocompromised daughter, the grandmother of young children, and the daughter of my 96-year-old mother, I support HB 1616. The public has the right to know through public service announcements about the latest medical advice and current infection rates for any and all diseases. How else can we protect ourselves and our loved ones? Life-threatening diseases are on the rise. I'm sure that the majority of people in this room has benefitted from vaccines.
Testimony on HB 1616: Prohibiting Vaccine Advertising by State Entities I strongly oppose HB 1616, as its underpinnings pose a significant risk to public health. The bill seeks to restrict state communication regarding vaccines, thereby undermining crucial public health initiatives. In a time when misinformation proliferates, curtailing state-sponsored educational outreach is counterproductive and endangers the well-being of our communities. Vaccines are vital tools for safeguarding public health, and restricting accurate information increases the likelihood of vaccine hesitancy, especially among vulnerable populations who rely on clear guidance from trusted sources. Moreover, the bill lacks a robust framework for oversight and accountability, raising questions about its implementation and potential consequences. By silencing state entities from discussing vaccines, we open the door to unregulated misinformation from various other channels, leaving communities ill-informed. This creates a dangerous environment where personal opinions, rather than science and facts, shape public perception and decision-making about vaccination. Public health policies must prioritize transparency and education over restrictions that inhibit informed choice. In addition, any approach to vaccine communication must consider an inclusive intersectional framework that reflects the diverse needs of all community members. This bill disproportionately affects marginalized groups who may already face barriers to accessing reliable health information. It is essential that we amplify voices of those affected by health disparities, ensuring equitable access to accurate information that empowers informed health decisions. Rather than prohibiting vital public health messaging, we should focus on enhancing outreach efforts to educate all communities about the safety and efficacy of vaccines, thus fostering a healthier society for everyone.
i strongly, strongly oppose this bill. As a physician, this is completely irresponsible as a public health position.
Public health and public health education are extremely important. There are a lot of things that my tax dollars go to that I don't support. Public health is a place where I would like my tax dollars to go.
Up to date and accurate vaccine information is important for public health, and many people still trust the state to be publishing accurate and timely information with regard to public health and wha they should be doing to not get sick or spread disease. By not allowing funds to go towards advertising for vaccine availability and efficacy, you would be actively reducing our public health and pubic awareness about interventions or measures they should be taking to stay healthy and able-bodied. What is the purpose of intentionally making us more sick?
This bill cannot pass. To do so would be a massive detriment to the safety of our state’’s citizens (especially children). It would only serve to further the anti-vaccination diatribe that RFK Jr. is trolling through the country - a man wholly unqualified to determine what has scientifically been proven to keep us safe from historically eradicated illnesses.
I firmly believe in the rights of individuals and parents to make informed decisions about vaccinations. I also don't think that advertising any medicines or vaccines should be allowed.
Our government is responsible for making sure the community knows what resources are available and that our public health is put front and center. As we see an increase in measles cases, our hospitals are filled with patients fighting the flu- the only line of defense we have for viruses are vaccines. Banning government advertising is banning education and communications that the general public needs and that helps our communities. I strongly oppose this bill as it will have lasting and harmful impact to our communities.
Vaccines are important, it is important to continue to disseminate scientifically accurate information about vaccines. The state of NH has a responsibility to properly educate the citizens and keep the population safe.
We do not need ICE detention centers in NH. Our state is in a financial crisis and I agree that we should not spend state, county or municipal funds to build or renovate buildings for detention centers. Likewise, we should not sell any buildings to be used as detention centers. We do not have enough Correction Officers to staff our State Prisons and county jails. We do not want to lose our trained personnel to federal detention centers.
I am writing to share my opposition to HB1616. This bill will have many impacts on our communities that rely on their state government for factual, timely and transparent information to protect them. Additionally, when trusted public institutions are barred from communicating evidence-based information, misinformation fills the void, which is dangerous and unfair to the people of NH. These systems are in place to protect our communities, especially our most vulnerable from disease & death. Please oppose HB 1616.
I support vaccination and believe all people need the information in order to make informed decisions. It is wrong that our health has become a political football and when knowledge and education can be controlled, corrupted or silenced by any political party.
I support promoting and informing the public about vaccines as widely as possible.
As a nurse I vehemently oppose this bill. Evidence based and scientifically accurate education regarding vaccines and immunization needs to remain readily accessible to every person in our state. I can not express how absolutely unethical and harmful to NH residents this proposed bill is.