As a mother of two children and a healthcare worker who specializes in pediatrics and neonatal care, I am very much opposed to this bill.. Vaccination is vital to keep our children protected. i have seen first hand the consequences of those who have chosen not to vaccinate their children. It is heartbreaking and unnecessary given the established safety and efficacy of these vaccines. Additionally, recent events clearly show the consequences of not vaccinating (ie measles outbreaks). We need to ensure we are making the most informed decisions for our children.
HB1811
House · 2026 sessionRepublicanKilled in HouseRepealing childhood vaccine requirements
AIRepeals statutory childhood immunization requirements, including exemption procedures, school and child care recordkeeping, and related rulemaking, and bars the state and its political subdivisions from requiring vaccinations, allowing only advisory recommendations.
repealing statutory immunization requirements for children.
Status
Killed in the House — Inexpedient to Legislate · February 19, 2026- ✓Introduced
- ✕House
- Senate
- Governor
- Law
Division of testimony
6,878 submissionsArgument digest · AI-generated
from 165 of 2,379 written submissionsHB1811 would repeal New Hampshire's statutory childhood immunization requirements for school and child care enrollment, making vaccination voluntary rather than a condition of attendance. Opponents, including many physicians and nurses, argue the bill would undermine a proven public health tool and endanger medically vulnerable people, while supporters, including many parents describing personal vaccine-injury experiences, argue mandates violate bodily autonomy and informed consent.
- Mandates violate bodily autonomy and informed consentSupport40 of 165 reviewed
Supporters argue that requiring vaccination as a condition of school attendance violates parents' and individuals' right to make their own medical decisions and constitutes coercion rather than genuine consent.
- Personal or family experience of vaccine injurySupport30 of 165 reviewed
Many supporters describe a child, family member, or themselves suffering an adverse reaction they attribute to a mandated vaccine, and cite this experience as their reason for opposing mandates.
- Manufacturers face no liability for vaccine injuriesSupport15 of 165 reviewed
Supporters argue that vaccine manufacturers are legally shielded from lawsuits over injuries, which they say removes accountability and any recourse for people who are harmed.
- Distrust of pharmaceutical industry motivesSupport10 of 165 reviewed
Supporters argue that financial conflicts of interest among vaccine makers, regulators, and providers undermine the credibility of vaccine safety claims and recommendations.
- Mandates conflict with New Hampshire's "Live Free or Die" traditionSupport12 of 165 reviewed
Supporters frame vaccine mandates as inconsistent with the state's identity and tradition of limited government and personal liberty.
- Repeal would not eliminate access to vaccines for those who want themSupport8 of 165 reviewed
Supporters note that ending mandates would not ban vaccination; families who choose to vaccinate could still do so, with vaccines simply becoming a recommendation rather than a requirement.
- Religious objections to vaccinationSupport3 of 165 reviewed
Some supporters ground their opposition to mandates in sincerely held religious beliefs about their or their children's bodies.
- Vaccines are safe and effective public health achievementsOppose45 of 165 reviewed
Many submitters, including physicians and nurses, describe childhood immunization requirements as one of the most successful public health interventions in history, crediting them with sharply reducing diseases like measles, polio, and diphtheria.
- Requirements protect medically vulnerable people through herd immunityOppose40 of 165 reviewed
Submitters argue that high vaccination coverage protects people who cannot be vaccinated themselves, such as infants, cancer patients, and the immunocompromised, and that repeal would strip away that collective protection.
- Repeal would lower vaccination rates and cause disease outbreaksOppose35 of 165 reviewed
Submitters point to current measles outbreaks nationally, arguing that removing school-entry requirements would reduce vaccination coverage and invite the return of largely eradicated diseases.
- Existing exemptions already protect individual choiceOppose10 of 165 reviewed
Submitters note that New Hampshire law already allows medical and religious exemptions from vaccination, arguing the bill's full repeal goes beyond protecting choice and is therefore unnecessary.
- Bill reflects misinformation rather than scientific evidenceOppose15 of 165 reviewed
Submitters characterize the bill as driven by anti-science political rhetoric and misinformation rather than the medical consensus supporting vaccine safety and effectiveness.
- Repeal would increase state costs from outbreaks and lost fundingOppose6 of 165 reviewed
Submitters cite the bill's own fiscal note, which anticipates costs from disease outbreak response and the potential loss of millions of dollars in federal funding tied to immunization requirements.
- Bill could worsen shortages of childcare and education workersOppose2 of 165 reviewed
A submitter argues that policies seen as disregarding health and safety, such as this bill, would deepen existing staffing shortages in childcare and education fields.
- Public health officials provide statistical context without explicit advocacyNeutral2 of 165 reviewed
A public health official's submission lays out New Hampshire's current vaccination rates and outbreak risk factors as informational context rather than directly urging a vote either way.
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.
Immunizations should be at the discretion of each individual
I do not support this bill.
This is crazy. Vaccines protect us all, and requiring them for school protects our children! We do not want to end up like the many communities in Texas where measles outbreaks have occurred and people are dying because they got rid of vaccine mandates!
I strongly oppose HB 1811 because removing childhood vaccine requirements for all children attending public schools or childcare facilities in NH will result in confusion over which vaccines are recommended and many parents may therefore stop vaccinating their children, assuming that if vaccines are not required, they must not be necessary or recommended. This will lead to less herd immunity and put newborn babies and immunocompromised people of all ages at risk of contracting viruses that will circulate in NH communities. Viruses that would otherwise not be able to get a foothold. Even people who purposefully choose a vaccine exemption for their children benefit from herd immunity because most parents in NH currently vaccinate their children. The human body is incredible and capable, but it cannot always win against viruses, which is why vaccines were developed in the first place. We have forgotten the suffering and death that are real results of infection with these viruses and should recognize that research shows that vaccination is far safer than the short term or long term effects of infection with viruses such as measles or polio. It is good to question safety and efficacy of anything you apply to your body or your children's bodies, but it is irresponsible to ignore expertise, science, and our well-documented history with these viruses in favor of fear mongering and ignorance. It is likely that most of you have lived in a highly immunized population for as long as these vaccines have been available, you must not deny that privilege to future generations.
I support this bill. No mandates!
Vaccinations save lives, not just of the recipients, but of those they come into contact with who are immunocompromised, elderly, pregnant, suffer from chronic diseases, and many more categories. As the child of an immunologist who works daily the healthcare industry, I know this is true and the backlash against vaccines is based on misinformation. Do the right thing for once and protect your most needy constituents. Do not become the enemy of science and healthcare providers.
The effectiveness of immunizations relies on herd immunity. Repealing these requirements puts many senior, disabled, children and medically fragile/immunocompromised people at risk. It endangers those whose jobs may put them in contact with unvaccinated people. It also flies in the face of medical research and science, and is counter to the recommendations of developed countries worldwide. It’s embarrassing that we’re even considering this. The potential to harm New Hampshire residents and their loved ones is vast.
Healthcare is not one-size fits all, and must be respectful of the patient. Vaccine mandates do not respect the individual health, values and goals of the patient. This Bill is common sense restoration of parental rights.
Vaccinations are a public health issue that should be guided by medical experts and not politics. As Governor Ayotte has already said, “Childhood immunizations play an important role in preventing the resurgence and spread of previously deadly diseases.” The national debate on this topic is fueling a lot of fear and misinformation. When the statistics have shown that vaccinations keep our communities healthy and help to avoid serious consequences and even death. This bill is dangerous for our communities, schools, and individuals especially those who are immunocompromised.
Mandates are not ok and are a violation of human rights. The ability to sue vaccine manufacturers was taken away in the 1990s and since then there has been an explosion of new vacancies rushed to the market. As with drugs, adverse reaction leading up to death can and do occur. Where there is risk there must be choice. When a manufacturer has immunity, the public suffers. Science is an evolving field. We cannot ever force products on people. Ever. Choice and informed consent!
I strongly oppose this bill. It is irresponsible & dangerous. Vaccines are extremely safe and protect all of us, especially our most vulnerable, from devastating, preventable illnesses.
Immunizations PROTECT NH children and others. Science is the answer to this bills bullshit!
Believe science! Children deserve to be protected and not murdered by laws that don’t protect them . Vaccines were invented in 1796…If this isn’t proof we need to invest more in Nh education I don’t know what is.
Strongly support
Herd immunity is the only way to reduce and eliminate risk of disease. If children are going to be in public, in schools or daycares they should be required to not risk the health and safety of others.
I oppose HB 1811 because repealing school immunization requirements would put student welfare at risk by increasing the likelihood of preventable disease outbreaks in schools and child care settings. Immunization policies protect not only individual children but also the broader school community, especially students who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons. Removing these requirements could lead to lower vaccination rates, higher absenteeism due to illness, and greater danger for medically vulnerable students. It would also weaken schools’ and public health officials’ ability to respond effectively to outbreaks, undermining safe learning environments and the overall health and well-being of students across New Hampshire.
The number of children who died and suffered from horrible diseases in the time before vaccines outweighs any harms caused by vaccine side effects by orders of magnifude. When I was young, Measles was a disease people *used to* get. This bill is absolutely unacceptable.
I want my children to not be exposed to preventable diseases. Shame on this legislature for ignoring science.
This is an absolutely idiotic measure that will set back public health 50 years.
I strongly oppose this bill.
I think I speak for many people when I say that we do not need an epidemic or outbreak of any preventable disease in any level of education. Vaccines help people and help make sure stuff like that doesn't happen.
I strongly oppose this bill. School vaccination requirements keep children, staff and the community safe from preventable diseases. Mandatory school immunization policy is the bare minimum for maintaining a modern, functioning public school system and workforce. In my professional life I work as a physician, and I know that increased measles cases like those driven by poor vaccine uptake not only run the risk of hurting or killing children unpredictably, they also "erase" previous immune resistance to other diseases, risk the lives of vulnerable or immunocompromised people in the community like babies or the elderly, and set up children for awful delayed disability and death like "sub-acute sclerosing pan-encephalitis" where young children can unpredictably lose their brain function years after getting sick. That's only one of many diseases controlled by vaccines. I am soon to be a parent and I would easily choose to leave New Hampshire rather than live somewhere with such blatant disregard for public wellbeing.
Let’s let science dictate what is best for public health.
The health of NH’s children is extremely important, and vaccines are an extremely important component of our modern health system. Allowing children to attend school without vaccines puts them and everyone else in our society at risk for diseases whose spread can managed or even eliminated if enough people get vaccinated. I believe that repealing the immunization requirements for children is the wrong thing to do in all cases, and would be an incredibly irresponsible action if passed. Do not repeal the requirement for children to receive their immunizations.