Dear members of the Health, Human Services, and Elderly Affairs Committee, I am asking you to vote OTP on HB679. Childhood immunization requirements should not include a vaccine that has not been shown in clinical trials to prevent the transmission of any disease. A very bad precedent seems to have been set by the handling of the COVID pandemic, where the FDA laid aside their usual extensive clinical trials that normally included long-term studies to rush through mRNA vaccines that neither protected the recipient of the vaccine from getting, or transmitting COVID. There are many cases of adverse reactions to the vaccine, including deaths, and severe cases of COVID by vaccinated persons, including death. At the outset of the pandemic authorities from the WHO and the CDC were claiming that COVID was not very dangerous to children and young adults who did not have any pre-existing serious health conditions. Yet months into the COVID vaccine rollout, they began vaccinating children, and children began exhibiting cardiomyopathy symptoms, including heart attacks. Please halt this reckless use of vaccines in children and vote OTP on HB679! Thank you! Donna Peterson
HB679
House · 2025 sessionRepublicanKilled in SenateVaccine mandates require transmission proof
AIProvides that state childhood immunization requirements cannot mandate a vaccine that has not been shown in clinical trials to prevent transmission of a disease.
relative to immunization requirements.
Status
Killed in the Senate — Inexpedient to Legislate · May 1, 2025- ✓Introduced
- ✓House
- ✕Senate
- Governor
- Law
Division of testimony
1,044 submissionsArgument digest · AI-generated
from 274 of 274 written submissionsHB679 would bar New Hampshire from including, in childhood immunization requirements, any vaccine that has not been shown in clinical trials to prevent transmission of disease. Supporters argue that since the justification for a vaccine mandate is protecting the community from spread, vaccines that don't clinically prevent transmission (including several currently mandated ones) should not be mandated and should instead be a personal or parental medical choice. The large majority of submitters oppose the bill, arguing it reflects a scientific misunderstanding of vaccine efficacy — since reducing disease severity, hospitalization, and death is itself a valid basis for requiring a vaccine — and warn that weakening requirements amid a resurgent measles outbreak would endanger children and vulnerable residents.
- Mandates should require proof of preventing transmissionSupport27 of 274 reviewed
Supporters argue the purpose of a vaccine mandate is to protect the community by stopping spread; since several currently required vaccines (e.g., diphtheria, pertussis, HIB, mumps, polio) have not been shown to prevent transmission, requiring them amounts to a purely personal-protection measure that should be left to individual or parental choice rather than a state mandate.
“This bill says that the state of New Hampshire cannot mandate any vaccine that doesn't prevent transmission for school attendance. Supposedly the purpose of vaccine mandates is to protect the community.”
— Darlene Cartier, Derry · #502614 — read full submission →
“HB679 makes a step in the right direction by intervening to prevent state mandates of vaccines that do not prevent transmission of the disease they purportedly prevent.”
— Nancy Louth, Hampton · #502382 — read full submission →
- Vaccines carry understated risks that warrant cautionSupport6 of 274 reviewed
Some supporters argue vaccines carry real risks of serious illness, disability, or death that are downplayed, pointing to personal experience or the fact that manufacturers and providers have liability protection, as reasons mandates should not be absolute.
“We know that vaccines carry risk of illness, disability, and death. That is the very reason that manufacturers and doctors have immunity from liability.”
— Laura Condon, Bedford · #506053 — read full submission →
“The Covid Vaccine murdered three people that I know. My brother-in-law died within a week, filled with blood clots through out his body, he could only call us to say good bye.”
— Pat Lewis, Rochester · #501392 — read full submission →
- Distrust of the COVID-19 vaccine rollout and testing processSupport6 of 274 reviewed
Some supporters cite the accelerated COVID-19 vaccine development and approval process as evidence that clinical-trial and safety standards have been compromised, undermining confidence in vaccine mandates more broadly.
- Vaccination should be a matter of personal or parental choiceSupport4 of 274 reviewed
Some supporters frame the issue in terms of bodily autonomy and parental rights, arguing individuals or parents, not the state, should decide whether to vaccinate regardless of the transmission-prevention question.
“I go even further, as I believe that bodily autonomy (my body, my choice) mandates that an individual MUST be empowered to decide what goes into their body with informed consent only.”
— Donna Meuse, Kingston · #505977 — read full submission →
“We are the live free or die state. Forcing mandates made by “health organizations” goes against everything our state stands for. Let parents make informed decisions to protect their children.”
— Casey Gibbs, New Hampton · #501412 — read full submission →
- Weakening mandates risks outbreaks amid the measles resurgenceOppose130 of 274 reviewed
Opponents argue that vaccines save lives and protect herd immunity, and that loosening immunization requirements now, during active measles outbreaks elsewhere in the country, would put children and the broader community at greater risk of preventable disease.
“With measles outbreaks happening in several US states, leading to the tragic deaths of at least one unvaccinated child and an adult, it is particularly disturbing that the anti-vaccination crowd at the GOP State House continues to push dangerous bills”
— Roslyn Ayers, Boscawen · #505251 — read full submission →
“With a looming epidemic of the dangerous measles vaccine we cannot deprive NH folks of this and other life saving vaccines.”
— Edward Bernstein, New Hampton · #504524 — read full submission →
- Bill misunderstands how vaccines workOppose70 of 274 reviewed
Opponents argue the bill's 'prevents transmission' standard reflects a scientifically flawed view of vaccine efficacy, since many effective, currently-required vaccines primarily work by reducing the severity of illness, hospitalization, and death rather than fully blocking transmission.
“Most recommended vaccines probably do reduce transmission of disease by increasing the level of "herd immunity" in the community, but this is not the only way that vaccines can help. Reduction in the severity of illness for the vaccinated person is another perfectly reasonable reason to vaccinate.”
— Lyn Lindpaintner, Concord · #504389 — read full submission →
“Other vaccines weaken the virus while stimulating the body’s other immune responses so that severity of illness and viral load are greatly diminished. In effect, people are not as sick and less virus circulates in the community.”
— Margaret Hartz, Surry · #504678 — read full submission →
- Legislators lack expertise and should defer to medical scienceOppose40 of 274 reviewed
Opponents argue that lawmakers without medical or scientific training are not qualified to set vaccine policy, framing the bill as part of a broader anti-science, politically motivated effort that should instead be left to doctors, immunologists, and public-health professionals.
“My question: who on the committee that sponsored this bill has a degree in immunology? My suggestion is talk with the experts...someone in public health.”
— Mary Burdett, Milford · #501360 — read full submission →
“Let doctors who know the facts determine our vaccine policies - not ignorant politicians.”
— Maureen Meyer, Stoddard · #504677 — read full submission →
- Placebo/clinical-trial requirement is redundant or unethicalOppose18 of 274 reviewed
Opponents argue that currently required vaccines already underwent rigorous FDA-approved clinical testing, making an additional transmission-specific trial requirement redundant, and that placebo-controlled trials can be unethical once an effective vaccine already exists.
“This bill is redundant and requires testing that would have already been done in the FDA approval process for the vaccine.”
— Sharon Racusin, Hanover · #503451 — read full submission →
“there are times when a vaccine trial cannot use an "inert placebo" for ethical reasons. Vaccine testing is rigorous prior to release and on an on-going basis.”
— Jeanie Holt, CONCORD · #503169 — read full submission →
- Would endanger immunocompromised and other vulnerable peopleOppose15 of 274 reviewed
Opponents argue that reduced immunization rates would weaken herd immunity that protects people who cannot be vaccinated themselves, such as the immunocompromised, infants, and the elderly.
“As someone who is immunocompromised and could be severely impacted or die due to catching easily preventable diseases, I strongly oppose this bill. My life and the lives of many others are literally on the line here.”
— Robyn Nielsen, Sullivan · #506151 — read full submission →
“By requiring otherwise healthy children be vaccinated, we are also protecting the members of our community that cannot be vaccinated due to age, immunodeficiency, allergy or other medical preclusions.”
— Rebecka Hart, GOFFSTOWN · #505493 — read full submission →
- Vague wording could be misapplied to eliminate vaccines broadlyOppose6 of 274 reviewed
Some opponents argue the bill's language is ambiguous, warning it could be read to require that a vaccine prevent transmission of any disease at all, which could sweep in effective vaccines unintentionally.
“And the wording is ambiguous enough that it could be taken to mean that any one vaccination has to prevent transmission of all diseases.”
— Jeanne Demers, Walpole · #505105 — read full submission →
“This bill will forbid the use of vaccines that are lifesaving, would eliminate diseases that would cause widespread sickness for the public, and/or could cause serious secondary effects. The use of the double negative creates a Trojan Horse.”
— Constance Brookes, Henniker · #505627 — 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.
Vaccinations are vital to modern society. Obviously.
I strongly oppose this bill.
This bill provides that no childhood immunization requirement shall require a vaccine that has not been shown in clinical trials to prevent transmission of any disease. It says childhood vaccines should only be required if they’re proven to stop disease transmission, but many vaccines are designed to protect people from getting seriously sick, not just to stop spread. It’s like banning seatbelts because they don’t prevent car accidents--they still save lives.
I am a 72 year old RNC in Maternal Child health for 48 years. We saved lives everyday with vaccines for ourselves and the Mother newborn cuplet. This Bill will allow this population to die . Just like my generation died before these laws were passed by decent Human Beings. You all have humans in your lives …Do the right thing …
DO NOT IGNORE THE HEALTH OF THE RESIDENTS OF THIS STATE!!! Mine and my daughter’s life depend on vaccines and the previous vote completely ignored the unanimous opposition to these destruction of our public health!!! Vaccine, save lives, and even Mr. Kennedy and Trump have made and as recently as last week promoted vaccines! Anyone who votes in favor of this bill I will hold accountable. I will ensure you’re not elected. I will put every single penny. I have to make sure of it. I will call your donors and make sure that they are aware that you have jeopardized our lives.
This bill is dangerous. Please support known science
I believe that children should receive vaccination against disease for their safety and the safety of the community
As someone who is immunocompromised and could be severely impacted or die due to catching easily preventable diseases, I strongly oppose this bill. My life and the lives of many others are literally on the line here.
This bill is garbage!! Obviously people don’t understand how vaccines work!!
I've never been scared of the NH Legislature before, but I am now terrified of you/them. Clinical trials are just plain good sense and good science. This bill, and it's brother bill HB664, are just pipe dreams that someone gets sick from a vaccine so a small population of backward looking folks could say "told you so." Would you really put children at risk, just to gloat in victory?
The purpose of vaccines is usually presumed to be two-fold: [1] Prevent the person receiving the vaccine from catching that disease. [2] Prevent the person receiving the vaccine from transmitting the disease to other people. But many vaccines DO NOT prevent transmission. The recent Covid shots were found not to prevent illness or transmission. Many childhood vaccines never have passed the test to prevent transmission, thus disqualifying the proposed justification for mandating a vaccination "to protect other people." Most people are unaware that childhood vaccines carry risk of serious reactions. I attended the funeral of a toddler about ten years ago. At 16 months his pediatrician ordered three shots given together. He suffered an immediate reaction. The next day the parents were told that a fever and misery were "normal" and not to be worried. When he had worsened the third day, again the parents were told it was "normal." On the fourth day that 16-month old died. You have likely never learned that he and many thousands of babies have suffered terribly and even died from reactions to the shots. That's because countless people in several professions depend on giving shots for their income. Every medical intervention has risk. Parents deserve to know the risks. And they should have the freedom to opt out.
As the mother of a 3 year old, someone with elderly parents, and someone who cares about whether the US descends into the Dark Ages of health again, PLEASE STOP BILLS THE REDUCE SUPPORT FOR CRITICAL VACCINATION PROGRAMS AND RESOURCES! Did you have Covid? Did your grandparents face measles? Have you traveled to and seen the devastation of easily preventable diseases in other countries? NH 'representatives' who seek to reduce vaccination support in our state are woefully isolated from reality and do not represent the interests of ANYone's health. The science and evidence support the health and fiscal effectiveness of mainstream vaccination programs, With measles outbreaks happening in several US states, leading to the tragic deaths of at least one unvaccinated child and an adult, it is particularly disturbing that the anti-vaccination crowd at the GOP State House continues to push dangerous bills that would undermine public vaccination campaigns and threaten the safety of all Granite Staters. These bills are anti-science and hide what seems to be the true end game: making vaccination requirements of any kind unenforceable. The two bills here, HB 664 and HB 679, seem to cloak their true purpose with talk of "inert placebo" clinical trials and "preventing transmission of disease" as though these are bright lines that should bar vaccine requirements. The truth is, placebo trials, in fact, can be unethical if a prior vaccine exists and in other situations, too. Also, there are placebos used in vaccine trials that are appropriately not "inert". As to preventing disease transmission, although some vaccines are more effective than others at limiting transmission, vaccines in general help to reduce the risk of serious complications such as hospitalization and death. See: https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-rare-vaccine-stop-all-transmission-infection-1638518 https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2025/jan/02/ron-johnson/yes-there-have-been-placebo-controlled-studies-on/ https://www.sciencealert.com/few-vaccines-actually-prevent-infection-here-s-why-that-s-not-a-problem-with-covid-19
I oppose this bill as a member of the public and especially as a retired immunologist. We have limited or iradicated numerous diseased that primarily strike children because of the requirements that school age children be immunized prior to entering school. It is impossible to do testing that would "show in clinical trials to prevent transmission of any disease." WE DO know that many vaccines have prevented many many cases of debilitating and deadly diseases. And we do know is that there is NO evidence of such unintended consequence of a disease transmission such as some individuals continue to believe is the case with the MMR vaccine and autism. Numerous studies have debunked that belief. Please stick with the well-established evidence of high levels of disease prevention. with minimal complications and be thankful.
I am writing in strong opposition to HB 679, which would prohibit childhood immunization requirements for any vaccine that has not been shown in clinical trials to prevent transmission of a disease. While this may sound reasonable on the surface, it reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of how vaccines work and how public health protections are developed. Many vaccines are designed to prevent severe illness, hospitalization, and death, and they do so effectively. While some vaccines also reduce transmission, that is not the sole nor primary metric by which their value is determined. A narrow focus on transmission ignores the life-saving benefits of immunizations that protect the individual from serious harm and contribute to broader community health. Clinical trials are not always designed to measure transmission specifically, as doing so is often logistically complex and unnecessary to determine a vaccine's efficacy in preventing disease. Demanding this narrow criterion risks disqualifying safe, effective, and widely recommended vaccines from public health policy. Recent public health threats underscore the danger of weakening immunization standards. The current measles outbreak that began in Texas and is now spreading poses a serious threat to vulnerable people, especially young children. We are also seeing a resurgence of concern around H1N1 influenza, another virus with potential to cause serious illness. At a time when we should be reinforcing trust in immunization and preparedness, HB 679 does the opposite by reducing the range of acceptable and life-saving vaccines available. HB 679, if passed, would undermine New Hampshire's ability to follow evidence-based immunization schedules, risk public confusion, and threaten the health of children and vulnerable community members. We must continue to rely on expert guidance and medical consensus—not legislation based on misinterpretations of scientific methodology. I urge you to vote no on HB 679 and to continue to support vaccine policies that protect the people of New Hampshire.
Please support HB 679 relative to immunization requirements as OTP. Vaccine requirements are imposed upon children because they are intended to stop community spread of disease. That is the very reason they are required of daycare and school children. We know that vaccines carry risk of illness, disability, and death. That is the very reason that manufacturers and doctors have immunity from liability. These are not products that they are willing to stand behind as "safe" and "effective". The risks are borne by children and their parents. It is shocking that any pediatrician or school nurse would view the prevention of the spread of disease as "vague" or "arbitrary" in an attempt to defeat this child safety bill. If vaccines do not stop the spread of disease it is unethical to impose this requirement on children. It may be that vaccines are therapeutic and may reduce symptoms, but in that instance it should be a doctor/parent clinical decision as to how to mitigate symptoms, not a treatment to be imposed on all children as a requirement to attend daycare or school. We don't impose therapeutic treatments for other diseases, we should not impose risky therapeutic treatment for certain childhood illnesses. This bill will go a long way towards ensuring public confidence in public health and recommendations that they make. Denying this bill and ignoring this science and public concerns will only increase vaccine hesitancy. I kindly request that you vote this good bill HB679 as OTP.
I support this bill because it removes the mandate for any vaccine that does not prevent transmission. I go even further, as I believe that bodily autonomy (my body, my choice) mandates that an individual MUST be empowered to decide what goes into their body with informed consent only.
Prevention of transmission of disease is not the only measure of the efficacy of a vaccine. Few vaccines are 100% effective. In some cases an important benefit of a vaccine is to reduce the severity of the illness.
Please note my statement for opposition of HB679. Thank you.
I am writing to express my strong opposition to House Bill 679. As a [concerned parent, healthcare professional, community advocate], I urge you to reject this bill, which undermines the well-established science of immunization and poses a serious threat to public health, particularly for children in our state. HB 679 introduces unnecessary and misleading provisions that would create barriers to vaccine access and compliance. Vaccination is one of the most effective public health measures in history, preventing outbreaks of serious diseases such as measles, polio, and whooping cough. The existing vaccine approval and monitoring processes are thorough, rigorous, and designed to ensure safety and effectiveness. This bill disregards these scientific processes and instead promotes unnecessary skepticism that can lead to lower vaccination rates and increased risks of preventable diseases. The passage of HB 679 would have dangerous consequences, including a rise in disease outbreaks and increased hospitalizations, putting a strain on our healthcare system. Furthermore, it would place New Hampshire at odds with long-standing public health guidelines, potentially jeopardizing state funding and our ability to maintain herd immunity. Misinformation about vaccines has already led to unnecessary suffering and deaths across the country. We must not allow this bill to further erode trust in vaccines and endanger the health of our communities. I strongly urge this committee to stand with science, protect public health, and vote against HB 679.
Yet again, politicians need to stop pretending they’re scientists. They also need to be for public health, not for the spreading of vaccine preventable diseases by adding unnecessary requirements to vaccine clinical trials that they clearly do not understand. Vaccines are tested in trials to see if they provoke an immune response. Transmission rate is a separate issue. This bill is stupid, anti-science, and against public health. I oppose it. I oppose any of this anti-vaccination idiocy
My son had a serious adverse reaction to a vaccine at age 3. We have really struggled with saying no thank you ever since. Even with valid reasons to abstain, the pressures are huge. We need legislation to protect people who need the choice. Protect the choice and demand valid studies with real placebo trials, ones that don’t include other vaccines serving as the placebo. I don’t want other families to experience what we did. Support HB584. Betsy Harrington
This bill is an active attempt to harm children by our Republican representatives. It is anti-science and misleading. It hides its intentions of inserting politics into medicine and asserts that our lawmakers know better than scientists and doctors. The scientific method does not conform to the personal feelings and emotions of politicians, nor their bunk ideas of how vaccinations work and the intention behind them: vaccines are not solely intended for the reduction of disease transmission, and it is completely ridiculous to base vaccine requirements around the idea that children must only be protected from things they can pass on to others. It is similarly ridiculous to base legislation and vaccine requirements around something that you personally believe to be the sole intent of vaccinations rather than any actual facts about their purpose. Protecting our children should mean all of our children, and from as many things as possible. It is disgusting to be against protecting children, the sponsors should be embarrassed, and I cannot see why anyone would propose bills specifically intended to harm the children who are the future of our country because of the erroneous, anti-science beliefs of a few lawmakers who have nothing to do with medicine.
We should be doing more to protect our residents, supporting the science community
Vaccines that don't prevent transmission still save lives by reducing the severity of illness. If someone's illness is made less severe because they've had one of the many safe, effective vaccines doctors and scientists have developed, their bodies will have the tools to defeat the illness more quickly and more effectively, which will invariably make the person less infectious themselves, and infectious over a shorter time. This in turn protects their vulnerable family or friends and reduces both the economic and personal impact of the illness. Do not go forward with this bill.