New Hampshire House approves controversial vaccine bills amid heated debate

In a significant session on March 27, 2025, the New Hampshire Legislature addressed several key pieces of legislation, reflecting ongoing debates about public health, voter identification, and parental rights in medical decisions.

The session began with the unanimous adoption of an amendment to House Bill 367, which passed smoothly through committee and was subsequently approved by the House. This bill's swift progress indicates a bipartisan consensus on its provisions, although specific details about its content were not disclosed in the transcript.

A notable discussion arose around House Bill 385, which aimed to reestablish voter identification exemptions. The majority of the Election Law Committee deemed the bill "inexpedient to legislate," while the minority proposed an amendment for it to pass. The House ultimately adopted the committee report, signaling a cautious approach to voter ID laws amidst ongoing national conversations about voting access.

The most contentious debate centered on House Bill 357, concerning immunization requirements. The majority of the Health, Human Services, and Elderly Affairs Committee recommended the bill pass, which would allow certain vaccine requirements to expire, potentially making New Hampshire the only state not requiring vaccinations for diseases like chickenpox and hepatitis B. Opponents, including Representative Gary Woods, argued that this bill undermines public health by removing essential vaccine mandates and transferring decision-making from health experts to the legislature. Supporters, like Representative Matt Drew, contended that the bill is about state power and parental autonomy in medical decisions. The House ultimately voted in favor of the bill, with a roll call showing 195 in favor and 174 against.

Further discussions included House Bill 358, which proposed changes to the process for claiming religious exemptions from immunization requirements. The majority report was also adopted, reflecting a trend towards simplifying the exemption process, despite concerns raised about data collection and public health implications.

Lastly, House Bill 377, which addresses hormone treatments and puberty blockers for minors, was introduced with an amendment that allows for a tapering-off period for ongoing treatments. This amendment was adopted, indicating a compromise approach to a highly sensitive issue.

Overall, the session highlighted the New Hampshire Legislature's balancing act between public health, individual rights, and legislative authority. As these bills progress, their implications for public health policy and individual freedoms will likely continue to be a focal point of discussion in the state.