Blossom Dodge

I come before you today to strongly oppose HB 357, a bill that would strip the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) of its authority to update immunization requirements based on scientific and medical expertise. This bill would politicize public health policy, delay necessary responses to emerging diseases, and put children and communities at unnecessary risk of preventable illnesses. While I understand the desire for transparency and legislative oversight, HB 357 is a dangerous step backward that undermines decades of effective disease prevention measures and ignores the expertise of public health professionals in favor of slower, politically driven decision-making. Strong Reasons to Oppose HB 357 1. This Bill Removes Critical Public Health Decision-Making from Medical Experts Under current law, DHHS can respond efficiently to new public health threats by adjusting immunization requirements based on scientific research and medical necessity. This bill removes that authority and places it in the hands of politicians, who may not have the medical expertise necessary to evaluate disease risks. Public health experts at DHHS are trained to evaluate disease threats in real-time, based on evolving research and recommendations from the CDC, WHO, and medical organizations like the American Academy of Pediatrics. Legislators, while well-intentioned, do not have the same level of scientific training or access to real-time public health data to make timely, evidence-based decisions on immunization policies. If a new vaccine-preventable disease emerges, such as a deadly strain of influenza or meningitis, DHHS would no longer have the ability to act quickly to protect children. Instead, families and communities would have to wait for a legislative session and a prolonged political process—while preventable illnesses spread. 2. Delays in Adding Vaccines Put Children at Risk of Outbreaks Currently, immunization requirements evolve based on medical necessity—not political debate. Under HB 357, any updates to vaccine requirements would have to go through the legislature, creating dangerous delays. If new vaccines for emerging threats—such as RSV, meningococcal disease, or a future pandemic virus—become available, DHHS would no longer be able to add them without waiting for the legislature to act. Delayed immunization requirements would increase the likelihood of preventable outbreaks in schools, daycare centers, and communities—jeopardizing children’s health. New Hampshire has historically high vaccination rates that protect against diseases like measles, polio, and whooping cough. This bill threatens that progress by making it harder to adjust vaccine schedules to protect against new or resurgent diseases. A slow legislative process should not be the deciding factor in whether a child gets vaccinated against a dangerous disease. We should trust medical professionals to make these decisions based on scientific evidence—not political ideology. 3. HB 357 Opens the Door to Lower Vaccination Rates and Public Health Decline By removing DHHS’s ability to add new vaccine requirements, HB 357 makes it easier for misinformation to influence public health policy and could lead to a decline in childhood immunization rates, endangering public health. Vaccination rates decline when policymakers introduce unnecessary obstacles to public health recommendations. Other states that have politicized vaccine decisions have seen resurgences of measles, mumps, and other preventable diseases. Measles, for example, was declared eliminated in the U.S. in 2000, yet outbreaks continue to occur in states with weaker immunization policies. New Hampshire should not follow the path of states where preventable diseases have made a resurgence due to policies that prioritize political interference over medical best practices. This bill is a solution in search of a problem—our state’s current immunization policy works because it is informed by science, not politics. 4. The Bill Does Not Remove Current Vaccine Requirements—But It Blocks Future Progress HB 357 does not repeal New Hampshire’s existing vaccine requirements. However, it "locks in" only certain diseases—diphtheria, mumps, pertussis, polio, rubella, rubeola (measles), and tetanus—while prohibiting DHHS from adding new vaccines without legislative approval. Existing requirements for chickenpox (varicella), Hepatitis B, and Hib will expire in 2026—meaning these life-saving vaccines may no longer be required unless the legislature acts. The bill does not account for evolving medical science, such as new or improved vaccines that could better protect children against disease. Diseases that are not currently a major threat—like polio or measles—were nearly eradicated because of vaccination mandates. If we weaken our policies, these diseases could return. We should not tie the hands of public health officials by creating a system where medical advancements must be debated politically before they can be implemented. 5. Public Health Should Not Be a Political Issue Finally, I want to emphasize that immunization requirements should be based on science and public health needs—not political ideology. Immunization policies should be flexible enough to respond to real-world threats in a timely manner. This bill prioritizes legislative control over the health and safety of New Hampshire’s children. We elect public health professionals to make decisions based on medical science—we should trust them to do their jobs rather than shifting critical health decisions to a slow-moving, politically driven process. The health and safety of our children should never be compromised by political interference. Conclusion: Vote NO on HB 357 New Hampshire’s strong vaccination policies have kept our children and communities safe for generations. HB 357 undermines that success by stripping away DHHS’s ability to respond to public health threats, delaying essential immunization updates, and putting children at risk. Instead of weakening our public health infrastructure, we should continue trusting medical experts to make science-based decisions that protect children from preventable diseases. For these reasons, I urge this committee to reject HB 357 and vote NO on this dangerous bill. Thank you for your time and consideration.