HB1219

HB1219 would loosen New Hampshire's immunization requirements for foster family homes (the bill title also references Medicare savings program financial eligibility, but no submitted testimony addressed that provision). Supporters frame the change as protecting medical freedom and bodily autonomy and argue the current mandate discourages otherwise qualified families from fostering, while opponents — many identifying as physicians, nurses, or other health professionals — argue vaccination is safe and effective and is especially important for medically vulnerable foster children and for community-wide herd immunity.

• Medical freedom and bodily autonomySupport27 of 103 reviewed

  Many supporters argue vaccination decisions should be a matter of individual or family choice and that no one, including foster parents, should be forced into a medical procedure against their will.

  • “Every family including foster should have the choice of medical freedom to do what’s best for the child.”

    — Annissa Green, Salem · #611427 — read full submission →

  • “There should never be a mandate, full body freedom! Please consider allowing people to think for themselves when it comes their own bodies and health.”

    — Wendy Spinner, Lancaster · #609429 — read full submission →

• Vaccine mandate deters otherwise qualified foster familiesSupport13 of 103 reviewed

  Supporters, including several describing their own experience, argue the immunization requirement causes loving, capable families to abandon the fostering process, shrinking the pool of available homes for children in need.

  • “I completed the first step of taking the FACES classes and was ready to move forward until we were told about the vaccine requirements.”

    — Laurie Downey, Franklin · #608547 — read full submission →

• Foster families should get the same exemptions as everyone elseSupport6 of 103 reviewed

  Some supporters argue foster families should simply be subject to the same immunization requirements and exemptions already available to the general public under RSA 141-c:20-a, rather than a separate, stricter standard.

  • “Please support this bill allowing people to serve as foster families and receive the same vaccination requirements and easy exemptions that are included in RSA 141-c:20-a.”

    — Tom Allen, Hollis · #598399 — read full submission →

• Vaccination status is unrelated to parenting qualitySupport3 of 103 reviewed

  Several supporters argue a family's vaccination choices have no bearing on their ability to provide a safe, loving home, and that the requirement screens out otherwise excellent foster candidates.

  • “I have not met one person who makes conscious choices for their health who is a bad parent. In fact, its the intentionality of such families that MAKES them great options for children.”

    — Kerri Vercellini, Rochester · #608866 — read full submission →

• Personal experience of vaccine injurySupport2 of 103 reviewed

  A couple of supporters cite a family member's negative reaction to a vaccine as a reason parents and foster parents should be able to choose whether to vaccinate.

  • “My nephew was severely damaged from his vaccinations as a 6 month old baby resulting in a massive stroke, seizures and now a life time of hardship contending with disabilities in his brain, hand, and leg.”

    — Alina Cypher, Exeter · #608598 — read full submission →

• Vaccines are safe, effective, and evidence-basedOppose24 of 103 reviewed

  Opponents, many identifying as physicians, nurses, or other medical professionals, argue vaccines are scientifically proven safe and effective and that rolling back requirements would allow preventable disease to resurge.

  • “The current outbreaks of deadly cases of the measles in the United States is testimony to the outcome when vaccines are not given to all unvacinnated individuals.”

    — Vincent Simmon, Portsmouth · #605329 — read full submission →

  • “Vaccines are the safest, most cost-effective way we have of protecting not just individuals but the health of the entire population.”

    — Gwendolyn Gladstone, Exeter · #590445 — read full submission →

• Foster children are especially vulnerable and need protectionOppose18 of 103 reviewed

  Opponents argue children in foster care are particularly vulnerable—often moving between homes, schools, and crowded settings—and deserve the same or greater protection from communicable disease as other children.

  • “Children in foster homes deserve to be protected from communicable diseases that have effective prevention measures already well studied by scientists.”

    — Mairead Pfaff, Lebanon · #595198 — read full submission →

• Herd immunity protects those who cannot be vaccinatedOppose8 of 103 reviewed

  Several opponents argue maintaining high vaccination rates in foster households protects infants, immunocompromised people, and others in the community who cannot be vaccinated themselves.

  • “The full impact of vaccine immunity requires the participation of the community - to ensure herd-immunity to protect those that are most vulnerable.”

    — Shawn Stapp, Auburn · #605552 — read full submission →

• This is a science/public-health issue, not a political oneOppose5 of 103 reviewed

  Some opponents argue vaccination decisions for children in state care should rest on scientific evidence rather than political or religious beliefs, and that existing medical exemptions already provide sufficient flexibility.

  • “I oppose HB1219 on the basis that it is anti-science and anti-public health. There are already appropriate exemptions from immunizations and I do not believe a change in the law limited to foster families is warranted.”

    — Mary Hakken-Phillips, Hanover · #609721 — read full submission →

• Bill shifts costs/liability onto foster familiesOppose1 of 103 reviewed

  One opponent argues exempting foster households from immunization requirements would push medical costs and risk onto foster families, calling it bad public policy.

Generated by claude-sonnet-5 (claude code agent) on Jul 22, 2026. Quotes are verbatim excerpts, verified against the cited submission before publication. Summaries are AI interpretation of the record, not part of it.