New Hampshire Senate Bill 155 (SB155) has a bunch of COVID-related Emergency Order-ish remedies in it. It establishes temporary health partners, allows for emergency licensing of medical providers, allows pharmacists to test and vaccinate pharmacy technicians, and could include a proposed amendment to prohibit vaccine passports.
The State of New Hampshire and all of its government entities, and customers of companies contracting with or otherwise doing business with or receiving public funds from the State of New Hampshire or any of its government entities, are prohibited from requiring any person to receive the COVID-19 vaccine or to possess a COVID-19 immunity passport, immunity pass, or any other documentation for certifying vaccination or immunity status. The persons and entities subject to this section are prohibited from discriminating against persons based on non-receipt of the COVID-19 vaccine or failure to possess a COVID-19 immunity passport, immunity pass, or any other documentation for certifying vaccination or immunity status.
New Hampshire’s constitution includes a right to privacy clause. Hence, it is not a stretch to embrace that in the context of HIPPA to establish in statute a demarcation on the matter of vaccine-based discrimination.
Related: FL Governor DeSantis Issues Executive-Order Banning “Vaccine-Passports” … Sununu Doesn’t
You shall not discriminate against anyone who has not or will not confirm or deny their vaccination status. The state may not contract with anyone who requires such proof, nor can anyone under contract require it.
Yes, I said may.
An employer or company that violates this section is in breach of its contract with the State of New Hampshire or government entity, rendering the contract voidable by the State of New Hampshire or government entity.
The only consequence I see there is that you might lose your contract, but that’s not definite, not by my reading. Rendering it voidable is not the same thing as rendering it void. And while the earlier language like ‘May not enter into” is good for contracts not yet approved and “may not require,” sounds like it has teeth, the absence of a clear consequence reminds me of why we need HB307.
The existing statute prohibits local school boards or towns from establishing gun-free zones, but there is no penalty in the statute for breaking the law. HB307 fixes that.
I’m no lawyer nor legislator, but the word “voidable” to me means you could or maybe not. I think we know what that means in the real world. Yes, it clearly prohibits any new contract, and that’s great. And if you want yours renewed, well, guess what, no passports or anything like it. And maybe it has to be written that way for existing deals, but that seems like a problem for the here and now as vaccine discrimination gathers momentum.
The right to privacy is in the constitution, but that’s a document which, according to our Republican governor and backed by a state superior court judge, means nothing during an emergency. It exists at their pleasure, not to restrain or contain political will or fancy.
We disagree and continue to push back with a host of other groups and activists.
As for SB155, it looks good, and the proposed amendment helps. Still, in our so-called purple state that flips legislatures the way streetwalkers turn tricks, we need to be as bold as we can while surrounded by progressive states whose refugees are fleeing here and may potentially poison our well.
One more point. This is a proposed amendment. It’s not in the bill yet. There is a Senate hearing tomorrow, Tuesday, April 27th, at 1 pm. Contact your State Senators and your House Reps and ask them to support the amendment.
You can join the hearing online tomorrow at 1 pm here.
