Not so long ago, the legislature passed, and the governor signed into law, a bill that says:
Every person has the natural, essential, and inherent right to bodily integrity, free from any threat or compulsion by government to accept an immunization.
Accordingly, no person may be compelled to receive an immunization for COVID-19 in order to secure, receive, or access any public facility, any public benefit, or any public service from the state of New Hampshire, or any political subdivision thereof, including but not limited to counties, cities, towns, precincts, water districts, school districts, school administrative units, or quasi-public entities.
If, in fact, every person has the natural, essential, and inherent right to bodily integrity (that is, the right to decide what to do with your own body), then New Hampshire can’t have any drug laws. Or medical licensing laws. But it does. So either these words are meaningless — in which case, why put them in there? — or they invalidate a bunch of other laws. Which is it?
Almost certainly the former. This means it ought to start:
Every person has the natural, essential, and inherent right to bodily integrity, free from any threat or compulsion by government to accept an immunization. Accordingly, [N]o person may be compelled to receive an immunization for COVID-19 in order to secure, receive, or access any public facility, any public benefit, or any public service from the state of New Hampshire, or any political subdivision thereof, including but not limited to counties, cities, towns, precincts, water districts, school districts, school administrative units, or quasi-public entities.
If we learned anything from the Croydon town tuitioning case, it’s that the courts regard the phrasing ‘including but not limited to x‘ as meaning ‘limited to x‘. So it really should read:
Every person has the natural, essential, and inherent right to bodily integrity, free from any threat or compulsion by government to accept an immunization. Accordingly, [N]o person may be compelled to receive an immunization for COVID-19 in order to secure, receive, or access any public facility, any public benefit, or any public service from the state of New Hampshire, or any political subdivision thereof, including but not limited to counties, cities, towns, precincts, water districts, school districts, school administrative units, or quasi-public entities.
Note that this specifically rules out being compelled to accept a COVID-19 vaccine. What about the COVID-22 vaccines, and the COVID-23 vaccines, and all the others which will certainly be forthcoming? What about mRNA vaccines for other diseases? So it should really just read:
Every person has the natural, essential, and inherent right to bodily integrity, free from any threat or compulsion by government to accept an immunization. Accordingly, [N]o person may be compelled to receive an immunization for COVID-19 in order to secure, receive, or access any public facility, any public benefit, or any public service from the state of New Hampshire, or any political subdivision thereof, including but not limited to counties, cities, towns, precincts, water districts, school districts, school administrative units, or quasi-public entities.
However, the law continues, saying that the foregoing shall not
(a) Limit the commissioner’s authority to order treatment pursuant to RSA 141-C:15 or RSA 141-C:18, nor to order quarantine pursuant to RSA 141-C:11 or RSA 141-C:18.
Basically, you have a natural, essential, and inherent right to bodily integrity… unless ‘the commissioner’ requires you to undertake some treatment — presumably one that he feels would help insure your bodily integrity. Which, if you believe the claims from the CDC and pharmaceutical companies, is exactly what the COVID-19 vaccines are supposed to do.
So part (a) here says that, regardless of what rights you may or may not have, the government can compel you to accept a COVID-19 vaccine, if it feels that this would be in your best interest.
One hand giveth, while the other taketh away.
The new law also says that it shall not
(b) Supersede the requirement for vaccination as a prerequisite for admission to a school or child care agency pursuant to RSA 141-C:20-a, II.
So you can’t be compelled to accept an immunization in order to enroll in a school or a child care agency… unless it’s one that the commissioner requires you to accept. Which could be the COVID-19 vaccine, if he feels like adding it to his list.
Again, you have the right to refuse the COVID-19 vaccine, unless the government says you have to accept it.
Welcome to the new, post-14th-Amendment conception of rights:
That part of the right to do something, or not do something, that is implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, shall not be infringed unless the government claims a compelling interest in doing so.
That’s the modern Bill of Rights, condensed to a single sentence. You have the right to do whatever the government says you can.
How do we end up with a law like this, which contradicts not just other RSAs, but itself as well? It’s not like this was the first draft. This was after the bill went through legislative services, and at least two committees. So the question we have to consider here is: Was the law written this way out of ignorance? Or something other than ignorance?
