Prohibiting certain employers from requiring a COVID-19 vaccination as a condition of employment.
Impact
The enactment of HB 1351 would significantly amend the existing statutes related to communicable diseases and immunizations, specifically targeting the provisions that concern vaccination requirements from employers receiving public funding. This legislation, once passed, would provide employees with a legal shield against vaccine mandates, potentially affecting a wide range of sectors, including healthcare, education, and any employer relying on public funds. Such a move is likely intended to protect employees from perceived governmental overreach into personal medical decisions.
Summary
House Bill 1351 seeks to prohibit certain employers, both public and private, from requiring COVID-19 vaccinations as a condition of employment. The bill emphasizes the inherent rights of New Hampshire citizens to make their own healthcare choices, reinforcing a long-standing public policy regarding personal freedom in health-related matters. By ensuring that no individual can be compelled to receive a COVID-19 vaccine for employment, the bill aligns with the proponents' views on individual liberties and medical discretion.
Sentiment
The sentiment surrounding HB 1351 appears to be mixed, with strong support among those advocating for personal liberty and skepticism towards vaccine mandates. Proponents celebrate the bill as a victory for individual rights, reflecting the principles of personal choice in health matters. In contrast, critics may view the bill as undermining public health initiatives designed to combat the spread of COVID-19, posing questions about the balance between personal freedom and community health responsibilities.
Contention
Notable points of contention regarding HB 1351 include the implications for workplace safety and public health. Critics of the bill may argue that allowing unvaccinated individuals within workplaces can pose health risks, especially in settings that interact with vulnerable populations. Supporters counter that the bill does not prevent individuals from choosing to vaccinate and preserves their rights to make personal health decisions without coercion. This creates a fundamental debate on the limits of employer authority and the state's responsibility in promoting public health.
Prohibiting state and local governments from adopting certain mandates in response to COVID-19; and prohibiting employers and places of public accommodation from discriminating on the basis of vaccination status.