#

Granite Staters watched in confusion and embarrassment last September 29 as a handful of rowdy anti-vaccination protesters shut down a meeting of the state’s Executive Council, taunting the crowd, threatening state employees, and ignoring the law enforcement officers gathered at St. Anselm College.

Eight months later, the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office has finally finished its investigation of the event. It says there will be no prosecutions. 

“Given the specific facts of this case and the state’s inability to prove any potential criminal charges beyond a reasonable doubt, the state will not bring criminal charges against any individual as a result of their conduct on September 29, 2021. The Attorney General’s Office is closing its review and will take no further action on this matter,” Attorney General John Formella and State Police Colonel Nathan Noyes said in a statement.

They acknowledged there was evidence the protestors committed the crimes of obstructing government administration and disorderly conduct. But, they said, it was not enough for the state to bring charges.

The dozen or so protestors effectively took over the meeting, roaming among the attendees for close to an hour shouting complaints about access to Ivermectin for COVID-19 treatment, repeating false claims of “thousands of deaths” from the vaccine, and warning vaccination supporters they would be treated the way Nazis were treated after World War II.

“You’re going to be held accountable,” one woman cried. “Maybe not now, but years from now — Nuremberg trials!”

“FEMA camps!” shouted a man wearing a Karen Testerman for Governor t-shirt, referencing a conspiracy theory about government roundups of non-compliant citizens first circulated by progressives against President George W. Bush.

Dozens of police officers were on-site from State Police and Goffstown. But they never intervened to stop the protestors. Instead, they escorted employees from the Department of Health and Human Services employees to their cars, employees who said they felt threatened by the protesters.

Without those employees on hand to testify, councilors claimed the meeting could not go forward.

As video of the police standing by amid the chaos hit New Hampshire TV screens, some citizens began questioning why the trained law enforcement officers did not act. Asked if there had been a review of the officer’s inaction, attorney general spokesperson Michael Garrity told NHJournal,  “Any review of the actions of any involved law enforcement officers would be handled administratively by their respective agencies and would not involve this office.”

The issue of police refusing to act is particularly sensitive in the wake of the school shooting in Uvalde, Texas.

Gov. Chris Sununu’s office did not respond to a request for comment on Tuesday. He also skipped out of the meeting in September, leaving Councilor Dave Wheeler (R-Milford) to announce to the worked-up crowd the meeting was being canceled.

Wheeler said at the time several state employees felt unsafe at the meeting and left. Since those employees were needed to answer questions from the council members, the meeting could not take place.

“Mission accomplished,” one protester shouted at the news.

Councilor Cinde Warmington (D-Concord) said at the time New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services Commissioner Lori Shibinette made the decision to have her staff leave as the protesters grew increasingly agitated. Staffers were escorted to their cars by New Hampshire State Police troopers.

When the DHHS employees left the auditorium, the situation in the room got worse.

“Once that happened, we got reports from State Police and the commissioner of safety that the room had become more disruptive and they felt it had become unsafe,” Warmington said.

Despite police deeming the situation unsafe, none of the protestors will be charged. New Hampshire does arrest and prosecute protestors frequently, according to Pat Sullivan with the New Hampshire Chiefs of Police Association. 

“They’ve charged them at Seabrook protesting the nuclear power plant,” Sullivan said.

Sullivan declined to comment on the Executive Council protestors. The town of Newfields wrote an anti-picketing ordinance specifically so it could arrest protesters upsetting the governor’s family by protesting near his house. The Newfields police even arrested the New Hampshire Journal reporter who was covering the protest.

That reporter is scheduled to appear in court July 7.

Many of the same protestors were arrested at the October meeting for their disruption. Michael Garrity, Director of Communication for the Attorney General’s Office, said none of the prosecutions of those arrested in October will be impacted by Tuesday’s decision. Asked why protesters engaged in the same behavior were not charged with a crime in both cases, Garrity said the office could not comment.

“Because the cases that arose out of the 10/13 meeting remain ongoing, we cannot comment on those matters,” Garrity said.

The New Hampshire Department of Safety has refused to even say how many police officers were at the meeting.

“(T)he Department of Safety does not publicly discuss operational details or tactics,” Paul Raymond with the Department of Safety said in September when asked by NH Journal.

Raymond claimed at the time the failure to arrest the protesters in September was due to concern for their constitutional rights.

“Decisions on whether to effect an arrest require officers to carefully consider the fundamental rights granted to protesters by the First Amendment, the text of the criminal code, as well as the safety and security of other bystanders and attendees,” Raymond said.

That concern was apparently resolved when police arrested many of the same protestors for the same behavior a month later.

New Hampshire is going to lose billions of dollars in federal funding and cripple its health care system if the legislature passes a bill to expand vaccine exemptions, health industry officials warned Wednesday.

The Senate Health and Human Service Committee heard testimony on HB 1210, which would mandate that all New Hampshire employers give nearly automatic exemptions to vaccine requirements to employees who request them. Critics of the bill concede the state has the power to regulate businesses that way if they choose. The problem, the critics say, is the federal government has its own vaccine requirements in order to receive Medicaid and Medicare funding.

Forcing hospitals, nursing homes, and other healthcare providers to hire unvaccinated healthcare providers could cost the state billions in lost federal dollars.

Paula Minnehan, with the New Hampshire Hospital Association, said if the bill passed, her members would be in danger of losing certification from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and the funding that comes with that to care for patients.

“This bill is in direct conflict with CMS requirements.,” she said. “The funding at risk for New Hampshire hospitals alone is $2.3 billion.”

That figure does not include county and private nursing homes, community health centers, medical specialists, primary care practices, and other parts of the healthcare system that rely on federal funding.

Kate Horgan, with the New Hampshire Association of Counties, said the bill could also cost county nursing homes millions, and that financial pain would also radiate out to the private facilities that contract with counties for services. Rockingham County alone would lose $30 million in federal funding.

“You will be putting the entire long-term care system at risk,” Horgan said.

The bill would impact hospitals, county nursing homes, primary care doctors who accept Medicaid and Medicare patients, and potentially private contractors who perform services for state and local governments. New Hampshire’s hospitals could lose as much as 70 percent of current revenue, leading to bankruptcies, closures, and loss of care for many New Hampshire residents. 

The bill’s prime sponsor, state Rep. Tim Lang (R-Sanbornton), said all he is trying to do is codify into law the current standard procedure for medical and religious exemptions, while also adding an exemption for non-religious “conscientious objectors” to vaccines.

“This is probably the most misunderstood bill in this session,” Lang said. “This isn’t about vaccine mandates; this is strictly about procedure.”

The federal government does not recognize the “conscientious objector” exemption for vaccine requirements and adding it to state law would push New Hampshire out of line with federal standards.

Lang’s take on the current procedure employers must follow isn’t reality, according to Andrea Chatfield, an employment attorney with the Human Resources State Council of New Hampshire. Instead, the bill would take away rights from employers, hinder their ability to have a safe workplace, and open the businesses up to potential liabilities and lawsuits, she said.

“This bill completely strips rights from employers,” Chatfield said. “The bill does not understand the reasonable accommodation process.”

David Juvet, with the Business and Industry Association, said the bill goes so far as to negatively impact other aspects of managing a safe workplace. Businesses couldn’t enforce a “no shoes, no shirt, no service” rule for customers, and it would end the handwashing requirement for employees.

“This is not the most misunderstood bill of the session. If we oppose it, it is not because we misunderstand, it means we understand it all too clearly,” Juvet said.

Some Republican HB 1210 supporters privately grumble the healthcare industry is playing Chicken Little, predicting the sky will fall. They say it is unlikely the federal government would cut off an entire hospital from Medicare funding over a few unvaccinated employees.

Steve Ahnen, president of the New Hampshire Hospital Association, says they’re wrong.

“According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ most recent guidance on vaccine requirements for hospitals and other health care institutions that participate in the Medicare and Medicaid program, ‘The sole enforcement remedy for non-compliance for hospitals and other acute and continuing care providers is termination,'” Ahnen said. “If passed, HB 1210 would put their Medicare and Medicaid funding at risk.”

Debby Scire, president of New Hampshire College and University Council, argues the impact of the bill would be felt far beyond healthcare. She argues that, as written, the bill would end all vaccine requirements, not just for COVID-19.  That is a potential health disaster for college campuses, she said.

“As written, it means college could not impose MMR (Measles/Mumps/Rubella) and meningitis vaccine mandates,” she said.

Anne Marie Mercuri, an immunization expert with the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services, said a meningitis outbreak would be devastating for the state.

“This bill places New Hampshire residents at increased risk of disease, disability, and death,” she said.

DHHS is opposing the bill as it risks public health through increased infections, as well as causes the state’s health system to become suddenly and severely underfunded.

The committee is set to vote on the bill during an executive session next week.

House Republicans are pushing several proposals to curb COVID-19 vaccine and mask requirements, including banning private businesses from requiring a shot for employees. But New Hampshire’s healthcare professionals are pushing back — hard.

“A vaccination mandate should be job-related and consistent with business necessity,” says Pamela DiNapoli, executive director of the New Hampshire Nurses Association.

And New Hampshire Hospital Association President Steve Ahnen points out, “Hospitals have an inherent responsibility to protect the health and safety of their patients who, by their very nature, are very ill and the COVID-19 vaccine is the most effective way we can do that.” He objects to any legislation that would “essentially render moot any requirements that an employer has determined are in the best interests of those they serve by simply saying no to the vaccine requirement on the grounds of a conscientious objection declaration.”

The debate, which is dividing some in the business community from their traditional Granite State GOP allies, comes down to whether business owners should be free to set their own rules for employees, or if employees should have the right to ignore workplace rules regarding vaccinations.

“People say businesses have a right to do that, but they don’t have the right to get involved in people’s medical,” said state Rep. Al Baldasaro (R-Londonderry).

Baldasaro is sponsoring a number of proposals, including HB 1224, which would prohibit state and local governments from having any vaccines requirement, and it would prevent what he says is discrimination against people who have not been vaccinated against COVID-19.

Dozens of bills related to the COVID-19 vaccine were filed at the start of the session, though many in the State House think they will get narrowed down to a few laws that will make it to Gov. Chris Sununu. Among proposals under consideration is House Speaker Sherman Packard’s own HB 1455. It would prevent state enforcement of any federal vaccine mandate and limit the number of times a person can be required to get a COVID-19 test to once a month.

“I am not against the vaccine in any way shape or form,” Packard (R-Londonderry), said when he introduced the bill. “What I’m against is the mandate from Washington D.C.”

There are also efforts to allow people to more easily opt-out of the state’s new vaccine registry. Another bill would stop employers from requiring COVID-19 tests while yet another would make people who lose work due to vaccine refusal eligible for unemployment benefits. 

Many in the state are opposed to bills that would ban mandates. The New Hampshire Hospital Association told lawmakers that requiring vaccinations in healthcare settings is “absolutely the right thing to do.”

“Requiring vaccinations of healthcare workers from communicable diseases is not new for hospitals in New Hampshire. Hospitals have required vaccination against several communicable and deadly diseases such as mumps, measles, rubella, chickenpox, diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, and influenza as a condition of employment, with the same type of medical and religious exemptions allowed for COVID-19 vaccines,” the New Hampshire Hospital Association said in written testimony.

Tom Cronin, director of government relations for the University System of New Hampshire, said in a letter to lawmakers that HB 1490 would prohibit the enforcement of any vaccine requirements on a college campus. Long before COVID-19, most campuses required students to be vaccinated against measles, mumps and rubella, meningitis, and chickenpox, Cronin noted. The bill also prevents colleges from requiring mask-wearing and other measures shown to limit the spread of COVID-19.

“Legislation that would permit individuals to disregard well-founded public health guidance, such as requirements to wear face coverings in busy, indoor spaces, undermines efforts to mitigate the spread of the virus on our campuses,” Cronin wrote.

The New Hampshire Nurses’ Association is also opposed to the proposals limiting employer mandates for the vaccine and masking requirements.

“By prohibiting employers and places of public accommodation from adopting mandates, that would otherwise protect employees from the transmission of COVID-19, has the potential to cause death or serious physical harm to vulnerable populations requiring such protections,” the New Hampshire Nurses’ Association said in a letter to lawmakers.

Republicans reply they don’t oppose the vaccine or mask-wearing, just the mandates. President Donald Trump, viewed by some as a vaccine skeptic, recently announced he is fully vaccinated and has received the booster. 

Baldasaro, who is not vaccinated, said people need to be free to not undergo any medical procedure that they do not want. 

“I believe that goes against their privacy,” Baldasaro said.

He said he still suffers ill effects from the medications and vaccines he was required to take while a member of the United States Marine Corps. 

Another proposal, HB 1358, would eliminate COVID-19 testing as an employment requirement while at the same time making it easier for employees to get an exemption from the vaccine. Again, the New Hampshire Nurses’ Association disagrees with this approach.

“Restricting evidence-based testing requirements and/or allowing conscientious objector exemptions may significantly inhibit employers’ ability to maintain a safe work environment while putting vulnerable and immune-compromised individuals at risk,” according to the association. 

Packard said the issue for him is the federal mandate, which he believes is a major overstep.

“I encourage people to get vaccinated, but I will not be blackmailed by the federal government,” he said.

President Joe Biden pushed for a federal vaccine mandate, using the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to enact the mandate. That effort was rejected by the courts, including the United States Supreme Court, and the OSHA mandate was withdrawn.

A state House committee Tuesday debated a proposal to allow Granite Staters to get the anti-parasitic drug Ivermectin without a traditional doctor’s prescription. The drug has been embraced by some Americans, particularly in the anti-vaccination community, as a treatment for COVID-19, despite the lack of supporting evidence.

“Ivermectin is not indicated to treat COVID-19 and prescribing it for such is dangerous and totally out of line with standard of medical care around the world,” Dr. David Levine of Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center said in written testimony to the House Health, Human Services, and Elderly Affairs Committee. “I would never want this medication prescribed to myself or my family and would take legal action against anyone who recommended this to my loved ones.”

The committee heard testimony on HB 1022, which would allow doctors or advanced practice registered nurses to issue standing orders to pharmacies that allow patients to get Ivermectin to treat COVID-19 without first seeing a doctor. The law, co-sponsored by Rep. Leah Cushman (R-Weare), would also prohibit pharmacists from discouraging the use of Ivermectin to treat COVID-19. The bill further prevents medical professionals from being punished for administering Ivermectin for COVID-19.

New Hampshire doctors and hospital officials made their opposition clear.

“Ivermectin is not authorized or approved by the FDA for use in preventing or treating COVID-19. While the effectiveness of Ivermectin relative to COVID-19 is currently being assessed through clinical trials, we cannot overlook the fact that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the National Institutes of Health (NIH, as well as other federal agencies charged with protecting public safety,) have all stated that Ivermectin is not recommended to prevent or treat COVID-19,” Steve Ahnen, president and CEO of the New Hampshire Hospital Association, said Tuesday.

Dr. William Palmer, governor of the New Hampshire Chapter of the American College of Physicians, added another issue. “I would also be concerned, given how overwhelmed our New Hampshire healthcare system is, about where patients go and who will cover the care for any Ivermectin-induced side effects,” he said in written testimony. “Please vote this bill down.”

The pro-HB 1022 side did bring a doctor to testify, Dr. Paul Marik with the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance. Marik falsely claimed the COVID-19 vaccines were responsible for 200,000 deaths during his testimony, and he recommended taking vitamin D in order to ward off COVID-19.

Marik recently resigned his position as Professor of Medicine and Chief of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine with Eastern Virginia Medical School after he was reprimanded by the Virginia Board of Medicine for prescribing drugs like phenobarbital, oxycodone, tramadol, alprazolam, and diazepam to people who were not his patients, according to news reports.

Some members of the left-leaning media have inaccurately described the drug as a “livestock dewormer.” In fact, the drug is widely prescribed to humans to treat parasitic diseases like river blindness. In 2015, two key researchers in its development won the Nobel Prize for their work.

Rep. Jerry Knirk (D-Freedom), who is also a doctor, told the committee that while Ivermectin is a good drug to deal with parasites, it is not proven to work against COVID-19. He worries that allowing people to use it for COVID-19 might result in the infected not getting appropriate medical care in time.

“I have nothing against Ivermectin. But there is no credible evidence that it is effective,” Knirk said.

Knirk added people are much better off getting vaccinated against COVID-19 than experimenting with Ivermectin.

The Union Leader reported Monday that former conservative state Rep. JR. Hoell and his family are under investigation by the Division of Children, Youth, and Families after Hoell treated his children with Ivermectin when they had COVID in late November. DCYF has been attempting to take custody of Hoell’s two minor children since early December when a nurse practitioner reported Hoell’s ivermectin usage to the agency, the paper reported.

Podcaster and comedian Joe Rogan, a vaccine skeptic who trades in misinformation about the pandemic, treated himself with Ivermectin and other drugs prescribed by his doctor last year after he contracted the virus. At the time, Rogan was mocked in the media for taking a “horse drug.”