#

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.

New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu today praised the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling shutting the Biden administration’s attempts to use a workplace regulatory agency to enforce a COVID vaccine mandate on private businesses.

However, the court permitted the vaccine rule to be imposed on healthcare workers at institutions that receive Medicare or Medicaid funding, unless those employees have medical or religious exemptions.

“I would like to thank the Supreme Court for listening to the countless businesses across our state that would have faced catastrophic workforce shortages had this mandate gone through,” said Sununu. “I am as pro-vaccine as they come, but today’s decision to halt the president’s overreaching vaccine mandate is good news for employees and the businesses that keep our supply chains running and economy open.”

New Hampshire was one of 27 states that sued the Biden administration in various venues over its attempts to use the Occupational Safety and Hazard Administration (OSHA) to impose mandates on employers with 100 or more workers. The mandates, which required employees to either be vaccinated or undergo regular testing, would have affected 84 million workers.

OSHA issued its mandate in November, parts of which– including a mask mandate for unvaccinated workers — were scheduled to take effect this week.

Biden’s Chief of Staff Ron Klain re-tweeted a statement calling the OSHA rule “the ultimate workaround for the federal government to require vaccination,” a point noted by the court during its oral arguments last week. Klain’s attitude fed suspicions among some legal observers that the White House’s decision to issue the OSHA order is just the latest example of the Biden administration issuing a policy they know is unlikely to survive legal scrutiny for the sake of political messaging.

For example, when Biden issued a federal moratorium on evictions last August, he admitted, “The bulk of the constitutional scholars say it’s not likely to pass constitutional muster.” The Supreme Court swiftly struck it down.

It only took a week for the Supreme Court to do the same with the OSHA mandate, once it reached the high court. “Under the law as it stands today, that power [to regulate the pandemic] rests with the states and Congress, not OSHA,” Justice Neil Gorsuch said Thursday.

“By blocking the OSHA mandate, the Supreme Court showed that it’s possible to take statutory limits on federal power seriously, not just constitutional ones,” said Ilya Shapiro, director of the Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute. “After all, even if we accept federal regulation of workplace safety as constitutional, there’s a difference between occupational risk and the general risk of living in a pandemic.”

After last week’s opening House session of the 2022 season, Speaker of the House Sherman Packard (R-Londonderry) spoke to New Hampshire Journal about events at the Doubletree in Manchester. Packard defended the new district map approved by the Republican-led House and predicted vaccine mandates and the COVID pandemic in general are likely to play a big role in the coming 2022 election.

NH Journal: 

Overall, what were your goals for this first session of the House.”

Packard:

My goal was to get through safely and not have any incidences of sickness. We’ve had two years now. Every time we’ve met, we’ve never had a case. And so I’m hoping and praying that that continues. 

We sent out tests to every member prior to the first few days of the session and asked them to check themselves before they came. So I’m hoping that’s what they use the test kits for. But we also had like twenty machines in there going the whole time, to clean the air. So that was my first thing, to try and make it as safe as possible. 

(Over the weekend, the New Hampshire House Communications team sent out an email to members informing them that at least two people at the Jan. 5 and Jan. 6 House Sessions tested positive for COVID-19. Members and people who attend are being asked to watch for symptoms.)

NH Journal:

On the redistricting issue, do you agree with people who say that this was a good map for Republicans and one that Republicans should rally around and support?

Packard:

I think it’s a fair map. I think it’s a very fair map. We were very careful when we picked the Redistricting Committee as to who we put on it. And I thought on both sides we put people who were very knowledgeable. You gotta remember too … that the redistricting committee went to every single county in the state, including Coos county, and had a public hearing.

If you really look at the map, the 1st District is much more condensed because of the population, where we’ve got 55 percent of the population in two counties. So, it’s much more condensed than the Northern counties and the other counties that have smaller populations. So, it’s going to be a much larger area than the other districts, strictly because of the population.

NH Journal:

Many people were concerned about the bill to ban businesses from being able, if they chose to, have a vaccine mandate for their own employees. There’s a lot of passion surrounding that issue and some Republicans were adamant about it. And yet it got tabled by a pretty large margin. Was that smart politics from the Republican leadership that knew this was a loser issue and killed it quickly? Or was this an ideological vote in the sense that both Democrats and small-government Republicans agreed that the state shouldn’t be interfering in what a business chooses to do?

Packard:

I’m not sure it had anything to do with any particular philosophy on either side. We started out with over 40 bills that had to do with COVID, in some form, whether it be the mandates, the vaccines, or anything else. We whittled that down to about 20 bills. So we’ve got approximately 20 bills sitting in our committees right now that are going to be dealing with this issue. So our goal is to have fair, open hearings on all those bills and come up with the best policy we can. And that’s why I think you’ll find it if you talk to most representatives … I mean, something’s going to pass the legislature and hit the governor’s desk, and that’s what we’re going to be working on over the next couple of months.

NH Journal:

And what do you anticipate hitting the governor’s desk? Is it going to be some restriction on what private businesses can do when it comes to vaccines? 

Packard:

Well, my personal feeling is I’m against the state mandating a mandate. We’ve always been against that. And I feel it is important that we need to protect the workers, but shouldn’t be telling businesses what they can and cannot do. But we need to protect the workers against being fired or laid off because they truly believe that this vaccine is not safe. And many people I talked to believe it’s not safe. I’m not a doctor, and I’m not going to make any determination whether it is or not. I’ve had my shots and I’ve had a booster. 

So, that’s what we’ve got to work out. I would anticipate we’ll have four or five bills that go forward to hit the government’s desk in some form … I truly believe out of the 20 bills we’ve got we will have probably four, I wouldn’t say more than six, land on the governor’s desk that will probably cover all the [COVID] issues that we’re talking about. 

NH Journal:

 As of today, 2022 looks like it’s going to be a good year for Republicans. Do you believe that issues like trying to get in the COVID vaccine fight and the fight over anti-vax versus mandates, etc., is a good issue for Republicans in 2022? Or is it the kind of issue that would actually slow down your potential progress? 

Packard:

I think society today is so conflicted as to the vaccine itself, whether it’s safe or it isn’t safe. I mean, there are some pretty ludicrous statements out there on both sides. And I’m certainly not a doctor, but I think this is going be an issue until this pandemic, is put to bed and at some point is gone. 

 Moving forward, I think it will depend on how events transpire, whether we actually can get rid of it by summertime. I think only time will tell how this is really going to affect the elections. 

I mean, the Democrats have filed some pretty crazy bills too. There was one in there that had to do with, if you were on government assistance, more or less welfare, and you got elected to the State House, they get you more money. There are some pretty crazy bills that have been filed by our Democratic colleagues. So, once I think the public sees some of the crazy stuff, they’re going to realize that they don’t want (the Democrats) leading the state. 

NH Journal:

There’s been a lot of talk about a leadership vacuum in the Democratic House caucus, ongoing struggles between the progressive and traditional Democrats. Are you able to find partners across the aisle to negotiate with and work with, to try to pull more bipartisan legislation forward? Or are you just not interested in doing that? Or is it hard to find people across the aisle who have the ability to bring votes with them to work with as was common in legislatures 10 or 15 years ago? 

Packard:

Oh, I absolutely believe there’s still the hope that we can work together on a lot of legislation. If you look at the history, as long as I’ve been here, 80 to 85 percent of the bills we work on are usually bipartisan in some form. But nobody ever hears about them because they are bipartisan, there’s no conflict. The other 15 to 20 percent are the ones that make all the headlines and make all the news and make all the hubbub.

So, I truly believe that there are still a lot of bipartisan bills out there and a lot of bipartisanship in the committees too. There are a few committees you might consider partisan, like the Election Law Committee. But many of the committees out there, Public Works, Transportation, Fish and Game, all those are fair, bipartisan committees.

So, it depends on the subject matter, but I truly believe that in many cases, the parties will be able to work together going forward.

After months of vocal opposition to government-imposed vaccine mandates on private businesses, Republicans on the state House Education Committee passed one of their own. They approved an amendment banning any “entity” — including private businesses — from requiring COVID-19 vaccines.

“The Education Committee passed HB255 in the name of medical freedom,” said House Speaker Sherman Packard (R-Londonderry). “Employers are struggling to fill vacancies, gas and food prices are rising, and chaos reigns at the border – the president has shown his ineptitude to lead. He has instead chosen to rule by mandates. That is not the New Hampshire way – and today’s small victory proved that.”

If the Biden administration’s vaccine mandate goes into effect — it’s currently being challenged in court — it will supersede New Hampshire law. House GOP leadership acknowledged Tuesday’s vote was to send a message, not set policy.

“I applaud the members of the Education Committee who took this amendment up today and did the right thing for New Hampshire,” said House Majority Leader Rep. Jason Osborne (R-Auburn). “While it is my hope that the president pays attention to the message we sent him on the heels of his visit today, I will not hold my breath. I look forward to passing this bill at our first opportunity when it comes before the House in January.”

Critics noted the irony of calling a measure that forbids private business owners from setting their own vaccine policy a “medical freedom” bill.

Gov. Chris Sununu opposed the move for the same reason his administration is suing to stop the Biden administration from imposing vaccine mandates.

“As the governor has repeatedly said, he is opposed to the government either prohibiting or mandating vaccines on private businesses,” Sununu spokesman Ben Vihstadt told the New Hampshire Bulletin when asked about the House Education Committee’s bill. 

Democrats, many of whom also believe government should have the power to decide the vaccine policies of private businesses, dismissed the legislation as a “political stunt.”

“Republican leadership hand-picked the vote, permanently removing from the committee the one Republican member who may oppose this absurd proposal,” said Rep. David Luneau, D-Hopkinton. “This political stunt should be a concern to everyone. The House Speaker’s decision to gerrymander the proceeding is a disgrace.”

Luneau is referring to Pittsfield Republican Jim Allard, who was removed from the committee by Speaker Packard in advance of the vote.

Neither Packard nor Allard responded to requests for comment.

The regulation extends beyond businesses to cover “any political subdivision of the state, corporation, association, club, firm, daycare, public or private school, public or private institution of higher education, partnership, society, nonprofit, joint stock company, or any other entity, including any governmental entity or religious entity.”

Even churches would be banned by government edict from setting vaccine rules for their own clergy and employees.

Supporters of the legislation, including the anti-vaccine organization ReOpenNH, argued government force was required to prevent private businesses from imposing rules on their employees. Business groups pointed out employers impose rules on their employees all the time.

David Juvet with the New Hampshire Business and Industry Association said the state needs to leave those decisions up to private business owners.

“BIA staunchly opposes legislative proposals that would prohibit private employers from mandating vaccination for its workers should they want,” Juvet said. “Requiring vaccination is a safety measure to protect employees and customers and others who may visit the place of business. It’s not unlike other employer requirements from hard hats to hair nets and even dress codes.”

Steve Ahnen, president of the New Hampshire Hospital Association, said the bill would make it harder for hospitals to keep patients safe.

“It would really hinder their ability to do what they need to do to protect the health and safety of staff and patients,” he said.

Ahnen said vaccines are mandated for a host of illnesses across the healthcare industry. While he doesn’t want to see anyone lose their jobs, hospitals need to be able to take care of the health of the patients and staff. The anti-mandate bill would impede that effort.

The libertarian New Hampshire Liberty Alliance also opposed the legislation. “While we support legislative efforts to mitigate the harm of the federally imposed mandates, this amendment negatively impacts freedom of association by restricting the actions of private entities who wish to require vaccination independent of federal mandates,” it posted on the group’s website in advance of Tuesday’s hearing.

Less than 48 hours after Gov. Chris Sununu announced his support for a legal challenge to President Joe Biden’s vaccine mandate on private businesses, a federal court has already stepped forward to rule against Biden’s plan.

The ruling “foreshadows an uphill battle” for the mandate policy, according to the New York Times, and it’s the latest indicator that Sununu has once again put himself in the center of the political bell curve on the politics of COVID-19.

When New Hampshire Attorney General John Formella announced his decision to join an 11-state lawsuit challenging Biden’s federal vaccine mandate, Sununu quickly gave his public endorsement.

“COVID vaccines are the most effective tool we have to protect ourselves and our community from this virus,” Sununu said. “But as the head of state, I recognize the limitations of government in mandating this personal medical decision. President Biden has created a loophole to facilitate this overreach, which is why I fully support the Attorney General’s decision to sign on to this lawsuit.”

New Hampshire Democrats have been criticizing Sununu’s opposition to mandates, in particular his reluctance to impose mandates on local school districts regarding COVID policy, since the pandemic began. Sununu has consistently said that, while he believes the vaccines are safe, effective, and the best way out of the pandemic, he generally opposes mandates as a public policy.

Formella’s office announced Friday that New Hampshire joined with Missouri, Arizona, Nebraska, Montana, Arkansas, Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota, Alaska, and Wyoming, along with several private businesses and organizations in a challenge to an “emergency” Occupational Safety and Health Administration rule to force employers to require workers to get vaccinated or undergo regular testing.

Formella also believes that the vaccines are safe, effective, said in a statement on the lawsuit that the mandates are the problem, not the vaccines.

“The new Emergency Temporary Standard issued by OSHA is illegal and would impose significant burdens on New Hampshire businesses and their employees. We are therefore obligated to take action to protect the interests of our state’s citizens and businesses,” Formellla said.

At least 27 states have filed lawsuits challenging the rule in several circuits.

In a separate legal action, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Louisiana temporarily halted the mandate after a conglomeration of businesses groups, religious groups, advocacy organizations and several other states filed a petition on Friday with the court, arguing that the administration had overstepped its authority.

The Fifth Circuit panel said the judges were blocking the regulation “because the petitions give cause to believe there are grave statutory and constitutional issues with the mandate.”

Some legal experts, like UCLA Berkeley Law Professor John Yoo, call the mandate blatantly unconstitutional.

“It undermines the Constitution’s balance between Congress and the president and between the federal and state governments,” Yoo said. “Congress has not vested the president with the power to govern every aspect of every office and factory in the nation, and even if it had, such a grant of sweeping power would violate the very division of authority between the national and state governments.”

(Yoo is perhaps best known for writing the legal justification for the CIA’s use of harsh interrogation tactics against Al-Qaeda detainees during the George W. Bush administration.)

And attorney Dan McLaughlin, who writes legal analysis for National Review, says the administration’s decision to announce the “emergency” OSHA rules in September, but not have them take effect until January, will hurt their case.

“The Biden administration could have a very hard time explaining to the [SCOTUS] chief justice why it is entitled to assert emergency powers that exist to address ‘immediate’ threats, then do nothing with them for four months.”

Nonetheless, the Biden administration says they’re going to keep pushing the mandates.

U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy told ABC’s “This Week” it’s full steam ahead.

“The president and the administration wouldn’t have put these requirements in place if they didn’t think that they were appropriate and necessary, and the administration is certainly prepared to defend them,” Murthy told host Martha Raddatz.

Are they playing politics? They may want to re-read their polls. Since mid-September, polling has shown that Americans are, at best, split on the issue of mandates. A recent Economist-YouGov poll reports that only 52 percent of registered voters back Biden’s mandates, while 43 percent are opposed.

Here in the Granite State, a slim majority oppose the vaccine mandates, 52- 46 percent, according to a New Hampshire Institute of Politics poll.

And a new Rasmussen Research poll found 52 percent of likely voters say they support workers refusing to comply with workplace requirements to get COVID-19 vaccines. Just 38 percent oppose it.

And then there’s the question of whether, after Biden expends the political capital to push them, the mandates will still be needed in January. Many health experts predict COVID-19 is winding down due to the prevalence of vaccines and the Delta wave that largely infects the unvaccinated. With vaccines approved for children aged 5 to 11, and a new Pfizer drug that can prevent 90 percent of hospitalizations of the infected, COVID-19 may be in the rearview in a few months.

Dr. Scott Gottlieb, former commissioner of the FDA said on Twitter the government has already been successful in rolling out the vaccines, and mandates are not the way to reach the unvaccinated.

“As a fight over the federal OSHA mandate unfolds, we should remember 80.5% of responsible adults 18+ already had at least one dose of Covid vaccine,” Gottlieb wrote. “What level do we need to get to? What will the OSHA provision accomplish? And were there less divisive ways to achieve these goals?”