Andrew Manuse: Testimony for HB 506 (equal access)

Honorable Members of N.H. House Committee on Health, Human Services and Elderly Affairs:

I have come before you today in support of HB 506, a bill that will clarify existing law by ensuring that bodily autonomy is always protected as a civil right in New Hampshire law. RSA 354-A:16 codifies rights protected in the state Constitution (Part 1, Article 2, 4 and 5) and ensures that no place of public accommodation, which is an organization of any kind that is open to the public, may discriminate on account of several protected classes.

Now, I personally believe that specified protected classes should not to be needed in a land where everyone is treated equally under the law, but unfortunately, human nature is such that we must be clear that everyone has the right to buy groceries to feed their families even if they look or act a little different. Currently, the law protects equal access to places of public accommodation for all people regardless of age, sex, gender identity, race, creed, color, marital status, physical or mental disability, national origin, or sexual orientation. Arguably, whether or not I wear a facial covering, face shield, take a Covid-19 test, or show proof of vaccination, I am protected under this law and ought to be able to enter a retail store or place of employment without discrimination. My creed, meaning my belief system or faith, or my physical or mental disability, or all three, could certainly account for my protection under the law for access to such places of public accommodation.

To be clear: I have not worn a mask once during the entire State of Emergency for shopping at a store or going about my daily life, and I won’t—ever—for various reasons that I choose to keep to myself. I also will not take any vaccine, I will not undergo a Covid-19 test, and I especially won’t inject into my body the current experimental biological agent that is incorrectly being called a “vaccine.” These positions are among my natural rights as a free person, and the Constitution protects my right to this bodily autonomy, since there is no equivalent that can be offered in exchange. At the same time, I fully expect to face no discrimination for these choices as I am not impacting anyone else by making them, no matter how many times the Media, health bureaucrats, or the executive branch use repetitive propaganda to say that I am.

So far, I have been able to identify businesses that are willing to accommodate me while displaying the face that God gave me—for better or for worse—and the facial expressions that connect me to other human beings and empower natural social interactions. I have certainly faced my share of harassment from both store managers and customers, but I have always held my ground. If asked to leave, I have been compliant, but that has only happened once or twice. I’ve been chased down and yelled at numerous times, in front of my children. My daughter was accosted in a bookstore by a man four times her age and twice her height. I have heard, through some of the work I’ve done for ReopenNH as the group’s co-founder and chairman, of many other people who have not been so blessed, and I also pity the people who are forced to wear these muzzles or are strong-armed into injecting an experimental medical treatment into their body to keep their jobs. A woman was tased for not wearing a mask sitting on the bleachers outside during a football game. Others have been beaten or shot dead. This culture is not just inhumane, it is not human. It is for that reason that I believe the law ought to be clarified to add the language protecting access to public accommodation for people who have declined a medical treatment, medical test, vaccination, or who refuse to wear a medical device. In the text, the intent is to reference facial coverings as a medical device, but if it’s easier for people to understand the new language, perhaps “facial covering” should be used in the text of this bill instead of “medical device.” I leave that up to you to determine, but have included language for a potential amendment in my written testimony.

Now, I have thousands of pages of research that prove my assertions that masks are ineffective—there is no statistical difference for those who wear them and those who don’t—and that this so-called vaccine is dangerous and not worth the risk, especially when effective treatments such as Ivermectin are readily available and the disease that has plagued us for the past year has a 99.7 percent survival rate. If you are interested in this research, send me an email and I’ll be happy to share it with you. You may not be happy when you see how much research there is to go through. These ideas are besides the point that I ought to be able to buy what I need to survive, even if I choose not to go along with what I believe to be a gross miscalculation by our government at best, which they are now trying to cover up to save face, or at worse, a purposeful attack on our liberty to tighten the power grip of the elite.

What concerns me most and significantly calls out the need for this bill is in the age of the Governor’s State of Emergency, we have seen government bureaucracy use businesses as a backdoor regulatory arm, using all manner of unlawful threats and fines to urge compliance to pretend “legislation.” It started with big business, which set industry “standards” for everyone else, who then followed suit under the weight of the government-big business partnership. But individual rights have been trampled in the process, and all for no demonstrable reason. On the horizon are threats of more rights violations to come in the name of “public health;” as we’ve seen in other jurisdictions with health passports, even though no proof whatsoever has been shown that the overreach is needed. This is dystopian fiction come to life, and I want to wake up from this nightmare.

In case you believe that government ought not pass laws that limit the rights of businesses to discriminate, I want to remind you of the basic reason that our nation’s founders believed governments ought to be formed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Thomas Jefferson’s words in the Declaration of Independence show that government’s very purpose is to protect individuals’ rights from the threats against them by other individuals, businesses, and government agencies.

The language in this bill simply states that I have a right to buy essential goods for my family without having to be vaccinated or tested or wear a mask. I have the right to do that already, but this bill clarifies it and codifies it, and yes, creates a special class of protected people who can seek public accommodation without discrimination. Individual rights always trump the rights of businesses or other larger entities, and it is government’s constitutional role to protect individual rights from others who seek to thwart them. Put another way, the rule of law is paramount because it protects the minority from the majority, and such protection is needed for the rights that are being violated in New Hampshire today. I urge you to pass HB 506 into law.

Sincerely,

Hon. Andrew J. Manuse
Derry, NH

Share This

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Indefinite ReopenNH Protest

ReopenNH proclaims a new Declaration of Independence that invites every free person in the State of New Hampshire to protest the governor’s unlawful orders by ignoring them flatly and turning any busybody away with emphasis.

How do I participate?
Post a ReopenNH notice in your business window. If a government official attempts to shut you down, peaceably throw them out. That’s how liberty works.

On Facebook

Get Involved