I would appreciate if you take in consideration my thoughts on these bulls especially 1080. This would harm innocent children and families their are 13,000 children on sex offender registries in Virginia...What do you plan to do with them their parents can go in a shelter but a child is excluded. Also a single parent who has a requirement to register stays outside and children are took inside unattended. Please consider this bill as not a wise choice

I do not support any bills that criminalize folks

I oppose multiple bills that have made it to the house the one bill regarding Emergency Sex Offenders is the most absurd bill I have ever heard in my life. No one is going to be worried about sexual offending in a State of Emergency number one. For example Dad is on a registry and he has three children who are accepted inside without supervision while dad is kept outside in the storm or natural catastrophe. When you pass bills like this your punishing innocent children and families. What about people who committed murder or child abusers are they treated the same? You Senators and delegates got this wrong and this is harmful to innocent families and children. Now let's talk about the 13,000 children on Sex Offender Registries in Virginia some as young as 7 years of age so Mom , Dad and entire family is allowed in but the child is made to stand outside during a castophre alone and sacred while his or her family are allowed inside these laws are based off fear and gives a false sense of security to the general public. Sex Offense is to broad, urination in public is a registable offense as a Violent Sex Offender, Reprorting a Sex Crime will land you on a Violent Sex Offender Registry such is my sistuation. Please reconsider the harm the harm of this bill

I oppose any tolling of speedy trial rights. This bill ignores the extreme imposition on defendants who are presumed innocent, and the extreme emotional toll on of having a felony charge placed over them. It establishes no metrics for determining a judicial emergency and leaves the exercise of statutory rights subject to the discretion of a justice or judge. No justice or judge should have the authority to toll any Constitutional or statutory right of an individual to hold the government accountable for bringing a charge. Frankly this sounds like: "Just bring the charge, we will work on finding a basis for prosecution later." I adamantly oppose this bill.

Please move to report HB104, 212 & 304 for the lives of children and 775 so that no other Gov. shuts down our freedom of religion.

The Virginia Sheriffs Association supports this bill. Legislation from 2020 permitting criminal defendants to choose a jury trial and judge sentencing has overloaded the Circuit Court dockets. Permitting a relaxation of the speedy trial requirements in cases of delay from this new legislation will ease the burden on court security provided by Sheriffs Offices.

The Office of the Executive Secretary (the administrative offices of the state court system) has several implementation issues with this bill, House Bill 163. First, the changes to the alternative transportation authorization language remove the language requiring that the proposed alternative transportation provider (“ATP”) be identified to the magistrate. This change shifts the burden of determining the availability of a potential ATP to the magistrate. This shift would require an independent judicial officer, tasked with making the ultimate decision on an ATP based on evidence presented, and require that officer to actively collect the evidence that will then be used in a decision they must make. Additionally, the bill could make it less likely that ATPs will be utilized because it removes the current language requiring that a proposed ATP be identified to the magistrate. Although the bill requires a magistrate to consider "all options for alternative transport,” it is unclear where the magistrate is to find information about those options if no one is coming to the magistrate and requesting an ATP. Second, the bill would prevent magistrates from issuing a TDO if a hospital bed is not instantly available. This change to the statutes contradicts the existing statutory directive that the magistrate “shall issue” the TDO when the statutory TDO criteria are met. By adding the following language to Code sections 16.1-340.1 and 37.2-809 – “The magistrate shall not issue a temporary detention order until a facility of temporary detention that is ready and able to accept the minor upon issuance of the order has been identified.” – the bill links the magistrate’s ability to legally issue a TDO to the hospital’s ability to admit the respondent. Furthermore, the bill fails to give any guidance on how the facility’s ability to accept the respondent is to be verified or by whom. State law currently requires hospitals to accept patients in need of temporary detention if no other placement is available. Requiring magistrates to “verify” that the hospital is willing and able to comply with the law is unlikely to fix the underlying problem of hospital capacity. Finally, the bill adds language to the TDO statutes that makes the TDO void if the receiving facility does not immediately accept custody of the respondent upon arrival. This raises troubling repercussions for a respondent who has met the statutory criteria for temporary detention and is now left without direction or access to treatment without any evaluation of whether the initial circumstances leading to issuance of the TDO have abated or been resolved.

Please move to report HB1356, HB212, HB304.

Good Morning. My name is Brenda Root and I am a resident of Reston, VA. Thank you for allowing me to share my concerns this morning. I am testifying today in opposition to HB 212 that “requires physicians and authorized nurse practitioners to follow certain procedures and processes to effect a pregnant person’s informed written consent prior to the performance of an abortion.” The proposed bill says that written consent must be “informed written consent” which specifies that State- produced materials be discussed with or given by the physician or nurse practitioner to the pregnant person seeking an abortion at least 24 hours prior to the procedure. An automatic waiting period of 24 hours is a built-in requirement of the informed written consent. Further, the bill states that informed written consent would guard against “undue inducement or any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, or other forms of constraint or coercion by the physician or authorized nurse practitioner.” So, the bill begins by accusing physicians and authorized nurse practitioners of cajoling people into having abortions. Nothing could be further from the truth. These health care workers are dedicated to their profession that respects life and supports pregnant people. They are not villains. And yet, this bill penalizes them if they do not give pregnant people seeking an abortion a set of materials to influence them to not have an abortion. They can be charged with a civil penalty of $2,500. HB 212 specifies the exact content of the information contained in the written or oral materials to be given the pregnant people seeking an abortion. The materials will provide a biased look supporting a decision to not have an abortion. There is no mention of what will happen to the pregnant person if they has a child. How will their life be changed? Who will be paying for medical care, child-care, food, shelter, and clothing? If in school, how will their education be disrupted? What about their life chances for economic security? Will they end up in poverty? I know of too many pregnant people from before abortion was legalized whose life chances were diminished. Pregnant people I knew who were forced by their parents to get married and then suffered the consequences of low income, substandard housing and low paying jobs. Further, the materials will depict realistic anatomical and physiological characteristics of the human fetus at two-week gestational increments from the beginning of pregnancy to full term including pictures or drawings of the dimensions of the fetus. The materials will also include details of abortion surgeries and possible physiological and psychological effects. Why include this visual in depth analysis but to manipulate and guilt a pregnant person into not going through with their abortion? It is harassment of the worst kind. It is psychological manipulation with potential detrimental effects for pregnant people. The decision to have an abortion is a hard one for most pregnant people. To add this type of required and legitimized harassment is potentially harmful and an insult to the decision-making capability of pregnant Virginians across the state. I ask you to vote No to HB 212 and protect pregnant Virginia people from political interference.

Good morning. My name is Elena Malkov, and I am a resident of Richmond, Virginia. My Delegate is Dawn Adams. I am testifying today in opposition of HB212, the Informed Consent/Biased Counseling Bill. Like most Virginians, I rely on my doctors to provide me with accurate medical information so I can make informed decisions about my health. The fact that HB212 will force doctors and nurse practitioners to lie to patients seeking medical care is unconscionable and sets a horrific precedent, allowing politicians to meddle with scientific facts. Forcing abortion providers to shame and manipulate pregnant people by reading a medically-inaccurate script is, quite simply, medical malpractice. The 24-hour waiting period proposed by this bill also places undue burden on individuals seeking access to a medical procedure. Pregnant Virginians deserve the right to receive accurate medical information and seek medical care in a timely manner. I urge you to support the rights of pregnant Virginians and oppose HB212. Thank you for your time and consideration.

My Delegate: Schuyler VanValkenburg Greetings. My name is Heather Massey and I’m a resident of Glen Allen (23060). Thank you for being accessible so I can share my thoughts with you about an important reproductive healthcare issue. I oppose HB 212, a bill that includes coercive tactics to gain “informed consent” from a pregnant person seeking an abortion. I’m especially concerned because this bill would require abortion providers to read a medically inaccurate script written by anti-abortion legislators to every pregnant person seeking an abortion. This script is intended to manipulate and shame a pregnant person into abandoning their abortion plan. Even worse, this bill also implements a 24-hour waiting period, a tactic that would place undue burdens on patients because they would experience a medically unnecessary delay in their healthcare. As someone who once had an abortion, I never had to endure such manipulation tactics, delays, or shaming. The experience was as routine as all my other healthcare procedures, an experience I appreciate and value to this day. Therefore, I want all Virginians to benefit from the same type of worry-free reproductive healthcare. We’ve made important progress on reproductive healthcare access and must continue it. I urge you to please oppose HB 212 to help Virginians like me. Thank you for your time and consideration of this important matter.

My name is Lindsey Paradiso and I am a resident of Fredericksburg, Virginia. I am testifying today in support of Restoring Dignity to Informed Consent (HB 212). I come to you not only as a concerned citizen, but also as a mother who had to make the single most difficult decision of my life to end a very wanted and planned pregnancy. Throughout our journey I needed to know that the advice and services I received from my doctors were guided by their medical expertise and not my politicians. Restoring Dignity to Informed Consent (HB 212) recognizes that each patient needs to be able to trust her doctor in providing her with timely care, free from judgement and stigma. Virginia law currently requires physicians to communicate biased information about abortion to their patients, perform unnecessary diagnostic testing, and delay care for 24 hours against their patient’s wishes. These laws violate the basic tenants of informed consent, and delay a woman’s ability to access safe, legal abortion care by requiring multiple trips to a clinic for no other reason than to show the state’s disapproval of a woman’s personal, constitutionally protected medical decision. While there were health related risks and issues involved in our decision to terminate, we were still making a very difficult choice. I couldn’t imagine having to make that choice under scrutiny by care providers who seem judgmental or doubtful toward my ability to make choices for myself and in the interest of my family. In conclusion, I urge you to please support this bill, HB 212. Thank you for your time and consideration.

I needed an abortion in late 2017, when my contraception failed and I decided I wanted to better myself and my life before planning a family. I went through the 24 hour waiting period, the forced vaginal ultrasound, and the so-called “informed consent” nonsense that was designed to guilt trip me out of making the choice that was right for me. I was hurt and angry to know that none of those were even medically necessary, they were measures passed by an anti-woman legislature that thought they had the right to insert themselves between my doctor and I. I am afraid that with the new governorship and the people in the Supreme Court who do not support women’s right to choose, women in Virginia will yet again face unnecessary barriers in accessing the healthcare they deserve. This interferes with the trusted doctor-patient relationship. People should decide for themselves whether they want an abortion in consultation with their doctor or nurse practitioner and without any interference from politicians. This bill is insulting to medical providers and patients. It is also insulting that these people in positions of power think they know what’s best for every pregnant person’s situation. I am grateful that I was able to have a safe and legal abortion, and my life has improved in so many ways because of it. I urge you to vote no on HB212.

Reinstatement of TRAP laws does nothing to make anyone safer but rather hinders our rights to bodily autonomy. Ironic coming from the party evoking the same argument to end Covid-19 masking guidelines.

I write in opposition to HB212 and encourage you to vote against this bill. This bill is harmful to many Virginians, and takes away their autonomy to make the decision that is best for them and their families. Plain and simple, this is an oppressive bill that seeks to take away the bodily autonomy of pregnant people and their futures. This bill will only deepen abortion stigma in our communities and medical decisions must be left between each person and their health care provider, without politicians meddling in the exam room.

--- HB1274 This bill sits in direct opposition to the constitutional rights granted to all citizens under Roe v. Wade and decades of proceeding legal precedent. Any bans on abortion, no matter the week, deny Virginians their fundamental right to control their own body and healthcare decisions. Abortion is essential healthcare, and the choice of wether or not to carry a pregnacy to term should be made by a person and their doctor, not politicians. --- HB212 This bill only serves to further stigmatize abortion in the Commonwealth. While we should be prioritizing the improvement of medical care across Virginia, sponsors of this bill seek to make accessing safe and non-judgemental care more difficult. Nobody seeks out medical advice from politicians because politicians are not medical professionals. Decisions about pregnancy and abortion should be left to the healthcare provider and the patient. --- HB983 These proposed restrictions on abortion are medically unnecessary. They are political tools introduced by the Republican party in order to make accessing abortion and exercising the fundamental right to bodily autonomy more difficult. They will disproportionately harm vulnerable Virginians – those without reliable transportation, those with low incomes, and those residing in rural areas. Because of interlocking systems of white supremacy, this means this bill will disproportionately harm people of color. In a state like Virginia, we should be actively working to dismantle vestiges of white supremacy, not proposing legislation that exacerbates it. Moreover, no other medical procedure – not even heart or brain surgery – is treated with the same degree of political intrusion. It is yet another iteration of the Republican attacks on reproductive choice and a direct obstacle to reproductive justice in the Commonwealth. --- HB304 To be honest, I’m not even sure why this bill was proposed in the first place – doctors are already obligated to provide appropriate medical care. Suggesting otherwise is dangerous and morally wrong. The fact of the matter is that this bill is not based in science, medicine, or fact. The term “born alive” was made up not by the medical community, but by extremist Republican politicians seeking to stigmatize and mythologize what happens during an abortion. It is pure political theater meant to stoke fear and bully patients and providers. These lies cause conservative extremists to attack clinics and providers – as has been the case for decades. It’s simultaneously sad and laughable that these delegates would waste the General Assembly’s precious and short time with this nonsense. Stop driving an inaccurate and false narrative and get back to what really matters. Signed, Noah from Charlottesville

Please keep choices available for women to terminate unwanted pregnancies.

Please reject these regressive anti-abortion bills. Adequate legislation already exists. These efforts seek to undermine Constitutionally protected rights for women. Women only hold 30% of the seats in the Virginia General Assembly. I think it's messed up to have a governmental body dominated by men making laws that effect women's health and rights. I feel certain if men were the ones who got pregnant such legislation would not seriously be considered. Thank you for your time and I look forward to you representing my views in the General Assembly. Respectfully, Silver Persinger

I oppose these draconian bills that harm and penalize pregnant people. These bills pretend to care about health but have no basis in medical care and will set this state back decades.

In favor of these bills as they protect the life of innocent human life.

I oppose this bill. I urge you to vote no. Respect a persons right to medically accurate information and the right to choose an abortion.

Abortion is fundamental healthcare, a reproductive right and a human right. We should be subjecting people undergoing this procedure to any unnecessary trauma just like you wouldn’t do with any other medical procedure. In many cases, abortions can be live saving, both literally and in terms of future mental health and financial outcomes. In addition, with many Virginians not having insurance available to them, the requirement of an ultrasound to get an abortion is prohibitive for many, especially in addition to the cost of getting an abortion. There is no science to show that 20 weeks is the point of “life” and this is entirely based in neo-Christian theology. Because of the separation of Church and State, I believe this anti-abortion bills not only violate the rights of people with uteruses but also the Constitution. Please keep abortion access available and equitable in the Commonwealth.

Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony today. My name is Amanda Reames Pittelli and I am a Women’s Healthcare Nurse Practitioner. I serve as Director of Clinical Services for Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington, D.C. (PPMW), providing care to patients across Northern Virginia, the District of Columbia, and Maryland’s Prince George’s and Montgomery Counties. For 10 years, I have been honored with the trust of patients seeking a broad spectrum of health care, including abortion. PPMW has been proud to provide high quality, comprehensive reproductive health care for over 80 years on the principle that everyone deserves equal access to health services. We commit to caring for our patients – your constituents – by providing contraceptives, tests for sexually transmitted infections, and lifesaving cancer screenings such as breast exams, as well as gender-affirming care, primary care, and abortion. I testify today against HB212. This bill is dangerous legislation that would interfere in the patient-provider relationship. Reproductive decisions are some of the most important life decisions we make, and as a nurse practitioner who has spent my professional life caring for people during their reproductive years, I’ve witnessed just how important these decisions can be. The complexity of people’s lives and health require that these personal decisions be made by the individual with the support of their health care provider — free from political interference. HB212 would reinstate a biased requirement that would interfere with the provider-patient relationship when patients seek abortion. Abortion is a safe and legal medical procedure. The clear goal of this legislation is to deter and confuse patients from accessing essential health care and to take away people’s power over their own bodies, their lives, and their futures. This bill puts politicians in the middle of private medical decisions that should be left to each patient and their medical provider. None of us turn to politicians for advice about breast exams, prenatal care, or cancer treatments. Politicians should not be involved in personal medical decisions about pregnancy. As an experienced clinician in the field, I can say from a decade of first hand experience that rather than improving patient care, this bill would serve to shame and stigmatize people for getting an abortion and only make it harder to access safe, legal abortion. Every person deserves to access the care they need throughout a pregnancy. This legislation is a gross over reach into personal reproductive health decisions and should be rejected. Thank you.

Good Morning. My name is Brenda Root and I am a resident of Reston, VA. Thank you for allowing me to share my concerns this morning. I am testifying today in opposition to HB 212 that “requires physicians and authorized nurse practitioners to follow certain procedures and processes to effect a pregnant person’s informed written consent prior to the performance of an abortion.” The proposed bill says that written consent must be “informed written consent” which specifies that State- produced materials be discussed with or given by the physician or nurse practitioner to the pregnant person seeking an abortion at least 24 hours prior to the procedure. An automatic waiting period of 24 hours is a built-in requirement of the informed written consent. Further, the bill states that informed written consent would guard against “undue inducement or any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, or other forms of constraint or coercion by the physician or authorized nurse practitioner.” So, the bill begins by accusing physicians and authorized nurse practitioners of cajoling people into having abortions. Nothing could be further from the truth. These health care workers are dedicated to their profession that respects life and supports pregnant people. They are not villains. And yet, this bill penalizes them if they do not give pregnant people seeking an abortion a set of materials to influence them to not have an abortion. They can be charged with a civil penalty of $2,500. HB 212 specifies the exact content of the information contained in the written or oral materials to be given the pregnant people seeking an abortion. The materials will provide a biased look supporting a decision to not have an abortion. There is no mention of what will happen to the pregnant person if they has a child. How will their life be changed? Who will be paying for medical care, child-care, food, shelter, and clothing? If in school, how will their education be disrupted? What about their life chances for economic security? Will they end up in poverty? I know of too many pregnant people from before abortion was legalized whose life chances were diminished. Pregnant people I knew who were forced by their parents to get married and then suffered the consequences of low income, substandard housing and low paying jobs. Further, the materials will depict realistic anatomical and physiological characteristics of the human fetus at two-week gestational increments from the beginning of pregnancy to full term including pictures or drawings of the dimensions of the fetus. The materials will also include details of abortion surgeries and possible physiological and psychological effects. Why include this visual in depth analysis but to manipulate and guilt a pregnant person into not going through with their abortion? It is harassment of the worst kind. It is psychological manipulation with potential detrimental effects for pregnant people. The decision to have an abortion is a hard one for most pregnant people. To add this type of required and legitimized harassment is potentially harmful and an insult to the decision-making capability of pregnant Virginians across the state. I ask you to vote No to HB 212 and protect pregnant Virginia people from political interference. Thank you, Brenda Root, Ph.D.

The script for this "counseling" is full of medical inaccuracies. This is a barely-concealed attempt to scare or guilt an emotionally and physically vulnerable person into a forced birth.

Dear Delegates Greenhalgh and Frietas: Women as I’m sure you are well aware, have only begun to have the right to speak out and use their voices as important members of society since the 1960’s, when it was still taboo for them to be anything but a housewife. We were and by the introduction of these bills clearly still are looked at as second to the heterosexual white male persuasion who thinks it’s proper to make decisions for us regarding how we should live our lives and even what we should do with our own bodies. I’m quite certain if a bill was introduced that would limit access to the health and well being of your sex organs, you’d be screaming from the rooftops. Please don’t limit mine as a woman and please stop telling me what to do with my body, because it is ultimately my choice!

Please move to report HB104, 212 & 304 for the lives of children and 775 so that no other Gov. shuts down our freedom of religion.

Good morning. My name is Elena Malkov, and I am a resident of Richmond, Virginia. My Delegate is Dawn Adams. I am testifying today in opposition of HB212, the Informed Consent/Biased Counseling Bill. Like most Virginians, I rely on my doctors to provide me with accurate medical information so I can make informed decisions about my health. The fact that HB212 will force doctors and nurse practitioners to lie to patients seeking medical care is unconscionable and sets a horrific precedent, allowing politicians to meddle with scientific facts. Forcing abortion providers to shame and manipulate pregnant people by reading a medically-inaccurate script is, quite simply, medical malpractice. The 24-hour waiting period proposed by this bill also places undue burden on individuals seeking access to a medical procedure. Pregnant Virginians deserve the right to receive accurate medical information and seek medical care in a timely manner. I urge you to support the rights of pregnant Virginians and oppose HB212. Thank you for your time and consideration.

My Delegate: Schuyler VanValkenburg Greetings. My name is Heather Massey and I’m a resident of Glen Allen (23060). Thank you for being accessible so I can share my thoughts with you about an important reproductive healthcare issue. I oppose HB 212, a bill that includes coercive tactics to gain “informed consent” from a pregnant person seeking an abortion. I’m especially concerned because this bill would require abortion providers to read a medically inaccurate script written by anti-abortion legislators to every pregnant person seeking an abortion. This script is intended to manipulate and shame a pregnant person into abandoning their abortion plan. Even worse, this bill also implements a 24-hour waiting period, a tactic that would place undue burdens on patients because they would experience a medically unnecessary delay in their healthcare. As someone who once had an abortion, I never had to endure such manipulation tactics, delays, or shaming. The experience was as routine as all my other healthcare procedures, an experience I appreciate and value to this day. Therefore, I want all Virginians to benefit from the same type of worry-free reproductive healthcare. We’ve made important progress on reproductive healthcare access and must continue it. I urge you to please oppose HB 212 to help Virginians like me. Thank you for your time and consideration of this important matter.

My name is Lindsey Paradiso and I am a resident of Fredericksburg, Virginia. I am testifying today in support of Restoring Dignity to Informed Consent (HB 212). I come to you not only as a concerned citizen, but also as a mother who had to make the single most difficult decision of my life to end a very wanted and planned pregnancy. Throughout our journey I needed to know that the advice and services I received from my doctors were guided by their medical expertise and not my politicians. Restoring Dignity to Informed Consent (HB 212) recognizes that each patient needs to be able to trust her doctor in providing her with timely care, free from judgement and stigma. Virginia law currently requires physicians to communicate biased information about abortion to their patients, perform unnecessary diagnostic testing, and delay care for 24 hours against their patient’s wishes. These laws violate the basic tenants of informed consent, and delay a woman’s ability to access safe, legal abortion care by requiring multiple trips to a clinic for no other reason than to show the state’s disapproval of a woman’s personal, constitutionally protected medical decision. While there were health related risks and issues involved in our decision to terminate, we were still making a very difficult choice. I couldn’t imagine having to make that choice under scrutiny by care providers who seem judgmental or doubtful toward my ability to make choices for myself and in the interest of my family. In conclusion, I urge you to please support this bill, HB 212. Thank you for your time and consideration.

I needed an abortion in late 2017, when my contraception failed and I decided I wanted to better myself and my life before planning a family. I went through the 24 hour waiting period, the forced vaginal ultrasound, and the so-called “informed consent” nonsense that was designed to guilt trip me out of making the choice that was right for me. I was hurt and angry to know that none of those were even medically necessary, they were measures passed by an anti-woman legislature that thought they had the right to insert themselves between my doctor and I. I am afraid that with the new governorship and the people in the Supreme Court who do not support women’s right to choose, women in Virginia will yet again face unnecessary barriers in accessing the healthcare they deserve. This interferes with the trusted doctor-patient relationship. People should decide for themselves whether they want an abortion in consultation with their doctor or nurse practitioner and without any interference from politicians. This bill is insulting to medical providers and patients. It is also insulting that these people in positions of power think they know what’s best for every pregnant person’s situation. I am grateful that I was able to have a safe and legal abortion, and my life has improved in so many ways because of it. I urge you to vote no on HB212.

Both of these bills impact Virginians who are seeking abortion care. HB 212 interferes with the sacred provider-patient relationship. HB 304 is a vehiclecfor anti-abortion politicians to push misinformation, stoke fear, and bully patients and providers — with the ultimate goal of banning abortion.

Please move to report HB1356, HB212, HB304.

Good morning. My name is Elena Malkov, and I am a resident of Richmond, Virginia. My Delegate is Dawn Adams. I am testifying today in opposition of HB304. This bill opens the door for political interference into family decisions by putting unnecessary restrictions on physicians. Virginia doctors already have the responsibility to provide appropriate medical care, and it is offensive and dishonest to claim otherwise. Abortion access is a fundamental human right, and I am so proud that Virginia has taken steps to protect the rights of pregnant people in the Commonwealth. It is also very important that we protect physicians providing necessary healthcare to Virginians seeking abortions or palliative care for newborns. We do not need the government meddling in the very personal and often difficult healthcare choices families must sometimes make, and we certainly do not need bills trying to punish doctors who are caring for these families. I urge you to support the rights of pregnant Virginians and their medical providers by opposing HB304. Thank you for your time and consideration.

My Delegate: Schuyler VanValkenburg Greetings. My name is Heather Massey and I’m a resident of Glen Allen. I’m writing to share my thoughts with you about an important legislative issue that has strong personal relevance. When I was pregnant with my daughter, I went into premature labor. A valiant medical team provided a successful intervention, but the situation posed the possibility of my daughter being born prematurely. The last thing I would have needed or wanted was outside interference in any life-or-death medical choices I might have had to make. That is why today, I oppose HB304. The HB304 bill is deceptive and based on false claims because doctors already have the responsibility to provide appropriate medical care to their pediatric patients. Families who must initiate palliative care for their infant who, tragically, will not survive for long suffer enough heartbreak without having to deal with interference from political actors about their very personal reproductive and pediatric healthcare decisions. Advocates and legislators alike have made important progress regarding access to reproductive healthcare and we need to keep up the momentum. This is especially important given that the pandemic has exacerbated existing inequities. Marginalized Virginians already face numerous obstacles to reproductive healthcare—criminalization of those who are pregnant or suffer miscarriages should never be one of them. Therefore, I urge you to please oppose HB304. Thank you for your time and consideration of this crucial matter.

Good Afternoon. My name is Brenda Root and I am a resident of Reston, VA. Thank you for allowing me to share my concerns this morning. I am testifying today in opposition to HB304. The two bills have the same title: Abortion; born alive human infant, treatment and care, penalty. These bills “require every physician licensed by the Board of Medicine who attempts to terminate a pregnancy to exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of a human infant who has been born alive.” If the infant dies, the attending physician may be charged with a Class 4 felony and may lose his medical license. Further, the hospital will be held responsible for reporting said attending physician for criminal investigation and possible prosecution. In all my many years of interacting with medical professionals; doctors and nurses, nurse practitioners, and advanced practice clinicians, I have never encountered a person who did not take their responsibility for keeping patients alive very seriously. Age is irrelevant. From infants to the elderly, the deep concern and commitment to appropriate treatment is evident. To suggest otherwise and set forth the idea that politicians should oversee a physician’s treatment of newborn infants is offensive to physicians and their patients. To think politicians instead of the Board of Medicine is dictating treatment reeks of state interference where it doesn’t belong. In addition, a newborn infant already has rights. Any intentional action to end the life of an infant is already illegal. Policies like HB304 open the door for politicians to interfere with family decisions about palliative care for an infant who will not survive long and to potentially criminalize the actions of the attending physician or clinician. It is heartbreaking enough for parents to lose a child. Any one of us knows of friends or family members who have dealt with these difficult times. It should be noted that facilities like hospitals are not all the same in Virginia. Quality reproductive health care is not equally distributed throughout the state. For some, it takes 5 minutes to receive care; for others, it is hours away. Hospitals and clinics have been closing in parts of the state. To assume a Virginia pregnant people can easily obtain reproductive health care, especially if something goes wrong with her pregnancy or delivery, is to overlook the fact of unequal access geographically, as well as economically, to a specialist or well-equipped hospital. And yet, if that infant dies, politicians want to penalize the physicians. Reproductive health care is vitally important to all Virginians. We need policies to protect and support pregnant people and their Health care providers. We need policies to protect and support the decisions that are made and the treatment received without State oversight and control. This is a private relationship that should be respected and not criminalized. Thank you for listening to my opposition to HB304. It is up to you to vote NO and protect the Reproductive Health Care Workers of Virginia.

I do not support any bills that criminalize folks

I write in opposition to HB304 and encourage you to vote against this bill. This bill is harmful to many Virginians, and takes away their autonomy to make the decision that is best for them and their families. These bills are completely unnecessary. Doctors are already obligated to provide appropriate medical care. To suggest otherwise is false, offensive, and dangerous. In several states, governors have rejected this type of bill for what it is – another attempt to eliminate access to abortion. In 2019, governors in North Carolina, Montana, and Wisconsin vetoed similar bills. Instead of respecting every person’s decision and acknowledging the complexities of medical care, anti-abortion politicians are again resorting to inflammatory rhetoric to distract from their true agenda – to push abortion care out of reach and punish patients and their health care providers.

--- HB1274 This bill sits in direct opposition to the constitutional rights granted to all citizens under Roe v. Wade and decades of proceeding legal precedent. Any bans on abortion, no matter the week, deny Virginians their fundamental right to control their own body and healthcare decisions. Abortion is essential healthcare, and the choice of wether or not to carry a pregnacy to term should be made by a person and their doctor, not politicians. --- HB212 This bill only serves to further stigmatize abortion in the Commonwealth. While we should be prioritizing the improvement of medical care across Virginia, sponsors of this bill seek to make accessing safe and non-judgemental care more difficult. Nobody seeks out medical advice from politicians because politicians are not medical professionals. Decisions about pregnancy and abortion should be left to the healthcare provider and the patient. --- HB983 These proposed restrictions on abortion are medically unnecessary. They are political tools introduced by the Republican party in order to make accessing abortion and exercising the fundamental right to bodily autonomy more difficult. They will disproportionately harm vulnerable Virginians – those without reliable transportation, those with low incomes, and those residing in rural areas. Because of interlocking systems of white supremacy, this means this bill will disproportionately harm people of color. In a state like Virginia, we should be actively working to dismantle vestiges of white supremacy, not proposing legislation that exacerbates it. Moreover, no other medical procedure – not even heart or brain surgery – is treated with the same degree of political intrusion. It is yet another iteration of the Republican attacks on reproductive choice and a direct obstacle to reproductive justice in the Commonwealth. --- HB304 To be honest, I’m not even sure why this bill was proposed in the first place – doctors are already obligated to provide appropriate medical care. Suggesting otherwise is dangerous and morally wrong. The fact of the matter is that this bill is not based in science, medicine, or fact. The term “born alive” was made up not by the medical community, but by extremist Republican politicians seeking to stigmatize and mythologize what happens during an abortion. It is pure political theater meant to stoke fear and bully patients and providers. These lies cause conservative extremists to attack clinics and providers – as has been the case for decades. It’s simultaneously sad and laughable that these delegates would waste the General Assembly’s precious and short time with this nonsense. Stop driving an inaccurate and false narrative and get back to what really matters. Signed, Noah from Charlottesville

Please keep choices available for women to terminate unwanted pregnancies.

Please reject these regressive anti-abortion bills. Adequate legislation already exists. These efforts seek to undermine Constitutionally protected rights for women. Women only hold 30% of the seats in the Virginia General Assembly. I think it's messed up to have a governmental body dominated by men making laws that effect women's health and rights. I feel certain if men were the ones who got pregnant such legislation would not seriously be considered. Thank you for your time and I look forward to you representing my views in the General Assembly. Respectfully, Silver Persinger

I oppose these draconian bills that harm and penalize pregnant people. These bills pretend to care about health but have no basis in medical care and will set this state back decades.

In favor of these bills as they protect the life of innocent human life.

Abortion is fundamental healthcare, a reproductive right and a human right. We should be subjecting people undergoing this procedure to any unnecessary trauma just like you wouldn’t do with any other medical procedure. In many cases, abortions can be live saving, both literally and in terms of future mental health and financial outcomes. In addition, with many Virginians not having insurance available to them, the requirement of an ultrasound to get an abortion is prohibitive for many, especially in addition to the cost of getting an abortion. There is no science to show that 20 weeks is the point of “life” and this is entirely based in neo-Christian theology. Because of the separation of Church and State, I believe this anti-abortion bills not only violate the rights of people with uteruses but also the Constitution. Please keep abortion access available and equitable in the Commonwealth.

You are clearly trying to penalize doctors who provide abortion services in a roundabout manner, thereby limiting the number of abortion providers. This decision should be between the doctor and the person receiving the abortion.

Dear Delegates Greenhalgh and Frietas: Women as I’m sure you are well aware, have only begun to have the right to speak out and use their voices as important members of society since the 1960’s, when it was still taboo for them to be anything but a housewife. We were and by the introduction of these bills clearly still are looked at as second to the heterosexual white male persuasion who thinks it’s proper to make decisions for us regarding how we should live our lives and even what we should do with our own bodies. I’m quite certain if a bill was introduced that would limit access to the health and well being of your sex organs, you’d be screaming from the rooftops. Please don’t limit mine as a woman and please stop telling me what to do with my body, because it is ultimately my choice!

Comments Document

Robin Sertell is a survivor of multiple abortion attempts and serves as the Education Coordinator for the Abortion Survivors Network and helps abortion survivors find help, hope and healing through education and community.

Please move to report HB104, 212 & 304 for the lives of children and 775 so that no other Gov. shuts down our freedom of religion.

Good morning. My name is Elena Malkov, and I am a resident of Richmond, Virginia. My Delegate is Dawn Adams. I am testifying today in opposition of HB304. This bill opens the door for political interference into family decisions by putting unnecessary restrictions on physicians. Virginia doctors already have the responsibility to provide appropriate medical care, and it is offensive and dishonest to claim otherwise. Abortion access is a fundamental human right, and I am so proud that Virginia has taken steps to protect the rights of pregnant people in the Commonwealth. It is also very important that we protect physicians providing necessary healthcare to Virginians seeking abortions or palliative care for newborns. We do not need the government meddling in the very personal and often difficult healthcare choices families must sometimes make, and we certainly do not need bills trying to punish doctors who are caring for these families. I urge you to support the rights of pregnant Virginians and their medical providers by opposing HB304. Thank you for your time and consideration.

My Delegate: Schuyler VanValkenburg Greetings. My name is Heather Massey and I’m a resident of Glen Allen. I’m writing to share my thoughts with you about an important legislative issue that has strong personal relevance. When I was pregnant with my daughter, I went into premature labor. A valiant medical team provided a successful intervention, but the situation posed the possibility of my daughter being born prematurely. The last thing I would have needed or wanted was outside interference in any life-or-death medical choices I might have had to make. That is why today, I oppose HB304. The HB304 bill is deceptive and based on false claims because doctors already have the responsibility to provide appropriate medical care to their pediatric patients. Families who must initiate palliative care for their infant who, tragically, will not survive for long suffer enough heartbreak without having to deal with interference from political actors about their very personal reproductive and pediatric healthcare decisions. Advocates and legislators alike have made important progress regarding access to reproductive healthcare and we need to keep up the momentum. This is especially important given that the pandemic has exacerbated existing inequities. Marginalized Virginians already face numerous obstacles to reproductive healthcare—criminalization of those who are pregnant or suffer miscarriages should never be one of them. Therefore, I urge you to please oppose HB304. Thank you for your time and consideration of this crucial matter.

Good Afternoon. My name is B. Root and I am a resident of Reston, VA. Thank you for allowing me to share my concerns this morning. I am testifying today in opposition to HB304. The two bills have the same title: Abortion; born alive human infant, treatment and care, penalty. These bills “require every physician licensed by the Board of Medicine who attempts to terminate a pregnancy to exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of a human infant who has been born alive.” If the infant dies, the attending physician may be charged with a Class 4 felony and may lose his medical license. Further, the hospital will be held responsible for reporting said attending physician for criminal investigation and possible prosecution. In all my many years of interacting with medical professionals; doctors and nurses, nurse practitioners, and advanced practice clinicians, I have never encountered a person who did not take their responsibility for keeping patients alive very seriously. Age is irrelevant. From infants to the elderly, the deep concern and commitment to appropriate treatment is evident. To suggest otherwise and set forth the idea that politicians should oversee a physician’s treatment of newborn infants is offensive to physicians and their patients. To think politicians instead of the Board of Medicine is dictating treatment reeks of state interference where it doesn’t belong. In addition, a newborn infant already has rights. Any intentional action to end the life of an infant is already illegal. Policies like HB304 open the door for politicians to interfere with family decisions about palliative care for an infant who will not survive long and to potentially criminalize the actions of the attending physician or clinician. It is heartbreaking enough for parents to lose a child. Any one of us knows of friends or family members who have dealt with these difficult times. It should be noted that facilities like hospitals are not all the same in Virginia. Quality reproductive health care is not equally distributed throughout the state. For some, it takes 5 minutes to receive care; for others, it is hours away. Hospitals and clinics have been closing in parts of the state. To assume a Virginia pregnant people can easily obtain reproductive health care, especially if something goes wrong with her pregnancy or delivery, is to overlook the fact of unequal access geographically, as well as economically, to a specialist or well-equipped hospital. And yet, if that infant dies, politicians want to penalize the physicians. Reproductive health care is vitally important to all Virginians. We need policies to protect and support pregnant people and their Health care providers. We need policies to protect and support the decisions that are made and the treatment received without State oversight and control. This is a private relationship that should be respected and not criminalized. Thank you for listening to my opposition to HB304. It is up to you to vote NO and protect the Reproductive Health Care Workers of Virginia. Thank you,

Both of these bills impact Virginians who are seeking abortion care. HB 212 interferes with the sacred provider-patient relationship. HB 304 is a vehiclecfor anti-abortion politicians to push misinformation, stoke fear, and bully patients and providers — with the ultimate goal of banning abortion.

I do not support any bills that criminalize folks

I do not support any bills that criminalize folks

Dear Chairman and Members of the House Courts of Justice Committee, My name is Emily Mooney, and I am a policy manager at REFORM Alliance, a national nonprofit seeking to improve probation and parole policies and support public safety by creating pathways to redemption, work, and wellbeing. As part of this mission, REFORM worked with the Virginia legislature and allies such as the American Conservative Union, the Faith and Freedom Coalition, and JusticeForwardVA to pass HB 2038 last year. This bill promised to support public safety, fiscal prudence, and a strong workforce by bringing Virginia’s probation policies into alignment with research that overwhelmingly suggests long probation terms and the use of prison time for technical probation violations, such as missing a meeting with one’s probation officer undermine rehabilitation and efforts to ensure people on probation become productive, taxpaying members of society. HB 758 seeks to roll back these reforms and promote lengthy probation terms by setting a new 2-year probation cap for Class 1 and 2 misdemeanors. This new cap means a defendant could spend up to 2x or 4x longer on probation than they could spend behind bars for these offenses and at least twice as long as they would under current law. Research suggests that most serious violations occur early within a defendant’s probation term (generally within the first year) and that lengthy supervision terms at best have no impact on recidivism rates. Indeed, a length of stay study of South Carolina’s and Oregon’s probation systems commissioned by PEW Charitable Trusts proves that states can safely and substantively reduce supervision terms with no negative impact on safety. We also know that excessively long probation terms contribute to high caseloads and overflowing court dockets, both of which make it difficult to focus the necessary time and resources on high-risk offenders. Placing reasonable limits on probation terms is a tried and true method for prioritizing caseloads on high-risk offenders, saving millions of dollars, and decreasing recidivism and community instability. HB 758 undermines all of these goals. In addition to setting higher misdemeanor caps, HB 758 seeks to eliminate the graduated sanctions implemented under last years’ probation reforms which sought to limit needless, costly incarceration and workforce disruptions for technical violations like failing to notify a probation officer of a change of employment. Without these parameters, missed meetings with probation officers or other very minor failures to follow complicated rules will subject huge numbers of people to incarceration, damaging their ability to continue mending their lives, supporting their families, and pursuing life goals. This bill would drag many people back into the legal system, ensuring probation becomes a pipeline to prison rather than a launchpad for success. Finally, the new definition of technical violation (vii) under HB 760 is also problematic. By exempting drug use or possession of a Schedule I or Schedule II controlled substance from the definition of a technical violation, HB 760 opens up another way to put addicts in jail for long time periods, which we know begets numerous negative consequences and doesn't help with rehabilitation in most cases. For these reasons, I urge you to vote against HB 758 and HB 760 and oppose any rollbacks. Sincerely, Emily Mooney Policy Manager REFORM Alliance

Dear Chairman and Members of the House Courts of Justice Committee, My name is Emily Mooney, and I am a policy manager at REFORM Alliance, a national nonprofit seeking to improve probation and parole policies and support public safety by creating pathways to redemption, work, and wellbeing. As part of this mission, REFORM worked with the Virginia legislature and allies such as the American Conservative Union, the Faith and Freedom Coalition, and JusticeForwardVA to pass HB 2038 last year. This bill promised to support public safety, fiscal prudence, and a strong workforce by bringing Virginia’s probation policies into alignment with research that overwhelmingly suggests long probation terms and the use of prison time for technical probation violations, such as missing a meeting with one’s probation officer undermine rehabilitation and efforts to ensure people on probation become productive, taxpaying members of society. HB 758 seeks to roll back these reforms and promote lengthy probation terms by setting a new 2-year probation cap for Class 1 and 2 misdemeanors. This new cap means a defendant could spend up to 2x or 4x longer on probation than they could spend behind bars for these offenses and at least twice as long as they would under current law. Research suggests that most serious violations occur early within a defendant’s probation term (generally within the first year) and that lengthy supervision terms at best have no impact on recidivism rates. Indeed, a length of stay study of South Carolina’s and Oregon’s probation systems commissioned by PEW Charitable Trusts proves that states can safely and substantively reduce supervision terms with no negative impact on safety. We also know that excessively long probation terms contribute to high caseloads and overflowing court dockets, both of which make it difficult to focus the necessary time and resources on high-risk offenders. Placing reasonable limits on probation terms is a tried and true method for prioritizing caseloads on high-risk offenders, saving millions of dollars, and decreasing recidivism and community instability. HB 758 undermines all of these goals. In addition to setting higher misdemeanor caps, HB 758 seeks to eliminate the graduated sanctions implemented under last years’ probation reforms which sought to limit needless, costly incarceration and workforce disruptions for technical violations like failing to notify a probation officer of a change of employment. Without these parameters, missed meetings with probation officers or other very minor failures to follow complicated rules will subject huge numbers of people to incarceration, damaging their ability to continue mending their lives, supporting their families, and pursuing life goals. This bill would drag many people back into the legal system, ensuring probation becomes a pipeline to prison rather than a launchpad for success. Finally, the new definition of technical violation (vii) under HB 760 is also problematic. By exempting drug use or possession of a Schedule I or Schedule II controlled substance from the definition of a technical violation, HB 760 opens up another way to put addicts in jail for long time periods, which we know begets numerous negative consequences and doesn't help with rehabilitation in most cases. For these reasons, I urge you to vote against HB 758 and HB 760 and oppose any rollbacks. Sincerely, Emily Mooney Policy Manager REFORM Alliance

I do not support any bills that criminalize folks

Please move to report HB104, 212 & 304 for the lives of children and 775 so that no other Gov. shuts down our freedom of religion.

PLZ protect all monuments in the great state of Virginia!

I do not support any bills that criminalize folks

Mr. Chairman, It is with a great deal of consideration that, on behalf of the Virginia Association of Regional Jails to note our complete support of HB1341 and we would like to thank Delegate Brewer for her contribution to this important and difficult discussion. Virginia's regional jail's are struggling to manage this problem and seek the assistance of the Commonwealth's providing the level of service the criminally justice involved people deserve that quite frankly transcends both the scope and ability of local corrections.

The Western Tidewater Regional Jail Authority greatly appreciates the work Delegate Brewer has done in amending HB1341 and we fully support HB 1341. We would ask that the committee members to move HB1341 forward. HB1341 is extremely important to assist local jails in quickly getting inmates with psychiatric needs that exceed the treatment capabilities of the jail into a noncorrectional facility specifically designed for handling their care and treatment.