So many things I wish I had when I was a kid. This being one of them.

Please do not limit prosecutors from offering the 4th amendment waiver as a plea agreement. It limits police and probation when they have probable cause to believe that someone that is on probation is not following their terms of the plea agreement. There can be limits put on it, but taking it away completely will make Virginia less safe. Law enforcement will not have an avenue to ensure compliance for someone that may have a gun or a large quantity of drugs. Defendants don't have to accept the plea. They can continue bargaining or take the charge to trial. It's a bad idea and that's not even mentioning that it will limit what an officer can see on the person's phone or social media, where most of the non-compliance happens today. I've seen first hand when I was an officer how not having a 4th waiver can hinder and hurt people. There is no reason to not allow it as a bargaining chip.

I regularly peacefully pray at an abortion clinic on Jefferson Ave. in Newport News. From Feb. 18, 2026, through March 29, 2026, I will be joining an international pro-life organization called “40 Days for Life,” which will be peacefully praying at abortion facilities around the world every day for 40 days. In order to join “40 Days for Life,” everyone must sign a contract agreeing to the strict rules requiring a peaceful, respectful and compassionate presence, and abiding by all local laws and ordinances. I have never seen any pro-life persons enter the clinic’s property, but instead stand on the public access beside the highway. My faith demands that we love ALL as Christ did, and that is why are prayers are not only for the tiny human beings that will be lost, but also for the women and their safety, the fathers and families of the fetuses, the clinic staff, and the doctor who is performing the abortions and prescribing (dangerous) chemicals that will cause these women to abort at home later with no safety measures in case something goes wrong. If a woman approaches us, (and sometimes it is the father of the baby,) we offer help and refer them to free services at a pregnancy help/medical center that is only a few blocks away–Care Net Peninsula, on Warwick Blvd. Care Net understands that women facing a pregnancy decision need a safe place to process their feelings and learn the truth about abortion. That is why they offer Options Counseling, Pregnancy Tests, Ultrasounds, Community Resources (including adoption, medical services,) Material Needs (including maternity and baby clothing, diapers, etc.,) Parenting Classes, STI Testing, and Past-Abortion Support–all free so that women don’t default to abortion. Their medical facility next door is “Alcove Health–A Women’s Clinic,” which is staffed by certified medical professionals, including a doctor and nurse practitioner. SB 137 could eliminate the chance for many of our local women in crisis to learn about Care Net Peninsula and the other choices and services that are available to them. Thank you for considering my testimony.

I am a member of a combined Respect Life Ministry which includes three different churches in Hampton and Newport News. It appears that “pro-choice” proponents of unrestricted abortion, in fact, are attempting with this bill to eliminate any alternative choices for women in crisis, and to deny these women any educational materials and conversations that might help them to make an informed choice. Some of the women that this bill purports to “protect,” may actually be denied any physical, spiritual or material help that these women may need or be seeking–such as protection from an abusive partner who is forcing abortion on the woman, or a safe place to stay, free medical care, etc. “Reports” of dangerous, vulgar, screaming and trespassing “protesters” who have blocked and accosted patients entering the Falls Church Healthcare center (a facility that offers abortions,) is definitely not verifiable. I personally went online and read every weekly police report posted publicly on the Falls Church Police Dept.’s website, from this month (Feb. 2026) all the way back to August of 2025. There were no reports of disorderly conduct, trespassing, threatening, or assault on S. Washington St., where the Falls Church center is located, except one “drunk in public and disorderly conduct” on Jan. 17, 2026; and an assault on a woman who was assaulted by a man who was driving by, on Nov. 17, 2025.There were NO reports of the police being called to S. Washington St. to investigate disorderly conduct or public disturbances. There have actually been isolated national reports of incidents at abortion clinics that were caused by irate clinic staff exiting the building and attacking the pro-life persons and grabbing and destroying their signs. Pro-Life “protesting” has pretty much changed over from “protests” to prayer vigils several years ago–not to suggest or imply that pro-life protests were ever aggressive or ugly–quite the contrary, with a few exceptions, (mostly by individuals who were not actually members of an organized pro-life group,) and which were widely publicized. Peaceful praying has been very effective in reaching women, many of whom were actually were seeking help to avoid an abortion. I believe this very effective prayer model has made an impact on the abortion industry, and the industry is fighting back politically with laws such as SB 137–laws that are unneeded, unfounded and unworthy by restricting the constitutional freedoms of its opponents. I implore committee members to return to voting your conscience on legislation that is politically motivated to crush political opponents’ constitutional freedoms. I have a pro-life bumper sticker on my car–this bumper sticker is intended to educate and change minds. This bill would actually prevent me from parking in an accessible handicapped spot for my medical appointments! This bill is clearly designed for abortion facilities, but the wording includes all medical facilities. If enacted, this bill could put me in physical pain and in danger from falling and actually be in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. This is just ONE possible lawsuit that this bill would undoubtedly generate if enacted. Thank you for considering my testimony.

Please oppose SB 137 on the grounds that it is unjust, unnecessary and unconstitutional. This bill goes beyond attacking our free speech, it interferes with people being able to love and care for one another; to have meaningful conversations about life threatening procedures- which is the aim of abortion to end the life of a unique, unrepeatable human being. We know too that most abortions, well over 60%, are being done through the abortion pill. If a woman changes her mind, she needs truthful information about her options and time is critical. She also needs to know potential life-threatening risks to her health that have occurred in 11% of women who have taken the abortion pill. Making it unlawful for people to be less than 8 feet apart within 40 feet of a "healthcare facility" e.g. an abortion facility would hinder, block and delay real assistance for a woman who has opted to take the abortion pill but has changed her mind and wants help. I have served in the healthcare industry for almost 40 years and have never once seen a need to have a "bubble zone" to keep people from receiving life affirming real healthcare and assistance in any of the places I have worked. I have worked and or volunteered in various healthcare settings including psychiatric hospitals, nursing homes, assisted living facilities, dental clinics, and rehabilitation centers. I worked for a decade with children and adults with disabilities. I find it deeply disturbing that supporters of this bill continually call abortion (the intentional killing of a preborn human being) healthcare. When we call "death" healthcare we have certainly lost our way! This bill is intentionally targeting abortion facilities under the guise of "healthcare facilities." I have been a participant of 40 Days for Life, the largest pro-life prayer vigil in the world, for nearly 14 years. I have never seen anyone, especially women going into the abortion facility, treated with anything but respect and love from prayer vigil participants while praying in front of the abortion facility in Newport News. Every participant is aware of and expected to abide by the 40 Days for Life Statement of Peace. Our signs offer help, pregnancy resource information and hope to women who feel they have no other choice except abortion. Women deserve better than abortion and they deserve to know the truth about their developing unborn child before they make the tragic decision to end the life of their child, a decision once done they can never undo. We cannot help mothers while killing their children and we cannot save children without helping their mothers. Why can't we love them both? Over 3000 cars pass by the abortion facility in Newport News every hour. Every day in the United States 3000 children lose their lives to abortion. This unfathomable injustice would be further perpetuated by this law. This law would obstruct help, hope and also post abortion healing for women and men who have been involved in an abortion. Women need to know all of their choices, and this requires truthful conversations not laws that try to keep us from talking to one another.

This guest’s comments are so true and the whole world knows it. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2026/02/25/voter_on_sotu_democrats_gave_a_middle_finger_to_the_oath_of_office_they_took_their_new_oath_of_office_is_oppose_trump.html

I oppose SB 137 on the grounds that it is an unconstitutional attack on my right to free speech and my right to practice my religious faith without governmental interference or coercion. I believe it is a politically motivated attempt to silence opponents who do not share the sponsors' views on unrestricted abortion. This bill could actually eliminate alternate choices for women in crisis sitiuations--and actually leave women in dangerous situations. This bill, if enacted, will undoubtably generate costly and time-consuming litigation.

League of Women Voters of VA supports passage of SB137. Everyone deserves the right to enter a health care facility without being obstructed, detained, hindered, impeded, blocked or delayed by another person. However, that has not been the case at some reproductive health care centers in Virginia, such as Planned Parenthood, where individuals going to get health care have been harassed/intimidated by protesters. While the federal FACE Act of 1994 was passed to provide protections against such harassment/intimidation, there is currently a bill in Congress (FACE Act Repeal Act of 2025) which would do away with such protections. SB137 would enshrine into Virginia law much needed protections from harassment/intimidation, for individuals attempting to access medical health care including reproductive health care. We urge you to support SB137.

My name is Chrisi West and I'm a longtime abortion clinic escort at Falls Church Healthcare. I'd like to share my comments in the hope of strengthening the federal FACE Act protections currently in place, and to protect access to clinics in Virginia. I've seen patients representing all different nationalities and ethnicities come to our clinic. They are often accompanied by parents, partners, sisters, friends, and occasionally even a police detective or corrections officer. (I've actually witnesses this.) Patients vary widely in age, and their reasons for coming to receive abortion healthcare run the full spectrum of reasons and needs, but one thing is constant. They ALL have to endure the often loud, usually aggressive, and always demeaning protesters who line the sidewalk in front of the building. Even with the property laws in Virginia keeping protesters on the public sidewalks, they hold crass or graphic signs accusing patients of being murderers, racists, and so much more. They lie about the outcomes of abortion and scream obscenities or names and try to guilt trip partners into convincing the patient to change their mind. The protesters in Falls Church (and at the Alexandria clinic near Mount Vernon, too) often break the law by trespassing onto the property in order to talk to a patient or give them religious materials. They pretend they are cutting through the parking lot to access the side streets, or just simply step onto the property for better access as a patient gets out of their car. They purposely block the driveway as cars approach, so they have to stop to avoid hitting the protester, in order for the protester to them yell at them or try to hand them a religious tract. I've escorted patients who were in tears after seeing the protesters, or were so angry at the awful things being yelled at them that I thought I was going to have to break up a fight in the parking lot. And it's not just the patients who are yelled at, guilt tripped, and shamed. Clinic escorts, staff, and volunteers are also subjected to this same abuse every single day. More needs to be done to protect people trying to access a safe and legal healthcare procedure in the Commonwealth. No one deserves to be shamed or verbally abused for getting the healthcare they need. NO ONE. Victims of abuse, patients with fetal anomalies or spontaneous miscarriages, and those who decided to end their pregnancy for myriad reasons all deserve safety, respect, and care. I hope this committee will do their best to protect patients in whatever way they can. They all deserve that.

Please vote to oppose SB 137. This bill is unjust and directly attacks our freedom of speech in the public way. Telling people who they can and can't talk to, how they may talk to them and how far away they must stand in order to have a discussion with women and men in need in front of a "health care facility" e.g. abortion facility, is unconstitutional at the very least and heartless at best. Peacefully praying and providing lifesaving information, and free assistance to women in need is something we need more of not less of. Why would you want to hinder true health care and life affirming choices and assistance? stance to women in need alternatives to abortion be from another person entering a "health care" facility is a direct attack

This legislation is a violation of the first amendment. We all as human beings have an obligation to warn people when their health is in danger, or if there’s danger to the health of their child. Clearly, this legislation is aimed at silencing people who uphold the dignity and respect of all human life by offering alternatives, further information, support, and help to people when they’re making a possibly life-threatening decision at an abortion mill. Please oppose this legislation as it is clearly politically biased and does not defend the dignity of every human life.

Summary: I oppose SB137 on the grounds that it is an unconstitutional attack on my right to free speech and my right to practice my religious faith without governmental interference or coercion. I believe it is a politically-motivated attempt to silence others who do not share the sponsors’ views on abortion with no restrictions. This bill appears to be designed to actually eliminate any alternative choices to women experiencing an unwanted pregnancy or find themselves in a crisis situation. The women whom this bill appears to protect from unwanted harassment, are actually being denied a possibly welcomed conversation with a caring and compassionate person who can actually give them physical and material help and true alternate personal choices.

Summary: I oppose SB137 on the grounds that it is an unconstitutional attack on my right to free speech and my right to practice my religious faith without governmental interference or coercion. I believe it is a politically-motivated attempt to silence others who do not share the sponsors’ views on abortion with no restrictions. This bill appears to be designed to actually eliminate any alternative choices to women experiencing an unwanted pregnancy or find themselves in a crisis situation. The women whom this bill appears to protect from unwanted harassment, are actually being denied a possibly welcomed conversation with a caring and compassionate person who can actually give them physical and material help and true alternate personal choices.

Bill 137 It’s obvious that your intention is to shield abortion facilities from any pro-life messaging but disguising the language as “health care facilities” opens the door to abusing the law and restricting constitutional rights. If someone goes to a doctor’s appointment or the hospital, both “health care facilities,” with a pro-life message on a bumper sticker or tee shirt, some unreasonable person will use this law to promote their own political point of view. Please consider the consequences this could cause citizens and the court system before ramming through an unnecessary law.

Please oppose SB137. SB 137 limits the ability to peacefully voice opposition to abortion in the public space which is an infringement the right to free speech. Thank you.

I am Scott E. Peyton, Director of Government Affairs at Prison Fellowship, the nation’s largest Christian nonprofit equipping the Church to serve currently and formerly incarcerated people and their families. Prison Fellowship serves men and women in six Virginia prisons through values-based programming like the Prison Fellowship Academy.  We are asking for your support of SB776 in subcommittee on Wednesday! I served as a probation and parole officer for nearly a decade in Louisiana, and I witnessed firsthand the value of community supervision. Probation officers play a vital role in protecting public safety, and effective supervision helps restore men and women back into their communities as productive, contributing neighbors. SB 776 preserves judicial discretion, holds individuals accountable when nonpayment is willful, and reflects a fair and proportional approach to supervision. It ensures incarceration is reserved for behavior that warrants it, not for circumstances driven by economic hardship. Please see attached testimony in support of SB776.