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.

https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2026/02/23/when-the-law-is-optional-you-have-tyranny-n2671687 This article is completely correct.