Why would you force a vaccine when hyrdroechloraquin and other drugs heal people. CDC says 99.9% of people recover. Why are you using the tool of fear. What is in it for you. It’s being said that covid is just the first part of this bio weapon. The next part will kill those who were diagnosed with it. If you keep this up there won’t be any one to vote. Oh that’s right. Depopulation is part of the plan. You reap what you sow.

Chairman Sickle, Vice-Chair Rasoul, and Distinguished Committee Members - Thank you for taking time to consider these comments on HB 1795. I am Licensed Professional Counselor, a Professor of Counselor Education at Virginia Tech, and a past-president of both the American Counseling Association and the Virginia Counselors Association. I am very concerned about HB 1795, for three reasons: 1) HB 1795 would remove the examination requirement for independent practice as a Licensed Professional Counselor (LPC). Every jurisdiction in the United States requires a examination for the LPC, because it is a critical step in determining whether an individual has the requisite knowledge and ability to apply that knowledge. Virginia uses the National Clinical Mental Health Counseling Examination, which presents applicants with a series of vignettes, designed to assess clinical judgement. The vignettes measure an applicant’s ability to gather clinical information, conceptualize that data accurately, develop a diagnosis, and design a treatment intervention. There is no other mechanism in the process of the licensure application that can assess these issues comprehensively. Applicants are required to work under the supervision of a licensed practitioner, but that process is focused on clinical practice, and does not allow such a thorough assessment of clinical judgement and ethical decision making. Allowing applicants to simply opt out of the examination process could endanger clients and harm Virginians. 2) LPCs in Virginia are allowed to serve beneficiaries of TRICARE, the VA, and other military related mental health services. In recommending that LPCs be able to serve this population, the Institute of Medicine recommended, and TRICARE accepted that LPCs must be graduates of a CACREP accredited program and pass the NCMHCE in order to serve TRICARE beneficiaries. As I noted, the NCMHCE is the licensure exam in Virginia. Removing the exam requirement would create a barrier for service members trying to find a qualified TRICARE provider for their family, because there is no way to discern which LPC did or did not pass the exam if this bill were to pass. 3) Finally, on a procedural note, the proper process for addressing regulatory changes should be through a Petition for Rulemaking addressed to the Board of Counseling. Board members are well versed in the challenges that this sort of change would present, and could address any need for change without the unintended consequences outlined above. Thank you again for your consideration, I remain available to you if I can be of assistance. Gerard Lawson, Ph.D., LPC, LSATP glawson@vt.edu

The importance of this bill is to address the mostly culturally biased exam for Licensed Professional Counselors in Virginia. African Americans share the same mental health issues as the rest of the population, with arguably even greater stressors due to racism, prejudice, and economic disparities. Meanwhile, many wonder why African Americans shy away from psychotherapy as a potential solution to challenges such as depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, marriage problems, and parenting issues. As a black substance abuse counselor, it is troublesome that so many African Americans are reluctant to make use of psychology's solutions to emotional hurdles. Over 115 million people in the United States live in designated Health Professional Shortage Areas. These are areas in which the ratio of mental health professionals to residents is smaller than 1 per 30,000 people. Unfortunately, Virginia (South Atlantic Area) is one of them. Those counselors with years of experience should be considered without the exam to address this shortfall. Apart from culturally biased exams, the barriers to accessing mental health services could be lowered when the therapists look like me. Lastly, an exam doesn't determine a good counselor. But good counseling strategies do.

I work in a counseling office in which the lead couselor has to work under the umbrella of an LCP who, after 2 years, I have yet to meet. The LCP is in Richmond and we are in Fredericksburg, and during my tenure he has yet to visit our office. This is ridiculous. We have to pay a fee to him to serve as our LCP even though our counselor has years of experience and has a degree in counseling. The only thing she has not accomplished is this test. Again, ridiculous and a waste of talent and resources. Please remove this foolish restriction.

To whom it may concern, Catholic adoption agencies through the decades have done more for adoptions than any others. To try and shut them down by labeling their advocacy for the nuclear family — which research tells us is best for the child — as hate speech is beyond despicable. These agencies like Catholic schools have the Catholic faith as a core value at the center of all they do. So their mission to live out their faith through adoption is protected under the 1st Amendment to the Constitution. You do this and we will see you in court even if we have to take you all the way to the SCOTUS. I pray for your conversion and that you reject this egregiously misguided legislation.

To limit the ability to place a child in a loving home because the state doesn’t agree with the organization’s written religious beliefs is wrong. The law is correct as written and should NOT be changed. More placement agencies are needed, not less.

In REBUTTAL to "American Atheists", please DO KEEP the CONSCIENCE CLAUSE, because: ALL values arise ONLY from the breast of each Individual. That being the case, each person's religious belief is either theistic or A-theistic. It is nonetheless a religious belief about God. Given this unique, individual-breast origin of every human Value, it stands to reason that each person is the SOLE OWNER of THEIR OWNED Values, including their inevitably religious ones, since all people have the knowledge of God (They either believe in God or they don't, but this knowledge is, evidently, uniquely human - We've never seen a squirrel or a flea build a church.) American Atheists wrote: "Religious liberty is guaranteed by the First Amendment to protect individual beliefs; it does not create special rights for religious individuals and organizations to violate neutral laws or discriminate against groups they disfavor." - Rebuttal #1: The First Amendment protects those Individual Values (including their OWN(ed) Beliefs. A person or organization of like-Valuing people does not have to be religious to be against certain forms of adoption. They simply have to hold different Values than other potential adoption organizations. It's the individually owned Values that are being protected, not the secondary characteristic of theistic or a-theistic Values chosen. -REBUTTAL #2: As to "these troubling numbers by repealing the so-called “conscience clause,” which allows adoption and foster placement services to discriminate against ...", this statement misleads: (1) Discriminating is done EVERY time a person makes a decision. The ability to ensure multitudes of different individuals, each having their own values, is the most peace-FULL and fair manner of law. If you or your organization doesn't believe in two males or two females adopting children, then fine. Pursue your own Values, for they are Your OWN(ed). If you or your organization want to pursue otherwise, then you're free to do so. It would be preferable for the State to remain neutral - not supporting or denying either with emolument, which would be the least of all evils, but certainly the State should NOT interfere with Individual Owners of their own Values for the kind of adoption agency they prefer to support with their Own Life. -REBUTTAL #3: "Nearly 40 states do not have such exemptions" This is a well-known logical fallacy, appealing to a mass or majority opinion as though that makes it Right. -REBUTTAL #4: ", and faith-based foster care and adoption agencies function well in these states, continuing to provide their services without discrimination." This is also an arrogating logical fallacy, claiming that "agencies function well" presumes that the Values of "American Atheists" can define for everyone else what "function well" means when clearly not everyone agrees with their estimation. -REBUTTAL #5: "Without this repeal, child placement agencies that receive state funding will continue to be permitted to freely discriminate based on their religious beliefs. ..." Again, every Individual Discriminates EVERY time they make a decision. The "American Atheists" argument is on-it-face discriminating too, which is why adoption agencies of many kinds should be encouraged, not discouraged. CONCLUSION: The State should leave the CONSCIENC CLAUSE intact, because it permits the greatest latitude for exercise of Conscience among competing Individual Values.

Please don't exclude faith based foster care programs to provide families for children. This would be damaging to the growing number of children who need this service. Why would you even consider it? Do you really want to punish children by refusing them Christian homes because people of faith hold to their beliefs in the sanctity of marriage being between a man and a woman? Do you think that families with a mom and a dad who believe in the God of the Bible are unfit to care for children who need a family? Why would you discriminate against people of faith this way? Are you saying that Christian families and ministries are only allowed to help children in need if they ditch their faith or moral Christian worldview? When our government decides its decisions are better for children in a culture than the long-standing beliefs of the majority of the culture, then we need to speak up! People of faith have just as much to offer children who need foster care services as any other people. It would be a poor choice to exclude them. Please don't.

"With 5,400 children in Virginia's foster care system, more than 700 of whom are ready for adoption right now, we need as many agencies as possible serving foster children in Virginia, not less." (FamilyFoundation) Please do not deny orphans & unsupported children the opportunity to find love in a nurturing & healthy. They are the future of our America. How Christian programs & Faith-based outreaches have been the backbone to America's heart for those in need. Even if we don't always agree with the religion, the services provided are invaluable & undeniably provide a much needed service for the children in need in Virginia. Please do not turn your back on them. Do not deny them the help because the adoption agencies have a faith in a certain God. Furthermore that is a violation of our first amendment rights & will not win you any future votes. So, I plead with you to protect the rights of those who want to help the children in their community grow in safety & love. Thank you.

Today, we have over two thousand kids that are in foster care and we need every foster agency possible to be viable and ready to care for them until they can be fostered. Also, I don't believe anyone has the right to force a private, Christian company to have to foster children to a homosexual couple. That is egregious and unconscionable to say the least. I hope you make the right decision and not approve of this bill. Thank you for listening to me and God bless and lead you.

There are so very many children needing safe homes. Why would barring homes where there is a female and male parent make any sense given the outcry of so many children needing homes? That just makes so rational sense at all!

We need all of the agencies working to provide homes for foster children here in Virginia Do not repeal statutory conscience protections for faith-based adoption and foster care agencies.

At a time when children need as much community love and support as possible and a shortage of open homes, we need as many safe places to place the children of our state as possible. In a prefect world, there would never be a need for organizations to step up and care for children that don't have a safe and loving home, but we shouldn't exclude them from offering love and care if they are willing and able to provide temporary placement. Thank you. Teresa Woodward

This bill needs to be stopped. Religious agencies, including those for adoption, should be allowed to perform their services in accordance with their religious beliefs. If the government enacts this bill, then they will be determining what they believe should be someone else's religious beliefs with their own sense of right and wrong. There are plenty of other public agencies that hold to the standards that this bill is trying to enforce, so there should not be any issue or problem with others being able to exercise their religious beliefs. To force others to do this will only hurt the agencies, the children that they are trying to help, and the state agencies that their work will help to relieve.

All Roman Catholic and orthodox Protestant adoption and foster agencies have permanently closed or ceased services wherever this kind of law has passed [see e.g. https://www.usccb.org/committees/religious-liberty/discrimination-against-catholic-adoption-services and https://www.opc.org/nh.html?article_id=882]. We Christians cannot forfeit those very beliefs that motivate us to care for vulnerable children. Neither should we be made to give up this essential part of our religion and the free exercise of it: "RELIGION that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world" (James 1:27). Indeed, from the earliest days of the Christian era when Christians routinely collected the unwanted children left to die of exposure outside the city, we have considered it an essential part of our religion to care for unwanted children and place them in godly, loving homes. If Virginia continues to have religious adoption/foster service providers through which we exercise our religious duties according to our religious principles, this in no way hinders non-religious service providers from providing their services without regard to religious principles. But this raises a greater issue: How can ANY human dignity, rights, and liberty be either philosophically grounded or practically maintained in our Commonwealth apart from Christian principles, which are infringed upon by this bill? Oliver Wendell Holmes, the atheistic former U.S. Supreme Court justice (1902-1932) wrote, “I see no reason for attributing to a man a significance different in kind from that which belongs to a baboon or to a grain of sand” [https://www.jstor.org/stable/25717199]. Societies that have put such godless principles into practice have historically devolved into statism, to the loss of liberty, rights, and dignity. And those jurisdictions that are recently entering upon the same experiment are standing on a tin roof wearing roller skates. There is only one direction for them to go. Even Thomas Jefferson recognized the problem and asked, "And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure, when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God?" [https://www.jstor.org/stable/1051380, see https://xroads.virginia.edu/~Hyper/JEFFERSON/ch18.html]. Sincerely, David Vance, Ph.D. Minister, Redeemer ARP Church Blacksburg, Virginia

It is in everyone's interest to allow conscience provisions for organizations doing such essential work. To deny organizations the right to operate within their consciences is to establish a State Orthodoxy and to punish those whom the State deems "heterodox." There is no consistent way to maintain freedom of speech while simultaneously establishing a State Orthodoxy. On behalf of every Virginian who values freedom of speech, I respectfully ask our legislators to retain the conscience provisions.

Why would you force a vaccine when hyrdroechloraquin and other drugs heal people. CDC says 99.9% of people recover. Why are you using the tool of fear. What is in it for you. It’s being said that covid is just the first part of this bio weapon. The next part will kill those who were diagnosed with it. If you keep this up there won’t be any one to vote. Oh that’s right. Depopulation is part of the plan. You reap what you sow.

As a Virginia resident and an Assistant State Director for American Atheists, which has over 1,600 constituents in Virginia, I testify in support of HB1932, a bill that would end state-sanctioned discrimination in foster care and adoption based on religious beliefs. This legislation would increase the number of available foster and adoption families, leading to more availability for children in foster care to have a loving, permanent home. We strongly urge you to support this bill. American Atheists is a national civil rights organization that works to achieve religious equality for all Americans. We strive to create an environment where atheism and atheists are accepted as members of our nation’s communities and where casual bigotry against our community is seen as abhorrent and unacceptable. We promote understanding of atheists through education, outreach, and community-building and work to end the stigma associated with being an atheist in America. Religious liberty is guaranteed by the First Amendment to protect individual beliefs; it does not create special rights for religious individuals and organizations to violate neutral laws or discriminate against groups they disfavor. Nationwide, there are over 423,997 children in the foster care system.1 There are 5,231 children in foster care in Virginia and just over 2,000 of these children are in either long term foster care or awaiting adoption.1 Nationally, nearly 24,000 youth age out of foster care each year, finding themselves with no support at age 18. Furthermore, 20% of these youth which age out of foster care become homeless.2 HB 1932 addresses these troubling numbers by repealing the so-called “conscience clause,” which allows adoption and foster placement services to discriminate against potential families for these children. Nearly 40 states do not have such exemptions, and faith-based foster care and adoption agencies function well in these states, continuing to provide their services without discrimination. Without this repeal, child placement agencies that receive state funding will continue to be permitted to freely discriminate based on their religious beliefs. For example, these agencies could discriminate against would-be parents because they are (or are assumed to be) religious minorities or atheists, unmarried, LGBTQ, or have some other characteristic that the placement agency disfavors. Instead, placement decisions must be based on the best interest of the child, regardless of the agency’s religious beliefs. Currently, about 24% of adults are religiously unaffiliated, and atheists and agnostics make up about 7% of the total population.3 Therefore, even without considering the other categories of people affected, allowing foster placement agencies to discriminate on the basis of their religion will potentially exclude about a quarter of adults from providing a home for foster children, inevitably reducing the number of youth placed in loving, permanent homes. Moreover, repealing this harmful language will directly affect a significant number of religiously unaffiliated youth. Studies show that approximately 13% of youth ages 13-18 identify as atheists, with more than a third being nonreligious. Youth in Virginia’s child welfare systems are already at risk – their ability to find a permanent home should not be endangered just to create special privileges for religious organizations. We strongly urge you to support HB1932.

I am writing to express enCircle’s support for HB 1932. At enCircle (formerly Lutheran Family Services of Virginia), we are a Licensed Child Placing Agency (LCPA) that actively recruits and supports all kinds of qualified families, including LGBTQ families, to provide loving homes for children and youth in care. We believe it is wrong to discriminate against parents who are otherwise qualified to provide loving foster homes because of their identity. The child welfare system is a public system that uses taxpayer funds to support children in foster care and should not be used to discriminate against those who are LGBTQ. While we hope that passing this legislation does not cause any other LCPAs to cease serving children and families, we believe there is adequate capacity in the system to step in to maintain placements for the children who would be affected if that occurred. Agencies like ours have a history of working together in many ways to recruit foster families from all regions of the state and to best serve the children and youth with whom we work. Virginia still struggles to find loving homes for all the children and youth in care, and hundreds “age out” of the system every year without having permanent family connections. We should be working together to do all we can to find loving, supportive homes for ALL children.

I am writing to express enCircle’s support for HB 1932. At enCircle (formerly Lutheran Family Services of Virginia), we are a Licensed Child Placing Agency (LCPA) that actively recruits and supports all kinds of qualified families, including LGBTQ families, to provide loving homes for children and youth in care. We believe it is wrong to discriminate against parents who are otherwise qualified to provide loving foster homes because of their identity. The child welfare system is a public system that uses taxpayer funds to support children in foster care and should not be used to discriminate against those who are LGBTQ. While we hope that passing this legislation does not cause any other LCPAs to cease serving children and families, we believe there is adequate capacity in the system to step in to maintain placements for the children who would be affected if that occurred. Agencies like ours have a history of working together in many ways to recruit foster families from all regions of the state and to best serve the children and youth with whom we work. Virginia still struggles to find loving homes for all the children and youth in care, and hundreds “age out” of the system every year without having permanent family connections. We should be working together to do all we can to find loving, supportive homes for ALL children.

Protect Faith Based Christian adoption in our land.

My name is Valerie Slater, Esq. and I submit testimony on behalf of RISE for Youth and The Activated People. We are in strong support of HB1932. Congregate care settings are not ideal placements for children in care. Those who grow up in congregate care are more likely to have lower graduation rates, greater risk of physical abuse, separation from siblings and communities of origin, and higher rates of aging out without reunification or adoption. Virginia’s law sends a message to LGBTQ kids that the State views them as less worthy of being parents – that the state would rather see youth age out of care than be placed with an LGBTQ-headed household. Kids do not get to choose which agency they are placed with and have diverse needs that are best served by a diverse pool of prospective parents. If a child is placed with an agency that turns away LGBTQ families, or other families not aligned with their faith, this is tantamount to the State allowing an agency to discriminate and potentially rob that child of the loving support of a family. Therefore we strongly support HB1932 to repeal the conscientious clause.

You need to rescind HB1932. Stop being a tyrant.

Repealing this bill would greatly affect the speed with which children can be placed in adoptive homes. It also is unfair to faith-based agencies many of whom operate through donations and therefore can perform adoption services below the cost of for-profit agencies. In effect, you are punishing not only the agency but the potential family they are trying to help. Putting faith-based agencies out of business helps no one.

The reason often cited for passing this bill is that doing so would lead to be more families fostering or adopting. Currently, no one who wants to adopt or provide a foster home is prohibited from doing so in the Commonwealth of Virginia. There are agencies that serve families from ALL backgrounds and beliefs through the state, so this bill would not increase the number of foster and adoptive families, it would decrease the number of families and ultimately cause further harm to children by disrupting placements causing further trauma to many children. Please consider the wider damage you would do by enacting this bill, I ask that you oppose HB 1932.

Good Morning Madam Chairwoman and members of the Committee. I represent GLSEN Richmond Talking points on the issue of a Conscience clause primarily revolve around an organizations rights and a religious applicants rights. What about the rights of the child. The idea that a religious institution could force placement of a child identifying as LGBTQ+ in a religious focused home that would be unsupportive of that child's identity is really more reprehensible than the license to discriminate against LGBTQ+ potential parents argument. Conscience clauses do not really intend to free religious people but rather they are intended to box in or control others. GLSEN works to ensure that LGBTQ+ students are able to learn and grow in a school environment free from bullying and harassment. How said that people claiming religion as their mantel fight to maintain control of youth that might identify as LGBTQ+ by bullying. GLSEN Richmond endorses HB 1932.

I ask your support of HB1932 "Child-placing agencies; conscience clause" because an agency that chooses to discriminate against a category of people should not receive government funding. It is unjust that my tax dollars should fund an agency that would refuse to place a child in the loving home my friends can offer. Children need families. Since the “conscience clause” went into effect in 2012, adoptions have steadily decreased. And no wonder when qualified loving LGBTQ and religious-minority families fear being rejected. HB1932 will increase the available homes where children can grow up with loving families of all backgrounds.

The Up Center is a licensed child-placing agency in Virginia providing foster and adoptive services. We envision a world where society and its systems (e.g. education, criminal justice, healthcare, housing, and the economy) are just, fair, and inclusive, enabling all people to participate and reach their full potential. We believe in the dignity and humanity of all people. We strive for a healthy and prosperous society that promotes all people having equitable access and opportunity. We recognize that to achieve our vision, we must lead our social sector in making the changes we want to see in society. Virginia needs more families who can provide homes from children in care, not more agencies to take state funds while refusing to place children in qualified homes. Kids in care have diverse needs, and to meet their best interests, the pool of parents should reflect that diversity. It is time to put an end to state-sponsored discrimination in child welfare. We also understand that some agencies may make the choice to end their foster-adoptive programs in Virginia. Our agency would be ready and willing to help move existing foster families to our agency to prevent any disruptions to the placements of youth in foster care. Agencies in Virginia close offices for a variety of reasons, and private child placing agencies frequently coordinate with one another to assure continuity of placements for youth who are currently placed with a foster family. We would do the same if needed for this reason. We are in support of HB 1932 and the repeal of the conscience clause.

I would like to ask that you do not remove the conscience clause. I have adopted through the foster care system. While going through training there was a same sex couple there. They were given a placement. After going to other trainings later on, we found out that the couple had split up and the child was living with one of the men. I know that anyone can split up and even Christian couples can split up, however, I think that the child in this situation is going to suffer. If both original "dads" get new same sex partners, the child could end up with at least four dads. I think that children in this situation will face a hard life. Regardless of love in the home, the problems that happen outside of the home because of the lifestyle, I feel will assist in taking the child down the wrong path. There is just so much confusion. I work in early childhood education. We are being trained on numerous areas concerning social, emotional, and behavioral health. This is because of the rise in homes that are abusive and neglectful. As a bible believing Christian, I can't help but believe that going against God and his teachings are harmful. Many Christians would agree. There are organizations including the state social services that support non-natural marriages and families, so why attempt to shut down organizations because they believe that a two parent, mother and father home would be the best in helping a child to overcome the already difficult life of abuse and neglect and abandonment. Mentally, they are already extremely vulnerable. The people going to a faith based agency would be like minded people. If they didn't feel the way that organization felt, they are free to go through other organizations. Choice should be allowed. What I am saying is that the state should not force belief. People should get to choose.

Please oppose HB 1932. Firstly, organizations ought to be able to freely operate within the realm of conscious. The existing law ensures that adoption and foster care agencies are not forced simply for remaining true and following deeply held beliefs. By removing the existing laws, organizations that serve many of the children in the Virginia foster care system will be at risk having to lose their license and shut their doors. Subsequently, prospective parents will lose the opportunity to partner with these organizations in providing homes for the nearly 5400 children that are in the Virginia foster care system. Secondly, the Supreme Court of the United States is expected to reach a decision soon regarding Fulton vs the City of Philadelphia. The court heard oral arguments in November of last year regarding a case in which the city of Philadelphia which refused to renew its contract with Catholic Social Services, after over 100 years of service in caring for children, over their stance on the traditional view marriage. Please oppose HB 1932 these organizations are a vital part of the Virginia adoption and foster care system and the well being of our children.

I do not support overturning the conscience clause. Virginia needs faith based organizations to handle adoptions without the interference of government meddling to require them to provide services against their religious beliefs.

Please protect faith-based adoption agencies and foster care agencies. I understand that there are 5,400 children in Virginia's foster care system now. Why would our state want to cut out agencies that are working hard to find good places for these needy children? When I was growing up our family hosted 5 foster children in total. Our first two were brought to our house by the county sheriff the same evening that their father had shot their mother. They sure needed the care my parents provided. What would have been the result if we had not been available? For the sake of foster children including those ready for adoption please oppose HB 1932. We need all the welcoming families that are approved.

I ask that this bill go no further. It is not only an affront to religious freedom, which is not to be considered a private concern, but the manner in which we interact with society to bring about good. A faith that is merely personal is no faith at all. And a government that refuses to respect the rights of those who wish to exercise their faith in the public arena gives hollow praise to the term freedom. Beyond that, I have deep concerns for the welfare of the children to be impacted by this -children who have already suffered instability and often neglect and trauma. Below is an abstract concerning a study that took pains to prove that the emotional well being of children of same sex marriages is just fine. Of course, one had to dig to find this little nugget of truth because it is not politically correct. But children aren't interested in politics, they just want a safe, stable home. I would emphasize the last statistic that states the incidence of sexual abuse in lesbian 'marriages' (those seeking adoption) goes from zero to 38%. There is also anecdotal evidence from children raised in such households that beg those who would listen not to subject children to this. Abstract Wainright and Patterson’s three studies of the National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health (Add Health) examining children in 44 lesbian mother families comprise a key part of research efforts that have found no disadvantages in well-being for children with same-sex parents using a statistically representative national sample. Re-examination of the data finds that 27 of the 44 cases are misidentified heterosexual parents. Replication after removing the error cases finds that children with same-sex parents experience significantly lower autonomy and higher anxiety, but also better school performance, than do children with opposite-sex parents. Re-analysis of family type (same-sex vs. opposite-sex) by marriage status finds that, on a range of measures of child well-being, opposite-sex marriage is associated with improved outcomes, but same-sex marriage is associated with with lower outcomes. Comparing unmarried to married same-sex parents, above-average child depressive symptoms rises from 50% to 88%; daily fearfulness or crying rises from 5% to 32%; grade point average declines from 3.6 to 3.4; and child sex abuse by parent rises from zero to 38%.

My family has two adopted children from a faith based agency in Virginia. It was important for our family to choose a faith based agency because for prospective parents, we had shared beliefs, confidence and trust in the agency that took us through a very stressful process. Our agency continues to provide our family support, resources, education, and community. I was able to encourage my friend to also adopt from the same agency. Our social worker who did our home studies would pray with us which made a huge difference when we had to overcome hugh obstacles that were out of our control. Please do not repeal the statutory conscience protection for faith based agencies.

As co-chairs of the Every Child Deserves a Family Campaign, a coalition of over 700 individual, state, and national partners in the child welfare, faith, and civil rights communities who seek to promote the best interests of children in the foster care system by increasing their access to loving placements, Family Equality supports HB 1932. To be clear, repeal of the so-called "conscience clause" law does not impact purely private agencies that do not receive taxpayer funds, nor does it force an agency to close. There are more than 40 states that do not have conscience clause laws in place, and faith-based foster care and adoption agencies operate in nearly all of them, just as they operated in Virginia prior to passage of this law. Virginia has one of the highest rates in the country of foster children who age out of care without reunification or adoption. We should encourage every qualified parent to foster and adopt children in care. Instead, our state gives agencies taxpayer funds to place children in homes but allows those agencies to turn away qualified families - not because they don't meet state criteria, but because they don't meet an agency's religious criteria. Same-sex couples are seven times more likely to foster and adopt than different-sex couples, but Virginia's "conscience clause law" sends a message that reinforces historical discrimination experienced by the LGBTQ community and deters LGBTQ families from reaching out to agencies to foster and adopt. This law can even preclude kinship placements. An agency can invoke this law to refuse to certify the family member of a child in their care as a foster home simply because the family member is LGBTQ or practices a different faith. At a time when our foster care crisis has only worsened due to COVID, this is simply unconscionable. Providing for the care of children who have been removed from their homes is one of the most critical responsibilities of this state. Agencies that voluntarily enter into contracts with the state to carry out this work and duty of care should be held to the same well-established professional standards as the state itself: promoting the best interest of the child. Virginia's "conscience clause" law does just the opposite, prioritizing an agency's beliefs over a child's best interests. We ask this subcommittee to put children first and pass HB 1932. Thank you.

To Whom it may Concern: Thank you for taking the time to read my comments and feedback. This Bill is incredibly close to my heart as it would directly impact the work that I do and my own family. I currently work for a faith-based adoption agency in the Northern Virginia area. I am humbled to serve families who have adopted from all corners of the globe and who desire to raise their children in morally-grounded, faith-rooted homes here in Virginia and across the U.S. If this conscience clause were to be repealed, our agency, though private and NOT state-funded, would be susceptible to lawsuits, lack of equal protection under the law, and potential closure simply for existing to serve families of faith-backgrounds. Virginia has an incredibly diverse and widely available selection of welfare providers for foster and adoptive families to choose from. There is no shortage of options for families of all backgrounds, whether they align with a particular religion or not. I ask you then, why would it be beneficial to remove the faith-based options, or expose them to lack of protection under the law, for families who do choose to partner with an agency based on shared beliefs? As an individual and family who hopes to one day adopt a child, it is incredibly important to me to have faith-based options that can provide holistic services, support, resources, and referrals within the scope of our shared beliefs and values. Raising a child with a trauma history is hard enough without the necessary support and vital role these agencies play in our welfare system. Keep Virginia's welfare provider options diverse and protect faith-based agencies for families who need them! Please oppose HB 1932. Thank you for your time, Amy

As the parent of two adopted children, adoption is close to my heart. Furthermore, with respect to the fact that one of our birth parents was seeking a Christian family, consisting of both a mother and father, I respectfully ask that you continue the religious conscience protections for these agencies. In a country where there is freedom of religion, we should not have to compromise in this. There are many secular agencies including social services for those who wish to refrain from our beliefs. This bill would not allow birth parents who want their children in Christian homes to feel as though they have a choice for their child. Furthermore, as Christians, we are not perfect, only forgiven. We know we sometimes mess up, but God, in his infinite wisdom made a way for forgiveness. There are many Christian birth mothers and fathers who have found themselves in a situation of an unexpected pregnancy and instead of abortion choose adoption and want their children raised in the Christian faith. The government should dictate what they can or cannot have for their child in this matter.

I urge you not to not to repeal statutory conscience protections for faith-based organizations. These organizations provide homes for children. Regardless, they should not be forced to act against their own consciences or close their doors.

My husband and I adopted 4 children through a local Christian adoption agency. It has been the greatest blessing in our life. I respectfully ask that you continue the religious conscience protections for these agencies. There are many agencies that are not faith based. Our Christian faith should not be a target .We would not have adopted through any agency but a faith based one. This bill will deprive children of homes and families of children as it will force faith based agencies to close. That would be awful for so many.

Adoption agencies should be able to place children in homes that reflect their conscience!! Faith based groups should work along the beliefs and conscience of their faith.

On behalf of Americans United for Separation of Church and State’s Virginia supporters, I urge you to support HB 1932. This bill would help ensure children in foster care get the services they need and have the best opportunity to find loving homes. It would repeal § 63.2-1709.3 of the Code of Virginia, which allows state-funded child placement agencies to use religion to justify denying services to children and discriminating against prospective parents simply because they are the “wrong” religion. Section 63.2-1709.3 is not necessary to allow faith-based groups to provide foster and adoption care services—as noted in the impact statement, faith-based child placing agencies operated in Virginia before the law was passed. And faith-based organizations across the country currently provide these services in many states that don’t have this type of harmful law on the books. Repealing § 63.2-1709.3 would prevent child placing agencies from discriminating against qualified prospective parents who are the “wrong” religion, like what has happened at Miracle Hill Ministries in South Carolina. Three women who wanted nothing more than to help children in foster care have faced discrimination: • Aimee Maddonna, a Catholic mother of three who grew up in a family who provided a home for countless children in foster care, had been told by Miracle Hill that her family was a great fit to work with kids. Instead of being able to provide loving experiences to children in care, Miracle Hill told Maddonna they only work with people “who are Protestant Christian.” Maddonna has filed suit to stop this government-sanctioned religious discrimination. To learn more about Maddonna’s case, please visit https://www.au.org/fostercare. • Motivated by Jewish values and her father’s own experience in foster care, Lydia Currie and her husband wanted to expand their family by fostering. But Currie’s family was turned away because they are not evangelical Protestant. • Beth Lesser, who is also Jewish, attended a training co-hosted by Miracle Hill and completed background checks before she was told that she could not mentor or foster children because she’s Jewish. We appreciate the important role religiously affiliated institutions historically have played in partnership with the government to provide foster care services. Effective government collaboration with faith-based groups, however, has not and does not require the sanctioning of discrimination with taxpayer funds. No taxpayer-funded organization should be able to use a religious litmus test to refuse to provide services to children or place them in a safe and happy family. For these reasons, Americans United supports HB 1932. Nikolas Nartowicz Americans United for Separation of Church and State

C2Adopt Supports the Repeal of the Conscious Clause for the following reasons and raises the following questions: • We need to focus on increasing the pool of families available to foster and adopt the nearly 4,000 children in our VA foster care system and over 600 waiting for adoptive families • We are already serving LGBTQ youth and need to ensure that those youth have access to accepting and affirming families • The Conscious Clause is not consistent with the Virginia Values Act • There is no evidence that any LCPA has invoked use of the Conscious Clause since it’s enactment • C2Adopt is confident that there are other LCPAs who would and could meet the needs of children and families if any entity felt that by this repeal they could no longer provide child-placement services in Virginia • We raise the question of how have faith based organizations functioned differently since the Conscious Clause was enacted than prior to having it? • We raise the question of how a repeal of the Conscious Clause would cause any agency to function differently and why?

I have already submitted written testimony and am in full support.

I write as former U.S. Commissioner of the Administration for Children, Youth and Families where I played a major role in helping to pass 96272, The Child Welfare and Adoption Act opf 1980, a bill which stressed finding and strengthening family strengths, and, not finding them in immediate or extended family, moving swiftly to adoption. Permanency was one of the core policy foundations. I also worked on this from a different position when serving as Commissioner of Youth Services in MA. there stressing support for delinquent children, and that failing, moving to adoption. And it was tough to find adoptive parents as many of these kids were wounded, angry, traumatized. Loving, courageous, committed adoptive families are hard to find, and thus I'm in full support which would widen the net of those willing to adopt. Anything you can do to expand the reservoir of loving folks ready and willing to adopt, I heartily applaud. Co-Leader, Lewinsville Faith in Action Consultant, National League of Cities

As a Virginia resident and an Assistant State Director for American Atheists, which has over 1,600 constituents in Virginia, I testify in support of HB1932, a bill that would end state-sanctioned discrimination in foster care and adoption based on religious beliefs. Every young person in Virginia deserves a loving home. This legislation would increase the number of available foster and adoption families, leading to more availability for children in foster care to have a loving, permanent home. We strongly urge you to support this bill. American Atheists is a national civil rights organization that works to achieve religious equality for all Americans by protecting what Thomas Jefferson called the “wall of separation” between government and religion created by the First Amendment. We strive to create an environment where atheism and atheists are accepted as members of our nation’s communities and where casual bigotry against our community is seen as abhorrent and unacceptable. We promote understanding of atheists through education, outreach, and community-building and work to end the stigma associated with being an atheist in America. Religious liberty is guaranteed by the First Amendment to protect individual beliefs; it does not create special rights for religious individuals and organizations to violate neutral laws or discriminate against groups they disfavor. children are in either long term foster care or awaiting adoption.1 Nationally, nearly 24,000 youth age out of foster care each year, finding themselves with no support at age 18. Furthermore, 20% of these youth which age out of foster care become homeless.2 HB 1932 addresses these troubling numbers by repealing the so-called “conscience clause,” which allows adoption and foster placement services to discriminate against potential families for these children. Nearly 40 states do not have such exemptions, and faith-based foster care and adoption agencies function well in these states, continuing to provide their services without discrimination. Without this repeal, child placement agencies that receive state funding will continue to be permitted to freely discriminate based on their religious beliefs. For example, these agencies could discriminate against would-be parents because they are (or are assumed to be) religious minorities or atheists, unmarried, LGBTQ, or have some other characteristic that the placement agency disfavors. Instead, placement decisions must be based on the best interest of the child, regardless of the agency’s religious beliefs. Currently, about 24% of adults are religiously unaffiliated, and atheists and agnostics make up about 7% of the total population.3 Therefore, even without considering the other categories of people affected, allowing foster placement agencies to discriminate on the basis of their religion will potentially exclude about a quarter of adults from providing a home for foster children, inevitably reducing the number of youth placed in loving, permanent homes. Moreover, repealing this harmful language will directly affect a significant number of religiously unaffiliated youth. Studies show that approximately 13% of youth ages 13-18 identify as atheists, with more than a third being nonreligious. We strongly urge you to support HB1932.

RISE for Youth supports this bill and urges the committee to act favorably on HB 1932. The only requirement that we should have for foster or adoptive families is that they provide a safe and loving home. We must repeal this unnecessary conscience clause.

I am for nurse practitioner to be able to practice without a doctor being there

Why would you force a vaccine when hyrdroechloraquin and other drugs heal people. CDC says 99.9% of people recover. Why are you using the tool of fear. What is in it for you. It’s being said that covid is just the first part of this bio weapon. The next part will kill those who were diagnosed with it. If you keep this up there won’t be any one to vote. Oh that’s right. Depopulation is part of the plan. You reap what you sow.

I write to express the concerns of the juvenile and domestic relations court judges who have reviewed House Bill 2002. Although we do not have an official position yet, a committee of judges who reviewed this bill has recommended opposing this bill for the following reasons. 1. The bill is burdensome on the courts as it would place the requirement on the JDR and circuit courts to perform a function that is more properly that of the Executive Branch and one which an Executive Branch agency is required to perform: determination of Medicaid eligibility. Judges and courts do not have the time or the resources to perform this function. 2. The requirement for courts to compare public and private insurance coverage plans that may be available to families is a function outside the role of judges. Judges make findings and rulings based on the evidence presented by the parties. If the parties do not submit the relevant evidence, judges would have to look outside the record before them for the pertinent information to make these determinations. 3. Performing these functions would cause delays in the entry of final support orders, increase the use of pendente lite orders, and increase the number of hearings required to dispose of support cases, burdening the courts’ resources and interfering with the administration of justice for other litigants. 4. Requiring the court to perform these functions would also deprive the family of the choice of having their child on private medical insurance rather than public health insurance.

I support the VPLC comment pointing out the removal of any consumer benefits from the current version. While it is important to learn more about the factors behind drug pricing and costs, it is just as critical that all Virginians can see some direct and immediate benefits at the same time.

Support Drug Transparency AND Lower Drug Costs for Consumers AMEND HB 2007 to restore a basic rebate-pass-through for consumers! HB 2007 is a significant FIRST STEP to require more drug pricing transparency from insurance plans, pharmacy benefits managers, and pharmacy manufacturers. However, there is NO FIRST STEP in the bill to protect consumers from exorbitant drug costs, EVEN WHEN INSURERS AND THEIR PHARMACY BENEFITS MANAGERS RECEIVE REBATES AND OTHER PRICE CONCESSIONS FROM MANUFACTURERS. HB 2007 only requires PBMs to give insurance plans an OPTION to pass through rebates. (see, lines 528-530) . The Virginia Poverty Law Center and many disease groups, whose members must have extremely expensive specialty drugs, believe an option isn’t good enough. The original bill REQUIRED a simple rebate pass-through for consumers. The following amendments are needed: Line 491 – delete “Option for rebates” and insert “Rebates” Line 528 - after “B” delete remainder of lines 528-530 and insert “An enrollee's defined cost sharing for each prescription drug shall be calculated at the point of sale based on a price that is reduced by an amount equal to at least 80 percent of all rebates received, or to be received, in connection with the dispensing or administration of the prescription drug.” This original language should be restored to give consumer some price relief while the state collects data and learns more about the very complex world of prescription prices and costs. Future reforms should be based on that data. Thank you. Jill Hanken, VPLC Health Attorney

Del. Sickles and Members of the Committee, AARP Virginia remains neutral on HB2007 due to inclusion of language on which we have no applicable policy. However, on the language directly related to price transparency beginning on line 330 of the current draft, we acknowledge a marked improvement on lines 491-492 in the initial price threshold for brand names and biologics being set at $100/year. Thank you for for your work on this issue. Respectfully submitted, Natalie Snider AARP Virginia State Advocacy Director 804-344-3063 nsnider@aarp.org

Why would you force a vaccine when hyrdroechloraquin and other drugs heal people. CDC says 99.9% of people recover. Why are you using the tool of fear. What is in it for you. It’s being said that covid is just the first part of this bio weapon. The next part will kill those who were diagnosed with it. If you keep this up there won’t be any one to vote. Oh that’s right. Depopulation is part of the plan. You reap what you sow.

Del. Hope and members of the committee, AARP Virginia thanks Del. Sickles and the co-patrons of HB2007 for their efforts to bring transparency to the prescription drug pricing supply chain. As the bill is currently written, however, there are several sections where AARP has no applicable policy, so we will remain neutral in our position. As Del. Sickles has shared that this bill is a "work in progress", AARP Virginia respectfully recommends that the non-reporting penalty be increased to $15,000 per day and the 3-year reporting threshold be set at 40%. Prescription drug price transparency is an important foundational building block for other reforms, such as affordability boards, bulk purchasing, and other efforts. AARP Virginia is committed to this issue and will continue to work for meaningful reforms. Respectfully submitted, Natalie Snider AARP Virginia State Advocacy Director 804-344-3063 nsnider@aarp.org

I am for nurse practitioner to be able to practice without a doctor being there

HB 2035 is an administration bill and has the strong support of the Virginia Department of Social Services. The Full Employment Program provides employer subsidies for hiring and training TANF recipients. There are several areas in the Full Employment Program, which if addressed, will greatly improve it. 1) The current employer stipend is too low and does not attract employers. 2) TANF recipients are reluctant to participate because they lose their TANF benefits. 3) Case managers are reluctant to assign participants to the program because people that do not receive a TANF payment are excluded from the calculation of the state’s work participation rate. In other words, staff do not receive “credit” for these placements. 4) Case managers find it difficult to devote the time necessary to recruit employers. This legislation addresses all of these issues by increasing the employer stipend, allowing the participant to retain TANF benefits, and including funding for two job developer positions. Funding for this bill is included in Governor Northam’s introduced budget. I urge you to support HB 2035 and make the Full Employment Program a more effective tool to obtain employment opportunities for TANF recipients. Mark L. Golden TANF Program Manager Virginia Department of Social Services mark.golden@dss.virginia.gov

Why would you force a vaccine when hyrdroechloraquin and other drugs heal people. CDC says 99.9% of people recover. Why are you using the tool of fear. What is in it for you. It’s being said that covid is just the first part of this bio weapon. The next part will kill those who were diagnosed with it. If you keep this up there won’t be any one to vote. Oh that’s right. Depopulation is part of the plan. You reap what you sow.

Why would you force a vaccine when hyrdroechloraquin and other drugs heal people. CDC says 99.9% of people recover. Why are you using the tool of fear. What is in it for you. It’s being said that covid is just the first part of this bio weapon. The next part will kill those who were diagnosed with it. If you keep this up there won’t be any one to vote. Oh that’s right. Depopulation is part of the plan. You reap what you sow.

The Virginia Assembly of Independent Baptists supports HB2086 and the help it will provide for day cares including those represented by some of our churches. Some of our day cares have been negatively impacted and closed, therefore this will help those who may seek employment elsewhere. Thank you. Eddy Aliff Executive Director

The Virginia Education Association opposes this bill.

Why would you force a vaccine when hyrdroechloraquin and other drugs heal people. CDC says 99.9% of people recover. Why are you using the tool of fear. What is in it for you. It’s being said that covid is just the first part of this bio weapon. The next part will kill those who were diagnosed with it. If you keep this up there won’t be any one to vote. Oh that’s right. Depopulation is part of the plan. You reap what you sow.

The Virginia Academy of Elder Law Attorneys (VAELA) is comprised of approximately 200 attorneys throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia who practice in a variety of areas related to elder law, estate planning and administration, Medicaid and other benefits planning, disability planning, and adult guardianship/conservatorship. Many of our members also serve as guardians ad litem for incapacitated adults and/or routinely serve as counsel advising guardians and agents under powers of attorney as to their duties and powers. VAELA’s Public Policy Committee has reviewed HB 2107, relating to drafting regulations for virtual visits in nursing homes, and on behalf of VAELA, we want to register our support of this Bill. Access to loved ones in hospitals, nursing homes, and certified nursing facilities has been a matter of great concern to many of our clients throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. Regulations that would guarantee patients and residents of these facilities timely access to their loved ones through virtual visits, especially when in-person visits are not advised, would be very beneficial to the physical and mental health of facility residents and patients, as well as their loved ones. Thank you in advance for your consideration. - Amy E. McCullough (amcculloughesq@gmail.com) Rhona Levine (rlevine@opnlaw.com) Stephen D. Burns (stephen.burns@parksensenig.com), Public Policy Committee Co-Chairs, 2021

Dear Members of the House Appropriations Committee, We are contacting you today in regards to HB2166, Patroned by Delegate Hope. HB2166 amends current processes of involuntary detainment and Mandatory Outpatient Treatment orders. As we voiced during the previous Committee and Subcommittee hearings, VOCAL and our membership of 2,000+ peer/consumers of Virginia's mental health care system, do not support the bill as written. From our perspective, there are two main reasons for our opposition. The first reason relates to HB2166's degradation of personal choice and person-centered care, through the removal of an individual's consent and commitment to the goals within the MOT order. The second reason for our opposition relates to concerns over the preparedness, or lack thereof, of our local communities to support the adherence to MOT orders. Specifically, the inequitable spread of local communities' infrastructure and funding, both of which are critically necessary to support an individual's efforts to comply. We encourage you all to read through the 2019 SAMHSA article "Civil Commitment and the Mental Health Care Continuum" (referenced below) prior to all Committee discussions of HB2166. https://www.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/civil-commitment-continuum-of-care.pdf Thank you in advance for your time and attention to this important matter.

The Virginia Association of Community Services Board (VACSB) has no position on this bill; however, the VACSB would anticipate putting forth a budget request in the 2022 session of the General Assembly in order to mitigate for the additional requirements beginning on line 290 in the introduced bill which reads "The community services board responsible for monitoring the person's progress and adherence to the comprehensive mandatory outpatient treatment plan shall report monthly, in writing, to the court regarding the person's and the community services board's compliance with the provisions of the comprehensive mandatory outpatient treatment plan described in clause (viii) of subsection G of § 37.2-817. " Most often, the MOT coordinator in a CSB is going to be a Certified Prescreening Clinician which means that individual, in addition to his/her duties as an MOT coordinator, is conducting emergency evaluations for the purposes of determining whether a request for a TDO is appropriate for an individual experience a psychiatric crisis. If that clinician is spending time organizing submitting paperwork for every individual on his or her MOT caseload, he or she will not be available to do prescreening evaluations. This means that another clinician will need to be paid overtime for coverage or perhaps, depending on the MOT caseload, an additional prescreening clinician will need to be hired. At a minimum, staffing patterns will need to be examined and supplemented in order to comply with these requirements. The VACSB plans to collect data regarding the impact of the legislation, should it pass, in order to support the budget request in 2022.

VSC NAACP is in full support of HB 2166

Thank you to the committee, my name is Shaddai R. from Richmond, Virginia. I am here to encourage you to.. 1. Increase the allocation of tax revenue towards the reinvestment fund from 30% to 70% because anything less than a majority of the revenues is disingenuous to the priorities of the bill. 2. Allocate 50% of all licenses towards Virginia social equity license holders as no other licenses are required to be owned by Virginia residents. 3. Add another tier of license, micro-business licenses, so that smaller applicants can enter with unique integration privileges. 4. Do not add any new crimes nor criminalize another generation of youth because of a fake war on drugs

I am a constituent of the 7th district but I feel it is necessary to work together to protect the younger members of our society and stop the criminalization of the Hispanic and African American communities. Rules must be stated clearly now so we are better prepared to face a future when marijuana is officially legalized in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Please increase the reinvestment from 30% to 70% for new companies and entrepreneurs. Make sure the new market is equitable and accessible to all not just large corporations.

Why would you force a vaccine when hyrdroechloraquin and other drugs heal people. CDC says 99.9% of people recover. Why are you using the tool of fear. What is in it for you. It’s being said that covid is just the first part of this bio weapon. The next part will kill those who were diagnosed with it. If you keep this up there won’t be any one to vote. Oh that’s right. Depopulation is part of the plan. You reap what you sow.

As a Licensed Clinical Psychologist and independent forensic examiner for the court with many years of experience evaluating individuals with intermittent serious mental illness (Schizophrenia, Bipolar Disorder, and Dual Diagnosis Disorder), it is my recommendation that special justices be granted broad judicial discretion to order an MOT order with or without consent under any proposed revision of 37.2-817 under conditions otherwise proposed in the revised Code. "One size does not fit all". Schizophrenia is a disorder that presents in varying ways, to varying degrees, at different stages of the illness and with widely varying prognoses-- usually determined by how early in the disease process effective antipsychotic medication can be prescribed and "adhered to"(John M. Kane, MD, RAISE Research Program). The same point might be made for most SMIs (Major Depression, Bipolar Disorder, etc. ). Psychosis is also commonly a symptom in its acute manifestation that can present initially in many unrelated medical conditions that need to be competently and expertly assessed with rule out. There are many individuals with a history of recurring SMI and presenting to the special justice on a "green warrant" who, after a reasonable initial period of psychiatric stabilization and expert capacity assessment, could benefit from having the legal option to voluntarily consent to a court ordered MOT with periodic review and/or status hearings through the auspices of the CSBs that have the resources to properly implement such "legal clinics". These orograms can be customized according to the needs and resources of the individual and the community. There is something about "answering to a judge" that makes all involved in the proceeding take the whole process more seriously. Many individuals after years of "non-adherence" to treatment and/or failure to obtain appropriate services in the community might recognize that they require and would benefit from voluntary court supervision (particularly those with Dual Diagnoses). Where homelessness or incarceration may be the likely alternative consequence of their actions and choices, this might seem the "lesser of the available evils". Without appropriate judicial prudence, including a "choice" option for the individual whose civil liberty is vitally affected, however, the present incarnation of 37.2-817 may be at risk long-term of going the way of mandatory minimal criminal sentencing and other ill-conceived laws.

I can only support involuntary treatment orders when individuals meet the criteria for involuntary detainment (TDO/ECO criteria). In the current version of the bill, "1.b." the Pre-Authorization Step-down MOT option allows for individuals to be mandated to intensive, outpatient treatment, for up to 6 months, at a time when they no longer meet those criteria. I strongly feel that mandated treatments for individuals that do not currently meet criteria for emergency detainment is a threat to their civil rights. Furthermore, the success of mandatory outpatient treatments are contingent on the local communities' infrastructure (or lack thereof) of available public services. I fear that, while the Patron of the bill's community (Arlington) likely has the available services in place, there are countless communities, rural and/or lower socioeconomic, that simply do not currently have the needed services in place. The absence of these services, in my opinion, render the work on the MOT process significantly less impactful.

As an independent examiner with over 15 years of experience providing independent TDO evaluations for special justices and the courts, I can tell you that safety-- that of the individual with serious mental illness, of family members. and of the community) always comes first in the preparation, execution, and disposition of these civil judicial hearings and cases. In the past, the large majority of the MOT orders have been for "Direct" MOT orders, not "step-down" MOT orders-- whether by advance order of the court or "de novo" MOT hearings and orders after physician approval for discharge. I am concerned that the present House Bill 2166 in its present form will not allow sufficient time under the current statutorily required 72 hour period limit (exclusive of weekends and holidays) in pre-hearing detention to be sufficient for the type of multidisciplinary capacity assessments and judicial deliberations proposed under 37.2-817 et seq. This bill, as proposed in most instances, as it applies at least to "Direct' MOT orders as an alternative to inpatient hospitalization, would allow at most 72 hours for the physician and independent examiner, and others, to accomplish the following: initial risk and capacity assessments, authorized family contacts, authorized medical records releases, initial treatment team reviews and follow-up pre-discharge MOT step-down treatment planning jointly conducted by the hospital and the CSB, and, where applicable, Psychiatric Advance Directive for legal review. Unless the proponents of this bill advocate committing all TDOs for inpatient psychiatric acute hospitalization initially for stabilization, capacity assessment, and extensive case management review, including MOT pre-discharge planning, I would strongly recommend and advocate for a voluntary option for MOT post-discharge planning for those individuals with SMIs who are "at risk" but who are not an imminent danger to self or others. I would also strongly advocate for extending the statutory pre-hearing TDO initial assessment period from 72 to 96 hours. There are many individuals who have been ECO'd or TDO'd by well-meaning family, clinicians, and law enforcement officers "out of an abundance of caution" who are not dangerous but who act or claim to be in order to obtain services that are not immediately available in the community. Often their families are desperate to obtain services. With In in red an extension of the TDO pre-assessment period from 72 to 96 hours, or longer, many of these individuals could be psychiatrically stabilized and diverted to community care safely with or without an MOT order. See Wanchek and Bonnie (2012 Psychiatric Services) for a research study that provide evidence-based findings supporting the cost-effectiveness of such an approach.

I am a social worker by training and a person in recovery from mental health challenges. I believe in the autonomy and choice of individuals to direct and control their recovery process. I recognize that without the investment from the individual, all behavioral health interventions will be destined to fall short. With that said, I disagree with HB2216's removal of the individuals consent/agreement requirement, within the MOT process. The consent of the individual should not be overruled, except in instances where a magistrate has ruled the individual lacks decisional capability. I also stand in opposition to the bill's significant extension of the time period for the mandated, intensive, outpatient, treatment order. The current lifespan of an MOT order lasts 90 days. HB2216 proposes to double that time period to 180 days. Individuals should be treated in the least restrictive settings--this intention of the recent reinvigoration for promoting the use of Mandatory Outpatient Treatments, is one I support. However, the community services and the individual's social supports MUST be in place in order for an MOT to be successful. I cannot speak for all of Virginia, but I can say that I highly doubt that Petersburg, VA has the current infrastructure of community services needed to support individuals working to adhere to MOT orders. Please listen to me and my fellow consumers on the ground and vote "nay" on HB2216. This is a complicated, technical piece of Virginia's Behavioral Healthcare system and a quick fix will not work.

Why would you force a vaccine when hyrdroechloraquin and other drugs heal people. CDC says 99.9% of people recover. Why are you using the tool of fear. What is in it for you. It’s being said that covid is just the first part of this bio weapon. The next part will kill those who were diagnosed with it. If you keep this up there won’t be any one to vote. Oh that’s right. Depopulation is part of the plan. You reap what you sow.

Thank you to the committee, my name is Shaddai R. from Richmond, Virginia. I am here to encourage you to.. 1. Increase the allocation of tax revenue towards the reinvestment fund from 30% to 70% because anything less than a majority of the revenues is disingenuous to the priorities of the bill. 2. Allocate 50% of all licenses towards Virginia social equity license holders as no other licenses are required to be owned by Virginia residents. 3. Add another tier of license, micro-business licenses, so that smaller applicants can enter with unique integration privileges. 4. Do not add any new crimes nor criminalize another generation of youth because of a fake war on drugs

I am a constituent of the 7th district but I feel it is necessary to work together to protect the younger members of our society and stop the criminalization of the Hispanic and African American communities. Rules must be stated clearly now so we are better prepared to face a future when marijuana is officially legalized in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Please increase the reinvestment from 30% to 70% for new companies and entrepreneurs. Make sure the new market is equitable and accessible to all not just large corporations.

As the Chief Operating Officer of Elk Hill, a non-profit that has provided TDT services since 2012, I would like to share some of our experiences with the MCOs and TDT. The MCO interpretations of DMAS TDT regulations create barriers to service with little clinical rationale. Mental health/behavioral interventions provided by the school are no longer considered previous mental health interventions, even when provided by LCSWs or LPCs. Some MCOs require that a child be at risk of out of home placement to qualify for TDT, even if the other two of three criteria for service have been met. Virginia’s focus on keeping children in their home make this an almost impossible criteria to meet. MCOs deny TDT services, recommending lower level services even when those services are unavailable in the child’s community. TDT was designed as an intervention for the most significant behavioral and mental health impairments yet MCOs are now denying children services because they’ve been in service too long. These are children with chronic mental health conditions which are not cured by TDT or other therapeutic intervention. Their conditions are managed through these services, just as diabetes may be managed through insulin. The idea that a health professional would deny a diabetic insulin because “they’ve been taking it too long” is absurd yet that is exactly what the MCOs are doing for children with severe mental health conditions. TDT is often the service that maintains these children in public schools rather than referring them to private day placements. More than 80% of Elk Hill’s initial service request authorizations (SRAs) are initially pended for more clinical information yet in almost every case, the information requested by reviewers was already included. Our clinicians have been told by MCO medical directors that their reviewers don’t have time to read the entire SRA . Our clinicians must then submit the requested information in writing again and the MCO has another three days to respond. MCO reviewers have recently started “bargaining” with units. We may have requested 140 units over a three- month period and the reviewer will offer 100 units, stating that if we don’t accept the 100 units, the request will be denied altogether and the family will have to go through the appeal process. DMAS oversight of the MCOs thus far has been largely ineffective. Between November 2019 and January 2020, my clinicians submitted 12 complaints regarding the MCOs to the established DMAS complaint e-mail with no response from DMAS, beyond an automatic reply receipt. In October 2020, I contacted DMAS acting behavioral health senior program advisor. She requested more data and more complaint forms. We submitted four of those complaint forms on October 13, 2020. To date, we have had one e-mail from an MCO representative who has since not responded to my clinician. Elk Hill spent over $150,000 in private donor funds in FY2019 to subsidize TDT services in the public schools. Our mission is helping children and we did not abandon those children as many of our for-profit counterparts did when the MCOs made the model economically unsustainable. Although we are a non-profit, we cannot sustain loss indefinitely. The reduction of TDT services is not in keeping with Virginia's earlier commitment to provide community based services to children. Respectfully submitted, Laura Easter, PhD, LPC Chief Operating Officer, Elk Hill

Why would you force a vaccine when hyrdroechloraquin and other drugs heal people. CDC says 99.9% of people recover. Why are you using the tool of fear. What is in it for you. It’s being said that covid is just the first part of this bio weapon. The next part will kill those who were diagnosed with it. If you keep this up there won’t be any one to vote. Oh that’s right. Depopulation is part of the plan. You reap what you sow.

Supported Decision Making (SDM) legal agreements should not be limited to ID/DD (Intellectually Disabled/Developmentally Delayed) individuals and their supporters alone. Serious consideration should be given by DBHDS in this bill to legal SDM agreements, negotiated between the Community Service Board (CSB), designated family advocates, and treatment providers, as "designated supporters", and individuals with SMIs (Serious Mental Illnesses, such as Schizophrenia Spectrum, Bipolar Spectrum). This could conceivably be as part of routine outpatient treatment planning and care or as part of the terms of a court-ordered "Mandatory Outpatient Treatment" (MOT) order. Such agreements would typically take the form of Psychiatric Advance Directives (PADs) negotiated by individuals with SMI judged mentally competent, as recommended by a qualified forensic physician or psychiatrist, to have sufficient mental capacity to understand and give informed consent, with support, to a PAD (binding mental health contract with or without Ulysses Clause). See Paul F. Stavis "The Nexum: A Modest Proposal for Self-Guardianship by Contract: A System of Advance Directives and Surrogate Committees-at-Large for the Intermittently Mentally Ill" Journal of Contemporary Health and Law Vol 15-1 for an example. (Proposed to the New York Legislature as a bill in 1999). Such SDM agreements in the form of a freely negotiated PAD could serve as one alternative to full or plenary guardianship orders for persons with SMIs or in transition through "limited guardianship" (in the form of a modified court order under 64.2-2009) in negotiating an SDM PAD agreement with the long-term goal of full restoration of the affected individual's full legal emancipation and civil rights. In a legally contested case, such a court order could be negotiated through legal mediation and entered by the court as a "consent agreement" by the parties.

I found out to late to submit this msg before the House Committee meeting. But I am writing in the hope that feedback would still be heard. In light of the many deaths and injuries due to the covid "vaccine", (which BTW actually does not fit the medical definition for a vaccine), and in light of the fact that the WHO announced that this experimental biological agent does not prevent anyone from getting the covid virus, AND in light of the fact that the CDC admits that the survival rate of covid is 99.998% for most individuals, it should be illegal for any government to impose this extremely dangerous experimental biological agent on its citizens. It is also well known that this agent also tracks and traces humans, treating them like cattle, except less humanely, because now they can be incorporated in the matrix of surveillance. It is also called experimental because mRNA has never been tried before and therefore there are no scientific studies to prove that it is safe. There is also questions about whether it could cause infertility in women, thereby rendering it extremely unfit and unethical to force such an agent upon 50% of the population without first determining its safety as far as human reproduction of the entire globe. There are many people who should not take this experimental biological agent due to health issues. Anyone with serious comorbities as heart disease, cancer, hypersensitivities, allergic reactions, diabetes, obesity, autoimmune diseases, and other immune system issues is at risk of cascading into a spike response and rapidly dying. Mandating this highly questionable experimental biological agent is in the public's eye just one more example of American's freedoms being stolen daily by their representatives in Congress that are not out for the people's protection at all; politicians are showing their true colors, whether they are to protect the people or to betray them. People are watching to see how their legislators vote. Please do what is right. Thank you for 'hearing me out'.

I feel that mandating vaccines, especially the questionable Covid vaccine, and imposing harsh penalties for those who refuse them, is unfair. A pharmacist I know said he was concerned because these vaccs are not fully tested and the populace are essentially guinea pigs. Healthy people have already died from or been harmed from these- people with with no prior co-morbidities. PLEASE restore our right of refusal without penalties! Thanks!!

Why would you force a vaccine when hyrdroechloraquin and other drugs heal people. CDC says 99.9% of people recover. Why are you using the tool of fear. What is in it for you. It’s being said that covid is just the first part of this bio weapon. The next part will kill those who were diagnosed with it. If you keep this up there won’t be any one to vote. Oh that’s right. Depopulation is part of the plan. You reap what you sow.

I am speaking on behalf of many friends and families in my neighborhood and county who all agree that mandating vaccines, especially the hastily introduced and questionable Covid vaccine, and denying all legal means of redress for those who refuse them is unacceptable to us. PLEASE support HB2242, HB2268, HB2335 and HB2336 and restore to us the right of refusal without penalty. For all too many of us who are already feeling betrayed by our lawmakers on all levels, the mandating of a vaccine under a questionable state of emergency seems like just one more ploy to steal our freedoms and take government coercion to a whole new level. Thank you for your attention.

SUPPORT HB2242. This vaccine WILL NOT STOP transmission or prevent the disease. The risks are real and great. There have already been numerous severe reactions and deaths. NO ONE should be forced to inject anything into their bodies without their informed consent. NO ONE should suffer ANY discrimination based on their vaccine status. Where there is risk, there must be choice. SUPPORT HB2242.

Subject line: SUPPORT HB2268, HB2242, HB 2335, and HB2336 Dear Esteemed Delegates, My name is Karen Whitlock, and I wish I could have spoken to you via Zoom today; however, I do not have the proper equipment to do so. I am deeply concerned about any effort by my state government that would both deny citizens their freedoms protected under the Virginia and federal constitutions and penalize them for exercising those freedoms. Therefore, I respectfully encourage you to support HB2268, HB 2242, HB 2335, and HB 2336. These bills allow citizens protection from religious persecution and criminal charges, prevent discrimination, and ensure the right to autonomy in health care decisions, without consequence upon their access to employment, public property, education, travel…basically, the pursuit of happiness. We, the people, all of us, have had our lives impacted by the extraordinary events of this past year: adulterated elections, a pandemic, loss of loved ones and jobs, widespread violence, vitriol and partisan politics, overreach of technology giants, contradicting information and contracted access to it, just to name a few. Many of us are weary from what feels like simultaneous attacks on our nation, whether they are biological, social, political, or economical. Please help restore our trust in government and lead us out of this mire by considering all varied data, research, opinions, and means to mitigate this pandemic. Vaccines are only one way to combat outbreaks. Do not seek to control individuals’ choices, but rather seek to control this virus through sufficient access across the state to free vaccines or other proven remedies, dissemination of accurate and unbiased information, temporary travel restrictions, promotion of healthy lifestyles, and a proactive approach to better manage a future medical emergency. I read reports from many different sources, of which I am willing to share, and I concluded that the vaccine does not give me any more protection from the virus than my God-given immune system, and I wouldn’t have to worry about side effects from a hastily developed medical product. I have an immune-compromised daughter as well as an 85-year-old mother whom we visit regularly. We have managed to keep both safe by improving our health and practicing the same precautions that we have used every year during flu season. I pray that each member of this committee will stay objective and vote to progress these pieces of legislation for further consideration. I noticed that the majority of proposed legislation during the current session has been accepted or killed precisely along party lines. If these bills are considered only through this criterion, then these issues will appear to be about politics and not the health and safety of the citizens. Thank you in advance for your time and service to the people of this Commonwealth. Sincerely, Karen L. Whitlock 540-660-2544 23093

Dear Virginia Legislators, Ensuring the rights enshrined in our Constitution are upheld is of the upmost concern. Religious Freedom must be protected at all times. Please support SB 2242, SB 1449, 1450 and 1451. With the release of the two latest mRNA "vaccines" [medical technology & gene therapy] we are now into new “medical and health protection" legal interpretations combined with complex medical treatment concerns all tied into the issue of religious freedoms and our enshrined constitutional rights. BLUF: The issue of medical technologies (and the law) has now entered into the discussion when it comes to 'health' mandates and religious freedom. We must not restrict Virginians enshrined religious freedoms and choice by preventing Virginians from work, future employment or other actives based on a lack of understanding of the scientific (and documented) evidence that clearly outlines the nature of the technologies in place with the Moderna and Pfizer technology. A ‘health’ technology without legal precedent. Please see excerpts below that may help explain the ‘technology’ issues surrounding the Moderna and Pfizer mRNA technologies. Of note is that Virginians have never been mandated to assume the risk of ‘creating disease’ in the body, first, prior to the ‘stimulation’ of an antibody response. Both Moderna and Pfizer do this. This issue is without legal precedent. It is also unjust, is not safe for some, and goes against every religious and philosophical belief that one should not compel or commit self-harm. The Moderna and Pfizer “alleged vaccine” trials have explicitly acknowledged that their gene therapy technology has no impact on viral infection or transmission whatsoever and merely conveys to the recipient the capacity to produce an S1 spike protein endogenously by the introduction of a synthetic mRNA sequence. There is no “general comfort, health, and prosperity,” derived from the ‘encouraged’ application of a gene therapy on a population in which it has already been documented . (181 deaths to date from mRNA) By the manufacturer’s own admission, the mRNA gene therapy does not: (1) convey immunity, (2) does not preclude infection by a virus, (3) and does not block the development of COVID-19 symptoms. Beyond the fact that mRNA is gene therapy technology – not vaccination –the uptake of this medical device - an unproven medical countermeasure - is without any judicial precedent. No law has been passed that says that a healthy population must become unwell for the purpose of a medical experiment. Closing Thoughts An mRNA synthetic strand does not fall within the definition of a biologic and falls well outside the definition of “vaccine” or “immunity” in State statutes. This must be considered in the broader issue of mandates. Conflating mRNA device technology with religious rights and health measures must not happen. Thank you for your consideration of this material and thank you for your time and attention to these very important and complex topics. SB 2242, 1449, SB 1450 and SB 1451 deserve support. Respectfully, Additional Reference: The notes were, in part, derived from Dr. David E. Martin M·CAM International.

HB 2268 and HB2242 - Please restore the right to opt out of mandated vaccines and reinstate religious freedom. #prolife #religiousfreedom

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, on behalf of the Virginia Restaurant, Lodging & Travel Association I would like to take a moment to touch base with you and share our opposition to HB2242. The measure as currently drafted would create potential legal issues for hospitality and tourism related businesses. In addition, it would interfere with the employer-employee relationship. Employers are already required to provide reasonable accommodation based on discrimination of sincerely held religious beliefs. We believe any expansion beyond that could create significant challenges for employers. For those reasons, we urge you to oppose HB2242.

I found out to late to submit this msg before the House Committee meeting. But I am writing in the hope that feedback would still be heard. In light of the many deaths and injuries due to the covid "vaccine", (which BTW actually does not fit the medical definition for a vaccine), and in light of the fact that the WHO announced that this experimental biological agent does not prevent anyone from getting the covid virus, AND in light of the fact that the CDC admits that the survival rate of covid is 99.998% for most individuals, it should be illegal for any government to impose this extremely dangerous experimental biological agent on its citizens. It is also well known that this agent also tracks and traces humans, treating them like cattle, except less humanely, because now they can be incorporated in the matrix of surveillance. It is also called experimental because mRNA has never been tried before and therefore there are no scientific studies to prove that it is safe. There is also questions about whether it could cause infertility in women, thereby rendering it extremely unfit and unethical to force such an agent upon 50% of the population without first determining its safety as far as human reproduction of the entire globe. There are many people who should not take this experimental biological agent due to health issues. Anyone with serious comorbities as heart disease, cancer, hypersensitivities, allergic reactions, diabetes, obesity, autoimmune diseases, and other immune system issues is at risk of cascading into a spike response and rapidly dying. Mandating this highly questionable experimental biological agent is in the public's eye just one more example of American's freedoms being stolen daily by their representatives in Congress that are not out for the people's protection at all; politicians are showing their true colors, whether they are to protect the people or to betray them. People are watching to see how their legislators vote. Please do what is right. Thank you for 'hearing me out'.

I feel that mandating vaccines, especially the questionable Covid vaccine, and imposing harsh penalties for those who refuse them, is unfair. A pharmacist I know said he was concerned because these vaccs are not fully tested and the populace are essentially guinea pigs. Healthy people have already died from or been harmed from these- people with with no prior co-morbidities. PLEASE restore our right of refusal without penalties! Thanks!!

Why would you force a vaccine when hyrdroechloraquin and other drugs heal people. CDC says 99.9% of people recover. Why are you using the tool of fear. What is in it for you. It’s being said that covid is just the first part of this bio weapon. The next part will kill those who were diagnosed with it. If you keep this up there won’t be any one to vote. Oh that’s right. Depopulation is part of the plan. You reap what you sow.

I am speaking on behalf of many friends and families in my neighborhood and county who all agree that mandating vaccines, especially the hastily introduced and questionable Covid vaccine, and denying all legal means of redress for those who refuse them is unacceptable to us. PLEASE support HB2242, HB2268, HB2335 and HB2336 and restore to us the right of refusal without penalty. For all too many of us who are already feeling betrayed by our lawmakers on all levels, the mandating of a vaccine under a questionable state of emergency seems like just one more ploy to steal our freedoms and take government coercion to a whole new level. Thank you for your attention.

Subject line: SUPPORT HB2268, HB2242, HB 2335, and HB2336 Dear Esteemed Delegates, My name is Karen Whitlock, and I wish I could have spoken to you via Zoom today; however, I do not have the proper equipment to do so. I am deeply concerned about any effort by my state government that would both deny citizens their freedoms protected under the Virginia and federal constitutions and penalize them for exercising those freedoms. Therefore, I respectfully encourage you to support HB2268, HB 2242, HB 2335, and HB 2336. These bills allow citizens protection from religious persecution and criminal charges, prevent discrimination, and ensure the right to autonomy in health care decisions, without consequence upon their access to employment, public property, education, travel…basically, the pursuit of happiness. We, the people, all of us, have had our lives impacted by the extraordinary events of this past year: adulterated elections, a pandemic, loss of loved ones and jobs, widespread violence, vitriol and partisan politics, overreach of technology giants, contradicting information and contracted access to it, just to name a few. Many of us are weary from what feels like simultaneous attacks on our nation, whether they are biological, social, political, or economical. Please help restore our trust in government and lead us out of this mire by considering all varied data, research, opinions, and means to mitigate this pandemic. Vaccines are only one way to combat outbreaks. Do not seek to control individuals’ choices, but rather seek to control this virus through sufficient access across the state to free vaccines or other proven remedies, dissemination of accurate and unbiased information, temporary travel restrictions, promotion of healthy lifestyles, and a proactive approach to better manage a future medical emergency. I read reports from many different sources, of which I am willing to share, and I concluded that the vaccine does not give me any more protection from the virus than my God-given immune system, and I wouldn’t have to worry about side effects from a hastily developed medical product. I have an immune-compromised daughter as well as an 85-year-old mother whom we visit regularly. We have managed to keep both safe by improving our health and practicing the same precautions that we have used every year during flu season. I pray that each member of this committee will stay objective and vote to progress these pieces of legislation for further consideration. I noticed that the majority of proposed legislation during the current session has been accepted or killed precisely along party lines. If these bills are considered only through this criterion, then these issues will appear to be about politics and not the health and safety of the citizens. Thank you in advance for your time and service to the people of this Commonwealth. Sincerely, Karen L. Whitlock 540-660-2544 23093

HB 2268 and HB2242 - Please restore the right to opt out of mandated vaccines and reinstate religious freedom. #prolife #religiousfreedom

Why would you force a vaccine when hyrdroechloraquin and other drugs heal people. CDC says 99.9% of people recover. Why are you using the tool of fear. What is in it for you. It’s being said that covid is just the first part of this bio weapon. The next part will kill those who were diagnosed with it. If you keep this up there won’t be any one to vote. Oh that’s right. Depopulation is part of the plan. You reap what you sow.

Honorable Delegates – First I would like to share some factual historic background on “how we got here,” so-to-speak, and also my thoughts on strengthening the intended consequences for this life-saving legislation. In the mid ‘90s prescription opioid manufacturers marketing and lobbying efforts were widespread. “In 1995, Dr. James Campbell addressed the American Pain Society urging that health care providers treat pain as the “fifth vital sign.” “In 2001, as part of a national effort to address the widespread problem of underassessment and undertreatment of pain, The Joint Commission (formerly The Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations or JCAHO) introduced standards for organizations to improve their care for patients with pain. For over a decade, experts had called for better assessment and more aggressive treatment, including the use of opioids. Many doctors were afraid to prescribe opioids despite a widely cited article suggesting that addiction was rare when opioids were used for short-term pain...” ”Delegates at the 2016 American Medical Association (AMA) meeting voted to stop treating pain as the fifth vital sign because they believe it is likely that the initiative, along with other factors, have exacerbated the opioid crisis. Clearly many factors have contributed to the opioid crisis, including aggressive marketing by pharmaceutical companies, increased number of prescriptions written by providers…” My point being some opponents to HB2300 recently touted their professional credentials being challenged by HB2300’s initial language regarding naloxone (NARCAN®), such that it now reads ”may include, for patients who have been treated for substance use-related 201 emergencies, including opioid overdose, or other high-risk patients, (a) the dispensing of naloxone or other opioid antagonist used for overdose reversal.” This “may” needs to be a “shall!” An overdose victim is typically not a casual, recreational or social opioid user. They are more likely addicted, and releasing them to their soon to become “dope-sick” again selves without this potentially life-saving drug just doesn’t make sense…common sense! I use the “history lesson” above to demonstrate medical professionals have been wrong in this arena previously…dead wrong. It took 21 years for them to admit they were wrong about pain as the fifth vital sign. Many view the professional and institutional adoption of the fifth vital sign as an embryonic moment in the genesis of our current opioid epidemic. We don’t have to wait another 21 years to admit they are wrong about naloxone here. Secondly and lastly, I take issue with again, a “may” that needs to be a “shall” here – “Such protocols may also provide for referrals of individuals experiencing a substance use-related emergency to peer recovery specialists and community-based providers of behavioral health services, or referrals for to providers of pharmacotherapy for the treatment of drug or alcohol dependence or mental health diagnoses.” Releasing an overdose patient, as I mentioned above, back to the streets, is simply not a good idea. I say that as an individual accumulating over 29 years of sustained continuous recovery from substance use disorder (SUD). Prior to that time, I was the hamster on the wheel. Since then, I’ve seen more than my fair share of deaths because addicts weren’t immediately engaged with recovery services when they most need it.

I am writing in support of HB 2300 Naloxone dispersal to every Virginian that is seen in an ER during an opioid overdose. This bill saves lives, it prevents families from getting the dreaded phone call that a family member has passed away due to an avoidable overdose. This bill helps ensure that those suffering from substance use disorder are given the necessary, life-sustaining medication.

HB2300 - As an individual with over 29 years of sustained continuous recovery from Substance Use Disorder (SUD), I strongly support this life-saving legislation.

Mister Chair, members of the subcommittee. My name is Nathan Mitchell and I am a person in recovery from a substance use disorder. I serve as a state organizer with the Virginia Recovery Advocacy Project representing recovery organizations and thousands of individuals throughout the Commonwealth. We support HB 2300 and ask the members of this subcommittee to report. As outreach coordinator with The McShin Foundation, I work daily with individuals in or seeking recovery from a substance use disorder to provide immediate access to vital recovery support services. Addiction is a brain disease. Not a moral failure. Individuals caught in the grips of addiction deserve our compassion not our scorn, and our help when they are not able to help themselves. There is no mincing words here, the number of overdose emergency department visits continues to grow each year with an alarming spike during the COVID-19 pandemic. Emergency departments are often only able to treat the immediate emergency without considering other short- and long-term addiction treatment options for the patient. HB 2300 seeks to solve some of this problem by screening or assessing individuals experiencing substance use related emergencies, providing information on appropriate community-based providers of behavioral health services upon discharge, and most importantly, providing take-home naloxone or other overdose reversal medication immediately upon discharge (NOT a prescription which may never be filled). Our people are dying, and emergency departments are on the frontline. We must give emergency departments the tools they need to save lives and introduce individuals to a lifetime of recovery. Please support HB 2300.

Mister Chair, members of the subcommittee. My name is Nathan Mitchell and I am a person in recovery from a substance use disorder. I serve as a state organizer with the Virginia Recovery Advocacy Project representing recovery organizations and thousands of individuals throughout the Commonwealth. We support HB 2300 and ask the members of this subcommittee to report. As outreach coordinator with The McShin Foundation, I work daily with individuals in or seeking recovery from a substance use disorder to provide immediate access to vital recovery support services. Addiction is a brain disease. Not a moral failure. Individuals caught in the grips of addiction deserve our compassion not our scorn, and our help when they are not able to help themselves. There is no mincing words here, the number of overdose emergency department visits continues to grow each year with an alarming spike during the COVID-19 pandemic. Emergency departments are often only able to treat the immediate emergency without considering other short- and long-term addiction treatment options for the patient. HB 2300 seeks to solve some of this problem by screening or assessing individuals experiencing substance use related emergencies, providing information on appropriate community-based providers of behavioral health services upon discharge, and most importantly, providing take-home naloxone or other overdose reversal medication immediately upon discharge (NOT a prescription which may never be filled). Our people are dying, and emergency departments are on the frontline. We must give emergency departments the tools they need to save lives and introduce individuals to a lifetime of recovery. Please support HB 2300.

Why would you force a vaccine when hyrdroechloraquin and other drugs heal people. CDC says 99.9% of people recover. Why are you using the tool of fear. What is in it for you. It’s being said that covid is just the first part of this bio weapon. The next part will kill those who were diagnosed with it. If you keep this up there won’t be any one to vote. Oh that’s right. Depopulation is part of the plan. You reap what you sow.

Chairman Sickles, Vice-Chair Rasoul, and Distinguished Committee Members –Mental Health America-Virginia would like to take this opportunity to align our comments and concerns about HB2329 with those of The Virginia Hospital & Healthcare Association. While we know this legislation is well-intentioned, the shortage of psychiatrists in Virginia and across the nation will force hospitals to hold patients far longer than clinically necessary or appropriate. Furthermore, the unintended consequences of this legislation will further exacerbate the psychiatric bed census pressures that currently exist in the Commonwealth. Thank you for considering our comments to HB 2329.

Why would you force a vaccine when hyrdroechloraquin and other drugs heal people. CDC says 99.9% of people recover. Why are you using the tool of fear. What is in it for you. It’s being said that covid is just the first part of this bio weapon. The next part will kill those who were diagnosed with it. If you keep this up there won’t be any one to vote. Oh that’s right. Depopulation is part of the plan. You reap what you sow.

The Virginia Hospital & Healthcare Association opposes HB 2329 (Cox). If this bill passes, an attending psychiatrist who has determined that a patient is clinically ready for discharge within 96 hours (4 days) of admission, will be required to have a second psychiatrist evaluate the patient and agree with the discharge, before the patient can be discharged. Requiring two psychiatrists to evaluate and agree to a patient's discharge will put a significant burden on community hospitals. There is a significant behavioral health workforce shortage and some hospitals struggle to hire and maintain sufficient psychiatrists to staff current psychiatric beds. Having to identify two psychiatrists for a clinically appropriate discharge will result in delays in discharge and hold patients longer than clinically necessary. The unintended consequences of this bill include longer lengths of stay for patients who are clinically ready for discharge and increased psychiatric bed census pressures on an already stressed behavioral health system. Establishing in the Code, a mandated number of days, in this case 4 days, for an involuntary hospital admission because someone has experienced a behavioral health crisis and requires inpatient treatment goes against the direction that the Commonwealth is currently headed as it improves Virginia's behavioral health system with STEP-VA and Behavioral Health Enhancement. Although the legislation is well-intentioned, for these reasons VHHA strongly opposes HB 2329 (Cox). Thank you.

I found out to late to submit this msg before the House Committee meeting. But I am writing in the hope that feedback would still be heard. In light of the many deaths and injuries due to the covid "vaccine", (which BTW actually does not fit the medical definition for a vaccine), and in light of the fact that the WHO announced that this experimental biological agent does not prevent anyone from getting the covid virus, AND in light of the fact that the CDC admits that the survival rate of covid is 99.998% for most individuals, it should be illegal for any government to impose this extremely dangerous experimental biological agent on its citizens. It is also well known that this agent also tracks and traces humans, treating them like cattle, except less humanely, because now they can be incorporated in the matrix of surveillance. It is also called experimental because mRNA has never been tried before and therefore there are no scientific studies to prove that it is safe. There is also questions about whether it could cause infertility in women, thereby rendering it extremely unfit and unethical to force such an agent upon 50% of the population without first determining its safety as far as human reproduction of the entire globe. There are many people who should not take this experimental biological agent due to health issues. Anyone with serious comorbities as heart disease, cancer, hypersensitivities, allergic reactions, diabetes, obesity, autoimmune diseases, and other immune system issues is at risk of cascading into a spike response and rapidly dying. Mandating this highly questionable experimental biological agent is in the public's eye just one more example of American's freedoms being stolen daily by their representatives in Congress that are not out for the people's protection at all; politicians are showing their true colors, whether they are to protect the people or to betray them. People are watching to see how their legislators vote. Please do what is right. Thank you for 'hearing me out'.

I feel that mandating vaccines, especially the questionable Covid vaccine, and imposing harsh penalties for those who refuse them, is unfair. A pharmacist I know said he was concerned because these vaccs are not fully tested and the populace are essentially guinea pigs. Healthy people have already died from or been harmed from these- people with with no prior co-morbidities. PLEASE restore our right of refusal without penalties! Thanks!!

Why would you force a vaccine when hyrdroechloraquin and other drugs heal people. CDC says 99.9% of people recover. Why are you using the tool of fear. What is in it for you. It’s being said that covid is just the first part of this bio weapon. The next part will kill those who were diagnosed with it. If you keep this up there won’t be any one to vote. Oh that’s right. Depopulation is part of the plan. You reap what you sow.

I am speaking on behalf of many friends and families in my neighborhood and county who all agree that mandating vaccines, especially the hastily introduced and questionable Covid vaccine, and denying all legal means of redress for those who refuse them is unacceptable to us. PLEASE support HB2242, HB2268, HB2335 and HB2336 and restore to us the right of refusal without penalty. For all too many of us who are already feeling betrayed by our lawmakers on all levels, the mandating of a vaccine under a questionable state of emergency seems like just one more ploy to steal our freedoms and take government coercion to a whole new level. Thank you for your attention.

Subject line: SUPPORT HB2268, HB2242, HB 2335, and HB2336 Dear Esteemed Delegates, My name is Karen Whitlock, and I wish I could have spoken to you via Zoom today; however, I do not have the proper equipment to do so. I am deeply concerned about any effort by my state government that would both deny citizens their freedoms protected under the Virginia and federal constitutions and penalize them for exercising those freedoms. Therefore, I respectfully encourage you to support HB2268, HB 2242, HB 2335, and HB 2336. These bills allow citizens protection from religious persecution and criminal charges, prevent discrimination, and ensure the right to autonomy in health care decisions, without consequence upon their access to employment, public property, education, travel…basically, the pursuit of happiness. We, the people, all of us, have had our lives impacted by the extraordinary events of this past year: adulterated elections, a pandemic, loss of loved ones and jobs, widespread violence, vitriol and partisan politics, overreach of technology giants, contradicting information and contracted access to it, just to name a few. Many of us are weary from what feels like simultaneous attacks on our nation, whether they are biological, social, political, or economical. Please help restore our trust in government and lead us out of this mire by considering all varied data, research, opinions, and means to mitigate this pandemic. Vaccines are only one way to combat outbreaks. Do not seek to control individuals’ choices, but rather seek to control this virus through sufficient access across the state to free vaccines or other proven remedies, dissemination of accurate and unbiased information, temporary travel restrictions, promotion of healthy lifestyles, and a proactive approach to better manage a future medical emergency. I read reports from many different sources, of which I am willing to share, and I concluded that the vaccine does not give me any more protection from the virus than my God-given immune system, and I wouldn’t have to worry about side effects from a hastily developed medical product. I have an immune-compromised daughter as well as an 85-year-old mother whom we visit regularly. We have managed to keep both safe by improving our health and practicing the same precautions that we have used every year during flu season. I pray that each member of this committee will stay objective and vote to progress these pieces of legislation for further consideration. I noticed that the majority of proposed legislation during the current session has been accepted or killed precisely along party lines. If these bills are considered only through this criterion, then these issues will appear to be about politics and not the health and safety of the citizens. Thank you in advance for your time and service to the people of this Commonwealth. Sincerely, Karen L. Whitlock 540-660-2544 23093

I found out to late to submit this msg before the House Committee meeting. But I am writing in the hope that feedback would still be heard. In light of the many deaths and injuries due to the covid "vaccine", (which BTW actually does not fit the medical definition for a vaccine), and in light of the fact that the WHO announced that this experimental biological agent does not prevent anyone from getting the covid virus, AND in light of the fact that the CDC admits that the survival rate of covid is 99.998% for most individuals, it should be illegal for any government to impose this extremely dangerous experimental biological agent on its citizens. It is also well known that this agent also tracks and traces humans, treating them like cattle, except less humanely, because now they can be incorporated in the matrix of surveillance. It is also called experimental because mRNA has never been tried before and therefore there are no scientific studies to prove that it is safe. There is also questions about whether it could cause infertility in women, thereby rendering it extremely unfit and unethical to force such an agent upon 50% of the population without first determining its safety as far as human reproduction of the entire globe. There are many people who should not take this experimental biological agent due to health issues. Anyone with serious comorbities as heart disease, cancer, hypersensitivities, allergic reactions, diabetes, obesity, autoimmune diseases, and other immune system issues is at risk of cascading into a spike response and rapidly dying. Mandating this highly questionable experimental biological agent is in the public's eye just one more example of American's freedoms being stolen daily by their representatives in Congress that are not out for the people's protection at all; politicians are showing their true colors, whether they are to protect the people or to betray them. People are watching to see how their legislators vote. Please do what is right. Thank you for 'hearing me out'.

I feel that mandating vaccines, especially the questionable Covid vaccine, and imposing harsh penalties for those who refuse them, is unfair. A pharmacist I know said he was concerned because these vaccs are not fully tested and the populace are essentially guinea pigs. Healthy people have already died from or been harmed from these- people with with no prior co-morbidities. PLEASE restore our right of refusal without penalties! Thanks!!

Why would you force a vaccine when hyrdroechloraquin and other drugs heal people. CDC says 99.9% of people recover. Why are you using the tool of fear. What is in it for you. It’s being said that covid is just the first part of this bio weapon. The next part will kill those who were diagnosed with it. If you keep this up there won’t be any one to vote. Oh that’s right. Depopulation is part of the plan. You reap what you sow.

I am speaking on behalf of many friends and families in my neighborhood and county who all agree that mandating vaccines, especially the hastily introduced and questionable Covid vaccine, and denying all legal means of redress for those who refuse them is unacceptable to us. PLEASE support HB2242, HB2268, HB2335 and HB2336 and restore to us the right of refusal without penalty. For all too many of us who are already feeling betrayed by our lawmakers on all levels, the mandating of a vaccine under a questionable state of emergency seems like just one more ploy to steal our freedoms and take government coercion to a whole new level. Thank you for your attention.

I am writing to address my concerns about that the Covid-19 vaccine possible mandate violates informed consent. We need to prevent forcing people to get a less safe and not FDA-approved vaccine without the rigorous testing protocols that can take years to accomplish, but not prevent those who want the vaccine. This is the first time that Virginia has ever thought about mandating a non-FDA approved vaccine and shouldn’t start now. Informed consent is the bedrock of health. If there are risks to any medicine, medical procedure or vaccine,( which there are always risks), ONE MUST access the risk and then either Accept or decline the medical procedure, medicines or vaccine. The COVID-19 vaccine is a “emergency authorized use” vaccine and isn’t approved by the FDA. FDA-approved vaccines are those that have undergone extensive testing, extensive animal and human trials, longitudinal studies, and evaluation relative to numerous factors (age, gender, races, fertility, carcinogenicity, pregnancy, nursing, interactions, etc.). ALSO the long-term effects of this vaccine are unknown and is very risky to mandate a vaccine without knowing the long-term effects and interactions with other drugs and those tested on different ages including children. In conclusion, medical freedom and informed consent is what this bill preserves for those who decide they want the vaccine and those who do not want the vaccine. Freedom of choice and preserves body autonomy.

Subject line: SUPPORT HB2268, HB2242, HB 2335, and HB2336 Dear Esteemed Delegates, My name is Karen Whitlock, and I wish I could have spoken to you via Zoom today; however, I do not have the proper equipment to do so. I am deeply concerned about any effort by my state government that would both deny citizens their freedoms protected under the Virginia and federal constitutions and penalize them for exercising those freedoms. Therefore, I respectfully encourage you to support HB2268, HB 2242, HB 2335, and HB 2336. These bills allow citizens protection from religious persecution and criminal charges, prevent discrimination, and ensure the right to autonomy in health care decisions, without consequence upon their access to employment, public property, education, travel…basically, the pursuit of happiness. We, the people, all of us, have had our lives impacted by the extraordinary events of this past year: adulterated elections, a pandemic, loss of loved ones and jobs, widespread violence, vitriol and partisan politics, overreach of technology giants, contradicting information and contracted access to it, just to name a few. Many of us are weary from what feels like simultaneous attacks on our nation, whether they are biological, social, political, or economical. Please help restore our trust in government and lead us out of this mire by considering all varied data, research, opinions, and means to mitigate this pandemic. Vaccines are only one way to combat outbreaks. Do not seek to control individuals’ choices, but rather seek to control this virus through sufficient access across the state to free vaccines or other proven remedies, dissemination of accurate and unbiased information, temporary travel restrictions, promotion of healthy lifestyles, and a proactive approach to better manage a future medical emergency. I read reports from many different sources, of which I am willing to share, and I concluded that the vaccine does not give me any more protection from the virus than my God-given immune system, and I wouldn’t have to worry about side effects from a hastily developed medical product. I have an immune-compromised daughter as well as an 85-year-old mother whom we visit regularly. We have managed to keep both safe by improving our health and practicing the same precautions that we have used every year during flu season. I pray that each member of this committee will stay objective and vote to progress these pieces of legislation for further consideration. I noticed that the majority of proposed legislation during the current session has been accepted or killed precisely along party lines. If these bills are considered only through this criterion, then these issues will appear to be about politics and not the health and safety of the citizens. Thank you in advance for your time and service to the people of this Commonwealth. Sincerely, Karen L. Whitlock 540-660-2544 23093

Why would you force a vaccine when hyrdroechloraquin and other drugs heal people. CDC says 99.9% of people recover. Why are you using the tool of fear. What is in it for you. It’s being said that covid is just the first part of this bio weapon. The next part will kill those who were diagnosed with it. If you keep this up there won’t be any one to vote. Oh that’s right. Depopulation is part of the plan. You reap what you sow.

The Arlington Chamber of Commerce supports SB 1445, making provisions for the widespread administration of the COVID-19 vaccine. Completely vaccinating Virginians is an “all hands on deck” operation. Looking ahead to a time when the supply of vaccine is more plentiful, these bills will facilitate getting those shots into Virginians’ arms. We encourage the committee to report the bill.

The Virginia Education Association (VEA) supports SB1445.