• Allows public funds to support service environments shaped by religious ideology,
• Places the burden on parents or children to object after placement rather than preventing religious coercion upfront,
• Limits the State’s oversight authority once a faith-based provider is under contract,
• Risks privileging dominant religious institutions in a state that has already demonstrated religious preference in public policy.

• Church and state needs to remain separated.

 Yes, this bill says that the faith based organization(s) are to remain indifferent, but that would be very hard to prove that they are not trying to influence the children in any way, and vice versa*.

(c) If the legal parent or guardian of a child objects to the placement of a child at a faith-based organization, on the grounds of religious expression, then the department shall find an alternative placement for the child

• The above needs to be an OPT IN** option not an OPT OUT***. If the parent or legal guardian wants the child to be placed in a faith based organization then let it be. My reasoning for that is if a child is to go to a place of a different faith of them, it will cause great mental turmoil. They are often not allowed to practice their religion, or non religion within faith based organizations. They are often ostracized**** within said group because of this. This in turn is very bad for the child's mental health, and could lead to disastrous outcomes for the child, and/or lasting long term mental health issues.

*vice versa- with the order changed; with the relations reversed; the other way around

**opt in- to choose to participate

***opt out- to choose to not participate

****exclude; exile; refuse to include; to exclude from a group by common consent

• Variability in immune response after infection
• Waning immunity over time
• Differences in protection against severe illness versus infection
• The risks inherent in acquiring immunity through illness rather than prevention

From a public health standpoint, policies that implicitly incentivize infection undermine decades of evidence-based disease prevention.

Additionally, immunity status is not static. Scientific guidance evolves as pathogens mutate and new data emerge. Codifying a rigid legal definition of immunity removes necessary flexibility from public health decision-making and replaces evidence-based assessment with statutory mandate.

Public health law functions best when it allows medical professionals to respond to current data rather than requiring them to conform to fixed assumptions about complex biological systems. HB 4070 substitutes legal certainty for scientific nuance, which poses risks to individual and community health.

For these reasons, I urge the Legislature to reject HB 4070 and to rely instead on established public health expertise, peer-reviewed science, and disease-specific evidence when considering immunity and vaccination policy.

I can't put into words how stupid this is, but I'll try. How do we test if they have "immunity" from their exposure? Have you heard of Typhoid Mary, who was technically immune to Typhus but able to transfer it? Who is lobbying you to remove vaccine requirements? West Virginian lives are not for sale.

1. I would like to support the codification of religious and medical freedom to choose vaccination exemption for ALL children in our public education system. I, personally, know children who have been vaccine injured. Some effects of vaccines are much more obscure but there is much evidence that they could be linked to many lasting and pernicious conditions such as autoimmune disorders and cancers.
2. One reason for my belief is simply reading the list of ingredients in each of the vaccines. They are filled with ingredients that are classified as toxic and carcinogenic to humans.  In addition, human aborted fetal cells and even monkey cells have been used to create these vaccines. Specifically, the MMR vaccine was developed using aborted fetal cell line.
3. It is simply illogical to force people who have real and reasonable concerns to have a foreign substance injected into their body to protect those who have already been immunized and therefore are SAFE from exposure and harm from the unvaccinated.
4. Finally, I find that there is a major double standard in practice throughout our state that should cause MUCH liability to our State and county Boards of education who have ignored the exemption that was put in place by our Governor.  For schools to discriminate against our students and deny them a public education because they are unvaccinated but allow our sports teams to play out of state or private school whose students may be unvaccinated shows a blatant hypocrisy that is akin to bullying.

Something to think about.

Everyone was pro-vaccine until something horrible happened. Its impossible to get a doctor to say, yes, you're child's (issue) seizure, whatever happened, is because of the recent vaccine given.  Manufacturers aren't held accountable, (National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986).  If manufacturers would be held accountable by being sued, maybe we would get change.

I am writing to express strong opposition to HB 4079 and HB 4073. Both bills share a dangerous pattern: they prioritize ideology over evidence, and they put communities at risk.

HB 4079 seeks to control language in government communications, mandating specific terms while banning others. This is not about clarity or fairness—it is about government control for the sake of ideology. It overreaches into personal and professional expression and sets a precedent for further intrusion.

HB 4073 would create religious exemptions to West Virginia’s compulsory school vaccination laws. This is particularly alarming because we are seeing measles and other vaccine‑preventable diseases resurging nationwide. Opening exemptions now is not supported by scientific, peer‑reviewed research—it is rooted in belief, not evidence. Public health experts consistently show that high vaccination rates save lives; loosening requirements puts children, families, and communities at unnecessary risk.

Both bills prioritize political platforms and ideology over science and safety. This is not a matter of “liberty” when it endangers lives. I urge you to vote against HB 4079 and HB 4073 to protect freedom of expression, public health, and the well-being of West Virginia families.

Can we please stop with this nonsense. These vaccines keep everyone safe. Look at the current measles outbreaks around the country, why do you think that is happening? We have been leading the nation on thos for years, so let's not go backwards. Protect our kids by listening to actual experts.

Unlike other personal choices (like what you eat or wear), vaccination status affects others. A child who is not vaccinated against measles can transmit the virus before even showing symptoms. Parents retain the freedom to not vaccinate, but that choice comes with the consequence of having to use alternative education, such as homeschooling or certain private options that don't receive state funding. Children with cancer or organ transplants cannot be vaccinated. Their "freedom" to participate in public life depends entirely on their peers' vaccination status. By allowing religious exemptions, the state is essentially choosing the "religious freedom" of one group over the "freedom to live/physical safety" of another. On top of that, outbreaks are expensive. Managing a single measles case can cost public health departments tens of thousands of dollars in contact tracing, quarantine enforcement, and medical care. Religious exemptions often lead to geographic clusters of unvaccinated individuals. When a disease enters such a cluster, it can spread rapidly, potentially jumping to the wider community.

It's not a perfect bill because it requires notary and it doesn't include philosophical exemption. Vaccine mandates shouldn't even exist. Look to Florida for an example on how to handle these idiotic mandates.

HB 4079 is not about “clarity” or “inclusion.” It is about control—the government telling citizens and state employees what words they must use. That is overreach, plain and simple.

Language is personal. It evolves. No law should dictate how people speak, write, or describe experiences. Mandating specific terms in official communications sets a dangerous precedent for government intrusion into everyday life.

I urge you to reject HB 4079. Protect freedom of expression. Stop the government from policing words.

I oppose HB 4079 which aims to ban so-called “woke words” from government communications. As a woman, I find this bill deeply misguided for several reasons.

First, implies that women’s worth depends on motherhood, which erases the many women who contribute to West Virginia’s communities in other ways. Real respect for women means seeing and valuing us all.

Second, our state ranks 45th nationally in education and struggles with some of the highest rates of chronic disease and cardiovascular illness in the nation. It is absurd to spend taxpayer money and waste legislative time on policing words when you have much more serious challenges to address. Legislators should be focused on boosting literacy, keeping schools and hospitals strong, and addressing preventable disease rather than dictating which medically accurate or inclusive terms are “acceptable.”

Finally, as a public health professional, I know that inclusive language costs nothing, helps everyone feel respected and seen, which leads to more health-seeking behaviors and better health outcomes.

Instead of wasting limited public resources on a culture-war bill, we should invest in improving education, health, and opportunity in West Virginia. Tackle real problems head-on; don't distract us with word bans.

While I agree that moral responsibility ultimately rests with the individual, family, and community, not the government or schools, I am concerned that this bill embeds ideological premises into the public education curriculum under the guise of “education.”

The bill’s own text affirms that parents, families, and communities bear the primary responsibility for moral and family life education. Yet it then mandates that public schools provide specific instruction tied to pregnancy options — including adoption — in health settings. This approach conflates personal beliefs about morality and family responsibility with state-mandated educational content.

Public education should inform, not indoctrinate, and parents should have the freedom to guide their children’s moral development without prescriptive instruction from the state. Requiring teachers and schools to deliver content framed in a particular ideological context risks alienating families whose beliefs differ and may chill open, evidence-based discussion in the classroom.

If West Virginia wants students and young adults to understand adoption, that information can be made voluntarily available through optional resources, counseling services, and partnership with community organizations — rather than through a requirement that inserts specific messaging into every local district’s sex-education program.

I urge you to reconsider HB 4105’s mandate and instead respect a parent-centered, choice-driven approach to moral and family life education. Public schools should support families, not substitute for them.

1. Please get this bill to the senate.  Wv finally deserves to send their children to school,  healthy & unvaccinated,  if they choose. Just like the schools in VA, Ohio & others ! Thank you

I am writing to urge your support for legislation that modernizes and improves provider credentialing processes with health insurance payors.

Inefficient and inconsistent credentialing creates unnecessary delays in patient access to care, administrative burden for providers, and higher system-wide costs. Providers often wait months to become credentialed or re-credentialed, even when their qualifications are unchanged, preventing patients from receiving timely services and discouraging participation in insurance networks.

Legislation that streamlines credentialing - such as standardizing credentialing requirements, setting enforceable timelines, and reducing administrative burdens - would improve access to care. These reforms would especially benefit underserved communities, where provider shortages are already acute.

I respectfully ask you to support policies that promote a more efficient, consistent, and provider-friendly credentialing system. Doing so will help ensure patients receive timely care and allow clinicians to focus on what matters most: delivering high-quality healthcare.

• Currently, non-relatives/non-kin to children are largely served and certified as foster parents by child placing agencies (CPA), with whom the state has contracts.  Child placing agencies are throughout the state and serve various geographies/footprints of the state given their business models.  When a family is certified as a non-relative, that family is visited and supported during a child's placement, by both department (BSS) workers and child placing agency (CPA) workers.
• Relatives/kin to children are largely served and certified as foster parents (if they choose to certify), by the homefinding department of BSS.  Homefinders at BSS and workers at the CPA's perform very similar duties in the process of certifying families to the foster care level.  Relatives/kin can be held to slightly different (reduced) standards due to the waivers available relating to the certification requirements.
• Regardless of whether a CPA worker or a BSS homefinding worker undertakes certifying a family, the time it takes depends not only on the worker but also, and greatly, on the family's responsiveness to requests for information or documentation.  Time to certification relates to a shared process.
• Relatives/kin can be supported, particularly early in the placement journey, by a service called Kinship Navigator.  Each family can be supported, for months or as needed, by a KN who is an employee of one of the state's key contractors, Mission West Virginia.  Kinship Navigators provide resources, advocacy, support, advice, products, etc. so that new relative/kin families can have support services, whether they are choosing to be certified or not.  KNs do not stay involved however, for the entire pendency of the case (which differs from CPA visiting workers, who do).  An ongoing issue has been that the referral process to ensure that ALL relative/kin families are referred to the Mission West Virginia KN service is not consistently performed (by responsible BSS personnel).  The reasons for that are beyond this message content.

• When a child comes to the attention of a CPS worker and needs placement, first  is attempted but if non are available or safe, the CPS worker makes a request to the CPA's to locate a certified, prepared foster home.
• When a child comes to the attention of a CPS worker, needs placement, and relatives/kin ARE available, the CPS worker conducts a safety screen and notifies the homefinding unit, so that additional vetting can occur as needed and certification processes can begin.

1. Synthetic dyes serve no functional purpose beyond aesthetics. These dyes, often derived from petroleum byproducts, offer no nutritional value. They are often used to make unhealthy foods look more appealing, so that consumers will want to buy them
2. Scientific research confirms their harm. The OEHHA report, which analyzed 27 clinical trials, found that synthetic dyes can cause or worsen hyperactivity, inattention, restlessness, irritability, sleeplessness, and aggression in some children. Additionally, consuming dyes can worsen or mimic ADHD symptoms.

Dear West Virginia House of Delegates Health Committee,

I am writing you to express my support for House Bill 4392, and would urge you to do the same. Among the many challenges that our great state faces, secretly poisoning our children should not be one of them. In this case, the destructive and unnecessary additives that I’m referring to are Synthetic Dyes. Synthetic Food Dyes have impacted our family in ways we would have never imagined. Over the past two years our eldest child has suffered from night terrors with episodes of sleepwalking, tremors while he sleeps, outbursts of aggression that are out of the ordinary for his personality, difficulty focusing on tasks, and potentially much worse.

Over two years ago we decided to consult with his doctors about these symptoms which were becoming life altering. His pediatrician at the time pushed for an ADHD diagnosis, which would have meant more synthetic drugs to attempt to treat his symptoms. Thankfully for us, the teachers at his Montessori School pushed back strongly at that notion. We continued to explore what environmental factors could be causing these issues. What we found was most all of his behavior and sleep-related symptoms stopped entirely after we cut synthetic dyes out of our diets. 

In the process of getting rid of synthetic dyes from our house, we’ve had doctors and pharmacists belittle our choices, because, believe it or not, this poison is in our children’s medicine! These unnecessary additives serve zero nutritional purpose other than to color the drugs and foods they’re present in. They do not add flavor, nor do they change the active ingredients to make the medicine work better. A year ago our son was diagnosed with a chronic illness. We were in and out of the hospital for weeks and in that time all of our efforts to avoid synthetic dyes were foiled. Hospitals didn’t have dye free options for medications and finding food options without dyes was close to impossible. Avoiding the consumption of synthetic dyes is truly an exhausting practice requiring massive amounts of time researching ingredients and finding brands and stores that have access to safer options. In addition, this means we have to drive to Jefferson Pharmacy in Ranson (an hour drive round trip) every time we need an antibiotic, steroid, or virtually any children-specific medicine.

Routinely, our son is prescribed new medications with his chronic illness. And as you’d expect, most of the medicine contains Red Dye 40. To make matters worse, under current FDA regulations, because the medicine is “widely available commercially” (all still tainted with synthetic dyes) the local compounding facility, which has saved us many times in the past, was barred from compounding the medicine dye free. They’re the ONLY compounding facility in our area with the capacity to make medicine without this unnecessary and harmful chemical, and even still they have unnecessary burdens placed on them.

Extensive research, including studies by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), a division of the California Environmental Protection Agency, has linked synthetic dyes to adverse neurobehavioral effects in children. Chronic exposure to these dyes can impair children’s ability to learn, succeed in school, and maintain healthy relationships with peers, potentially leading to serious long-term consequences. Moreover, Red 3, is a known carcinogen, while Yellow 5 and Yellow 6 may contain carcinogenic contaminants. Red 3 and Yellow 5 have also been identified as genotoxic.

According to the OEHHA report, reactions to synthetic dyes can mimic or exacerbate existing mental health conditions like ADHD. Neurobehavioral effects caused or worsened by these dyes in children include hyperactivity, inattentiveness, restlessness, sleeplessness, irritability, and aggression. Given the risks associated with consuming synthetic dyes, I believe it is crucial that we take action to protect our children. [fact sheet: https://bit.ly/4e4kIZ9]

New research now shows a direct link to an increased risk for inflammatory bowel disease, and synthetic dyes which are commonly found in our food and medicine. [https://www.uhhospitals.org/blog/articles/2023/02/can-red-food-dye-give-you-ibd#:~:text=New research raises concerns that,known as Red Dye 40.]

I hope you'll consider championing House Bill 4392 to ban synthetic dyes in pharmaceuticals on behalf of the citizens of West Virginia. Such a change is feasible and could significantly benefit thousands of lives, particularly the most vulnerable members of our population.

Thank you for your consideration and for the work you’re doing on our behalf.

Warm regards, Robby Blair

Martinsburg, WV

SUPPORT Response to HB 4393

Requiring the development and implementation of statewide prevention plan.

January 17, 2026

Greetings,

I am writing as a constituent, and most importantly, as a follower of Jesus Christ and an Episcopalian in the state of West Virginia.  Jesus drew near to the hurting and the addicted, and confronted the shame and stigma that so many people face. 

I urge you to oppose House Bill 4413, which would repeal West Virginia’s existing syringe services program statute and make syringe services programs unlawful.  Without syringe services, many high-risk individuals disengage entirely, increasing unsafe injection, needle litter,  and preventable disease transmission—costs that will ultimately be borne by taxpayers and the health care system.

There are few syringe exchange services in our state who already operate under very restrictive guidelines.  According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), syringe services are associated with a 50% reduction of HIV and Hepatitis C incidence.  They also note that those who access syringe services are five times more likely to seek recovery services than those who do not.  

West Virginia continues to face some of the highest rates of overdose, HIV, and hepatitis C in the nation. Syringe services programs are proven to reduce the spread of infectious disease, prevent overdose deaths, and serve as a primary point of contact connecting people to treatment, naloxone, and medical care.

Replacing regulation with prohibition and civil penalties will not eliminate syringe access.  It will push it underground, reduce oversight, and worsen public health outcomes. The 120-day transition period offered in the bill is also unworkable, as providers are barred from offering the very services patients rely on during that transition.

West Virginia should strengthen and improve oversight of syringe services programs—not ban them outright. I urge you to oppose this bill and support policies grounded in evidence, fiscal responsibility, and the health and safety of our communities.

You will be in my prayers through the legislative session.  

Sincerely,

The Rev. Scott F. Williams

Priest-in-Charge, Trinity Episcopal Church, Morgantown

Greetings,

I am writing as a constituent, and most importantly, as a follower of Jesus Christ and an Episcopalian in the state of West Virginia.  Jesus drew near to the hurting and the addicted, and confronted the shame and stigma that so many people face. 

I urge you to oppose House Bill 4413, which would repeal West Virginia’s existing syringe services program statute and make syringe services programs unlawful.  Without syringe services, many high-risk individuals disengage entirely, increasing unsafe injection, needle litter,  and preventable disease transmission—costs that will ultimately be borne by taxpayers and the health care system.

There are few syringe exchange services in our state who already operate under very restrictive guidelines.  According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), syringe services are associated with a 50% reduction of HIV and Hepatitis C incidence.  They also note that those who access syringe services are five times more likely to seek recovery services than those who do not.  

West Virginia continues to face some of the highest rates of overdose, HIV, and hepatitis C in the nation. Syringe services programs are proven to reduce the spread of infectious disease, prevent overdose deaths, and serve as a primary point of contact connecting people to treatment, naloxone, and medical care.

Replacing regulation with prohibition and civil penalties will not eliminate syringe access.  It will push it underground, reduce oversight, and worsen public health outcomes. The 120-day transition period offered in the bill is also unworkable, as providers are barred from offering the very services patients rely on during that transition.

West Virginia should strengthen and improve oversight of syringe services programs—not ban them outright. I urge you to oppose this bill and support policies grounded in evidence, fiscal responsibility, and the health and safety of our communities.

You will be in my prayers through the legislative session.  

Sincerely,

The Very Rev. Tommy Sheppard Rector, Trinity Episcopal Church Moundsville, WV

Greetings,

Sincerely,

Hello!

With the passage of this bill, where would the erosion of our civil liberties stop? What possible good does this database do for the people who are on it? At what point does it move from a voluntary action to a required one and are we going to be secure with the information these people are asked to provide? That doesnt even start to address the idea that these sponsors think its ok to ask another human being to put themselves onto a list to "help law enforcement". How dare you treat these people like this instead of addressing the root causes. Instead of wasting our time and tax payer money on a trash bill like this ,why cant we fund better services for people who need it throughout life and train our police to more quickly identify potential needs? I am not even onto the meat of the bill, I could sit here and write for HOURs on different sections. Yet again, another short term attempt for a broader issue our legislature is unwilling to address for ALL of us

I am writing to express my deep and unequivocal concern regarding the proposed legislation that would establish a registry of individuals with disabilities. While I understand that such measures are often presented under the guise of improving services or coordination, this proposal raises serious ethical, legal, and human rights concerns that cannot be overlooked.

Creating a registry of disabled individuals fundamentally undermines the principles of privacy, dignity, and autonomy that every person deserves. History has shown, repeatedly and painfully, that tracking or labeling people based on disability status can lead to stigmatization, discrimination, and even abuse. The very existence of such a registry could discourage individuals from seeking needed supports or disclosing disabilities for fear of being cataloged or targeted.

Moreover, the bill risks violating federal protections, including those under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, both of which were enacted to ensure equality and prevent systemic discrimination. This registry would move our state backward, reintroducing segregation-era thinking under a new label of “data collection.”

If the true goal is to improve access to services or streamline support, there are safer, more ethical pathways—ones that empower individuals with disabilities rather than surveil them. We should be investing in inclusive policy design, community partnerships, and consent-based data systems that respect individuals’ rights and voices.

I urge legislators to reject this bill outright and instead consult with the disability community to craft solutions that uplift rather than marginalize. Our society must never normalize the idea of tracking people for the simple fact of being disabled.

This bill a glaring civil rights violation. A person with disabilities should not be subject to any non-consensual identification regardless of their “competency,” and allowing law enforcement officers to make potential prejudgments of the people they are interacting with will promote a hostile atmosphere that will inevitably lead to more unnecessary violence. Regardless, this database would be ineffectual as it is based on the expectation that it will be used prior to interacting with individuals. This is unrealistic in any law enforcement scenario.

Law enforcement should be trained on identifying and interacting with people with disabilities on a need-to-know basis. The burden of appropriate communication and procedure should never be placed on ANY civilian, let alone civilians within a population that often have less legal autonomy than their non-disabled counterparts. Again, this violates a disabled person’s constitutional right to privacy, as well as the HIPAA protections they are afforded. Even with the “optional” language used in this bill, there truly is no option for the person actually being loaded onto this database. This bill is out of touch, lazy, and completely negligent to the issue at hand. I am begging the West Virginia Legislature, for once, to center people with disabilities in your decision making rather than using them as collateral.

As the Chief Human Resources Officer for one of West Virginia’s six Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinics (CCBHCs), I can speak directly to the real and ongoing workforce challenges created by the current WV CARES process.

West Virginia rightly wants to encourage workforce participation while also protecting vulnerable populations. WV CARES can support both goals; however, the current timelines create significant barriers for both employers and qualified candidates. With up to 30 days for a candidate to submit a complete packet and up to 60 days for WV CARES to render a decision, the total process can take as long as 90 days. In today’s workforce environment, many candidates—and employers—simply cannot wait that long. As a result, we lose otherwise qualified staff before they ever have the opportunity to serve our communities.

Additionally, employers are often unable to absorb the financial burden of supervising provisional employees during this extended review period. Requiring two staff to perform the work of one—solely to meet supervision requirements—adds substantial cost and strain to already limited behavioral health resources. Reducing review timelines would immediately decrease supervision costs and prevent candidates from being lost due to delays outside of their control.

The portability provision included in this bill is one of its most promising and impactful components. Allowing WV CARES eligibility to be tied to the individual rather than the worksite would significantly reduce application time, administrative burden, and duplication of effort—benefiting providers, the state, and workers alike.

Equally important is the provision that would prevent long-standing employees from having to take a leave of absence or return to supervision while awaiting renewal variances related to historical charges. For many dedicated staff, this process forces them to repeatedly relive embarrassment and trauma every five years simply to continue serving in roles they have faithfully held for years. These are professionals who work tirelessly for West Virginians with the greatest needs, and this provision recognizes both their service and their dignity.

House Bill 4599 represents a meaningful opportunity to modernize WV CARES in a way that protects clients, supports the workforce, and strengthens access to behavioral health services across our state.

• Cancer caused 66 percent of the career firefighter line-of-duty deaths from 2002 to 2019, according to data from the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF).

• Firefighters have a 9 percent higher risk of being diagnosed with cancer and a 14 percent higher risk of dying from cancer than the general U.S. population, according to research by the CDC/National Institute for Occupational Health and Safety (NIOSH).

• Firefighters are two times as likely to contract mesothelioma, two times as likely to contract testicular cancer, 1.5x as likely to contract multiple myeloma and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and are at an increased and elevated risk for numerous other specific cancers. (NIOSH)

I strongly support HB 4627, which provides preventive cancer screening for professional firefighters in accordance with International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) guidelines.

Firefighters are exposed throughout their careers to known carcinogens, and medical research consistently shows significantly higher cancer rates among firefighters than in the general population. The IAFF clearly demonstrates that early cancer detection saves lives and reduces long-term healthcare costs. Cancers identified at early stages require less invasive treatment, have higher survival rates, and avoid the substantial costs associated with advanced disease, extended disability, and long-term care.

Preventive screening is fiscally responsible. Studies show that investing in evidence-based cancer screening reduces overall healthcare spending by preventing late-stage diagnoses, lost work time, and workers’ compensation claims. Removing copays and deductibles ensures firefighters can access these screenings before symptoms appear, when treatment is most effective and least costly.

HB 4627 reflects nationally recognized best practices and appropriately treats cancer screening as an occupational health necessity for firefighters. I respectfully urge the Legislature to pass this bill.

I am a firefighter in Huntington WV and a member of IAFF Local 289.

Firefighters face significantly higher cancer risks due to repeated exposure to carcinogens in smoke, building materials, and toxic runoff. Routine cancer screening programs are a proven, proactive measure that save lives through early detection. From a financial standpoint, early diagnosis also results in substantial cost savings for insurance providers and state health systems by avoiding the far greater expenses associated with late-stage cancer treatment, long-term disability, and loss of workforce productivity. Investing in comprehensive cancer screening for firefighters is not only a moral obligation to those who risk their lives to protect our communities, but a fiscally responsible strategy that reduces long-term healthcare costs while preserving experienced, healthy first responders.

I am a West Virginian, and I am proud of my state and our values of independence, family, and community. I oppose this bill because it does not help anyone. It expands government power into private healthcare decisions, doing so with criminal penalties and lawsuits rather than real, tangible support.

This is government overreach, plain and simple. It will not solve the problems families are actually facing in West Virginia, such as access to health care led by health professionals (not legislators), transportation, childcare, and the cost of living. It will only add fear, confusion, and risk by pushing people into silence and delaying care.

West Virginians deserve practical solutions that strengthen families, not laws that punish people and invite more government control over personal medical decisions. I urge you to reject this bill.

HB 4674 defines "abortifacient" so broadly it could ensnare common contraceptives that prevent implantation, chilling access to basic reproductive health tools. It violates women's bodily autonomy and privacy rights enshrined in our state constitution and wastes taxpayer resources on intrusive enforcement. Those funds are much better spent on maternal health, prenatal care, or family support programs our rural communities desperately need. Private civil bounties of $10,000 per case will only fuel vigilante lawsuits, not protect anyone.

West Virginia should expand health care access and support women making deeply personal decisions with their doctors—not police them with felonies and penalties. Prioritize actual public health over ideological overreach and scrap this bill.

• Please support House bill 4715. Without going into the details of explaining the bill, my primary goal is to keep my children in West Virginia. My son is a PA. My daughter-in-law is a doctor of medicine, both practicing in West Virginia.  We are seeing more opportunities opening up in other states, eliminating  the administrative burdens, and want the same opportunity here in the mountain state.   Amending the bill to mandate minimum number of  hours of patient care before eliminating the administrative burden of signing a contract with an Md is recommended and acceptable. I see a nurse practitioner as my primary care and a physician assistant for my specialty doctors and know first hand of their abilities. I would like the ability to choose who I see for medical visits and alleviate the shortage of care providers in southern West Virginia where I live. This bill answers those needs.  Many thanks to the sponsors of this much needed legislation. Respectfully

• Access be limited to minimum necessary
• Use be restricted to clearly defined purposes
• Audit logs, safeguards, and accountability for misuse

• Explicit prohibitions on employment or retaliatory use
• Individual rights to know when their data is accessed
• Statutory penalties for misuse or re-disclosure

1. It expands access to a confidential health database without the privacy, audit, and misuse protections required to ensure HIPAA-compliant use.
2. It exacerbates existing harm to medical cannabis patients and people in recovery by enabling broader surveillance in a state that already relies on scientifically contested nanogram thresholds.

• Bodily autonomy and the right to refuse medical treatment
• Due process protections
• Equal protection, by disproportionately impacting already marginalized populations

• Guarantee reduced waitlists or improved access statewide
• Require service provision in rural or underserved counties
• Tie increased payments to measurable outcomes or equity standards
• Address the broader social and economic conditions impacting families raising children with disabilities

1. Firefighters are 102% more likely to develop testicular cancer than the general population.*
2. Firefighters are 53% more likely to develop multiple myeloma than the general population. *
3. Firefighters are 62% more likely to develop cancer of the oesophagus than the general population.**
4. Firefighters are 21% more likely to develop intestinal cancer than the general population.**
5. Firefighters are 26% more likely to develop breast cancer than the general population**

• Family mapping and indirect surveillance
• Error-prone genetic matching that can implicate innocent relatives
• Future expansion of government use without renewed consent
• Permanent tracking potential that cannot be “opted out of”

• DNA was collected for health purposes
• Stored long-term without meaningful consent
• Later accessed or shared for secondary uses
• Applied to individuals before any crime could possibly exist

• Genetic data collected for non-law-enforcement purposes
• Retained and stored without strict deletion limits
• Later accessed by government actors
• Potentially used to investigate crimes that predate the individual

• Government access
• Law-enforcement searches
• Permanent inclusion in investigative databases

• Warrantless genetic surveillance
• Government creation of population-wide identity files
• Suspicionless searches using biometric data
• Ethical abuses that disproportionately affect future generations

• Require warrant-only access for all government use
• Prohibit bulk or suspicionless collection
• Ban secondary and pre-birth investigative use
• Impose strict retention and deletion limits
• Reject the normalization of genetic identity files

1. No public-health evidence supports restricting medical services based on nearby health care facilities. Health systems routinely colocate complementary services to improve continuity of care. Proximity alone is not a recognized risk factor for patient harm, diversion, or crime when facilities are properly licensed and regulated.
2. Local approval requirements function as indirect barriers to care. Allowing county commissions or municipalities to approve or deny medical facilities substitutes political judgment for medical and regulatory standards. This creates inconsistent access across counties and disproportionately affects rural and low-income patients.
3. The bill recreates de facto Certificate-of-Need style barriers. Even where formal CON laws have been reduced, HB 5035 imposes location and approval hurdles that restrict market entry, reduce competition, and limit patient choice—outcomes historically associated with higher costs and reduced access.
4. Restrictions conflict with accepted principles of addiction treatment. Separating MAT services from other health care providers disrupts integrated care, increases transportation burdens, and is associated with higher missed-appointment and relapse risk.
5. Public safety goals can be achieved through enforcement, not access denial. Existing licensure, inspection, and enforcement mechanisms already address improper practices. Limiting lawful facilities does not address misconduct; it only reduces availability of legitimate care.

• Measles requires ~95% vaccination coverage to prevent outbreaks (CDC).
• During recent U.S. measles outbreaks, the majority of cases occurred in unvaccinated or under-vaccinated populations, often linked to schools or universities.
• Mumps outbreaks on college campuses have occurred repeatedly in states that weakened vaccination compliance.

• 126 Primary Care Health Professional Shortage Areas (HPSAs)
• ~793,000 West Virginians live in designated primary-care shortage areas
• Only ~38% of primary-care need is currently met
• 43% of rural hospitals operate at negative margins

• emergency rooms,
• rural hospitals,
• immunocompromised communities,
• elderly populations,
• and childcare and K-12 school systems.

• offer tuition credits,
• provide housing priority,
• or use public-health promotion strategies that are widely accepted and legal in other states.

• outbreaks become foreseeable,
• harm becomes preventable,
• and liability exposure increases.

• class cancellations,
• housing disruptions,
• athletic shutdowns,
• and litigation from students or staff harmed during outbreaks they were legally barred from preventing.

• medical exemptions,
• informed consent,
• and individualized accommodation.

• one of the oldest populations in the country,
• persistent healthcare shortages,
• and fragile rural hospital systems.

I fully support 5260. As a medical card holder having the option for edibles would allow myself and other that do not like vaping or oils a better option. Not to mention the just keeping WV money in WV rather than individuals traveling to border states to buy edibles.