Skip to content Skip to main navigation Skip to footer

Public Comments

2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Melinda Treadway on February 3, 2026 12:25
Baylea was one of the sweetest person I knew.Aling with her family. They would help anybody. She was just starting her life out with her husband,and it was all taken away,by a drunk and impacted driver.And she was never arrested,never spent a day in jail.She should have to pay for what she done.,to both Baylea and her Family.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Meghan on February 3, 2026 12:23
If one would take another’s life while driving under the influence they should be sentenced to death. There is no reason what so ever that said person should walk freely while the victims family is going threw such thing.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Rebecca Bunting on February 3, 2026 12:22
I would like to see this passed.I know this will not bring Baylea back. But It might help with our family having a little closer. The big wow is Destiny Lester has never been arrested for her part in Bays death
2026 Regular Session HB5111 (Health and Human Resources)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on February 3, 2026 12:21
I oppose HB 5111 because it undermines basic public-health protections at institutions of higher education and directly increases the risk of disease outbreaks, healthcare strain, and educational disruption in West Virginia. HB 5111 would prohibit colleges and universities—public and private—from requiring vaccinations or even offering incentives to increase vaccination uptake as a condition of enrollment, employment, or participation. While framed as “choice,” the bill removes the ability of institutions to manage communicable-disease risk in dense, high-contact settings, including dormitories, classrooms, athletic programs, healthcare training facilities, and research labs. 1. Colleges are high-risk transmission environments The CDC consistently identifies congregate settings—including college campuses—as environments where vaccine-preventable diseases spread rapidly when vaccination coverage declines. Measles, mumps, meningitis, influenza, and COVID-19 outbreaks on college campuses are well-documented when vaccination rates fall below protective thresholds.
  • 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.
Allowing campuses no ability to require or even encourage vaccination creates predictable outbreak conditions. 2. West Virginia’s healthcare system cannot absorb preventable outbreaks West Virginia already faces severe healthcare capacity constraints:
  • 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
Preventable disease outbreaks do not stay on campus. They spill into:
  • emergency rooms,
  • rural hospitals,
  • immunocompromised communities,
  • elderly populations,
  • and childcare and K-12 school systems.
HB 5111 shifts the financial and clinical burden from institutions to already-strained public healthcare infrastructure. 3. The bill removes institutional risk-management authority HB 5111 goes beyond eliminating mandates—it prohibits incentives, even voluntary ones. This means colleges could not:
  • offer tuition credits,
  • provide housing priority,
  • or use public-health promotion strategies that are widely accepted and legal in other states.
This is an unprecedented intrusion into institutional governance, preventing universities from responding to outbreaks, protecting medically vulnerable students, or complying with best-practice public-health standards. 4. This creates liability, not freedom When institutions are barred from managing known health risks:
  • outbreaks become foreseeable,
  • harm becomes preventable,
  • and liability exposure increases.
Universities could face:
  • class cancellations,
  • housing disruptions,
  • athletic shutdowns,
  • and litigation from students or staff harmed during outbreaks they were legally barred from preventing.
5. Public health protections already include consent and exemptions Vaccination policies already allow:
  • medical exemptions,
  • informed consent,
  • and individualized accommodation.
HB 5111 is not correcting abuse—it is eliminating prevention entirely in settings where prevention is most needed. Conclusion HB 5111 does not protect liberty—it manufactures a public-health vulnerability in a state with:
  • one of the oldest populations in the country,
  • persistent healthcare shortages,
  • and fragile rural hospital systems.
By prohibiting colleges from requiring or even encouraging vaccination, the bill increases preventable illness, healthcare costs, and community risk, while stripping institutions of basic health-and-safety authority. For these reasons, HB 5111 should be rejected.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Hannah Kenneda on February 3, 2026 12:21
This law needs to be in place because nobody should be dead because someone’s doings. She’s dead, her family and friends can’t see her anymore..and that woman can be free in the matter of 3 years..ridiculous.
2026 Regular Session HB5108 (Finance)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on February 3, 2026 12:19
I oppose HB 5108 because it creates a state-funded tobacco cessation account without addressing the historical context of how tobacco risk was communicated to the public—especially to older generations. HB 5108 would create the “Tobacco Cessation Initiative Program Special Revenue Account,” administered by the Director of the Bureau for Public Health, and it would transfer $5 million each year (beginning July 30, 2026) from interest/returns earned on the Revenue Shortfall Reserve Fund – Part B to fund tobacco cessation purposes.  Historically, tobacco products were marketed using medical authority and physician imagery, and for years many consumers—particularly older generations—were influenced by messaging that minimized risk or implied health acceptability.  The U.S. Surgeon General’s 1964 report is widely recognized as a landmark shift in officially acknowledging smoking’s major health harms.  My concern is that creating a dedicated state-funded cessation program, while leaving the broader accountability and consumer-deception history unaddressed, can be perceived as the state accepting responsibility for harm after the fact—without safeguards, transparency, or clear policy findings explaining why this funding approach is being used. If the Legislature wants to fund cessation, it should do so with clearer findings, transparency, and accountability measures that acknowledge the documented history of misinformation and protect the public interest, rather than creating a program structure that may be interpreted as an implicit admission that government tolerated foreseeable harm.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: emily johnson on February 3, 2026 12:19
In no way, shape, or form should we be in February 2026 STILL trying to put a murderer in jail when it should have happened Easter Sunday 2025. if you are willing to drink and drive, you are willing to do jail time.
2026 Regular Session SB4 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Seth Robertson on February 3, 2026 12:16
I believe it true that if a first responder gives a verbal warning to stand back the bystanders should listen to act accordingly. Emotional distress for the first responder from bystanders in the way may be the difference is someones safety. The bystander themselves could be put in harms way. For the safety of everyone involved i believe it is vital we ll act accordingly and safely. WE should look out for our common people and do all we can too not jeopardize the situation especially if instructed so.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Debora Shifflett on February 3, 2026 12:14
This is a beautiful life gone too soon
2026 Regular Session HB5106 (Finance)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on February 3, 2026 12:13
I oppose House Bill 5106. HB 5106 amends the charter of the Greater Huntington Park and Recreation District to authorize the Cabell County Board of Education to contribute certain available funds, including levy-derived funds, to the park district. The bill does not appropriate new state funds, but it expands the permissible use of education-related revenues beyond direct educational purposes. The bill does not establish new oversight mechanisms, reporting requirements, or auditing standards for funds transferred to the park and recreation district. It also does not require voter reauthorization or public approval before voter-approved education funds may be redirected for non-instructional purposes. Additionally, the bill does not define measurable outcomes, financial controls, or performance criteria to evaluate whether transferred funds serve an educational purpose or provide a direct benefit to students. The park district operates as a separate political subdivision, and HB 5106 does not specify how accountability would be maintained once funds are transferred. At a time when local governments continue to face documented infrastructure and budget constraints, expanding discretionary authority to redirect education funds without additional transparency or safeguards raises fiscal accountability concerns. For these reasons, HB 5106 should not be advanced without clear limitations, reporting requirements, and public oversight protections.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Brianna Meadows on February 3, 2026 12:12
Driving a vehicle can be so dangerous as it is, let alone when driving under the influence of any kind of substance. Growing up we are taught right from wrong and expected to uphold all laws in place. There is nothing wrong with having a drink if that’s what someone chooses to do, but what isn’t right is if that individual chooses to do that and get behind the wheel and take someone else’s life who had no say in the matter. This should be highly considered when discussing this bill. No individual or their family should have to suffer the consequences of losing a loved one and then possibly seeing their killer walking around Kroger’s simply 3 years later. It poses the threat for another individual’s life to be taken too soon, if this matter is not handled. Thinking about this issue from both sides the impaired driver and the victim. We should all consider how it would feel to lose a loved one due to someone else being careless and selfish.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Alissa Reed on February 3, 2026 12:09
I voted.
2026 Regular Session SB4 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Josh Brown on February 3, 2026 12:07
I oppose this bill and urge representatives to vote in opposition. The language of this bill is intentionally vague and centered on the assumption that a first responder is engaged in a lawful performance of a legal duty. The term harass is not adequately defined and is subjective as to what would constitute substantial emotional distress in the first responder. This also does not address the various scenarios where protestors have been observed to be well beyond the 30ft distance but agents engage the protestor and even pursue protestors when they attempt to disengage. This is a poorly worded bill. A more appropriate use of the Senates time would be creating a bill that reestablished the public trust in law enforcement so that when a first responder is observed engaging in a duty it would not be necessary for the public to make a judgement on whether that activity is legal, justified or legitimate.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Amanda Whitehead on February 3, 2026 12:07
Please pass this law so people think twice about drinking and driving!
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Rylie Delong on February 3, 2026 12:06
Baylea’s Law should be passed because it holds drivers fully accountable for the life-altering consequences for driving while impaired. Stronger sentences reflect the seriousness of these preventable deaths and can deter others from making the same serious decision. This law provides public safety, justice for victims, and prevention of future tragedies. Baylea was a beautiful, kind, and loving woman, who should still be here with us today. Her life mattered, and the consequences for these decisions should reflect the value of her life.
2026 Regular Session HB4122 (Public Education)
Comment by: Alexis Layman on February 3, 2026 12:06

I agree with this bill as cameras in classrooms could ensure the safety of students as well as staff. accusations could be authenticated meanwhile deterring the acts of bullying, vandalism, theft, disruptions, and more. Classrooms would be held to more accountability, making the environment comfortable for work and learning. The safety of all individuals should be of priority, even in classrooms. The transition to this would be smooth, as there are already cameras in hallways, stairwells, outside the building, etc.

2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Teresa Sprouse on February 3, 2026 12:05
Please pass bill
2026 Regular Session HB4146 (Public Education)
Comment by: Sarah Dillon on February 3, 2026 12:04
So, one of the bills wants to make "herd immunity" enough for students to get by with.  If they've had it or been around it they are okay and don't have to get vaccinated.  There's another bill that grants students an option to not get vaccinated due to religious reasons.  However, this bill MANDATES that school employees MUST BE VACCINATED with no exceptions.  How is that even a thing?  If you don't make one get them, you can't make the other get them.  Teachers and school employees are not your puppets despite what you think.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Staci phillips on February 3, 2026 12:04
I agree with  what you want no parent should have to bury there child
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Chloe Davis on February 3, 2026 12:03
This law should be passed and enforced to the fullest extent.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Donna Briggs on February 3, 2026 12:02
There needs to be accountability for people that make bad choices that affect others. Especially choices that take lives. Our children aren’t taught accountability and this will be the down fall of our world.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Makaela Tilley on February 3, 2026 12:02
I think this is a great bill and should be passed. Reckless people get behind the wheel impaired and take the lives of innocent people and get hardly any punishment. no lesson learned. my husband works with a man who was driving drunk, he wrecked and killed an entire family. He shows no remorse and still talks about going drinking after work and having to drive home. THESE PEOPLE NEED HELD ACCOUNTABLE!
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Samantha Aliff on February 3, 2026 12:01
I support this bill!!
2026 Regular Session HB4797 (Government Administration)
Comment by: Alexis Layman on February 3, 2026 12:00

I disagree with this bill as I don't think that Charlie Kirk is symbolic of freedom of speech. While he did use his rights to practice and grew a large audience, he was not the first, nor the most successful. His practices did not create a movement or a change for the betterment of society collectively. he was a debater who more often than not was controversial and criticized core values and ideas of our society.

2026 Regular Session HB4950 (Educational Choice)
Comment by: Lori Mathieu on February 3, 2026 11:59
HB4950 is again overreach by the legislature to modify the structure of the WV Educational Code, the money for this is coming from taxpayers and the levies they vote for, these programs, test pilot or not should be discussed and put out for public review before instituting them. This bill should not be up for a vote until that happens and you have public support. Kill the bill until the public has been informed and have voted on it!
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Kacie on February 3, 2026 11:59
Why is this even debatable ???????? Pass this bill!!!
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: bella on February 3, 2026 11:57

 i’m in agreement with this.

2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Patricia on February 3, 2026 11:57
Please pass this. People need to thank before they drive impaired.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Patricia on February 3, 2026 11:56
Please pass this. People need to thank before they drive impaired.
2026 Regular Session HB4106 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Kayden McCreery on February 3, 2026 11:55

I completely disagree with this bill. I believe everyone should have a permit if they own or have a gun. If they are not trained to use a gun, then that is a safety hazard; someone could get hurt, or someone could abuse this, and they could commit serious crimes.

2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Ryanna McKnight on February 3, 2026 11:52
There should not be any thought behind passing this bill. Those who take someone’s mother, father, sister, or brother from their family should face the maximum amount of time in prison to think on their decision to get behind the wheel intoxicated and rip away that families everything. This bill should and will encourage anyone out drinking to think about what their future may be before getting behind the wheel themselves.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Lottie cottrell on February 3, 2026 11:46
When a person decides to drive while drinking they know what can and most of the time taking a chance on murdering someone should pay for their actions.This changes their loved ones lives forever.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Melissa dickens on February 3, 2026 11:46
Yes
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Courtney Hughes on February 3, 2026 11:43
I support this bill! Too many times have we all seen someone just get a slap on the wrist and then repeat the same behavior! Baylea’s life mattered and loosing her shattered many! Making this a law could saves lives of the many! One drunk driver can kill more than one person!
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Ashley Hill on February 3, 2026 11:39
Baylea and her family deserve so much more than this law but this would be a start and a stone. She didn't deserve what happened to her as her family don't deserve to live the life that wasn't their choose. From a broken family with a broken community behind them, pass this law. It's the right thing to do.
2026 Regular Session HB5090 (Education)
Comment by: Mary Elizabeth Hull on February 3, 2026 11:37
This bill places our children at risk. Diseases spread rapidly through schools and evidence-based research does not indicate that vaccines are unsafe. This bill will lead to more absences from preventable diseases that are scientifically proven as dangerous.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Cheyan White on February 3, 2026 11:26
Pass the bill! What happened to that girl was not fair and consequences should be paid to her.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Marianne Witthohn-Atkins on February 3, 2026 11:23
I believe the DUI law does need changed.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Savannah Smoot on February 3, 2026 11:19
This should not be a discussion. Three years will never be enough time to repent on taking someone’s life. Please take this bill into consideration; it may be the difference in someone’s decision.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Alisha Bays on February 3, 2026 11:19
DUI resulting in death should be the same result as homicide. They’re doing too little time for having taken a life from innocent bystanders.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Kayla Adkins on February 3, 2026 11:18
I agree that this should be passed not only because of baylea but also Isaiah brown
2026 Regular Session HB5104 (Judiciary)
Comment by: jayli flynn on February 3, 2026 11:16
HB 5104 establishes a required instructional approach rather than allowing districts, educators, parents, and students to determine whether the method is appropriate for individual learners. This is inconsistent with established educational practice, which recognizes that students learn in different ways and require different instructional supports. Federal and state education frameworks already emphasize individualized instruction, including accommodations under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and general education differentiation standards. Mandating a single instructional model risks conflict with these requirements by reducing flexibility for students with learning disabilities, neurodivergent students, English language learners, and students with varying academic and social needs. Research and classroom practice show that no single instructional method is universally effective across all students, grade levels, subjects, or communities. Effective education policy prioritizes adaptability, professional judgment, and student-centered decision-making rather than uniform mandates. If the instructional approach outlined in HB 5104 is beneficial, it should be implemented as an optional model with voluntary adoption and appropriate resources, rather than as a requirement applied to all students and schools. For these reasons, HB 5104 should be amended to preserve instructional flexibility or not advanced as written.
2026 Regular Session HB5101 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on February 3, 2026 11:10
I oppose HB 5101 as written because it expands criminal enforcement without addressing the systemic conditions necessary for effective prevention, due process protections, and long-term public safety. While domestic violence is a serious issue that warrants strong response, prevention requires more than heightened penalties and expanded criminal classifications. HB 5101 focuses almost exclusively on punitive mechanisms—expanded definitions, felony classifications, enhanced penalties, stricter bail conditions, and financial surcharges—without corresponding investment in education, prevention, or procedural safeguards. This imbalance is particularly concerning given concurrent policy discussions about reducing or restructuring the Department of Education. If education infrastructure is weakened or absorbed into general government administration, residents lose access to evidence-based instruction on consent, conflict resolution, coercive control, self-defense standards, and legal thresholds for criminal conduct. Enforcement without education increases the risk of misapplication, over-criminalization, and escalation of interpersonal conflict into the criminal justice system rather than prevention or resolution. HB 5101 also raises due-process concerns. Broadened statutory definitions combined with heightened penalties and restrictive pretrial release conditions can result in severe consequences based on accusation alone—including loss of employment, housing instability, reputational harm, and collateral family-court impacts—before adjudication occurs. These effects disproportionately harm economically vulnerable individuals and communities with limited access to legal resources. The bill further relies on post-conviction surcharges to fund victim services rather than ensuring stable, preventative funding streams. This approach ties support services to criminal outcomes instead of investing upfront in education, intervention, and community-based prevention strategies that reduce harm before violence occurs. Effective domestic violence policy must balance accountability with prevention, education, and due process. HB 5101 does not do so. Without parallel investment in independent education, public awareness, training, and procedural safeguards, expanding enforcement alone risks unintended systemic harm while failing to address root causes. For these reasons, I respectfully oppose HB 5101 and urge lawmakers to pursue a comprehensive, prevention-focused approach that protects victims, preserves due process, and strengthens education rather than relying primarily on punitive expansion.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Jaelin Overton on February 3, 2026 11:08
This bill should be passed.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Dawn Johnson on February 3, 2026 11:07
If you look at a dui with a death the punishment should be more stiff. There is no reason a family should lose a child, parent, grandparents or other family members by someone drinking and driving. And the person drinking and driving get a slap on the wrist to go about your day.
2026 Regular Session HB5100 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on February 3, 2026 11:06
I oppose House Bill 5100 based on public-health, regulatory, and patient-impact concerns. While I do not support kratom, and acknowledge that several states — including California — have taken steps to restrict or prohibit kratom due to safety, contamination, and adverse-event concerns, HB 5100 improperly bundles kratom regulation with hemp-derived cannabinoids and shifts oversight to the Alcohol Beverage Control Administration (ABCA), creating harmful and unintended consequences for medical cannabis patients and regulated healthcare access. 1. Kratom and Medical Cannabis Require Separate Regulatory Treatment California and other jurisdictions have raised legitimate concerns about kratom due to:
  • Lack of FDA approval
  • Reports of contamination, adulteration, and inconsistent potency
  • Documented adverse health outcomes and dependence risks
Medical cannabis, by contrast, is:
  • Regulated under a physician-certified medical program
  • Subject to controlled dispensing, tracking, and testing
  • Used by patients with chronic pain, cancer, neurological disorders, and other qualifying conditions when traditional pharmaceuticals fail
HB 5100 fails to maintain this distinction by collapsing non-medical substances (kratom) and regulated cannabinoid products under a single enforcement-oriented framework. 2. Shifting Oversight to Alcohol Beverage Control Is Inappropriate for Medical Contexts The ABCA is structured for alcohol control and enforcement, not medical or agricultural public-health regulation. Applying an alcohol-style regulatory model to cannabinoid products risks:
  • Treating medically relevant substances as recreational intoxicants
  • Prioritizing enforcement and penalties over patient access and safety
  • Creating chilling effects for lawful commerce that supports medical patients
Medical cannabis patients should not be indirectly penalized or stigmatized through regulatory frameworks designed for alcohol or non-medical substances. 3. Risk of Increased Barriers for Medical Cannabis Patients HB 5100 introduces regulatory ambiguity that may:
  • Discourage lawful businesses that also serve medical cannabis patients
  • Increase compliance costs that are passed on to patients
  • Confuse consumers and employers regarding legality, testing, and enforcement standards
West Virginia already has a functioning medical cannabis program. Policies that indirectly undermine patient access contradict the program’s intent and public-health goals. 4. California’s Kratom Reasoning Does Not Justify Broad Cannabinoid Restrictions California’s approach to kratom is based on specific safety findings, not a blanket opposition to cannabinoid-based medical therapies. Using kratom concerns to justify broader regulatory shifts affecting hemp-derived cannabinoids and medical cannabis is not evidence-based and risks harming patients who rely on regulated medical treatment. 5. Public Health Is Better Served by Targeted Regulation, Not Consolidation If kratom presents safety risks, it should be regulated or restricted on its own merits, using health-based standards. Folding kratom into a broader alcohol-style control system does not improve safety and instead creates collateral harm to unrelated medical programs. Conclusion I oppose HB 5100 because it:
  • Improperly conflates kratom with medically relevant cannabinoid products
  • Places public-health substances under an alcohol enforcement agency
  • Risks undermining West Virginia’s medical cannabis program and patient access
  • Fails to reflect the nuanced, evidence-based reasoning used by states like California when addressing kratom specifically
Medical cannabis patients should not bear the consequences of regulatory decisions aimed at unrelated substances.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Roberta Sue Vance on February 3, 2026 11:01
I support this bill because I agree with what it stands for.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Pam Hanshaw on February 3, 2026 11:01
I am in agreement with the passage of this law.  I’m a mother of 3 and one of my children, after being provided alternative options  chose to get behind the wheel while under the influence of alcohol.  He was very fortunate as not to have claimed the life of someone else, a family, or his own but he was arrested as he well should have been.  I was so angry over the choice he made and it was his  - his alone.  I left him in jail for the 48 hours that I was allowed to do.  I sat down with him, handed him a pencil and paper and asked that he write down each of the numbers I was going to give him.  When we reached the end, I asked for the total and told him that was the amount of just one funeral.  If he had taken the life of a family he could multiply that number.  Then I told him the amount of pain he imposed had a limit that would never be met.
2026 Regular Session HB5096 (Health and Human Resources)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on February 3, 2026 10:59
I oppose House Bill 5096. HB 5096 removes Certificate of Need (CON) requirements for personal care services and intellectual and developmental disability services under §16-2D-8 and §16-2D-10 of the West Virginia Code. These CON provisions exist to ensure health-care planning, provider readiness, patient safety, and accountability before services are expanded or introduced. Eliminating CON review removes a critical layer of pre-service oversight that evaluates community need, staffing capacity, compliance history, and the ability of providers to safely deliver care. This deregulation increases the risk of poorly prepared or inadequately supervised providers entering the system, particularly in services that serve vulnerable populations who rely on consistent standards and protections. Additionally, the introduced version of HB 5096 contains drafting and clerical errors. Poorly drafted statutory language creates legal ambiguity, weakens enforcement authority, and increases the likelihood of regulatory noncompliance. When health-care oversight is reduced through imprecise or careless statutory changes, the result is greater exposure to safety failures, liability claims, insurance disputes, and taxpayer-funded litigation. Vulnerable populations — including individuals with disabilities and those receiving personal care services — should not be subjected to reduced safeguards or unclear legal standards. Health-care deregulation must be deliberate, precise, and supported by strong accountability mechanisms. HB 5096 fails to meet that standard. For these reasons, HB 5096 should not advance.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Hannah Bunting on February 3, 2026 10:57
Dear Members of the West Virginia Legislature,
I am writing to urge you to support Baylea’s Law and to reconsider the current penalties for impaired driving that results in the loss of life. No parent should ever have to endure what Zelda and Jimmy are living through—the permanent, unimaginable loss of their child, Baylea.
While Baylea’s family grieves every day, the individual responsible for her death remains at home, continuing her life as though nothing was taken from another family. That reality alone highlights a deep imbalance in our justice system. One family gets holidays, normalcy, and time. Another gets an empty seat at the table forever.
The fact that age is being used as a mitigating factor in this case is deeply troubling. At 19 years old, an individual knows right from wrong. She knew that consuming alcohol under the legal age, using controlled substances, and then getting behind the wheel was dangerous and illegal. Yet Baylea paid the ultimate price for that decision. Accountability should not be diminished simply because the offender was young enough to receive leniency but old enough to make life-altering choices.
Current sentencing guidelines—three to fifteen years for taking a life while impaired—send the wrong message. They suggest that killing someone under these circumstances may result in a relatively short sentence, potentially reduced further for good behavior. That does not deter dangerous behavior, nor does it reflect the permanent devastation left behind. A life sentence would not heal Zelda and Jimmy’s pain, but stronger consequences could prevent another family from ever experiencing it.
This is not about revenge. It is about responsibility, deterrence, and valuing human life. Baylea’s Law should not have to exist—but since it does, it must be passed and enforced with meaningful impact. Doing so would help lift some of the burden carried by grieving families and would send a clear message that impaired driving resulting in death will be met with serious consequences.
I ask you to consider this issue not as lawmakers alone, but as parents, siblings, and members of your own families. If it were your child, would this outcome feel like justice? Would it feel acceptable to watch the person responsible continue on with life as if nothing had happened?
Baylea’s Law has the potential to protect families across West Virginia and to hold individuals fully accountable for the irreversible harm they cause. Please take this responsibility seriously and act accordingly.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Sarah nelson on February 3, 2026 10:52
Please pass this. Someone who chooses to make this selfish decision of driving under the influence, should be held accountable. A family will never get to see their loved one again.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Charleigh Price on February 3, 2026 10:51
This should be passed.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Michael Gedraitis on February 3, 2026 10:48
I think it is about time they start holding people accountable for there actions.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Mackenzie Connard on February 3, 2026 10:45
I think this is a great law, and could potentially save lives being taken from impaired drivers.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Shannon McClung on February 3, 2026 10:42
Last year, our community lost Baylea—a life full of promise, cut short by the preventable and reckless choice of an individual to drive under the influence. Baylea isn’t just a name on a legal document; she represents a daughter, a friend, and a future that was stolen. Her death was not an "accident"; it was the direct result of a conscious decision to disregard the safety of others. Why We Need Baylea’s Law Current penalties for DUI offenses often fail to reflect the gravity of the devastation caused. To honor Baylea and protect other families from this unspeakable grief, we are calling for the passage of Baylea’s Law, which mandates: • Doubling Jail Time: To ensure the punishment acts as a true deterrent and reflects the value of the lives put at risk. • Doubling Fines: To hold offenders financially accountable and fund much-needed education and victim support services.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Shawna Davis on February 3, 2026 10:42
3 years isn’t enough time for someone to make poor decisions and take an innocent life.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Charlotte on February 3, 2026 10:40
Have a nephew that suffered a TBI & other physical injuries due to a drunk driver broadsiding the car he was in.  That was 40+ years ago.  Never has led a normal life since!!! 😡
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Megan Wilkinson on February 3, 2026 10:39
I support this legislation 110%. Please pass Baylea’s law to prevent, protect and hold impaired drivers accountable for their actions if they cause death behind the wheel.
2026 Regular Session HB5095 (Finance)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on February 3, 2026 10:38
I oppose HB 5095. This bill creates a refundable tax credit of up to $6,000 for individuals and licensed automobile dealers who donate or sell vehicles through a qualified charitable organization. Refundable credits reduce state revenue even when no tax is owed, making this program a use of public funds, not private charity. If this program is framed as a “donation,” attaching a refundable tax credit fundamentally changes its nature. Once financial compensation is provided, the transaction is no longer purely charitable — it becomes a state-subsidized exchange. Public funds are being used to reimburse donors rather than directly assist the individuals in need of transportation. HB 5095 directs the tax benefit to donors and dealers, not to the low-income residents who ultimately receive the vehicles. Those most affected by transportation barriers do not receive the credit or direct financial assistance under this bill. Transportation access is a systemic workforce and infrastructure issue, particularly in a largely rural state with limited public transit. Addressing that issue through tax incentives for private donations shifts responsibility away from direct public investment and accountability, while reducing state revenue that could otherwise support broad-based services. At a time when many West Virginians are experiencing economic hardship and the state faces ongoing demands for healthcare, infrastructure, and public services, prioritizing refundable tax credits for private transactions raises serious concerns about fiscal priorities, equity, and effectiveness. For these reasons, I oppose HB 5095.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Madilyn Gauthier (Hill) on February 3, 2026 10:38
For a community, a family, and a beautiful life that was taken too soon.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Charlotte Stiltner on February 3, 2026 10:38
#justicefoebaylea
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Kelsey Meadows on February 3, 2026 10:38
I wanted to my opinion on supporting the Bailey’s law that was introduced this week on doubling the fines of DUI that caused death. making this change will not only make someone think twice about driving out under the influence, but also if they’re close friends, or loved ones of letting them do so. laws are meant to prevent any harm and sometimes things need to be adjusted accordingly, if there is no change, and this is one of those things in my opinion. Thank you for your time.
2026 Regular Session HB5094 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on February 3, 2026 10:35
I oppose HB 5094 as introduced because, while it appears to restrict private prisons, it fails to meaningfully address profit-driven incarceration and detention practices in West Virginia and leaves significant loopholes that undermine public accountability, civil rights, and fiscal responsibility. 1. The bill does not end profit from incarceration HB 5094 prohibits private ownership or operation of prisons, but it does not prohibit public facilities from contracting with private vendors or federal agencies for detention services. This allows profit incentives to persist through: •Service contracts, •Bed-per-head payment structures, •Federal detention agreements, including immigration detention. As written, the bill restricts form—not function—and does not eliminate financial incentives that encourage expanded detention or prolonged confinement. 2. No limits on ICE or federal detention contracts HB 5094 does not prohibit state or regional jails from housing federal detainees, including individuals held under civil immigration authority. This means: •Local jails may continue to profit from federal detention contracts, •Civil detainees may be housed in criminal facilities, •Oversight gaps remain regarding due process, conditions, and length of detention. If the intent is to prevent profit-based incarceration, failing to address federal detention contracts is a major omission. 3. Expands administrative control without public oversight The bill places approval authority with the Regional Jail Authority but does not add transparency requirements, such as: •Public reporting of contracts, •Disclosure of per-diem rates, •Conditions standards, •Civil-rights compliance audits. Without these safeguards, decisions affecting incarceration and detention remain insulated from public review. 4. No protections for detainees’ rights or conditions HB 5094 does not establish: •Minimum conditions standards, •Independent inspections, •Medical or mental-health protections, •Civil-rights enforcement mechanisms. This omission is especially concerning given the history of litigation and federal scrutiny surrounding detention conditions nationwide. 5. Fiscal impacts are ignored The bill does not address: •How existing contracts would be unwound, •Liability risks from continued detention contracts, •Costs to counties and taxpayers if federal revenue streams fluctuate or collapse. This creates long-term financial risk while offering no comprehensive funding or transition plan. Conclusion HB 5094 presents itself as a reform measure but does not meaningfully dismantle profit-driven incarceration. By allowing continued detention contracts, including federal and immigration detention, and by failing to impose transparency, rights protections, or fiscal safeguards, the bill risks being symbolic rather than substantive. True reform would require: •Explicit limits on detention-for-profit practices, •Clear restrictions on federal detention contracts, •Mandatory transparency and oversight, •Enforceable protections for detained individuals. For these reasons, I oppose HB 5094 as currently written.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Kylie Jones on February 3, 2026 10:34
Driving under the influence is not something that should be taken lightly. Watching the life of a girl being taken in our small town due to a woman driving into the influence is heartbreaking. A parent should never have to bury their child due to something that is preventable.
2026 Regular Session HB4034 (Education)
Comment by: Amanda VanScoy on February 3, 2026 10:34
The WV Republican representatives are again displaying the inability to read. Some of you should go back to school and take Civics since "separation of Church and State" isn't obvious to you. The students of WV public schools don't need your lack of common sense or the ten commandments. They need free lunches, after-school programs, music and reading programs, they need clubs and activities, especially in schools in rural communities. They don't need you to push your religious preferences on them when they should be learning skills to make WV great. What you are doing is a travesty and you should be ashamed this is a priorities when kids in four counties don't have access to clean drinking water. Do everyone a favor, Mallow, and touch some grass. Take a trip to McDowell County and have a drink.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Abigail Nagy on February 3, 2026 10:33
This law needs to be accepted.
2026 Regular Session HB5092 (Health and Human Resources)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on February 3, 2026 10:32
I oppose HB 5092 because it removes clear, statutory eligibility standards for medical cannabis and replaces them with an undefined “professional judgment” gatekeeping model that can reduce certainty and access for patients who already struggle to find effective treatment. HB 5092 amends the definition of “serious medical condition” by striking the current “any of the following” qualifying-condition list (including cancer, PTSD, Crohn’s disease, neuropathies, severe chronic or intractable pain, and others) and substituting broader language: “a medical condition that a medical doctor, in his or her professional judgement, would benefit from the use of cannabis.” The bill’s own note states its purpose is to grant physicians authority to use professional judgment for certification.  Even if framed as flexibility, removing enumerated conditions from statute can also create uncertainty and uneven access in the real world: patients lose a clear, objective statutory basis for eligibility and are left dependent on individual provider willingness, institutional policies, and risk tolerance. In practice, that can mean people whose medications no longer work—or who cannot tolerate pharmaceuticals—may face new barriers if they cannot find a certifying provider, even though the state already has a regulated program in place.  This proposed shift also occurs while other jurisdictions are moving toward broader legal access. Virginia law allows adults 21+ to lawfully possess up to one ounce and to cultivate up to four plants per household.  Ohio permits adult possession up to 2.5 ounces, and adult-use sales have been underway since 2024.  Kentucky has a state medical cannabis program effective January 1, 2025.  Tennessee still lacks a comprehensive medical access system and is limited to narrow low-THC/CBD protections without in-state legal access for most patients.  West Virginia should not be moving toward a system that effectively narrows dependable access while nearby states expand or operationalize broader access. Finally, federal policy is also in motion: the U.S. Department of Justice issued a proposed rule in 2024 to move marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III, and subsequent federal actions have continued to push the rescheduling process forward.  In that context, West Virginia should prioritize stable, transparent patient access within its existing regulatory program—not statutory changes that can function as a “lockdown” by removing explicit eligibility protections and shifting everything to discretionary gatekeeping after the fact. Request: If HB 5092 moves forward at all, it should be amended to keep the existing enumerated qualifying conditions as a minimum statutory floor (so patients retain clear eligibility protections) while allowing physician judgment to add conditions—not replace the list entirely. As introduced, HB 5092 undermines predictable access for patients who need medical cannabis when conventional medications fail and creates avoidable barriers in a state that already has rules and a regulated program in place. 
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Linda Dunlap on February 3, 2026 10:30
I support Baylea’s law…I also think that that the person shouldn’t be allowed to buy alcohol of any type. A State or National registry so when their drivers license is scanned it shows their banned…..there should also be longer jail time three yrs is nothing for someone’s life. How would you feel if it was your child or family member. Put yourself in that Mothers, Fathers or family members shoes. Also there should be triple fines for drinking and driving stiffer penalties, automatic longer AA classes. Thank You
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Steve Trent on February 3, 2026 10:27
On behalf of the firemen and medics who have to respond to such tragedies,  impaired drivers should be punished for their crimes
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Montana on February 3, 2026 10:25
This law should be passed so that families affected may get justice!
2026 Regular Session HB5090 (Education)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on February 3, 2026 10:24
I oppose HB 5090 because it would forbid compulsory immunization as a prerequisite to enroll in public schools (“Compulsory immunization of children as a perquisite to enroll in public schools in this state is forbidden.”).  West Virginia’s current school-entry immunization law (W. Va. Code §16-3-4) requires children entering school/child care to be immunized against multiple vaccine-preventable diseases (including measles, polio, tetanus, and whooping cough), with exemptions handled through a medical exemption process.  HB 5090’s “prohibit mandates” approach undermines that framework and increases the risk of lower vaccination coverage, which is a known driver of school-centered outbreaks.  This is not an abstract concern. The CDC states measles prevention requires at least ~95% coverage with 2 doses to prevent outbreaks.  Nationally, vaccination coverage has already slipped below this target: in the 2023–2024 school year, overall kindergarten coverage was below 93% for key vaccines, including MMR ~92.7%, while exemptions increased.  The CDC also reports that most measles cases are outbreak-associated, showing how quickly gaps in coverage turn into expensive, disruptive outbreaks.  Vaccination policies are also a healthcare capacity issue, not just a school policy issue. West Virginia’s healthcare system is already operating under significant strain:
  • Primary care shortage areas: West Virginia has 126 designated primary care HPSAs, with ~793,019 people living in designated shortage areas; only ~38.28% of need met, and 163 additional practitioners needed to remove the designations.  
  • Mental health shortage areas: West Virginia has 124 mental health HPSAs, only ~5.68% of need met, and 94 practitioners needed to remove designations.  
  • Rural hospital financial stress: 43% of rural hospitals in West Virginia operate on negative margins.  
When vaccine-preventable diseases increase, the burden lands on the same limited network of clinics, ERs, and hospitals—driving up costs, staffing strain, and missed school/work time. West Virginia has historically benefited from strong immunization coverage. A recent brief on childhood immunization in West Virginia notes that MMR coverage in WV is above national levels and that WV reported 0 measles cases since January 1, 2025.  Policies like HB 5090 risk reversing those gains by weakening the enforceable school-entry vaccination standard and increasing susceptibility clusters. Vaccines also have documented, large population-level impact. For example, the CDC reports the U.S. chickenpox vaccination program reduced cases by ~97% and reduced hospitalizations and deaths.  Weakening school-entry vaccination requirements predictably increases preventable illness, which is the opposite of what a state should do during workforce shortages and rural hospital financial instability. For these reasons, I urge lawmakers to reject HB 5090 and instead strengthen access to vaccination (including through county health departments and the Vaccines for Children program), protect medically vulnerable students, and reduce preventable strain on West Virginia’s healthcare system. 
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Tim cole on February 3, 2026 10:22
I agree with bill to double penalty. Where a death is caused it should be maximum sentence
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Amanda Smith on February 3, 2026 10:21
Please consider a harsher punishment for DUI. This is a selfish and foolish act that causes innocent people to lose their life.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: April Dodson on February 3, 2026 10:20
I believe there should be longer prison times for cause the death of someone from driving under the influence.
2026 Regular Session HB5088 (Finance)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on February 3, 2026 10:19
I oppose HB 5088, which increases the retirement benefit multiplier for members of the Natural Resources Police Officer Retirement System from 2.25% to 2.75% for those retiring after July 1, 2026. This legislation raises several serious concerns: First, unfunded and cumulative fiscal impact. HB 5088 increases long-term pension liabilities without clearly identifying sustainable funding sources. This bill does not exist in isolation. During the same session, the Legislature is considering multiple bills expanding retirement benefits, re-hiring retirees, offering sign-on bonuses, and exempting law-enforcement retirement income from taxation. Taken together, these measures compound actuarial risk and shift long-term costs onto taxpayers without adequate transparency or analysis. Second, inequitable prioritization of public funds. While retirement benefits for law enforcement are repeatedly expanded, other essential public needs remain underfunded, including infrastructure maintenance, housing stability, water and environmental protection, education, and workforce development. Expanding retirement multipliers for a narrow group of public employees—without comparable investment in civilian public services—raises equity concerns and reflects unbalanced budget priorities. Third, lack of demonstrated necessity. No evidence is provided that current benefit levels are inadequate, that recruitment or retention failures are directly tied to the existing multiplier, or that this increase is required to maintain public safety. Policy changes of this magnitude should be supported by documented workforce data, actuarial studies, and cost-benefit analysis, none of which are clearly established in the bill. Fourth, long-term pension sustainability risks. Increasing the benefit multiplier permanently raises future payout obligations and increases pressure on pension system solvency. West Virginia has previously faced pension funding challenges, and expanding benefits without structural reform or guaranteed funding undermines fiscal responsibility and intergenerational equity. Finally, pattern of preferential treatment without accountability. This bill continues a legislative pattern of expanding law-enforcement financial benefits while unresolved issues remain, including past oversight failures, misconduct scandals, overtime and disaster-relief pay concerns, and whistleblower retaliation allegations. Expanding retirement benefits without addressing accountability and oversight weakens public trust. For these reasons, HB 5088 represents poor fiscal stewardship, inequitable allocation of public resources, and an unsustainable expansion of pension obligations. I urge the West Virginia Legislature to reject this bill.
2026 Regular Session HB4567 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Suzana on February 3, 2026 10:17
Nicotine affects your brain development, which can make it harder to learn and concentrate. Some of the brain changes can be permanent and can affect your mood and ability to control yourself as an adult.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Crystal Hensley on February 3, 2026 10:16
This bill shoild be passed
2026 Regular Session HB4392 (Health and Human Resources)
Comment by: Whitney Cawood on February 3, 2026 10:15
Dear Members of the West Virginia House of Delegates, My name is Whitney Cawood. I am a former teacher, a mother, and an advocate, and I stand before you as a witness to the impact of synthetic dyes. A year after leaving the classroom, we welcomed our son, Atreyu. Between the ages of one and three, he began struggling with severe aggression and impulse control. His behavior was so severe that the school assigned a teacher to follow him and prevent him from harming other children. We tried everything— therapy, doctor visits, behavioral strategies, but nothing helped. What finally changed everything was removing synthetic dyes from his diet. Within just 48 hours, the child who once struggled with biting, tackling, sleeplessness, and emotional outbursts became calm, focused, and emotionally regulated, something no medical intervention had achieved. What shocked us most was where those dyes were coming from. Not just food, but his daily allergy medication, antibiotics, and even pink pain relievers. During that season, he suffered chronic ear infections and was prescribed six rounds of antibiotics in one year—nearly 60 days total. Every one of those antibiotics was colored with Red 40. As his aggression intensified, doctors recommended pink Tylenol for teething pain. I vividly remember noticing that every time I gave it to him, his behavior worsened. It wasn’t until later that I connected the dots: the tylenol contained Red 40, compounding the effects of his daily allergy medicine. No matter the source—antibiotics, allergy medication, sweet treats, savory foods, or even a spinach wrap containing Blue 1 and Yellow 5, the reaction was always the same: intense aggression, emotional dysregulation, and sleeplessness. The source didn’t matter. The dyes did. At first, we believed our son’s sensitivity was rare. To connect with others, I started a Facebook group. Within two years, more than 934,000 families joined, sharing thousands of eerily similar, and often more severe, experiences. That led us to a deeper question: how can something we eat impact a child’s brain? To find answers, my husband and I created a documentary in which we interview experts and toxicologists to understand why synthetic dyes affect some children so intensely. I want to share two key takeaways from our research:
  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.
I urge you to consider the millions of children, families, and adults who would benefit from the removal of synthetic dyes from medications. For many families, this is the one area where avoiding dyes is nearly impossible. Most pharmaceutical companies do not offer dye-free alternatives, and compounding medications, when available, can cost thousands of dollars, placing them out of reach for most. Removing synthetic dyes from medication would eliminate an unnecessary barrier to health and provide relief to families who have no other options. UPDATE: If you’re wondering about our son today, he is seven years old and thriving in a STEM school. He scores exemplarily in both reading and math and is in a gifted program and a German immersion program. He has no behavioral issues at school and is consistently recognized for both his academic success and positive behavior. Most importantly, he has friends, is kind, and his teachers adore him. Removing synthetic dyes gave the world the child God created, a child with the capacity to learn, connect, and one day make the world better. Contrast that with the child he once was: a child whose behavior was so severe that additional supervision was required to protect other children. Not every child reacts this intensely, but we must consider the ones who do. Best, Whitney Cawood
2026 Regular Session HB5085 (Health and Human Resources)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on February 3, 2026 10:15
House Bill 5085, which establishes a regulatory framework for private alternative adolescent residential and outdoor programs, raises serious concerns based on existing federal–state policy conflicts, prior documented failures in oversight, and the bill’s framing of youth placement as an “industry.” 1. The bill normalizes youth confinement as a private “industry” HB 5085 treats adolescent residential and outdoor programs as a regulated industry rather than as an exceptional, last-resort intervention. Framing youth placement as an industry is not neutral. It reflects and reinforces a model in which private entities rely on occupancy and referrals rather than prevention, family preservation, or community-based care. Licensing an industry does not address whether that industry should exist at scale, nor whether it creates financial incentives that conflict with the best interests of children. ⸻ 2. West Virginia has documented risks from per-bed and referral-driven systems West Virginia has already experienced failures involving: •Residential and rehabilitation facilities operating with insufficient oversight •Public or quasi-public funding structures tied to occupancy (“per bed / per head”) •Referral pipelines connected to law enforcement or crisis systems rather than medical necessity HB 5085 does not prohibit per-bed financial incentives, referral coercion, or profit structures tied to length of stay. Regulation without structural safeguards risks repeating documented harms under a new statutory label. ⸻ 3. Federal housing policy already excludes medically vulnerable families Under federal law and policy enforced by U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, marijuana remains illegal, and HUD-assisted housing does not allow marijuana use, including state-legal medical cannabis. As a result: •Individuals using medical cannabis for cancer, chronic pain, PTSD, or other serious illnesses may be denied or removed from housing assistance •There is no medical exemption under HUD policy •Disabled and chronically ill individuals are forced to choose between symptom management and housing stability This exclusion is structural and ongoing. ⸻ 4. Housing exclusion directly increases youth displacement and system involvement When caregivers with cancer, chronic pain, or disabilities are excluded from housing: •Families destabilize •Housing insecurity increases •Youth are more likely to enter child welfare, juvenile justice, or “alternative” residential systems HB 5085 does not address this upstream cause. Instead, it regulates the downstream consequence—youth confinement—thereby institutionalizing the fallout of federal housing exclusion rather than mitigating it. ⸻ 5. The bill lacks explicit prohibitions on abusive or coercive practices HB 5085 does not: •Explicitly prohibit conversion-therapy-style practices •Require evidence-based, trauma-informed care standards •Provide heightened protections for LGBTQ+ youth •Address coercive behavior modification models historically associated with residential and outdoor programs Licensing alone does not prevent psychological coercion, isolation, or abuse, particularly when youth have limited ability to report harm. ⸻ 6. Regulation does not equal legitimacy Creating a licensing framework can confer perceived legitimacy on systems that have historically caused harm, especially when: •Oversight relies on inspections rather than outcomes •Reporting depends on self-disclosure by operators •Youth lack meaningful avenues for complaint or redress HB 5085 regulates existence, not necessity, and does not require proof that residential confinement is the least restrictive or most effective option. ⸻ Conclusion HB 5085 risks codifying a private youth-placement industry in a state where: •Federal housing policy already excludes medically vulnerable families •Prior residential and rehabilitation models have failed under weak oversight •Youth displacement is driven by structural policy conflicts, not individual failure Rather than expanding or normalizing residential confinement, West Virginia policy should prioritize: •Housing stability •Family preservation •Medical accommodation •Community-based, non-institutional supports For these reasons, HB 5085 should not advance in its current form.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: emma ullman on February 3, 2026 10:15
this law needs to be in place due to the lives that have been taken.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Danielle Baisden on February 3, 2026 10:15
I honestly feel if this bill doesn’t get passed it’s a slap to the face of ALL West Virginian people. Do the right thing.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Barbara Kinder on February 3, 2026 10:14
Laws should be more strict when driving intoxicated. Especially when causing death. So many families are losing loved ones due to someone’s irresponsibility. Baylea was an inspiration to anyone she came across. Whether she knew you or not. I personally didn’t know Baylea but I knew her family. Anytime I went into Bayleas shop she was there and very sweet and helpful.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Dreama Viars on February 3, 2026 10:14
I’m all for this law! There’s too many people losing their lives to impaired drivers whether it be drunk driving or drugs. This law needs put into place and people need to take accountability for their actions and face the consequences.
2026 Regular Session HB4130 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Suzana on February 3, 2026 10:13
If an animal is in an abusive shelter it can negativity impact the behavioral and psychological health of an animal, which can also reduces their chances for adoption.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Thomas Glass on February 3, 2026 10:08
5 years is better, but still not enough, in my opinion.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Myleigh Ullman on February 3, 2026 10:08

I think we need this law due to the lives that have been taken.

2026 Regular Session HB4392 (Health and Human Resources)
Comment by: Gene Harrington on February 3, 2026 10:08
Chairman Burkhammer & Members of the Committee on Health & Human Resources, I write on behalf of the Animal Health Institute (AHI) to respectfully request that language be added to House Bill 4392 clarifying that the legislation does not apply to animal drugs and medicine. AHI is the U.S. trade association for research-based manufacturers of animal health products – the medicines that keep pets, service animals, and livestock healthy.  While we appreciate your introducing SB 466/HB 4392 to follow up on last year’s HB 2354, we are concerned that the scope of the pending legislation is dramatically broader than last year’s measure and could inadvertently interfere with the medical treatment of animals. While West Virgina’s Food and Drug Law defines the term “food” as  “all articles used for food, drink, confectionary or condiment by man,” the state’s definition of the term “drug” includes “all medicines for internal or external use, antiseptics, disinfectants and cosmetics.”  As such, the former definition clearly captures just human food, and the latter definition would seem to cover animal drugs and medicine. Food dyes and additives serve a valuable purpose in animal drugs and medicine, for livestock, service, and companion animals. For example, the colorants used for drugs in medicated feed are typically added so a producer and/or veterinarian can tell it is there, not just to make it look appealing. Substitute colorants may not work the same for this functionality.  As these colors are added at low levels, they have no impact on animal or human health. I appreciate your time and again respectfully ask that HB 4392 include language clarifying that it does not apply to animal drugs and medicine .  Please feel free to contact me at gharrington@ahi.org or (202) 549-5934 if you have any questions. Take care, Gene   Gene Harrington Senior Director, State Affairs Animal Health Institute (202) 549-5934 – Mobile gharrington@ahi.org    
2026 Regular Session HB5074 (Finance)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on February 3, 2026 10:08
I oppose HB 5074 because it reallocates funds without addressing the documented structural and regulatory barriers that have prevented the Medical Cannabis Program from functioning as intended since its inception. First, the existence of unspent or underutilized funds is not evidence of excess capacity or success. The Medical Cannabis Program has faced persistent operational constraints, including federal–state conflicts, banking limitations, institutional compliance risk, and restrictive regulatory thresholds. These barriers have limited participation by financial institutions, research entities, and healthcare providers. Reallocating proceeds does not resolve these foundational issues and instead shifts resources away from the program before it has been allowed to operate under workable conditions. Second, current nanogram-based limits and related regulatory thresholds restrict meaningful medical and scientific research. Nanogram limits function as administrative controls rather than evidence-based medical or pharmacological standards. Fixed concentration thresholds do not reliably correlate with impairment, therapeutic benefit, dosage efficacy, or patient safety due to wide individual variability in cannabinoid metabolism. As a result:
  • Clinically relevant dose-response studies are discouraged or rendered nonviable;
  • Research protocols cannot reflect real-world medical use;
  • Institutional review boards and universities are deterred from participation due to compliance and liability concerns.
These constraints directly undermine the very research objectives cited in the bill, including neuroscience, substance-use treatment, and public-health outcomes. Third, reallocating funds does not correct the research bottleneck—it institutionalizes it. Funds earmarked for medical cannabis or related research remain unused not because of lack of need, but because existing statutory and regulatory frameworks prevent valid, publishable, and generalizable research from occurring. Redirecting these funds to other purposes without first correcting those barriers results in policy avoidance rather than policy correction. Fourth, the bill prioritizes redistribution over program viability. HB 5074 reallocates proceeds to external programs and institutions without demonstrating that:
  • the Medical Cannabis Program has reached functional maturity;
  • regulatory obstacles have been resolved;
  • patient access, provider participation, and research infrastructure are operational at scale.
This approach risks permanently diverting resources away from a program that has not yet been afforded the legal and regulatory conditions necessary to succeed. Finally, the bill undermines evidence-based policymaking. If the Legislature’s stated goals include reducing substance misuse, supporting medical innovation, and improving public-health outcomes, then policy should focus on removing barriers to data collection, clinical research, and program implementation—not reallocating funds away from an incomplete system. Without correcting these deficiencies, future appropriations and reallocations will continue to face the same outcome: idle funds and limited measurable results. Conclusion HB 5074 addresses the symptom—unspent funds—while leaving the cause intact. Until regulatory thresholds, research constraints, and institutional participation barriers are resolved, reallocating Medical Cannabis Program proceeds is premature and counterproductive. For these reasons, I oppose HB 5074.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Deanna Hall on February 3, 2026 10:07
If you can get behind the wheel impaired, and knowing you shouldn’t be.. you are a murderer and should be charged the same as murder. consequences for one’s actions to let them reflect on what they do to families and communities.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: averie harbert on February 3, 2026 10:07
I think we need this law where another life doesn’t get taken
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Ellanore Smith on February 3, 2026 10:07
I believe this bill is very important and should be implemented. DUI's are becoming more common and injuries/death are the outcome for many innocent people, people who are undeserving of that fate due to another's poor choice.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Gracie Foster on February 3, 2026 10:05
I feel this law needs to be put in place where another sweet life doesn’t get taken.
2026 Regular Session HB5073 (Finance)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on February 3, 2026 10:04
I respectfully submit this statement in opposition to House Bill 5073. House Bill 5073 proposes amendments to West Virginia Code §7-14-13, governing deputy sheriffs’ tenure and seniority, by allowing the transfer of seniority between sheriff departments under certain conditions. While presented as an administrative or retention-related measure, the bill raises substantial legal, fiscal, and policy concerns that conflict with existing statutory principles, constitutional protections, and sound public administration. 1. Conflict With the Purpose of §7-14-13 and Civil Service Principles West Virginia Code §7-14-13 establishes seniority as a function of continuous service within a specific sheriff department, forming the basis for promotion, layoffs, reinstatement, and employment hierarchy. Allowing seniority to transfer between departments contradicts the underlying purpose of this statute by severing seniority from:
  • Continuous service
  • Local institutional knowledge
  • Department-specific experience
This undermines the integrity of the civil service framework established in W. Va. Code §§7-14-1 through 7-14-23, which is designed to ensure merit-based employment and stability within county law enforcement. 2. Unequal Treatment and Equal Protection Concerns By allowing some deputies to retain seniority upon transfer while others must accrue seniority through continued service in a single department, HB 5073 creates disparate treatment among similarly situated public employees. This raises concerns under:
  • Article III, §10 of the West Virginia Constitution (Equal Protection and Due Process)
  • Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (Equal Protection Clause)
Public employment benefits tied to rank, pay, and job security must be administered uniformly and rationally. Preferential seniority portability lacks a demonstrated rational basis tied to public safety or operational necessity. 3. Erosion of County Authority Over Employment Sheriff departments are county offices operating under county funding authority pursuant to:
  • W. Va. Code §7-1-1 (County commissions as governing bodies)
  • W. Va. Code §7-7-7 (County compensation authority)
Seniority directly affects compensation, overtime priority, promotion eligibility, and layoff order. HB 5073 imposes a state mandate that restricts county commissions’ ability to manage personnel costs and workforce structure, without providing fiscal offsets or local opt-out authority. 4. Fiscal Impact Without Required Analysis Transferred seniority can result in immediate and long-term cost increases, including:
  • Higher salary placement
  • Increased overtime eligibility
  • Accelerated retirement qualification
Yet HB 5073 contains no fiscal note requirement, no funding mechanism, and no cost containment provisions, contrary to principles of responsible fiscal governance embodied throughout Chapter 11 (Taxation and Finance) and Chapter 12 (Public Moneys and Securities) of the West Virginia Code. This exposes counties to unfunded mandates in violation of prudent public finance norms. 5. Pension and Retirement Risk Seniority is often a determining factor in retirement eligibility and benefit calculations under public employment systems. Allowing seniority portability creates the risk of:
  • Artificial inflation of service credit
  • Accelerated vesting
  • Increased unfunded pension liabilities
HB 5073 provides no actuarial analysis, despite the Legislature’s duty to safeguard public retirement systems and taxpayer-funded obligations. 6. Accountability and Record Integrity Deficiencies HB 5073 does not require standardized disclosure or transfer of:
  • Disciplinary records
  • Performance evaluations
  • Internal investigations
This omission conflicts with public accountability principles and risks allowing individuals to retain rank-based privileges while leaving behind relevant employment history, undermining public trust in law enforcement institutions. 7. Workforce Instability Contrary to Legislative Intent Rather than promoting retention, seniority portability incentivizes lateral movement and department-hopping. This conflicts with the civil service purpose of stability and continuity embedded in W. Va. Code §7-14-1, which recognizes the need for orderly and consistent personnel administration in law enforcement. 8. No Demonstrated Public Safety Nexus HB 5073 fails to demonstrate any measurable improvement in:
  • Public safety outcomes
  • Emergency response capacity
  • Community policing effectiveness
Legislation affecting public employment and pensions must be justified by a legitimate governmental interest. No such nexus is established here. 9. Preferential Treatment Without Workforce Parity Other public servants governed by West Virginia law—including teachers, EMS personnel, and county workers—do not receive equivalent seniority portability. Selective benefits undermine workforce equity and contradict principles of uniform public employment standards. 10. Due Process and Procedural Concerns By altering employment rights and expectations retroactively without clear procedural safeguards, HB 5073 raises due process concerns under:
  • Article III, §10 of the West Virginia Constitution
  • Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
Employment systems must provide predictability and fairness, not retroactive restructuring of rank and benefits. Conclusion House Bill 5073 conflicts with the intent of W. Va. Code §7-14-13, undermines county authority under §§7-1-1 and 7-7-7, raises equal protection and due process concerns under the West Virginia and U.S. Constitutions, and exposes counties and taxpayers to unfunded fiscal and pension liabilities without demonstrated public safety benefit. For these reasons, I formally oppose HB 5073 and urge the Legislature to reject the bill.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Vickey Miller on February 3, 2026 10:03
Justice for Baylee
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Anthony R Hawkins on February 3, 2026 10:02
This is badly needed. Keep all of us sa
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Dakota Adkins on February 3, 2026 10:00
Justice for her. So young taken by someone else’s stupidity.
2026 Regular Session SB388 (Education)
Comment by: Samantha Holm on February 3, 2026 09:58

Vote no to Senate Bill 388. Spend your time elsewhere, on issues that will actually have a measurable effect on West Virginians. Requiring bibles in classrooms will do nothing for ensuring mountaineers have clean water, safe roads, access to reliable internet, access to good paying, career jobs, that public schools are properly funded, paying teachers what they deserve, for reducing the costs of childcare (did you know NM has free childcare for everyone in their state? Proves it can happen! Figure out what NM is doing!). Do something that is tangible for improving our lives! I couldn’t care less that my kids have access to a bible in a classroom. They have access to a bible at home which is where it should be. All I see in this bill, is that not only are teachers expected to be social workers, therapists, correctional officers, protect their students from mass shootings, pay for supplies for their students over and over again, but now they’re supposed to be preachers and priests as well? They’re supposed to answer questions about the Bible in their classroom? Well I’ll tell you, you can put whatever version of the Bible is closest to what you believe in the classrooms, but you can’t guarantee your child’s teacher is going to answer questions about it in the way you would. So maybe keep religion instruction where it’s meant to be and that’s in the home.

2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Emma Adkins on February 3, 2026 09:58
I come from a family that has lost two toddlers due to DUI. The person responsible for their death is already out of prison. These babies would not even be teenagers or out of middle school. I feel that the sentencing should be more. Changing this can affect peoples decisions to get behind the wheel impaired. This could make a difference.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Elaine Legg on February 3, 2026 09:52
I feel that it is very important to have stiffer penalties for DUI causing death. Why are we being so lenient on someone who disregarded the law and chose to be careless with their own life as well as anyone they encounter? Make them pay for taking a life! We need to pass Baylea's Law! I think anyone supplying the alcohol and/or drugs should be charged as well.
HB4712 Increasing the criminal penalties for DUI causing death and DUI offenses for minors, to be known as “Baylea’s Law.” PEND COMM 01-21-2026
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Cinderella Lester on February 3, 2026 09:51
This bill should have already been in effect.   I lost a son to a drunk driver he got 3 years home confinement, and ask for a reduction at 18 months.   My son who is laying in a grave don’t get a reduction, I will never see his perfect face again.   The laws are not strict enough on drunk drivers!   The boy who killed my son was a repeat offender.  Baylea’s Law would help put these offenders behind bars longer and give the surviving families some peace of mind knowing that they are not still on the roads.   I 100% agree with this law and will support it anyway that I can!