Public Comments

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.

• 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

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

• 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 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.

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.

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.

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

SUPPORT Response to HB 4393

Requiring the development and implementation of statewide prevention plan.

January 17, 2026