Skip to content Skip to main navigation Skip to footer

Public Comments

2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Madalyn Brown on February 3, 2026 13:43
I am doing so to get the bill passed.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Kim on February 3, 2026 13:41
This is something that should have already been in place to try and prevent things like this family has had to go through. A family should not have to beg for justice like Baylea's has had too.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Heather Halstead on February 3, 2026 13:41
Justice for Baylea
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Skylar Rocchi on February 3, 2026 13:40
I believe this law would be very helpful in bettering WV. This would make those are think of driving under the influence reconsider!
2026 Regular Session HB4691 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Dennine LaRue on February 3, 2026 13:39
I oppose removing the ability of people to vote. This bill disenfranchises college students, caregivers, those who are too ill to come in person, and those who work out of state. Please vote “No”.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Wanda Dotson on February 3, 2026 13:39
We definitely need stricter laws for those caught getting behind the wheel and driving while under the influence. These people need to be held accountable and the laws need to be enforced. Our Loved ones matter. Baylea was taken from us way to soon. We don't need others taken away as well. Please pass this bill.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Inocencio Hernandez Soto on February 3, 2026 13:35
I would like to extend my condolences to the family who is pursuing this change in the WV law. It’s unfortunate for any family to have to go through such a tragic incident. I hope the House will consider passing this bill.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Haylee George on February 3, 2026 13:31
Absolutely breaks my heart and I absolutely, whole heartedly pray this law is passed.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Stephanie Massey on February 3, 2026 13:29
This should be a law because it’s taking someone’s life who was innocent
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Amanda Caruthers on February 3, 2026 13:26
the law should hold more of a sentence so hopeful it will stop this sienceless at!
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Adam Foster on February 3, 2026 13:26
Baylea was a a family friend with her whole life ahead of her! She was a light to our community and had many plans and very ambitious! She was kind, smart, beautiful, and a down to earth amazing person! She didn’t deserve to have her life cut short by an immature bitch that decided to get behind the wheel and drive impaired! The girl that ended Baylea’s life deserves to locked away and think about what she’s done!
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Shelby Downs on February 3, 2026 13:21
I believe this should have been passed a long time ago. My uncle was killed by a drunk driver.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Erica Dennis on February 3, 2026 13:19
Too many deaths are being caused by Drunk Drivers. I strongly believe a sentencing of 3 years for a DUI seems like a slap on the hand. It needs to be taken more serious, and the drunk drivers need to be facing more serious consequences and charges.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Mary osborne on February 3, 2026 13:17
Im for this bill
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Lisa on February 3, 2026 13:17
Thanks for getting justice
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Kelley Massey on February 3, 2026 13:15
Stiffer penalties are needed
2026 Regular Session HB5119 (Health and Human Resources)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on February 3, 2026 13:13
I support House Bill 5119 because it establishes a clear statutory right to access contraception and prevents government interference with lawful contraceptive care. This is a necessary public-health protection, particularly in a state with high rates of poverty, rural isolation, maternal mortality risk, and limited healthcare access. However, while I support the bill’s intent, I am concerned that several under-evaluated and vulnerable sub-groups are not explicitly addressed or protected in implementation, which could limit the bill’s real-world effectiveness. First, minors, foster youth, unhoused youth, and young adults transitioning out of state systems are often excluded in practice from healthcare access even when rights exist on paper. Without clear guidance on confidentiality, transportation barriers, consent standards, and provider availability, these groups may continue to face de facto denial of access. Second, rural residents and medically underserved communities face structural barriers that legal rights alone do not resolve. Many counties lack pharmacies, clinics, or providers who offer the full range of contraceptive options. A statutory right is meaningful only if access is geographically and economically realistic. Third, survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and reproductive coercion require discreet, safe access to contraception. Without safeguards against partner interference, parental retaliation, or institutional reporting pressures, these individuals remain at risk even when contraception is legally permitted. Fourth, LGBTQ+ individuals and others impacted by curriculum-restriction or “no-promotion” policies may experience provider hesitation, stigma, or denial of information. While HB 5119 is not a curriculum bill, access rights must be protected regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity, or perceived morality. Finally, individuals with disabilities, language barriers, or limited health literacy are frequently excluded from policy evaluations. Accessibility, informed consent, and culturally competent care must be considered to ensure equal protection under this law. For these reasons, I support HB 5119 as an essential baseline protection, while urging lawmakers to acknowledge and address these implementation gaps. A right that cannot be exercised equitably is not fully realized. Explicit attention to under-evaluated sub-groups strengthens this bill and aligns it with public-health best practices, constitutional principles, and basic fairness.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Charles Fromal on February 3, 2026 13:11
FOR BAYLEA
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Rileigh Mullins on February 3, 2026 13:10
A DUI is a completely avoidable crime. The choice to drink and drive should not be a slap on the wrist with or without injury/death.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Stephanie stover on February 3, 2026 13:10
I think people needs to be punished for taking lives of people they shouldn’t get a slap on the wrist just for them to do it over and over again
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Yvonne Brooks on February 3, 2026 13:10
This needs to be a law.  Heck I feel it needs to be even stricter than 6yrs min and 30yrs max.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Lacey Menello on February 3, 2026 13:09
People that I know and love have been affected by impaired drivers. Some of those drivers get a slap on the wrist even if a sweet life was taken. DUI needs to have a more significant punishment to encourage drivers to make better choices.
2026 Regular Session HB4069 (Finance)
Comment by: Dreydon on February 3, 2026 13:08
I disagree with this bill for many reasons. One of which is that helmets protect you, while it may be true that they most likely won't help in big crashes they can protect on a day to day. There are times where you may turn to sharp and hit you head. This is not a big, crazy crash but without a helmet can cause brain damage or other head injuries. While with a helmet you will be fine; many other facts lead me to believe this, but that one is all I needed to disagree with this bill.
2026 Regular Session HB4048 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Jordyn Williams on February 3, 2026 13:07
I agree with this bill because children should not be auctioned off as if they're a piece of"junk" to get rid of. They're humans, under-developed ones compared to adults at that; meaning that they don't even know what's going on. Also, I agree where this bill states that an unlicensed person shall not adopt a child. This helps prevent "creeps" and unworthy people from taking home a child that they do not need to have.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Andrea Hall on February 3, 2026 13:07
This law may change lives. Baylea was taken way too soon. She didn’t deserve any of what had happened. This family deserves peace.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Tammy Long on February 3, 2026 13:05
One of my best friends was killed by an impaired.  Received very little time incarcerated.   Please pass this lawE
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Ashlynn Hatfield on February 3, 2026 13:04
I fell there should be stricter laws regarding DUI charges. Far too many people for far too long have been given slaps on the wrist for driving under the influence. We need harsher laws in place for people driving under the influence.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Virginia Dillon on February 3, 2026 13:03
I SUPPORT Baylee’s law. Baylea Bower was killed by a drunk/high on drugs person.
2026 Regular Session HB4080 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Olga Gioulis on February 3, 2026 12:59
I object to changing community/civic/local elections to make them partisan. They must remain NONpartisan Thank you Olga Gioulis Sutton WV
2026 Regular Session HB4372 (Education)
Comment by: Jordyn Williams on February 3, 2026 12:59
I disagree with this bill because allowing teachers to carry firearms in schools, filled with children and other educators, could go wrong in many ways. What if a teacher that is eligible to carry a firearm in school has a bad “breakthrough” due to a situation outside of school and is now putting students and other educators in danger? What if a student somehow gains possession of the firearm? These are things that we need to think about before saying that it’s a good idea.
2026 Regular Session HB4392 (Health and Human Resources)
Comment by: Robby Blair on February 3, 2026 12:59

Dear West Virginia House of Delegates Health Committee,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Warm regards, Robby Blair

Martinsburg, WV

2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Krista Gilkerson on February 3, 2026 12:57

Driving under the influence that results in the loss of life is not an accident, it is a preventable choice with irreversible consequences. Increasing both the sentencing range and fines for DUI causing death reflects the seriousness of these crimes and honors the lives lost due to impaired driving.

Baylea’s Law sends a clear message: our state prioritizes accountability, public safety, and justice for victims and their families. Stronger consequences can serve as a meaningful deterrent and help prevent future tragedies. I respectfully urge you to support and vote in favor of this bill. Thank you for your time, service, and consideration of this important legislation.
2026 Regular Session HB4034 (Education)
Comment by: Jordyn Williams on February 3, 2026 12:56
As a Christian, I disagree with this bill because forcing people to see the Ten Commandments every day at school is only going to push them farther away from God, not pulling them closer. Also, students practice all different types of religions, so forcing them to see the Ten Commandments everyday will more than likely make them feel less than.
2026 Regular Session HB5117 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on February 3, 2026 12:56
I oppose HB 5117 — not because restoring voting rights is inherently wrong, but because the implementation language, timing, and lack of safeguards create real harms for affected people and the election system. 1.  Notification obligations alone are insufficient While the bill requires notification of restored eligibility, there is no enforcement mechanism to ensure:
  • notifications are actually delivered,
  • contact information is kept up to date,
  • individuals understand how to re-register.
Affected individuals — especially people recently released — often lack stable housing, reliable mail service, or digital access, meaning notification alone does not ensure meaningful access to the ballot. 2.  The bill’s interaction with registration deadlines is problematic The bill specifically states that even after eligibility is restored, a person cannot register after the registration deadline for an upcoming election.  In practice, this means someone released or notified after the registration deadline may wait months for the next election — creating an arbitrary gap in political voice that disproportionately affects:
  • people with longer sentences,
  • people with late parole/probation release dates,
  • and people whose notifications are delayed.
3.  The bill lacks civil rights protections and clarity The bill makes no provisions for:
  • translation or accessible notification formats for non-English speakers or people with disabilities,
  • tracking or reporting back to the Legislature on compliance rates,
  • accountability if the Division of Corrections or Probation fails to notify eligible individuals.
A rights restoration policy without accountability, transparency, or support systems is hollow without mechanisms to ensure real, equitable access. 4.  Because voter access is a structural equity issue People disenfranchised by convictions are often already marginalized by poverty, housing instability, trauma, and barriers to employment or services. Providing mere eligibility without practical support or clear pathways to register does not address these structural barriers — which keeps communities without a voice in electing sheriffs, prosecutors, judges, or policymakers who make decisions that deeply affect them.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Jeri L Bunting on February 3, 2026 12:56
#justiceforbaylea  #bayleaslaw Baylea's Law...Given the fact that nothing could ever bring the victims back, victims and their families deserve harsher, stricter laws/ penalties (3-15 yrs...come on). Higher fines, stricter sanctions and LONGER prison sentences is the answer. Hoping this will pass and help everyone to make better decisions. TYSM!  
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Linda Dalton on February 3, 2026 12:55
No one who takes another person’s life because they were under the influence of drugs or alcohol should only get 3 to 15 years … They family has lost a child and a son in law and possibly a future grand child or 2 … The law needs to change for under the influence whether it be drugs or alcohol to 20 years to maximum sentence of 40 years.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Chloe Prichard on February 3, 2026 12:55
This law needs to be passed, too many people get off with too low of a punishment, and never learn there lesson. I stand with Baylea’s family and all other families that have been impacted by something so avoidable.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Casey Dotson on February 3, 2026 12:55
please pass this law for Baylea she was such a sweet soul, and didn’t deserve this. Her family is aching. Her friends are sad and devastated past this bill so people might think twice about driving impaired hopefully they do at least
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Carolyn Clark on February 3, 2026 12:51
This bill needs to pass, way to many are being killed or injured.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: jaeda on February 3, 2026 12:45
please pass!
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Teresa King on February 3, 2026 12:45
Please consider Baylea's Law.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Kari wagoner on February 3, 2026 12:45
I support Baylea’s law!!! There should be much harsher penalties for killing someone while under the influence..
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Karla A Pelcastre Vargas on February 3, 2026 12:44
Hello, I hope this comment reaches the house’s floor. I’m not sure if these get read aloud or not, but I would like to comment on this bill. Anyone who dies from such a tragic and sudden incident deserves reparations and change especially in a country that believes we all must answer for the crimes we commit. I can’t say if this will give closure to the family who is pursuing this law to be changed due to the unfortunate death of their daughter, but if the house could take my comment, hopefully the other folks who plan to submit a comment as well to heart and remember a life was lost too soon due to the poorest decision one can make- driving under the influence. Drinking and driving should never be considered an accidental mistake, we need to cement that and also cement that to the future generations who will also begin to drive with your own family members, my family members, and ourselves who may travel within any roadway in WV.  
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Mia Robinson on February 3, 2026 12:43
This bill should have been made so long ago, the minimum of taking a life away was only 3 years while the family feels it forever. I hope the new 6-30 year law gets passed so that it will make people think twice about getting behind the wheel.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Christina Stclair on February 3, 2026 12:42
I am in full support of this bill.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Alicia Johnson on February 3, 2026 12:40
Human lives are precious and priceless!!  There SHOULD be strict and harsh penalties for the ones who are selfish enough to operate a vehicle while intoxicated in ANY form!!! ESPECIALLY when they take the lives of the innocent !
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Tina Richard on February 3, 2026 12:38
This bill needs to pass so we can have stricter laws for impaired and drunk drivers causing death. This bill may save another life!
2026 Regular Session HB5115 (Education)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on February 3, 2026 12:36
I oppose HB 5115 because it mandates statewide “trauma-informed practices” in K-12 schools while leaving key terms and enforcement to later rulemaking, and because it is being advanced in a West Virginia policy environment that has formally moved to eliminate DEI programs and related trainings in state government and education. 1) HB 5115 requires concepts that overlap with DEI frameworks, but WV has moved to eliminate DEI initiatives HB 5115’s definition of “trauma-informed practices” explicitly includes staff activities that “recognize and prevent adult implicit bias.”  Separately, Senate Bill 474 states its purpose is to eliminate “divisions, officers, programs, trainings, and policies related to diversity, equity, and inclusion” across state entities including public schools and higher education.  West Virginia’s executive branch also publicly announced the signing of SB 474 as ending DEI programs in the state.  Result: HB 5115 creates a real risk of conflicting directives—schools may be expected to address “implicit bias” under HB 5115 while simultaneously facing institutional pressure to avoid anything characterized as DEI under SB 474. 2) HB 5115 relies on broad discretion and later rulemaking instead of enforceable safeguards HB 5115 requires the State Board to implement trauma-informed practices beginning July 1, 2026, provide training, and authorizes legislative and emergency rulemaking to implement the section.  But the bill does not build in concrete, enforceable protections such as:
  • required language-access procedures for families (translation/interpreting standards),
  • disability-specific behavioral safeguards (e.g., specific processes before exclusionary discipline for students with disabilities),
  • clear due-process requirements tied to the new “trauma-informed” discipline approach.
Instead, it largely uses general policy statements (e.g., avoid exclusionary discipline; use restorative practices; do not discriminate) and points to federal civil-rights statutes.  3) The bill’s “non-discrimination” language is not the same as practical protection—especially for students most likely to be mischaracterized as “disruptive” HB 5115 says disciplinary procedures should not discriminate based on protected categories including disability and English proficiency status and cites federal civil-rights laws.  However, without specific implementation requirements, schools can still functionally exclude or punish students by labeling protected-status related needs as “disruption” (for example, disability-related communication behaviors or language-access gaps), because the bill does not specify the procedural steps schools must take before discipline. Conclusion HB 5115 may be presented as supportive, but as drafted it is vulnerable to inconsistent and biased enforcement because it:
  • embeds “implicit bias” work inside a state policy landscape moving to eliminate DEI programs and trainings (SB 474),  
  • delegates too much to later rulemaking,  
  • lacks concrete, enforceable safeguards for disability-related behavior supports and language access.  
For these reasons, HB 5115 should be rejected unless amended to add clear procedural protections and to resolve conflicts created by the state’s anti-DEI policy direction.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Jennifer Smith on February 3, 2026 12:31
A parent should never have to bury a child! Especially due to someone fatal mistake of driving under the influence. Everyone has a family member they love and cherish now imagine their life was stolen from them due to that fatal mistake! You would want justice and 3-15yrs is nothing when u have stolen 70yrs from someone u dearly love! Please pass this bill
2026 Regular Session HB5112 (Health and Human Resources)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on February 3, 2026 12:30
I oppose House Bill 5112 because, when read alongside other legislation currently advancing that expands or tightens involuntary mental-health holds, it creates a legally inconsistent and constitutionally risky framework that undermines both patient rights and public safety. HB 5112 broadly prohibits any law from requiring an individual to receive or use a medical product, from penalizing refusal of a medical product, or from requiring disclosure of whether a medical product has been used. The bill contains no exception for involuntary psychiatric holds, court-ordered treatment, emergency mental-health stabilization, or long-standing parens patriae and police-power authorities that underlie involuntary commitment law. At the same time, the Legislature is considering multiple bills that expand involuntary hold authority, lengthen confinement, or lower thresholds for detention based on mental-health determinations. Involuntary hold statutes are legally justified on the premise that confinement is therapeutic and temporary, not punitive, and that the state may provide necessary medical treatment when an individual lacks capacity or presents an imminent risk. HB 5112 directly conflicts with that framework. If the state is prohibited from requiring psychiatric medications or other medical treatments during an involuntary hold, and is prohibited from conditioning release on treatment compliance, then continued confinement becomes detention without lawful treatment authority. Conditioning release on stabilization while banning the tools required for stabilization effectively penalizes refusal of medical products through prolonged loss of liberty. This contradiction exposes the state to significant due-process concerns. Courts have historically upheld involuntary confinement only when paired with lawful treatment authority and procedural safeguards. Detention without the ability to provide or require treatment risks transforming civil commitment into punitive confinement, which is constitutionally impermissible under the Fourteenth Amendment. The bill’s sweeping language also creates operational uncertainty for hospitals, behavioral-health facilities, courts, and DHHR. Providers would be placed in an impossible position: required to manage safety risks during involuntary holds while being statutorily barred from administering or requiring standard medical treatments used to address those risks. This increases litigation exposure, delays care, and may result in longer confinement rather than fewer restrictions. Additionally, HB 5112 does not distinguish between ordinary public-health measures and mental-health crisis care, nor does it include narrowly tailored exceptions for emergency medication, court-ordered treatment, or competency restoration. The absence of such distinctions suggests the bill is overbroad and incompatible with existing mental-health law. For these reasons, HB 5112 should not advance in its current form. If the Legislature intends to expand involuntary hold authority, it must also ensure clear, constitutional treatment standards and safeguards. Advancing both policies simultaneously—expanded detention authority alongside categorical prohibitions on medical treatment requirements—creates legal instability, increases the risk of unconstitutional confinement, and ultimately harms patients, providers, and the state.
2026 Regular Session HB4712 (Judiciary)
Comment by: Lacey Fraley on February 3, 2026 12:28
A life lost is not an accident. It is the result of a decision. By signing this bill, we are making sure that those choices carry real consequences. This law is about justice for victims, support for families, and protecting our communities. This legislation is about justice for victims and their families. It is about public safety. And it is about sending a clear message to everyone on our roads: reckless behavior behind the wheel will not be tolerated. We also recognize that prevention matters. Stronger sentencing is only one part of the solution. We must continue to promote responsible choices, encourage safe transportation options, and educate our communities — especially young people — about the real, lasting consequences of impaired driving. Today’s action is taken in memory of those we have lost and in commitment to those we aim to protect. Let this law serve as both accountability and warning. Our goal is simple: safer roads, stronger communities, and fewer families forced to grieve. By signing this bill, we reaffirm a basic truth: every life matters, and we will do everything in our power to keep our communities safe.
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.