Public Comments

1. West Virginia already operates below national protective standards. West Virginia has historically adopted less stringent enforcement and higher allowable parts-per-million (ppm) thresholds for certain pollutants compared to national benchmarks and peer states. This regulatory weakening has not reduced harm; instead, it has coincided with higher rates of respiratory illness, cardiovascular disease, and pollution-linked health conditions relative to national averages.
2. Higher allowable ppm correlates with higher incidence rates. Public health and environmental data consistently show that increasing allowable pollutant concentrations does not eliminate harm — it increases exposure. Even small increases in ambient pollutant levels (including PM2.5, ozone precursors, and co-pollutants associated with combustion) are associated with measurable increases in emergency room visits, hospitalizations, and chronic disease burden. West Virginia’s outcomes already reflect this trend.
3. Deregulation compounds existing weaknesses. HB 5039 proposes repealing West Virginia’s Air Pollution Control framework (WV Code §22-5-1 et seq.) without replacing it with enforceable monitoring, permitting, or compliance mechanisms. Removing state-level oversight further weakens an already diluted system, increasing the likelihood of delayed detection, underreporting, and cumulative exposure.
4. Federal standards still apply, but costs shift to the state. Even if state statutes are repealed or weakened, federal Clean Air Act requirements remain enforceable through the EPA. However, when states reduce their own enforcement capacity, compliance failures are more likely — resulting in higher remediation costs, federal intervention, legal exposure, and loss of state control, all of which increase costs borne by taxpayers rather than regulated entities.
5. Documented costs rise when oversight is reduced. When pollution controls are weakened, costs do not disappear — they reappear as Medicaid expenditures, infrastructure remediation, emergency response costs, insurance premium increases, and long-term public health liabilities. These costs are consistently higher than the cost of prevention and enforcement.

1. Federal supremacy already exists; this bill is unnecessary and confusing. The U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause already makes the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties the supreme law of the land, binding on state judges.  HB 5036 restates a principle in “findings” but then uses sweeping language that can mislead the public into thinking WV can screen out legal authorities it dislikes.
2. §51-1B-2 is dangerously broad and could conflict with federal law. The bill bans WV adjudicative bodies from giving effect to any “law, rule, code, legal system, or legal doctrine” not enacted by Congress/WV Legislature/WV common law.  That framing raises immediate conflict questions for federally binding authorities explicitly covered by the Supremacy Clause (including treaties).  Even if supporters claim good intent, the text is broad enough to provoke expensive constitutional litigation.
3. It risks weaponizing “parallel legal system” rhetoric against religious and cultural minorities. The bill’s “parallel or alternative judicial system” language is undefined and paired with a new private lawsuit right and fee-shifting.  That combination encourages ideologically motivated suits and can chill lawful religious/cultural dispute resolution—even though §51-1B-7 gestures at private practice protections.  
4. It threatens established arbitration law and will trigger preemption fights. HB 5036 makes arbitration/mediation/private adjudication unenforceable under broad conditions and adds a voluntariness rule.  But the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts state rules that single out or disfavor arbitration agreements.  Passing a bill that invites arbitration invalidation and fee-driven suits is a direct path to federal preemption litigation.
5. Family-law and “personal status” language is overreaching and destabilizing. §51-1B-6 bars recognition/enforcement of decisions affecting marriage, custody, support, inheritance, property rights, or personal status if based “in whole or in part” on a non-authorized system.  That “in whole or in part” standard is exceptionally broad and can create uncertainty for families, estates, and interstate/international matters—again inviting lawsuits and inconsistent outcomes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. No Individual Data Privacy Rights HB 5032 does not grant individuals rights to: Know what personal data is collected about them Delete personal data held by private entities Opt-out of sale or sharing of personal information • These are foundational privacy protections already implemented in other states.
2. No Limit on Data Collection or Use The bill focuses on transparency reporting by data centers but does not limit how companies or government agencies collect, share, or use personal information of West Virginia residents.
3. No Enforcement Mechanism for Individuals Without clear enforcement provisions (private right of action or state agency enforcement), individuals have no practical way to protect their own data or seek remedy for violations.
4. Narrow Scope on “Surveillance” Only The bill’s language centers on unconstitutional surveillance and federal misuse of data center infrastructure, but fails to address the everyday harms caused by data harvesting, commercialization, profiling, and opaque data practices by private companies.
5. Missed Opportunity for Comprehensive Privacy Framework Other states have adopted laws that give residents meaningful control over their personal information. West Virginia should not pass a placeholder statute that leaves residents with weaker protections than neighboring states.

• Demolition without realistic pathways for rehabilitation
• Liens placed on owners who lack resources
• Loss of generational or inherited property
• Effective dispossession without formal eminent domain proceedings

Let's make this happen

1. The guilty part has gotten away with this for far too long !

Please pass this bill, hopefully will make people not want to drink and drive.

Pass Bayla’s Law!

I highly disagree. 

Letting teachers carry guns in schools might seem like it will make students safer, but it’ll only do more harm than good. Teachers aren’t trained like security guards or policemen, so in a real emergency they’re more prone to making mistakes. Mistakes that can lead to someone being injured, or worse. For example, a teacher could end up shooting at another armed teacher during an emergency, thinking they posed a threat, or a student could steal a teacher’s gun and use it against them. Having guns in classrooms would make students and teachers feel more scared than safe. Furthermore, It would cost a lot of money for training and insurance, money that can be put into things like improving school lunch, equipment, or remodeling a certain area in the school. Instead of allowing unqualified teachers to carry a concealed weapon on school grounds, the board should work on things that can actually protect students, like better security, surveillance systems, or support for their mental health. 

Pass the bill