Public Comments

• 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

While I acknowledge the tragedy of any loss of life, I believe this resolution sets a dangerous precedent by honoring an individual who promoted deeply divisive and harmful ideologies. Charlie Kirk, through his organization Turning Point USA and his public platforms, consistently espoused views that many Americans, including myself, find abhorrent. These include promoting racism, homophobia, transphobia, Islamophobia, sexism, and Christian Nationalism to name a few. 

The tragic circumstances of Kirk's death should not overshadow the harmful legacy of his work. While we can condemn violence in all forms, we must also be critical of the ideologies that promote division and discrimination in our society. We should be honoring those who bring Americans together, not those who have sowed division and hatred.

To not allow mail-in ballots is voter suppression. There are many reasons one might not make it to the polls, and they have a right for their voice to be heard.

• Ethics complaints are not dismissed based on the complainant’s district,
• Civil-rights concerns receive full review regardless of geographic boundaries, and
• Citizens are not silenced or excluded from oversight processes due to where they live.

• Packing or cracking of minority and dissenting voters
• Maps that preserve political power while appearing statistically compliant
• Disproportionate harm to communities with limited political or financial means

• Bills mandating or privileging Christian religious texts in public schools
• Bills requiring Christian religious displays in classrooms
• Official recognition and observance proposals centered on Christian doctrine

• It conditions compensation on surplus revenue while many state workers continue to struggle with rising housing, food, healthcare, and utility costs.
• It excludes non-state workers — including taxpayers funding state operations — from relief during the same surplus conditions.
• It provides no mechanism to ensure the bonus addresses workforce retention, wage compression, or cost-of-living disparities.

• ~30,090 West Virginians if using 1.7%, or
• ~319 West Virginians if using 0.018%.  

• endocrine care (hormone management for congenital conditions),
• appropriate screening (e.g., anatomy-based cancer screening),
• specialist referrals and coding.

• U.S. Constitution — 14th Amendment (Due Process & Equal Protection): when a law burdens a class of people (including those with congenital sex traits) and interferes with personal medical decision-making, it triggers major equal protection and liberty concerns.
• West Virginia Constitution — Article III (Due Process / inherent rights): West Virginia’s Bill of Rights includes protections for liberty and due process that courts treat as containing equal-protection principles.  

1. Replace the full exemption with a refundable, income-tested child/family credit that applies regardless of marital status (with a clear phaseout by income).
2. If the Legislature wants to help larger households, base it on number of dependents + income/poverty level, not on whether the taxpayer files as “married.”
3. Require a public fiscal note showing who benefits by income bracket and county, and what services may be reduced to offset lost revenue.

• 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.

As a Christian, I believe deeply in the dignity of every person and the importance of truth, humility, and good stewardship in public life. I also believe that government must be careful not to confuse its role with that of the Church, nor elevate any one individual or ideology in a way that compromises its responsibility to serve all people.

While I affirm the importance of the First Amendment and the value of free speech, I am concerned that HB 4797 ties a core constitutional principle to a single contemporary political activist. Doing so risks turning what should be a shared civic value into a partisan symbol. Scripture repeatedly warns against elevating individuals, aligning faith too closely with political power, or using authority to advance one faction over others.

Christian faith calls us to humility, peacemaking, and love of neighbor — including those with whom we disagree. A state holiday named for a modern political figure associated with division does not reflect those values, nor does it foster unity among the diverse people of West Virginia.

I am also concerned about the bill’s implications for public education. Our schools should teach civic principles in a way that is fair, balanced, and inclusive, not tied to the legacy of any one political movement or personality.

If the Legislature wishes to honor the First Amendment, it should do so in a way that reflects shared values, historical depth, and respect for all citizens — not by elevating one individual or ideology through state power. For these reasons, I respectfully oppose HB 4797 and urge lawmakers to reconsider.

I disagree with this bill because allowing teachers to carry firearms in schools, filled with children and other educators, could go wrong in many different ways. What if a teacher that is eligible to carry a firearm in school has a bad “break through” 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.

What for? Most of you in Charleston don’t know about it….or just choose not to follow it.

(3) A verified certificate of mental health examination by a licensed psychologist or psychiatrist physician, psychologist, licensed professional counselor practicing in compliance with §30-31-1 et seq. of this code, licensed independent clinical social worker practicing in compliance with the provisions of §30-30-1 et seq. of this code, an advanced nurse practitioner with psychiatric certification practicing in compliance with §30-7-1 et seq. of this code, or a physician assistant practicing in compliance with §30-3E-1 et seq. of this code

*foot doctor (typically)