In
light of the legislative threats to home schooling freedoms this year,
please consider attending the home school day at the Capitol on February
20th, 2014. It is time once again that legislators understand that our
freedoms are very precious to us and that we will not hesitate to defend
them.
Update on HB 4005
HB
4005, as reported previously has been placed in a subcommittee, the
members of the subcommittee have met and are continuing to meet to
attempt to amend this bill so that it can be brought before the full
House Judiciary Committee for consideration. It is not known when HB
4005 will be voted on in the subcommittee and passed on to the full
committee.
By attempting to make a crime of neglect which causes the risk of
bodily harm,bill sponsors have created a piece of legislation that is
overly broad and open to interpretation. Those on, the subcommittee have
been put in the position of trying to determine what practices in life,
which could create a risk of harm, should be protected from
prosecution. Some exemptions being considered to protect people from
prosecution are:
- An exemption for failure to immunize.
- An exemption for making reasonable medical decisions
- An exemption for reasonable disciplinary action
- An exemption from getting hurt playing sports
- An exemption from being charged for being involved in a lawful activity.
It is also becoming
apparent that HB 4005 not only effects parents but anyone who works with
children such as teachers or day care workers.
Background
Prior to the
introduction of HB 4005 in the House Judiciary committee last week. Much
time and energy was put into trying to change the language of the bill
so that it would not pose a risk to parents. It appeared that a
compromise had been struck, yet when HB 4005 was presented in committee
none of the compromises suggested by HSLDA and others were included in
the language of the bill. While efforts to strike a compromise are
continuing , it seems apparent that there is a determined contingent on
the committee that still wants to create legislation that simply gives
to much power to the government. This would be a good time to take a
closer look at the kind of legislation individual members of the
committee typically introduce. Does it take away freedoms or defend
freedoms? This situation highlights the need to support good candidates
for office and work to remove those who do not have your same values.
I would like to repeat what I said last week.
This kind of bill is
advanced by those who believe that government and its agencies are
innately good, and, as such, should gain power over the people
unhindered. It takes President John Adams's axiom, "A Nation of Laws and
Not of Men," and stands it on its head. Instead, we become "A Nation of
Men and Not of Laws."
This bill is not needed because children are already protected under the civil code. Based on an analysis by HSLDA
1.
Simple risk of simple neglect shouldn't be criminalized if the feared
harm is “only” substantial physical pain, illness or impairment of
physical condition”
2. The State already has Chapter 49-1-3 the abuse and neglect code to go after neglectful parents
a. 49-1-3(7)(H) defines imminent danger to physical well-being of a
child if parents use of drugs/alcohol or controlled substance has
impaired parenting skills to pose an imminent risk to child’s health or
safety.
b. It appears the only circumstances in which law enforcement can take a
child is if they are abandoned or emergency medical help is needed.
Courts are authorized to order the department to take children if
imminent danger presents. This suggests that law enforcement might need
to work more closely with social services, if there are such situations
that they might envision needing their help. Sounds like they
want the authority to intimidate people with criminal prosecution
rather than refer the matter to the department. By adding this new section people are put at risk of criminal and civil prosecution for the same activity..
3 .Police and law enforcement are mandatory reporters under 49-6A-2.
4. The definitions of bodily injury are being taken from the sexual offenses section of the code.
Our Message
Please let your Delegate know that you oppose HB 4005. Particularly the members of the Subcommittee - Delegate Ellem Delegate Shott Delegate Marcum Delegate Sponaugle Delegate Fleischauer. Their contact information can be found below.
Please
contact your Delegate on the House Judiciary Committee and tell them you
oppose HB 4005. Let them know you do not think laws should be made
which are based on the risk of bodily injury. “I am calling to oppose HB
4005 which creates new and unnecessary misdemeanor criminal charges if a
parent or guardian creates a ‘risk’ of bodily injury. Bodily injury
means the potential for "pain, illness or impairment of physical
condition." Here is an excerpt from HB 4005: (d) If a parent, guardian
or custodian neglects a child and by that neglect creates a substantial
risk of bodily injury, as defined in section one, article eight-b of
this chapter, to the child, then that parent, guardian or custodian, is
guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, for a first
offense, shall be fined not less than $100 nor more than $1,000 or
confined in jail not less than thirty days nor more than six months, or
both fined and confined.
So what about the HB 4134 the West Virginia Religious Freedom Restoration Act or RFRA?
As reported earlier, it was converted to the West Virginia Religious Freedom and Liberty
Restoration Act. A provision was inserted by a member or members of the
Judiciary Committee which mandated that anytime someone felt that they
did not agree with a government regulation, for example putting the
trash out on the curb on Thursdays as one of our delegates pointed out,
that that person could file a suit in court and demand that their
liberty not be infringed upon. Not only would this create chaos because
no government regulation could be enforced; but it would, I am being
told, create the foundation for special rights for homosexuals. What
this provision has done is hijack a perfectly good bill whose only
purpose was to protect the God-given right to religious liberty.
Some have been working to get the provision removed and have
been met with counter proposals that are unacceptable. It would appear
likely that the same members of the committee who are supporting HB 4005
are also working to either kill the RFRA or convert it into a bill
which departs from its original purpose.
Background on the RFRA
HB 4134 - The West Virginia Religious Liberty Restoration Act (RFRA)
The RFRA is a bill concerned with ensuring that individuals who believe
that a governmental regulation is unfairly burdening their practice of
religion can be assured that they will have the right to have their
claim heard in a court of law. The RFRA then requires the courts to use
the “compelling interest test” to determine if the governmental
regulation is valid. If the government regulation is allowed to stand
then the government must apply the “least restrict means” when it apply
the regulation to a person of faith.
HB 2452 – Requiring parents to allow their children to spend time with their extended family.
It is likely that HB 2452 will be taken up by the House Judiciary Committee.
House Bill (“HB”) 2452 establishes procedures for extended family to be
granted visitation rights. The bill requires courts to grant visitation
rights upon finding that “visitation would be in the best interest of
the child and would not substantially interfere with the parent-child
relationship.” This bill would allow courts to override legitimate
parental decisions without any determination of parental fitness.
But the United States Supreme Court has said that fit parents are deemed to make decisions in their children’s best interests.
Please contact the
House Judiciary Committee and ask them to uphold this important
principle that parents know what is best for their children – including
issues like family visitation.
Action Requested
Please contact the House Judiciary Committee and give them the following messages in your own words:
“I am calling to oppose HB 2452 which threatens a parent’s right to
decide who can spend time with their children. HB 2452 would authorize
courts to override the legitimate decisions of fit parents to determine
whether visits from extended family are appropriate. If a parent is not
abusing or neglecting their children, courts should not substitute their
judgment of what is “best” for children over the parent’s decision.
Please oppose HB 2452 and others like it, including HB 2110.”
A report on efforts by legislators to confront the Common Core will be in the next Capitol Report!
House Judiciary Committee
Tim Manchin
tmanchin@manchininjurylaw.com
(304) 340-3252
Mark Hunt
mhunt@markahunt.com
(304) 340-3392
John Ellem
john.ellem@wvhouse.gov
(304) 340-3394
Patrick Lane
patrick.lane@wvhouse.gov
(304) 340-3275
Michael Ferro
mike.ferro@wvhouse.gov
(304) 340-3111
Barbara Fleischauer
barbaraf@wvhouse.gov
(304) 340-3169
Dana Lynch
dana.lynch@wvhouse.gov
(304) 340-3916
Linda Longstreth
linda.longstreth@wvhouse.gov
(304) 340-3124
Mike Manypenny
mike.manypenny@wvhouse.gov
(304) 340-3139
Justin Marcum
justin.marcum@wvhouse.gov
(304) 340-3126
Clif Moore
clif.moore@wvhouse.gov
(304) 340-3189
John Pino
john.pino@wvhouse.gov
(304) 340-3170
Meshea Poore
meshea.poore@wvhouse.gov
(304) 340-3106
Stephen Skinner
stephen.skinner@wvhouse.gov
(304) 340-3248
Isaac Sponaugle
isaac.sponaugle@wvhouse.gov
(304) 340-3154
Danny Wells
danny.wells@wvhouse.gov
(304) 340-3287
Cindy Frich
cindy.frich@wvhouse.gov
(304) 340-3125
Bill Hamilton
bill.hamilton@wvhouse.gov
(304) 340-3167
Eric Householder
eric.householder@wvhouse.gov
(304) 340-3274
Lynwood Ireland
woody.ireland@wvhouse.gov
(304) 340-3195
John McCuskey
john.mccuskey@wvhouse.gov
(304) 340-3183
John O'Neal
john.oneal@wvhouse.gov
(304) 340-3164
John Overington
john@overington.com
(304) 340-3148
John Shott
john.shott@wvhouse.gov
(304) 340-3187
Kelli Sobonya
kelli.sobonya@wvhouse.gov
(304) 340-3175
