WOOHOO SB 739 has passed the house- it is on its way to the Governor-

[Anonymous]

no more masking our students- and no more fake concern on the part of the school board that somehow the VA legislature is requiring mask wearing.
https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?ses=221&typ=bil&val=sb739&submit=GO

[Anonymous]

Is it really effective Jul 1 or can the Governor implement it now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is it really effective Jul 1 or can the Governor implement it now?

The Governor will sign tomorrow and kick it back to the legislature with an emergency clause effective either immediately or a date very soon (Senator Petersen said he expected it to be March 1 on Saturday, not sure if that would be the date in the law or the date everything finalizes).

Per the Virginia Mercury and maybe a few other sources, the parlimentariants of both the VA House and VA Sentate agree that the rules on a governor's emergency clause are that it can be passed with a simple majority. So basically it goes through the work of being read however many times it has to be read in each chamber and passed around. Graham Moomaw who has been reporting on this the whole time said maybe that could complete by the end of the week, which sounds optimistic, but maybe they have to read it fewer times for the emergency clause from the governor to be added?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is it really effective Jul 1 or can the Governor implement it now?

All indications are it’s going to go into effect with an emergency clause. I’ve heard 3/1 as an effective date to give the districts some time to adjust.

[Anonymous]

WooHoo is right!!!

[Anonymous]

Looking for some clear analysis and facts here, not rhetoric one way or the other....

Does this bill ban local districts from having mask mandate policies?

Will there be a lawsuit and if so, will there be a stay on the law taking effect while the suit makes its way through court? (My understanding is that the current lawsuits all hinge on the fact that YOungkin tried to do this by executive order, so once a law is passed those lawsuits will be moot).

Can districts have a masking policy but allow students to opt-out of it proactively (the way Falls Church City schools have tried to thread the needle?)

Thanks for any insight!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Looking for some clear analysis and facts here, not rhetoric one way or the other....

Does this bill ban local districts from having mask mandate policies?

Will there be a lawsuit and if so, will there be a stay on the law taking effect while the suit makes its way through court? (My understanding is that the current lawsuits all hinge on the fact that YOungkin tried to do this by executive order, so once a law is passed those lawsuits will be moot).

Can districts have a masking policy but allow students to opt-out of it proactively (the way Falls Church City schools have tried to thread the needle?)

Thanks for any insight!

If Fairfax chooses to yet again waste tens of thousands of $$$ on another lawsuit against the state, Governor Youngkin has already issued a statement that students should obey their principal’s order and wait until the legal challenges are concluded.

Youngkin is really moderate and fair here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Looking for some clear analysis and facts here, not rhetoric one way or the other....

Does this bill ban local districts from having mask mandate policies?

Will there be a lawsuit and if so, will there be a stay on the law taking effect while the suit makes its way through court? (My understanding is that the current lawsuits all hinge on the fact that YOungkin tried to do this by executive order, so once a law is passed those lawsuits will be moot).

Can districts have a masking policy but allow students to opt-out of it proactively (the way Falls Church City schools have tried to thread the needle?)

Thanks for any insight!

1) the districts can have mask mandates, but parents must legally be able to opt kids out (rendering the mandates moot).

2) There will be a lawsuit. The ACLU has already indicated their lawsuit will extend to the law. Legal orders worded like SB 739 have been challenged in many states (TN, TX, FL, SC, and others) and have lost in some and won in others. Possible it will take the Supreme Court to settle it.

[Anonymous]

The ACLU lawsuit is ridiculous. The ADA entitles a qualified individual with a disability to an effective accommodation- not the accommodation of their choice. Prior to filing suit, an individual with a disability has to go through an interactive process to get such an accommodation. In this lawsuit, the plaintiffs attempt to argue that somehow other students not wearing a cloth mask (which is not a proven effective 'accommodation' in any event) means they are not being accommodated? It should get tossed out of court immediately. Now- if the law said no student was allowed to wear a mask, preventing immuno compromised students from wearing a n95 mask themselves, that might get somewhere.

[Anonymous]

Doesn't the emergency in effect sooner need like 2/3 of legislature and not just half to pass? So that is less likely that it will be before the written July 1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looking for some clear analysis and facts here, not rhetoric one way or the other....

Does this bill ban local districts from having mask mandate policies?

Will there be a lawsuit and if so, will there be a stay on the law taking effect while the suit makes its way through court? (My understanding is that the current lawsuits all hinge on the fact that YOungkin tried to do this by executive order, so once a law is passed those lawsuits will be moot).

Can districts have a masking policy but allow students to opt-out of it proactively (the way Falls Church City schools have tried to thread the needle?)

Thanks for any insight!

If Fairfax chooses to yet again waste tens of thousands of $$$ on another lawsuit against the state, Governor Youngkin has already issued a statement that students should obey their principal’s order and wait until the legal challenges are concluded.

Youngkin is really moderate and fair here.

LOL. You are loving the Kool-Aid.

[Anonymous]

Sad he'd put children at risk this way, all to boost his base.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sad he'd put children at risk this way, all to boost his base.

Children in the buildings in the first place are at risk. Might as well remove the masks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sad he'd put children at risk this way, all to boost his base.

Children in the buildings in the first place are at risk. Might as well remove the masks.

And remove the seatbelts too from the risky cars. These arguments are weak. Masks protect. We're still at levels higher than last winter. There's no rush for this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sad he'd put children at risk this way, all to boost his base.

Children in the buildings in the first place are at risk. Might as well remove the masks.

And remove the seatbelts too from the risky cars. These arguments are weak. Masks protect. We're still at levels higher than last winter. There's no rush for this.

Seatbelts are mandated by the NTSB after numerous studies. Masks are not.