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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

No, Eileen Filler-Corn changed this in 2020.

Both the House and the Senate clerks, the General Assembly’s experts on legislative rules, confirmed to the Mercury that, under current practice, an emergency clause sent down by Youngkin could pass with simple majority votes.

That suggests the masks provision could easily clear the House, where Republicans have a 52-48 majority. And if only one of the three Senate Democrats who voted for the bill Wednesday want the law to take effect immediately — a strong possibility given the vocal anti-mandate stance of Sen. Chap Petersen, D-Fairfax — emergency language could also clear the Senate, where Democrats have a 21-19 majority with Lt. Gov. Winsome Sears breaking ties.

“We don’t have a lot of tools to push back,” Del. Marcus Simon, D-Fairfax, said Wednesday. “That’s life in the minority.”

In a similar situation in the fall of 2020, Democrats used their superior numbers in both chambers to pass emergency protections for Virginians facing eviction when then-Gov. Ralph Northam added an emergency clause. Both chambers approved it by majority vote, over Republican opposition.

https://www.virginiamercury.com/2022/02/09/virginia-appears-set-to-ban-school-mask-mandates-how-soon-will-it-happen/

The House will vote 52-48 for the emergency clause. Chap, at a minimum, will cross party lines to vote for the emergency clause, making it 20-20 (Lewis and Morrissey voted for the bill across party lines and I guess there's a chance they could cross for the emergency clause too). If it's 20-20 in the senate Winsome Sears will break the tie and pass the emergency clause. That means it's highly unlikely, at this point, that a March 1 emergency clause won't pass by a whisker.

[Anonymous]

Relax. It's political swirl. Just like all his mandates on his first day. Hold the course.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Relax. It's political swirl. Just like all his mandates on his first day. Hold the course.

Which part is political swirl? Commonwealth law is commonwealth law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Agree completely. The lawsuit is preposterous. Cloth masks provide very little benefit and one way masking with a high-quality mask is a very effective accommodation. The ACLU jumped the shark with this lunacy, especially when many disabled kids are suffering from mask mandates.

[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.

No one is removing masks from schools, you just have a choice. Seatbelts don't impair your ability to drive. Masks impair the ability to learn and connect for many students. The analogy is dumb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No one is removing masks from schools, you just have a choice. Seatbelts don't impair your ability to drive. Masks impair the ability to learn and connect for many students. The analogy is dumb.

Stop feeding them trolls. They want endless masking and endless mass experimentation via “vaccines”.

Let them whine. Masks are coming off. I plan on playing a song called Mask-off on that first day haha.

[Anonymous]

Youngkin is as reckless and insane as Washington DC!

MANDATORY MASKING FOREVER!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Agree completely. The lawsuit is preposterous. Cloth masks provide very little benefit and one way masking with a high-quality mask is a very effective accommodation. The ACLU jumped the shark with this lunacy, especially when many disabled kids are suffering from mask mandates.

This is what kills me the most about the stupidity of the ACLU lawsuit. Where is the concern for kids with Autism, speech issues, sensory issues, cognitive disabilities, etc. who have struggled with masking? Where was the outcry when children with IEPs lost in-person services last year? The absolute focus on COVID infection as the *only* possible harm that exists in the world is beyond insane to me. Not to mention, they are asking other people to change *their* behavior as an accommodation for someone else. When there is the scientifically proven accommodation of having the immunocompromised person mask. Further, even if cloth masks were more than a facial decoration at this point, I’m not sure you can classify masking of tens and thousands of children across the state to be “reasonable.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No one is removing masks from schools, you just have a choice. Seatbelts don't impair your ability to drive. Masks impair the ability to learn and connect for many students. The analogy is dumb.

Seatbelts have also been extensively studied and manufacture is overseen by regulators. The science on cloth masks is rather murky (being generous here) and you can buy them off Etsy sooooo ….

[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.

Actually there is. If you don't like it, keep your kids gagged. No one cares - great day for Virginia~!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Agree completely. The lawsuit is preposterous. Cloth masks provide very little benefit and one way masking with a high-quality mask is a very effective accommodation. The ACLU jumped the shark with this lunacy, especially when many disabled kids are suffering from mask mandates.

This is what kills me the most about the stupidity of the ACLU lawsuit. Where is the concern for kids with Autism, speech issues, sensory issues, cognitive disabilities, etc. who have struggled with masking? Where was the outcry when children with IEPs lost in-person services last year? The absolute focus on COVID infection as the *only* possible harm that exists in the world is beyond insane to me. Not to mention, they are asking other people to change *their* behavior as an accommodation for someone else. When there is the scientifically proven accommodation of having the immunocompromised person mask. Further, even if cloth masks were more than a facial decoration at this point, I’m not sure you can classify masking of tens and thousands of children across the state to be “reasonable.”

EXACTLY! my child has a mild hearing issue and has missed half the year because she couldn't understand what the teachers were saying half the time or what her classmates were saying.
I am so sick of the lawsuits coming out of the woodwork over these stupid masks. If you want your kid to wear one, fine. If a teacher wants to wear one, fine. But if not, just let it go and stop suing over every darn thing.
I am also sick of the faux immunocompromised claims that every parent comes up with. I mean I get it because it's easy to slap this label on a child because the bar is much lower than people realize but they also don't realize is there are many situations and circumstances when the immunocompromised state is temporary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Agree completely. The lawsuit is preposterous. Cloth masks provide very little benefit and one way masking with a high-quality mask is a very effective accommodation. The ACLU jumped the shark with this lunacy, especially when many disabled kids are suffering from mask mandates.

This is what kills me the most about the stupidity of the ACLU lawsuit. Where is the concern for kids with Autism, speech issues, sensory issues, cognitive disabilities, etc. who have struggled with masking? Where was the outcry when children with IEPs lost in-person services last year? The absolute focus on COVID infection as the *only* possible harm that exists in the world is beyond insane to me. Not to mention, they are asking other people to change *their* behavior as an accommodation for someone else. When there is the scientifically proven accommodation of having the immunocompromised person mask. Further, even if cloth masks were more than a facial decoration at this point, I’m not sure you can classify masking of tens and thousands of children across the state to be “reasonable.”

Except <5s (not sure if any are plaintiffs in the suit), vaccination would seem to be a good accomodation also? And for any 12+, the emerging preventatives also, assuming their doctors OK.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Actually there is. If you don't like it, keep your kids gagged. No one cares - great day for Virginia~!

Parents are free to strap Covid muzzles on their own kids.

You like your mask? You can keep masking your kids.

[Anonymous]

Really tired of the RP planting these threads all over the place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Really tired of the RP planting these threads all over the place.

Couldn't be parents with kids in the system just like you. Couldn't possibly be.