Anonymous wrote:Really tired of the RP planting these threads all over the place.
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~!
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.”
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Anonymous wrote:Relax. It's political swirl. Just like all his mandates on his first day. Hold the course.
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.
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.