UPDATE: CHARLESTON, WV (LOOTPRESS) – House Bill 2002 was heard in its third reading Thursday following the rejection of a pair of amendments on Wednesday’s second reading.
House Bill 2002, of which Delegate Jefferies (R-Kanawha, 061) is the lead sponsor, elicited a variety of responses from Delegates on the House Floor Thursday, with many Republican members propounding the many benefits of the proposed legislation with regard to serving children and families.
Delegate Criss (R-Wood, 012) was the first member to speak on the bill Thursday and was active in discussion Wednesday as well, presenting counterarguments to the two amendments presented by Delegate Young (D-Kanawha, 056) both of which would be rejected.
“This bill would provide certain tax benefits, services and pregnancy support for families. This bill would amend to increase current law – a one-time $4000 tax refundable income tax credit for adoptive parents for those nonfamily children under the age of 18 years – to $5000,” said Delegate Criss, explaining various aspects of the bill.
“You would also create a new section that would mandate that an adoptive child is eligible for an early intervention, services provided for families to which may be offered by the Department of Health and Human Resources, and also would create and establish a new West Virginia Mothers and Babies Pregnancy Support Program under the Bureau of Public Health. I urge passage.”
Delegate Keaton (R-Roane, 015) spoke in support of the bill as well, stating,
“Just to speak very briefly in support of the passage of the bill on a particular highlight – the provisions explained by the gentleman related to Pregnancy Resource Centers and the Mothers and Babies Support Program –
These organizations do a lot of tremendous work. They do a lot of it very quietly. Many of you have pregnancy resource centers in your communities that you may not be aware of. Out of the kindness of their heart, they provide loving and life affirming care in big ways and small to women in oftentimes difficult circumstances. I urge passage.”
Embrace of the bill was not unanimous, however. Delegate Hansen (D-Monongalia, 079) raised concerns regarding the pro-life implications of the bill, insisting the research and medicine should take precedence over faith and political agendas.
“This bill’s got good and bad in it,” Delegate Hansen began, indicating mixed feelings with regard to the proposed legislation.
“The adoption tax credit the increase in the adoption tax credit is something that I wholeheartedly support. But what I do have an issue with – what I object to and the reason why I’m going to vote ‘no’ on this bill – is sending taxpayer dollars to these pregnancy help organizations – organizations that are not required to uphold medical privacy rules, or ethics rules – organizations that are agenda driven.”
“I oppose this bill because it diverts state powers to push an anti-abortion, anti-contraception agenda. This bill diverts state dollars to these facilities that do not follow evidence-based healthcare standards, and will hurt women,” he concluded.
Delegate Fast (R-Fayette, 051) chimed in during proceedings with questions regarding the nature of the programs alluded to within the bill. Specifically, the Fayette County Delegate’s inquiries pertained to participation of existing pregnancy centers in the programs mentioned in and funded through the proposed bill.
“For existing crisis pregnancy centers that may or may not want to participate with the funding mechanisms in this bill, does this bill allow an option as to whether they participate? Would it be mandatory to be involved in in this program,” Delegate Fast questioned, to which the response came in the negative, indicating a lack of mandate for participation for centers with the funding mechanisms of House Bill 2002.
Delegate Walker (D-Monongalia, 081) presented several questions during the session, many of which pertained to the consideration of abortion as presented in the legislation.
“We have banned abortions, but we also put stigmas and biases against certain organizations. We have welcomed and stood up and clapped for the Pregnancy Health Center, but when we say things like ‘Planned Parenthood’ we start getting hot under the collar because we don’t want to say the other things that those are: Comprehensive sexual education, mammograms, pap smears, prostate… So where do we lie,” Delegate Walker questioned.
“I wonder, in the sake of freedom, when will I not be able to say the word ‘abortion’ in this body. As I am an abortion patient, and I am a mother, and I am one who cares,” she concluded.
Delegate Williams (D-Monongalia, 080) posed a number of questions as well regarding the language within the bill as it pertained to diagnoses and potential medical necessity of abortions.
Raleigh County Delegate Eric Brooks (R-Raleigh, 045) spoke in support of the bill, making reference to his journey to the House of Delegates and the will of the people within the communities he’d been elected to serve.
“The goal is to help those that we want to help – that we can help – and this legislature does a lot to do just that,” said Delegate Brooks.
“This time last year, like everyone else here, I was campaigning, going door-to-door. I knocked on thousands of doors and two things they always asked me were, ‘what is your stance on the Second Amendment, and what is your stance on life?’ I was proud to tell them that I am pro-life,” Delegate Brooks said.
House Bill 2002 passed through the House on Thursday with 88 Delegates voting in favor, 8 voting against, and 4 absent from the vote. Delegate Young who had previously proposed amendments to House Bill 2002 and showed a demonstrable familiarity with the bill was notably counted absent for Thursday’s vote.
The bill was communicated to the Senate for consideration following the adoption of a title amendment.
_______________________________________________________________________
CHARLESTON, WV (LOOTPRESS) – The House of Delegates convened Wednesday to discuss several proposed bills, including House Bill 2002, which was presented in its second reading during the session.
The bill, which boasts over half a dozen sponsors, pertains to providing support for West Virginia families. Actions included in the bill as presented include “increasing the adoption tax credit for tax years 2023 forward, establishing eligibility of adopted children of West Virginia residents for early intervention services, establishing the West Virginia Mothers and Babies Pregnancy Support Program, and allowing bureau to contract with management agency to provide program services,” among others.
Delegate Young (D-Kanawha, 056) proposed a pair of amendments to the bill, the first of which – amendment 2-8 #1 – per the Delegate on Wednesday, would “expand the bill, and provide insurance coverage for certain sterilization processes, keeps the $5,000 tax credit for adoption expenses, and add in a few more things that are good for mothers and babies and families.”
Delegate Criss (R-Wood, 012) urged rejection of the amendment stating that, while he believed House Bill 2002 to be passable in the Senate, he could not foresee the Senate approving of the legislation as proposed through the amendment, citing a prior instance of negotiations having fallen through.
“This amendment replaces House Bill 2005 with the provisions of this bill we sent to the Senate last October. What happened was that the Senate Bill 3001 came over and we collapsed our bill into theirs. The Senate refused to pass because it just too much in it,” Criss said of past sessions.
“We believe the Senate would join us in promoting family health as provided in the bill before us, and that the Senate will yet again refuse to pass the bill if we include this amendment provision requiring coverage for sterilization, regulating the issues of contraceptives, issuing directives concerning child support, juvenile court proceedings, and record confidentiality. Last year’s bill in this amendment is just too much to be put in a single bill. I believe the Senate will accept this bill without amendments, so I urge rejection of the amendment.”
Delegate Pushkin (D-Kanawha, 054) countered, pointing out that the legislature was still early in the process, allotting for time for negotiation should the Senate take issue with aspects of the bill as amended.
“This isn’t day 59 or day 60 – I believe it’s day 29 – and if the Senate doesn’t want to go with an improved version of the bill – a better version of the bill, the version of the bill that helps more women, helps more mothers, helps more children, helps more babies – if they don’t want to go with that, well, they have every right to amend it, send it back and then we can go through the legislative process to come to an agreement,” said Delegate Pushkin.
“I think that you want to send over the bill that you want. Send over the bill that you want and let them deal with it. So, I’m going to support the Lady’s amendment.”
Delegate Young concurred with Pushkin’s assessment, remarking,
“I understand that the Senate might reject this, but that’s why we’re in the House, right? We send over what we want. So we’ve all voted for this. Most of us have voted for this bill. If you were here last year, you voted for what we’re putting before you. So, I hope that you’ll support the amendment.”
The amendment was ultimately rejected will 13 Yeas, 82 Nays, and 5 Absent.
The second amendment presented by Delegate Young would affect “page one, line 9, following the period at the end of Section 10A, by inserting the following: West Virginia child Income Tax Credit – a resident child tax credit for taxable years beginning January 1st, 2023. A taxpayer who is a resident and is not a dependent of another individual, is allowed a tax credit of $1000 per qualified child of the taxpayer against the tax, except that when a husband and wife file separate returns under this article, this credit shall be $500 per separate return for each child, the portion of a child income credit against the tax that exceeds a taxpayers tax liability in the taxable year in which the credit is claimed shall be refunded B qualifying child defined for the purposes of this section. Qualifying child means as the term is defined by section 152 C of the Internal Revenue Code.”
“People who have children need a lot of help and so we should be helping them, I think. Because we’re putting families first, we’re putting children first – we should be doing that. So, a child tax credit is a really good way to do that,” Delegate Young said of the proposed amendment.
“You might be thinking to yourself, ‘is this amendment expensive?’ And the answer is yes, it is,” she continued. “It costs $350 million, but this might be the only tax relief that we get to give to people this year. If we don’t get anything done on income tax, this would be a way to help families.”
Delegate Criss again spoke up in rejection of an amendment to House Bill 2002 as presented, citing fiscal concerns regarding such a change.
“This additional tax credit would effectively provide another $1000 per child [which] would, ballpark speaking, result in a general revenue loss of $356 million – $806,000 based on the 19th or the 2020 census that there are 356,806 children below the age of 18,” said Delegate Criss.
“The policy question is whether to provide additional tax money for everyone with the children to be considered is in their own separate bill. I urge rejection of the amendment.”
Delegate John Willians (D-Monongalia, 080) spoke up in support of the amendment, declaring that more needed to be done for children and families throughout the State of West Virginia.
“I was proud to be a member of this body when we had that bill in the special session that sought to provide so much support to children and families, and I was sad to see that nothing came of it back then. But I’ve been happy to see that we have this bill which is the West Virginia support for Families Act. But I’m just afraid that we’re not going far enough,” he said, going on to point out recently passed legislation which surpassed the proposed amendment in cost.
“We’re not doing enough. Sure, we’re raising the adoption credit, there is a tax exemption, but I like tax credits for working families and for their children and from an expense standpoint, I’d rather spend $356 million to put money back in the pockets of working families so that they can help raise their children versus what we did. We just sent a bill across the hall two weeks ago that is going to be a $1.8 billion hit. This is $356 million. You say it’s expensive, but what is the cost of making sure that West Virginia families have the resources that they need? So, I would urge adoption of the lady’s amendment.”
The amendment fared marginally better than its predecessor but was still overwhelmingly rejected by a margin of 81 to 5 with 5 absences.
House Bill 2002 is set for its third reading on Thursday, February 9, 2023.
