►
Description
For agenda and additional meeting information: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Calendar/A/
Videos of archived meetings are made available as a courtesy of the Nevada Legislature.
The videos are part of an ongoing effort to keep the public informed of and involved in the legislative process.
All videos are intended for personal use and are not intended for use in commercial ventures or political campaigns.
Closed Captioning is Auto-Generated and is not an official representation of what is being spoken.
A
A
So
he
is
present,
so
we
have
a
full
house
here
today,
so
welcome
to
our
audience
joining
us
for
this
meeting,
either
online
in
person
or
by
phone.
Today
we
have
three
bill
hearings
on
today
and
before
we
begin
I'd
like
to
make
several
housekeeping
announcements
for
all
individuals
that
are
present
in
our
meeting
room,
please
try
to
keep
your
face
or
keep
your
face
covered
and
maintain
social
distancing
as
best
you
can
coming
in
and
out
of
the
room.
A
Additionally,
members
of
the
public
may
provide
testimony
in
various
ways,
all
of
which
are
listed
on
the
agenda.
If
you
wish
to
submit
public
comment
either
in
writing,
in
addition
to
or
in
lieu
of
testifying
written
comment,
public
comment
may
be
submitted
before
during
and
up
to
48
after
hours
after
the
meeting's
adjournment.
And
finally,
if
you
have
your
electronic
devices
now
that
we're
in
the
room,
if
you
can
mute
them,
so
we
don't
hear
all
those
dinging
and
bells,
as
well
as
your
cell
phones
and
laptops
in
silent
mode
during
the
meeting.
A
That
would
be
greatly
appreciated
and
with
that
we
will
move
on
to
our
first
agenda
item
today
we
are
going
to
start
with
senate
bill
61.
So
at
this
time
I
will
open
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
61..
It
revises
provisions
governing
the
program
for
the
operation
of
vending
facilities
by
licensees,
who
are
blind,
and
I
believe,
presenting
today,
both
on
the
zoom
will
be
chris
sewell
and
chris
mazza.
Is
that
correct
yep
I'm
getting
some
head
waves
here?
E
E
F
Thank
you
very
much
good
afternoon.
Everyone,
as
chris
school
said
my
name
is
chris
mazza.
I
serve
as
the
chief
enterprise
officer
for
the
business
enterprises
of
nevada
or
bend
program
for
deters
real
rehabilitation
division,
I'm
here
to
present
sp
61,
which
proposes
changes
to
nrs
426
the
statutes
related
to
the
blind
business
enterprise
of
nevada
bend
program.
F
F
The
program
was
established
with
passage
of
the
randolph
shepard
act
in
1936,
which
gave
priority
a
right
to
blind
licensees
in
federal
buildings
and
properties.
States
across
the
nation
then
created
state
statutes,
often
called
the
midi
randolph
shepard
act
mirroring
the
federal
law
within
the
state
within
state
law.
In
fact,
nevada
statutes
have
existed
for
more
than
60
years.
The
state
statutes
provide
the
priority
right
for
blind
licensees
in
state
local
and
municipal
buildings
and
properties.
These
programs
exist
because
blind
individuals
are
employed
at
a
rate
of
52.3
as
compared
to
78.2
percent.
F
For
those
without
a
disability,
blind
individuals
are
in
poverty
at
a
rate
of
nearly
30
percent
in
nevada,
our
blind
licensees
own
and
operate
over
400
vending
machines
and
29
sites
statewide
during
typical
times
they
employ
over
100
nevadans.
Currently,
due
to
the
pandemic,
we
are
about
half
that
number
some
sites
you
may
recognize
include
the
snack
bars
at
many
dmv
locations,
the
hoover
dam
cafe
and
mercantile,
and
the
caucus
deli
at
the
legislative
building
in
carson
city.
F
With
the
proposed
changes
within
sb
61.
We
hope
to
one
provide
clarity
to
the
law's
intent,
two
define
terms
and
use
them
consistently
throughout
the
statute.
Three
align
state
law
more
closely
with
federal
randolph,
shepard
act
and
federal
regulations
and,
lastly,
add
a
new
section
on
training,
which
is
in
section
two
section.
Three
is
a
rewrite
of
our
dispute
resolution
process.
The
prior
process
placed
the
deter
director
as
the
decision
maker
in
disputes
and
even
potentially
involve
the
governor.
F
This
new
section
provides
for
more
formal,
uniform
and
objective
means
to
settle
disputes
between
the
bureau
and
any
public
entity
partner
through
the
state's
hearings.
Division.
Peter's
administrator
has
spoken
with
a
senior
appeals
officer
with
the
hearings
division
and
we
have
their
support
for
this
addition
to
our
statutes.
F
I'd
like
to
move
forward
to
section
six,
as
you
can
see,
we've
added
several
new
definitions.
We
think
it's
important
to
clarify
these
terms
and
thus
clarify
the
intent
of
the
program.
I
want
to
specifically
point
out
the
definitions
in
subsection
four
five
and
six
subsection
four
is
the
definition
for
public
building
or
property.
We
wanted
to
clarify
the
intent
of
the
priority
of
right
of
our
blind
licensees
to
do
so.
We
included
public
entity
as
defined
in
subsection
5..
We
modeled
our
definition
for
public
entity
entity
after
nrs286.070,
which
defines
a
public
employer.
F
Four
also
includes
except
exceptions
for
those
meeting,
the
definition,
but
who
would
be
exempt
from
participating
in
the
bend
program.
Two
new
exceptions
were
added
with
the
amendments.
The
first
is
for
an
airport
authority
operating
in
this
state
and
a
department
of
aviation
which
is
operated
by
a
political
subdivision
of
the
state.
The
second
exception
is
due
to
the
fact
that
we
are
seeing
new
public-private
partnerships,
especially
in
and
around
las
vegas
and
based
upon
some
concerns
that
were
raised
by
public
entities.
F
F
Section
7
includes
new
language
to
further
explain
the
meaning
of
licensee's
priority
of
right,
including
the
right
of
first
refusal
and
subsection
1a
due
to
concerns
raised
by
sub-public
entities.
The
amendment
in
section
7,
subsection,
2
added
further
clarifying
language
clarifying
language
related
to
waivers
stating
waivers,
shall
set
forth
the
condition
under
which
the
waiver
may
be
revoked
or
modified.
F
A
concern
was
raised
about
section
7,
subsection
1a,
which
states
that
if
a
public
entity
has
an
agreement
in
place
for
which
the
bureau
notifies
it
that
it
intends
to
exercise
its
priority
of
right,
that
agreement
is
known.
However,
it
is
not
our
intention
to
retroactively
break
contracts
between
public
entities
and
their
vendors.
The
amendments
included
included
limiting
this
ability
to
the
period
after
passage
of
sb
61,
if
approved
and
not
retroactively.
F
F
F
F
Amendments
to
sb61
in
this
section
address
the
concern
that
was
raised,
that
the
bureau
could
insist
on
the
vending
facility
whether
the
public
entity
wanted
it
or
not.
The
amendments
include
that
the
public
entity
shall
cooperate
with
the
bureau
to
discuss
options
for
a
vending
facility
and
if
an
agreement
is
reached
shall
cooperate
with
the
bureau
to
establish
one
or
more
one
or
more
vending
facilities.
F
Sb-61
adds
more
detail
to
our
ability
to
create
regulations
in
subsection,
4
of
section
11..
The
added
language
is
taken
directly
from
the
requirements
within
the
federal
regulations.
Subsection
5
distinguishes
costs
that
shall
be
paid
by
licensees
and
those
that
shall
not.
These
are
taken
from
the
randolph
shepherd
act
which
puts
constraints
on
what
may
be
paid
out
paid
out
by
the
licensees
set
aside
funds
in
subsection
six.
We
added
the
ability
to
pay
incentives
in
the
rare
instance
that
it
might
be
appropriate.
F
F
Section
12
adds
a
description
of
management
services
in
subsection
3,
which
are
allowable
to
be
paid
out
of
the
set-aside
or
enterprise
account.
This
is
the
federal
description,
the
change
in
subsection
5b
regarding
the
portion
each
licensee
would
receive
if
the
program
was
liquidated,
was
determined
and
agreed
to
by
the
nevada
committee
of
vendors,
who
are
blind.
F
Section
13
has
added
language
that
ensures
a
continuity
of
services
in
a
vending
facility.
Should
the
blind
licensee
have
a
period
of
disability
or
permanent
disability,
it
outlines
what
would
occur,
including
that
the
bureau
would
run
the
site
until
the
licensee
was
able
to
return
up
to
six
months.
F
And,
lastly,
I'd
like
to
call
your
attention
to
section
19
nrs
426.715
is
the
penalty
section
of
the
law.
A
concern
was
raised
that,
according
to
this
section,
public
employees
could
be
guilty
of
a
misdemeanor
for
ordering
a
sandwich
from
a
sandwich
shop
or
a
pizza
from
a
pizzeria,
and
that
didn't
that
the
delivery
drivers
of
that
sandwich
or
pizza
could
also
be
guilty
of
a
misdemeanor.
This
is
not
our
intent.
Therefore,
amendments
in
this
section
are
to
alleviate
this
introduction
of
sb61.
A
Thank
you
both
chris
at
this
time.
We
do
have
some
questions
from
committee
members,
so
I
will
start
with
assemblywoman
titus.
D
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
thank
you
for
presenting
the
bill.
I
have
questions
regarding
section,
seven
of
the
bill
and
under
section
7
number
a
and
that's
section
7
it
talks
about
regarding
that.
The
bureau
has
the
right
of
first
refusal
for
any
operation
of
any
vending
facility
in
any
public
building
or
property,
so
so
throughout
the
state
of
nevada,
there's
many
public
locations
and
very
rural
areas
and
very
urban
areas.
F
F
A
F
I'm
sorry
my
this
is
chris
mazzle
for
the
record
and
chief.
Yes,
that
would
be
the
case
all
if
you
want
to
put
in
a
vending
machine
in
a
public
entity
building.
You
would
first
come
through
our
office
in
the
case
of
in
the
case
of
some
of
our
I'm
sorry,
go
ahead.
D
Anyway,
thank
you
when
I'm
reading
this
it
says
a
public
entity
or
any
entity
that
receives
public
funding.
I
guess
my
question
was
really
so
you
answered
that
yes,
indeed,
that
would
happen.
Do
you
have
the
capacity
to
do
that?
I
mean
that
could
be
hundreds
and
hundreds
of
building
locations,
potentially
that
you
would
have
what
would
be
the
delay
in
that
process?
How
long
does
it
take
and
how
competitive
is
it?
Do
you
get
to
take
whatever
percent
of
profit
that
you
have
and
nothing
goes
back
to
the
entity
with
building
it?
F
Okay,
thank
you
again
for
your
question.
This
is
for
the
record
chris
mazza,
the
capac,
if
you
are
referring
specifically
to
rural
areas
or
rural
areas,
is
a
question
and
the
capacity
to
operate
one
single
vending
machine
in
rural
communities.
No,
we
would
not
have
the
capacity
to
do
that.
In
fact,
these
businesses
or
these
buildings
that
have
the
businesses
in
them
would
have
to
be
deemed
a
viable
business.
So
we
would.
F
We
would
do
a
survey
first
and
foremost
to
make
sure
that
that
business
is
in
fact
viable
for
a
blind
licensee
to
operate
that
business.
If
it
is,
in
fact
not,
we
could
potentially
provide
a
waiver.
We
do
that
in
rural
communities
where,
where
it
is,
if
they
have,
you
know
two
or
three
or
four
vending
machines.
That
certainly
is
not
a
viable
business,
so
we
we're.
F
We
would
waive
that
specific
location
for
the
blind
licensee
and
then
that
public
entity
would
then
be
able
to
go
out
on
their
own
and
provide
the
services
that
they
need.
D
Thank
you,
and,
and
I'm
just
wondering
about
the
turnaround
time
for
the
applications.
Now
I
mean
when
somebody
wants
to
put
a
vending
machine
in
a
public
building,
and
this
doesn't
even
have
to
be
from
when
I'm
reading
it.
If
you,
if
a
building
accepts
or
any
entity,
accepts
public
funds,
even
if
it's
not
technically
a
public
building,
you
would
have
first
writer
refusal
if
somebody
wanted
to
put
a
vending
machine
in.
F
Thank
you
again
for
your
question
assemblywoman.
This
is
chris
mazza
for
the
record.
If
it's,
if
it
a
public
entity,
is
in
a
in
a
private
building,
if
I'm
understanding
your
ques
your
question
correctly,
if
the
building
is
in
fact
not
a
public
building,
then
no,
we
would
not
have
the
ability
to
put
a
vending
machine
in
there.
F
If
a
public
entity
were
to
lease
or
rent
space
from
a
private
building
and
wanted
a
vending
machine
in
their
specific
area,
then
yes,
we
would
be
able
to
put
a
vending
machine
in
that
specific
area.
As
far
as
turnaround
times
again,
depending
on
the
viability
of
the
location,
we
work
with
not
only
blind
licensees
but
third-party
contractors.
They
could
turn
around
these
facilities
in
a
matter
of
days,
if
not
weeks,
depending
on
where
the
location
in
nevada
would
be.
A
D
Is
this
is
this
department
of
blind?
Are
they
the
only
ones
that
have
this
there's?
No
other
special
needs,
there's
no
other
disability
entities
or
peoples
that
would
have
have
a
business
like
this
as
a
blind
is
this?
Is
this
the
only
thing
that
get
this
the
blind
business
entity,
the
only
one
that
gets
a
leg
up
like
this
and
a
business
opportunity
in
our
state
or
the
other
opportunities.
F
Thank
you
assemblywoman
for
your
question.
This
is
chris
mazza
for
the
record.
This
is
specific
to
people
who
are
blind
and
visually
impaired.
It
was
established
by
the
randolph
shepard
act,
which
is
a
federal
act
based
started
in
1936.
F
A
Wonderful,
do
we
have
any
other
questions
from
committee
members?
I
didn't
receive
any
on
the
skype
and
I'm
looking
around
to
see
if
there
are
any
other
questions.
Oh,
I
have
assemblywoman
summers.
Armstrong
go
ahead
with
your
question.
G
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
thank
you,
mr
ma
mazzo,
for
your
presentation.
Do
you
have
any
information
about
the
diversity
in
your
in
your
licensees?
You
said
there
are
400.
G
You
said
you
had
400
locations
vending
machine
locations
throughout
the
state.
Can
you
clarify
is
that
400?
That
does
not
mean
400
different
vendors,
but
just
vendors
that
have
locations
there
are
400
of
them.
F
Thank
you
very
much
for
your
questions.
This
is
chris
miles
for
the
record.
Our
program,
oversees
400,
vending
machines
throughout
the
state.
It
says
you're
correct.
It
does
not
mean
that
we
have
400
individual
licenses
running
those
400
vendors.
In
fact,
the
program
right
now
has
10
licensed
operators,
two
interim
operators,
which
means
they're
on
the
path
to
obtaining
their
license
and
two
trainees
with
the
potential
for
more
trainees
down
the
road.
F
So
currently
we
have
14,
like
we
have
14
blind
individuals
in
the
program
with
the
capability
of
running
a
business.
G
Madam
chairman
follow-up:
go
ahead:
do
you
by
chance
have
information
in
the
diversity
of
your
program,
ethnic
and
do
you
have
women
men?
Can
you
give
any
information
on
the
diversity
in
your
program.
F
And
thank
you
very
much
for
your
questions.
Number
one
in
terms
of
this
is
chris
posible
again
for
the
record,
the.
As
far
as
the
ethnic
background
of
our
licensees,
I
would
have
to
get
back
to
you
on
that.
I
do
not
have
that
information.
However,
I
can
tell
you
in
one
second.
F
F
F
We
currently
have
six
males
and
four
females
that
are
licensed
operators,
and
I
can
tell
you
I
don't
know
the
specifics
on,
like
I
said
their
ethnic
backgrounds,
but
they
do.
They
do
vary
quite
a
bit.
G
F
G
G
A
A
F
Thank
you
for
your
question
chair.
We
we
have.
This
is
chris
mazza
for
the
record.
We
have
400
vending
machines,
individual
vending
machines
associated
with
the
program,
probably
a
little
bit
more
than
that,
but
those
are
individual
vending
machines.
F
Thank
you
for
your
question.
This
is
chris
mazza
for
the
record.
These
are
under
they're,
not
400,
individual
businesses,
but
a
business.
A
vending
route,
for
example,
may
have
in
excess
of
100
machines,
50
machines,
depending
on
the
number
of
machines
that
would
make
a
site
file
so
that
we
do
not
have
400
people,
but
14
people
are
running
the
businesses
of
those
400
vending
machines.
A
F
Thank
you
for
your
question.
This
is
chris
mazel
for
the
record.
Yes,
it
does
make
sense
and
no,
there
is
no
limit.
C
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
my
question
is
related
to
a
statement
you
made
in
the
description
of
the
bill
related
to
what
I
think
my
note
says:
exemptions
from
the
bend
program
of
live
performance
venues.
Can
you
just
discuss
a
little
bit
about
the
need
for
that?
It
was
a
kind
of
a
vague
description
and
I
just
like
a
little
more
information
around
the
purpose.
F
Yes,
thank
you
for
your
question
assemblywoman.
This
is
chris
mazza
for
the
record.
In
our
initial
proposal
of
this
bill,
we
had
several
discussions
with
the
city
of
henderson.
The
city
of
henderson
has
entered
into
some
entertainment
facilities.
If
you
will
a
lifeguard
arena
that
is
going
to
be
the
practice
facility
for
the
henderson
silver
knights,
because
it
does
present
a
live,
entertainment
venue.
We
felt
it
proper
to
include
that
in
the
exemption.
C
I'm
sorry-
and
I
missed,
I
think,
a
little
bit
of
the
the
rationale.
So
it
was
the
city
of
henderson
specifically,
but
it
would
impact
every
live
public
venue
in
the
state
right
so
like
in
reno.
I
think
we
have
a
couple
of
event
centers
in
reno,
so
they
would
no
longer
be
obligated
under
ben
to
be
surveyed
for
okay,
but
give
me
a
little
bit
more
on
the.
Why.
F
Sure,
thank
you
for
your
question
to
some
of
the
women.
This
is
christmas
for
the
record.
Those
facilities,
in
particular
are
a
challenge
for
blind
operators
to
operate
based
on
the
the
sales
volume,
and
the
inconsistency,
if
you
will
of
you
know,
could
be
busy
a
few
days
here
and
a
few
days
there
without
having.
If
that
is
the
sole
business
to
just
do
that,
occasionally
it
tends
to
not
be
a
viable
site.
C
E
Thank
you,
madam
chairman.
I
may
have
two
questions.
If
that's
all
right,
I
believe
we've
stated
that
there
was
about
14.
F
A
Did
you
have
another
question?
You
said
you
had
a
couple:
do
we
have
any
other
questions
from
committee
members?
Looking
to
my
left,
looking
to
my
right,
okay,
it
looks
like
the
chris's
I'm
going
to
begin
testimony
in
support
opposition
and
sorry
support,
opposition
and
neutral
of
senate
bill
61.,
I'm
looking
around
the
room.
First.
Is
there
anyone
in
the
room
that
would
like
to
present
testimony
in
support
of
senate
bill
61.,
seeing
no
one
running
up
to
the
table?
A
A
Okay,
we
will
begin
testimony
in
opposition
to
senate
bill
61
and
I
will
look
around
the
room
first
to
see
if
there's
anyone
that
would
like
to
provide
testimony
in
opposition
of
senate
bill
61.
If
you
would
like
to
do
so,
I'd
ask
you
to
take
your
seat
at
the
table.
Seeing
no
one
running
over
to
the
table
right
now,
broadcast
services.
Is
there
anyone
on
the
line
in
opposition
to
senate
bill
61.
K
A
That's
okay,
why
don't
you
go
ahead
and,
madam
secretary,
if
we
can
reclassify
this
testimony,
I
know
that
sometimes
we're
not
quick
enough
on
the
the
the
button
so
go
ahead
with
your
testimony
and
remind
you
to
clearly
state
your
name
and
limit
your
testimony
to
two
minutes.
Go
ahead.
L
Thank
you
so
much
good
afternoon,
madam
chair
and
members
of
the
assembly,
health
and
human
services
committee
for
the
record.
My
name
is
ariel
edwards
a-r-I-e-l-l-e
e-b-w-a-r-d-s
with
the
city
of
north
las
vegas.
We
are
in
support
of
this
measure
and
would
like
to
thank
theater
for
working
with
the
cities
and
counties
on
the
amendment
language.
Thank
you
so
much
for
your
time
and
consideration.
A
K
E
While
this
is
an
issue
of
great
personal
importance
to
me
as
the
nephew
of
an
aunt
with
a
lifelong
visual
disability,
albeit
who
lives
in
a
different
state
in
light
of
the
impacts
of
the
pandemic.
Until
we
see
public
facilities
return
to
sustainable
capacity
levels,
where.
E
A
E
E
A
K
E
Good
afternoon
sharon
nguyen
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record,
david
cherry,
spelled
d-a-v-I-d
c-h-e-r-r-y
and
I'm
government
affairs
manager
with
the
city
of
henderson.
I
want
to
begin
by
thanking
administrator
hendrick
and
her
very
capable
team
for
working
with
us
to
address
these
concerns
with
sd61
as
introduced.
E
The
reprint
being
considered
today
contained
substantial
changes
that
resulted
from
these
discussions
with
local
government
and
has
allowed
us
to
move
to
a
neutral
position.
The
city
already
offers
blind
entrepreneurs
who
are
part
of
the
bend
program,
business
opportunities
at
multiple
city
facilities,
and
we
recognize
the
benefits
of
this
program
for
those
it
serves.
Importantly,
the
reprint
restores
the
consent
based
framework
now
in
current
statute,
when
it
comes
to
determining
if
vending
services
are
needed
and
if
so,
what
type.
E
Finally,
the
city
appreciates
the
reprint
section:
6
language,
that
grants
an
exception
from
nrs
426
requirements
when
the
lease
is
granted
to
an
operator
for
live
entertainment
purposes,
which
reflects
an
increasingly
common
practice
for
many
covered
entities.
Again,
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
present
this
testimony.
K
L
Begin
hi
good
afternoon,
madam
chair
joanna
jacob
j-o-a-n-n-a-j-a-c-o-b
government
affairs
manager
for
clark
county.
Madam
chair
members
of
committee.
We
worked
with
theater
on
this
bill
in
the
senate,
on
behalf
of
all
of
clark,
county's
departments
and
specifically
on
behalf
of
the
clark
county
department
of
aviation
that
operates.
Mccarran
airport
dieter
worked
with
us
to
address
all
of
our
concerns
and
we
were
opposed
in
the
senate
side,
but
we
are
neutral
with
the
amendments
and
with
the
testimony
today.
L
I
want
to
thank
administrator
hendren
though
she
is
not
here
today,
but
on
the
record
and
her
team
for
working
with
us,
and
we
are
hoping
clark
county
has-
has
extended
our
partnership
with
the
dieter
ben
program
and
we
are
hoping
to
find
additional
ways
to
partner
with
them
where
appropriate
and
where
it's
feasible
and
we
are
neutral
on
the
measure
as
proposed
today.
Thank
you.
K
E
E
I
would
just
like
to
echo
the
sentiments
from
my
colleagues
with
the
cities,
I'd
like
to
thank
administrator
hendren
for
working
to
address
our
concerns
and
would
like
to
note
that
we
have
moved
to
neutral
from
our
original
opposition
thanks
to
the
amendments
made
to
sp
61..
Thank
you.
A
E
Madam
chair,
christopher
sewell,
for
the
record
we
would
just
like
to
you
know,
thank
you
and
the
committee
for
giving
us
this
opportunity
to
present
this
a
very
good
bill
for
the
blind
enterprise
businesses
throughout
our
state,
and
we
do
look
forward
to
its
passage
and
signature
by
the
governor,
and
I
also
want
to
sort
of
do
a
little
quick
shout
out
for
mr
mazza.
E
He
was
put
in
a
position
earlier
a
few
days
ago,
and
this
was
the
first
time
he's
ever
tested
testify
before
the
legislature,
and
I
think
he
did
a
great
job
so
chris,
thank
you
and
I'd
like
to
also
just
again
thank
the
committee
and
all
of
the
the
folks
supporting
the
committee
for
their
assistance.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
A
Thank
you,
you
guys
did
fantastic.
I
know
that
it
is.
Everything
is
very
moving
very
quickly,
so
I
appreciate
you
stepping
up
and
to
present
this
bill,
and
so
with
that
I
will
close
the
bill
hearing
on
senate
bill
and
if
we
can
just
take
a
one
minute
recess,
because
I'm
gonna
see
who
we
are
up
next
with.
I
see
senator
harris
here.
So
just
a
one
minute.
A
A
Thank
you,
and
with
that
I
will
now
open
the
bill
hearing
on
senate
bill
275.
This
does
revise
provisions
relating
to
communicable
diseases.
I
would
note
I
did
put
this
in
the
chat.
There
was
a
new
proposed
amendment
that
was
just
uploaded
to
nellis.
It
probably
was
also
emailed
to
the
committee
members.
A
It's
I've
been
told
by
senator
harris.
It
is
a
friendly
amendment
from
argentine
partners,
so
I
believe
the
presentation
today
will
be
based
on
that
friendly
amendment
that
has
been
uploaded
and
with
that
welcome
to
assembly,
health
and
human
services.
Again
senator
harris
and
please
begin
when
you're
ready.
M
M
with
me.
Today
we
have
the
esteemed
former
senator
david
parks,
andre
wade,
executive
director
of
silver
state
equality
and
brad
sears
from
the
williams
institute
at
the
ucla
school
of
law.
As
the
chair
noted,
we
also
have
a
member
from
argenta
partners.
Actually,
I
believe
we
have
gen
hal
available.
I
apologize
from
the
washoe
county
health
district
to
answer
questions
about
the
amendment
from
our
gentem
partners.
M
These
laws
were
not
rooted
in
science,
but
in
fear,
and
have
had
significant
negative
public
health
consequences
for
nevada
for
decades
senate
bill
275
is
the
culmination
of
many
years
of
thoughtful
discussion
and
hard
work
led
by
senator
david
parks.
I've
asked
him
to
join
me
to
provide
you
a
historical
review
of
how
we
got
to
this
important
hearing
today
and
madam
chair.
If
it's
okay
with
you
all
turn
over
to
senator
parks,.
J
J
And
members
of
the
health
and
human
services
committee
good
afternoon
for
the
record,
I'm
david
parks
during
the
80th
session
of
the
legislature,
I
was
successful
in
getting
past
senate
bill
284,
which
created
a
task
force
to
examine
and
make
recommendations
for
the
revision
of
existing
statutes
related
to
the
criminalization
of
hiv
and
aids.
Now
these
outdated
statutes
taken
under
review
grew
out
of
recommendations
from
an
advisory
task
force
created
by
former
governor
richard
bryan
some
35
years
ago,
in
1986
over
the
30
years
that
the
task
force
was
in
place.
J
I
was
a
member
of
that
task.
First,
during
the
early
years
of
the
hiv
infection
and
the
aids
epidemic
states,
including
nevada,
implemented
hiv
specific
criminal
exposure
laws.
These
laws
imposed
criminal
penalties
on
people
living
with
hiv
who
knew
their
hiv
status
and
who
potentially
exposed
others
to
hiv
in
1990.
J
An
analysis
by
the
centers
for
disease
control
and
prevention
and
the
us
department
of
justice
found
that
at
least
67
laws
have
been
enacted
in
33
states
explicitly
focused
on
persons
living
with
hiv.
The
majority
of
these
laws
were
passed
before
antiretroviral
therapies
were
developed
that
reduced
the
hiv
transmission
risk
to
zero.
Currently,
it
is
possible
to
be
hiv
positive
and
have
no
detectable
presence
of
the
virus
as
a
person
who
helped
develop
that
as
hiv,
aids
statutes
and
regulations
in
the
late
1980s
and
early
1990s.
J
M
Further
in
1993
28
years
ago
now,
the
nevada
legislature
passed
senate
bill
514,
which
prohibits
certain
conduct
through
which
hiv
can
be
transmitted
after
testing
positive
for
the
disease.
The
consequence
for
those
found
criminally
liable
can
be
a
prison
sentence
of
up
to
20
years
and
or
a
fine
up
to
ten
thousand
dollars
in
nevada.
Individuals
can
be
convicted
of
hiv
transmission
even
when
there
is
no
intent
to
transmit
hiv
and
no
risk
of
transmitting
hiv.
M
Our
laws
have
not
kept
up
with
science.
In
this
modern
world,
we
know
how
to
eliminate
the
risk
of
transmission
through
treatment
of
individuals
living
with
hiv.
Our
laws
criminalize
behavior
that
cannot
transmit
the
virus.
Further.
Our
laws
are
ineffective
and
counterproductive
to
our
goals
associated
with
ensuring
nevada's
public
health
and
welfare.
No
other
disease
is
included
in
nevada's
criminal
code.
That's
because
criminalizing
sickness
forces,
sick
people
into
the
shadows
and
discourages
sick
nevadans
from
getting
tested
for
the
disease
for
fear
of
punishment.
M
Not
only
do
our
laws
fail
to
prevent
the
spread
of
hiv,
they
are
an
obstacle
to
ending
the
hiv
epidemic.
So
I
quickly
want
to
walk
through
what
what
the
bill
does
senate
bill.
275
makes
intentional
conduct
that
may
transmit
hiv
a
misdemeanor
instead
of
a
felony
and
moves
the
statute
from
the
penal
code
to
the
public
health
code.
In
doing
so,
this
would
align
with
the
state's
treatment
of
hiv
with
that
of
other
communicable
diseases.
M
M
Let
me
be
clear:
such
behavior
is
assault
and
battery
and
should
be
treated
as
such.
That
will
not
change
under
senate
bill
275
senate
bill
275
also
repeals
the
nevada
law
that
makes
a
felony
for
people
living
with
hiv.
To
engage
in
sex
work,
this
does
not
change
nevada
law
that
makes
illegal
sex
work
a
misdemeanor
under
nevada
law.
If
we've
learned
anything
from
the
past
year,
it
is
that
we
know
testing
transparency
and
treatment
are
essential
to
address
a
public
health
crisis.
N
As
stated,
my
name
is
andre
wade
and
I'm
state
director
for
silver
state
equality,
a
nevada-based,
statewide
lgbtq
civil
rights
organization,
which
brings
the
voices
of
lgbtq
plus
people
and
our
allies
to
the
institutions
of
power
in
nevada
and
across
the
united
states,
striving
to
create
a
world
that
is
healthy,
just
and
fully
equal
for
all
lgbtq
plus
people.
N
Also,
I
am
chair
of
the
governor's
task
force
on
hiv,
modernization
which
was
tasked
with
reporting
out
findings
and
making
recommendations
which
you
should
have
received
today,
I'm
speaking
to
you
on
behalf
of
silver
state
equality.
N
This
bill
has
been
many
years
in
the
making,
as
you
heard,
from
senator
parks,
because
for
decades
now
there
have
been
outdated,
ineffective
and
discriminatory
laws
in
nevada
that
do
more
harm
than
any
good.
That
could
come
of
them
just
to
note
that
there
are
about
nine
other
states
working
on
hiv
modernization
this
year
across
the
nation,
while
efforts
are
underway
to
end
the
hiv
epidemic
by
in
part,
developing
statewide
and
local
plans
to
address
people
getting
tested
and
to
know
their
status,
getting
people
in
care
and
to
stay
in
care.
N
These
laws
stigmatize
people
living
with
hiv
and
go
against
the
very
public
health
efforts
to
end
the
hiv
epidemic
that
has
been
put
in
place
by
specifically
calling
out
hiv
in
the
law
when
other
communicable
diseases
are
not.
And,
of
course,
these
laws
disproportionately
affect
black,
the
black
community
as
you'll
hear
more
about
about
a
specific,
specific
research
findings
in
just
a
bit
from
brad
sears
with
the
williams
institute.
N
This
effort
is
supported
by
the
u.s
center
disease
for
disease
control,
the
national
institute
of
health,
the
american
medical
association
and
the
u.s
office
of
infectious
disease
and
hiv
aids
policy.
We
have
submitted
sign-on
letters
that
include
about
40
individuals,
including
those
who
are
spanish
language,
speakers
and
27
organizations
across
nevada.
Hiv
is
a
public
health
issue,
not
a
criminal
one,
and
our
law
should
reflect
that.
Thank
you
in
advance
for
your
support
for
this
very
important
piece
of
legislation.
This
ends
my
prepared
remarks.
Thank
you.
M
And
share
just
one
more
presenter,
if
I
may,
mr
sears,
who
can
speak
a
little
bit
about
some
of
the
nevada,
specific
studies
that
he's
conducted.
O
Thank
you,
everyone.
My
name
is
brad
sears
b-r-a-d-s-e-a-r-s
and
I'm
the
associate
dean
of
public
interest
law
at
ucla
school
of
law,
and
it
was
my
pleasure
to
be
able
to
do
a
study
with
at
the
women's
institute
at
ucla,
similar
to
other
studies,
to
really
measure
the
impact
that
nevada's
hiv
criminal
laws
have
had
on
people.
O
I'm
going
to
be
very
quick,
but
I
am
going
to
share
my
screen
right
now,
so
you
can
see
some
of
the
results
and
I
want
to
start
by
a
big
thank
you
to
nevada's
department
of
public
safety's
records,
communications
and
compliance
division.
They
responded
to
our
records
request,
not
only
once
but
multiple
times
and
we're
just
extremely
cooperative
in
helping
us
not
only
providing
the
data
but
really
understand
it.
I
just
want
to
highlight
a
few
things
that
we
learned
and
start
by
saying.
O
If
these
themes
are
consistent
with
the
four
other
states
for
which
we've
done
similar
analyses
and
the
first
finding
is,
you
might
think
that
these
laws
were
passed
a
long
time
ago
and
enforced
a
long
time
ago
and
then
now
they're
enforced
less.
That
turns
out
not
to
be
the
case
so
that
this
isn't
a
solution
in
search
of
a
problem.
O
People
are
still
being
arrested
in
charge
with
these
laws
about
63
percent
of
the
arrests
in
the
data
have
happened
since
2013,
and
you
can
see
three
of
the
five
biggest
years
for
arrests,
since
these
laws
were
first
passed
have
happened
since
2013..
It's
an
ongoing
issue,
impacting
nevada.
O
Secondly,
and
again
consistent
with
the
other
four
states
that
we've
looked
at,
while
the
initial
focus
of
this
law
might
have
been
on
other
types
of
conduct,
they're
really
used
now
primarily
to
charge
people
who
are
also
charged
with
sex
work.
Unlike
sex
work,
they
care
fairy
felonies
instead
of
misdemeanors
and
senator
harris
said
much
higher
sentences,
and
so
they
increased
the
penalty
for
people
suspected
of
doing
sex
work,
and
so
you
can
see,
61
percent
of
the
charges
are
against
sex
workers.
O
That
also
means,
I
think,
unlike
probably
what
was
in
people's
minds
in
the
1980s
and
1990s.
These
crimes
are
not
being
charged
just
against
men,
but
women,
and
you
can
see
that
about
a
third
of
the
charges,
are
against
women.
That
corresponds
with
the
focus
of
the
charges
against
sex
workers.
That's
double
about
of
the
percentage
of
the
hiv
positive
population
in
nevada,
who
are
women,
there's
one
other
kind
of
demographic,
statistically,
one
that,
for
me,
really
opens
up
the
picture
of
who
these
laws
are
impacting.
O
The
age
range
of
these
folks
is
from
17
to
68.
So
when
you
take
that
age
range
and
you
think
about
sex
workers,
you
also
have
to
think
about
a
number
of
young
girls,
women
who
may
be
trafficked
if
you're
in
your
60s
and
doing
sex
work
like
it
may
be
for
survival
reasons
that
that
these
are
felonies
and
huge
penalties
impacting
already
vulnerable
populations
that
we
want
to
engage
with
public
health.
O
The
other
thing
that
has
been
absolutely
consistent
across
every
state
we've
looked
at
is
that
these
laws
disproportionately
impact
people
of
color
and
particularly
black
people,
and
so
a
way
to
sum
up,
this
chart
is,
if
you
have
a
disease
like
hiv,
which
we
know
disproportionately
impacts
black
people,
and
you
have
a
criminal
justice
system
that
disproportionately
impacts
black
people
and
you
make
a
crime
of
that
disease.
O
This
is
the
only
thing
that's
going
to
result,
while
black
people
make
up
10
of
the
state's
population,
roughly
they're,
about
46
of
convictions
for
hiv
crimes.
Something
else
we've
seen
similar
and
in
the
other
states
that
we've
looked
at
is
that
enforcement
is
not
universal
or
process
straight
the
state.
It's
really
concentrated
in
a
handful
of
places
in
nevada.
O
This
comes
down
to
three
counties
with
almost
80
percent
of
the
arrests
not
only
being
in
clark,
county
or
las
vegas
by
the
but
by
the
las
vegas
metro
police.
So
it
is
in
a
way,
a
statewide
law
that
impacts
all
people
with
hiv
and
prevention
efforts.
That
has
a
very
localized
enforcement,
and
the
final
thing
to
point
out
is-
and
I
think
this
echo
senator
harris
is
when
you
think
about
what's
being
charged,
are
these
people
intending
to
to
transmit
the
virus?
O
Have
they
actually
transmitted
the
virus
and
have
they
even
engaged
in
conduct
that
transmit
the
virus?
Well,
these
laws,
and
so
none
of
these
folks
were
charged
with
the
intention
to
transmit
the
virus.
None
of
these
arrests
or
conditions
convictions
actually
involve
transmission
of
the
virus,
and,
I
think,
probably,
most
surprisingly,
most
of
the
arrests
are
for
conduct
that
doesn't
have
anything
to
do
with
transmitting
the
virus.
O
Most
sex
workers
are
arrested
or
charged
for
conduct
that
they
do
on
street
communication
on
the
street
communications
that
happen
online
or
by
actually
stealing
operations
of
law
enforcement.
So
that
really
hasn't
that
doesn't
really
cover
conduct
that
can
transmit
by
be
transmitted
by
hiv.
I
think
the
surprising
new
thing
about
nevada
that
I've
not
seen
in
the
other
four
states
we've
looked
at
is
that
a
third
of
all
convictions
are
for
attempt
or
conspiracy
charges.
O
So
when
you
think
about
it,
tipped
to
solicit
our
conspiracy
to
solicit
you're
really,
so
the
the
conduct
that
usually
charge
for
solicitation
hasn't
even
happened
right.
It's
an
attempt
to
do
that.
This
makes
more
sense
when
you
consider
that
95
class
people
in
the
criminal
justices
complete,
but
again
we're
getting
more
and
more
removed
from
conduct
that
can
actually
transmit
the
virus.
M
What
you
see
before
you
is
the
result
of
a
lot
of
work
and
collaboration
to
make
sure
that
we
are
trying
to
put
our
laws
in
a
better,
less
discriminatory
place,
while
also
ensuring
that
our
health
districts
have
the
authority.
They
need
to
clamp
down
on
on
any
infections
that
are
spreading
and
to
keep
the
community
safe.
A
Thank
you.
I
will
start
a
couple
of
questions.
I
know
we
have
some
questions
from
our
members.
We
you
had
indicated
that
we
don't
criminalize
any
other
kind
of
health
condition
that
someone
might
have,
so
we
don't
have
any
kind
of
corresponding
laws
for
like
say
hepatitis.
Is
that
correct.
M
A
A
Okay-
and
I
I
can
tell
you
that
when
I
first
started
practicing
law,
we
would
see
these
cases
a
lot,
especially
in
the
area
of
prostitution,
and
at
the
time
there
was
like
a
mechanism
that
law
enforcement,
I
believe,
would
be
able
to
look
at
like
the
health
records,
and
they
were
like,
essentially
part
of,
like
your
criminal
background
check
in
determining
how
would
that
remove?
Would
this
law
remove
those
kind
of
like
reporting
to
other
agencies
of
personal
medical
records?
Would
it
eliminate
that.
M
A
You
know
if
any
of
your
other
presenters
know
how
that
information
is
provided
like.
I
know
that
in
previous
cases
that
I
had
had
it
was
a
situation
where
I
would
get
like
a
health
record
showing
that
someone
had
a
positive
test
for
hiv
or
aids,
and
then
that
would
be
used
to
enhance
the
criminal
penalty
for
a
like
prostitution
charge.
P
Good
afternoon,
everyone
jennifer
hall
sexual
health
program
coordinator
at
washoe,
county
health
district
for
the
record.
The
way
that
we've
done
this
in
washoe
county
is
that
if
we
provided
testing
in
conjunction
with
law
enforcement
during
say
a
prostitution
sting,
then
we
would
provide
that
the
test
results
if
we
did
not
test
with
them
during
during
the
same
event,
then
we
would
not
provide
that
information
and
they
would
have
to
seek
that
information
through
a
court
order.
P
So
that's
the
only
time
that
the
information
was
readily
available
to
law
enforcement
and
we
don't
provide
the
information.
Otherwise,
so
it's
my
understanding
that
getting
rid
of
the
enhanced
charge
for
the
prostitution
related
section
of
this
would
then
eliminate
that
information
sharing.
A
M
B
Thank
you
chairwin
and
thank
you
senator
harris
for
bringing
this
bill
forward
and
for
some
of
the
explanations
that
you
have.
My
I
guess
question
aka
comet
also
would
be
to
this.
Hiv
is,
is,
unlike
any
other
communicable
disease,
yes
or
no.
M
Thank
you
for
the
question
assemblywoman
thomas
to
you
through
through
chairwin,
I
would
say
it's
like
other
communicable
diseases
and
in
in
so
much
as
it's
like
other
communicable
diseases.
Of
course
they
vary
in
treatment
and
cause
and
transmission
rates,
but
it
doesn't
vary
any
any
more
than
any
other
communicable
disease
would.
B
Thank
you
so
chair
one
follow
up.
Please.
A
Go
ahead
and
senator
harris
feel
free
to
go
directly
to
the
question.
B
Thank
you
and
senator
harris
with
that
said,
and
I
understand
making
it
a
mr
misdemeanor
by
law,
but
my
concern
are
those
individuals
that
know
that
they're
positive,
whether
you
know
they're
in
the
sex
trade
or
not,
can
use
their
status
as
a
weapon
to
other
people
because
they
got
it
so
therefore
everybody
they
come
in
contact.
M
M
There
are
people
who
are
living
with
all
kinds
of
communicable
diseases
who
could
for
some
reason
or
another,
choose
to
go
out
and
attempt
to
weaponize
that
hiv
is
not
the
only
communicable
disease
that
someone
could,
let's
say
intentionally
transmit.
A
perfect
example
is
coronavirus
in
today's
example
right,
but
the
fear
and
and
the
stigma
that's
been
put
behind
hiv
over
the
last
30
years-
is,
I
think,
what's
leading
to
that
uneasiness.
M
I
would.
I
would
argue
that
if
someone
goes
out
and
in
the
worst
case
example,
I
guess
would
have
to
draw
their
blood,
maybe
and
then
stick
someone
in
their
sleep
without
them,
knowing
it
or
walking
by
them.
There
is
a
slew
of
charges.
You
could
charge
someone
who
who
engages
in
in
that
type
of
conduct
for
and
you'd
be
able
to
do
that
for
some
other
type
of
communicable
disease.
If
there's
someone
out
there
who
is
intentionally
trying
to
harm
other
people,
there's
no
reason
that
we
have
to
call
hiv
out
separately.
D
Thank
you,
madam
chair
senator
parks.
It's
great
to
see
you
thank
you
for
continuing
to
be
an
advocate
and
senator
harris.
Thank
you
for
bringing
the
bill.
I
was
absolutely
supportive,
as
we
made
changes
in
the
last
sessions
regarding
the
need
to
decriminalize
hiv,
and
I
think
it's
critical
that
we
do
so.
D
My
concern
is
not
the
hiv
components
of
this
bill.
My
concern
is,
it
almost
looks
like
now:
we're
criminalizing
all
communicable
diseases
and
not
spelling
out
hiv
senator
harris.
You
mentioned
the
coronavirus
because
that's
a
communicable
disease,
and
so
as
a
board
chair
of
our
county
health
board
mine,
I'm
the
chair
of
our
board
and
as
a
county
health
officer.
D
We
struggled
with
the
coronavirus
epidemic
and,
and
how
do
we
handle
folks
that
we
know
have
coronavirus,
so
they
wanted
to
attend
an
event
say,
and
we
know
that
they
had
just
tested
positive
and
could
they
or
could
may
not
go
and
where
were
we
legally?
What
could
we
do
with
that
and
having
struggled
with
that?
We
certainly
I
understand
that
the
mandate
to
quarantine
my
concern
with
the
bill,
especially
in
the
amendment
per
first
reprint,
that
thank
you
for
sending
ahead
of
time.
D
Actually,
so
we
could
get
a
copy
of
it
section,
one
on
the
bill,
amended
recommendation
is
treat
any
person
or
group
of
person
with
communicable
disease
and
those
exposed
to
communicable
disease.
What,
if
a
person,
I
understand
the
quarantine
aspect
of
it
from
a
public
health
point.
My
concern
is
the
treat
the
person.
M
Thank
you
so
much
for
the
question.
Assemblywoman
titus
I'll
I'll
take
a
first
stab
at
it
and
then,
if
I
can
kick
it
over
to
miss
hal,
who
does
this
in
her
daily
practice?
M
Let
me
just
start
off
with
the
language
the
word
treat.
We
changed
the
word
treat
from
what
was
previously
disinfect,
which
is
a
little
bit
antiquated
right,
so
the
the
existing
law
was
to
say
you
can
disinfect
someone
we
decided
treat
was
a
much
more
appropriate
term.
I'll
also
note
up
top.
This
is
about
what
the
county
board
of
health
may
do.
There
is
no
shell
there
and
I'm
looking
at
section
one
county
board
of
health
may
and
then
everything
that
follows
beneath
it.
M
M
You
may
need
to
quarantine
someone
in
circumstance
certain
circumstances,
and
then
you
need
the
ability
to
treat
people
in
certain
circumstances
so
that
we
don't
have
folks
who
really
just
need
to
be
treated
under
the
same
qualifications
as
someone
who
might
need
to
be
quarantined
and
so
I'll.
If
I
can
I'll
kick
it
over
to
miss
howell
to
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
what
happens
when
you
want
to
treat
someone
and
they
tell
you
to
pound
sand.
P
Good
afternoon,
jennifer
hall
again
for
the
record
to
you
assemblywoman
titus,
we
it's
definitely
a
as
far
as
we've
interpreted
it,
it's
a
individual
right.
So
if
someone
does
not
want
to
say,
engage
in
std
treatment,
hiv
treatment
any
of
the
communicable
diseases-
that
is
their
right,
but
they
still
may
be
subjected
to
quarantine
or
isolation.
D
And
thank
you
for
that.
I
think
it
just.
I
just
needed
clarity
that
a
person
still
had
that
right
to
as
a
provider,
and
I
would
counsel
a
patient.
They
had
the
right
to
refuse
treatment,
providing
that
and
then
you
have
to
look
at
the
public
health
aspect
of
that
and
I
agree
these
are.
These
are
questions
that
need
some
clarity
and-
and
I
appreciate
the
option
in
here-
to
have
a
judicial
review
and
a
pathway.
D
If
you
disagree
and
just
a
observation
in
my
day,
we
used
to
have
parties
when
we
knew
there
was
a
communicable
disease.
If
we
had
chickenpox
it
was
everybody
went
to
that
house
because
they
all
kids
needed
to
be
exposed
to
that,
and
those
days
have
certainly
changed
so
again,
thank
you
for
bringing
the
bill
forward
and
center
parks
great
to
see
you.
Thank
you,
sir,
and
thank
you
senator
harris.
G
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
thank
you
senator
harris
for
the
presentation.
I
think
I'd
like
to
just
sort
of
ask
a
clarifying
question
leading
behind
what
assemblywoman
titus
ask,
and
that
is
if
a
person,
in
the
case,
let's
be
specific,
about
hiv,
chose
not
to
seek
treatment
but
still
carry
it
on
in
their
behavior,
and
you
said
there
are
other
things
that
can
be
brought
for
that
person.
Can
you
please
expound
upon
that.
M
Thank
you
for
the
question:
assemblywoman
summers,
armstrong
I'll
start
and
then
I'll
allow
miss
howell
if
she
can
to
to
supplement
yes.
So
what
happens
is
if
you
are
in?
If
you
are
infectious
or
you've
got
a
communicable
disease,
you're,
posing
a
a
threat
to
public
health
you're
going
to
get
a
a
warning
from
from
your
public
health
district
they're
going
to
let
you
know
hey
by
the
way
this
behavior
is
dangerous.
Please
don't
do
it
the
second
time
you
do
that
you
ignore
that
warning.
That's
where
the
misdemeanor
comes
in!
M
That's!
What's
an
existing
law
for
441
441a,
I
believe
it's
180.,
okay,
that
is
the
current
state
of
the
law
for
every
disease,
except
for
hiv.
So
now
we're
bringing
hiv
under
that
process
and
I'll
turn
it
over
to
ms
howell
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
what
happens
after
you
have
a
misdemeanor,
and
you
are
still
continuing
to
engage
in
that
behavior.
It's
my
understanding.
They
bring
in
public
health,
the
police
to
help
them
and
enforce
these
types
of
things.
But
ms
howell,
if
you
could.
P
Thank
you,
jennifer
howell,
for
the
record.
So
what
happens?
Is
the
da
our
civil
da
brings
those
charges
forward
and
then
we
work
with
law
enforcement.
I've
not
been
aware
of
this
happening
in
my
20
years
of
working
at
the
health
district,
but
that's
what
the
mechanism
would
be.
As
it's
been
explained
to
me
now,
if
so
to
the
question.
P
If
someone
decides
not
to
engage
in
their
hiv
treatment,
then
that
is
their
choice
and
we've
had
people
in
the
community
that
have
that
I've
encountered
that
have
done
that
for
various
reasons,
and
it's
their
right
to
do
so,
but
we
just
want
to
give
them
all
the
explanations
as
to
why
would
be
would
be
beneficial
to
their
health
and
to
the
health
of
other
people.
And
then,
if
they
were
to
go
into
intentional
transmission,
then
it
goes
into
a
warning
and
what
senator
harris
was
describing.
M
And
if
I,
if
I
may
just
follow
up
very
quickly,
it
was
very
important
that
we
maintain
the
health
district's
ability
to
keep
the
public
safe
right,
and
so
any
rogue
actors
out
there
will
will
continue
to
be
treated
as
such.
G
G
Is
there
any
difference?
First
of
all,
we're
talking.
Specifically.
Mr
wade
spoke
about
the,
and
the
gentleman
from
ucla
spoke
about
how
this
particular
law
affects
black
people
more
than
anyone
else
are
any
of
these
other
dis
is.
Is
there
help
available
because
we're
still
seeing
high
rates
of
hiv
in
in
black
communities?
G
G
The
lack
of
of
access
to
health
care
is
a
real
issue.
So
can
you
speak
to
that
so
that
we
can
all
have
clarity
and
also
speak
to?
If
you
can
the
rate
of
transmission
and
are
we
seeing
any
of
these
other
diseases?
Syphilis
gonorrhea
hpv
anything?
What
are
they
looking
like
in
other
communities,
black
communities
and
other
communities
of
color,
and
is
there
help
available?
We
don't
want
to
just
say:
okay,
we
get
rid
of
it,
and
then
we
don't
help
people.
We
need
to
make
sure
that
there's
sufficient
help.
Thank
you.
M
Thank
you
for
the
question.
I'll
use
this
as
a
chance
to
plug
another
one
of
my
bills
senate
bill
211,
which
is
a
bill
that
would
require
providers
to
offer
hiv
and
traditional
st
sti
testing
and
in
hopes
of
addressing
what
which
you
hit
on,
is
a
really
some
frankly,
embarrassing
std
numbers
here
in
the
state,
and
I
think
that,
in
conjunction
with
this
will
do
a
lot
to
try
and
bring
that
down,
but
I'll
turn
it
over
again
to
ms
howell
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
the
treatment.
P
Thank
you
for
the
question:
jennifer
howell
for
the
record.
So
if
it's
an
index
case,
which
is
mean
someone
that
we
just
found
to
be,
that
has
an
std
or
hiv,
including
hiv,
that's
reported
to
us
by
a
physician
or
a
provider
or
by
our
own
testing.
P
Then
we
make
contact
with
that
person
to
either
see
if
they've
had
appropriate
treatment,
because
some
providers
do
not
follow
appropriate
std
treatment
guidelines
or,
if
they're
connected
to
hiv
care
or
if
they
want
to
be
and
then,
if
needed.
Washa
county
health
district
doesn't
offer
hiv
care
provision
of
hiv
care,
but
we
do
refer
to
our
community
providers
and
there's
a
couple
private
providers
that
do
provide
that
service.
So
we
do
warm
handoffs
and
very
active
referrals.
P
We
don't
just
give
them
a
phone
number
and
tell
them
to
go
on
their
way.
We
actually
make
appointments,
especially
if
it's
someone
living
with
hiv.
We
make
those
appointments
with
them
in
our
offices
as
much
as
we
can
and
make
sure
that
we
have
a
good
connection
to
those
care
services
for
stds,
it's
a
little
bit
different
again.
We
will
make
sure
that
they
have
appropriate
treatment
through
their
provider
or
their
provider
offers
that
treatment.
P
P
We
just
need
to
know
that
the
person
has
a
positive
test
to
be
able
to
follow
through
with
them,
which
is
what
senate
bill
211
does
so
we
work
as
hard
as
we
can
as
diligently
as
we
can
to
ensure
that
there
are
no
gaps
and
services
if
a
person
wants
to
seek
those
services
and
we
try
to
indulge
any
issues
that
come
up
with
a
client
to
do
so,.
A
Thank
you
and
if
you
can
get
any
of
that,
other
information
that
assemblywoman
summers
armstrong
mentioned
regarding
like
transmission
rates
for
other
communicable
diseases.
That
would
be
wonderful
if
you
can
get
that
to
our
committee
staff
and
we
can
distribute
that
next,
I'm
going
to
go
to
assemblywoman
benitez
thompson.
I
know
she
had
some
clarifying
question
regarding
a
statement
that
miss
hall
made.
Q
Thank
you
so
much,
and
it
was
the
the
factoid
you
had
there
in
reference
to
the
use
of
the
da's
power
if
they
needed
to
and
that
you
hadn't
seen
that
houston
for
20
years,
and
I
wasn't
sure
if
that
was
in
response
specifically
to
the
hiv
statutes
as
we
have
them,
or
to
all
communicable
diseases.
P
P
Q
Thanks
so
much,
I
appreciate
that
just
because
I
wondered
more,
it
seems
to
me
that
we're
more
of
these
conversations
have
played,
played
out,
sometimes
have
been
like
with
tuberculosis,
and
when
you
have
someone
who's,
active
and
positive,
and
and
sometimes
it
can
be
difficult
to
get
their
consent,
if
they're
someone
who
tends
to
be
non-compliant
or
if
they
have
behavioral
health
issues.
So
I
was
wondering
I
was
like.
Oh,
I
can't
imagine
that
we've
never
had
to
use
that
for
someone
who
has
but
I'll.
Let
someone
else
with
more
data.
Q
Tell
us
more
about
that,
and
then
I
also
just
wanted
to
clarify,
because
we
were
having
a
conversation
about
treatment
and
right
to
treatment.
But
I
believe
441a,
already
kind
of
clearly
states
in
there
that
the
the
health
board
does
not
have
the
ability
to
interfere
with
the
person's
right
for
to
treatment,
and
I
think
it
could.
It
reads
both
ways
right
to
treatment
or
right,
not
to
have
treatment.
Q
So
I
think
we
I
think
we
already
have
that
covered
in
status
quo,
that
there's
nothing
about
statute,
that
that
that
person
already
has
that
ability
to
accept
care
or
not
accept
care.
I
just
didn't
hear
the
reference
to.
I
think
it's
441
a
200
or
something
like
that.
Just
from
past
conversations,
I
I
think
I've
heard
that
referenced.
A
A
I
will
have
her
follow
up
with
committee
members.
If
we
can
by
then
I'm
sorry
there
she
is.
Can
you
see
me
I'm
sorry?
I.
L
Look
frazzled
assemblywoman
benitez
thompson
was
correct
in
referencing
441a
200..
L
A
C
Thank
you
chair.
I
I
think
it's
important
in
this
conversation
to
get
on
the
record.
The
advancements
that
have
been
made
around
the
treatment
and
reduction
of
risk
related
to
contraction
and
prevention
of
hiv,
because
that
kind
of
is
what's
changing
the
narrative
around
how
people
engage
in
the
world
after
they
have
become
positive
with
hiv.
So
could
someone
talk
to
the
advancements
in
those
anti-viral
drugs,
including
prep
and
pep,
and
what
those
have
meant
to
the
potential
risk
for
hiv
contraction.
M
Thank
you
for
bringing
up
that
point.
Assemblywoman
peters
I'll
turn
that
over
either
to
mr
wade,
or
I
think
mr
sears
might
be
able
to
answer
that
question
as
well
in
in
a
bit
more
detail
than
I'd,
be
able
to.
O
Yeah,
I'm
happy
to
jump
in
and
take
a
stab
and
then
mr
wade
can
can
fill
in
if
necessary,
so
brad
sears
again
from
ucla
and
the
williams
institute,
and
so
definitely
when
you
think
about
the
time
that
these
laws
were
passed,
we
had
no
effective
treatments
for
preventing
or
for
treating
hiv
and
for
preventing
hiv.
O
We
were
just
several
years
out
from
even
having
a
test
that
could
identify
the
virus
since
the
mid
1990s
a
few
years
after
the
last
one
of
these
laws
was
passed,
we
have
had
those
effective
medications
and
so
in
the
mid
1990s
you
saw
death
and
illness
rate
drop.
You
also
saw
transmission
drop.
O
What
we
know
today,
and
what
we
just
learned
in
the
last
few
years,
is
that,
if
you're
on
those
effective
medications-
and
you
have
an
undetectable
viral
load,
you
cannot
that
and
for
someone
like
me,
you've
been
doing
this
for
decades,
that's
hard
to
even
kind
of
digest,
but
you
cannot
transmit
the
virus
through
through
sex
and
we
and
we
think
and
have
there's
other
research.
That's
growing.
You
also
can't
transmit
it
through
other
means.
These
laws
take.
O
None
of
that
just
the
the
the
the
fact
that
having
hiv
is
is
no
longer
a
death
sentence.
There
are
other
illnesses
out
there
that
have,
on
average,
more
more
serious
consequences
and
that
people's
ability
for
hiv
positive
to
transmit
is
greatly
reduced.
Part
of
those
effective
medications
is,
if
you
think,
you've
been
exposed.
You
can
do
post-exposure,
prophylaxis
or
post-exposure
treatment
highly
effective
in
preventing
you,
even
after
that.
Exposure
of
being
hiv
also
proven
to
be
very
effective,
is
a
pre-exposure
prophylexis.
O
So
we
have
a
growing
number
of
people
who
are
at
high
risk
who
take
the
medications,
even
though
they're
not
hiv-positive,
so
if
they
ever
become
exposed,
they're
no
longer
hiv
positive,
and
I-
and
I
guess
just
to
end
by
picking
up
on
an
earlier
comment.
You
know
these.
You
can't
place
police
your
way
out
of
the
pandemic
right.
We've
shown
that
now
with
hiv,
we're
showing
that
with
cova
but
getting
people
access
to
treatment
into
pre-exposure
and
post-exposure
medications
is
a
way
to
really
fight
hiv.
N
Yes,
assemblywoman
vice
chair
of
peters,
I
was
happy
too.
This
is
andre
wade
for
the
record.
So
currently,
there
are
prob
navigation
services
in
place
as
an
example,
some
nevada
health
district
has
it,
I
believe,
the
lgbtq
center
of
southern
nevada
and
perhaps
other
organizations,
and
so
they
help
individuals
learn
about
and
access
prep
medication
with
or
without
their
insurance
coverage.
You
have
the
huntridge
health
clinic
out
here
in
southern
nevada
that
provides
prep
medication
for
free
for
those
who
are
unable
to
afford
medication
or
have
trouble
accessing
it.
N
There
is
a
statewide
effort
to
have
prep
become
more
available
so
as
another
plug
for
a
bill.
Sb
325,
that's
moving
through
the
legislative
session,
would
allow
pharmaceutical
pharmacists
to
prescribe
prep
and
pep
to
individuals
without
a
prescription,
as
well
as
ancillary
services
related
to
the
medication
which
would
greatly
increase
access
to
this
medication,
which
would
then
greatly
decrease
the
risk
of
transmission
and
really
help
us
to
begin
to
truly
truly
get
it
to
where
the
rates
of
hiv
infection
are
lower
in
nevada.
N
Because,
right
now
we
are
the
highest
we're
in
the
state
with
the
highest
rate
of
new
diagnoses
and
people
living
with
hiv
west
of
the
mississippi,
and
so
we
really
need
to
combat
this.
So
having
on
the
ground,
community
access
to
medications
like
prep
and
pap,
having
pharmacists
being
able
to
prescribe
it
and
a
lot
of
the
other
public
education
and
that's
going
on
out.
There
would
help
folks
even
greatly
have
access
and
I'll
just
close
by
saying
we're
still
having
to
educate
medical
providers
on
this
medication
to
better
inform
them.
N
So
access
continues
to
increase.
So
thank
you.
C
Thank
you
for
the
responses.
I
appreciate
that
and
I
understand,
I
think,
that
it's
really
amazing
how
far
science
has
come
in
relation
to
this
disease,
and
I
do
believe
that
all
of
the
work
and
effort
being
done
to
ensure
that
people
have
access
to
these
preventative
medications
and
these
treatments
is
really
going
to
benefit
the
state
not
just
in
in
access
to
but
destigmatizing
the
the
ask
for
a
test
and
making
sure
that
you're
getting
proactive
treatment.
M
And
madam
chair,
with
your
permission,
I'd
like
to
ask
the
secretary
to
strike
any
references
to
shout
outs
to
senator
settlemyre
on
the
record.
A
I
I'm
sure
we
will
make
sure
that
that
was
clearly
in
the
records
of
the
minutes.
Your
request,
that
is
at
this
point
I'm
gonna,
get
to
start
begin
testimony
in
support
of
senate
bill
275.
I
will
start
here
in
the
room.
Oh
look,
it's
a
race,
it's
a
race
to
the
desk,
so
go
ahead,
and
I
would
remind
you
to
please
clearly
state
and
spell
your
name
for
the
record
and
please
limit
your
testimony
to
two.
A
R
With
this
said,
I
would
say
that
the
passing
of
sp275
would
be
a
strong
start
in
ending
the
hiv
epidemic
and
destigmatizing
hiv
as
an
illness.
It's
to
normalize
talking
about
using
condoms,
to
get
on
hiv
medications,
antiretrovirals,
prep
and,
of
course,
monitoring
one's
hiv
status
without
public
scrutiny.
The
dialogue
and
the
stigma
around
hiv
needs
to
be
changed
in
order
to
properly
address
the
health
crisis.
So
thank
you
for
your
time.
A
We
will
go
to
our
next
person
in
support
here
in
the
room
and
I
am
going
to
be
turning
over
cheering
duties
here
to
my
very,
very
capable
vice
chair
peters.
I
have
to
go
present
a
bill,
but
good
luck
continue.
M
And
vice
chair
peters,
if,
if
I
may,
I
just
wanted
to
get
one
more
thing
on
on
the
record
that
I
neglected
to
do.
I
just
want
to
let
the
committee
know.
M
The
affirmative
defenses
in
in
this
bill
are
are
aimed
at
what's
on
in,
are
aimed
at
consensual
conduct,
so
the
idea
that
two
people
engage
in
activities
that
may
be
risky,
but
people
have
the
right
to
to
engage,
but
the
scope
of
it
is
not
intended
to
extend
to
other
circumstances
like
a
first
responder
who's,
responding
to
a
call
and
wouldn't
know
if
someone
had
a
communicable
disease
and
would
not
consent
to
the
conduct
to
transmit
the
disease.
Had
they
known
that,
so
I
just
want
to
put
that
on
the
record.
Thank
you.
C
Thank
you.
I
appreciate
that
I
think
we'll
go
back
to
support
testimony.
C
Go
ahead,
mrs
burchie,
when
you're
ready
thank
you
good
afternoon
vice
chair
peters
and
members
of
the
committee.
This
is
kendra
burchie
with
the
washoe
county
public
defender's
office.
Today,
I'm
testifying
on
behalf
of
my
office
as
well
as
the
clark
county
public
defender's
office.
We
want
to
thank
the
sponsors
for
bringing
forward
this
incredibly
important
bill
to
allow
our
state
to
join
the
effort
of
the
growing
number
of
states
who
have
monetized
their
criminal
laws
to
remove
these
prevention
issues
from
our
felony
criminal
statutes.
C
C
C
Thank
you.
Miss
burchie,
I'm
seeing
no
more
support
testimony
in
the
room.
I
would
ask
if
there
are
folks
on
the
zoo
in
support
looking
to
staff.
Yes,
so
if
there
are
folks
in
on
the
zoom
who
are
here
to
testify
and
support
now
would
be
the
time
not
seeing
anyone
specifically
pop
up.
So
if
we
have
some
some
late,
visual
honors,
we
will
come
back
to
you.
I
will
ask
bps
to
go
ahead
and
open
the
phone
line
for
those
in
support
of
sb61.
K
H
Good
afternoon,
chair
and
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
alex
campero
and
today,
I'm
speaking
in
support
of
spc
275,
current
nevada
laws
regarding
hiv
criminalization
are
out
there.
We
did
ineffective
and
discriminatory
laws
were
first
established
decades
ago,
during
the
height
of
the
hiv
aids
epidemic.
When
little
was
known
about
it,
this
led
to
disproportionately
disproportionate
marginalization
of
gender
and
sexual
minorities
and
communities
of
color,
especially
black
people.
We
cannot
punish
hiv-positive
nevadans.
We
have
so
few
state
and
community
resources
available
to
them.
H
This
criminalization
lead
perpetuates
a
stigma
in
discouraging
testing
treatment
and
disclosure.
We
should
be
promoting
all
methods
available
to
reduce
transmission
and
treatment
of
hiv.
I
score
sb
235
because
it
will
not
modernize
nevada's,
outdated
hiv
laws
to
eliminate
stigma
and
promote
public
health.
We
as
a
state
want
to
end
the
hiv
epidemic,
which
should
support
sb275.
H
K
K
S
S
I'd
like
to
thank
the
vice
chair
now
and
all
of
the
acidic
I'm
sorry
assembly
members
for
taking
time
today
to
hear
information
about
this
bill.
I
want
to
send
a
huge
thank
you
to
senator
david
parks
and
senator
dallas
harris
for
championing
this
bill
for
us,
and
I
would
like
to
speak
on
I'm
here
today
to
talk
about
why
we
should
all
care
about
reforming
the
outdated
hiv
criminalization
laws
in
nevada.
We've
made
significant
advances
in
our
scientific
understanding
of
hiv
and
the
medical
interventions
available
to
treat
it.
S
S
There
are
multiple
clinical
studies
that
scientifically
prove
that
I
am
unable
to
transmit
hiv
to
someone
I'm
having
a
sexual
relationship
with,
and
there
are
also
many
studies
to
prove
that
the
people
who
are
transmitting
right
now
are
mostly
all
untested
and
out
of
treatment
from
fear
of
being
criminalized.
The
way
the
current
laws
are
written
are
preventing
people
from
getting
tested
which
prevents
them
from
getting
into
treatment
treatment
that
we
now
know
prevents
the
spread
of
hiv.
S
We
have
a
fear
of
being
criminalized
because
not
only
do
convictions
for
these
crimes
not
require
transmission
or
the
specific
intent
to
transmit
hiv
most
do
not
even
require
conduct
that
could
transmit
the
virus.
This
includes
almost
all
solicitation
and
prostitution
related
convictions
and
there's
nowhere
in
there
to
discuss
the
fact
of
how
many
times
I've
been
falsely
accused
by
people
who
are
leaving
a
relationship
with
me
and
get
angry
that,
how
dare
I,
a
person
living
with
hiv
leave
them
a
person
who's
not
leaving
living
with
hiv
to
go,
find
something
better.
C
C
Hey.
Thank
you.
So
much
for
sharing
your
story
and
for
your
and
for
your
comments,
can
we
move
on
to
the
next
caller
and
support.
K
L
Good
morning,
oh
good
afternoon,
chair
and
assembly
committee
on
health
and
human
services,
thank
you
for
this
time.
For
the
record,
my
name
is
jasmine
j,
a
s
m.
I
n,
as
in
nancy,
margarita
like
the
drink
and
tobin
tias,
and
tom
o
b
as
in
boy,
oh
and
as
a
nancy,
I
go
by
jazz,
I'm
an
organizer
with
planned
parenthood
votes,
nevada,
planned
parenthood
votes,
nevada
is
in
favor
of
sb
275.
L
Current
nevada
law
treats
the
hiv
epidemic
as
a
criminal
offense,
rather
than
a
public
health
crisis
that
all
of
you
have
been
presented
with
today,
with
science
and
with
knowledge
we
know
better,
and
so
this
this
is
our
opportunity
to
do
better.
Criminalization
is
not
the
answer
it
never
was.
Science
is
despite
advances
in
hiv
care
and
science
like
prep
pre-exposure
and
prophylaxis
and
undetectable
equals
and
untransmittable.
Or
u
equals
you
nevada's
hiv
criminalization
laws
are
still
based
on
decades.
L
Decades-Old
science
criminalization
discourages
testing
treatment,
disclosure
and
results
in
stigma
and
preventable
deaths,
whether
it's
the
horribly
mismanaged
aids
epidemic
in
the
1990s
or
the
coronavirus
pandemic.
Bipac
and
lgbtq
plus
individuals
suffer
the
most
and
they
have
been
the
ones
leading
the
movement
for
justice
for
their
communities.
L
K
L
Good
afternoon
vice
chair
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record,
my
name
is
christine
saunders.
That's
c-h-r-I-s-t-I-n-e,
s-a-u-n-d-e-r
policy,
director
with
the
progressive
leadership
alliance
of
nevada
here
in
support
of
senate
bill
275
in
the
interest
of
time.
I
want
to
echo
the
sentiments
of
those
who
spoke
before
me
and
will
submit
my
additional
remarks
to
the
record.
L
Our
current
law
causes
far
more
harm
than
good,
increasing
the
stigma
around
hiv,
discouraging
people
from
seeking
testing
and
further
criminalizing
communities
of
color
sb
275
would
help
modernize
these
laws
to
support
modern
science
and
help
end
the
hiv
epidemic.
Hiv
is
a
public
health
issue,
not
a
criminal
issue,
and
our
state
law
should
reflect
that.
We
are
your
support
of
this
legislation.
Thank
you.
K
L
Thank
you.
My
name
is
leanne
mcallister
l-e-a-n-n
m-c-a-l-l-I-s-t-e.
I
am
the
executive
director
of
the
nevada
chapter
of
the
american
academy
of
pediatrics.
Today
I
offer
support
on
behalf
of
the
nevada
aap
for
sb
275
laws.
Criminalizing
hiv
exposure
and
transmission
perpetuates
the
stigma
around
hiv
and
discourages
people
from
getting
tested.
The
aap
joins
the
cdc
in
calling
on
states
to
revise
old
laws
that
do
not
reflect
our
current
understanding
of
hiv.
L
The
nevada
aap
currently
has
more
than
250
members,
most
of
whom
are
board
certified
pediatricians.
Both
primary
and
specialty
care
members
also
include
pediatric
nurse
practitioners,
physician
assistants,
pediatric
residents
and
medical
students,
all
of
whom
live
and
work
in
nevada
and
have
dedicated
their
professional
lives
to
the
health
of
all
children,
adolescents
and
young
adults.
L
K
E
Hello,
my
name
is
vince
collins
v-I-n-c-e-c-l-l-l-ins,
I'm
the
director
of
community
wellness
at
the
lgbtq
plus
community
center
of
southern
nevada,
and
I'm
also,
I
also
sit
on
the
governor's
advisory
task
force
on
hiv
exposure
and
modernization,
and
it's
an
honor
to
do
so
today.
I'm
offering
my
support
for
sb
275
and
would
like
to
thank
everyone
who
have
contributed
to
the
hard
work
and
getting
this
bill
to
where
it
is.
Today.
E
We
rely
on
accurate
and
current
scientific
information
provided
by
the
federal
government
state
and
local
leaders
to
inform
our
service
providers
as
well
as
to
convey
our
to
our
clients
as
to
what
is
true
and
factual.
We
need
our
current
laws
to
be
consistent
with
the
science
and
what
is
also
true
and
factual.
This
information
information
needs
to
be
provided
throughout
the
state,
so
everyone
better
understands
their
roles
and
responsibilities
and
to
better
address
the
stigma
associated
with
people
living
with
hiv
and
aids.
E
K
H
H
My
experience
has
always
been
that
discussions
about
hiv
and
aids
are
far
too
often
tangled
up
in
homophobia
and
transphobia,
and
my
sense
is
that
the
same
is
true,
with
nevada's
current
criminalization
scheme,
when
looking
at
the
group's
most
vulnerable
to
contracting
hiv
and
the
group's
most
vulnerable
to
criminal
enforcement,
it's
clear.
It's
also
tangled
up
with
racial,
gender
and
economic
justice
concerns.
H
I
encourage
you
to
review
the
new
analysis
from
the
williams
institute
that
was
presented.
I
want
to
repeat
that
dark
racial
justice
statistic
black
nevadans,
make
up
40
percent
of
those
arrested
for
hiv
crimes.
I'd
also
note
for
you
that
some
of
the
first
volunteer
work
I
ever
did
was
hiv
prevention
outreach
and
we
always
told
the
community
get
tested
and
know
your
status
and
the
sad
truth.
H
I
hope
you
see
now
is
that
nevada's
criminalization
of
hiv
serves
as
a
major
obstacle
to
these
important
public
health
messages,
because
it
creates
an
environment
in
which
people
are
afraid
to
be
tested.
This
is
a
great
opportunity
to
update
our
laws,
to
align
with
modern
science
and
to
remove
the
stigma
that
gets
in
the
way
of
the
work
we
need
to
do
to
address
this
epidemic.
Please
listen
to
community
members
who
are
impacted
by
the
hiv
epidemic
and
please
do
pass
sc275.
K
S
My
name
is
sarah
hawkins
s-a-r-a-h,
last
name
h-a-w-k-I-n-s
and
here
testifying
today
on
behalf
of
nevada
attorneys
for
criminal
justice
or
nacj.
Thank
you
to
the
committee
for
the
opportunity
to
speak
this
afternoon
and
thank
you
especially
to
senator
harris
and
today's
presenters
for
championing
this
important
and
impactful
legislation.
S
Nacj
stands
in
solidarity
with
the
lgbtqi
plus
community,
their
advocates
and
community
allies.
Our
position
is
very
simple.
We
unequivocally
support
sb
275's
passage
and
urge
this
committee
to
do
the
same
without
compromising
public
health
and
safety.
Sb
275
accords
the
privacy
protection
care,
equality
and
human
dignity
to
which
all
nevadans
are
entitled.
Please
pass
sb
275.
L
For
the
record,
you
have
two
minutes
and
we
begin
dawn,
d-a-w-n
christensen,
c-h-r-I-s-t-e-n-s-e-n,
vice
president
of
communications
and
corporate
responsibility
for
the
nevada
resort
association
good
afternoon
vice
chair,
peters
and
committee
members,
nevada's
resort
industry
has
a
long-standing
commitment
to
corporate
social
responsibility
programs
and
initiatives
and
has
a
history
of
leadership
in
the
space.
The
key
pillars
of
most
csr
programs
are
philanthropy:
environmental
sustainability
and
diversity,
equity
and
inclusion,
which
work
in
tandem
to
strengthen
our
community
and
create
better
outcomes
for
people
and
the
planet.
L
We
have
not
had
the
opportunity
to
go
through
the
amendment
that
was
recently
posted,
so
we
will
review
that
language,
but
recognizing
the
overall
intent
of
the
bill.
I'd
like
to
echo
many
of
the
previous
comments
and
agree
it's
time
to
update
the
law.
We
hope
you
take
into
consideration
the
recommendations
presented
by
the
state's
hiv
modernization
task
force
that
helped
shape
sb275.
L
In
closing,
I'd
like
to
thank
the
bill's
sponsor
senator
harris
for
her
leadership
on
this
legislation
and
on
equality
and
equity
matters.
I'd
also
like
to
thank
senator
parks
for
his
long
time,
dedication
to
lgbtq
equality
and
his
years
of
hard
work
and
laying
the
foundation
for
this
bill.
Thank
you
again.
Vice
chair
and
committee
members
for
the
opportunity
to
speak
with
you.
We
appreciate
your
time.
B
E
My
name
is
luis
aceves,
I'm
the
development
manager
for
bridge
research,
education
and
access
for
community
health.
We
primarily
serve
the
hispanic
spanish-speaking
population
in
southern
nevada.
We
are
in
support
of
the
sd-275
which
will
modernise
our
hiv
laws
in
nevada.
Hiv
is
not
a
crime,
and
our
laws
should
reflect
that
as
soon
as
possible.
Luis
acetas
l.
U
I
s
a
c
e
b
s
m
victor
e
s.
Thank
you
and
gracias.
K
E
E
There's
a
great
opportunity
here
to
accurately
and
effectively
recognize
scientific
understanding
of
human
immunodeficiency
virus
and
to
pass
legislation
that
will
improve
public
health
while
sparing
taxpayers
the
unnecessary
burden
of
paying
for
onerous
and
ineffective
prosecutions,
laws
that
have
done
nothing
to
mitigate
issues
that
were
originally
and
erroneously
intended
to
help
protect
society
actually
accomplish.
Quite
the
opposite.
Almost
all
of
the
hiv
convictions
in
nevada
do
not
involve
any
conduct
that
could
actually
transmit
hiv
outdated
laws,
criminalizing
affliction,
not
actions
that
cause
intentional
harm
to
others.
E
C
Thank
you
so
much
for
your
testimony.
Bps
do
we
have
any
other
callers
and
support
at
the
time
there
are
no
more
callers
to
support
at
this
time.
All
right,
you
can
go
to
call
I'm
not
seeing
anybody
in
the
room
to
testify
in
opposition.
C
C
H
I
want
to
thank
senator
parks
for
his
advocacy
on
this
issue
over
the
years
and
senator
harris
for
her
extremely
hard
work,
along
with
the
other
advocates
on
updating
our
hiv
laws.
You
know,
as
as
I
mentioned
in
a
previous
testimony.
You
know
because
of
this
amendment
or
excuse
me,
because
this
bill
has
an
impact
on
all
communicable
diseases.
We've
been
working
very
diligently
in
several
iterations
as
a
working
group
to
make
sure
that
it
doesn't
impact
public
health's
ability
to
address
those
communicable
diseases
because
of
us
updating
this
law.
H
In
order
to
ensure
that
that's
happening,
because
in
section
one
of
the
bill,
they're
looking
to
add
an
infectious
state
to
the
language,
and
so
we
proposed
some
language
that
allows
us
to
isolate,
quarantine,
treat
and
monitor
those
in
an
infectious
state,
and
we
made
that
conforming
change
to
that
in
sections.
Two
and
five
as
well
for
city,
county
and
local
health
authorities,
and
then
section
9
of
the
bill
has
an
amendment
from
us
that
adds
language
for
those
who
were
exposed
to
communicable
disease.
H
C
P
Jennifer
hall,
for
the
record,
I
I
let
me
take
a
stab
at
it.
Could
you
repeat
your
question
for
me:
please
about
the
it's
about
the
donation.
I
Yeah
so,
as
I
read
section
four,
if
you
knowingly
act
in
a
way
to
specifically
transmit
your
communicable
disease,
there
is
some
liability,
but
section
7a,
carves
out
the
person
who
knowingly
donates
tissues
or
an
organ
with
the
specific
intent
to
transmit
their
disease.
As
I
read,
seven
eight
they're
not
liable,
so
is
that
now,
as
I
say,
presumably
their
tissues
will
be
tested.
P
Out
my
apologies
on
this.
This
section,
this
area
of
affirmative
defense
and
that
kind
of
thing
is
not
my
expertise.
Perhaps
brad
sears
would
be
a
better
person.
O
Yeah,
I
I'm
happy
to
thank
you
jen,
I'm
happy
to
take
a
stab
and
answer
the
question.
It's
bred
sears,
and
so
I
I
guess
I
I
would
say
several
things
I
think
probably
the
most
important
is
that
the
chance
of
actually
infecting
someone,
even
if
you
intended
by
donating
blood
in
an
organ
or
an
organ,
is
in
tef
into
infinitesimally
remote.
So
our
blood
supply
has
been
extremely
well
protected.
O
The
donation
of
organs
quite
frequently
happens
after
someone's,
already
passed
away,
and
so
there's
no
prosecution
but
you're
absolutely
correct
in
either
case.
O
The
the
reason
why
our
blood
supply
is
so
safe
is
that
we
have
testing
the
blood
supply
the
amount
of
tests
that
of
anyone,
who's
alive,
who's
donating
this
organ
would
be,
and
it
would
be
extensive
for
the
donor
and
the
person
receiving
the
organ
and-
and
I
can
also
say,
since
we've
done
similar
analysis
now
in
five
states-
that
this
type
of
crime,
when
it
does
exist
so,
for
example,
existed
in
california-
has
has
almost
never
been
enforced.
O
So
it's
kind
of
on
the
books
in
some
states,
but
but
never
has
any
enforcement
action,
and
I
guess
I'll
I'll
I'll
end
with
this.
There
is
an
affirmative
reason
to
signal
that
some
types
of
donations
are
encouraged
for
a
long
time.
People
with
hiv
couldn't
even
donate
organs
to
other
people
with
hiv,
even
though
there's
a
federal
law
that
calls
for
that
there's
a
practices
can
develop
that
that
has
allowed
that
to
happen,
and
I
know
when
we
repealed
that
law
in
california.
O
There
was
a
waiting
list
of
about
40
people
in
san
francisco
with
hiv
who
couldn't
get
oregon
donations
from
other
people
with
hiv
until
we
repealed
that
law.
So
there's
a
there's,
a
some
positive
value
in
signaling.
This
is
an
okay
thing
to
do.
C
Thank
you,
mr
sears.
I
am
I
think,
with
that
I
can
move
on
to
okay
bps.
Could
you
check
the
lines
for
additional
neutral
testimony?
Please.
K
L
L
L
K
L
Good
afternoon
vice
chair
peters
and
members
of
the
committee
joanna
jacob
j-o-a-n-n-a-j-a-c-o-b
government
affairs
manager
for
clark
county,
we
are
neutrally
supportive.
I
think
at
this
point
we're
neutral
testimony
neutral.
Today
we
engaged
on
this
bill
on
behalf
of
clark
county
fire
department.
It
was
specifically
on
section
seven
in
its
original
form,
there
were
some
sex.
There
was
some
language
in
there
that
we
believed
would
perhaps
unintentionally
so
act
as
barriers
in
getting
our
first
responders
tested
if
they
are
during
their
course
and
scope
of
their
employment
exposed
to
a
communicable
disease.
L
L
Record
today
about
the
affirmative
defenses,
we
absolutely
support
the
intent
of
this
bill
and
the
move
towards
decriminalization
and
approaching
communicable
diseases
from
a
public
health
perspective
based
on
accurate
and
scientific
evidence,
and
that's
why
we
have
continued
to
work
on
this
bill.
I
wanted
to
say
hello
to
senator
parks
and
thank
you
for
your
championship.
Senator.
It
was
good
to
hear
your
voice
again
today
and
thank
you
to
all
who
have
been
involved.
We
are
neutral
on
the
bill.
Thank
you.
K
L
K
L
S
S
You
I
greatly
appreciate
it
good
day.
My
name
is
alisa
howard
for
the
record
as
a
former
hiv
program
director
and
now
the
owner
of
minority
health
consultants,
where
I
still
bring
hiv
health
education
events
to
priority
populations
in
clark
county.
I
am
in
support
of
2b
70
of
sb
275,
as
we
now
have
heard
several
times
over.
Nevada's
laws
that
criminalize
hiv
are
outdated,
ineffective
and
discriminatory.
S
The
cdc
and
the
state
data
shows
us
that
hiv
has
one
of
the
highest
mortality
and
morbidity
rates
from
an
infectious
disease.
Aside
from
the
latest
cover
19
that
threatens
the
lives
of
minorities,
to
include
african
americans,
latinx
communities
and
lgbt
communities.
Our
current
laws
treat
hiv
differently
from
every
other
clinical
disease.
It's
the
only
one
listed
in
nevada's
penal
code
and
the
only
one
for
which
activities
that
may
risk
transmission
carry
a
felony
charge
for
the
first
events.
S
Not
only
do
these
laws
fail
to
prevent
the
spread
of
hiv,
but
they
also
make
it
harder
to
end
the
epidemic
by
discouraging
testing
treatment
and
disclosure
as
a
person
who
hosts
hiv
community
events
in
black
communities,
discussions
and
events.
I
can
testify
that
the
stigma
around
hiv
still
hinders
these
communities
greatly
from
knowing
their
status
and
therefore
taking
care
of
their
overall
health.
S
C
Thank
you
so
much
sorry
about
our
our
phone
line
mix
up
that
happens
every
once
in
a
while,
but
I'm
glad
we
got
your
testimony
in
bps.
Is
there
anyone
else
and
calling
in
to
testify
in
neutral
on
sb
275.
C
M
M
It's
based
upon
a
lot
of
work
based
by
stakeholders,
not
to
mention
the
hiv
modernization
task
force,
which
will
be
renewed
again
in
this
legislation
in
case
there
are
further
changes
that
we
need
to
make
in
our
search
for
equality.
I
just
want
to
again
shout
out
senator
david
parks
for
all
of
his
work
and
what
he's
done
to
get
us
to
this
point.
We
would
not
be
here
without
him
in
so
many
ways.
So
thank
you
all
for
your
time
and
I
look
forward
to
seeing
you
all
at
the
work
session.
C
Thank
you
so
much
senator
harris
and
thank
you
senator
parks
for
your
continued
advocacy
for
this
issue
and
the
issues
around
lgbtq
plus
community.
It's
so
good
to
see
you
here
with
that.
I
will
close
the
hearing
on
sb
275
and
I
will
now
open
the
hearing
on
sb
305.
I
see
senator
hammond
is
here
and
I
will
give
him
a
moment
to
get
set
up
on
the
dice
and
please
or
on
the
what
is
that
one
called
oh,
the
witness
table,
and
please
start
when
you're
ready.
I
Good
afternoon,
madam
vice
chair
and
committee
members,
I
am
senator
scott
hammond,
testifying
from
the
witness
table
I'm
here
to
present
sb
305.
I
have
with
me,
I
hope,
still
miss
rachel
jason,
who
is
down
south
in
las
vegas.
I
know
she
was
at
the
hospital
with
her
son
earlier.
She
may
still
be
there,
but
I,
I
hope,
she's
still
around,
to
provide
comments.
After
my
brief
comments
here,
sp
305
prohibits
certain
providers
of
medical
or
related
services
from
taking
certain
actions
related
to
organ
transplants,
solely
on
the
basis
of
a
person's
disability.
I
My
comments
will
be
brief
and
then
again,
like
I
said
I'll
turn
it
over
to
rachel.
I
will
tell
you
five
things
that
this
bill
does
four
things
it
does
do
and
one
thing
that
it
doesn't
do
one.
It
prohibits
certain
providers
of
medical
related
services
from
taking
certain
actions
of
related
organ
transplants
solely
on
the
basis
of
a
person's
disability.
I
Two,
it
authorizes
a
person
aggrieved
by
the
failure
of
such
providers
to
comply
with
certain
requirements
to
institute
civil
action
for
injunctive
or
other
appropriate
relief.
Three,
it
prohibits
an
insurer
from
taking
certain
actions
related
to
an
organ
transplant,
because
the
insured
is
a
person
with
with
a
disability.
I
T
C
T
Awesome,
thank
you
guys
so
much
so
sorry
about
that,
and
thank
you
so
much
for
being
here
today.
You
guys,
sorry,
let
me
just
get
back
to
my
notes.
My
name
is
rachel
chesson
and
I
am
excited
to
be
here
today
in
support
of
sb
305
caleb's
law.
Just
some
background
on
me.
I
was
born
and
raised
here
in
the
las
vegas
community.
I'm
the
community
engagement
director
at
the
just
one
project,
which
is
a
local
non-profit
here
in
town
and
I'm
a
fierce
disability
advocate.
T
I
share
our
journey
via
instagram
and
on
facebook
at
a
little
extra
and
on
a
little
extra
love
dot
com,
which
kind
of
just
tells
a
little
bit
about
why
I
love
caleb's
law
and
why
we're
passing
it
and
trying
to
get
this
to
happen.
T
I'm
here,
because
I
really
like
to
tell
you
guys
about
my
son
caleb.
He
is
22
months
years
old,
he's
happy
healthy
and
extraordinary
in
every
way
he
goes
to
preschool
part-time.
He
hangs
out
with
his
glam
on
the
weekends
he's
learning
sign.
Language
loves
to
go
to
the
park
and
purchase,
participates
in
brand
campaigns.
Emphasizing
inclusion
throughout
the
community
and
caleb
also
happens
to
have
a
third
copy
on
his
21st
chromosome
or
down
syndrome,
or
what
I
like
to
call
his
extra
love.
That
makes
him
exactly
who
he
is.
T
I
like
him
a
lot
and
he
is
amazing
and
he
is
literally
the
best
thing
that
ever
happened
to
me
because
of
his
diagnosis.
I've
been
an
active
member
of
the
disability
community
for
a
couple
of
years
now
and
within
the
community.
T
There
was
a
story
that
I
heard
that
absolutely
stood
out
to
me
as
being
almost
unbelievable.
It
was
a
story
about
a
little
girl
named
ellie,
not
even
a
year
old
living
with
her
family
in
ohio
and
in
need
of
a
heart.
The
doctors
told
ellie's,
mom
ellie
wasn't
eligible
for
a
heart
transplant,
not
because
she
was
too
sick
or
because
of
any
medically
significant
reason.
She
wasn't
eligible
for
a
transplant
simply
because
she
had
an
intellectual
disability.
Her
life
was
not
worth
saving
because
of
an
extra
chromosome.
T
When
I
heard
ellie's
story,
I
immediately
assumed
it
must
be
an
anomaly,
a
one-off,
some
row
group
of
doctors
acting
outside
the
typical
standard
of
care.
What
I
found,
though,
was
much
worse
story
after
story,
a
ten-year-old
boy
named
leaf
in
oregon
denied
a
transplant
because
he
has
autism
emilia
rivera,
a
three-year-old
denied,
a
kidney
in
pennsylvania,
because
she
has
wolf
herschen
syndrome,
five-month-old
named
maverick
denied
a
heart
in
new
york
because
of
another
rare
chromosomal
disorder
similar
to
down
syndrome,
and
that's
when
it
hit
me,
my
son
caleb
is
perfectly
healthy.
T
Now,
no
medical
concerns
to
speak
of
other
than
some
trouble
from
being
born,
premature
that
he
has
grown
out
of
and
if
he
needed
an
organ
transplant
tomorrow
it
would
be
because
of
an
accident
or
trauma.
It
would
have
absolutely
nothing
to
do
with
his
diagnosis
of
down
syndrome.
Yet
studies
show
85
percent
of
pediatric
transplant
centers
would
take
caleb's
intellectual
and
disability
in
account.
T
Unc
immediately
reversed
course,
with
dhh
issuing
this
statement,
the
director
of
the
office
of
civil
rights,
roger
severino,
said,
and
I
quote,
every
life
is
precious
and
no
one
should
be
blocked
from
access
to
an
organ
transplant
because
of
stereotypes
about
persons
with
disabilities.
It
is
also
against
the
law
and
that's
an
important
point.
The
reason
I'm
here
today
is
for
support
to
ban
organ
transplant
discrimination
here
in
nevada,
but
we
are
not
asking
the
state
to
do
anything.
New
discrimination
in
medical
services
is
already
illegal.
T
Under
the
federal
americans
with
disability
act,
the
problem
is
enforcement.
There's
no
easy
way
for
you
or
me
to
enforce
the
ada,
because
it
has
no
mechanism
for
enforcement.
So,
in
practical
terms,
that
leaves
us
the
state
of
nevada
on
our
own,
to
not
just
prevent
discrimination
but
to
give
people
an
effective
way
to
challenge
discrimination
when
it
when
and
where
it
happens.
T
T
This
is
a
bill
that
represents
a
significant
step
forward
in
the
protection
of
people
with
disabilities
in
the
state
of
nevada,
and
it
should
be
passed
and
one
last
thing,
because
I
know
I've
already
taken
up
too
much
of
your
time.
15
states
have
already
passed
similar
laws
to
this,
and
another
13
states
have
similar
bills
pending
here
in
2021
right
now.
In
almost
every
instance,
though,
those
bills
were
proposed
because
someone
with
a
disability
was
in
desperate
and
immediate
need
of
a
life-saving
transplant
and
was
facing
unfair
discrimination.
T
C
I
C
Great,
I
have
the
first
question
from
assemblywoman
benitez
thompson.
Please
thank.
Q
You
so
much,
and
so
I'm
wondering
you've
got
a
reference
to
the
supported
decision
making
language
in
here,
meaning
make
sure
that
the
the
helpers
that
we
acknowledge
in
law
are
able
to
help
a
person
should
they
need
that
and
the
only
the
only
thought
I
had
was-
and
this
might
be
more
of
a
question
from
legal.
I
didn't
that
this
specific
nrs
reference
looks
pretty
specific
to
just
the
supported
helpers,
but
I'm
wondering
if
it
would
encapsulate
to
nrs
162a,
which
is
the
power
of
attorney
for
adults
with
intellectual
disabilities.
I
This
is
a
senator
hammond
for
the
record
to
through
you,
madam
vice
chair
to
assemblywoman.
Please.
I
Thank
you.
I
will
some
of
them
beneath
this
thomas.
I
think
it
is
a
good
question
I
think,
for
for
legal,
because
what
we're
looking
at
is
to
make
sure
that,
when
there
is
an
occasion
where
there's
a
transplant
that
that
person
then
has
help,
if
the
parents
aren't
available
that
they
have
somebody
there
yeah,
so
I
whoever
your
legal
staff
is-
and
I
apologize
when
I
wear
the
mask-
I
can't
wear
my
glasses
at
the
same
time,
so
I
don't
see
names
or
titles.
No.
Thank
you.
I
appreciate.
Q
That
and
so
that's
good,
so
for
intent,
we
want
it
and
then
I
guess
we'll
let
legal
know
if
we
get
that,
because
for
the
for
the
over
18,
we
know,
we've
passed
some
bills
in
the
legislature
to
make
sure
that
adults
with
intellectual
disabilities
weren't
having
to
always
surrender
their
civil
rights
in
order
to
go
to
a
dentist
right
to
sign
up
on
on
permission
for
anesthesia,
and
so
that's
just
another
place
in
the
law
where
we
have
helpers
identified
and
making
health
care
decisions.
C
Thank
you
senator.
We
did
have
carlio
crent
our
legal
on
for
a
minute
and
if
she'd
like
to
respond
hi,
can
you
hear.
L
The
record,
I
think
I
I
noted
what
assembly
woman
benitez
thompson
had
mentioned,
and
I'm
happy
to
look
into
that
and
work
with
her
and
the
committee
to
ensure
that
the
bill
addresses
those
circumstances.
C
Great,
thank
you
so
much
and
if
we
don't
mind
getting
that
to
the
rest
of
the
committee,
that
would
be
helpful
as
well.
I
next
on
the
list
of
questions
I
have
assemblywoman
thomas,
please.
B
Thank
you
vice
chair
and
thank
you
senator
hammond,
for
bringing
this
bill
forward.
Caleb's
law
caleb
is
a
beautiful
child.
Thank
you
so
much
for
his
mom
for
sharing
his
story.
B
My
question
is:
how
often
are
are:
are
people
with
disabilities
experiencing
this
type
of
discrimination.
I
Some
woman,
thomas,
I
I
think,
I'd
rather
defer
to
miss
chase
and
she's
still
on
the
line.
I
don't
know
if
I
have
that
information
early
available
and
there
she
is.
I
Your
name
before
you
speak
rachel.
T
Hi
there
rachel
chesson
for
the
record
assemblywoman.
Thank
you
so
much
for
the
question.
I
am
pretty
positive
that
it
happens.
Quite
often,
we
have
stories
after
stories
within
our
disability,
community
and
specifically
in
the
down
syndrome,
community,
and
that's
why
this
law
is
like
sweeping
the
country
by
a
storm
right
now,
just
because
it
is
happening
so
often
within
the
like.
Just
within
the
country.
I
C
Thank
you
senator
and
thank
you
miss
chesson.
Next
I
have
assemblyman
orrin
liquor.
I
My
question
is
along
the
lines
of
assemblywoman
benitez
thompson
and
thinking
about
other
circumstances
in
which
there
could
be
discrimination
and,
as
you
observe
the
problem
or
as
miss
chesson
observed,
the
americans
with
disabilities
act
prohibits
this
kind
of
thing,
but
there's
no
enforcement.
So
it
strikes
me.
There
are
probably
other
kinds
of
discrimination
prohibited
by
the
ada
that
there's
no
private
right
of
action
for
either
and
it
would
be
nice
if
we
address
those
as
well,
so
that
we
pick
up
more.
I
The
assemblyman
orton
live
here.
This
is
center
hand
for
the
record.
I
I
I
completely
agree.
I
don't
know
if
you
have
language
in
mind
or
if
we
have
an
exhaustive
list,
but
I'd
certainly
welcome
a
conversation
with
you
about
this.
C
K
K
L
L
For
centuries,
individuals
with
physical
and
intellectual
disabilities
have
been
discriminated
against.
Individuals
in
this
country
have
been
institutionalized
and
neglected,
as
recently
as
the
1970s
and
disability
rights
have
come
a
long
way
since
the
passing
of
the
americans
with
disabilities
act
in
the
nineteen
nineteen
ninety.
But
the
struggle
continues
from
access
to
equal
education,
rights,
job
opportunities
and
quality
health,
where
health
care
much
work
still
needs
to
be
done.
L
Senate
bill
305
is
a
step
in
the
right
direction
and
allowing
all
individuals
the
same
access
to
life
living
transplants,
individuals
with
disabilities
have
fulfilling
lives,
filled
with
joy
and
love
and
family
and
support.
This
bill
helps
ensure
they
receive
the
same
care
and
consideration
as
anyone
else
in
our
community
and
needs
to
be
passed
as
it
supports
basic
human
rights
and
ensures
that
people
like
my
son,
will
have
a
chance
to
live
the
life
they
are
so
deserving
of,
and
that
so
many
of
us
continue
to
fight
for.
I.
C
C
Great,
I
think
we
can
move
into
opposition
testimony
and
seeing
none
in
the
room
broadcast.
Would
you
please
open
those
lines
for
opposition
testimony
to
sb
305.
C
Thank
you,
I'm
not
seeing
anybody
in
person
for
testimony
and
neutral,
so
I'd
ask
vps
to
open
the
lines
for
testimony
in
neutral.
K
C
Thank
you
and
with
that,
would
invite
the
bill
sponsor
to
make
some
closing
remarks.
Please.
I
I'll
be
brief,
I
thank
you
for
your
time
and
for
your
questions
and
be
wedding
willing
to
take
any
kind
of
conversation
offline.
Thank
you.
C
Thank
you
so
much
and
thank
you,
miss
chase
and
for
your
testimony
as
well
and
your
advocacy
on
this
bill
with
that
I
will
close
the
hearing
on
sb
305
and
we
will
move
on
to
our
next
agenda
item.
C
Last
of
the
day
for
public
comment.
We
can
begin
public
comment
as
a
reminder
to
provide
comment
by
phone.
You
must
register
online
at
the
legislative
website.
Information
is
also
available
on
our
agenda
and
registration.
Registrants
will
receive
a
phone
number
meeting
id
and
instructions
on
to
join
the
meeting.