Thank you, Bob, for these practical recommendations for opposing involuntary out-patient laws. I believe they are also relevant for involuntary in-patient commitment as well and also for out-patient behavioral health court practices. In addition, your recommendations are very relevant for “voluntary” services where the absence of accurate informed consent is typical. In the state where I live, Pennsylvania, the state legislature passed an “AOC” legislation which was optional for counties to institute. After strong advocacy from multiple sources, every county (67) opted out of “AOC.” I think this shows that clear messaging about how the legislation would work locally, especially given the absence of additional funding for community supports, was effective locally where groups which might have disagreed about many public policies, could still unite about this “AOC” legislation. It was my experience that writing to my state legislator did not change his vote or increase his understanding. Unfortunately on the federal level Pennsylvania enabled the Murphy Bill, which later merged into the “CURES” bill which President Obama signed. After public exposure of his personal behavior, Murphy has since resurfaced as a professional lobbyist. Corruption, obfuscation, and coercion support business as usual. Perhaps organizing locally can bring results with fewer barriers than state and federal organizing. It’s important to continue bringing Whitaker’s reporting, non-corporate backed research, and individual and family stories to the attention of those who legislate policy on all levels; to educate systems providers; users; and our communities to work for human rights. Yours and Saul’s recommendation to use their laws and regulations to accomplish this sounds strategic.