Read on Twitter
Less than an hour into the @TheACMG session on #HR3235 and it's been nothing but inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and veiled insults. Here are some of the most outrageous statements being made by ACMG leadership and some of my Q&A questions that aren't being answered. (thread)
Question: If the issue @TheACMG has is with state licensure including the act of ordering genetic testing in GC scope of practice, why are they attacking #HR3235, which has nothing to do with GC licensure or scope of practice and does not mention anything about genetic testing?
The panel keeps reiterating that they support GC reimbursement for genetic counseling services. If this were true, they would support #HR3235. @TheACMG can disagree with #GC scope of practice defined in state licensure, but this is different from the #HR3235 bill.
Dr. Anthony Gregg of @TheACMG denying that ACMG ever actively campaigned against HR3235, but receipts don't lie 
Question: Why does @TheACMG get to decide whether or not other medical professionals can order genetic testing?
Direct quote from Dr. Anthony Greggs of @TheACMG: “This bill is not about access to genetic services” ok hot take there because it's literally called ' #HR3235 the Access to Genetic Counselor Services Act'
Question: can @TheACMG comment on the role of MD’s who are NOT medical geneticists? What would make them more qualified than a #GC in ordering/interpreting genetic testing when there is research and data to suggest otherwise?
Answer by Dr. Greggs: “we hope that @TheACMG initiatives will help in educating other MD’s in genetics and move the needle over time” cool cool so basically the strategy is hope, thoughts, and prayers 
