I think it does if we all agree in legislative history. It does not say they can use any taxpayers' money. It simply says that the gentleman from Kentucky is not proposing that the unions be outlawed if they collect their own dues and pay for their own representation. That is the only intent of it. That is what it says.
Discussing the implications of a proposal regarding union funding during a legislative debate.
Share
More from Sara Jacobs
It is honestly hard to know where even to start with this bill. Maybe let's start with the name. This bill doesn't even come close to protecting women and girls in sports. In fact, it puts all women and girls in danger of sexual abuse. I…
Gender-affirming care is safe, effective, and medically necessary. It is supported by every major medical association in the United States representing more than 1.3 million U.S. doctors. That is why I find it incredibly concerning that…
Instead of righting wrongs and making amends to our LGBTQ+ service members and veterans who’ve suffered injustices for decades, I’m ashamed that the Trump Administration has doubled down: kicking trans folks out of the military and banning…
And let me be clear, I think everyone should have access to the gender-affirming care that they need, and I think that we should respect everybody in this country.
Other voices in this conversation
