If we want to do a little comity here, if we want to do what all of us say we want to do, namely, prohibit the use of public funds to pay the union people to do union work, if that is our purpose, and that is my purpose, to prohibit the use of any taxpayers' money, trust fund or otherwise, to pay union representatives or union officials to do work on the taxpayers' money, then that is what the substitute intends to do, accepts that fully. It simply wants to clarify that nothing in this should be interpreted to mean that the union itself must disband and not represent the people with their own money.
Sara Jacobs: “If we want to do a little comity here, if we want to do what all of us say we want to do, namely, prohibit the use of…”
Editor's note · Context
Addressing the use of public funds for union work during a debate.
Share
More from Sara Jacobs
Look, I think there’s a lot of misunderstanding on both sides of the aisle. I spend a lot of time educating my colleagues. A lot of people just are not familiar with this. But let’s be clear, what Nancy Mace is doing is not about…
Republicans can’t decide if they hate people who are getting support, who aren’t working more, or if they want mothers to stay home more.
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.
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…





