It was about alimony and custody agreements, I'm pretty sure. It was supposed to finally fix the divorce courts, and nothing scares the enemy more than that.
I'm sure if they had the majority, they would have blocked it. They got some concessions out of it, as the enemy always does - IIRC, some kind of one year minimum for alimony to "help the woman get back on her feet".
There were also meetings between Ronald and women's groups leading up to the veto.
Because they were promised that adultery wouldn't count against them in court. I'm not kidding. They had to add that to get women to vote for it. Nothing speaks louder than that about what they are.
No, I'm sure there are a lot of irrelevant state senates that women don't care enough about.
Can't find it. I know I've seen it. I even remember the name of the woman. Barbara DeVane. She spoke with DeSantis about the bill on behalf of the NOW.
I'm not changing my story, I just chose the most hard-hitting part.
It's a lie on multiple counts. It's not even cited as an argument. Only alimony is, and the fact that it is retroactively affected by this.
No, I'm sure there are a lot of irrelevant state senates that women don't care enough about.
The state senate of one of the largest states in the US is "irrelevant" and "women" don't care about it? Fascinating.
Can't find it. I know I've seen it. I even remember the name of the woman. Barbara DeVane. She spoke with DeSantis about the bill on behalf of the NOW.
You're sure it happened, but can't produce any receipts. I'll go with you getting things wrong again then.
A legal presumption that divorcing parents will share custody of their children 50/50, which also informs how much child support parents pay their ex-spouses.
The state senate of one of the largest states in the US is "irrelevant" and "women" don't care about it? Fascinating.
Well, something can pass unanimously, backed by the president of the state GOP and still be vetoed by women's allies in the right position. Why would they care about state senate positions?
It was about alimony and custody agreements, I'm pretty sure. It was supposed to finally fix the divorce courts, and nothing scares the enemy more than that.
I'm sure if they had the majority, they would have blocked it. They got some concessions out of it, as the enemy always does - IIRC, some kind of one year minimum for alimony to "help the woman get back on her feet".
There were also meetings between Ronald and women's groups leading up to the veto.
So you're already changing your story.
Why did women vote for it? You are a TRAITOR.
So DeSantis' Florida is the only place in Florida not "controlled by women"?
Feel free to produce the receipts for that one.
I'm not changing my story, I just chose the most hard-hitting part.
Because they were promised that adultery wouldn't count against them in court. I'm not kidding. They had to add that to get women to vote for it. Nothing speaks louder than that about what they are.
No, I'm sure there are a lot of irrelevant state senates that women don't care enough about.
Can't find it. I know I've seen it. I even remember the name of the woman. Barbara DeVane. She spoke with DeSantis about the bill on behalf of the NOW.
It's a lie on multiple counts. It's not even cited as an argument. Only alimony is, and the fact that it is retroactively affected by this.
The state senate of one of the largest states in the US is "irrelevant" and "women" don't care about it? Fascinating.
You're sure it happened, but can't produce any receipts. I'll go with you getting things wrong again then.
It's not hard to read the article to the bottom.
Well, something can pass unanimously, backed by the president of the state GOP and still be vetoed by women's allies in the right position. Why would they care about state senate positions?