Did anyone actually read the article? She's not opposed to it on substance. She just has concern over the wording because as written, it could expose the state to litigation or being struck down. Her point is that some of the language needs less ambiguity.
Did anyone actually read the article? She's not opposed to it on substance. She just has concern over the wording because as written, it could expose the state to litigation or being struck down. Her point is that some of the language needs less ambiguity.