She seems to be looking for more specificity in language used. She requested the specific revisions that would lead to her passing the bill. None of them seem prohibitive.
There is already legislation elsewhere in the country that has been passed which future legislation could be based on instead of a blank slate. This would also address her other concern regarding a “patchwork” approach which would effectively break collegiate athletics programs.
Noem is correct on this.
What else was in this bill that she disagreed with?
Here is her public statement:
She seems to be looking for more specificity in language used. She requested the specific revisions that would lead to her passing the bill. None of them seem prohibitive.
There is already legislation elsewhere in the country that has been passed which future legislation could be based on instead of a blank slate. This would also address her other concern regarding a “patchwork” approach which would effectively break collegiate athletics programs.
This link and the clarification about why she rejected the bill should have been the sticky!