this post was submitted on 09 Oct 2023
631 points (96.6% liked)

politics

18651 readers
2882 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 13 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

Didn't Colorado do this and teen pregnancy rates nosedived?

Edit: I couldn't find any news of Colorado doing this. Apologize for the misinformation.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 10 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


Gavin Newsom rejected a bill on Sunday that would have made free condoms available all public high school students, arguing it was too expensive for a state with a budget deficit of more than $30 billion.

The bill is one of hundreds passed by California’s Democratic-dominated state Legislature before lawmakers adjourned last month.

Newsom has been signing and vetoing legislation since then, including rejecting bills on Saturday to ban caste-based discrimination, limit the price of insulin and decriminalize possession and use of some hallucinogens.

State Sen. Caroline Menjivar, a Democrat from Los Angeles and the author of the bill, had argued the bill would have helped “youth who decide to become sexually active to protect themselves and their partners from (sexually transmitted infections), while also removing barriers that potentially shame them and lead to unsafe sex.”

Newsom said programs increasing access to condoms are “important to supporting improved adolescent sexual health.” But he said this bill was one of several measures lawmakers passed this year that, when added together, would add $19 billion in costs to the state budget.

“With our state facing continuing economic risk and revenue uncertainty, it is important to remain disciplined when considering bills with significant fiscal implications, such as this measure,” Newsom said.


The original article contains 433 words, the summary contains 208 words. Saved 52%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] [email protected] 10 points 10 months ago

Fuck you, buddy. This isn't the get-out-of-jail-free card that you think it is. Let's have more teen mothers with unwanted babies and see how that turns out. /s

[–] [email protected] 10 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

Maybe California's strict emissions requirements include nocturnal emissions.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 10 months ago

I want to know what he is a approving

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago

Just par for the course at this point with Newsom. Still disappointing!

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›