PHOENIX (AZFamily) — Arizona drivers won’t be able to get a license plate honoring Charlie Kirk anytime soon.

Gov. Katie Hobbs vetoed Senate Bill 1439 Friday, which would have created a specialty plate in honor of the conservative activist who was assassinated last year.

“I will continue working toward solutions that bring people together, but this bill falls short of that standard by inserting politics into a function of government that should remain nonpartisan,” Hobbs said in her veto letter.

The measure, sponsored by Sen. Jake Hoffman, a Republican from Queen Creek, would have created a “conservative grassroots network” special plate for $25, with $17 going to a nonprofit.

...One vote? Against millions of people?

Itaqillah. Victory is inevitable for the oppressed.

DeWine vetoed House Bill 68 on Friday, which would have prohibited doctors from prescribing puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for minors and banned boys from competing in girls’ sports, just hours before the deadline. A review of donations from 2018 to 2023 found that the governor received $40,300 from the Ohio Children’s Hospital Association (OCHA), Cincinnati Children’s, Nationwide Children’s Hospital and ProMedica Children’s Hospital, all of whom support transgender medical care. OCHA donated $10,000 to the Mike DeWine and Jon Husted Transition Fund on Dec. 28, 2018, and another $10,000 on Dec. 7, 2022, according to the report. A transition fund allows candidates to spend donations for “transition activities and inaugural celebrations,” according to Ohio’s campaign finance handbook. Cincinnati Children’s, an affiliate of OCHA, donated $300 on Dec. 15, 2022, to the fund and ProMedica, another affiliate of OCHA, also donated $10,000 in December 2018, according to the reports. Nationwide Children’s, a third affiliate with OCHA, donated $5,000 in December 2018 and another $5,000 in January 2023 to the transition fund. The governor’s office referred the Daily Caller News Foundation back to DeWine’s comments on the bill and his veto. DeWine said last week that he was visiting hospitals that provide transgender procedures to hear families out on both sides of the issue but did not elaborate on which hospitals he went to. Nick Lashutka, president of the OHCA, testified against House Bill 68, arguing that the bill “strips away” the rights of parents and their transgender children, according to The Guardian.

Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin vetoed 26 bills — including some that passed with broad bipartisan support — as he took action on more than 800 bills the divided legislature sent him during its regular session.

None of the vetoed bills were sponsored by Republicans, a point Democrats quickly seized on, criticizing the first-term governor as excessively partisan.

“It’s not clear to me why the governor thinks that he’s got the monopoly of what’s right for Virginia when these bills have already been vetted by bipartisan majorities,” said Democratic Sen. Scott Surovell, who sponsored two bills Youngkin vetoed.

Youngkin’s veto total was higher than any other governor in his first year in office since Republican Jim Gilmore, who had 37 in 1998, according to an accounting by the nonpartisan Virginia Public Access Project. Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam, who preceded Youngkin, was close with 20.

Democratic Sen. Adam Ebbin, who sponsored nine of the vetoed bills, said he sees those vetoes as retaliation against him for leading a Democratic charge to block the nomination of former Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Andrew Wheeler to be Youngkin’s secretary of natural and historic resources.

The General Assembly will have a chance to override the vetoes when it reconvenes later this month. Doing so would take a 2/3 vote in both chambers.

The vetoed measures span a wide range of policy areas. A few of the highlights include:

— A bill that would have prohibited high school student athletes from receiving compensation in exchange for the use of their name, image, or likeness.

— A bill that would have prohibited heavy truck operators from using cruise control or compression-release engine breaks while driving in active snow, sleet or freezing rain. The measure was aimed at preventing a repeat of the snowy traffic logjams on Interstate 95 in January. Youngkin said the bill would impose burdens on the trucking industry and interstate transportation without any demonstrable benefit.

— A measure that would set a three-year statute of limitations on the collection of medical debt. In his veto statement, Youngkin said he was committed to reducing the burden of medical debt but thought the legislation would “inadvertently” capture other forms of debt.

The subject of "Veto Power" came up in one of the polyam groups that I'm in. For those of you that don't know what a "veto" is in polyamory, it's when you give your partner (usually a spouse/nested partner/"primary" partner) the right to "veto" your other relationships or tell you to end things with someone that you are seeing/in a relationship with.

We don't have veto power in our marriage and never have. I also wouldn't knowingly sign up for a relationship where I could potentially be subject to one. I have mixed feelings about vetoes, personally. I understand why people feel the need to have them but to me, they are superfluous. I just don't get the method that states that I am going to deal with an issue I am having with my partner and their choices by getting rid of the other partner.

Like say your partner has a partner that is abusing them. Your issue isn't your meta; it's your partner. Why do you have a partner that is signing up to be abused? Have a meta that's a crackhead thief and steals your shit? Why is your partner with a crackhead? Have a meta that your partner goes out with to gamble away your mortgage money? Why is your partner ok with gambling away your mortgage money? The issue always circles back to your partner.

And most of the time, the vetoes aren't enacted for extreme circumstances such as these which is what people will SAY they have them for but what they actually USE them for is to keep themselves from feeling too threatened by a partner's partner. They will cite all these arbitrary reasons for enacting the veto that really just boil down to "I'm worried that this person/relationship is eclipsing me/my relationship with my partner."

Also, do ALL of your partners get veto power or is it just the one that you live with/are married to/is primary? Because that is blatantly unfair. And I learned from PERSONAL experience that wonky shit happens when you try to keep two people apart that have a connection to each other. Like yeah, your partner may agree and break up with the person but I can guarantee you they will resent the fuck outta your ass and will take some time to get past that if they ever do.

You also have to keep in mind that it ain't no fun when the rabbit got the gun. So just remember your staunch support of the veto when they are shooting down your folks, too.

Rauner vetoes bill raising Illinois minimum teacher salaries

[ad_1]

[ad_2] Source link