I'm all in favor of this bill, I think it's an important step in the right direction, but let's temper our expectations and replace "will" with "should" or "might" in the headline.
As nice as that would be, I think they probably thought including that in the bill would greatly increase the risk of it failing to pass. What we've gotten here is an improvement, even if it could be better.
It's a good bill iff it proves effective. I'm optimistic that it will, but that still remains to be seen.
(An ineffective bill can be worse than none at all, since it's existence may confuse people who believe they have protection when in reality the legislation is less effective than their perception of it.)
No, of course it won't, you know that it won't, and your attempt to try to misrepresent the proposed bill by suggesting that it will is petty and dangerous.
reply