Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is so clear why they don’t want this exempted, yet they’ll use that slippery slope argument to try to look legitimate

I hate these mfers to the depths of my soul

I hate the “moderates” more. Without the diligent spinelessness of “moderate” voters, none of this would be happening.

The Virginia Senate killed the bill, not Youngkin. It didn't even get to his desk, although if it did I am sure he would have vetoed it. But I don't think we have moderates to blame here.

Read the article. They killed it because of Youngkin's team's urging.

I did, but I think the Va Senate would have done it anyway. What we really need is to change the state senate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is so clear why they don’t want this exempted, yet they’ll use that slippery slope argument to try to look legitimate

I hate these mfers to the depths of my soul

I hate the “moderates” more. Without the diligent spinelessness of “moderate” voters, none of this would be happening.

The Virginia Senate killed the bill, not Youngkin. It didn't even get to his desk, although if it did I am sure he would have vetoed it. But I don't think we have moderates to blame here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good Lord people. Stop getting your knickers in a wad about nothing.

From Mediaite - hardly a "right wing" source:


“Virginia governor clears path for ‘extreme’ bill allowing police to seek menstrual histories.” That false claim about Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin was tweeted out by The Guardian from four separate accounts to a total of 15 million followers this week.

The allegation traveled even further and wider than that, too. Comedienne Samantha Bee declared that she “would love nothing more than to take the Governor of Virginia through my menstrual history in the most vivid detail.” California governor Gavin Newsom mocked Youngkin as “a totally middle of the road guy that is fighting for access to your menstrual cycle information.”

But Youngkin never cleared any path for a bill to allow authorities to comb through women’s menstrual histories. In fact, no such bill was ever proposed in Old Dominion’s legislature, because it’s already allowed in all 50 states.

What the Guardian was attempting to describe was Youngkin’s opposition to legislation that would specifically bar police from accessing data about menstrual histories (usually stored on phone apps) that are presently obtainable through search warrants — a bill with no direct precedent in the United States.

Maggie Cleary, deputy secretary of public safety and homeland security in Youngkin’s administration noted that the Virginia bill “would be the very first of its kind that I’m aware of, in Virginia or anywhere, that would set a limit on what search warrants can do”

“Currently, any health information or any app information is available via search warrant. We believe that should continue to be the case,” said Cleary.

Since publication, The Guardian has shadow-edited its headline to better reflect the truth, but has notably failed to affix an editor’s to either the article or its tweets about the story — all of which remain up.

+1
As you can see, the usual hysterics are refusing to acknowledge the actual FACTS here. So, so typical. This entire thread should be deleted.