In large part that is because of unstated assumptions. Not all these issues appear in the documents our State has published for your voting convenience, and which are linked above. But the larger issue of how, without specific intent, we enact structurally violent rules, is an important one, especially since women often bear the brunt of such legislation. Proponents argue that this is simple, straight forward, that there simply are no hidden agendae.
Opponents argue that there are hidden agendae.
The purpose of this threaded discussion is to give you some sense of how to develop and understand arguments based on law, for you will often need to understand such issues in the coming decades. First let's look at the actual text proposed for the law, and see if we can be clear on the definitions. Martha Minow would say that this is one of the kind of unstated assumptions that often lie beneath the plain words of the law. Since listening in good faith to all validity claims means making a sincere effort to understand each other, we need to communicate as clearly as we can. Minow, as well as Jonathan Lear , as well as most other thinkers and lawyers and philosophers I know of, say that all we can do to make communication for public discourse free of the hidden assumptions is to bring them to awareness, to state them, to talk about them, as part of that public discourse.