To my understanding (not saying I agree with it, just trying to make the logic understood for awareness)…
Congress passed a law allocating funding, but also requiring access for Congressional inspections without notice
More funding was later allocated, and it explicitly was not conditioned on access for inspections
Noem took that to mean allowing inspections without notice were no longer required, despite the initial funding with the requirement still being in place
I suppose, but if you want to keep the nuance, the kid is a teenage girl, Jeremy is the boyfriend, and Jacob is hella gay and the parents have said they don’t care. One kid explicitly not having a condition (the second bill specifically said it’s not subject to those conditions) doesn’t mean the other magically went away
To my understanding (not saying I agree with it, just trying to make the logic understood for awareness)…
Congress passed a law allocating funding, but also requiring access for Congressional inspections without notice
More funding was later allocated, and it explicitly was not conditioned on access for inspections
Noem took that to mean allowing inspections without notice were no longer required, despite the initial funding with the requirement still being in place
Mom can I have Jeremy come over, “sure but you have to leave your door open.” Mom, Jacob is with is with Jeremy, is that okay? “Okay that’s fine”
Kid closes door because you didn’t go out of your way to specify again that the door must stay open.
Why was that how I read your description, haha
I suppose, but if you want to keep the nuance, the kid is a teenage girl, Jeremy is the boyfriend, and Jacob is hella gay and the parents have said they don’t care. One kid explicitly not having a condition (the second bill specifically said it’s not subject to those conditions) doesn’t mean the other magically went away