Well with one difference I suppose. The objective with Obamacare was to pass something, anything, and let the details be worked out later, on the theory that such a program once in place would be near impossible to repeal. In this case though, unless Ms. Lowenthal is a complete lackwit who put no thought whatever into the bill, one has to assume the underlying motivation is nefarious.

It is college as judge jury enforcer able to brand, label, expel and ruin any accused on the mere preponderance of evidence.

IANAL, Ben, but sadly I think so. Like with any other law, you have to show a damage before a court can review.

Not really, Juliette. This is from the same mindset that gave us “we have to pass it to know what’s in it”.

What you are missing is that the bill’s sponsor doesn’t actually want anyone to be able to prove consent. There is a hard core contingent in the feminist movement that considers all heterosexual sex to be rape (even in the context of marriage).

The whole point of this law is to make it a crime for any guy to get laid ever.