>> Phrasing a proposed bill as if it has taken effect is a standard tactic to evoke extra emotion resulting in extra clicks.

> A bill is a proposed law, by definition. You're assuming bad faith where there isn't any.

All kinds of crazy bills gets proposed that are DOA, especially at the state level. Evaluating some outrage-inducing one for clicks is still bad faith. The real question is "does it have a realistic chance of going anywhere?" If it doesn't, why is it being covered?

However, I can't really judge in this particular case, because the article is paywalled.