Deified Data
Banned
This is essentially what debates like this come down to - "your side is stubborn while mine steadfastly holds true to its principles". Arguing over the semantics of it is a waste of time.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Democrats threaten to kill human trafficking bill over lack of abortion funding
- Thread starter Metaphoreus
- Start date
- Status
This is essentially what debates like this come down to - "your side is stubborn while mine steadfastly holds true to its principles". Arguing over the semantics of it is a waste of time.
fixedpoint
Member
Partisan spin in the OP aside, this bill totally seems to be primarily aimed at helping victims of human trafficking.
Republicans couldn't simply take the win. Show they're good at governing. Add a feather in their cap for when they say they can work with the other side. They had to go and purposefully reach for the L. The house republicans, I repeat, the house republicans didn't put this crap in the bill. They're the hardcore conservatives. If there was any group you expected to do this nonsense it would be them. So why in the hell would the senate republicans go and sabotage the damn thing!? That's what I don't understand at all.
benjipwns
Banned
Look at this fixedpoint jerk over here trying to undermine efforts to stop human trafficking.
MPAA: "Please help us protect the victims of IP trafficking."
It's not a win if they don't get something extra. It's been that way since the showdown over the NDAA. Maybe longer.
The way I read it, it imposes further penalties and creates programs to help address and investigate trafficking.
Finally, a political platform I can stand behind!
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
This is a bill creating a permanent fund separate and apart from annual appropriations bills. So it makes sense that the provision restricting the use of the funds would be permanent with respect to that fund. And it also makes sense why the restriction appears in this bill.
I don't think those are the only questions at issue here. In addition to the moral question of whether abortion is good, or even the legal one of whether it should be legal, there is another question regarding whether federal funds should be expended on the provision of abortions. The answer to that last question is not dictated by the answer to the first two, a difference borne out by public opinion polls.
Did you have a particular complaint about their summary?
Byakuya769
Member
Yes, we wouldn't want human traffickers to be forced to pay for something that they don't personally feel comfortable with! How dare Democrats try to cram this down their throats.
When I read the title and first half of the post I expected the Democrats to have added in an abortion mention of something, but it was the other way around and the Republican party added in something about no abortions (in regards to people who were basically raped)? What is up with the wording in the OP?
Primethius
Banned
Don't really understand why IP theft is in there but I welcome any bill that attempts to tackle the problem of human trafficking.
Fair and balanced.
OP is atrocious and inverts the facts.
Republicans put anti abortion language in unrelated bill. Which they do about twice a day.
This is a shitpost.
benjipwns
Banned
They're a website for insane nutjobs. And leather jacket aficionados. Not a legitimate source for any topic.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
No, no. The controversial provision was present from the time the bill was introduced by Cornyn. The Senate Judiciary Committee amended the bill by rewriting it (I'm not sure precisely what changes they made), but they left the controversial provision intact.
The provision prohibits the funds raised by the bill from being used to pay for abortions, except in the case of rape, incest, or a threat to the mother's life. It does so by incorporating a restriction already in place on other appropriations of federal funds.
I admit I had second thoughts about that closing line. But if you're looking for "fair and balanced," you've come to the wrong website.
You're looking for FoxNews . com.
Seriouser response: This isn't a bill unrelated to the funding restrictions included by Cornyn. This is a bill that creates a federal fund, so it makes perfect sense that the restriction on how the money in that fund may be used would appear in this bill.
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
Oh it's the democrats fault for forcing republicans to put in stuff about abortion.
Right
(Not left)
Right
(Not left)
Men and boys aren't victims of human trafficking? Or are you referring to the abortion provision?
I'm not going to glorify that shitty lunatic site with a rebuttal. There are enough posts in the thread that did just that.
andthebeatgoeson
Junior Member
You are going to have to excuse me if I don't trust any republicans around abortion issues. Are they going to ask the victims to perform a vaginal ultrasound before deciding if they want to have the babies conceived by rape?
Oh, just read the last line of the OP. Whoohoo, this guy is rocking and rolling.
Gentleman Jack
Member
*which affects low income women more than any other group affected under such laws.
Good ole GOP.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
Dude, I cited them for their summary of the bill, not on (e.g.) the question of whether taxation is theft. Either their summary is correct, or it isn't, but that doesn't turn on their political beliefs. This is a naked ad hominem.
This isn't a question of trust, but of reading. I quoted the controversial provision and one of the two provisions it cites to accomplish its goal of restricting the use of funds. (The other provision it cites is the actual prohibition; the provision I cited lists exceptions. You can read both in the link I provided.)
hydragonwarrior
Member
Why can't there be more Repubs like Paulsen?
My exact thoughts. Once you have the baby you're also on your own. No handouts. Bootstraps and such. Good luck.
andthebeatgoeson
Junior Member
Now, now, give them all the credit:
http://time.com/3745316/mcconnell-attorney-general-nomination-loretta-lynch/
Won't confirm the Attorney General, as well. Screwed the black lady as well. Kill 2 birds with one douche bag.
Their website is a huge libertarian circlejerk. In most cases, it's safe to say if Reason says one thing, the opposite is always true. (Not to say that the left doesn't have their own echo chambers, but 'Reason' continues the right wing's tradition of naming things for the opposite of what they actually are).
I suppose that there are a couple ways to frame the argument over this bill (like OP's, if you squint hard enough), but I tend to side with the side that *isn't* stuffing it full of religious bullshit to score points with their political base. Republicans have no concept of a 'clean' bill, and see every piece of legislation, relevant or not, as another method of promoting their extremist, religiously conservative agenda.
benjipwns
Banned
They're statist scum who refuse to accept that taxation is theft. But they republish articles from Sheldon Richman so technically one of their writers recognizes the truth.
The worst is their peacenazi opposition to wars, be it wars against brown people or wars against drugs or wars against free expression or winning the war against cops in favor of the cops. War. Gwar. War-Z.
If the Hyde Amendment already covers this bill, then why is it necessary? Literally nothing would then be lost by its removal except allowing the bill to already pass.
No Metapod...
This falls on both on them. However, Republicans are taking it a step farther by stating that they won't confirm Loretta Lynch until the bill is agreed upon. So, once again, Republicans step up to be obstructive.
And that too.
EDIT: Actually, the only thing that would be lost is that if the Hyde Amendment wasn't attached to a yearly approepiations bill and was not passed, federal funds could be used from this bill for abortion.
Omegasquash
Member
"Give us something we want that is totally unrelated to the topic at hand or we will block something that's needed that is equally unrelated to the topic at hand."
Classic GOP move.
benjipwns
Banned
But if this stops the bill from passing considering some of the things pointed out in this thread that are in it...
Primethius
Banned
Well, given that the bill concerns Human Trafficking, limiting abortion funding to only cases of rape and incest seems like an idiotic notion.
Help the victims, but not really.
Help the victims, but not really.
Did anyone read the article? The Hyde Amendment is pre-existing. This proposed bill isn't changing anything dealing with abortion funding, it's merely falling in line with it.
I'm not going to comment on my thoughts of the bill. I think it's a little far reaching, to be honest. But the criticism from the democratic party is kind of grasping, in my eyes.
I'm not going to comment on my thoughts of the bill. I think it's a little far reaching, to be honest. But the criticism from the democratic party is kind of grasping, in my eyes.
Omegasquash
Member
But good luck proving the rape. By that point, it's likely that the baby will have been born.
Pretty much.
Also, before Metapod screams source on my comment:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...rmation-until-vote-on-human-trafficking-bill/
Don't read the comments.
Nope, the Hyde Amendment is a yearly rider. This would expand it to 5 years.
Unknown One
Member
Something needs to be done with these packaged laws. At least make it related to the topic.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
But the Hyde Amendment doesn't cover the bill, from what I can tell, since the appropriations in this bill are not "appropriated in" the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (the statute cited by Cornyn's bill to impose the restriction on abortion funding), to which section 506 of that Act limits itself.
I'll agree with you, however, that if existing law already imposes the restrictions (on the proposed fund) that the controversial provision attempts to impose, then Republicans should simply remove the controversial provision, as they have nothing to gain from its inclusion. But, as I said, I don't think that's the case.
BreezyLimbo
Banned
You know I keep thinking of that damned Simpsons seen where the Simpsons go to Washington and the senator tells them to use the mighty paper clip to get what they want.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
I think what you've correctly demonstrated is that framing of poll questions matters--I know this already--but I'm not really sure how that relates to my questions to you here (well unless it's some sort of meta-satire about your very deliberate polemic in the OP and how that's causing different reactions than a different framing would? If so, that's clever, but I don't think you'll find very many people are going to follow you all the way down the rabbit hole).
The thread is presented primarily as an issue of procedural obstinacy, and I think you and I both know that's not the root issue here--the root issue here is the normative dimensions of abortion itself. That's fine. We're allowed to have conversations about that. I just don't know why we need the veneer of of partisan / procedural stuff. It's not really adding anything to the thread. Democrats could drop their opposition and pass the bill with the "poison pill" (from their perspective) included. Republicans could drop the clause and pass the greater bill. Neither group is budging because both seem to agree the debate about this side issue is more important than the greater bill. There are no illusions about this, everyone agrees the debate is about abortion, not about the sex trafficking bill. So why pretend this is a procedural abuse or that this is a gotcha moment?
Perfect. Even more reason to pass the bill without this amendment.
Okay, so grant that what we've got here is a bill addressing human trafficking that does a lot of things that everyone wants it to do. Part of that involves spending some money helping victims of human trafficking.
The big roadblock is that there's one thing - abortion - Republicans aren't willing to spend money on while Democrats would like to at least leave that option open (it's not clear to me if the bill would otherwise mandate spending on abortion or would leave that decision up to whoever's executing the law).
Clearly it's fair game to criticize the Republican position here. The best policy may be to spend some money on abortion. Perhaps Republicans are wrong to want this provision. But it's easy to believe that they really do want this provision, and even that they're so concerned with abortion that they really would rather have no bill than have a bill that might fund abortion. Maybe that makes them evil, but there's not much of a procedural objection to be made here (except about whatever was communicated about the bill to Democrats, perhaps). They're not inserting this language about abortion into an unrelated bill. This is how politics is supposed to work.
The Democrats presumably like the rest of the bill. It's hard to believe that they really don't think the bill would be a net good thing even if funds aren't allowed to be used for abortions. Either we do this good stuff (edit) but not including funding abortions or we just don't do anything. This... looks a lot like hostage-taking, as we were all understanding it when the Republicans were holding up tax cuts for everyone except the rich because they also wanted tax cuts for the rich. The position may be the better one, but it looks like they're procedurally in the wrong here - we ought to do the stuff we can agree on and then fight about the stuff we can't agree on, not threaten not to do the stuff we actually agree on unless the other side gives in on something they don't want to do.
There are possible defenses here. Maybe actually more Senators would vote for the bill with abortion funding than without. Maybe this is the sort of thing where you're really only likely to get one shot at crafting a solution, and the bill plus abortion funding is so much better than the bill as-is that it's worth waiting a few years to see if you can build a majority. Maybe if you yell loudly that Republicans won't help victims of human trafficking if it means they have to pay for abortions then people will vote against them and you'll have a majority to do what you want. But I'd want to see this sort of case get made, and in particular I'd want to be convinced that you'd need to start from scratch in the future rather than just repealing this provision.
The big roadblock is that there's one thing - abortion - Republicans aren't willing to spend money on while Democrats would like to at least leave that option open (it's not clear to me if the bill would otherwise mandate spending on abortion or would leave that decision up to whoever's executing the law).
Clearly it's fair game to criticize the Republican position here. The best policy may be to spend some money on abortion. Perhaps Republicans are wrong to want this provision. But it's easy to believe that they really do want this provision, and even that they're so concerned with abortion that they really would rather have no bill than have a bill that might fund abortion. Maybe that makes them evil, but there's not much of a procedural objection to be made here (except about whatever was communicated about the bill to Democrats, perhaps). They're not inserting this language about abortion into an unrelated bill. This is how politics is supposed to work.
The Democrats presumably like the rest of the bill. It's hard to believe that they really don't think the bill would be a net good thing even if funds aren't allowed to be used for abortions. Either we do this good stuff (edit) but not including funding abortions or we just don't do anything. This... looks a lot like hostage-taking, as we were all understanding it when the Republicans were holding up tax cuts for everyone except the rich because they also wanted tax cuts for the rich. The position may be the better one, but it looks like they're procedurally in the wrong here - we ought to do the stuff we can agree on and then fight about the stuff we can't agree on, not threaten not to do the stuff we actually agree on unless the other side gives in on something they don't want to do.
There are possible defenses here. Maybe actually more Senators would vote for the bill with abortion funding than without. Maybe this is the sort of thing where you're really only likely to get one shot at crafting a solution, and the bill plus abortion funding is so much better than the bill as-is that it's worth waiting a few years to see if you can build a majority. Maybe if you yell loudly that Republicans won't help victims of human trafficking if it means they have to pay for abortions then people will vote against them and you'll have a majority to do what you want. But I'd want to see this sort of case get made, and in particular I'd want to be convinced that you'd need to start from scratch in the future rather than just repealing this provision.
I think the best part is that McConnell is refusing a confirmation vote for AG on Loretta Lynch until the Senate passes (or reveals support for trafficking by voting it down) the bill. No way refusing to vote on a pretty much universally accepted nominee that is a black woman due to petty partisanship will blow up in your face. Nope, nothing to see here.
benjipwns
Banned
You just want to be part of the HERO corps.
- Status