Support NeoGAF

[ivysaur12]

You just want to be part of the HERO corps.

This is true.

 

[Stumpokapow]

I think the best part is that McConnell is refusing a confirmation vote for AG on Loretta Lynch until the Senate passes 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.

I mean, set aside the procedural element about whether or not votes or agendas should be tied together.

I don't see how this is a win for Republicans, given that Holder sticks around until his replacement is confirmed. If you're a Republican, and you have to rate the AG from 0-100, Holder has gotta be pretty near a nightmare scenario 0. From what I've read the worst case scenario for Republicans is still that Lynch is a bit of a better fit for them than Holder was. I guess it's annoying for Eric Holder who wants to have a vacation, but it seems like a win for Democrats and a loss for Republicans not to confirm Lynch. They can even wait the remaining 18 months if they want.

Normally when you do a poison pill type strategy, it's because you want to force your opponents to take the poison pill or the PR hit for not acting for the greater good. But in this case it feels like they're taking the poison pill to spite their opponents.

Any Republicans want to make the case for why Eric Holder is a good Attorney General that you wouldn't want to lose to THAT FIEND, retirement?

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

OP subsidized by Fox News

 

[Terrell]

I don't really have an objection with your framing that the "Democrats killed the bill over lack of abortion funding", but wouldn't an equally valid framing be that "Republicans were only willing to pass the bill with an abortion funding ban attached to it"? Like, when you have an adversarial system, one party being obstinate is the other party being obstinate, since both can equally object or yield to the others' objection?

I sort of feel the same thing about people who make arguments that "Why are gay people trying to force bakers to lose their business if they won't bake a cake?" I mean, yeah, that's a valid framing, but an equally valid framing is "Why are cakebakers refusing to bake the cakes even when facing the loss of their business if they don't?" Either side is clearly able to object or resolve the objection.

I mean, I just think as far as gotcha goes, the procedural side of this is sort of a non-starter. Like, if you want to start with "Abortion is wrong and the Democrats take the wrong side on the issue and it's wrong and they're wrong and it's bad" then whatever, that's a pretty coherent position, but I just don't see how the procedural side of the argument is going to persuade anyone that wasn't already persuaded by the moral dimensions of abortion argument.

In situations like this, you yield to what initiated the issue in the first place.
In the cake argument, it was initiated by refusal of service based on institutional prejudice from religion. Because you can't counter that with "because the gays had the nerve to ask for a wedding cake" without validating that it is an issue of prejudice.
Same goes here. Republicans knew a Democrat would object to such stipulations and that such a stipulation would lead to partisanship. So the onus of the issue falls to the Republicans.

 

[Foggy]

Yay politics

 

[Coriolanus]

But if this stops the bill from passing considering some of the things pointed out in this thread that are in it...

Yeaaah, that was... really weird.

 

[Metaphoreus]

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[.]

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.

No, the point of my links to the polls was not to show that polling results depend on how a question is presented. The difference between, "Should abortion be legal?" and "Should federal funds be used to pay for abortions?" is not merely semantic. Those are two completely separate issues about which a person may hold different beliefs. Poll results showing high support for both the proposition that abortion should be legal, and the proposition that it should not paid for out of federal funds bear out that distinction.

The root issue here is not the normative dimensions of abortion, but how members of Congress ought to comport themselves. In the first place, they ought to read the bills they vote on (or have staff read the bills they vote on), following cross-references to ensure they understand what a given bill does. Second, they should disclose to their colleagues (particularly members of the other party) provisions which they know will be considered important by those colleagues (a rule the Republicans allegedly violated in this case). Third, they should not permit minor differences to scuttle major points of agreement, particularly when one outcome is more important to one side than the contrary outcome is to the other. Here, it is very important to Republicans that federal funds not be used to pay for the provision of abortions (as evidenced by their 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004,2008, and 2012 party platforms). But the history of the Hyde Amendment implies that the use of federal funds for abortion isn't all that important to Democrats--the Hyde Amendment has been included in every annual appropriations bill since 1976, despite changes in control of Congress and the presidency. This compromise--legal abortions without federal funding of abortions--is the status quo, and for Democrats to suddenly get the vapors and threaten to nuke what they concede is otherwise a good bill over its inclusion is unacceptable partisanship.

Perfect. Even more reason to pass the bill without this amendment.

I don't follow your reasoning, but, as I've mentioned before, this provision wasn't added by amendment. It was present when the bill was introduced, and when it was considered by the Judiciary Committee.

 

[Chumly]

It's fucking disgusting that republicans would try and limit abortions on human trafficking victims. There shouldn't be any restrictions period.

 

[Valhelm]

Riders gonna ride

 

[ivysaur12]

Oh please, you knew what I meant. I'm aware of how the bill was crafted in the Senate. Amendment, addition to the House version, etc. Please don't be patronizing.

 

[AnotherNils]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...ey_general_nominee_ensnared_in_unrelated.html

The differences between those efforts and this one, though, is that budget riders aren’t permanent—they need to be reauthorized each year—and that the previous provisions only concerned taxpayer dollars, not criminal penalties like the ones that would pay for the victims’ fund.

Adding some intrigue to the somewhat wonky sticking point is that the legislation—complete with the controversial abortion language—actually managed to sail through the Senate Judiciary Committee last month without Democrats so much as noticing it. The provision itself is on Pages 4 and 5 of the 68-page bill, although whoever wrote it appears to have gone to considerable lengths to avoid actually using the word abortion. Instead the provision makes a rather convoluted reference to the Hyde amendment, declaring that the victims’ fund “shall be subject to the limitations on the use or expending of amounts described in sections 506 and 507 of division H of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 ... to the same extent as if amounts in the Fund were funds appropriated under division H of such Act.”

Seems legit to me.

Maybe the better question here is why House republicans don't care about babies.

Still, I guess McConnell likes Holder better than Lynch, eh?

 

[Nekofrog]

How in the world does a person look at a bipartisan bill that ensures nothing but benefits for victims and say "you know what we should do? Add in a completely partisan addendum and torpedo it 'cause fuck people who need help".

That's what they're doing.

 

[Byakuya769]

Many a cool anime character was born from such pregnancies--dems might want to reconsider.

 

[OrlanisWorks]

Support a fight against human trafficking and support the Americans with abortion funding.

I mean... it takes a numbskull to go against that.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Oh please, you knew what I meant. I'm aware of how the bill was crafted in the Senate. Amendment, addition to the House version, etc. Please don't be patronizing.

You have my sincere apologies. When you said "amendment," I thought you meant "amendment." That's the only reason I offered my correction.

 

[Malreyn]

How in the world does a person look at a bipartisan bill that ensures nothing but benefits for victims and say "you know what we should do? Add in a completely partisan addendum and torpedo it 'cause fuck people who need help".

That's what they're doing.

They're doing it clearly as a "tactic" to say "See! See! Dems are obstructionists! Not us!" And will continue to build this sort of narrative "against the obstructionist Dems" into Election 2016. Sadly, the average voter will buy it, too.

 

[ivysaur12]

I offer my sincere apologies. When you said "amendment," I thought you meant "amendment." That's the only reason I offered my correction.

A correction that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand and is simply pendantic, but okay.

Now back to how Coryn torpedoed his own bill by slipping in an amendment that he never told any Democrats about that explicitly didn't mention the words abortion or Hyde amendment.

They're doing it clearly as a "tactic" to say "See! See! Dems are obstructionists! Not us!" And will continue to build this sort of narrative "against the obstructionist Dems" into Election 2016. Sadly, the average voter will buy it, too.

The average voter does not care about such things in March 2015.

 

[shadowsdarknes]

This is what happens when you read Reason.com.

 

[adamsappel]

Oh please, you knew what I meant. I'm aware of how the bill was crafted in the Senate. Amendment, addition to the House version, etc. Please don't be patronizing.

You should know how strict Metaphoreus is about language. Except, you know, when he isn't.

 

[wildfire]

I really no problem in voting for the bill. It doesn't do anything new to abortion funding.

If that was the case it wouldn't need to be in there. Clearly you are wrong, the politicians are right and the Republicans are specifically being heartless by indirectly forcing rape babies on the victims..

 

[Metaphoreus]

This is what happens when you read Reason.com.

Like I asked the dude on the first page, do you have a particular complaint about the summary of the bill provided by Reason?

If that was the case it wouldn't need to be in there. Clearly you are wrong, the politicians are right and the Republicans are specifically being heartless by indirectly forcing rape babies on the victims..

Also mentioned on the first page:

Note that, in the case of rape, the restrictions on funding do not apply:

Sec. 507. (a) The limitations established in the preceding section shall not apply to an abortion--

(1) if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest; or
(2) in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed.​

Now back to how Coryn torpedoed his own bill by slipping in an amendment that he never told any Democrats about that explicitly didn't mention the words abortion or Hyde amendment.

Other than giving them the bill so they could read it, I guess.

 

[ivysaur12]

Like I asked the dude on the first page, do you have a particular complaint about the summary of the bill provided by Reason?



Also mentioned on the first page:





Other than giving them the bill so they could read it, I guess.

It's almost like they should have been made aware of a change using very obscure language. Yes, the bill should have been combed through word by word. Now it wasn't. And this is what happened because the Democrats weren't made aware. Congrats?

 

[benjipwns]

Like I asked the dude on the first page, do you have a particular complaint about the summary of the bill provided by Reason?

I find it funny how the Reason entry is about how bad the rest of the content of the bill is, downright opposing its passage in any form and really only mentions the abortion hangup in relation to the politics of the bill in the Senate. Yet it's the one that gets attacked.

How in the world does a person look at a bipartisan bill that ensures nothing but benefits for victims

Where did you find that bill?

 

[linsivvi]

This is what happens when you read Reason.com.

Yep.

 

[Metaphoreus]

It's almost like they should have been made aware of a change using very obscure language. Yes, the bill should have been combed through word by word. Now it wasn't. And this is what happened because the Democrats weren't made aware. Congrats?

It's not obscure. Google "Pub. Law 113-76." Find division H. Read sections 506 and 507. All of that information is specifically mentioned in the bill, and the resources necessary to understand their import are readily available even for those of us who do not work in the Capitol. What do we pay members of Congress and their staffers for if not to do basic due diligence on the bills that come before them?

 

[kess]

What do we pay members of Congress and their staffers for if not to do basic due diligence on the bills that come before them?

Shouldn't you be happy they caught it then?

 

[benjipwns]

This is what happens when you read Reason.com.

Yep.

The outright pro-abortion magazine?

Random Hit and Run blog entry plucked from first three results on a search for "abortion": http://reason.com/blog/2015/01/28/catholic-congressman-tim-ryan-abortion

In a new Akron Beacon Journal op-ed, Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio) explains what led him from ardently opposing legal abortion to thinking the government should stay out of the issue. Since he was first elected to Congress in 2002, Rep. Ryan has supported a variety of anti-abortion legislation.

Raised Catholic, "I always considered myself pro-life," he writes. But talking to more and more women about abortion, as well as becoming a father himself, changed his thinking.

These women gave me a better understanding of how complex and difficult certain situations can become. And while there are people of good conscience on both sides of this argument, one thing has become abundantly clear to me: the heavy hand of government must not make this decision for women and families.

"This is not a partisan issue, but instead a personal one," Ryan continued. "I have come to believe that we must trust women and families—not politicians—to make the best decision for their lives."

Good for Ryan for coming to this realization where it concerns reproductive freedom

 

[Allard]

It's not obscure. Google "Pub. Law 113-76." Find division H. Read sections 506 and 507. All of that information is specifically mentioned in the bill, and the resources necessary to understand their import are readily available even for those of us who do not work in the Capitol. What do we pay members of Congress and their staffers for if not to do basic due diligence on the bills that come before them?

The reason this bill is even undergoing controversy is because people are reading the bill before it hits the floor. The only thing you might have on the democrats is not fully reading the bill and letting it get through committee in which case it is on those specific committee members.

 

[DonasaurusRex]

uhhh pass the bill that sounds like a good usage of tax payer money and court fines. Thats pretty piss poor morals to stop the bill over abortion limitations that for one already exist. Surely there can be another bill for killing unwanted , unplanned and inconvenient children , or is this the last bill ever to fund anything ever?

 

[Metaphoreus]

Shouldn't you be happy they caught it then?

The reason this bill is even undergoing controversy is because people are reading the bill before it hits the floor. The only thing you might have on the democrats is not fully reading the bill and letting it get through committee in which case it is on those specific committee members.

I'd be happier if it wasn't just through the efforts of one dude that such a Herculean task was accomplished. But not-reading-the-bill isn't really my main complaint, though it is an important one.

 

[BajiBoxer]

Why did they feel the need to compound restrictions on abortion funding in a bill about human trafficking?

Because they knew the Democrats would be against it. They inserted a poison pill into the bill seeing an opportunity to make the Democrats look bad. It's not exactly an uncommon tactic.

 

[ivysaur12]

It's not obscure. Google "Pub. Law 113-76." Find division H. Read sections 506 and 507. All of that information is specifically mentioned in the bill, and the resources necessary to understand their import are readily available even for those of us who do not work in the Capitol. What do we pay members of Congress and their staffers for if not to do basic due diligence on the bills that come before them?

Why was such a thing never mention in any correspondence between Coryn and Leahy?

It's dumb that it was caught only now. It was simultaneously shady that such a provison was not explicitly pointed out to Democrats in committee. And here we are now because of it.

Regardless, the language should be stripped so this bill can pass. We should all be able to agree on that.

 

[Sobriquet]

Why was such a thing never mention in any correspondence between Coryn and Leahy?

It's dumb that it was caught only now. It was simultaneously shady that such a provison was not explicitly pointed out to Democrats in committee. And here we are now because of it.

I just can't believe Democrats aren't poring through each bill. They try to sneak awful shit into even the most mundane bills.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Because they knew the Democrats would be against it. They inserted a poison pill into the bill seeing an opportunity to make the Democrats look bad. It's not exactly an uncommon tactic.

Conspiracy theories aside, this is a bill that, among other things, appropriates funds until 2020. So, it makes sense that this bill would include restrictions on federal funding of abortions, as every annual appropriations bill has since 1976. A pill can hardly be described as poison when one ingests it annually for 40 years.

Why was such a thing never mention in any correspondence between Coryn and Leahy?

It's dumb that it was caught only now. It was simultaneously shady that such a provison was not explicitly pointed out to Democrats in committee. And here we are now because of it.

Regardless, the language should be stripped so this bill can pass. We should all be able to agree on that.

I agree that the Republicans should have specifically pointed out the provision. As for your last two sentences, that's silly. Instead, Democrats should stop pretending this is anything different from what is customarily done with appropriations.

Or, at the very least, they can offer an amendment that removes the controversial language.

 

[ivysaur12]

I just can't believe Democrats aren't poring through each bill. They try to sneak awful shit into even the most mundane bills.

Yes, that's why I agree it was very silly and dumb it was only seem now, but it's also extemely obtuse, despite Metamind's weird assertion it's not.

 

[Atilac]

If one is to assume all pregnancies in human trafficking are the result of rape, why is the hyde act language included in the first place? Why is the topic spun in the direction democrats want to kill it as opposed to republicans actively sabotaging it?

 

[Metaphoreus]

If one is to assume all pregnancies in human trafficking are the result of rape, why is the hyde act language included in the first place?

Sure, if we assume that all pregnancies with respect to which some funds might be disbursed under the bill are the result of rape, then the Hyde Amendment serves no purpose. But why would we assume that to be the case?

 

[way more]

It seems like this Hyde act would have no effect on the bill in the end. But the Dems lose nothing by remaining stubborn. The public will just view this as one more act of impotence by the Republican congress and further obstruction as it relates to the nomination of Loretta Lynch. If you look very closely you can blame the dems but this really just globs into the overall story that the repubs are simply ineffective and seek to block everything.

 

[Atilac]

Sure, if we assume that all pregnancies with respect to which some funds might be disbursed under the bill are the result of rape, then the Hyde Amendment serves no purpose. But why would we assume that to be the case?

If a woman is involved in human trafficking, would she willingly be raped? All sex involved in human trafficking is rape.... It's human trafficking.

 

[DJKhaled]

damn, this aint going well for op

 

[Metaphoreus]

If a woman is involved in human trafficking, would she willingly be raped? All sex involved in human trafficking is rape.... It's human trafficking.

Here are the provisions under which disbursements from the fund established by Cornyn's bill may be made:

(A) sections 202, 203, and 204 of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 14044a, 14044b, and 14044c);

(B) subsections (b)(2) and (f) of section 107 of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7105); and

(C) section 214(b) of the Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 13002(b))

I'm not going to go through all of those, but I imagine (and anyone who does go through all of those can correct me if I'm wrong) that the benefits offered are not limited to the time during which a person is involved in human trafficking.

damn, this aint going well for op

Oh, yeah? Well, I bet you're not even a real DJ!

So there!

 

[Bobby Roberts]

This is my understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong:

1) The majority of congressmen don't read the bills they vote on, but rely specifically on aides to read them and draft up summaries

2) When this bill was changed, Democrats did ask for a list of changes from the previous version of the bill, and this change was not listed or provided.

So while "LOL they didn't read" is a perfectly valid response to the situation, there's something pretty shady about being directly asked to provide a list of changes and specifically leaving out this one.

That said, using this to postpone the hearing on the AG seems more like McConnell being really opportunistic as opposed to it being part of any larger plan. Like he saw this particular wedge floating in the shitty water, and snatched it up all sorts of fast. Almost reflexive.

 

[benjipwns]

That said, using this to postpone the hearing on the AG seems more like McConnell being really opportunistic as opposed to it being part of any larger plan. Like he saw this particular wedge floating in the shitty water, and snatched it up all sorts of fast. Almost reflexive.

A lot of people only know McConnell from his recent years of prominence.

Like Harry Reid, there's a reason these two guys have risen to the top of their caucuses. They aren't there because they're policy experts or good legislators or deal makers or anything you'd think of a McCain or Kennedy or Feingold or whoever.

They're there because of that shit pool and their expert familiarity with it.

 

[kaching]

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.

I think the fact that there isn't definitive evidence of the merit of its inclusion, not even from the Republican perspective, establishes sufficient rationale to remove it in favor of language that better achieves at least that much.

Unless of course it is actually achieving what was intended by sowing dissent...

 

[Metaphoreus]

I think the fact that there isn't definitive evidence of the merit of its inclusion, not even from the Republican perspective, establishes sufficient rationale to remove it in favor of language that better achieves at least that much.

Huh? It would no doubt do what it says it does--that's how laws work. The scenario I was addressing was one in which what the provision does is already done by existing law. In that scenario, there's no reason to have an argument over the provision under discussion here. But the burden there would be on the person claiming the provision is duplicative.

 

[davepoobond]

Huh? It would no doubt do what it says it does--that's how laws work. The scenario I was addressing was one in which what the provision does is already done by existing law. In that scenario, there's no reason to have an argument over the provision under discussion here. But the burden there would be on the person claiming the provision is duplicative.

The difference is where the money comes from. The Hyde amendment comes from government funds. The funds in this bill are from FINES from cases of human trafficking.

There is a difference because the fines are essentially private money being directed to fund this bill and the abortion clause is needed because the Hyde amendment doesn't cover those fines.

That's how I understand it at least from what I heard on NPR

 

[Bobby Roberts]

That's how I understand it at least from what I heard on NPR

Heh, I JUST heard a breakdown on this from All Things Considered.

 

[Metaphoreus]

The difference is where the money comes from. The Hyde amendment comes from government funds. The funds in this bill are from FINES from cases of human trafficking.

There is a difference because the fines are essentially private money being directed to fund this bill and the abortion clause is needed because the Hyde amendment doesn't cover those fines.

That's how I understand it at least from what I heard on NPR

I don't think that's quite right. The Hyde Amendment (which, by the way, isn't a single law, but a type of provision added to many different laws) doesn't distinguish between the source of funding; it imposes restrictions on all funds appropriated under a given law, regardless of where those funds originated. That's why a separate provision would be needed under this bill to impose those restrictions on the fund.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

I don't think that's quite right. The Hyde Amendment (which, by the way, isn't a single law, but a type of provision added to many different laws) doesn't distinguish between the source of funding;

I thought it did. The Hyde Amendment is supposed to only apply to funds from the year's Dept of Health and Human Services appropriations. The funds for THIS bill wouldn't be coming from those appropriations, but from fines assessed against child traffickers, hence the attempt to insert wording into the bill that specifically prevents THOSE funds from being used for abortions.

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, which I might be absolutely - I'm not as familiar with all this shit as I probably should be. As I said earlier, I heard about this on the news earlier today, did some reading, and after posting, listened to some NPR that addressed the news a little further.

But from what I understand, Hyde doesn't apply, and trying to force this wording into this bill would essentially be forcing Hyde to overreach.

 

[Metaphoreus]

I thought it did. The Hyde Amendment is supposed to only apply to funds from the year's Dept of Health and Human Services appropriations. The funds for THIS bill wouldn't be coming from those appropriations, but from fines assessed against child traffickers, hence the attempt to insert wording into the bill that specifically prevents THOSE funds from being used for abortions.

Take the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014 as an example. That's the Act referred to by the Cornyn bill to incorporate its restriction on federal funding for abortions. As the term "Consolidated" in the popular name of the Act implies, it actually contains a number of other named "Acts." Each "division" of the Consolidated Appropriations Act is itself identified as an Appropriations Act for this or that agency (or set of agencies), and a number of "titles" within each division are likewise identified as Appropriations Acts. For instance, Division B is the "Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2014." Title II of Division B is the "Department of Justice Appropriations Act, 2014," and it is in Title II that the Hyde Amendment first appears. Section 202 of that title provides that "[n]one of the funds appropriated by this title shall be available to pay for an abortion, except where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term, or in the case of rape."

The specific provisions cited by the Cornyn bill are sections 506 and 507 of Division H (the "Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2014"), and, again, state the restriction in terms of "funds appropriated in this Act," without regard to the source of such funds. (In those sections, the term "this Act" seems to refer to Division H as a whole, as opposed to Title V of Division H only, since Title V is not separately referred to as an "Act.")