Why?

[TemplarKormac]

Why would Democrats block an anti-human trafficking bill? Because Republicans are evil and won't stop messing with abortion? No, because Human trafficking isn't a serious issue, and the victims aren't deserving of justice. Why would they block this? Because aborting children is more important that stopping the trafficking of innocent girls and women. This is purely sickening. They want to say they champion women's rights, yet won't fight for women and girls who are being trafficked by evil people. How utterly pathetic do you have to be to deny justice to people who deserve it, aid to those who require it, and safety to those who seek it? If you are one of those people, you should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself.

The legislation passed through the Senate Judiciary Committee without any problems but, now, pro-abortion activists are raising a stink about how funds for restitution for human trafficking victims won’t pay for abortions. The objection is offensive to victims of human trafficking and millions of girls and young women around the world who are victimized by it, putting abortion ahead of meeting their needs.

Senate Democrats voted against a cloture motion to end the Democratic filibuster and to allow a vote on the sex trafficking bill — with every Republican in the Senate supporting the measure and favoring an end to the filibuster preventing it from moving forward. The final vote was 55-43 against ending the filibuster and the cloture motion needed 60 votes to move the bill ahead to a vote. Only Democratic Senators Donnelly, Casey, Manchin, and Heitkamp voted with Republicans to end debate.

After the first cloture vote, Republicans held a second cloture vote to end debate and Senate Democrats voted a second time to block the bill to help human trafficking victims on a similar 55-43 vote.

Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn, a pro-life Republican, said on the floor of the Senate this morning that he is shocked and dismayed that Democrats would put abortion funding ahead of helping women.

Democrats Kill Bill to Help Human Trafficking Victims Because it Won t Fund Their Abortions LifeNews.com

An anti-human trafficking bill that just two weeks ago had broad, bipartisan support was filibustered and stalled Tuesday by Senate Democrats upset over anti-abortion language they claim was subtly inserted into the measure.

The Justice for Victims in Trafficking Act fell five votes short of garnering the 60 needed to advance in the chamber. The legislation would create a federal fund for victims’ services and law enforcement tools financed by fines levied on convicted traffickers.

Democrats objected to a section of the bill that nodded to the Hyde Amendment – a nearly four-decade-old legislative provision that bans taxpayer-funded abortions. Language in the trafficking bill prohibited funds raised by the fines to be used for abortions.

“The partisan provision embedded in the Senate version of this bill is not something the survivors of human trafficking are asking for,” Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said Tuesday.

Senate Democrats Block Human Trafficking Bill Over Abortion Language - US News

WASHINGTON — A bipartisan bill to strengthen penalties for human trafficking failed to advance Tuesday in the Senate as Democrats blocked the legislation over an anti-abortion provision.

The Senate voted 55-43 to end debate on an amended version of the anti-trafficking bill, falling short of the 60 votes needed for the measure to advance. A second vote to end debate on the underlying bill also failed to muster the necessary votes.

The impasse has become symbolic of a larger struggle to pass legislation in the fractious 114th Congress and threatens to further delay a confirmation vote on President Obama's attorney general nominee, Loretta Lynch.

Four Democratic senators sided with Republicans: Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Joe Manchin of West Virginia. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., changed his vote to "no" during both cloture votes — a procedural move that allows him to bring the bill up again later.

McConnell warned Democrats before the vote that they would suffer political consequences if they blocked the bill.

"If Democrats actually vote to filibuster a bill to help victims of modern-day slavery, I can't imagine the American people will forget," he said, calling the filibuster "a historic mistake."

Democrats responded that Republicans should remove the divisive abortion provision if they really care about passing the bill. They noted that the House passed the bill this year without the anti-abortion language.

"If we're speaking for those who have been the victims of human trafficking, we ought to listen to them," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. "This (abortion provision) is not something they're asking for."

The stalemate on the anti-trafficking bill has now grown to affect Lynch's nomination. McConnell has vowed not to bring her nomination to a vote unless Democrats stop blocking the anti-trafficking bill. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., decried that strategy Tuesday, saying that Lynch is a qualified nominee who deserves an immediate vote.

Democrats block anti-trafficking bill over abortion

Say, since when was not allowing revenue from fines to pay for abortions so repulsive that it deserves having this bill blocked?

 

[Skylar]

Why would Democrats block an anti-human trafficking bill? Because Republicans are evil and won't stop messing with abortion? No, because Human trafficking is a serious issue, and a vile act the victims highly deserving of justice. Why would they block this? Because aborting children is more important that stopping the trafficking of innocent girls and women. This is purely sickening. They want to say they champion women's rights, yet won't fight for women and girls who are being trafficked by evil people. How utterly pathetic do you have to be to deny justice to people who deserve it, aid to those who require it, and safety to those who seek it? If you are one of those people, you should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself.

The legislation passed through the Senate Judiciary Committee without any problems but, now, pro-abortion activists are raising a stink about how funds for restitution for human trafficking victims won’t pay for abortions. The objection is offensive to victims of human trafficking and millions of girls and young women around the world who are victimized by it, putting abortion ahead of meeting their needs.

Senate Democrats voted against a cloture motion to end the Democratic filibuster and to allow a vote on the sex trafficking bill — with every Republican in the Senate supporting the measure and favoring an end to the filibuster preventing it from moving forward. The final vote was 55-43 against ending the filibuster and the cloture motion needed 60 votes to move the bill ahead to a vote. Only Democratic Senators Donnelly, Casey, Manchin, and Heitkamp voted with Republicans to end debate.

After the first cloture vote, Republicans held a second cloture vote to end debate and Senate Democrats voted a second time to block the bill to help human trafficking victims on a similar 55-43 vote.

Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn, a pro-life Republican, said on the floor of the Senate this morning that he is shocked and dismayed that Democrats would put abortion funding ahead of helping women.

Democrats Kill Bill to Help Human Trafficking Victims Because it Won t Fund Their Abortions LifeNews.com

An anti-human trafficking bill that just two weeks ago had broad, bipartisan support was filibustered and stalled Tuesday by Senate Democrats upset over anti-abortion language they claim was subtly inserted into the measure.

The Justice for Victims in Trafficking Act fell five votes short of garnering the 60 needed to advance in the chamber. The legislation would create a federal fund for victims’ services and law enforcement tools financed by fines levied on convicted traffickers.

Democrats objected to a section of the bill that nodded to the Hyde Amendment – a nearly four-decade-old legislative provision that bans taxpayer-funded abortions. Language in the trafficking bill prohibited funds raised by the fines to be used for abortions.

“The partisan provision embedded in the Senate version of this bill is not something the survivors of human trafficking are asking for,” Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said Tuesday.

Senate Democrats Block Human Trafficking Bill Over Abortion Language - US News

WASHINGTON — A bipartisan bill to strengthen penalties for human trafficking failed to advance Tuesday in the Senate as Democrats blocked the legislation over an anti-abortion provision.

The Senate voted 55-43 to end debate on an amended version of the anti-trafficking bill, falling short of the 60 votes needed for the measure to advance. A second vote to end debate on the underlying bill also failed to muster the necessary votes.

The impasse has become symbolic of a larger struggle to pass legislation in the fractious 114th Congress and threatens to further delay a confirmation vote on President Obama's attorney general nominee, Loretta Lynch.

Four Democratic senators sided with Republicans: Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Joe Manchin of West Virginia. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., changed his vote to "no" during both cloture votes — a procedural move that allows him to bring the bill up again later.

McConnell warned Democrats before the vote that they would suffer political consequences if they blocked the bill.

"If Democrats actually vote to filibuster a bill to help victims of modern-day slavery, I can't imagine the American people will forget," he said, calling the filibuster "a historic mistake."

Democrats responded that Republicans should remove the divisive abortion provision if they really care about passing the bill. They noted that the House passed the bill this year without the anti-abortion language.

"If we're speaking for those who have been the victims of human trafficking, we ought to listen to them," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. "This (abortion provision) is not something they're asking for."

The stalemate on the anti-trafficking bill has now grown to affect Lynch's nomination. McConnell has vowed not to bring her nomination to a vote unless Democrats stop blocking the anti-trafficking bill. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., decried that strategy Tuesday, saying that Lynch is a qualified nominee who deserves an immediate vote.

Democrats block anti-trafficking bill over abortion

Say, since when was not allowing fines to pay for abortions so repulsive that it deserves having this bill blocked?

Wouldn't removing any abortion restrictions from the Bill mean it passes instantly?

That seems a rather bizarre rider that republicans slapped on.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

TEMPLARKORMAC SAID:

“Why would Democrats block an anti-human trafficking bill?”

They're not, republican are.

It's typical republican obstructionism.

It's also representative of the idiocy and hate of the social right, where victims of human trafficking are also victims of rape, where funding for abortion is perfectly appropriate.

 

[WelfareQueen]

TEMPLARKORMAC SAID:

“Why would Democrats block an anti-human trafficking bill?”

They're not, republican are.

It's typical republican obstructionism.

It's also representative of the idiocy and hate of the social right, where victims of human trafficking are also victims of rape, where funding for abortion is perfectly appropriate.

What does abortion have to do with human trafficking and why are Democrats insisting on it?

Please explain.

 

[Skylar]

TEMPLARKORMAC SAID:

“Why would Democrats block an anti-human trafficking bill?”

They're not, republican are.

It's typical republican obstructionism.

It's also representative of the idiocy and hate of the social right, where victims of human trafficking are also victims of rape, where funding for abortion is perfectly appropriate.

What does abortion have to do with human trafficking and why are Democrats insisting on it?

Please explain.

If abortion is irrelevant to human trafficing, then why the rider by republicans forbidding funding for it? You can't have it both ways.

 

[WelfareQueen]

TEMPLARKORMAC SAID:

“Why would Democrats block an anti-human trafficking bill?”

They're not, republican are.

It's typical republican obstructionism.

It's also representative of the idiocy and hate of the social right, where victims of human trafficking are also victims of rape, where funding for abortion is perfectly appropriate.

What does abortion have to do with human trafficking and why are Democrats insisting on it?

Please explain.

If abortion is irrelevant to human trafficing, then why the rider by republicans forbidding funding for it? You can't have it both ways.

Because it has nothing to do with human trafficking, therefore it should not be part of the bill. Pretty simple really.

 

[TemplarKormac]

That seems a rather bizarre rider that republicans slapped on.

It seems rather bizarre for Democrats to show their love of women by not protecting rights they possess, or rights other than those of abortion. Really now? I don't understand this at all. Can't Democrats let go of political motivations for one millisecond to protect the human rights of innocent women and girls? Ha!

Spare me your indignance.

Behold your massive hypocrisy on women's rights.

 

[WelfareQueen]

Just another example of the Democrat war on women. They should really be ashamed.

 

[Skylar]

That seems a rather bizarre rider that republicans slapped on.

It seems rather bizarre for Democrats to show their love of women by not protecting rights they possess, or rights other than those of abortion. Really now? I don't understand this at all. Can't you let go of political motivations for one millisecond to protect the human rights of innocent women and girls?

Spare me your indignance.

As Clayton pointed out, human trafficing of women often involves rapes and inevitable pregnancies. Pregnancy due to rape is one of the exceptoins that even many conservatives recognize as morally valid. Making the GOP's universal ban on funding any abortions just.....

...bizarre. If women's rights were really their goal. If using human trafficking and the abuse of women as a horse to ride to push their anti-abortion agenda were their goal, then it makes perfect sense.

Or are you one of those hapless souls that thinks that 'admitting privileges' requirements are really about women's safety. And just 'happen' to shut down most abortion clinics by complete coincidence.

If so....do you really think you're going to convince most women of either load of horseshit?

 

[Skylar]

Just another example of the Democrat war on women. They should really be ashamed.

Laughing....the funny part is, you think women aren't going to be able to break your 'code'. And actually buy your bullshit narrative.

With the majority of women siding with republicans for about a generation.....um, how's that working out for you?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Equally idiotic is republicans using the bill to block Lynch's nomination from proceeding; republicans are clearly incapable of sound, responsible governance.

 

[Skylar]

Equally idiotic is republicans using the bill to block Lynch's nomination from proceeding; republicans are clearly incapable of sound, responsible governance.

Shrugs...its just echo chamber thinking. They make up some specious narrative among themselves that is hopeless bullshit. But imagine that none of the folks they're targeting will notice, or if noticing, be able to break their clever 'code'.

Sigh.....there's a reason why 87% of Romney voters were white, with most being males.

Minorities and women broke your code, fellas.

 

[WelfareQueen]

Just another example of the Democrat war on women. They should really be ashamed.

Laughing....the funny part is, you think women aren't going to be able to break your 'code'. And actually buy your bullshit narrative.

With the majority of women siding with republicans for about a generation.....um, how's that working out for you?

Check your facts. Dems have lost the white female vote....maybe forever. The last election cycle Dems were only able to get 45% of the white female vote. It's declined in every election since 2006.

The war on women thing is played out....which is sad for Hillary, because it's the only card she has to play. She cannot run on Obama's record...it sucks....and she cannot run on her own record because she was terrible as Secretary of State.

 

[WelfareQueen]

Equally idiotic is republicans using the bill to block Lynch's nomination from proceeding; republicans are clearly incapable of sound, responsible governance.

Shrugs...its just echo chamber thinking. They make up some specious narrative among themselves that is hopeless bullshit. But imagine that none of the folks they're targeting will notice, or if noticing, be able to break their clever 'code'.

Sigh.....there's a reason why 87% of Romney voters were white, with most being males.

Minorities and women broke your code, fellas.

There is a reason why over 63% of white voters no longer vote Democrat...including the overwhelming majority of white women. Dems cannot win National Elections when 2/3 of the electorate will not vote for you. Witness last November's beatdown as an example.

 

[martybegan]

TEMPLARKORMAC SAID:

“Why would Democrats block an anti-human trafficking bill?”

They're not, republican are.

It's typical republican obstructionism.

It's also representative of the idiocy and hate of the social right, where victims of human trafficking are also victims of rape, where funding for abortion is perfectly appropriate.

Its still banned by the Hyde amendment, which has been established law for over four decades.

Democrats are doing the active blocking, protecting Obama from having to Veto a bill that would be exactly the same with or without the rider.

Democrats gotta suck up to their base, and this is a perfect example.

 

[martybegan]

That seems a rather bizarre rider that republicans slapped on.

It seems rather bizarre for Democrats to show their love of women by not protecting rights they possess, or rights other than those of abortion. Really now? I don't understand this at all. Can't you let go of political motivations for one millisecond to protect the human rights of innocent women and girls?

Spare me your indignance.

As Clayton pointed out, human trafficing of women often involves rapes and inevitable pregnancies. Pregnancy due to rape is one of the exceptoins that even many conservatives recognize as morally valid. Making the GOP's universal ban on funding any abortions just.....

...bizarre. If women's rights were really their goal. If using human trafficking and the abuse of women as a horse to ride to push their anti-abortion agenda were their goal, then it makes perfect sense.

Or are you one of those hapless souls that thinks that 'admitting privileges' requirements are really about women's safety. And just 'happen' to shut down most abortion clinics by complete coincidence.

If so....do you really think you're going to convince most women of either load of horseshit?

So the only source of funding for those abortions would be money from this bill?

More sacrifice at the altar of abortion, and this is from someone who can give a rats ass about it.

 

[Skylar]

That seems a rather bizarre rider that republicans slapped on.

It seems rather bizarre for Democrats to show their love of women by not protecting rights they possess, or rights other than those of abortion. Really now? I don't understand this at all. Can't you let go of political motivations for one millisecond to protect the human rights of innocent women and girls?

Spare me your indignance.

As Clayton pointed out, human trafficing of women often involves rapes and inevitable pregnancies. Pregnancy due to rape is one of the exceptoins that even many conservatives recognize as morally valid. Making the GOP's universal ban on funding any abortions just.....

...bizarre. If women's rights were really their goal. If using human trafficking and the abuse of women as a horse to ride to push their anti-abortion agenda were their goal, then it makes perfect sense.

Or are you one of those hapless souls that thinks that 'admitting privileges' requirements are really about women's safety. And just 'happen' to shut down most abortion clinics by complete coincidence.

If so....do you really think you're going to convince most women of either load of horseshit?

So the only source of funding for those abortions would be money from this bill?

Its an immeidately relevant issue that accompanies human trafficking. A huge number of women that are human trafficked are used for sex. Often against their will.

Why wouldn't the bill include funding for abortions due to rape under these circumstances?

And you really think that most women are going to buy this 'Democratic war on women' narrative? This is shit that even among conservatives is said with a giggle.

 

[WelfareQueen]

If the bill is to protect women against Human Trafficking....just sign the damn bill.

That is....if the Dems really care about women. Again...it's pretty simple.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Women are very much aware of the fact that most republicans and others on the right are hostile to the privacy rights of women.

 

[Skylar]

"We run a toll-free hotline, and we hear from rape victims across the country every week who aren't able to access the help they need to obtain abortion care," said Vicki Saporta, president of the National Abortion Federation. "In most states, the first answer for people when they call is that they don't fund abortion care, even if you've been raped. Some states will make the woman report the rape to the police and then still not fund it. It's hard to imagine adding that type of burden to survivors of trafficking."

The Abortion Language In The Sex Trafficking Bill Would Make Life Harder For Rape Victims

And this issue is immediately relevant to women who have been sex trafficked, as they have higher rates of pregnancy than the general population:

Survivors of sex trafficking have much higher rates of pregnancy than the general population of rape victims because they are often raped multiple times each day they are in captivity. According to a 2014 study by the Loyola University Chicago School of Law, nearly three-quarters of women surveyed reported that they had become pregnant while trafficked, and one in five women reported five or more pregnancies.

The Abortion Language In The Sex Trafficking Bill Would Make Life Harder For Rape Victims

So why wouldn't the bill include funding for abortion?