Why?

[Skylar]

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.

If repulblicans are serious about protecting women, then they shouldn't use the human trafficking as a horse to ride in pushing their anti-abortion agenda. Democrats fully support the bill....without the abortion riders.

Remove the riders, and you have the bill. But to many republicans, their anti-abortion agenda is WAY more important to them than any human trafficking bill.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

TemplarKormac
1. I think they are trying to get that language REMOVED from the bill
2. remember when Congress got held up and federal govt shut down
because of the disagreement over whether to delay the individual mandates for a year?

It WASN'T that "Republicans didn't want people to get health care"
the OPPOSITION was to that *Unconstitutional Mandate* that was holding up that bill and is still contested
because it is still as Unconstitutional as it was when it was first passed.

REMOVE the conflicting cause and end the problem!!!

Republicans weren't trying to "deprive Americans of health care" by protesting the mandate they want changed.
And these Democrats aren't trying to stop the protections in the bill by protesting the clause they want removed.

 

[emilynghiem]

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

^ To be fair, remove any mention of abortion altogether. ^

 

[Skylar]

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

And that's the part of this that is just pathetic. These poor saps actually believe that women won't be able to see through their bullshit. That as a gender, women aren't smart enough to recognize that republicans are playing the same games with reproductive freedom that they've been doing for years.

They've lost the majority of women's votes for about a generation. But still, they can't understand how women are able to pierce their clever ruse.

Shrugs....you can't fix stupid.

 

[Skylar]

It WASN'T that "Republicans didn't want people to get health care"
the OPPOSITION was to that *Unconstitutional Mandate* that was holding up that bill and is still contested
because it is still as Unconstitutional as it was when it was first passed.

Didn't the Supreme Court rule that it wasn't?

 

[TemplarKormac]

1. I think they are trying to get that language REMOVED from the bill

Why? This is in stark contrast to the overwhelming support they have for stopping slavery practices, with all due respect.

And these Democrats aren't trying to stop the protections in the bill by protesting the clause they want removed.

Yeah they are.

 

[emilynghiem]

1. I think they are trying to get that language REMOVED from the bill

Why? This is in stark contrast to the overwhelming support they have for stopping slavery practices, with all due respect.

And these Democrats aren't trying to stop the protections in the bill by protesting the clause they want removed.

Yeah they are.

If they don't agree on the "abortion" language, policies, funding, terms etc.
then REMOVE any mention to that part. Resolve that later, but get the rest of the bill to pass.

 

[TemplarKormac]

If they don't agree on the "abortion" language, policies, funding, terms etc.
then REMOVE any mention to that part. Resolve that later, but get the rest of the bill to pass.

In fact it shows they have zero priorities. Missing the forest for the trees. The most telling display of not actually caring for womens rights I've ever seen.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Griswold/Eisenstadt/Roe/Casey is acknowledged, settled, and accepted privacy rights jurisprudence, yet most on the right continue to exhibit their contempt for the Constitution and its case law, and their contempt for the civil rights of women – conservative obstructionism with regard to the human trafficking bill is yet another example of that contempt.

 

[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?

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.

And again, this would be the ONLY source for funding for that?

It wouldn't be possible even without this language in the bill because of the Hyde Amendment, which is still in effect. The issue is Obama seems to have a hard on for ignoring congressional powers, and thus Republicans felt the need to remind him.

So over one thing Dem's don't like, they torpedo the whole bill.

The obstruction is now all on them, none on us.

 

[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.

And again, this would be the ONLY source for funding for that?

What other source of funding for abortions to sex trafficked women are Republicans offering?

None. Again, your argument only has merit if there is a viable alternative being offered by the folks slapping on the anti-abortion rider. And there is none. Which is exactly the point.

 

[martybegan]

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

And this does nothing to restrict those rights.

 

[martybegan]

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.

And again, this would be the ONLY source for funding for that?

What other source of funding for abortions to sex trafficked women are Republicans offering?

None. Again, your argument only has merit if there is a viable alternative being offered by the folks slapping on the anti-abortion rider. And there is none. Which is exactly the point.

Get the funding for that part from somewhere else. Hell, how about you kick in a few bucks personally if its such an important thing.

And it wasn't a rider that was just slapped on, it was a mention of an ALREADY EXISTING rider just slapped on.

 

[Skylar]

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

And this does nothing to restrict those rights.

It makes it harder and more time consuming to exercise those rights. Which is exactly why republicans slapped on the rider.

And given the high rate of pregnancy due to rape among sex trafficked workers, this issue is immediately relevant to the human trafficking bill. But true to bone stupid form, many conservatives imagine that women won't be able to pierce their clever veil of 'plausible deniability', and accept that abortion being harder and more time consuming for victims of human trafficking to receive is just a random coincidence.

With the majority of women voting democrat for over a generation, face it fellas: the ladies cracked your 'code'.

 

[Skylar]

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.

And again, this would be the ONLY source for funding for that?

What other source of funding for abortions to sex trafficked women are Republicans offering?

None. Again, your argument only has merit if there is a viable alternative being offered by the folks slapping on the anti-abortion rider. And there is none. Which is exactly the point.

Get the funding for that part from somewhere else.

And where would that be?

By all means, be specific. The whole 'somewhere else' schtick only works if you have a viable option to offer in alternative. But cutting funding for immediately relevant reproductive health needs of the very population you claim to be trying to help is an obvious act of meaningless hypocritical bullshit.

And an act women will most certainly be able to see through. Seriously, guys.......you're fooling no one. Not even yourselves.

 

[Grandma]

Behold your massive hypocrisy on women's rights.

TK, you are amazing. It's mind-blowing that you believe that you, a deadbeat, basement-dwelling virgin, are qualified to speak for a gender that's completely alien to you.

Go back to your video games, boyo, leave the talking for those that actually understand women's issues.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Behold your massive hypocrisy on women's rights.

TK, you are amazing. It's mind-blowing that you believe that you, a deadbeat, basement-dwelling virgin, are qualified to speak for a gender that's completely alien to you.

Go back to your video games, boyo, leave the talking for those that actually understand women's issues.

(rolls eyes)

Says a woman who couldn't give half a damn about other women being trafficked around the world. Please by all means, put me in my place!

 

[TemplarKormac]

And where would that be?

There are nice things on your jeans/khakis called pockets.

The whole 'somewhere else' schtick only works if you have a viable option to offer in alternative.

The whole "we advocate women's rights" schtick only works if you intend on actually supporting women's rights, including but not limited to abortion.

But cutting funding for immediately relevant reproductive health needs of the very population you claim to be trying to help is an obvious act of meaningless hypocritical bullshit.

Aaaand who said anything about cutting funding? Do you have any direct evidence of this? Since when is stopping fine revenues from being used for abortion cutting funding? Oh, and you have zero place to lecture us on hypocrisy.

I'm sure those poor women and little girls being trafficked in the sex trade will need an abortion, you know.

 

[TemplarKormac]

And given the high rate of pregnancy due to rape among sex trafficked workers, this issue is immediately relevant to the human trafficking bill.

No it isn't and no it doesn't. The whole idea of this bill is to keep these women from being raped and taken advantage of in the first place. Not even close.

 

[Ravi]

Why do republicans love big government so much that they would dictate how a victim can spend money received in recompense from a perp?