Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Missed Abortion Language Tangles Senate's Human Trafficking Bill

Posted by on Mar. 16, 2015 at 10:22 PM
  • 42 Replies

Missed Abortion Language Tangles Senate's Trafficking Bill

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says he won't let the chamber vote on Loretta Lynch — the nominee to become the next attorney general — until the Senate passes its human trafficking bill.

Mark Wilson/Getty Images

A once widely supported Senate bill that would create a fund for human trafficking victims has hit a snag over language Democrats say they didn't know was in the bill — a provision that would bar funds collected under the measure from being used to pay for abortions. And the impasse over that language now threatens to delay other Senate business, like confirming a new attorney general.

The bill would create a "Domestic Trafficking Victims' Fund" — a restitution fund for victims collected through fines on people convicted of trafficking crimes. The measure was unanimously approved by the Judiciary Committee last month, and it was one of those few bills expected to glide seamlessly through the Senate this year with wide bipartisan support.

Republicans point out that the abortion language was in the bill since mid-January when the bill was introduced. But Democrats say the other side never brought the language to their attention when they specifically asked for a summary of changes between this bill and last year's version.

And on top of that, Democrats point out, the abortion language isn't that obvious if you actually read the bill. What this bill says, on pages 50-51, is that the victims' fund is to be subject to all the limitations on funds, as detailed in last December's spending bill:

So then you have to go to Page 405, Section 507 of last December's appropriations bill to find the language:

To be sure, even Democratic staffers say they should have caught the language. But they contend it's a stretch to argue the abortion provision was, as Republican Sen. John Cornyn put it, "as plain as the nose on your face."

The provision at issue is called the Hyde Amendment. It bars taxpayer money from being used for abortions — except in cases of rape or incest, or if the mother's life is at risk. Republican senators point out it's already been the law of the land for years. But Democrats say what's different in this case is that the Hyde Amendment is now reaching legislation that isn't an appropriations bill. The victims' fund that would be created under the legislation is not simply "taxpayers' money." It is money collected from people who've broken the law.

While this standoff persists, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says he won't let the chamber vote on Loretta Lynch — the nominee to become the next attorney general — until the Senate passes this human trafficking bill.

Nerds Without Pants

by on Mar. 16, 2015 at 10:22 PM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
AdrianneHill
by Ruby Member on Mar. 16, 2015 at 11:45 PM
2 moms liked this
Can't let those trafficking victims get away with not having their rape babies. Those are a gift from god. Honestly you'd think that add a victim of human trafficking,the rape provision should have been satisfied
NWP
by guerrilla girl on Mar. 17, 2015 at 7:59 AM
This is what I was thinking. What kind of monsters thought this an appropriate addition to this bill?

Quoting AdrianneHill: Can't let those trafficking victims get away with not having their rape babies. Those are a gift from god. Honestly you'd think that add a victim of human trafficking,the rape provision should have been satisfied
JustCJ
by Gold Member on Mar. 17, 2015 at 8:48 AM

Am I the only one who understands the highlighted to mean none of which is set forth will pay for abortion...'unless' (see the highlighted).

Billiejeens
by Ruby Member on Mar. 17, 2015 at 8:55 AM
1 mom liked this

Congress people should read the biils.

Elections have consequences -

Mrs.KAZ
by Gold Member on Mar. 17, 2015 at 10:04 AM
1 mom liked this
I see it, it appears to say if the pregnancy is the result of rape or if there is a medical reason the abortion can be allowed, and is not subject to the limitations stated above that.

Quoting JustCJ:

Am I the only one who understands the highlighted to mean none of which is set forth will pay for abortion...'unless' (see the highlighted).

kailu1835
by Ruby Member on Mar. 17, 2015 at 10:09 AM
1 mom liked this
So basically, the money going to the victims is subject to the same rules add any other government funds. I fail to see the problem here. Government should not be paying for abortions. And democrats didn't know? The entire citizenry knew it was in there!
kailu1835
by Ruby Member on Mar. 17, 2015 at 10:12 AM
Lol i missed that! I stopped reading halfway down... the print it's so fricking TINY!!

So... these victims whose pregnancy was a result of being sex trafficked will still have full access to funds to get abortions. So what's the dems holdup now??


Quoting JustCJ:

Am I the only one who understands the highlighted to mean none of which is set forth will pay for abortion...'unless' (see the highlighted).

kailu1835
by Ruby Member on Mar. 17, 2015 at 10:13 AM
They'll still have access.

Quoting AdrianneHill: Can't let those trafficking victims get away with not having their rape babies. Those are a gift from god. Honestly you'd think that add a victim of human trafficking,the rape provision should have been satisfied
JustCJ
by Gold Member on Mar. 17, 2015 at 10:47 AM
1 mom liked this

I won't lie...I have ADHD and I normally would not even attempt to read all of that, but I kinda thought it was bullshit so.

Quoting kailu1835: Lol i missed that! I stopped reading halfway down... the print it's so fricking TINY!! So... these victims whose pregnancy was a result of being sex trafficked will still have full access to funds to get abortions. So what's the dems holdup now??
Quoting JustCJ:

Am I the only one who understands the highlighted to mean none of which is set forth will pay for abortion...'unless' (see the highlighted).


JustCJ
by Gold Member on Mar. 17, 2015 at 10:48 AM

Apparently those just in your imagination.wink

Quoting NWP: This is what I was thinking. What kind of monsters thought this an appropriate addition to this bill?
Quoting AdrianneHill: Can't let those trafficking victims get away with not having their rape babies. Those are a gift from god. Honestly you'd think that add a victim of human trafficking,the rape provision should have been satisfied


Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)