150 Years after Gettysburg, Democrats Still Filibustering on behalf of Slave-Owners

[cpwill]

Remember this the next time someone tries to tell you about how Republicans are out to hurt people, and Democrats are in it to help the vulnerable...

Last summer, I interviewed a slave. Her name is Ima Matul, and she is a native of Indonesia who was brought to southern California as a teenager with the promise of a job working as a household maid. She got the job. The rest will be familiar to those familiar with modern-day slavery in the United States: The family for whom she was to work took her passport and separated her from her cousin, with whom she had come to the U.S. The cousin was sent to work in another home. Ima Matul was, needless to say, never paid — the family said they were simply keeping the money safe for her until she returned home. She worked 18 hours a day or more. She was cut off from all communication, beaten, and abused. She was told that if she were to try to run away, she’d be arrested as an illegal immigrant and taken to prison, where she would be held indefinitely with no passport or other identification, and where she would certainly be raped...

Senator John Cornyn (R., Texas) has offered a bill that would use fines levied on convicted human traffickers to fund services for victims of human trafficking — for liberated slaves. And his bill would do more than that: It would fund task forces and investigative units dedicated to breaking up trafficking rings. The bill contains language that is horrible to contemplate in the 21st century: “trafficking with respect to peonage, slavery, involuntary servitude, or forced labor.”

Who could be against such a bill? Senator Harry Reid, for one. ...

In the United States, the public funding of abortion is generally prohibited through “Hyde amendments,” commonplace statutory language that goes back to the earliest post-Roe days that ensures, out of a decent respect for the consciences of individual Americans, that none of them is forced by the government to participate financially in abortion. Senator Cornyn’s bill contains such a provision, and Democrats are pretending to be surprised by that. The truth is that they are taking a beating in their new minority status, while their national leadership is embroiled in a series of scandals and failures. A fight over abortion, they calculate, might be just the thing — and there’s always the chance that Republicans will help them out by having an obscure backbencher from nowhere proffer an innovative theory about reproductive biology....

 

[Anomalism]

Re: 150 Years after Gettysburg, Democrats Still Filibustering on behalf of Slave-Owne

If the Republicans were really being selfless they wouldn't have tried to sneak anti-abortion legislation into a bill designed to help victims of human trafficking.

 

[Redress]

Re: 150 Years after Gettysburg, Democrats Still Filibustering on behalf of Slave-Owne

Remember this the next time someone tries to tell you about how Republicans are out to hurt people, and Democrats are in it to help the vulnerable...


[/FONT][/COLOR]

You know, I read your article,. and it does not link to the bill in question. It does not mention the bill's name. It is almost as if it was trying to hide those from people. I wonder why? The reason democrats are blocking it is because republicans, as they like to do, added a "poison pill", anti-abortion language totally unnecessary and unrelated to the bill itself. They did that so gullible people(we wouldn't know any of those would we?) will think that republicans actually care about human trafficking(if they did, why not put forth a bill that would actually pass?) and that those evil democrats are against protections for the victims of human trafficking.

And you fell for it, and are even trying to spread the talking point your masters want spread(see what I did there?).

 

[cpwill]

Re: 150 Years after Gettysburg, Democrats Still Filibustering on behalf of Slave-Owne

You know, I read your article,. and it does not link to the bill in question. It does not mention the bill's name. It is almost as if it was trying to hide those from people. I wonder why? The reason democrats are blocking it is because republicans, as they like to do, added a "poison pill", anti-abortion language totally unnecessary and unrelated to the bill itself.

On the contrary. What they added was Hyde Amendment language, just as is added to all government bills which may potentially impact abortion.

Which you know Because it points this out in the OP. Democrats think a fight on abortion is good for them.

They did that so gullible people(we wouldn't know any of those would we?) will think that republicans actually care about human trafficking(if they did, why not put forth a bill that would actually pass?

They did - the Hyde Amendment has long has bi-partisan support. Remember how Democrats swore up and down that they were going to add it to Obamacare? Were Democrats trying to Sneak In Poison Pill Anti-Abortion language? :roll: please.

 

[Redress]

Re: 150 Years after Gettysburg, Democrats Still Filibustering on behalf of Slave-Owne

On the contrary. What they added was Hyde Amendment language, just as is added to all government bills which may potentially impact abortion.

Which you know Because it points this out in the OP. Democrats think a fight on abortion is good for them.



They did - the Hyde Amendment has long has bi-partisan support. Remember how Democrats swore up and down that they were going to add it to Obamacare? Were Democrats trying to Sneak In Poison Pill Anti-Abortion language? :roll: please.

Really, care to show the language actually in the bill? Care to explain what a bill about human trafficking has to do with abortion?

 

[cpwill]

Re: 150 Years after Gettysburg, Democrats Still Filibustering on behalf of Slave-Owne

Really, care to show the language actually in the bill? Care to explain what a bill about human trafficking has to do with abortion?

If you'd read the article, you'd see that among those we are seeking to rescue are victims of sex trafficking, who could pretty plausible be rescued while pregnant. "No government funds shall be used to pay for abortions" is the Hyde Amendment language inserted here.

It's particularly twisted that we would have a leader who would refuse to rescue slaves unless he was allowed to help kill their children.

 

[Redress]

Re: 150 Years after Gettysburg, Democrats Still Filibustering on behalf of Slave-Owne

If you'd read the article, you'd see that among those we are seeking to rescue are victims of sex trafficking, who could pretty plausible be rescued while pregnant. "No government funds shall be used to pay for abortions" is the Hyde Amendment language inserted here.

It's particularly twisted that we would have a leader who would refuse to rescue slaves unless he was allowed to help kill their children.

Wait, so if a woman who was used against her will in sex trafficking was pregnant, you would refuse abortion? And you claim the democrats are at fault here...

 

[gdgyva]

Re: 150 Years after Gettysburg, Democrats Still Filibustering on behalf of Slave-Owne

no....

he isnt saying they cant have the abortions

he is saying the government shouldnt be FUNDING them

and this is political.....you want the bill, we want the amendment.....you know quid pro quo

 

[cpwill]

Re: 150 Years after Gettysburg, Democrats Still Filibustering on behalf of Slave-Owne

Wait, so if a woman who was used against her will in sex trafficking was pregnant, you would refuse abortion?

I certainly would not help her murder her child. I would rather rescue, heal, nurture, and care for them both.

And you claim the democrats are at fault here...

They certainly are. The Hyde Amendment is a compromise that has lasted for four decades, and one which Democrats claim to support.

My belief in the sanctity of life is why I have repeatedly voted against using taxpayer money for abortions.

Democrats want a public fight over abortion, believing it will be good for them politically, and they are willing to filibuster a bill designed to help rescue people from slavery in order to get it. These are people (mostly women) reduced to the worst and suffering the most abusive of conditions, and all you care about is whether we can get the government to pay for their abortion? What kind of ****ed up prioritization is that?

 

[cpwill]

Re: 150 Years after Gettysburg, Democrats Still Filibustering on behalf of Slave-Owne

no....

he isnt saying they cant have the abortions

he is saying the government shouldnt be FUNDING them

and this is political.....you want the bill, we want the amendment.....you know quid pro quo

Precisely. Reid is up for reelection in 2016, and the case to send the minority leader back to the Senate is much weaker for a weak candidate than the case to send back the majority leader.

 

[LowDown]

Re: 150 Years after Gettysburg, Democrats Still Filibustering on behalf of Slave-Owne

You know, I read your article,. and it does not link to the bill in question. It does not mention the bill's name. It is almost as if it was trying to hide those from people. I wonder why? The reason democrats are blocking it is because republicans, as they like to do, added a "poison pill", anti-abortion language totally unnecessary and unrelated to the bill itself.

This is false. Republicans always add these admendments and Democrats usually let them pass. It's a routine rider attached to appropriations bills. Democrats have no right to claim that this is a poison pill. Democrats are trying to revive their moribund fortunes by ginning up the abortion issue, and they did it on the backs of slaves in bondage. So much for Democratic concern for the vulnerable.