Yeah, about that headline … if the Dems offered an unrestricted-abortion amendment in a bill to provide medical support for wounded veterans and the Reps voted against the bill for that reason, would Republicans then hate wounded veterans? Of course not, and let’s not misrepresent the intent.
Of COURSE Dems are baby killers, they admit that, so any attempt to rub their nose in it by attaching a potentially incendiary amendment is the fault of the Reps, not the Dems. Don’t blame the dog for barking or the cat for meowing, it’s what they do.
Personally I think Congress should only present clean bills without the subterfuge of politically-motivated “gotcha” amendments, but again, duplicity and dissemblance is what they do.
I thoroughly disagree with your point here. In general, you’re exactly right that pegging a party as ’embracing’ something is wrong just because they vote against a loaded bill. This happens all the time, and I usually despise the practice.
HOWEVER, that’s not at all what’s going on here. This abortion rider is in NO WAY unrelated or a ‘gotcha’ addition. It’s exactly the opposite. It’s a common-sense assurance that this aid will not be distorted from it’s intended purpose.
And I think that in the case of Chrissy’s headline, it’s absolutely appropriate to accuse them of “embracing trafficking” after no fewer than 3 attempts to kill a bill that would fight trafficking, just because they are not allowed to distort the purpose of the bill to make it a pro-abortion bill.
Grunt, I see your point. But do you think abortions aren’t being federally funded now, or that there may come a point in the future when our taxes don’t pay for Medicaid abortions? In other words, without the possible diversion of funds from this sex trafficking bill, would federally-subsidized abortions grind to a halt?
It not, then what’s the point in derailing this sex trafficking bill over something which would make absolutely no difference, other than to score points with the LIV in the Heartland? A sex trafficking bill has no business even mentioning abortion, pro or con, in the first place. I mean, why not just say the bill can’t fund methadone treatment or low-income mortgages?
More Republican posturing, and thank goodness because we were running low on meaningless gestures up until now.
Well, you have a point about meaningless Repub gestures. But the abortion language, in this bill in particular, in my view, is totally appropriate. Clearly, this aid is going mostly to young women, many of whom are pregnant from abusers. One of the easiest things in the world to spend this money on is to pay for abortions for cast-off trafficking victims. Half the tax-payers in the whole damn country – maybe more – don’t want their money spent that way. That’s a fair restriction. How is it relevant that it has already been stolen from them to pay for other abortions by Medicaid and ObamaCare?
It’s not only appropriate, but absolutely necessary for a bill of this sort to contain language explicitly prohibiting the appropriated funds being used to kill babies. In any situation where abortion is possible, the folks on the left see it as the solution to the problem. Remember right after 9/11, when Planned Parenthood of New York offered free abortions to all the pregnant women whose husbands/partners had been killed in the terrorist attacks? What kind of twisted mind, confronted with a horrendous atrocity like 9/11 immediately thinks — Hey! Some of the men who were killed might have had pregnant wives or girlfriends! Those women need abortions! Let’s herd them all into our slaughterhouse and slice and dice the babies and flush them down the drain! Yeah! That’s the best way to deal with this! Likewise, in the case of young women who have been sold into sexual slavery, this would be the first thing the leftists would want to do — round up all the pregnant ones and kill their babies.
There is also the oft-forgotten problem that, where abortion is cheap and “easy”, it is pushed on women as The Solution and how SELFISH are they to even consider carrying to term. This is the same problem with euthanasia and assisted suicide. It’s presented as being “for the patient” but it’s used much more often to relieve others of a perceived burden.
Not that I don’t see your point about meaningless gestures getting in the way, JD. I even agree that sometimes abortion preaching gets used that way and causes needless antagonizing. I just really don’t think this is one of those times.
Plus, it had the pro-life clause in it in committee where Democrats on that committee voted FOR it. But now, these same people are against it? That’s not REPUBLICAN grand-standing.
So they were for it before they were against it? They must have heard from their overlords at Planned Parenthood and NOW. “Nice little Senate seat you got there… be a shame if anything happened to it…”
AS I understood it, the point of the clause was to prevent the money being appropriated from being used for elective abortions on sex trafficking victims.
polination.blog 
Because, you know, it’s impossible to do any kind of charity without first forcing the public to pay to kill babies. Ipso facto loony toony.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t understand how real Catholics can still support the Damnocrats. But I know some who do.
LikeLike
Yeah, about that headline … if the Dems offered an unrestricted-abortion amendment in a bill to provide medical support for wounded veterans and the Reps voted against the bill for that reason, would Republicans then hate wounded veterans? Of course not, and let’s not misrepresent the intent.
Of COURSE Dems are baby killers, they admit that, so any attempt to rub their nose in it by attaching a potentially incendiary amendment is the fault of the Reps, not the Dems. Don’t blame the dog for barking or the cat for meowing, it’s what they do.
Personally I think Congress should only present clean bills without the subterfuge of politically-motivated “gotcha” amendments, but again, duplicity and dissemblance is what they do.
LikeLike
I thoroughly disagree with your point here. In general, you’re exactly right that pegging a party as ’embracing’ something is wrong just because they vote against a loaded bill. This happens all the time, and I usually despise the practice.
HOWEVER, that’s not at all what’s going on here. This abortion rider is in NO WAY unrelated or a ‘gotcha’ addition. It’s exactly the opposite. It’s a common-sense assurance that this aid will not be distorted from it’s intended purpose.
And I think that in the case of Chrissy’s headline, it’s absolutely appropriate to accuse them of “embracing trafficking” after no fewer than 3 attempts to kill a bill that would fight trafficking, just because they are not allowed to distort the purpose of the bill to make it a pro-abortion bill.
LikeLike
Grunt, I see your point. But do you think abortions aren’t being federally funded now, or that there may come a point in the future when our taxes don’t pay for Medicaid abortions? In other words, without the possible diversion of funds from this sex trafficking bill, would federally-subsidized abortions grind to a halt?
It not, then what’s the point in derailing this sex trafficking bill over something which would make absolutely no difference, other than to score points with the LIV in the Heartland? A sex trafficking bill has no business even mentioning abortion, pro or con, in the first place. I mean, why not just say the bill can’t fund methadone treatment or low-income mortgages?
More Republican posturing, and thank goodness because we were running low on meaningless gestures up until now.
LikeLike
Well, you have a point about meaningless Repub gestures. But the abortion language, in this bill in particular, in my view, is totally appropriate. Clearly, this aid is going mostly to young women, many of whom are pregnant from abusers. One of the easiest things in the world to spend this money on is to pay for abortions for cast-off trafficking victims. Half the tax-payers in the whole damn country – maybe more – don’t want their money spent that way. That’s a fair restriction. How is it relevant that it has already been stolen from them to pay for other abortions by Medicaid and ObamaCare?
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s not only appropriate, but absolutely necessary for a bill of this sort to contain language explicitly prohibiting the appropriated funds being used to kill babies. In any situation where abortion is possible, the folks on the left see it as the solution to the problem. Remember right after 9/11, when Planned Parenthood of New York offered free abortions to all the pregnant women whose husbands/partners had been killed in the terrorist attacks? What kind of twisted mind, confronted with a horrendous atrocity like 9/11 immediately thinks — Hey! Some of the men who were killed might have had pregnant wives or girlfriends! Those women need abortions! Let’s herd them all into our slaughterhouse and slice and dice the babies and flush them down the drain! Yeah! That’s the best way to deal with this! Likewise, in the case of young women who have been sold into sexual slavery, this would be the first thing the leftists would want to do — round up all the pregnant ones and kill their babies.
LikeLike
Exactly.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There is also the oft-forgotten problem that, where abortion is cheap and “easy”, it is pushed on women as The Solution and how SELFISH are they to even consider carrying to term. This is the same problem with euthanasia and assisted suicide. It’s presented as being “for the patient” but it’s used much more often to relieve others of a perceived burden.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So true.
LikeLike
Not that I don’t see your point about meaningless gestures getting in the way, JD. I even agree that sometimes abortion preaching gets used that way and causes needless antagonizing. I just really don’t think this is one of those times.
LikeLike
Plus, it had the pro-life clause in it in committee where Democrats on that committee voted FOR it. But now, these same people are against it? That’s not REPUBLICAN grand-standing.
LikeLike
So they were for it before they were against it? They must have heard from their overlords at Planned Parenthood and NOW. “Nice little Senate seat you got there… be a shame if anything happened to it…”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Heh!
LikeLike
AS I understood it, the point of the clause was to prevent the money being appropriated from being used for elective abortions on sex trafficking victims.
LikeLike