cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
r3020
Senior Advisor

The party of no

 

 

snip-

DEMOCRATS WHO have been filibustering the Senate’s consideration of legislation to combat human trafficking cited concerns with language they claimed would greatly expand the reach of Hyde Amendment restrictions on abortion. But when John Cornyn (R-Tex.), chief sponsor of the trafficking bill and Senate majority whip, offered a compromise that would seem to answer their stated objections, it was rejected out of hand. Perhaps Democrats thought they could score political points, or maybe they didn’t want to anger their traditional allies in the abortion rights lobby. Either way, it became depressingly clear that what they weren’t thinking about was the needs of vulnerable people, mostly young women and girls, who are the victims of sex trafficking.

The stalemate over the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act of 2015 has now occupied two weeks, and with the Senate next set to take up the budget, it’s unclear when — or how — the impasse will be resolved. At issue in the legislation, which had been expected to glide through the Senate with bipartisan support, is a provision — backed by Republicans and initially overlooked by Democrats — that would prohibit a new trafficking-victims compensation fund from being used for abortions save for exceptions covered by the Hyde Amendment. Democrats didn’t like the application of Hyde restrictions to funds that are not taxpayer dollars — the compensation fund was to be drawn from criminal fines — and they objected to the anti-abortion provision being in place for five years.

Mr. Cornyn responded by offering to create the compensation fund with an annual congressional appropriation drawing on the fines. Since all such appropriations are already covered by the Hyde Amendment, there would be no change in the political status quo on abortion. “Can they take yes for an answer?” asked Mr. Cornyn on Thursday, contending, “We’ve made a proposal to them to give them what they’ve asked for.” The answer was no.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-new-party-of-no/2015/03/20/bd7ce3ec-cf3f-11e4-a2a7-9517a3...

7 Replies
NewAgJudge
Senior Contributor

Re: The party of no

 

STOP SNIPING

 

You are a serial SNIPER !

You are addicted to something that is harmful to yourself AND others !!

 

 

Get help !!!

Re: The party of no

What difference does it make! We are all going to be burnt to cinders by carbon dioxide in the air! ( caused by Liberals flying in jet airplanes)
schnurrbart
Veteran Advisor

Re: The party of no

Are you really going to agree with this nonsense? This is just like the DHS funding bill the repubs put something in they knew wouldn't pass on it's own to a bill that was deemed necessary. You call the Democratic congress the party of no! Hell yes!! Put your bills up on their own merit! Quit trying to pig tail them on something else!
NewAgJudge
Senior Contributor

You have an amazing mind

badbrain.jpg

schnurrbart
Veteran Advisor

Re: The party of no

You are rapidly becoming very unbecoming! (AND STUPID!)
colinnorris1
Senior Contributor

Re: The party of no

The audacity of 3020 stating the stalling is unique to democrats. What an idiot. Your amnesia is showing.
GreaTOne_65
Senior Contributor

Re: The party of no

Dammed straight, Colin, after the morons filibustered 534 bills, his accusation, the Democrats are in the wrong, is just plain goofy, and absurd!!