HUMAN TRAFFICKING LEGISLATION, ELECTIVE ABORTIONS, AND DEMOCRAT BS

Would you like to read about a lie, inartfully being told by Senate Democrats, which has been written about in a surprisingly poor manner by someone (no byline that I can find) at politico.com – a web site that usually does a far better job of journalism than this mess?

I hope so.  Because here is the first part of the article – in rust, with my comments in blue:

It\’s a cause any politician would have a hard time opposing: cracking down on human trafficking. So far so good.  Too bad this is the last part I can say that about.

 

Instead, in a breakdown sensational even by Senate standards, a bill to address the issue is set to go down in a partisan firefight. The cause of the row? Democrats didn\’t read the 68-page bill to discover its provisions dealing with abortion, and Republicans didn\’t disclose the abortion language when Democratic staffers asked them for a summary of the legislation.  What a load of BS.  This language – this EXACT language – has been inserted in spending bills for decades. (FYI:  The Hyde Amendment was passed 39 years ago, and revised in more expansive form in 1993, when it was signed into law by Bill Clinton).  To claim Democrats didn\’t know as much, and to accuse Republicans of somehow hiding it (“hyding” it if you\’re into bad puns) is a pure, unadulterated lie.

 

The spectacle has infuriated groups that advocate for cracking down on sex trafficking and left Democrats and Republicans even more skeptical of whether they can trust each other.  There is no issue of trust between parties.  There is only an issue of trust between the Democrat Party and everyone else.  The language was there from the beginning, and it was precisely the same language that is in countless other pieces of legislation Democrats have signed off on.  Republicans did nothing to hide it.

 

As Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) sealed the bill\’s fate Thursday by scheduling a vote that\’s sure to fail, Democrats acknowledged they had erred in not poring over the trafficking bill to detect language that would prohibit money in a restitution fund from being spent on abortions. Oh?  They “erred” only in not poring over the bill to find…something that they new damn well was there all the time, because it is ALWAYS there?  That is another lie – but this time the lie has been perpetrated by whomever wrote this article.  And as long as we\’re talking about lying, let\’s also note that the provision does nothing other than prohibit federal money from being spent to pay for elective abortions.  That\’s it.  Nothing further.  It in no way prevents any apbortion from taking place. Why is honesty so quickly tossed out the window here?  They also conceded they were familiar with the arcane legislative language because Republicans had informed Democrats of their desire to include the abortion provision late last year. SAY WHAT?  At the end of the fourth paragraph, long after this article assures us of what sneaky underhanded bastards Republicans are, there is an admission that Democrats knew it was there all the time?  Does politico.com realize what this does to its credibility? Ditto for the Democrat Party – not that it has to worry about such things, as long as venues like politico.com are willing to “report” them this way.

 

“What do you want me to tell you? We missed it!” said Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) when asked why Democrats didn\’t recognize the language this time. “It was an obscure reference. Clearly if it had been front and center, we would have caught it”.  What a complete lie.  Again:  it is the same language in the same words, that always is in such legislation.  But don\’t hold your breath waiting for politico.com to say as much…or most of the other major mainstream media venues either.  Abortion is far too sacred territory to sully with facts.

 

The aim of the bill, sponsored by Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), is simple. It would create a “Domestic Trafficking Victims\’ Fund” financed by fines from crimes, with the money used to aid victims. The legislation breezed through a Judiciary Committee markup on Feb. 26 with minimal changes, and seemed set for easy passage sometime this month.  As it, of course, should have.

 

But when GOP staffers began promoting the legislation, Democrats say they didn\’t mention they had included language that would bar money from the fund from being used for abortions. And Democrats didn\’t notice it until this week.  Again we revert back to “Hey, we didn\’t know because Republicans didn\’t tell us”.  Didn\’t this article specifically debunk its own BS about that claim just a couple of paragraphs ago?

 

The provision is essentially an expansion of the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits taxpayer funds from being used for abortions and is routinely included in spending bills. Provisions similar to the Hyde Amendment are included in other types of programs, such as the State Children\’s Health Insurance Program.  Routinely included?  Similar provisions in other types of programs?  Now we revert back to the truth again, which is that this provision is always there.

 

Once it was discovered, Democrats were furious – that a highly-charged issue such as abortion was included in the bill and that they weren\’t notified of it in advance.  And now we re-revert back to the on again-off again claim that Democrats were not notified about something that they know is always there.  This is roughly the equivalent of an experienced driver complaining he wasn\’t notified that the car he just bought requires him to step on the brake if he wants it to stop.

What a breathtakingly ridiculous mess this is – both the lies being told by the Democrat Party and the bizarre, funhouse mirror-quality narrative being pumped out by politico.com.

It\’s something to keep in mind the next time a media “journalist” informs you that this very important, very necessary bill failed because of anything other than Democrat dishonesty – which, media being what it has devolved into these days, is almost certainly going to happen over and over again.