Here's a simple question:
Which is worse:
a) human trafficking; or
b) approval of a cabinet officer?
For most people, the obvious choice is human trafficking. For the Democrats in the Senate and for president Obama, however, their choice is (b) approval of a cabinet officer. Let me explain. There is a bipartisan bill currently on the Senate floor which deals with measures to combat human trafficking. The text of the bill has been available to senators for the last two months. The bill was unanimously approved in committee. Nevertheless, the Democrats now announce themselves to be "shocked" that the bill contains the language of the Hyde Amendment regarding abortion. The Hyde Amendment is language initially passed by a strongly Democrat Congress about 40 years ago which prohibits the use of federal funds to pay for abortion in most cases. In 2010, president Obama issued an executive order that provided that the terms of the Hyde Amendment would apply to funding under Obamacare. In the years since the Hyde Amendment was first passed, appropriations bills have regularly had the language attached as part of the spending measure. The bills that were passed with the language included dozens that were passed during the Obama administration by the House and Senate during periods when there were Democrat majorities in those bodies. The Hyde Amendment language has been in the human trafficking bill since it was first proposed and it was in the bill when the committee approved it unanimously.
The problem with all this is that after the phony "shock" of the Senate Democrats, they are now filibustering the bill to combat human trafficking in order to have the language of the Hyde Amendment removed. It is a blatantly political move. Harry Reid and his minority are holding the bill to combat human trafficking hostage in order to score political points with their pro-abortion base. The Republican response has been to hold up a vote on the nomination of Loretta Lynch to be attorney general until the human trafficking bill moves forward to a vote.
The response has been a chorus of howls from the media and now the White House about how the Republicans are playing politics with the nomination. In truth, it is a pretty good move by Mitch McConnell and the Senate leadership. Lynch would be the first African American woman to be attorney general. The Democrats don't want to delay that and they don't want the clear focus on the fact that they are delaying a bill on human trafficking either. After all, it is hard to explain why the Hyde Amendment language in the bill is so terrible, particularly since it has been passed regularly by Democrats and signed by Obama and other presidents for 40 years. Why prevent help to women sold as sex slaves just to score some political points with the base? It is not something that makes the Democrats look good. Isn't denial of help to women held captive a demonstration that Democrats really don't care about women?
Let's hope that McConnell holds his ground.
Which is worse:
a) human trafficking; or
b) approval of a cabinet officer?
For most people, the obvious choice is human trafficking. For the Democrats in the Senate and for president Obama, however, their choice is (b) approval of a cabinet officer. Let me explain. There is a bipartisan bill currently on the Senate floor which deals with measures to combat human trafficking. The text of the bill has been available to senators for the last two months. The bill was unanimously approved in committee. Nevertheless, the Democrats now announce themselves to be "shocked" that the bill contains the language of the Hyde Amendment regarding abortion. The Hyde Amendment is language initially passed by a strongly Democrat Congress about 40 years ago which prohibits the use of federal funds to pay for abortion in most cases. In 2010, president Obama issued an executive order that provided that the terms of the Hyde Amendment would apply to funding under Obamacare. In the years since the Hyde Amendment was first passed, appropriations bills have regularly had the language attached as part of the spending measure. The bills that were passed with the language included dozens that were passed during the Obama administration by the House and Senate during periods when there were Democrat majorities in those bodies. The Hyde Amendment language has been in the human trafficking bill since it was first proposed and it was in the bill when the committee approved it unanimously.
The problem with all this is that after the phony "shock" of the Senate Democrats, they are now filibustering the bill to combat human trafficking in order to have the language of the Hyde Amendment removed. It is a blatantly political move. Harry Reid and his minority are holding the bill to combat human trafficking hostage in order to score political points with their pro-abortion base. The Republican response has been to hold up a vote on the nomination of Loretta Lynch to be attorney general until the human trafficking bill moves forward to a vote.
The response has been a chorus of howls from the media and now the White House about how the Republicans are playing politics with the nomination. In truth, it is a pretty good move by Mitch McConnell and the Senate leadership. Lynch would be the first African American woman to be attorney general. The Democrats don't want to delay that and they don't want the clear focus on the fact that they are delaying a bill on human trafficking either. After all, it is hard to explain why the Hyde Amendment language in the bill is so terrible, particularly since it has been passed regularly by Democrats and signed by Obama and other presidents for 40 years. Why prevent help to women sold as sex slaves just to score some political points with the base? It is not something that makes the Democrats look good. Isn't denial of help to women held captive a demonstration that Democrats really don't care about women?
Let's hope that McConnell holds his ground.
No comments:
Post a Comment