Human Trafficking Senate Compromise Will Deny Abortion Funding to Survivors

[Novara]

Source: RH Reality Check

Senators announced a compromise Tuesday that would move two long-stalled legislative items: a human trafficking bill that has been embroiled in a fight over abortion restrictions, and the confirmation of Loretta Lynch to be the nation’s first Black female attorney general.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) had refused to bring Lynch’s confirmation up for a vote until the Senate passed the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act (JVTA), despite Lynch’s undisputed qualifications and strong record on prosecuting human traffickers. The tactic enraged advocates and Black leaders, some of whom staged a hunger strike in protest.

McConnell said Tuesday that once the JVTA is passed, the Senate will move on to Lynch “in the next day or so.”

The compromise on the trafficking bill was a limited victory for pro-choice advocates. It stopped Republican efforts to expand the reach of the anti-choice Hyde Amendment, but it will have the effect of restricting abortion services for underage victims of sex trafficking.

“This bill, and the deal reached, are a perfect example of why the so-called Hyde Amendment is bad policy and harmful to women,” Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said in a statement. “Because of the Hyde Amendment, this bill still denies the most vulnerable women necessary access to vital health services.”

Hogue noted that up to 80 percent of trafficking victims end up pregnant, often multiple times, and called it “abhorrent” that Republicans picked a fight over denying these survivors the full range of health care.

Read more: http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2015/04/21/human-trafficking-senate-compromise-will-deny-abortion-funding-survivors/

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

1. More lives sacrificed in the name of 'bipartisanship'. nt

[Surya Gayatri]

2. "Abhorrent", indeed.

'Republicans picked a fight over denying these survivors the full range of health care.'

Business as usual.

[davidpdx]

3. What Obama should do is sit on the bill once it is passed for as long as he can

Let them confirm Lynch, then veto the bill. Then give McConnell the finger.

[happyslug]

14. The President wants this bill passed, the GOP added the Abortion issue for it is a must pass bill

The US is under treaty obligations to adopt laws on Human Trafficking. If Obama vetoes the bill we are he violation of that treaty. The GOP controlled House and Senate will NOT pass an anti-human trafficking bill without an abortion rider, thus no anti-abortion rider no bill.

Here is the actual Bill:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/178/text

Here is the Section in dispute, Section 3014 (e)(3) (I have highlighted the part in dispute)

Here is the wording of the propose law BEFORE the changes:

“(e) Use Of Funds.—

“(1) IN GENERAL.—From amounts in the Fund, in addition to any other amounts available, and without further appropriation, the Attorney General, in coordination with the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall, for each of fiscal years 2016 through 2020, use amounts available in the Fund to award grants or enhance victims' programming under—

“(A) sections 202, 203, and 204 of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 14044a, 14044b, and 14044c);

“(B) subsections (b)(2) and (f) of section 107 of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7105); and

“(C) section 214(b) of the Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 13002(b)).

“(2) GRANTS.—Of the amounts in the Fund used under paragraph (1), not less than $2,000,000 shall be used for grants to provide services for child pornography victims under section 214(b) of the Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 13002(b)).

“(3) LIMITATIONS.—Amounts in the Fund, or otherwise transferred from the Fund, shall be subject to the limitations on the use or expending of amounts described in sections 506 and 507 of division H of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (Public Law 113–76; 128 Stat. 409) to the same extent as if amounts in the Fund were funds appropriated under division H of such Act.

The part in dispute is in the language "Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (Public Law 113–76; 128 Stat. 409): which can be found here, on page 405:

SEC. 506. (a) None of the funds appropriated in this Act, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are appropriated in this Act, shall be expended for any abortion.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-113publ76/pdf/PLAW-113publ76.pdf

[mopinko]

4. dont suppose there is any hope

this can get straightened out in reconciliation?

[Dont call me Shirley]

7. Reconciliation is tied to budgetary bills.

"Reconciliation is a legislative process of the United States Senate intended to allow consideration of a budget bill with debate limited to twenty hours under Senate rules.[1] Reconciliation also exists in the United States House of Representatives, but because the House regularly passes rules that constrain debate and amendment, the process has had a less significant impact on that body."

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_(United_States_Congress)

[mopinko]

9. well, it is a budgetary bill

who is on the committees?

[Dont call me Shirley]

19. You're correct because it contains funding.

I could not find who the committee members were. But I found this:


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/22/sex-trafficking-bill-abortion_n_7120028.html

[greymattermom]

5. So, if cops can get money from the internet, there should be a place to contribute.

A gofundme for progressive causes.

[AllyCat]

6. Lynch should wait until they fix this horrible thing.

Why on earth do Republicans want to make women suffer like this? Oh yeah, that's right. They hate women.

[Chan790]

8. When we regain control of Congress...

we need to make clear that the pro-life fight has been lost and is dead and over. Abortion is a woman's right, is unassailable and isn't going away. Bold legislation that insures the dignity and rights of women is not optional. Leaving crap like Hyde in-place is not optional.

Why is it Democrats have such a problem repealing shit-smeared GOP legislation? Start turning back the tide by repealing crap like Hyde every chance we get. Repeal Taft-Hartley too. (That's unrelated except insofar as it's what is breaking the earning potential of all American workers.)

The GOP has no problem repealing Democratic-initiated legislation...why aren't we returning the favor? Fuck looking-forward, lets undo the mess conservatives have created...otherwise our progressive vision is built on foundations crumbling under past GOP attacks.

Politics is bloodsport...this isn't a goddamned garden party, it's a war. Let's start fighting. Please.

[BumRushDaShow]

13. In 2010, there were 17 anti-choice Democrats in the House that threatened to halt the ACA

because of the abortion issue. They were lead by Bart Stupak. The Hyde Amendment has been in around since 1976. And since the reality is that although the U.S. may claim "secularity" on paper, it really isn't in practice, because you will always have elected officials voting their religion instead, no matter what party.

[lofty1]

16. Republican lite

There are a lot of Democrats in Congress that are pretty much Republicans in Democrat's clothing. The Democratic party needs more progressive politicians.

[karynnj]

18. Do you remember 2009 and early 2010??

We had - briefly - 60 Senators and the control of the House. Remember the name Stupak? He was the Democratic Congressman who led the fight to insure that the ACA explicitly contained language that abortion would not be paid for by taxpayers.

Not all Democrats are pro-choice -- and some that are have found their own comfort zone on the spectrum of what they will accept. For many, that was that Roe vs Wade is the law and it should be and it makes abortion legal. That may be as far as they are willing to go and it may reflect the majority of their district.

In fact, the most recent poll on public funds being used for abortion was a cnn poll in January/February 2014 - it is fascinating. http://pollingreport.com/abortion.htm Scroll down until you find that poll. The question on public funds being used (what Hyde precludes) is 39% for, 56% against. Yet the NEXT question, asks about whether it should be ok for women buying ACA insurance, with subsidies, to have abortion coverage - that was 49%/49%. I would suspect that the reason the same group of people answered so differently is that the latter distances the government from the abortion by an additional step. The response to the second question suggests that it may be more likely that eventually this is handled via insurance. ( and not the idiotic idea floated in 2009 that women could add abortion coverage with a separate premium. )

What Congressmen are ignoring is that Roe vs Wade alone without allowing abortion to be covered or paid for by public funds, in fact, makes it legal ONLY for those rich enough to afford the abortion. However, for some Democrats, going the step further from making it a legal choice to covering the cost is a step too far - even when they have the inequity by income pointed out.

I suspect that abortion may remain an issue where there will always be contention because there are people on each side that absolutely believe in their position. Roe vs Wade itself seems to have been written to try to balance between the sides - with neither extreme getting exactly what they want.

At this point, especially when we are in the minority in both Houses and possibly the Supreme Court, it may be the best we can do is to work to hold on to what exists and to consider if there is a non governmental way to deal with the deficiencies. The other big concern is that some states are effectively taking the right away by eliminating all places to get an abortion in their state. Are there non profits that do or can raise money to help people unable to pay for a legal abortion? Do they also have outreach and the ability to pay for transportation for people unable to pay to go where they need to go?

This may be a time where activists need to provide what the government refuses to provide - no matter how unfair that seems to be. I am NOT saying that relying on nonprofits is optimal or even acceptable, but given where we are for the next two years (and likely it will not get as good as 2009 for some time), this might be the best that can be done.

[PatrynXX]

10. not surprised

most Republicans support countries that do Sex Trafficking and might have actually participated in it.

[L0oniX]

11. Alternate: Government forces continuation of crime upon victims.

[Enthusiast]

12. Mouth breathers.

[Hiraeth]

15. This sounds evil to me at worst and very short-sighted at best.

[Novara]

17. I am sick to death of compromises....

....that spineless Democrats make. We always end up on the losing end. We always give up too much.