Featured Typical democrat position on the slaughter of the innocents

More dishonesty. The killing of the bill are by those who are mad about the rider to this bill. The people mad have most likely added plenty of riders themselves in the past.

 

:applause: Pretty much. They act like a bunch of little manipulative school kids. You can be reading the language for a potential bill about highway improvement funding and the next thing you know, the gentleman from Alaska has stuck something in there about part of the money going to build more indoor heated swimming pools in his district.

 

Another red herring.


The GOP killed the bill that everyone initially supported. Very stupid of them. But then since when in recent years has the GOP showed intelligence?

 

UH no they didn't. They are willing for it to pass as is. Dems are not because the love to slaughter unborn children. Those who are against it are killing it. And of course you support them in this.

 

Why is "abortion language" poisonous?

 

Consider: human trafficking often includes sex slaves. Sex leads to pregnancies. The bill, as stated, allowed federal funding to be used for those rescued from human trafficking to also be offered abortions at taxpayer expense.

 

"abortion language" is representative of the lives of unborn children that will either be saved or not save by this. Someone down playing this as simply language is absurd and telling of their heart toward the unborn.

 

The inclusion of such a rider speaks to the GOP not really caring about baby's being killed. Abortion is a political tool for them as this bill has shown.

If they were really concerned about stopping the slaughtering of the unborn, they wouldn't continue to try and keep using the issue in such a manner.

 

Because there are so many who are against the GOP position on this. Including it in any bill, no matter how good that bill by itself is, will kill that bill. Surely the GOP knew this.

As far as I can tell the anti-trafficking bill was supported by everyone and it should have been passed. But the GOP effectively killed it. It does indicate they do not really oppose human trafficking.

 

Rev. are you opposed to human-trafficking?

 

In this instance it's poison because there wouldn't have been any or much opposition without it.

They already know it ( and so do you) that the parties are at odds over abortion. Sticking anything about abortion in any bill is just about a guarantee that the bill won't pass.

 

And thus the reasoning, which I agree with by the way.

I'm just a firm believer that bills should only be allowed to include one line item.

That way you don't get to proverbially throw the baby out with the bath water.

 

This will be good.

 

Which totally invalidates your comment about making them separate bills and letting them go through on their own merits -- because this is proof that anything related to limiting or preventing abortion will be opposed by Democrats.

Really? As you put it, the GOP said they supported this bill; but they thought it should be taken a little further.

It was the Democrats who said "if you include abortion, then we don't want to prevent human trafficking."

 

See my response to CTB above.

 

The problem with the way this thread was started: The Republicans were willing to pass it. Still are. It's the Democrats who have said they're more concerned about taxpayers funding abortions than preventing human trafficking.

 

Don't play coy. You're much brighter than that. You know full well that the GOP knew that as soon as the Dems actually read anything about abortion in that bill, they would say no.

And that just says they weren't really trying to do anything about human trafficking...at least not with this bill.

 

It's also proof that the GOP KNOWS this. So why stick it in the bill if you know this unless you aren't really trying to do anything?

 

And that being the case, why would the GOP effectively kill an anti-trafficking bill they claim they support?

 

same answer I'm waiting for.