Search results

GOP didn't kill the bill. They may have "poisoned" it (I personally don't think so); but if the bill doesn't pass, it will be both GOP and Dems who decided not to vote for it, and are equally to blame for killing it.

I'd like to see an answer to Ann's question, because the first thing that ran through my head was: if he's at another church when there are people there, wouldn't that normally be at times when his own church is in session?

Thanks for the update.

If that's really what you got from what I posted, then you must think the democrats are idiots.

That is seriously short-sighted and narrow-minded of you. The Dems could have easily passed it, then dialed back provisions of it later. They could have easily passed it, and let Obama veto it. The GOP really wanted it to pass; they knew they would meet opposition from the Dems. The GOP...

In other words, you don't see the Democrats being at fault for this problem in any way, shape, or form. Your opinion is duly noted.

That's just sad. You say "Yes, I can"; and then you don't.

Let's put it this way: Re-read what Targus wrote. All they did was add language that would ensure the funds would be used to stop human trafficking. Any rational person would say "okay." Instead, the Democrats said "oh, they put something in against abortion. We can't do that." This shows they...

Wow. You're really, really missing the point. I don't believe either side acted correctly in this situation. YOU just want to blame the GOP, no matter what. By your very first statement (the part I bolded), the Dems are as guilty of playing politics as the GOP. I'm willing to blame both sides...

Same can be said for the Dems. If they really cared about the human trafficking issue, they'd have passed it.

Because they represent their constituents who elected them to that position, who believe that victims of human trafficking need to be protected, but so do the unborn victims of that horrific situation, rather than use taxpayer money to fund murdering unborn children.

There's an error in your classification. By supporting the inclusion, it's supporting the life of the unborn child AND the lives of the victims. In other words, your argument can be turned around to say that you're supporting the death of the unborn.

I'm pointing out the problem with your logic, CTB. BOTH parties are responsible for this bill being killed. The GOP put in language that they knew would cause concern; but it was up to the Democrats to decide if human trafficking was important enough that they would accept that language...

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.

See my response to CTB above.

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...

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.

Why is "abortion language" poisonous?

Please note that CTB, who repeatedly claims that he does NOT support abortion, refers to a provision against federal funding of abortion as "poison."

Meh. What difference, really, does it make?