Dems to Slaves

Dems to Slaves March 17, 2015

“Yeah, slavery is bad… I guess.  But abortion is even more important.”

"To be fair -- an enduring romance and a World War probably give a good ..."

Trailer for a new biopic about ..."
"So you inherently object to Shakespeare's ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA or JULIUS CAESAR or RICHARD III ..."

Trailer for a new biopic about ..."
"I've not heard the radio drama, but the BBC, in general, seems to have a ..."

Trailer for a new biopic about ..."
""It will be boon to humanity when the boomers dies off."In case you haven't noticed ..."

Dear Prolife Suckers

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Catholic
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • jroberts548

    It looks like a pretty lousy bill. It’s a shame that it’s being opposed for this reason. It’s not like trafficking is legal now and congress is trying to fix it; they’re just trying to get rid of the scienter requirement and adopt tactics from the war on drugs (because those have worked so well) http://reason.com/blog/2015/03/10/senate-victims-of-human-trafficking-act

  • CathyLouise

    Rebecca Hamilton’s Patheos post about this is fantastic. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/publiccatholic/2015/03/will-the-stepford-congress-kill-the-sex-trafficking-bill/. And she served in OK’s state legislature as a democrat!

  • Andy

    Although I do not agree with the Democratic party and its filibuster, nor its stated belief about abortion – I wish that those who want to end abortion would bring up a clean bill – not adding anti-abortion language to other bills. Lets make all people show their hands. All adding language about abortion to bills does is allow both sides to raise money and bitch about the other side.

    • Joseph

      Basically, what the Dems want, is to spend the money raised from fines on abortion for the victims of human trafficking… and they don’t want any provision in there that would prevent it for any reason at all. So, basically, they want to use the money as a charitable abortion fund. The addition to the bill doesn’t kill that sacred cow, just narrows the potential use of the abortion fund. This is purely symbolic. Everyone knows that those providing the service will just lie to maximise abortions and there will be no accountability regardless of what the law states. It’s all politics. Both Republicans and Democrats are huge fans of eliminating the poor by whatever means.

      • Andy

        I know very little about the bill – it struck me a symbolic to begin with – without including language about abortion. I agree that both Democrats and Republicans are huge fans of eliminating the poor – they just spend their time trying to find ways to cover their true intentions.

    • Cypressclimber

      That’s nice, but not realistic. Lots of things won’t ever pass taking the “clean bill” approach. Our system was designed, by the Founding Fathers, to create lots of obstacles to passing legislation. That’s a good thing, overall, but it can be frustrating, especially when there’s an idea that enjoys broad but thin support, but small but sharp opposition. Such ideas tend to founder, until someone in Congress attaches a “rider” at the right time, and one thing is held hostage for another thing.

      It’s deal-making; and it may seem distasteful to some people, but really, what’s so terrible about it?

      A rider attached to another bill still gets a show of hands, especially when there’s a motion to end a filibuster, or a motion to add or delete the rider.

      • Andy

        I have little problem with deal-making. Deal-making for me, indicates that there is indeed a desire to actually govern and to make sure that in the deal the ends are not obscured by the deal and that both sides recognize the importance of the each sides views and honors them. We seem not make deals, more bluntly that we use “amendments to take hostages. I fear that what is happening today in government is not deal-making, rather it si point making.