Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Six Democrats blocking help for human trafficking victims (#JVTA)

Six Democrats blocking help for human trafficking victims (#JVTA)

This is what “extreme” looks like

“Human trafficking” is a pretty whitewashed term for something so ugly. Peel away the layers and you’ll find stories that don’t sound like they should come from the United States.

You’ll find rape, and sexual assault. And abuse. And slavery.

And Democrats are refusing to fight it.

Back in January, members of Congress used the Super Bowl to help draw attention to one of the more commonly-known ventures associated with human trafficking—prostitution. Members of the House majority used examples of how organized crime rings import men, women, and children into event hubs (like Phoenix) and sell sex in exchange for tourist dollars. The House sent a dozen bills to the Senate, all with the goal of improving law enforcement’s ability to fight human trafficking, and making sure victims get the help and care that they need to come back from the abuse they suffer.

The Senate introduced its own bill, called the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act. Sponsored by Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-TX), the JVTA has similar goals to the House bills described above, and passed out of the Judiciary Committee in February with unanimous bipartisan support. Now, however, Democrats are attempting to throw the bill away over what they argue are “anti-choice” provisions that use the Hyde Amendment to prevent money placed into a victims’ restitution fund from being spent on abortions.

That’s right—Democrats are throwing modern day slaves under the bus, and playing politics with the lives of abused and abandoned men, women, and children.

The kicker? We only need six Democrats to turn their backs on the the gamesmanship and vote in favor of the bill.

From Senator Cornyn’s floor speech:

“To our colleagues who are filibustering this legislation, are you prepared to turn your back on the thousands of people living every day in bondage and who are desperately clinging to the hope that someone, someone will lend them a helping hand? Are you prepared to abandon these children and these other victims of human trafficking who deserve a roof over their head, someone to lean on, and somehow, some way to get a fresh start in life?”

“We need six brave Democrats, six brave Democrats to join all the Republicans on this side to keep hope alive for these victims of human trafficking. We need six Democrats who are willing to break away from the tyranny of their party’s own leadership here in the Senate and do what they know is the right thing to do.”

It’s beyond the pale, even for Democrats.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has said that the final vote approving Loretta Lynch as the next Attorney General will remain on hold until Democrats help pass the JVTA.

But knowing Harry Reid’s caucus, we could be in for a very long battle.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

The Democrats’ cure for everything: abortion.

Take a victim of human trafficking — in effect, a sexual slave — and instead of offering treatment for STDs and PTSD (and any other issues), just make her not pregnant. She’ll be fine. (And let’s not worry about the grief and mental trauma that abortions can cause.)

Men and child victims of the trafficking rackets need not apply. Put a Band-Aid on it and suck it up, cupcake.

And they say it’s Republicans who have no heart! Good God!

So the Democrats remain pro-slavery.

Sammy Finkelman | March 17, 2015 at 3:44 pm

The motives of the Democrats might be several different things: Keeping Holder in office longer; finding some excuse to junk the bill; or trying to make abortion relevant to something, and we’ll find out what it is by what they do.

The New York Times blames the republicans for introducing the subject of abortion, citing Rep Erik Paulsen (R-Minn.) the sponser of the bill in the House. They also claim the democrats just noticed this provision, – the Republicans say they didn’t or couldn’t have just noticed this.

the issue is whether a fund for victims of sex trafficking can be used to pay for abortions.

Now:

The amount of money is pretty small, and not paying for abortions actually costs money, and there are plenty of people who can volunteer to pay for it if they want to.

The status quo is that the federal government doesn’t pay for elective abortions, except ina few cases and one of tehm is rape. So now you can have an argument does this fall into the same category as rape?

    “The status quo is that the federal government doesn’t pay for elective abortions, except ina few cases and one of tehm is rape. So now you can have an argument does this fall into the same category as rape?”

    Seems clear to me. If the victims are victims of trafficking for sex, then it seems clear that the sex was non-consensual.

If only human trafficking, rape, sexual assault, abuse, prostitution, sex with minors and slavery were already illegal.

Oh, wait.

The Democrat Party’s principled amorality (i.e. pro-choice or selective tenets) undermines the credibility of any good effort they may choose to make. They need to lose their religion, condemn sacrificial rites, and repent for their sins.

McTurtle will fold. You’ll see.

“Now, however, Democrats are attempting to throw the bill away over what they argue are “anti-choice” provisions that use the Hyde Amendment to prevent money placed into a victims’ restitution fund from being spent on abortions. That’s right—Democrats are throwing modern day slaves under the bus, and playing politics with the lives of abused and abandoned men, women, and children.”

Why not just strip the anti-abortion language from the bill and vote on the core anti-trafficking legislation? Isn’t it more important to protect these victims than to restrict their access to abortion?

    The whole bill strikes me as grandstanding, not to mention embiggening government and funding yet more “agencies” and “task forces”.

    To my knowledge, no one yet has demonstrated why the laws and agencies and NGOs and funds we already have aren’t sufficient to tackle the problems surrounding this issue.

    Just because the name of the bill sounds noble and pure (“Justice for Victims of Trafficking” – who could be against that?) doesn’t mean it should be blindly supported. Does no one remember the “Patriot” Act?

“You’ll find rape, and sexual assault. And abuse. And slavery.

And Democrats are refusing to fight it.”

“That’s right—Democrats are throwing modern day slaves under the bus, and playing politics with the lives of abused and abandoned men, women, and children.”

Because not voting for it means they support RAPE! And SEXUAL ASSAULT! And SLAVERY! So vote now! Prove that you care!

You know, this sort of asinine drivel is annoying when practiced by those on the left. When it comes from one (purportedly) on the right, it’s just downright embarrassing. (Note to author: All of those nasty things you mention are called “crimes.” We already have laws against them. And a hint: Adding yet more reams of paper into the federal register won’t solve the problem. There has been many a problem targeted by the feds with noble sounding legislation. Results? Not so much. [For an excellent example of federal failure, Google something called “The War on Poverty. We old people call this ‘studying history.’])

    Yep. This is a legal blog, yet it seems all we’re getting is blind cheerleading and no serious look into what laws we already have, why we think we need more laws, and most importantly a specific look into what this new legislation actually entails. Legislation has consequences: what are some possible consequences of this particular act? Fewer feelz, more lawblogging, please.

    Sometimes I get the feeling that there aren’t really very many small-government conservatives around here. Growing the government and especially growing the police state are blindly and incomprehensibly supported as long as it’s “our side” doing it.

    Now, I’d like to introduce my Caring for Fluffy Puppies and Kittens Act. It creates 4 new Federal bureaucracies; 50 new State-level agencies; 3,143 County-level “round-circles” with 16 members each; 6,025 new law enforcement positions with SWAT teams, fully-loaded MRAPS and drones; and entails $2.8 trillion in Federal, State and local spending. It’s not clear yet how it would actually positively impact the lives of any fluffy puppies or kittens, or even if it would, but if you don’t support it, you don’t Care for Fluffy Puppies and Kittens and will go to hell in gasoline underpants. Ring your Congressmen now, people!

      Anonamom in reply to Amy in FL. | March 18, 2015 at 2:49 pm

      Applause. (Because a thumbs up was just not sufficient.)

      Midwest Rhino in reply to Amy in FL. | March 18, 2015 at 3:33 pm

      Just scanning through the proposals, it seems like a nice fluffy bunny plan. The ugliest part of the open borders policy is the “human trafficking”. But a bill to treat the ugliest “symptom” ignores the open border “disease”.

      These treatments should come under border control, where the real issue is that Obama blocks effective control at every turn. So this bill seems to accept open borders, and deals only with a few of its symptoms.

      But the left is addicted to the diversity card and their liberation theology, and much of the country excuses them. So we treat symptoms, as Obama covertly buses the illegals around the country, and issues them ID’s.

      All that said, I don’t know if this is a good bill or not .. the devil is in the details. But a new unit of government is usually the wrong direction, unless it replaces two units of old government.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend