No, really. The story goes like this:
The bill's sponsor, Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN), was blindsided. After the Child Marriage Protection Act passed the Senate with zero objection on Dec. 1 -- a rare feat these days -- it didn't seem like there was much to worry about.
But just before the vote began, Republican leadership blasted out a "whip alert" to GOP staffers with a message: Vote no. The alert claimed the bill cost too much and that a competing bill, introduced just the day before, would be better.
"There are also concerns that funding will be directed to NGOs that promote and perform abortion and efforts to combat child marriage could be usurped as a way to overturn pro-life laws," the alert read.
And so the bill, which needed a two-thirds vote to pass under the suspended rules, failed. Even some congressmen who sponsored the bill voted no.
McCollum, along with human rights organizations and the State Department, believes that child marriage is a form of child abuse that includes sexual abuse, domestic violence and slavery.
The text of the bill does not mention abortion, contraception or family planning. Instead, it directs the president to make preventing child marriage a priority, especially in countries where more than 40 percent of girls under the age of 18 are married. The ways to do that, according to the bill: support educating communities on the dangers and health effects of child marriage, keep young girls in school, support female mentoring programs and make sure girls have access to health care services.
It's the "health care services" provision that had Republicans riled, according to a spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner, whose name is on the whip alert and who voted no on the bill.
"The concern was that the reference to 'health services' in the bill -- under the current Administration -- would include abortion services," the spokesman, Michael Steel, told TPM.
To recap, paranoia that the bill might have been a secret horrible back door way to fund abortions defeated the very real danger of girls being sexually abused. Then again, Republicans have made no attempt to hide the fact that some of them have no problem with rape or incest or sexual abuse of underage girls being preferable to them getting an abortion.
Even though the bill had nothing to do with reproductive health care services.
Paranoia is a wonderful thing.
More of this completely reasonable line of thought coming over the next two years as GOP paranoia descends upon the country. Hey. you voted them in, America. Elections have consequences.
Posts
2 comments:
This bill has nothing regarding child marriage in the U.S., right?
I checked. This bill has nothing to do with the U.S. Only taxpayer dollars going overseas.
Liberals are notorious for blasting American Christians going to countries to proselytize. As long as they're not doing it at taxpayer expense, I don't care. Why is it OK for liberals to proselytize their beliefs to those same people at taxpayer expense? Is there a reason why the groups that want to meddle in the affairs of other countries can't do so on their own and with their own money? And don't we give enough money to the UN so that they can deal with these issues? Or is the UN so full of anti-Semites that its sole purpose is to dump on Israel?
Justice Ginsburg is on record for supporting the lowering the age of consent to 12. By liberal standards, doesn't that mean Ginsburg supports child rape and the sexual abuse of children?
Post a Comment