Support NeoGAF

[Metaphoreus]

In January, Senator Cornyn (R-Texas) introduced the Justice for Victims of Human Trafficking Act of 2015, known by its Senate bill number, S. 178.

Here's a summary of what the Act would accomplish:

"Clarify the range of conduct punished as sex trafficking" and make "absolutely clear for judges, juries, prosecutors, and law enforcement officials that criminals who purchase sexual acts from human trafficking victims may be arrested, prosecuted, and convicted as sex trafficking offenders." This would be accomplished by amending the federal criminal code to make "patronizing" or "soliciting" a victim of trafficking a crime equivalent to "recruiting, enticing, harboring, transporting, obtaining, or maintaining" a trafficking victim. The person soliciting the victim would not have to know they are trying to purchase sex from someone underage or someone trafficked, merely act "in reckless disregard of the fact" that this was possible. "The Government need not prove that the defendant knew that the person had not attained the age of 18 years," the criminal code specifically states.

Change the standard a defendant charged with "illicit sexual conduct" must establish from "a preponderance of the evidence'' to the more rigorous "clear and convincing evidence."

Charge "any non-indigent person or entity" convicted of human trafficking, sexual exploitation, or "transportation for illegal sexual activity" a $5,000 fine, which would go into a Domestic Trafficking Victims' Fund. This fund, administered by the Attorney General (AG), will go toward funding a wide variety of law enforcement and victims' services efforts.

Fund private, municipal, and state efforts to establish "dedicated anti-trafficking law enforcement units and task forces" and "ensure that Federal law enforcement officers are engaged in activities, programs, or operations involving the detection, investigation, and prosecution" of sex trafficking.

Establish the "Human Exploitation Rescue Operative (HERO) Child Rescue Corps." In the HERO Corps, "the returning military heroes of the United States are trained and hired to investigate crimes of child exploitation in order to target predators and rescue children from sexual abuse and slavery."

Create a Computer Forensics Unit and a Child Exploitation Investigations Unit within the Cyber Crimes Center (a division of U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement) to investigate trafficking, IP theft, money laundering, arms proliferation, and "illicit activity" on the deep web. These units will, among other things, "participate in research and development in the area of digital forensics," collaborate with the Defense Department to recruit, train, equip, and hire veterans and transitioning service members through the HERO program, and "enhance United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement's ability to combat criminal enterprises operating on or through the Internet, with specific focus" on "cyber economic crime," digital intellectual property theft, "illicit e-commerce (including hidden marketplaces)," "Internet-facilitated proliferation of arms and strategic technology," and "cyber-enabled smuggling and money laundering.

Create a "Council on Human Trafficking" to advise policymakers. The council will be comprised of eight to 14 trafficking victims and serve as a nongovernmental advisory body.

Require regular reporting on efforts and arrest numbers from various city, state, and federal bodies, including the Government Accountability Office.

The bill attracted a number of co-sponsors from both parties, including Senators Feinstein (D-California) and Schumer (D-New York), and was largely expected to pass without difficulty. Senate Majority Leader McConnell (R-Kentucky) and Minority Leader Reid (D-Nevada) both endorsed the bill.

But then, something funny happened on the way to a bipartisan consensus: somebody read the bill:

The bill in question actually has nothing to do with abortion, either. It is a bill to create a fund to help victims of human trafficking, and it is a signature piece of legislation. It marks a sea change in how Congress views sexual trafficking, looking at the women involved as victims rather than law-breakers. It was expected to pass easily in a welcome outbreak of bipartisan do-the-right-thingery.

Then the office of Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D) of Connecticut noticed something in the bill that made all the bipartisanship go poof.

Abortion.

According to the Democrats, Republicans tried to pull a fast one by slipping into the bill a provision that would prevent any of the money from the newly created fund going to abortions. Such a maneuver, Democrats say, would unacceptably expand the Hyde Amendment, which prevents any federal funds from going to abortions, so that it would also cover personal funds paid in fines, like this one.

Republicans, for their part, say the provision has been in the bill since last year and was hardly hidden. Politico noted that earlier in the legislative process, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D) of Vermont offered an amendment to an item on the same page as the abortion provision, but said nothing of the abortion language. Republicans also say that the Hyde Amendment logically applies to this fund.

The controversial provision is here, on pages 50 - 51 (actually only the fifth page of the amended provisions, and identical with the provision on the fifth page of the bill as originally introduced (see page 5)):

LIMITATIONS.—Amounts in the Fund, or otherwise transferred from the Fund, shall be subject to the limitations on the use or expending of amounts described in sections 506 and 507 of division H of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (Public Law 113–76; 128 Stat. 409) to the same extent as if amounts in the Fund were funds appropriated under division H of such Act.

Maybe Democrats don't understand how cross-references work? However that embarrassing issue washes out, Senate Democrats are nevertheless refusing to enact a major reform to U.S. human trafficking law because the funds raised by the bill will be subject to the exact same limitations as all other federal funds. They don't deny that those funds will be used for important ends, but they're willing to let those important ends go unfunded unless Republicans agree that those funds can be used for abortions. This is cartoonish self-parody.

Any Democrats want to try explaining the Senate Democrats' disgraceful conduct here?

I know this news is about a week old, but a search didn't return any threads on the subject. Dismember me in utero using federal funds if old.

 

[The Adder]

"These poor innocent victims of human trafficking. Let's help them... but they're damn sure going to bring to term their rape babies."

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Why do Republicans want further Abortion restrictions in a Human Trafficking bill?

 

[Demon Ice]

"These poor innocent victims of human trafficking. Let's help them... but they're damn sure going to bring to term their rape babies."

.

I love how all the spin in the OP and title is trying to paint the democrats as the bad guys here.

 

[Sobriquet]

The bill attracted a number of co-sponsors from both parties, including Senators Feinstein (D-California) and Schumer (D-New York), and was largely expected to pass without difficulty. Senate Majority Leader McConnell (R-Kentucky) and Minority Leader Reid (D-Nevada) both endorsed the bill.

But then, something funny happened on the way to a bipartisan consensus: somebody read the bill

This is so depressing.

 

[XenodudeX]

Why do Republicans want further Abortion restrictions in a Human Trafficking bill?

Because Republicans

 

[PhoenixDark]

I really no problem in voting for the bill. It doesn't do anything new to abortion funding.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Why do Republicans want further Abortion restrictions in a Human Trafficking bill?

There aren't any further restrictions on abortion. It's a restriction on the use of federal funds, and it's identical to the general restriction that is already the law. There's nothing new here, except for Democrats holding up progress in the name of federal funding for abortions.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

So if they go ahead and add Obamacare repeal also to this bill, Dems should just accept it?

 

[RustyNails]

Just from my experience in these things, the Republicans probably tried to probably jam completely unrelated riders like defunding part of Obamacare or Immigration funding or some shit.

 

[Fenderputty]

Disgraceful? I'm curious if you're using that word because you think they're acting disgraceful or if you think you're gonna catch other dems being hypocritical regarding their critcism of the GOP's recent handling of immigration/DHS shutdown.

 

[Dr. Benton Quest]

It's disgusting that Republicans would try to use a human trafficking bill to expand restrictions on abortions.

Where's your head at OP?

 

[Orbis Tabula]

Yeah, if I were one of those Democrats, I think this is one of those instances where I would just let it slide. It's a weird thing to have in the bill regardless, but will it really make that much of a difference when it comes to abotions?

 

[Metaphoreus]

"These poor innocent victims of human trafficking. Let's help them... but they're damn sure going to bring to term their rape babies."

Note that, in the case of rape, the restrictions on funding do not apply:

Sec. 507. (a) The limitations established in the preceding section shall not apply to an abortion--

(1) if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest; or
(2) in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed.​

 

[cartoon_soldier]

There aren't any further restrictions on abortion. It's a restriction on the use of federal funds, and it's identical to the general restriction that is already the law. There's nothing new here, except for Democrats holding up progress in the name of federal funding for abortions.

No. See - http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...scuttled-a-human-trafficking-bill-116042.html

It expands the Hyde Act. The Hyde Act currently only applies to taxpayer funds. This would expand it to fines collected from this Bill.

The question remains, why would you add Abortion language which is one thing Dems and Republicans can't agree on to such a bill?

This is no different than Republicans adding removal of Obama's immigration actions into the DHS funding bill.

 

[DeathoftheEndless]

Good. I hope it passes.

 

[ivysaur12]

Maybe Democrats don't understand how cross-references work? However that embarrassing issue washes out, Senate Democrats are nevertheless refusing to enact a major reform to U.S. human trafficking law because the funds raised by the bill will be subject to the exact same limitations as all other federal funds. They don't deny that those funds will be used for important ends, but they're willing to let those important ends go unfunded unless Republicans agree that those funds can be used for abortions. This is cartoonish self-parody.

Any Democrats want to try explaining the Senate Democrats' disgraceful conduct here?

I know this news is about a week old, but a search didn't return any threads on the subject. Dismember me in utero using federal funds if old.

It's absolutely disgusting that Senate Republicans would try to use a human trafficking bill to sneak in an expansion of the Hyde amendment that has nothing to do with the bill in question.

The Senate Republicans conduct is absolutely deplorable, as we can see from the Republican House sponsor of the bill:

http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/296158821.html?page=all&prepage=1&c=y#continue

The House versions, carried by U.S. Rep. Erik Paulsen, R-Minnesota, did not include the abortion language.

Paulsen, who is back in Minnesota during a House recess, called the Senate stalemate disappointing Thursday.

Paulsen supports restricting federal funds for abortions and the morning-after pill, but said that language has no place in the Senate bill.

“There is no reason it should be included in these bills. This issue is far too important to tie it up with an unrelated fight with politics as usual,” he said. “To me, this is about saving lives.”

It's absolutely digesting by Republicans that they tried to jam in obtuse language like this. Yes, the Democrats should've caught it, but what the hell was the point of putting it in the first place? Why poison something so clearly bipartisan?

 

[NullPointer]

So this all comes down to whether this a new funding restriction or not?

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Yeah, if I were one of those Democrats, I think this is one of those instances where I would just let it slide. It's a weird thing to have in the bill regardless, but will it really make that much of a difference when it comes to abotions?

Yes, because it being in law expands fund availability for abortions for women. It sets a precedent that then becomes basis for further bills and in court.

 

[Owzers]

Note that, in the case of rape, the restrictions on funding do not apply:

What if it is not a legitimate rape?

 

[B-Dubs]

There aren't any further restrictions on abortion. It's a restriction on the use of federal funds, and it's identical to the general restriction that is already the law. There's nothing new here, except for Democrats holding up progress in the name of federal funding for abortions.

Yes, it's the Democrats holding up the bill and not the guys that added the language no one can or ever will agree on. Yep, that's totally it.

 

[Fenderputty]

I really no problem in voting for the bill. It doesn't do anything new to abortion funding.

Agreed. Seems silly to pass up the opportunity at actually passing a decent bipartisan here for what appears to be political points.

 

[morningbus]

There aren't any further restrictions on abortion. It's a restriction on the use of federal funds, and it's identical to the general restriction that is already the law. There's nothing new here, except for Democrats holding up progress in the name of federal funding for abortions.

So, if this would change absolutely nothing, why is it in there?

 

[cartoon_soldier]

And the OP title is wrong.

It is not due to LACK of Abortion Funding.

it is due to expanding the limits on Abortion funding to beyond taxes.

 

[Lambtron]

I have hesitations with "human trafficking" bills because most of them act like no sex workers have agency. There are women and men who go into sex work because using their sex as labor is preferable to working some other shitty job. There are some who are trafficked, but largely these bills don't make much of a distinction.

We should just legalize prostitution, full stop. And the idiocy about not funding abortions is just that.

 

[ivysaur12]

There aren't any further restrictions on abortion. It's a restriction on the use of federal funds, and it's identical to the general restriction that is already the law. There's nothing new here, except for Democrats holding up progress in the name of federal funding for abortions.

This isn't true, as already stated, it expands on the Hyde Amendment by not allowing any fines collected from this bill to go towards abortion. And why is it in the bill in the first place? It has nothing to do with human trafficking!

Just take it out of the bill and pass it.

 

[Cipherr]

"These poor innocent victims of human trafficking. Let's help them... but they're damn sure going to bring to term their rape babies."

Any Democrats want to try explaining the Senate Democrats' disgraceful conduct here?

I think you misspelled human decency.

There aren't any further restrictions on abortion.

Take a cue from the democrats and read your own OP, because this is false. You actually put it right there...

According to the Democrats, Republicans tried to pull a fast one by slipping into the bill a provision that would prevent any of the money from the newly created fund going to abortions. Such a maneuver, Democrats say, would unacceptably expand the Hyde Amendment, which prevents any federal funds from going to abortions, so that it would also cover personal funds paid in fines, like this one.

Your 'side' got caught trying to pull a fast one, and hide some disgusting BS behind human trafficking to get it passed. They failed.

 

[kingkitty]

Liberals support human trafficking.

 

[One-Shot]

...basically won't help people until they can get funding for ending a baby's life. Oh what a world we live in.

 

[Fenderputty]

This isn't true, as already stated, it expands on the Hyde Amendment by not allowing any fines collected from this bill to go towards abortion. And why is it in the bill in the first place? It has nothing to do with human trafficking!

Hmm. Making more sense to refuse vote.

 

[Dr. Benton Quest]

So, if this would change absolutely nothing, why is it in there?

It does change things, but in his haste to be smug, OP forgot to read.

 

[Stumpokapow]

I don't really have an objection with your framing that the "Democrats killed the bill over lack of abortion funding", but wouldn't an equally valid framing be that "Republicans were only willing to pass the bill with an abortion funding ban attached to it"? Like, when you have an adversarial system, one party being obstinate is the other party being obstinate, since both can equally object or yield to the others' objection?

I sort of feel the same thing about people who make arguments that "Why are gay people trying to force bakers to lose their business if they won't bake a cake?" I mean, yeah, that's a valid framing, but an equally valid framing is "Why are cakebakers refusing to bake the cakes even when facing the loss of their business if they don't?" Either side is clearly able to object or resolve the objection.

I mean, I just think as far as gotcha goes, the procedural side of this is sort of a non-starter. Like, if you want to start with "Abortion is wrong and the Democrats take the wrong side on the issue and it's wrong and they're wrong and it's bad" then whatever, that's a pretty coherent position, but I just don't see how the procedural side of the argument is going to persuade anyone that wasn't already persuaded by the moral dimensions of abortion argument.

 

[Griss]

Tricky one. If it wasn't an expansion of the status quo, then Democrats would be massive assholes for holding up an important and good bill to quibble over a political point already well-travelled and better debated somewhere else.

As it stands, however, the Republicans look bad for trying to sneak an expansion of anti-abortion law into an important and good bill, thus delaying it when the inevitable backlash happens.

Democrats look like morons for not having properly read and cross-referenced it, though, No other reason not to raise these issues until now.

Disclaimer: I'm not American and have no horse in the fight.

 

[Orbis Tabula]

Yes, because it being in law expands fund availability for abortions for women. It sets a precedent that then becomes basis for further bills and in court.

Sorry, I'm not very well versed in how all of this works. It looks to me like the bill is saying "Start this fund to collect money to help women who are victims of human trafficking, but we can't spend this money on abortions." So you're saying that this is bad because people could then use this bill to decrease the availability of abortions otherwise?

 

[3rdman]

There aren't any further restrictions on abortion. It's a restriction on the use of federal funds, and it's identical to the general restriction that is already the law. There's nothing new here, except for Democrats holding up progress in the name of federal funding for abortions.

If its already part of existing restriction why include it? If its already exempt from Federal funding, I guess the Reps have no reason to keep it!

Any Republicans want to try explaining the Senate Republicans' disgraceful conduct here?

 

[Metaphoreus]

No. See - http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...scuttled-a-human-trafficking-bill-116042.html

It expands the Hyde Act. The Hyde Act currently only applies to taxpayer funds. This would expand it to fines collected from this Bill.

It's absolutely disgusting that Senate Republicans would try to use a human trafficking bill to sneak in an expansion of the Hyde amendment that has nothing to do with the bill in question.

The Hyde Amendment doesn't apply only to "taxpayer funds." It applies to appropriations of federal moneys made by a particular law, regardless of how those moneys were raised.

Is federal funding of abortions really so important to Democrats that they'd kill this bill on account of it, despite the prohibition routinely being included in other federal appropriations?

 

[BitStyle]

Why did they feel the need to compound restrictions on abortion funding in a bill about human trafficking?

 

[Toxi]

Any more spin by the OP and this bill would be a propeller.

 

[David Incorporated Esq.]

The Hyde Amendment doesn't apply only to "taxpayer funds." It applies to appropriations of federal moneys made by a particular law, regardless of how those moneys were raised.

Is federal funding of abortions really so important to Democrats that they'd kill this bill on account of it, despite the prohibition routinely being included in other federal appropriations?

So a bill is going forward that everyone agrees is a good idea, but by the way one side is going to use it to erode away at a core belief of the other side.

It's like inviting your vegetarian friend out for a pizza party, but when you get there you say "by the way you're going to have a little bit of pepperoni on your slices. Not a lot, just a little tiny bit, but it'll be there. What? No?! WHY DO YOU HATE PIZZA PARTIES?!"

 

[Stumpokapow]

Is federal funding of abortions really so important to Democrats that they'd kill this bill on account of it, despite the prohibition routinely being included in other federal appropriations?

I mean, is it a serious question? Your thread's premise is that "federal funding of abortions" (your framing, not mine) is "really" so important to Democrats that they'd kill this bill, just as "federal prohibition of funding of abortions" is "really" so important to Republicans that they'd let the bill be killed?

Is there actually a debate to be had beyond "Abortion is bad and I think we should not do it" or "(Access to) abortion is good and I think we should (ensure it)"? I don't understand how the procedural dimension adds anything.

 

[Dr. Benton Quest]

Any more spin by the OP and this bill would be a propeller.

OP continues to spin everything even after being caught in a lie. OP is a propeller, a propeller made of dicks.

 

[Somnid]

So what you're saying is Republicans almost passed a worthwhile bill until it was yet again sabotaged by religious bullshit.

 

[Banana Aeon]

I don't understand why Republicans would try to slip this unrelated issue into a good bill. Just take it out, and get the bill passed.

Jesus Christ, politics in the country are so ass backwards on how to run things.

 

[E92 M3]

Why can't these laws just be simple: "Human traffic = jail"

Just that. Nothing more.

 

[Trojita]

Trafficking needs to be fixed and seems to be getting even worse, especially in other parts of the world.

They seem to also be expanding criminal sentences and fines instead of fixing part of this situation by legalizing and regulating prostitution. And now they are making things worse.

"Clarify the range of conduct punished as sex trafficking" and make "absolutely clear for judges, juries, prosecutors, and law enforcement officials that criminals who purchase sexual acts from human trafficking victims may be arrested, prosecuted, and convicted as sex trafficking offenders." This would be accomplished by amending the federal criminal code to make "patronizing" or "soliciting" a victim of trafficking a crime equivalent to "recruiting, enticing, harboring, transporting, obtaining, or maintaining" a trafficking victim. The person soliciting the victim would not have to know they are trying to purchase sex from someone underage or someone trafficked, merely act "in reckless disregard of the fact" that this was possible. "The Government need not prove that the defendant knew that the person had not attained the age of 18 years," the criminal code specifically states.

Pretty much looks like the police can accuse you of all of this for soliciting any prostitute. If the police are luring you in with a fake online ad or a police person acting like a prostitute, and you neglect to ask their name, you are super fucked.

You need to fix the source not go after some dumb john who doesn't realize he's making a dumb decision, just so you can pad your police force's bank accounts and arrest statistics.

To the topic at hand, what are the chances the trafficked pregnant person didn't get pregnant through rape and coercion? Doesn't seem like it should even be a section in the bill, any victims need proper health care including abortion if requested.

 

[benjipwns]

You need to fix the source not go after some dumb john who doesn't realize he's making a dumb decision, just so you can pad your police force's bank accounts and arrest statistics.

Sounds difficult and might be dangerous. This way is a lot easier and everyone wins. Except the johns. And the taxpayers. And those being trafficked. But everyone else wins.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Your 'side' got caught trying to pull a fast one, and hide some disgusting BS behind human trafficking to get it passed. They failed.

The "they hid the provision" argument is a red herring. First of all, it only required reading the bill and understanding how cross-references work to understand what the bill does. Second, now that everyone's clear on how this provision operates, there's no reason to block the bill unless they disagree with the bill on its merits.

[ETA: Note that the characterization of the controversial provision as expanding the Hyde Amendment to "personal funds paid in fines, like this one," is misleading. It's not imposing the restrictions of the Hyde Amendment on all such "personal funds paid in fines." It's only imposing those restrictions on this fund.]

I don't really have an objection with your framing that the "Democrats killed the bill over lack of abortion funding", but wouldn't an equally valid framing be that "Republicans were only willing to pass the bill with an abortion funding ban attached to it"? Like, when you have an adversarial system, one party being obstinate is the other party being obstinate, since both can equally object or yield to the others' objection?

I think that's a fair point. Often how these issues are framed will depend on how one interprets the status quo. In this case, though, Republicans aren't refusing to vote on the bill. Cornyn claimed on the Senate floor that Democrats weren't even willing to offer an amendment to remove the offensive language. So, I think holding the Democrats to account for this, rather than the Republicans, is justified.

If its already part of existing restriction why include it? If its already exempt from Federal funding, I guess the Reps have no reason to keep it!

Well, it's not part of an existing restriction. The funds to be raised by the bill are not currently being raised, and were not appropriated under Public Law 113-76. But, the provision in this bill simply incorporates the restriction imposed on other federal appropriations under that law. So it's not quite so simple a conflict as you make it out to be.

 

[Volimar]

Some of the human trafficking parts of the bills seem kind of silly as well. I'd hope for more serious penalties, though I'm guessing these fines etc. are in addition to the other sentences that human traffickers would face. Kind of laughed at the "returning military heroes turned investigators into human trafficking" part. Reads like a bad CSI ripoff, but hey if they can help...

 

[ivysaur12]

Well, it's not part of an existing restriction. The funds to be raised by the bill are not currently being raised, and were not appropriated under Public Law 113-76. But, the provision in this bill simply incorporates the restriction imposed on other federal appropriations under that law. So it's not quite so simple a conflict as you make it out to be.

It also makes the Hyde Amendment law for five years, instead of something that has to attached to each year's appropriations.

I think that's a fair point. Often how these issues are framed will depend on how one interprets the status quo. In this case, though, Republicans aren't refusing to vote on the bill. Cornyn claimed on the Senate floor that Democrats weren't even willing to offer an amendment to remove the offensive language. So, I think holding the Democrats to account for this, rather than the Republicans, is justified.

Except… why is it in this bill?

 

[pigeon]

I don't think I understand the issue here.

Republicans control both houses of Congress. Minority Leader Reid has endorsed the bill.

Why has McConnell not scheduled the vote? At the very least, why has he not invoked cloture?

If McConnell is unwilling to bring the bill to the floor, that's kind of on him, isn't it?