Take a careful look at this article on a human sex trafficking law stalled in Congress over abortion. The article says that .”..so far, neither side has been moved enough by the plight of tens of thousands of trafficking victims to bend and find an acceptable compromise.” This is true, kind of. But here’s a better question: Which side is trying to offer the unacceptable compromises?
First off, here is the original offer. Read closely:
But just as floor debate was to begin, Democrats raised alarms about a provision blocking money in the victims’ fund from paying for abortions except in cases of rape, incest or danger to the life of the mother.
I, of course, am more extreme on this issue than most, but from my perspective there already is a compromise, namely, there is an exception in the case of rape, incest, or the life of the mother.
To continue. What is the Democrats’ counter offer?
Feinstein told Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, the lead GOP sponsor, that women have lost too many fights over abortion and would not back down.
“It is our reproductive system. In a sense this has been a battle for our identity,” Feinstein said. “There are many of us who believe this is one small step for womankind.”
So, their counter offer is “no compromise”. Okay. Are the Republicans going to be similarly pigheaded?
In a word, no:
In the wake of that exchange, Cornyn, too, started sounding unwilling to budge. He proposed routing the victims’ fund through Congress’ regular annual appropriations process, but maintained language specifically referencing an abortion exception, and Democrats refused.
In other words: He DID offer a compromise. But the democrats again said no.
So, in summary: democrats care so much about woman that they would rather not place restrictions on sex trafficking then agree to ANY compromise on abortion.
This is the party that claims to be on your side, ladies. Do you really think they’re your friends?