Updated: 2:20 P.M. EST
WASHINGTON — Democrats rejected an offer by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) Thursday to hold a Senate vote to strip out anti-abortion language from a stalled bill to combat human trafficking.
“The way to handle the issue is very simple: just take it out of the the bill,” Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said, upon objecting.
The Kentucky Republican’s offer was an attempt to break the impasse amidst Democratic objections to the anti-abortion language, which they say Republicans snuck into the bill without telling them. If Democrats had gone along, the likely scenario was that the Republican-led chamber would have voted to keep the abortion provision.
A visibly frustrated McConnell accused Democrats of “trying to kill this important bill because of a provision they claimed somehow they missed after it being in there for two months.”
“They now suddenly find it offensive,” he said.
To expedite the vote, McConnell had sought a “unanimous consent” agreement, which means any one senator could block it.
Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-TX) scoffed at the notion that Democrats didn’t know about the provision when they voted unanimously last month to approve the legislation in the Judiciary Committee. He said there were staff-level discussions about the provision, which would expand restrictions on federal funding for abortion as it pertains to a new stream of revenues for victims of trafficking.
“This is not a surprise,” he said.
The underlying bill is overwhelmingly bipartisan.
Even on a bill everyone favors, Republican’ts are unable to refrain from attaching odious riders. Way to show us how to govern, 'pubs.
Oh, trafficking is already illegal. What does this bill do to enhance the ability to stop it? Just curious, as the article is mute on this point.
Republicans have been claiming that the anti-abortion provision has been in the bill since day one. It probably has been, but the Republicans wrote it in reappearing ink.
Sorry, Pubbies, but wasn’t there some old saying about the shoe being on the other foot or something like that?
I agree that the language doesn’t belong in the bill.
But if the language has been in there for 2 months, then shame on the Democrats for not noticing it until now. They (and/or their staffs) should be reading the bills they are considering, not just the cliff notes version.