Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
R's hold up Human Trafficking legislation over BC and Abortion
WTF-These poor women have been abused, kidnapped, raped etc and instead of getting them help the Rs just want them to be forced to carry unwanted pregnancies and suffer STDs. (commentary mine)
WASHINGTON ? Two Republican lawmakers from Tennessee say they?re concerned that advertising policies at certain Internet companies may contribute to sex trafficking, even as advocates blame Republicans for delaying action on an anti-trafficking law.
Sen. Bob Corker and 18 other senators wrote Jim Larkin, chief executive of Village Voice Media Holdings, last month asking him to shut down the ?adult services? section of the company?s classified advertising site, Backpage.com.
?It took only minutes on Backpage.com?s adult services section for us to find posts that present clear advertisements for prostitution of young girls,? the senators wrote.
And last week, Rep. Marsha Blackburn co-wrote a letter asking Google chief executive Larry Page to explain how Google prevents ?sexually exploitative advertisements? from appearing on its websites. She and her co-author, Democratic Rep. Carolyn Maloney of New York, called themselves ?members of Congress committed to combating all forms of human trafficking.?
But advocates say some Republicans in Congress are putting partisan politics ahead of the needs of trafficking victims by delaying reauthorization of the nation?s anti-trafficking law ? which expired late last year ? because of an ideological opposition to abortion.
The Trafficking Victims Protection Act was first passed in 2000 and has been reauthorized three times with bipartisan support. It provides grants to organizations that fight trafficking, aids law enforcement efforts, and funds a hotline that officials say received more than 11,000 calls in fiscal 2010.
House and Senate reauthorization bills were introduced last summer, each with about 40 co-sponsors from both parties.
Trouble for the bills began in September, when the Department of Health and Human Services denied an anti-trafficking grant to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops because the church group refused to refer victims for contraceptive or abortion services.
HHS wants abortion referral available
HHS officials said trafficking victims ? who are often forced into sex ? need access to the ?full range of legally permissible gynecological and obstetric care,? including birth control and abortion.
Republicans called the decision discriminatory. Republican Rep. Chris Smith of New Jersey, lead sponsor of the House reauthorization bill, rewrote it to include a ?conscience clause? ? which would prevent the government from denying a grant based on an organization?s moral or religious beliefs ? and to reroute funding for victims? services from HHS to the Justice Department.
?That, unfortunately, has led to the bill being stalled,? said Cory Smith, senior policy counsel for the Alliance to End Slavery and Trafficking. ?It doesn?t have a lot of momentum compared to what it had.?
He and other advocates, as well as some congressional Democrats, say HHS has more experience and expertise running victims? services programs, which help provide shelter, medical care, legal assistance and social services. Smith?s new bill has no Democratic co-sponsors and has not received a committee vote.
Steven Wagner, who ran the HHS anti-trafficking program for three years during President George W. Bush?s administration, said he opposes shifting the funding to the Justice Department, which focuses more on prosecuting traffickers than on helping victims. But he said congressional Republicans aren?t to blame for the delay in reauthorizing the anti-trafficking law. Rather, he said the responsibility lies with HHS secretary Kathleen Sebelius, who ?destroyed the bipartisan consensus.?
?I don?t think the role of the federal government in helping a victim regain control over their lives is to help them get an abortion or contraception,? he said, adding that other organizations can guide victims to those services if that?s what a victim wants.
Funded temporarily
No Tennessee lawmaker has signed on to a bill to reauthorize the anti-trafficking program, which is still being funded under a temporary extension. Corker and Blackburn say they?re still examining the legislation.
?I do not know why (the bill) has stalled,? Blackburn said. ?Something needs to be done that is going to provide the protection that is needed. Exactly what it?s going to look like, I can?t define right now.?
In the meantime, Blackburn said Internet giants like Google have an important role to play.
?The issue is about a lot more than just Google,? she said. ?But what we do have to realize is they ... have the biggest footprint in the online ecosystem and they have a truly unique ability to help thwart what is a modern-day form of human slavery, and we need them to do that.?
Google spokeswoman Diana Adair said Google has invested millions monitoring its sites for sex trafficking, child pornography and prostitution.
?But it?s a constant battle against these bad actors so we are always looking at ways to improve our systems and practices ? including by working with leading anti-trafficking organizations,? she wrote in an email.
The State Department estimates that nearly 300,000 American children are at risk for sex trafficking. Internationally, at least 12.3 million adults and children are in forced labor or commercial sexual exploitation, according to the International Labor Organization at the United Nations.
Contact Elizabeth Bewley
Re: R's hold up Human Trafficking legislation over BC and Abortion
Zeus and Bubba
I'm inferring :-)
"Trouble for the bills began in September, when the Department of Health and Human Services denied an anti-trafficking grant to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops because the church group refused to refer victims for contraceptive or abortion services.
HHS wants abortion referral available
HHS officials said trafficking victims ? who are often forced into sex ? need access to the ?full range of legally permissible gynecological and obstetric care,? including birth control and abortion."
Above Us Only Sky
Zeus and Bubba
This is where I am at too. And unless the victims are being forced to only get medical care at Catholic medical facilities that refuse abortion and birth control to patients, then I don't think the victims are being forced to carry pregnancies they don't want. I would assume these victims would be referred to medical care in a general sense. They probably need a full medical, psychological and gynecological work-up, not just abortion referral. So once the victim gets to the doctor's office, he/she could then discuss other options like abortion, birth control, etc. at that point right? And that wouldn't require any specific "abortion referral" on the Catholic charity's part.
The problem with this is that there are SOOOOOO many doctors who will NOT perform an abortion or counsel on one, or provide contraception (wanna know how I know? Because one of the doctors at my new office is now refusing to provide contraception - well, that, and years of working in this field).
If a trafficking victim, who may or may not speak English, is lucky enough to find her way to a service provider who aims to help survivors, and they refer her for medical care, I would be willing to bet that they would refer her to a physician who doesn't provide abortion or contraceptive care. And, actually, that seems like what this article is saying they do.
And, frankly, I'm all for pulling that funding. There are MANY other organizations out there clamoring to help victims and survivors of trafficking who WILL provide (or refer to other service providers who will) the FULL range of legal sexual and reproductive health care to which women are entitled. Lets fund them instead.
"You don't get to be all puke-face about your kid shooting your undead baby daddy when all you had to do was KEEP HIM IN THE FLUCKING HOUSE, LORI!" - doctorwho
MANY organizations clamoring to help? Then let them do it. What is the problem.
I doubt there are many organizations in most areas looking to take up the task.
THis is another area where the goverment is inserting it's will/interests and forcing a church to do something against it's beliefs. The church can stop helping or can continue on a less than desired level.
Hello purposeful obtuseness.
The problem is that they don't have funding. Using funds that would otherwise go to the Catholic Church (an organization who has stated that they WON'T provide the full range of legal services that a survivor might need) to fund an organization that WILL provide these services just makes sense.
And, yes, organizations who want to do this work exist all over the place. They typically are not working at full capacity because funding for this type of work is scarce. You don't make money helping victims of violence, so you rely on grant funding and donations to provide these services - which is scarce during times of economic downturn.
Also, ::insert major eyeroll here:: in response to your last line. This is NOT the government trying to insert its will into the church. This is the federal government offering grant money to organizations that meet certain requirements. If an organization affiliated with the Catholic Church doesn't meet those requirements, then it can't get all butthurt that it doesn't receive that funding. The end.
"You don't get to be all puke-face about your kid shooting your undead baby daddy when all you had to do was KEEP HIM IN THE FLUCKING HOUSE, LORI!" - doctorwho
Not if the doctor will not counsel on that topic / consider it an option.
And I don't think disenfranchised survivors of sexual slavery are necessarily up on the Google.
There will not necessarily be one LESS outlet for help. The funds can go to another organization to expand, or just to another organization period.
lol at Sisu. No, it is not governmental overstepping of bounds to not let the Catholic Church have its hands in everything.
This is where I find the problem. Perhaps HHS shouldn't have blocked money to the Catholic bishops (that is debateable, but fine). Their response was to go ahead and insert this clause and then re-route funding to the DOJ, that focuses on prosecuting the traffickers instead of helping the women.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
I do think, though, that it's a bit rich that they don't want the government to discriminate based on an organization's moral or religious beliefs - even when those beliefs are causing them to offer fewer services than other places that money could go... while at the same time, some Republicans (Bush) wouldn't allow funding to be used in Africa to organizations that also give information about or provide abortions.
Why isn't prosecuting traffickers considered helping the anti-trafficking cause?
It helps the cause long term and women in the future; it doesn't help the women who have already been victimized. The DOJ doesn't offer counseling or support, or help getting these women back on their feet.
Some good points made above. I amend my opinion to "I need more info." If there is, in fact, competition for grants then I support funding the most qualified organizations to provide the widest range of care and choices.
However, if there was a small community where the Catholic church was the only grant candidate, I certainly don't think they should be denied. So the sweeping denial bothers me if there is an ability to review community grant candidates individually.
I wasn't trying to be callous with the Google comment, just saying that we need to get them away from their captors first, by any means possible, then deal with the consequences. I was, perhaps, oversimplifying.
Zeus and Bubba
I'd agree except for one troubling thing that I'd need clarification on. The article says "Trouble for the bills began in September, when the Department of Health and Human Services denied an anti-trafficking grant to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops because the church group refused to refer victims for contraceptive or abortion services."
I understand that the church can't provide abortions or contraception because it's against their conscience, but they can't even tell someone where to go to get that help? I mean if the person specifically asks for that, do they just shrug and say I dunno?
And if the person is trying to leave the life but not fully free, I think this could really endanger their life, as a pimp could take it on themselves to end their pregnancy to get their girl back on the street. Or maybe even end their life as the woman has no more value to them, It seems to me that if we return to the pre-pill, no abortion world these folks want, it's a possible death sentence for a prostitute who gets pregnant, whether by back street abortion or outright murder.
The more I think about it, the more I think I'm ok with denying the Catholic Church these grants, since they're unable to provide a full range of services for the victims. If the Catholic Church has a problem with referring people for contraception, they have the option of funding their own programs instead of relying on government funding, complying with government grant requirements or finding another charitable outlet where their conscience doesn't run up against government grant stipulations.
They have the constitutionally guaranted right to practice their religion. They do not have a constitutional right to a government grant for their charities. The government is not interfering with their religion whatsoever.
I guess it's pretty much like the drug test to get welfare - if you're on the public teat, you have to abide by the rules the government sets.
The church is already helping on a less than desired level. They can continue to do that with their own money. The government isn't inserting its will on the church, it's providing rules for how the government grant money is to be used. The church does the same thing with it's own money when it decides NOT to finance contraception. So, the church is forcing its will on their charity recipients but you think they should also get to force their will on the government, and decide how government money gets spent?
JFC (offence intended!) this makes me effing mad.
Ditto every single word arborgold said.
Google as a resource for a victim who likely has zero resources and likely no English skills? Bootstrap abortions! Fashion your own hanger!