House GOP Crushes Bill That Would Protect Against Child Marriage

[one...two...tree 2,762]

On Thursday night, hours before passing the tax cut compromise, House Republicans thwarted a bill that aimed to protect girls around the world from being coerced into child marriage. They opposed it because, they claimed, it might fund abortions.

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.

Republicans also claimed that the bill would spend $108 million in taxpayer money. McCollum, however, says the bill doesn't authorize any new funds. The Congressional Budget Office says it would cost about $67 million over five years, noting that it won't affect direct spending and is therefore not subject to pay-go.

[H/T Washington Post]

[Obama 2012 1,714]

#1 - Marriage is not a concern of the Federal Government.

#2 - Define child marriage?

#3 - Who really cares?

[Deputy Purple 1,294]

Why are we trying to legislate what is and isn't legal marriage in other countries?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Why are we trying to legislate what is and isn't legal marriage in other countries?

You don't think Foreign Policy should consider the welfare and protection of children? Should we cease all humanitarian Foreign Aid?

What the piece of legislation says:

4/27/2009--Introduced.International Protecting Girls by Preventing Child Marriage Act of 2009 - Authorizes the President to provide assistance, including through multilateral, nongovernmental, and faith-based organizations, to prevent child marriage in developing countries and to promote the educational, health, economic, social, and legal empowerment of girls and women. Sets forth priority assistance criteria. Directs the President, through the Secretary of State, to establish a multi-year strategy to prevent child marriage in developing countries and to promote the empowerment of girls at risk of child marriage. Sets forth strategy elements. Amends the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to require that Department of State country reports on human rights practices include a description of the status of child marriage for countries with specified rates of child marriage. Defines "child marriage" as the marriage of a girl or boy not yet the minimum age for marriage stipulated in law in the country in which the girl or boy is a resident.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

You don't think Foreign Policy should consider the welfare and protection of children? Should we cease all humanitarian Foreign Aid?

What the piece of legislation says:

4/27/2009--Introduced.International Protecting Girls by Preventing Child Marriage Act of 2009 - Authorizes the President to provide assistance, including through multilateral, nongovernmental, and faith-based organizations, to prevent child marriage in developing countries and to promote the educational, health, economic, social, and legal empowerment of girls and women. Sets forth priority assistance criteria. Directs the President, through the Secretary of State, to establish a multi-year strategy to prevent child marriage in developing countries and to promote the empowerment of girls at risk of child marriage. Sets forth strategy elements. Amends the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to require that Department of State country reports on human rights practices include a description of the status of child marriage for countries with specified rates of child marriage. Defines "child marriage" as the marriage of a girl or boy not yet the minimum age for marriage stipulated in law in the country in which the girl or boy is a resident.

We have bigger fish to fry than worrying about kids in another nation.

[Deputy Purple 1,294]

You don't think Foreign Policy should consider the welfare and protection of children? Should we cease all humanitarian Foreign Aid?

Hmm, should we stop sending billions overseas while we're how deep in debt? I don't know but borrowing more money so we can support foreign welfare programs doesn't sound like it's improving our economy much.

Maybe Foreign Policy should be about how to deal with Foreign Governments and not about telling our president to add a line to a report that an aid somewhere reads and making sure he knows the definition of "Child Marriage".

I'm not an isolationist but are we seriously so narcissistic that we believe we should be telling other governments how to run their countries?

Our involvement in WWII was just because the Nazis stepped out of their borders and imposed their will on other countries not because we didn't agree with how Hitler ran Germany.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Hmm, should we stop sending billions overseas while we're how deep in debt? I don't know but borrowing more money so we can support foreign welfare programs doesn't sound like it's improving our economy much.

Maybe Foreign Policy should be about how to deal with Foreign Governments and not about telling our president to add a line to a report that an aid somewhere reads and making sure he knows the definition of "Child Marriage".

I'm not an isolationist but are we seriously so narcissistic that we believe we should be telling other governments how to run their countries?

Our involvement in WWII was just because the Nazis stepped out of their borders and imposed their will on other countries not because we didn't agree with how Hitler ran Germany.

This piece of legislation adds to existing reporting, by including statistics on children who are under the minimum age of that country entering into marriage. Sounds like a reasonable and beneficial thing to look at with regard to how we deal with foreign nations. Women's rights and the rights of young girls in particular play an important role in bringing about democracy in this world. It's a hard sell to be a promoter of democracy while turning a blind eye to young girls being forced into marriages.

[Deputy Purple 1,294]

Women's rights and the rights of young girls in particular play an important role in bringing about democracy in this world. It's a hard sell to be a promoter of democracy while turning a blind eye to young girls being forced into marriages.

Well I'll be a bigger supporter of "Bringing about Democracy in this World" once we've got it working correctly. Until then I think we should focus more on fixing our own problems. After all isn't it "A hard sell to be the promoter of Democracy when you can't even show how it's really supposed to work"?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Well I'll be a bigger supporter of "Bringing about Democracy in this World" once we've got it working correctly. Until then I think we should focus more on fixing our own problems. After all isn't it "A hard sell to be the promoter of Democracy when you can't even show how it's really supposed to work"?

What are you referring to? That democracy isn't working here in America?

[Ban Hammer 12,861]

What are you referring to? That democracy isn't working here in America?

how's it working out over in iraq?

[The_Dude 1,142]

how's it working out over in iraq?

How's it working out in Palestine?

[Ban Hammer 12,861]

How's it working out in Palestine?

probably about the same as iraq.

[Deputy Purple 1,294]

What are you referring to? That democracy isn't working here in America?

For the people, by the people, of the people... Which part do you think is working?

Because I work I have to pay for my sister who doesn't work (by choice) and uses the local ER in lieu of a doctor's office (I pay for the ER whereas a Doc would expect her to pay).

Billions are spent bombing the back teeth out of people on the other side of the planet but my local schools are underfunded.

I'm a middle class guy living in the Midwest supporting a family of four on a single salary, which Senator or Representative represents me?

When I retire I get Medicare, if it's good enough for me then why isn't that the Executive branch's retirement medical plan? Oh yeah, same question for Social Security?

We borrow money from one country to provide condoms & aids tests to another country.

We pass laws with so many exceptions and waivers allowed that only states with sleeping senators will actually be held to them.

I don't know what your definition of "working" is but I'd prefer to label that as a "Cluster-Flop" (you know what I mean).

Edited December 20, 2010 by Bob 4 Anna

[luckytxn 2,263]

You don't think Foreign Policy should consider the welfare and protection of children? Should we cease all humanitarian Foreign Aid?

What the piece of legislation says:

4/27/2009--Introduced.International Protecting Girls by Preventing Child Marriage Act of 2009 - Authorizes the President to provide assistance, including through multilateral, nongovernmental, and faith-based organizations, to prevent child marriage in developing countries and to promote the educational, health, economic, social, and legal empowerment of girls and women. Sets forth priority assistance criteria. Directs the President, through the Secretary of State, to establish a multi-year strategy to prevent child marriage in developing countries and to promote the empowerment of girls at risk of child marriage. Sets forth strategy elements. Amends the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to require that Department of State country reports on human rights practices include a description of the status of child marriage for countries with specified rates of child marriage. Defines "child marriage" as the marriage of a girl or boy not yet the minimum age for marriage stipulated in law in the country in which the girl or boy is a resident.

Yes we should stop all humanitarian aid right away. It is nothing but Nation welfare. At least until we have our own house in order and have a balanced budget and at least paying down the deficit. We have no right telling other countries what age they allow their people to marry even though I hate myself that they marry as kids it is none of our business here as a country. The best way is to punish them by not visiting the country and corporations think about doing business there and when they see the harm that does to them financially then they may think about the actions that caused it. It was the way South Africa was freed by the way.

[Deputy Purple 1,294]

Yes we should stop all humanitarian aid right away. It is nothing but Nation welfare. At least until we have our own house in order and have a balanced budget and at least paying down the deficit. We have no right telling other countries what age they allow their people to marry even though I hate myself that they marry as kids it is none of our business here as a country. The best way is to punish them by not visiting the country and corporations think about doing business there and when they see the harm that does to them financially then they may think about the actions that caused it. It was the way South Africa was freed by the way.

A - F'n - Men to that!!!!!