Emergency funding for a pandemic should only be about emergency funding for a pandemic

Just saw on Fox News that apparently the emergency funding request to deal with the pandemic has a whole lot of other crap in it - put in by the Democrats.

I’m sure if it had been the other way around the Republicans would have found some crap to put in as well.

But this is a clear reason why extra stuff should not be attached to a single bill. One bill, one topic, so things can’t be snuck in by either side.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/msnbc-joy-reid-abortion-coronavirus

More about “riders.”

“Government by stealth”

Overview of Rider Bills in Government

That was definitely NOT the time and place to be trying to repeal the Hyde Amendment.

:smile:

3 Likes

it’s not that the bill will do anything with the Hyde Amendment it is that it has no reference at all to the Hyde Amendment.

So in GOP speak… no Hyde amdendment rider means that funds for treatment and testing of Corona virus would really be used for abortion.

It is silly.

Did you bother to read the “article?” Did you notice that they were quoting the OPINION of a reporter and not any actual text included in the bill? Wonder why that is?

It’s a good thing the Democrats didn’t do that, then.

There is absolutely no evidence that the funding the Democratic bill calls for would go toward abortion.

In fact, House Democrats filed what’s called a “manager’s amendment,” which makes clear that the funding can only be used for “COVID-19 diagnostic tests and related administration or service costs.”

“Claims reimbursed under this section would be limited to those for uninsured individuals not eligible for other COVID-19 testing and services assistance included in the bill,” reads a summary of the amendment from the House Rules Committee.

They need to ad a paragraph in there about building the wall.

1 Like

From the Media Matters article:

According to NBC News, a spending bill spearheaded by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) was running into problems because “the White House believes provisions in the Pelosi bill that pertain to the Violence Against Women Act could open the door to federal funds for abortion. In response, the White House wants to add Hyde Amendment language to the bill.” The Hyde Amendment is a budgetary rider which prohibits federal funding from covering the costs of abortions, except in very limited circumstances. While the status of the spending bill is ever evolving, Politico reported that the “two sides resolved issues over federal funding of abortion in a separate bill that will also hit the floor.”

Why is there language about the Violence Against Women Act in a bill trying to get emergency funding for the Coronavirus?

Isn’t the wall already being built?

LOL- I’m catching up on Trump’s press conference right now and he was asked about the House bill specifically.

Even he has dropped trying to say it was held up because the Dems were supposedly sneaking abortion spending into the bill. He just said “they (the Dems) aren’t giving enough”.

But you’ll keep repeating this…

Oohhh “the White House believes” and again no actual text from the bill… you’ll swallow anything won’t you?

Oh yeah. By Mexico.
That’s right.

Seriously…lets see the actual bill first, then worry about it. Or let the Republicans in the Senate worry about it. I’m sure they can iron it out.

Yeah…bad title on my part.

My complaint isn’t just about the current emergency funding bill, that just triggered me. ; )

One bill, one topic. No extraneous stuff. That should be SOP.

1 Like

This story is fake news

Actual bill. You’re welcome.

Thank you!

2 Likes

Y’think maybe I was just trying to illustrate that Fox News is the purveyor of Fake News?

:grinning:

Okay, so I wasn’t, I got fooled. Should have checked a couple different sources.

The point I was trying to make still stands. One bill, one topic. No extraneous stuff. That’s the way it should be and what American people should demand.

3 Likes

I don’t think many of us can disagree with this.

1 Like

I agree. Riders have pretty much always been a thing though.

1 Like

The section of the bill that is in dispute is Division F which is the part that covers paid sick days for emergencies and family care.

The reason that the Violence against women act is cited at all is because it names domestic violence as a reason to be able to take paid days for emergency care. It has nothing to do with paying for abortion.

Now the GOP can level criticisms against this bill… the fact that maybe the paid medical sick leave beyond the current emergency should be a separate thing… I can understand that argument but the “OMG Pelosi wants a billion for abortions!!!” is a bad faith argument.

People will fall for it though.

It is one bill…one topic.