Twenty-Eight House Republicans vote against bill to protect child sex abuse victims

[NewYorkExpress]

https://www.newsweek.com/republicans-child-sex-abuse-bill-vote-respect-child-survivors-act-1768981

Abipartisan bill was introduced to U.S. Representatives on Wednesday regarding the welfare of child sex abuse victims. Here is the list of Republicans that voted against it.

The bill, entitled Respect for Child Survivors Act, was led by Republican Texas Senator John Cornyn and co-sponsored by Democrat Delaware Senator Chris Coons, Republican South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham and Democrat Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar.

The motion was passed with a total of 385 votes in favor of the bill. This included 215 Democrats and 170 Republicans. There were 18 Representatives who did not vote on the bill.

The list of no votes are as follows:

Andy Biggs (R:AZ-5)
Dan Bishop (R: NC-9)
Lauren Boebert (R: C0-3)
Mo Brooks (R: AZ-5)
Michael Cloud (R: TX-27)
Andrew Clyde (R: GA-9)
James Comer (R: KY-1)
Rick Crawford (R: AR-1)
Byron Donalds (R: NC-19)
Virginia Foxx (R: NC-5)
Louie Gohmert (R: TX-1)
Bob Good (R: VA-5)
Paul Gosar (R: AZ-4)
Marjorie Taylor Greene (R: GA-14)
Jody Hice: (R-GA-10)
Clay Higgins (R: LA-3)
Ronny Jackson (R: TX-13)
Thomas Massie (R: KY-4)
Tom McClintock (R: CA-4)
Barry Moore (R: AL-2)
Troy Nehls (R: TX-22)
Ralph Norman (R: SC-5)
Scott Perry (R: PA-10)
Matt Rosendale (R: MT-AL)
Chip Roy (R: TX-21)
John Rutherford (R: FL-4)
Austin Scott (R: GA-8)
Jeff Van Drew (R: NJ-2)

[Ferguson97]

I bet you each and every one of these Republicans has spent the better part of this year screaming about groomers and drag queens too.

"Everything is sex abuse, except actual sex abuse, which is fine."

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Is it me or has Van Drew been veering really far to the right over the past few months? For most of the time even since his party switch he's voted like any other substantively-moderate Northeastern Republican who happens to think Trump is just darling, but that seems to have changed of late.

[Person Man]

I guess Gaetz didn’t vote.

[Hammy]

Is it me or has Van Drew been veering really far to the right over the past few months? For most of the time even since his party switch he's voted like any other substantively-moderate Northeastern Republican who happens to think Trump is just darling, but that seems to have changed of late.

Makes me wonder if he was bought

[Schiff for Senate]

Hey, where's the House's resident pedophile? I swear, I actually looked up and down the list to see Gaetz's name, and was pretty surprised when it wasn't there.

I bet you each and every one of these Republicans has spent the better part of this year screaming about groomers and drag queens too.

"Everything is sex abuse, except actual sex abuse, which is fine."

Absolutely correct. Curious to hear the lame-ass explanations they give for their votes.

[Schiff for Senate]

Is it me or has Van Drew been veering really far to the right over the past few months? For most of the time even since his party switch he's voted like any other substantively-moderate Northeastern Republican who happens to think Trump is just darling, but that seems to have changed of late.

Especially ironic that Van Drew voted nay given his fellow New Jersey Republican's record on issues of this sort.

[T'Chenka]

Absolutely correct. Curious to hear the lame-ass explanations they give for their votes.

If their opponents demand an explanation, they'll call it a partisan witch hunt. Their supports will absolutely not hold them accountable for this. They only conduct themselves in this way because they know they can get away with it.

[NewYorkExpress]

Hey, where's the House's resident pedophile? I swear, I actually looked up and down the list to see Gaetz's name, and was pretty surprised when it wasn't there.

Apparently Gaetz actually voted for this.

[Landslide Lyndon]

When I said a few years ago that if a Democratic president proposed the establishment of a national I Love Puppies Day, Republicans would oppose it, I didn't expect it to actually happen.

[Coldstream]

If someone walked into congress and punched Thomas Massie in the face he’d still vote against arresting them.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Is it me or has Van Drew been veering really far to the right over the past few months? For most of the time even since his party switch he's voted like any other substantively-moderate Northeastern Republican who happens to think Trump is just darling, but that seems to have changed of late.

Especially ironic that Van Drew voted nay given his fellow New Jersey Republican's record on issues of this sort.

Is Smith unusually good on the issue or unusually bad? I could see either, extrapolating from his other positions.

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

Something something projection

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

I would like to know the reasons why the folks opposed to this bill were so opposed.  There has been more than one "landmark" piece of legislation centered around a consensus to advance some cause that was just something you couldn't be opposed to, logically, that contained less publicized aspects of it that had negative consequences that (A) were slipped into the Bill and (B) were not necessary for the Bill to reach its objective.

[DaleCooper]

I would like to know the reasons why the folks opposed to this bill were so opposed.  There has been more than one "landmark" piece of legislation centered around a consensus to advance some cause that was just something you couldn't be opposed to, logically, that contained less publicized aspects of it that had negative consequences that (A) were slipped into the Bill and (B) were not necessary for the Bill to reach its objective.

I was going to ask whether or not there was a reason why no one in this thread was talking about the actual contents of the bill.

[President Johnson]

So that's pretty much a list from the "worst of the worst"... just Matt Gaetz is missing.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

I would like to know the reasons why the folks opposed to this bill were so opposed.  There has been more than one "landmark" piece of legislation centered around a consensus to advance some cause that was just something you couldn't be opposed to, logically, that contained less publicized aspects of it that had negative consequences that (A) were slipped into the Bill and (B) were not necessary for the Bill to reach its objective.

I was going to ask whether or not there was a reason why no one in this thread was talking about the actual contents of the bill.

From the Article:

Under the now-passed legislation, victims will be interviewed by those with expertise that appropriately addresses their trauma.

The FBI would then be required to form multi-disciplinary teams when investigating child sexual exploitation or abuse, trafficking and those used for child sexual abuse material.

These experts would include investigative personnel, mental health professionals, medical personnel, family advocacy workers, child advocacy workers and prosecutors.

The hope is that the combined efforts of these experts and the FBI can ensure accountability, prevent retraumatization and stop cases being dropped or forgotten.[

I guess my question is:  "How many cases are dropped or forgotten?"

If a case is dropped for lack of evidence, it SHOULD be dropped, should it not?  If a victim is either (A) not credible, or (B) simply too traumatized to be a credible witness, cases are, indeed, dropped, or become "cold" cases.  That's because these investigative and mental health resources are expensive, and efforts have to be made first into cases that can be proven at trial.

Is the FBI just "dropping cases"?  Are cases "forgotten"?  This is something that can be numerically documented.

[DaleCooper]

I would like to know the reasons why the folks opposed to this bill were so opposed.  There has been more than one "landmark" piece of legislation centered around a consensus to advance some cause that was just something you couldn't be opposed to, logically, that contained less publicized aspects of it that had negative consequences that (A) were slipped into the Bill and (B) were not necessary for the Bill to reach its objective.

I was going to ask whether or not there was a reason why no one in this thread was talking about the actual contents of the bill.

From the Article:

Under the now-passed legislation, victims will be interviewed by those with expertise that appropriately addresses their trauma.

The FBI would then be required to form multi-disciplinary teams when investigating child sexual exploitation or abuse, trafficking and those used for child sexual abuse material.

These experts would include investigative personnel, mental health professionals, medical personnel, family advocacy workers, child advocacy workers and prosecutors.

The hope is that the combined efforts of these experts and the FBI can ensure accountability, prevent retraumatization and stop cases being dropped or forgotten.[

I guess my question is:  "How many cases are dropped or forgotten?"

If a case is dropped for lack of evidence, it SHOULD be dropped, should it not?  If a victim is either (A) not credible, or (B) simply too traumatized to be a credible witness, cases are, indeed, dropped, or become "cold" cases.  That's because these investigative and mental health resources are expensive, and efforts have to be made first into cases that can be proven at trial.

Is the FBI just "dropping cases"?  Are cases "forgotten"?  This is something that can be numerically documented.

I don't know. I do support the legislation, though, I think it's a good idea to have the federal authorities bring in experts to help interview accusers or victims, which this bill calls for.

I just thought it was interesting that everyone in here was talking about how outrageous it was to oppose the bill, but no one here actually seems to have any idea what the bill was about other than "protecting victims" which is a meaningless headline. Given that the people voting against it are almost universally the lowest quality Representatives in the House, it's probably a safe bet to assume there isn't a good reason, but I wish people would actually look into what it is they're arguing about.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

The bill sets up $40 million for the FBI to give out as grant money to child advocacy organizations.  These members of Congress are among those who see the FBI as untrustworthy and corrupt so it's possible giving them authority to distribute funds is the part they have a problem with.

[Schiff for Senate]

Is it me or has Van Drew been veering really far to the right over the past few months? For most of the time even since his party switch he's voted like any other substantively-moderate Northeastern Republican who happens to think Trump is just darling, but that seems to have changed of late.

Especially ironic that Van Drew voted nay given his fellow New Jersey Republican's record on issues of this sort.

Is Smith unusually good on the issue or unusually bad? I could see either, extrapolating from his other positions.

He seems to have a genuine passion and interest in international human rights and the like, which would most likely include stuff like sexual trafficking and child sexual abuse.

And this is all just from Wikipedia.

He has used his leadership positions, including chairmanships, to author multiple pieces of legislation focused on human rights and conduct aggressive oversight of human rights abuses, actions that have earned him scorn from abusing nations.

Smith voted for the original 1994 Violence Against Women Act and co-sponsored the reauthorization bills of 2000 and 2005, the latter of which provided $1.6 billion for investigation and prosecution of violent crimes against women, imposed automatic and mandatory restitution on those convicted, and allowed civil redress in cases prosecutors chose to leave un-prosecuted. Smith voted against reauthorizing the act in 2013, due to the Senate version of the bill's cutting of funding for the Trafficking in Persons Office at the State Department, which Smith's Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 created.

Smith advocates for human rights, serving on numerous committees that seek to impact both national and international laws and legislation. He has stated that the bills he introduces to the house are meant to make the U.S. take "human rights seriously."

In 1999, Smith proposed, as part of the American Embassy Security Act, to stop a U.S. sponsored program which provided training to Royal Ulster Constabulary with the FBI, due to claims of human rights violations, i.e. harassment of defense attorneys representing republicans in Northern Ireland.

In 2017, Smith co-sponsored an effort to prioritize human rights in Azerbaijan with Jim McGovern. The H. Res. 537 act also seeks to see further implementation of the Magnitsky Act regarding Azerbaijani officials, as well as a call for Azerbaijan to release all political prisoners...Smith condemned Turkey's wide-ranging crackdown on dissent following a failed July 2016 coup...Smith has held congressional hearings and has proposed bills regarding human rights violations, specifically around women's sexual health, activism and religious groups, in China.

Maybe I'm reading too much into this kind of thing and I'm over-relating the two issues of international human rights and child sexual abuse, but otherwise, I get the feeling Smith would feel strongly about this and be very much in favour of this kind of bill (he did vote for it; my guess is he very strongly supported it).

So for his sole Garden State GOP colleague to be against taking action of that kind here at home is pretty ironic. I myself have always had more of a liking for Smith-type Republicans than the Van Drew kind.

[Schiff for Senate]

If someone walked into congress and punched Thomas Massie in the face he’d still vote against arresting them.

Someone should seriously consider it.

[Schiff for Senate]

I would like to know the reasons why the folks opposed to this bill were so opposed.  There has been more than one "landmark" piece of legislation centered around a consensus to advance some cause that was just something you couldn't be opposed to, logically, that contained less publicized aspects of it that had negative consequences that (A) were slipped into the Bill and (B) were not necessary for the Bill to reach its objective.

The fact is that a handful of Republicans consistently find some nitpick or another to vote against every common sense bill. Whether it's to keep Afghan refugees in the US, to award the Capitol Police the Gold Medal, to make Juneteenth a holiday, compensation of 9/11 victims' families, or now this, there's always something or the other that they find just so objectionable that the rest of this bill's obvious positive effects just don't mean as much, and they vote nay. Now I will admit that most Republicans, though they might try to make the bill better and remove the parts they don't like, ultimately swallow their objections and choose their priorities - but there's always some Republicans that don't.