It is currently 04/24/24 6:15 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Go to page 1, 2  Next   Page 1 of 2   [ 30 posts ]
Author Message
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/18/10 11:46 am • # 1 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
I admit I had never heard of this bill until reading this ~ and I note that the bill passed in the Senate unanimously ~ this is the handiwork of the House Rs ~ including John Boehner, who had the gall to cry on national tv last week 'for the children' ~ I'm stunned ~ and I can't make up my mind if I want to cry or hit something ~ Sooz

In "Shameful Act," Republicans Kill Bill to Prevent Child Marriage

by: Jodi Jacobson   |  RH Reality Check | Report

In an act that Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) said "brought shame to Capitol Hill" last night, the House Republican leadership banded together at the last minute, and on purely specious grounds, to defeat a piece of legislation six years in the making aimed at preventing child marriage worldwide. The bill was supported by a wide-ranging coalition of groups including the International Women's Health Coalition and CARE-USA.

An estimated 60 million girls in developing countries now ages 20 to 24 were married before they reached the age of 18. The Population Council estimates that the number will increase by 100 million over the next decade if current trends continue.

Child marriage, noted Durbin, is often carried out through force or coercion.

It deprives young girls – and sometimes boys - of their dignity and human rights. In some countries, it is not uncommon for girls as young as seven or eight years old to be married. These young victims are robbed of their childhoods. In addition to denying tens of millions of women and girls their dignity, child marriage also endangers their health. Marriage at an early age puts girls at greater risk of dying as a result of childbirth. Pregnancy and childbirth complications are the leading cause of death for women 15 to 19 years old in developing countries. Their children also face higher mortality rates.

Ending child marriage is an important human rights goal in and of itself. It also is one of the key factors in reducing the spread of HIV and AIDS, reducing maternal and infant deaths, increasing family health, and encouraging economic development. In the words of Congresswoman Betty McCollum (D-MN):

No girl who is 11, 12, 13 and 14 should be forced to marry a man years or decades older. Yet, millions of young girls in the world's poorest countries are forced into marriage every year – sold and traded like a farm animal, raped by their husbands, and forced into lives of servitude and poverty.

With the goal of eliminating this practice worldwide, Senator Durbin joined with Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME) to introduce the International Protecting Girls by Preventing Child Marriage Act, requiring the U.S. government to develop an integrated, strategic approach to combating child marriage by ensuring more effective us of existing resources. The bill also seeks to promote the educational, health, economic, social, and legal empowerment of women and girls.

Ghulam Haider, 11, is to be married to Faiz Mohammed, 40. She had hoped to be a teacher. Click to see the New York Times photo slideshow of child brides. Photo by Stephanie Sinclair for The New York Times.
As we reported earlier this week, the bill, S. 987, passed unanimously in the Senate (all 100 Republicans and Democrats), and was sent on to the House yesterday for final passage.

And as soon as it landed there, the Republican leadership set out to defeat it.

First, just after noon yesterday, Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen sent a "Dear Colleague" letter to House Republicans forcefully urging them "to oppose the Senate bill, S. 987, the “International Protecting Girls by Preventing Child Marriage Act of 2010,â€



Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/18/10 1:10 pm • # 2 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
In an act that Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) said "brought shame to Capitol Hill" last night, the House Republican leadership banded together at the last minute, and on purely specious grounds, to defeat a piece of legislation six years in the making aimed at preventing child marriage worldwide.

Not to be overly picky or anything, but when did US jurisdiction extend beyond US borders?


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/18/10 1:18 pm • # 3 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112

Did you miss the following from the op, oskar?

"
With the goal of eliminating this practice worldwide, Senator Durbin joined with Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME) to introduce the International Protecting Girls by Preventing Child Marriage Act, requiring the U.S. government to develop an integrated, strategic approach to combating child marriage by ensuring more effective use of existing resources. The bill also seeks to promote the educational, health, economic, social, and legal empowerment of women and girls." [Bolding emphasis is mine.]

There is NO reason not to align the US 'existing resources' in foreign aid to promote human rights goals ~ the bill, contrary to what House Rs were spewing, did not require any new dollars ~

Sooz



Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/18/10 2:11 pm • # 4 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
No, I didn't miss it. My question was related to the statement quoted.
The effort is laudable to be sure, but I'm looking at the applicability of such legislation internationally.

I'll come back and reword the above later as it is very poorly structured. I'm watching hockey.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/18/10 2:29 pm • # 5 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
LOL, oskar ~ no problem ~ FTR, I have no problem with tailoring foreign aid to promoting human rights issues ~ enjoy the game ~

Sooz


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/19/10 6:37 am • # 6 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
An estimated 60 million girls in developing countries now ages 20 to 24 were married before they reached the age of 18. The Population Council estimates that the number will increase by 100 million over the next decade if current trends continue.

And how many girls are married and/or give birth before the age of 18 in the US?


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/19/10 7:29 am • # 7 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/16/09
Posts: 14234
FireMission wrote:
   It used to be that the age of consent for girls was 13 in many States.  At that time, the stats said that 50% of all firstborn were conceived out of marriage.  So most States raised the age of consent to 16 (some higher).  Now only half of all firstborn are conceived out of marriage.  Now that's progress!

i think it is STILL 13 or 14 in at least one of them.


Top
  
PostPosted: 12/19/10 7:53 am • # 8 
This is really sad. 


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/19/10 10:30 am • # 9 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
Might be an idea to clean up one's own back yard before looking over the fence and worrying about the neighbour's back yard.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/19/10 10:43 am • # 10 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
oskar576 wrote:
Might be an idea to clean up one's own back yard before looking over the fence and worrying about the neighbour's back yard.

Yes, oskar ~ it IS a good idea ~ Image

Sooz
  


Top
  
PostPosted: 12/19/10 1:37 pm • # 11 
You forgot the "ahem".... [img]/domainskins/bypass/img/smileys/smile.gif[/img]


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/20/10 3:06 am • # 12 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 05/23/09
Posts: 3185
Location: ontario canada
Childbirth before a woman has reached her full growth potential is dangerous.  It increases the chance that a woman will die in childbirth, and has further health complications later on.  As for arranged marriages....besides.  The young end of the ages quoted here are prepubescent.  Few 8 year olds are even capable of pregnancy.

  I actually knew a girl who was married in a marriage arranged by her parents.  In her case, she consented to it though--the boy was someone she had previously dated--the families brokered a reconciliation.

But, marriage without consent is basically sex slavery.But that's a far cry from being forced to marry, young, to someone you've never met.  Possibly with incentives to the brokers.  What's the difference between this and selling your child to a group of pedophiles?


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/20/10 6:30 am • # 13 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
FM, I don't know the comparative statistics of death in childbirth to sex before puberty ~ but female bodies continue to grow and mature after puberty ~ and female hormones do as well ~ so I see greeny's comment that "Childbirth before a woman has reached her full growth potential is dangerous.  It increases the chance that a woman will die in childbirth, and has further health complications later on." as exactly correct/factual ~ particularly since her comment is prefaced by "It increases the chance ..." ~

I also see a distinct difference between arranged marriages for, say, 16-18yos and forced marriages of prepubescent children ~ there are several cultures that force marriages on 8-10yos ~ those cultures are forcefully paternalistic and see females as chattel ~ so I again agree with greeny in labeling those cultures as being akin to "... selling [your] child to a group of pedophiles" ~ granted, my own opinions are based fully on my view of current social norms and on my own morality ~

Sooz


Top
  
PostPosted: 12/20/10 7:08 am • # 14 
You can read replies to threads such as this one and see why women have had such a hard time gaining their civil rights throughout history.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/20/10 10:33 am • # 15 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 05/23/09
Posts: 3185
Location: ontario canada
FireMission wrote:
Quote:
 
   I think it a mistake to assume that parents elsewhere have less regard for their children than parents here have for theirs, or that local customs don't largely respect that regard.  Yes, there are newsworthy abuses (just like with marriages et al here) and tradeoffs and customs we don't understand,   But that doesn't mean the approach is fatally flawed.  Some notes:
  1. Prepubescent marriages are traditionally meant more as an alliance between the families (of the same class) as a form of insurance than as a living arrangement between the spouses.  The kids are not expected to share the same bed for some considerable time.

But at some point, they are going to be expected to share a bed.  Who decides when?  Do both parties have the right to say no, especially considering that they never chose each other in the first place?

  2. "Selling" a child is rare and strongly frowned upon.

Depends on your definition.  Marriage "brokering" is a damn fine line.

  3. The man or boy is as much obligated as the woman or girl is.  Such cultures don't usually support the concept that the man is being any more "gifted" than the woman is,  thereby avoiding the ego trap common in the West.

I have no idea what you meant to convey by that. 

  4. From my little knowledge of such things, I have the view that such marriages are an attempt to reduce uncertainty in a fearfully uncertain World.

Except for the children themselves, who have absolutely no control of their lives, their sexual selves, or their future.

  5. There are other 'benefits" claimed that I know little or nothing of.

If you want to have them considered, then list them here.  If not, let's leave out the imaginary proof.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/20/10 10:48 am • # 16 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
I suppose the point I was trying to make (and expressed very poorly) is that I don't think cultures are changed by legislation but by education.


Top
  
PostPosted: 12/20/10 12:10 pm • # 17 
But which comes first, the legislation or the education?

And let me get this straight, the Rs are against this bill because of the abortion concern.  11 year olds pregnant by their 40 year old hubbies might chose abortion, so this bill is bad?


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/20/10 12:14 pm • # 18 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
kathyk1024 wrote:
But which comes first, the legislation or the education?

And let me get this straight, the Rs are against this bill because of the abortion concern.  11 year olds pregnant by their 40 year old hubbies might chose abortion, so this bill is bad?


The average age of Repugs is 97, so it night have a bearing. [img]/domainskins/bypass/img/smileys/wink.gif[/img]

After all, the Rushing Windbag is a good example.
  



Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/20/10 12:29 pm • # 19 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
kathyk1024 wrote:
But which comes first, the legislation or the education?

And let me get this straight, the Rs are against this bill because of the abortion concern.  11 year olds pregnant by their 40 year old hubbies might chose abortion, so this bill is bad?


It's simple, Kath ~ the Rs lied ~ again ~ imagine that ~ Image ~ the bill requires NO new funding ~ but, most importantly, the bill does not mention abortion or the secret code words 'family planning' ~ Sooz

FAILING TO PROTECT GIRLS FROM CHILD MARRIAGE.... As Jodi Jacobson explained the other day, "An estimated 60 million girls in developing countries now ages 20 to 24 were married before they reached the age of 18. The Population Council estimates that the number will increase by 100 million over the next decade if current trends continue." In many instances, girls are forced into marriage through force or coercion.

For about six years, policymakers in Washington have crafted efforts to use U.S. influence to combat this trend. The result is the International Protecting Girls by Preventing Child Marriage Act. In the Senate, where obstructionism and gridlock are the norm, the bill was approved unanimously. In the House, the bill enjoyed the support of 112 co-sponsors, and it was expected to pass easily.

But House Republicans, in the 11th hour, balked. The bill was on the suspension calendar, so it needed a two-thirds majority to pass. On the floor, it had 241 supporters (nearly all of them Democrats), and 166 opponents (nearly all of them Republicans), which meant the legislation died.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the lead champion of the bill, noted in a statement that the House vote "will endanger the lives of millions of women and girls around the world. These young girls, enslaved in marriage, will be brutalized and many will die when their young bodies are torn apart while giving birth. Those who voted to continue this barbaric practice brought shame to Capitol Hill. "

How could this happen? The Washington Post's Conor Williams explains.

Quote:

In the hours before the vote, Republicans circulated a memo to pro-life members of Congress alleging that the bill could fund abortions and use child marriage "to overturn pro-life laws." It also reiterated concerns over the bill's cost. When it came time for a vote, a number of the bill's pro-life supporters in both parties abandoned ship. Even co-sponsors of the corresponding House bill (H.R. 2103), like Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio) and Lee Terry (R-Neb.), voted against it.

Time for the facts. First of all, S. 987 is short -- the body of the bill is around ten pages long -- and does not mention abortion ("family planning" isn't in there either). A quick read suffices to show that the bill is not dealing with abortion.

Second, as I noted yesterday, it does not appropriate any additional funding. It requires that the President and the State Department make child marriage a core part of American international development strategy. One more time: this means that this bill can't provide funding for abortion. It's not an appropriations bill. Nonetheless, some Republicans appear determined to showcase their conservative credentials at all costs -- even when the facts make it unnecessary, even when the world's most vulnerable children bear the bill.

At this point, the bill's future is uncertain, but the ongoing bizarre misrepresentation of a bill designed to empower young girls and women is the worst sort of political gamesmanship. Why play politics with their lives at stake?

It's hardly possible to think even less of House Republicans lately, but this really is tragic. They made up ridiculous arguments, shamelessly lied to members, and needlessly exploited culture-war divisions to kill a bill that should have been a no-brainer.

What is wrong with these people?

Also note, this is the House GOP caucus now. Next month, the caucus will be bigger, more right-wing, and far more powerful. This is the party the country rewarded last month.

—Steve Benen 1:25 PM December 20, 2010

http://www.washingtonmont...idual/2010_12/027173.php


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/20/10 12:34 pm • # 20 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 05/23/09
Posts: 3185
Location: ontario canada
kathyk1024 wrote:
But which comes first, the legislation or the education?

And let me get this straight, the Rs are against this bill because of the abortion concern.  11 year olds pregnant by their 40 year old hubbies might chose abortion, so this bill is bad?

Let's face it.  11 year olds pregnant by their 40 year old hubbies would never have the freedom within their marriages to chose abortion for themselves.
  


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/20/10 12:41 pm • # 21 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 05/23/09
Posts: 3185
Location: ontario canada
You know what?  I don't get this.  I don't understand what the Republicans had against this bill.  The R's aren't known for their defence of women's issues, it's true, but usually they're all for telling other countries what to do.  I get that they're claiming the abortion issue--but it feels like that issue is being used as a front for something.  I just honestly can't see what it is.  Are they just afraid of seeming to agree with the United Nations on something?  Are they afraid of setting a precident for caring about human rights in their puppet regimes in South America?  What?


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/20/10 2:44 pm • # 22 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 05/23/09
Posts: 3185
Location: ontario canada
FireMission wrote:
green apple tree wrote:
FireMission wrote:
   Maybe you can tell us of your greater understanding and experience.  Please keep it short. (Image 



   If you want to politely discuss this subject, I'm all for it,  However, it requires some effort from you.  Two areas I notice need working on are: You aren't the judge or arbiter here.  And you really need to work on the "polite" part.  Without that, you'll just have to leave the thread to your betters.
You know, I actually had a bet with someone about how long it would take your arrogant majesty to start with this crap when you were allowed over here--but you beat even my estimate, so I'm not sure who won.

Whatever your issues are with women in general or me in particular, drop them.  Go get yourself a mail order bride or something, and give us all a fucking break.

  


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/20/10 2:46 pm • # 23 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
green apple tree wrote:
FireMission wrote:
green apple tree wrote:
FireMission wrote:
   Maybe you can tell us of your greater understanding and experience.  Please keep it short. (Image 



   If you want to politely discuss this subject, I'm all for it,  However, it requires some effort from you.  Two areas I notice need working on are: You aren't the judge or arbiter here.  And you really need to work on the "polite" part.  Without that, you'll just have to leave the thread to your betters.
You know, I actually had a bet with someone about how long it would take your arrogant majesty to start with this crap when you were allowed over here--but you beat even my estimate, so I'm not sure who won.

Whatever your issues are with women in general or me in particular, drop them.  Go get yourself a mail order bride or something, and give us all a fucking break.

  
Got his dick stuck in his zipper again, did he?


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/20/10 3:02 pm • # 24 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112

FM, we are a group of equals ~ no 'betters', no 'lessers' ~ we believe that we are all entitled to our opinions ~ and we encourage members to speak their minds, whether we agree or not ~ I believe 'politely discussing' any issue 'requires some effort' from all ~

Sooz



Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/20/10 3:29 pm • # 25 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/04/09
Posts: 4072
You know what?  I don't get this.  I don't understand what the Republicans had against this bill.  The R's aren't known for their defence of women's issues, it's true, but usually they're all for telling other countries what to do.  I get that they're claiming the abortion issue--but it feels like that issue is being used as a front for something.  I just honestly can't see what it is.  Are they just afraid of seeming to agree with the United Nations on something?  Are they afraid of setting a precident for caring about human rights in their puppet regimes in South America?  What?

Who really cares why? If a person goes out of his way to run over a squirrel, or trip a kid on crutches, he does it because he's an asshole. It's self-evident. Same thing here.  The "abortion danger" excuse here is bogus on the face of it. They're either crazy paranoid about the motivation of anyone who'd propose such a humanitarian measure, or they are just lying. Who cares which? Defeat them.

Arranged child marriages aren't an uncommon custom around the world, as Firemission points out.  But then there are lots of common customs around the world we should work to make uncommon, because we believe they are odious.  If we have a single underlying basic tenet of our political philosophy in this country, it is the liberty of each individual to make life choices for herself or himself. Further, we believe this liberty is not just ours by virtue of our American (or Canadian) citizenship, but ought by right to be everyone's, by virtue of being a free human being.

These child marriages are antithetical to our most basic value - individual personal freedom to decide for one's self..
 


Last edited by grampatom on 12/20/10 3:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  

Go to page 1, 2  Next   Page 1 of 2   [ 30 posts ] New Topic Add Reply

All times are UTC - 6 hours



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
© Voices or Choices.
All rights reserved.