UPDATE: In “Shameful Act,” Republicans Kill Bill to Prevent Child Marriage


Update, correction, and clarification: An error in this article was corrected at 10:11 p.m., Friday December 17th.  The original version of the article stated that the vote count in the bill was 244 – 166.  The correct tally is 241 – 166. To clarify, that is 241 votes in favor of the bill and 166 votes against.  The bill required a two-thirds majority to pass.  According to a statement by Congresswoman Betty McCollum,  229 Democrats voted for this bill as well as 12 Republicans.

Nine Democrats voted to defeat the bill, including Rep. Frederick Boucher [D, VA-9], Rep. Travis Childers [D, MS-1]Rep. Jerry Costello [D, IL-12], Rep. Tim Holden [D, PA-17]Rep. Marcy Kaptur [D, OH-9], Rep. Daniel Lipinski [D, IL-3], Rep. William Owens [D, NY-23], Rep. Nick Rahall [D, WV-3], Rep. Gene Taylor [D, MS-4]. Some of the Democrats and Republicans that voted against the bill in the end had actually co-sponsored it. Several of the Democrats listed above are members of the Blue Dog Coalition (e.g. Childers, Holden, Rahall, and Taylor).

The following Democrats inexplicably voted to abstain, including my own Congressman, Chris Van Hollen. Rep. Robert Berry [D, AR-1], Rep. Emanuel Cleaver [D, MO-5], Rep. Diana DeGette [D, CO-1], Rep. Barton Gordon [D, TN-6], Rep. Deborah Halvorson [D, IL-11], Rep. Phil Hare [D, IL-17], Rep. Eddie Johnson [D, TX-30], Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy [D, OH-15]Rep. Carolyn McCarthy [D, NY-4], Rep. John Olver [D, MA-1], Rep. Solomon Ortiz [D, TX-27], Rep. Charles Rangel [D, NY-15], Rep. Bobby Rush [D, IL-1], Rep. John Salazar [D, CO-3], Rep. John Tanner [D, TN-8], Rep. Christopher Van Hollen [D, MD-8]. 

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, improving 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.

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,” when it comes up for a vote today in its current version.”  (See below for the full text).

This letter then went on to argue–without merit–that the bill would cost $108 million and urged votes for a “new” alternative bill crafted by Ros-Lehtinen.

In fact, S. 987 is an authorizing bill and contains no new funding. Rather, the bill was purposefully crafted to make the most effective use of existing U.S. international assistance by ensuring effective coordination among various development efforts.  As I wrote the other day, the bill:

seeks to ensure that our policies and funding are comprehensive, coordinated, and have the maximum effectiveness in ending a serious violation of human rights while promoting development goals on which we have labored for decades.

Later in the day, at 6:53 pm just before the vote was to be held, Eric Cantor’s office sent out a “whip alert” to Legislative Directors of Republican offices, which now also contended that they should vote against the bill based on “pro-life” concerns.

What “pro-life” concerns?  I find it literally impossible to say, since for one thing the bill itself seeks to protect and promote the life, health and survival of girls who are being married as young as age eight, and for another thing the bill, in that it seeks to prevent child marriage in the first place did not address the needs of already-married girls and young women who for obvious reasons otherwise need access to reproductive health care.

Congressman LaTourette (R-OH) admonished his party’s leadership for voting down a perfectly reasonable bill that could have helped girls achieve a future they want.

Let me repeat: This bill seeks to prevent children from being married and by extension from forcing young girls into sexual relations in a custom that is nothing but a blatant abuse of human rights.  I would think if you called yourself “prolife” you might well be interested in preventing the marriage of a child bride such as the one pictured above as part of the slideshow.

But in their “abortion under every bed” mindset, Cantor and Ros-Lehtinen instructed their colleagues to vote against the bill because:

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.

In reponse to the blatant lies and misrepresentation of this bill in the letter circulated by the House Republican leadership, Congresswoman McCollum sent her own Dear Colleague, stating:

I strongly urge my Democratic and Republican colleagues to vote today to pass the International Protecting Girls by Preventing Child Marriage Act – S. 987.

S. 987 passed the U.S. Senate unanimously and will be voted on today on the House floor.   

The choice on S. 987 is not difficult or controversial.

The choice is between supporting a U.S. strategy to protect young girls from abuse, rape, and forced servitude OR opposing S. 987 while millions of children continue to be molested and enslaved.

S. 987 will establish a strategy and interventions to prevent child marriage and protect girls.  It authorizes the use of existing State Department resources – there is no new spending authorized ($ZERO).


Opposing S. 987 will send the message that the world’s only superpower will not make the effort to stop the violent abuse, rape, and slavery of millions of little girls.

 Protect the lives and futures of millions of girls and stop their abusers – I urge all my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to vote to pass S. 987.

But this was to no avail, as House Republicans fell into line and voted against the bill, defeating it 241 to 166.

“The action,” stated Durbin:

on the House floor stopping the Child Marriage bill tonight 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.

I can only conclude from this and other actions of the Republican party and the so-called pro-life movement that indeed the lives of women and girls mean little to nothing.  Otherwise, how could anyone advocate for defeat of a bill that would prevent children younger than my own 14-year-old from being forced into marriage, rape, and childbirth before she could even finish primary school.

It is digusting. These people clearly have no shame.

Next time you see John Boehner cry, it will clearly not be for the plight of the young girls being forced into marriage.

UPDATE: 10:37 pm, December 17, 2010: In the aftermath of the bill’s defeat, Congresswoman McCollum said in a statement:

Child marriage is a global challenge that knows no politics. Every day, it brutally destroys millions of young girls’ lives. If nothing is done, this barbaric practice will force millions more girls into a life of slavery, sex abuse, domestic violence, and servitude.

Senate Democrats and Republicans didn’t play partisan politics in this vote; they unanimously recognized that the United States can and should become a leader in the fight against child marriage. Had this legislation contained abortion provisions or authorized new spending, it never would have unanimously passed the Senate.

I thank the 229 Democrats who voted for this bill as well as the 12 Republicans. I am especially grateful for Senators Durbin, Brownback, Kerry, Lugar, and Snowe who worked to get this bipartisan agreement passed.

The International Protecting Girls by Preventing Child Marriage Act failed last night not because of the issue, but because a handful of Republicans chose partisan politics over the basic human rights of young girls. I am truly disappointed in this result, but I’m not giving up on these children.

DEAR COLLEAGUE FROM ROS-LEHTINEN:

Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 12:29 PM
Subject: RL dear colleague

Congress of the United States
Washington, DC 20515
December 16, 2010

VOTE “NO” on $108 Million S. 987
Support $1 Million GOP Alternative


Dear Republican Colleague,
   I urge you to oppose the Senate bill, S. 987, the “International Protecting Girls by Preventing Child Marriage Act of 2010,” when it comes up for a vote today in its current version.
  ·       S. 987 would authorize $108 Million over 5 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

·       S. 987 authorizes this assistance without having at hand a clear accounting of existing U.S. efforts for the prevention of child marriage. According to the Congressional Research Service, there is no available, confirmed figure on how much taxpayer funding is already being used to fight child marriage in developing countries. (For example, in Ethiopia USAID has worked to reduce child marriage by raising awareness of such a harmful practice among religious and political leaders, and has further partnered to establish girls’ advisory committees to prevent child marriage and encourage school attendance of girls; in India, USAID co-funds programs for in-school counseling that includes instructions on the benefits of delaying marriage until the legal age;  in Yemen, USAID is working with local organizations to improve community knowledge of the social and health consequences of child marriage, while strengthening community support to keep girls in school. Yet, no actual assistance figures exist for such programs.)  We should not authorize more funding without first assessing what we are now spending and how we might address any deficiencies in our current programs and improve our efforts.

·       By contrast, H.R. 6521, the GOP alternative that I have introduced would result in no more than $1 Million in potential costs,while making it clear thatchild marriage is a violation of human rights and that its prevention should be a goal of US foreign policy; requiring the creation of a multi-year strategy; requiring a comprehensive assessment of what the United States is already doing and funding in the effort to fight child marriage; and requiring that the practice of child marriage in other countries be reported each year as part of the annual Human Rights Report.
   

Again, I urge a NO vote on S. 987 when it is brought up for consideration. To co-sponsor H.R. 6521, please contact Christina Jenckes at christina.jenckes@mail.house.gov or x68467.
 
Sincerely,


ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN
Member of Congress

WHIP ALERT:

Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 6:53 PM
Subject: WHIP LD Alert: Opposition to S.987

Leadership and Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen OPPOSE passage of S.987, the International Child Marriage bill, because of cost and pro-life concerns. Please see below for their individual vote positions. We will vote on this in the upcoming vote series.

Leader Boehner: No
Whip Cantor: No
Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen: No

S. 987 authorizes $108 million over 5 years without sufficient oversight of the taxpayers’ money. According to the Congressional Research Service, there is no available, confirmed figure on how much taxpayer funding is already being used to fight child marriage in developing countries and this bill does not address that issue.

In contrast, Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen has introduced H.R. 6521, which would result in no more than $1 million in potential costs, while making it clear that child marriage is a violation of human rights and that its prevention should be a goal of US foreign policy; requiring the creation of a multi-year strategy; requiring a comprehensive assessment of what the United States is already doing and funding in the effort to fight child marriage; and requiring that the practice of child marriage in other countries be reported each year as part of the annual Human Rights Report.

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.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

To schedule an interview with contact director of communications Rachel Perrone at rachel@rhrealitycheck.org.

Follow Jodi Jacobson on twitter: @jljacobson

  • freetobe

    These are children for goodness sakes!! It is so clear that the Republican party

    could care less about anything but satisfying their rich corporate buddies and friends.

    Either that or this fear they have that someone is trying to be as sneaky as they are. After all they are the masters at the con game. Usually when one is guilty of something they cry the loudest.

    Next they will be putting fetuses in thrones next to their rich friends while the rest of the country will be rotting in thrid world status.

  • ookamiamaterasu

    This is utterly appalling! How could even one of those republican representatives think shooting this bill down was a good idea? This defies any and all common sense!

  • dadumdumdada

    The Democrats still control the House. Obviously this was not a strict party-line vote, as it still would have passed.

     

    This just makes me even more depressed than I already was. The Democrats caved-in to the outrageous tax extension, and have proven themselves, with this failure, to be even more spineless. It’s getting so I’m beginning to wonder: “Why bother?”

  • jodi-jacobson

    In this case, however, I am at fault for not clarifying that 241 votes were cast in favor of passage and 166 against passage.  The bill failed because it required a two-thirds majority to pass.  I have listed above in the piece which Democrats voted against it, and those, including my own Congressman Chris Van Hollen, who inexplicably voted to abstain.

    You can also find a breakdown of the votes on OpenCongress.org.

     

    Best wishes and thanks for allowing me to clarify.

     

    Jodi

  • jayn

    Lemme see, fewer child marriages will lead to less child rape, thus fewer child pregnancies.   Yeah, I can totally see why they’re concerned about abortion. 

     

    Even for the anti-choicers, this is pretty off-the-wall.

  • goatini

    Because the rights of the polygamous constituents of his district to marry 12 year old female children are at stake!

    Trent REALLY cares about “the children”, striving to keep them pure and unsullied, until the teen girls are married off, and most of the teen boys are banished to keep the pickings generous for the most powerful old men.

    Trent brags on his website about his vigilance in “protecting” children, especially any Blastocyst-Americans that may threaten the physical and mental well-being of the child brides of Colorado City: “Trent has worked tirelessly in an effort to protect the innocent at every stage of life. He has dedicated himself to children’s issues, and is passionate in his commitment to protect all human life, including that of the unborn.”

    And Trent is A-OK with the child brides of the Middle East and Africa dying in pregnancy, suiciding themselves to end their suffering, and being tormented up to and including death should the husband’s family take a dislike to them.

    Ain’t that America…. :-(

  • ack

    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.

     

    Heaven forbid that 12 year olds could have increased access to abortion after their middle aged “husbands” rape them.

  • ack

    Colorado City has become a battleground for both religous and women’s rights. We have had young women RUN barefoot from the compound to other places, desperate to escape. (I literally mean they ran. For miles.) Our former AG, Terry Goddard, was committed to prosecuting child rape in that community, and supporting vicitms’ services to offer support to these women and children. Unfortunately, his gubernatorial campaign failed against Jan Brewer. While our Republican legislature has certainly made strides against child marriage and child rape in FLDS communities, I have little hope that it will take priority over such important issues as allowing faculty on university campuses to carry concealed weapons.

  • colleen

    What “pro-life” concerns?  I find it literally impossible to say, since for one thing the bill itself seeks to protect and promote the life, health and survival of girls who are being married as young as age eight, and for another thing the bill

    A few years ago I heard this issue addressed by a FLDS man with 4 ‘wives’, all of whom he had ‘married’ when they were between the ages of 12 and 14. He was attempting to dispel the notion that FLDS men married such young girls out of lust.  His defense for a practice that destroys the lives of so many  was that the ‘wives’ were able to have so many more children when they started early. The thing that astonished me was that this explanation clearly solved any ethical dilemmas  for him.

    I wonder where ‘Feminists for Life’, ‘Democrats for Life’ and the Susan B. Anthony list were when this vote came down. They’re all oddly silent .

     

     

  • crowepps

    Considering all the hysterical accusations about how Planned Parenthood is supposed to be tracking the ages of boyfriends and reporting to the police any suspicions about possible abuse/rape, it seems kind of weird that the ProLife sex police isn’t equally hysterical about the ages of pregnant girls.

     

    In Arizona, the law provides:

    In the State of Arizona, a person under 18 years old CANNOT consent to engage in sexual conduct (A.R.S. § 13-1401).

    Under Arizona law, sexual conduct is when a person intentionally or knowingly engages in sexual intercourse or oral sexual contact with a person under 18 years of age.  Sexual conduct with a minor 15, 16 or 17 years old is class 6 felony. Sexual conduct with a minor under fifteen years of age is a class 2 felony.

    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:2X6TESX2qjkJ:www.lawforkids.org/laws/view_law.cfm%3Fid%3D14+age+child+sexual+abuse+arizona&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

    Any pregnancy before the age of 18 would therefore be incontrovertable proof of sexual abuse.

  • jane-roberts

    I just finished reading this last night. Terrific little book. Buy it, read it and send to a Congressman who voted NO.