184

US Republicans pass defence bill with anti-abortion, LGBT add-ons (www.aljazeera.com)

submitted 1 year ago by Raphael@lemmy.world to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml

28 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Republicans in the United States House of Representatives have passed an annual defence funding bill that highlights the party’s conservative priorities – and sticking points – in advance of the 2024 election season.

Democrats have decried the bill approved on Friday, which included anti-LGBTQ, anti-diversity and anti-abortion rights provisions. It passed by a 219 to 210 largely party-line vote in the majority Republican chamber. Four Democrats voted in support of the bill.

top 24 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] 133arc585@lemmy.ml 66 points 1 year ago

Specifically,

The amendments pushed through by House Republicans included gutting diversity, equity and inclusion programmes at the Department of Defence. It banned flying pro-LGBTQ flags at military bases and ended funding for transgender-related medical services.

In perhaps the most telling reflection of the times, the bill also included a provision that would eliminate a Pentagon policy that offers time off and travel reimbursement to members of the military who must travel across states to receive an abortion.

Not being able to freely express yourself on military bases feels very Don't Ask Don't Tell: "you're allowed to be gay and serve, but you have to stay closeted to do so".

[-] Alto@kbin.social 31 points 1 year ago

It's the same point as always. Try to force the "undesirables" either into an underclass or to leave.

[-] 133arc585@lemmy.ml 14 points 1 year ago

As was the case with DADT and as looks to be the case now: they're rather them just stay closeted, they don't want them to leave. If they leave, they have one less expendable body to throw around.

[-] Alto@kbin.social 15 points 1 year ago

It's pretty clear at this point that they don't care about any of the practical knock-on effects it'll have. These changes are guided by nothing more than anger and hate.

[-] Pips@lemmy.film 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Never mind that this actively hurts troop readiness, morale, and the general effectiveness of the military. Republicans truly and actively hate the troops.

[-] herbicarnivorous@lemm.ee 61 points 1 year ago

Democratic yes votes:

Davis, North Carolina Golden, Maine Perez, Washington Vasquez, New Mexico

Republican no votes:

Biggs, Arizona Buck, Colorado Crane, Arizona Massie, Kentucky

[-] pizza_rolls@kbin.social 13 points 1 year ago

Vote that trash out thanks

[-] jeffw@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

I’m gonna guess those GOP no votes are because it didn’t go far enough?

[-] 133arc585@lemmy.ml 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Not quite.

For Biggs and Crane, unless I'm misinterpreting, the presence of "culture war issues" in the bill was itself a detractor,

Biggs and Crane posted a joint, 10-minute video explaining their “no” votes, citing U.S. support for the war in Ukraine, financial accountability at the Pentagon and culture war issues.

For Buck, the size of the budget was the stated concern,

Buck’s opposition to the measure rested in its price tag. The legislation sets an $866 billion budget for the country’s armed forces in fiscal year 2024. He said he could not “in good conscience” support the legislation.

I can't find anything from Massie specifically, but given his history of voting against any and all aid to Ukraine, it seems reasonable to assume that the provisions for military aid to Ukraine were enough of a reason to vote against it.

[-] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 4 points 1 year ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=ULJqb2DMOXs

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.

[-] BROOT@lemm.ee 36 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Republicans are scumbags, who knew? Also, water is wet and fish fuck in it.

[-] Amilo159@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Eww, have I been drinking diluted fish excretions all these years?!

[-] BROOT@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago

Yup. It’s why I only drink Brondo THE THIRST MUTILATOR.

[-] FartsWithAnAccent@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

It's got what plants crave.

[-] Naja_Kaouthia@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Water? Like out of the toilet?

[-] eluvatar@programming.dev 25 points 1 year ago

Is this really world news? Feels like US news, just saying

[-] pulaskiwasright@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

US “defense” news is world news.

But really, I think you just said that because it’s a U.S. based story. Most of the threads on this subreddit aren’t international unless you define “international” as not-US.

[-] DevCat@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago

Senate Democrats looking at this bill:

[-] chaogomu@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago

It's a military funding bill. They almost always pass, regardless of what extra nonsense is put in.

[-] A1kmm@lemmy.amxl.com 15 points 1 year ago

"With the narrowest of majorities – five seats – in the House, Republican Speaker Kevin McCarthy needed near-unanimous support for the more than 1,200-page bill. That forced him to appease ultra-conservative members of the party, who pledged not back down in negotiations."

Is working with moderates of a different brand of party really worse than kowtowing to the demands of extremists in the same brand of party as you? Because it seems that would be the obvious way to get moderate bills passed if you were moderate and that is what you really wanted.

[-] queermunist@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

It's worse because McCarthy is also an extremist, he's just more politically savvy and knows how unpopular the extreme agenda actually is. He knows that he needs to sneak this stuff in under the radar and through unelected processes so the people don't get a say in the outcome.

Instead he's forced to advance the extreme agenda faster than he wants, but he still wants everything in this bill.