"Do members of Congress take their children to see Santa?" I wondered as I watched children whisper wishes to the old guy at Macy's. If born in another country, they'd be considered marriageable and forced into sexual relationships. Congress could have done something about that. Instead, on Dec. 16, the House of Representatives killed the International Protecting Girls by Preventing Child Marriage Act (S987).
Currently, 60 million girls younger than 18 are forced into marriages. Many are younger than my 10-year-old; their husbands, 20, 30, 60, maybe older. They aren't any different from American girls, except in their cultures girls are chattel, child marriage is status quo and loving parents are poor and powerless.
Nongovernmental organizations such as CARE (among the oldest, most respected humanitarian agencies) crafted S987 as an action plan for achieving the Millennium Development Goals and U.S. global health and development objectives, including President George W. Bush's focus: HIV/AIDS prevention. It would have expanded educational and economic opportunities for girls and women, reduced maternal and child mortality and defined child marriage as a human rights violation. It required research and data on the impact of child marriage in countries receiving U.S. foreign aid. It amended the 1961 Foreign Assistance Act, created during the "Mad Men" era of American human rights violations.
It didn't require new funding. Instead, S987 allocated $67 million (Congressional Budget Office projections) of existing Foreign Affairs funds over five years. It carefully met strict Helms Amendment regulations about reproductive rights. Sponsors knew anything that included abortions wouldn't fly. S987 could have prevented abortions by protecting girls from unwanted pregnancies.
Once married, girls quit school to carry out wifely duties. Without education, they can't work or contribute to their community's economy, which repeats poverty cycles in countries where America invests in poverty eradication programs.
One of their wifely duties is sex, even if she's 12 and he's 50. In America, this is rape. Then, they're pregnant where women predominantly deliver without midwives or doctors. Girls younger than 15 are five times more likely to die in childbirth than adults. It's the biggest killer of 15- to 19-year-old girls in developing countries. Dead mothers radically decrease newborn survival rates. USAID estimates maternal-newborn mortality costs $15 billion in lost productivity annually. Compare that to S987's annual $13 million to prevent deaths.
Young girls get torn apart during birth, developing fistulas between their vagina, bladder and rectum. Without medical care, they're incontinent and socially ostracized. S987 could prevent girls from soiling themselves.
The Senate passed S987 unanimously on Dec. 1. Members agreed it was solid, responsible, affordable, and increased diplomacy and economic stability in the most volatile parts of the world. It was the "feel good" measure of 2010, giving bipartisan politics a much-needed PR boost. Nobody thought it would die in Congress.
Right before the House voted, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., e-mailed fellow Republicans, demanding a "no" vote on S987. She said it cost $108 million: too expensive. She said it might lead to abortions and lacked accountability. None of that is true, but it didn't matter. S987 failed, 241-166, with 12 Republicans voting "yes" and nine Democrats voting "no." Oregon's Rep. Greg Walden voted "no." Neither he nor Ros-Lehtinen returned requests for comments last week.
Ros-Lehtinen evidently agrees that child marriage is a human rights violation. She even introduced her own bill on Dec. 14, called the International Prevention of Child Marriage Act (HR6521), but didn't include programs that actually prevent it. She allocated a mere $1 million over five years.
Why did Ros-Lehtinen do this? She'll be head of the House Foreign Affairs Committee in the new Congress. Didn't she have her facts straight or did she outright lie? Was she intent that nothing good would happen on Democratic watch? Did she kill it so her own cheap bill would credit her as a humanitarian for women's rights? Was this just a power play?
Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., agrees, "It's perplexing, outrageous. Her arguments don't make sense. The Senate didn't have problems with it. ... A bill protecting children is as close to apple pie and motherhood as you get."
Rep. Steven LaTourette, R-Ohio, denounced fellow Republicans' objections during debate on the bill. "Look, this is a partisan place. ... But there comes a time when enough is enough. ... Stop the nonsense and approve the bill."
Is this how the 112th Congress behaves?
S987 wasn't just a "Democratic thing" or a "girl thing." It was the right thing. Apparently, preventing child marriage wasn't a "Republican thing." And to think, Congress could have played Santa and shown the world this Christmas was about the children.
Jeanne Faulkner is a Portland writer, registered nurse for maternal health and CARE's advocacy chairperson for Oregon.
Comments Feed