>

these same people would vote to prohibit drag shows on the basis of protecting children from groomers
Andy Biggs - Arizona's 5th District
Dan Bishop - North Carolina's 9th District
Lauren Boebert - Colorado's 3rd District
Mo Brooks - Alabama's 5th District
Michael Cloud - Texas' 27th District
Andrew Clyde - Georgia's 9th District
James Comer - Kentucky's 1st District
Rick Crawford - Arkansas' 1st District
Byron Donalds - Florida 19th District
Virginia Foxx - North Carolina's 5th District
Louie Gohmert - Texas' 1st District
Bob Good - Virginia's 5th District
Paul Gosar - Arizona's 4th District
Marjorie Taylor Greene - Georgia's 14th District
Jody Hice - Georgia's 10th District
Clay Higgins - Louisiana's 3rd District
Ronny Jackson - Texas' 13th District
Thomas Massie - Kentucky's 4th District
Tom McClintock - California's 4th District
Barry Moore - Alabama's 2nd District
Troy Nehls - Texas' 22nd District
Ralph Norman - South Carolina's 5th District
Scott Perry - Pennsylvania 10th District
Matt Rosendale - Montana at-large
Chip Roy - Texas' 21st District
John Rutherford - Florida's 4th District
Austin Scott - Georgia's 8th District
Jeff Van Drew - New Jersey's 2nd District >

A whole lot of traitors on that list.  And imagine being Jeff Van Drew, a man who was elected as a Democrat, and not only switched to being a Republican, but is actively voting against a bill enforcing child sex abuse probes.  Despicable. >

I’m curious because this seems like an obvious bill to pass and because a lot of these names pop out as massive far righters. What was there reasoning specifically for voting no? >

A huge portion of right wing profits come from child sex trafficking. >

But like, what was the bullshit reason they pushed in the media? I feel like they would have some glib out some minor statement in the bill that infringes on personal freedoms or too expensive, something like that, but I haven’t heard what their actual reasons were other than just voting no. >

I have the same question. Does anyone know the story here?  Or are we all just reacting to the headline, which in isolation makes it sound crazy that anyone would oppose this. >

Does anyone know what reasons they gave for voting against it? Too much pork? Something else? >

There’s an allocation for an additional $40M/yr through 2028. They may have thought that the bureau should be forced to realign its funding to fix their own black eye from the USA Gymnastics fiasco. 
No statements from their offices though. >

Thank you. And a big ouch with the gymnastics stuff. That was really bad. >

Other question did any of the publication note reaching out to offices for comment? Newsweek did not say. Pursued a couple more and that was absent from them as well. >

No word here either.