Democrats Want Funding for Abortion, Diversity, Global Warming Agenda, and Open Borders in "Coronavirus Relief Bill" that Exceeds $1 Trillion

“Americans worry they can die of this disease and someone they love could die if they lose their jobs and could be crippled permanently in the wake of this disaster. It’s a terrifying moment,” Carlson said. “In that moment, we need wisdom and steady guidance from our leaders. We need altruism, [they] need to care more about you than they care about themselves … but in Congress, they don’t.”
House Democrats tried to sneak through 1,400 pages in a “coronavirus relief bill” that curiously addresses global warming, diversity (the word “diversity” appears 60 times) and open borders. Some of its features include:

  • would require every corporation receiving coronavirus funding to have officers and a budget dedicated to diversity and inclusion for at least 5 years after receiving the money
  • would require every corporation receiving funds to have to produce elaborate racial reports listing the skin color and sex of their officers and board of directors
  • allocates $300 million to hire experts to manage coronavirus preparation response, BUT instead of looking for the most qualified candidates in important positions like this, hiring is done based on their race and disability status
  • mandate that all 50 states have an early voting period and same-day voter registration
  • would expand collective bargaining rights for federal employees (who, by the way, are still being paid. They’re not affected like small businesses are.)
  • airlines who get money must offset their carbon emissions in 5 years
  • special provisions to protect foreign nationals working here in the U.S. to automatically renew visas and work permits
  • restrict colleges from providing authorities information about citizenship status

Additionally, 10 days prior to the above:

As LifeNews reported, Speaker Nancy Pelosi is so committed to abortion and forcing Americans to fund killing babies in abortion that she has been caught trying to add taxpayer financing of abortions to the bill to combat the Coronavirus and provide economic stimulus to the nation as it deals with the COVD-19 outbreak.
Donald trump Jr, who tweeted: “This pretty much sums everything up: President Trump is moving quickly to protect Americans from coronavirus and its economic impact… Democrats are spending their time trying to create an abortion slush fund.”


It would be reprehensible if she did, but I do no know this is true.


It would be reprehensible might be true but in today’s world it is terribly unfair.
Example: It would be terribly reprehensible if he was a pedophile.
The suggestion in the form of hypothetical, has done it’s damage besmirching. It is modern day false witness de facto even if unintended.
Just an observation


Tucker and life news. Can we select actual news sources if we intend to report news?

1 Like

If WHO was a pedophile?

1 Like

Has anyone here located a link to the the bill? I would like to see for myself what language the bill actually contains. The language in the OP link sounds bogus.

1 Like

Right! It requires a name. Not truth.
Obviously there is no name, as I intended no false witness. THIS IS MY POINT!

1 Like

Joy Reid isn’t exactly a Republican or conservative, but at least she sometimes has more common sense and compassion than the Democrat politicians do. Joy Reid criticized Democrats for putting abortion in the bill.


Is it asking too much of our two houses of Congress to, JUST ONCE, present and pass a CLEAN BILL that isn’t full of unnecessary pork? It seems that even in this critical crisis, Pelosi and others are determined to have their own way, no matter the consequences. And they’re using this pandemic to try to further their political agendas, hijacking this badly needed aid package just so they can pursue their pet interests.

When will the voters finally realize that enough is enough and start punishing these self-serving power players at the polls? How much longer are we going to allow these people to continue taking advantage of us and our circumstances in pursuit of their own political purposes?

Decent ethics has to enter this picture somewhere, sometime, somehow. Maybe this will be the final straw?


Democrat Reps gonna Democrat. Golden opportunity to force their agenda above the crisis response. How many of those Democrat items have anything to do with the actual crisis itself?

Republican Senators gonna Republican. Golden opportunity to force bennies for the fat cats who will escape punishment for their ruinous buybacks.

Both parties favoring cheap immigrant workers at a time when Americans need to have a job to go back to. That is probably the single most anti-American provision in the bill as it stands.

And so we end up with a 1400 page bill that we have to read to find out what else is in it. But we already know it is full of garbage.

Why can’t they pass a simple one or two page bill that says X dollars for Americans plus X/2 dollars for each child with provisions for clawback on next year’s tax return?

It’s called crisis = opportunity to feed at the trough. A pox on both their houses.

1 Like

I looked through the bill and could not find abortion in it.
Can you point to it?

I think that the appropriations are somethign that to be discussed. It is not clear to me why they cause a fuss. If you are scandalized by appropriations for research in translational medicine, you might like to reflect on how vaccines to get developed?

Most of all, I applaud the transparency. This is how things should be done. Not allocating half trillion dollars for secret distribution with no accountability.

No she did not. She criticized the Republicans for objecting to the bill on the basis of abortion since there was no abortion funding in the bill. See here:

1 Like

There is not a line item in the bill that adds abortion funding, but rather the lack of the inclusion of the Hyde Amendment allows the possibility of funding to pay for abortions via reimbursements.

You don’t have to cite the Hyde amendment every time the government spends money “or else it might fund abortion!” The bill stipulates that the money was for medical testing related to coronavirus, not abortions.

Politifact ignores the pro-life groups and elected officials who were familiar with the process who confirmed that Pelosi originally included abortion funding in the bill.

So show the drafts that did.
There were pro-life groups and elected officials claiming that the final version of the bill paid for abortions even though it didn’t, so why would we believe their interpretation of the early drafts?

Politifact fails to acknowledge that the abortion funding issue was resolved AFTER publication of the LifeNews article, misleading readers into thinking there was no problem in the first place.

The bill was introduced on March 11th. The LifeSiteNews article was published on March 12th. No amendments had been submitted to the bill by March 16th, the date of the Politifact fact check.
To date, none of the amendments to this bill correct any wording relevant to abortion. The bill has been passed: the final bill does not cite the Hyde amendment. It does provide the $1 billion in emergency COVID funds.

Sounds to me like LifeSiteNews got caught running with some fake news.

Pelosi and Schumer blocked payments to struggling American families over ‘wind and solar tax credits’.

Shamelessly insisting on their agenda WHERE THEY KNOW THERE IS MAJOR DISAGREEMENT on how to go about things.

By the way:

1 Like

It doesn’t cite the Hyde amendment because it’s trying to make the Hyde amendment obsolete. Sounds like LifeNews was correct, again, despite fake attacks from Leftists.
Pelosi attempted to secure a funding stream of up to $1 billion for reimbursing laboratory claims. According to White House officials who spoke with the Daily Caller , that provision would establish a precedent under which health claims for all procedures, including abortion, could be reimbursed with federal funds. That precedent would render the Hyde Amendment, which blocks taxpayer funding for abortion clinics, obsolete.
(source: National Review article referred to by the diligent Alter1 above.)


So if that were the case, the abortion issue wouldn’t be resolved. LifeSiteNews said it was resolved:

Politifact fails to acknowledge that the abortion funding issue was resolved AFTER publication of the LifeNews article, misleading readers into thinking there was no problem in the first place.

(I also pointed out how the original bill had no amendments, and it was introduced prior to the LifeSiteNews article)

There needs to be a reconciliation of the House and Senate bills that is how Congress works. If the Republicans felt a sense of urgency the Senate could have acted as quickly as the House did. Absent that the lamentations seems hollow.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit