When it comes to representing women's interests, the Republican Party hasn't exactly been impressive of late. In recent months, GOP officials, at a variety of levels, have launched aggressive campaigns targeting reproductive rights, access to contraception, and organizations like Planned Parenthood that play a critical role in women's health care.
Amanda Terkel reports today on yet another Republican setback.
Protecting women from violence and abuse has been an issue of bipartisan cooperation since President Clinton signed the landmark Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) in 1994. It was reauthorized with overwhelming bipartisan support in 2000 and again in 2005. Not this year.
On Feb. 2, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved legislation (S. 1925) reauthorizing VAWA. The bill was sponsored by Chair Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) -- who is not on the committee -- and cosponsored by 34 senators from both parties. Nevertheless, the legislation attracted no GOP support among committee members and passed out of committee on a party-line vote of 10-8. It was, according to Leahy's office, the first time VAWA legislation did not receive bipartisan backing out of committee.
"Helping victims of domestic violence shouldn't be partisan," said Leahy in an interview with The Huffington Post.
Amanda added that the pending version of the bill -- the one opposed by literally every Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee -- seeks to "place an increased emphasis on reducing domestic homicides and sexual assault, strengthen housing protections for domestic violence victims and focus more on the high rates of violence amongst teens and young adults."
So what's the problem? Apparently, Leahy also added provisions to bolster LGBT protections and defenses for victims of domestic abuse who are undocumented immigrants.
And Republicans can't allow that.
A Democratic Senate aide, explaining the Republican objections, also told Amanda, "Frankly, they don't like the words 'sexual orientation' and 'gender identity.'"
At this point, the fate of the bill is uncertain.
Leave a Comment:
"When it comes to representing women's interests, the Republican Party..."
1) hates women!
2) believe that women should be barefoot & pegnant!
3) are secretly closeted gay men!
4) are either flatulent, alcoholics, or need viagra for a woody!
5) prefer children - they don't tell them how bad they are in bed!
Actually this shows their disregard of life period.
If this is true, then these groups must not have regard for life either.
SAVE: Stop Abusive and Violent Environment
http://www.saveservices.org/vawa-reauthorization/analysis/
And Survivors in Action
http://survivorsinaction.org/
Even Senator Leahy had problems with the legislation. He criticized it for "trying to protect too many victims." He must not have a regard for life either?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46281354/ns/business-press_releases/t/anti-violence-bill-loses-focus-victims-many-claim/#.TzsGYoLEUZI
Hmmm, seems like no one has a regard for life any more.
You can oppose legislation entitled Violence Against Women Act and still be against violence against women. Go figure?
Well hey, if there's such a thing as not enough rape then surely there's a corollary of not enough domestic violence. Whoops, here comes the bus! Get ready to throw!
Does robdon always use Limbaugh logic?
ignore him.
Paul, address the argument instead of falsely labeling it. Southamp, when you can't address the stance, just pretend it is not there, huh?
It is idiotic to say that opposition to a what one sees as a flawed bill is the equivalent of having no regard for life.
It's a false argument and it is too bad you fail to realize thar.
It's a false statement/accusation and too bad you fail to realize thar...I mean, that.
(I make typos and leave words out all the time, just poking a little fun.)
Looking at your post below, you accuse the GOP of having a war on women. So the millions of women who are Republican and support Republican views and legislation are at war with themselves. I understand the charge regarding gays (but I don't agree, the facts can make the case...although there are gays who are Republican as well, not nearly to the extent as women).
Wow. It gets more and more difficult not to see the actions of the republicans as declaring war on women. Someone needs to remind them that we still have the right to vote.
War on women war on gays war on illegals war on the wall of separation---reoccuring theme within the GOP, war.
Republicans are declaring war on everyone who isn't a:
"...flatulent, alcoholic, secretly-closeted gay pedophile who needs Viagra for a woody!"
Thanks, Zora Renee! That's an awesome string of adjectives!
Nah, let them forget and we'll sweep the elections in 2012.
FOR THE MOMENT. I think they're going to tackle repealing the 19th Amendment right after they take care of Roe v. Wade and Griswold v. Connecticut. In the meantime, they'd appreciate it if you respected their religious beliefs by not voting, thanks.
They're working on that.
Yes, we can vote..until the Republicans decide to repeal the 19th Amend. If you vote Republican this November...you asked to have each of our rights stripped away, one at a time...Remember this in Nov.. and make sure who ever you vote for, has Women's best interests in their voting record
My theory is that the GOP is going to lose a lot of women this cycle.
For Heaven's sake don't tell them we can still vote!!!! That will be their next job!
Oh, I hope for our country that we have time to get them out of office as soon as possible. I can't believe there are even Republicans voting for them. Although I now have a couple of Republican friends that are saying they will vote for President Obama, because the Republicans are too far out. So even their own base is starting to turn away. The interesting thing is that these people are going to vote for the President to keep their own party out of office.
How about that?
Frankly, I don't like the words "religious right" and "Republicans oppose", but I don't get paid to throw a tantrum over it and bring my workplace to a halt.
Wouldn't be awesome if you did though?
I don't think "sexual orientation" or "gender identity" should be concerns of a government whose job it is to protect the rights and civil liberties of all it's citizens.
As long as there are classes of people who are discriminated against and targeted for violence because of their identities, then it definitely is a concern of government. Yes, the government should protect the rights and liberties of all, but if there are groups whose rights and liberties are being violated, and there are such groups, then the government must pay particular attention to them in order to guarantee the equal rights of all. It's not an either/or thing: that we can protect victimized groups or we can protect the rights of all. The rights of all are best protected when steps are taken to protect those whose rights are being violated.
(I have a suspicion that the comment at 3.2 was simply badly phrased, considering some of the comments from the same person down below. But I've replied as I have just in case what was said was intentional.)
Domestic violence - and the life-long nightmare it creates - is a travesty. To think that this bill did not receive bipartisan support is unsettling to me. What was it about the bill that turned these guys off so much?
I personally would like to know the details of the "LGBT protections" that were added to the bill.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1925rs/pdf/BILLS-112s1925rs.pdf
That's the link to the bill reported to the Senate out of committee. I'm just now reading it over to see the language you're looking for too.
Excellent! Thanks for the link - I feel like I should give it a once-over before I start name calling and throwing things....
".....developing, enlarging, or strengthening programs and projects to provide services and responses targeting male and female victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, whose ability to access traditional services and responses is affected by their sexual orientation or gender identity, as defined in section 249(c) of title 18, United States Code; "
I cannot, for the life of me, figure out why anyone would not be in favor of this.
What do you expect? Obama is for it. Any Republican or Democrat for that matter that votes against this needs to be voted out, period. I am so sick of stalling, do nothing, hopelessly 13th century, sexually frustrated Republicans!
Sexually frustrated is right on=" They either want wherever they can get it, or make it legal to rape, so they can force it". What's the matter with them, have they never been really loved, in their life?
The GOP probably feels that if women were propoerly submissive to the males they would need to be abused.
Dragging us back to the stone age.
Reminds me of the old Southern addage, "What do you tell a woman with a black eye? Nothing... she's already been told once."
When this bill was originally passed in 1994 it was Joe Biden's baby, he talks about his sponsorship of it quite a bit in his book. The first reporter to ask him about this is going to get a very fiery quote from the Vice President.
I agree with all of the comments here but I would like us to be wary of promoting hatred towards republicans in this already so polarized political climate. Especially when we are critiquing those republicans for not being bipartisan enough. I also want to draw attention to the use of "secretly-closeted gay pedophile" as an insult. Yes, I agree that pedophilia is horrendous, but I also think it's important that we don't mistake this as an assumption that all gay men are pedophiles. And also that we are not using the term "secretly-closeted gay" as an insult. Because then we would be no better than those homophobic committee members who opposed this bill. Thanks for the space.
Who's doing that? I'm critiquing them for following an ideology more suited to sadists and psychopaths and for putting my country and its people at risk.
It's good things are polarized. They need to be even more polarized. The primary accomplishment of bipartisanship in the past few decades has been to shift the Overton window so far to the right that previously unquestioned positions like "birth control is good" are now fair game for conservatives to attack. Current conservative thought is toxic and should be driven off a cliff into oblivion. As far as I'm concerned, until that happens bipartisanship can go sit in a corner with its thumb up its butt.
It's 2012 and the Republicans are still concerned about this nonsense. They are the ones who are uncooperative on any of Obama's ideas. They are totally partisan on anything. Obama has tried to work with them and they have refused to cooperate, so now Obama has a different strategy. When they abandon their own ideas and bills when Obama supports them shows their lack of concern about the country as a whole. We already tried to be nice to them, but they are focused on one thing at all costs, get the White House back. Sorry, but no olive branches anymore. They do not deserve it. Let them hang themselves.
Agreed... the "gay pedophile" comment made me bristle as well.
As far as the polarization comments... be careful what you ask for.
I am totally not surprised about the Republican Party. They are ludicrous. Many of the people in the state that I live in are Republican. It is impossible to reason with them. I try to keep an open mind and listen to them to see if they have anything I can agree with but the Republicans no longer have anything in common with me. Since I have been around for a while, I remember thinking that Reagan was a radical right winger...now he would be considered a moderate.
They, the Republican Congressmen, really need to get past their homophobia. We are all together on one earth, and we are all human beings, regardless of our ethnicity, gender, or sexual preference. Greatness or genius are not the sole property of rich old white people. I can mention the names of enough men and women, ---non-anglo or with homosexual preferences--- that have contributed much to our worlds civilization and the sucess of us humans as a species to fill volumes. The Yin/Yang in Congress is out of balance. Vote those that do not listen to the electorate out of office. You need not do any negative campaigning against them, their ineptness at being representative is enough to ensure them being deselected from officel
I agree with the opinions here, but I would like us to be wary of promoting hatred towards republicans in an already extremely polarized political climate. Especially when we are critiquing them for not being bipartisan enough. I would also like to call attention to the use of "secretly-closeted gay pedophile" as an insult. Yes, I believe that pedophilia is horrendous, but I think it is important to make sure we are not making the assumption that all gay men are pedophiles. Also that we are not using "secretly-closeted gay" as an insult or implying there is shame in being gay. Because if we are, we are no better than those homophobic committee members who opposed this bill. Thanks for the space.
November 6, 2012.
They're in full revolt. I don't think they're all nearly as backwards-thinking as they put forward, they are just fighting every single thing that comes down the pipe. Don't get me wrong, I do think they're not exactly for equal rights and do think they're generally stuck in the dark ages on many issues, but they're not all this religious-right-separatist.
Or as Rachel sometimes says, they're saying and doing these things to "cue the liberal outrage".
Oops sorry about the double post!
If any woman votes GNoP this year, they need their head examined. With all the problems this country faces, what are the GNoP talking about? BIRTH CONTROL. It is freaking 2012, and we are STILL fighting that battle???
Over half the electorate is female. A lot men support women's rights, too. All these attacks on women's issues just doesn't make sense in light of that knowledge. I am having trouble coming up with a simile that covers just how stupid this is. GOP, I now dub thee the Idiocracy.
I made a similar point in another topic when Don suggested that Republican voter-suppression efforts would make opposition and disaffection with Republican policies irrelevant. But canceling out at least half of the electorate is too tall an order.
Yes, there are women on the other side of these issues, and nobody's political preferences are determined by a single characteristic; but, in this case, the attacks are so fundamental that I have to believe that a great majority of women are being turned off by the GOP. I mean, if 98% of Catholic women use contraception, the Republicans are clearly on the wrong side of the issue.
Contraception and breast-cancer screenings are not controversial issues for almost everyone, I think, not to mention protecting people from domestic violence and rape in the military. I really do think that whatever benefits the Republicans may gain from suppressing the vote in the states they control will likely be erased by the damage they are doing to themselves in the eyes of women, and the men who support women's rights.
So, yeah, it's beyond stupid. But, hey, if it hurts the GOP, then more stupid to them.
I've noticed a recurring theme in almost all republican political philosophy. That is that it is preferable that everyone suffer as long as it prevents one person from having rights that the republicans decide that person doesn't deserve. The obverse of that theory is that it is better to let one person have a slightly bigger slice than they deserved if it enables everyone else to get a slice, too. The former is antipeople while the latter is propeople. Guess which one the republicans favor.
I don't think it's prudent to comment on the merits of legislation when I don't have a copy of in front of me. There is a tendency, on both sides of the aisle, to introduce legislation that is otherwise ordinary yet contains things the other party would violently object to, just to let the media make hay of it. It's legislative highjacking. It occurs with astonishing frequency, and is interfering with legislation that would ordinarily have bi-partisan support.
I am very concerned about what I presume is potential legislation, i.e. the use of an ultrasound probe inserted into the vagina without the individuals consent. My understanding is that this person is requesting an abortion for possibly a logical reason, i.e rape/incest. This woman has NO human rights and I feel is being treated as something less than a lab/rat. What kind of Frankenstein Freak comes up with these ideas?
A christian extremest right to lifer who doesn't understand separation of church and state would be my guess.
Sign the petition in support of VAWA, including the protections for Native Americans, LGBTQ individuals and immigrants!
http://www.change.org/petitions/u-s-senate-don-t-block-the-violence-against-women-act-vawa-of-2012-s-1925
Sign the petition in support of VAWA, including the protections for Native Americans, LGBTQ individuals and immigrants.
http://www.change.org/petitions/u-s-senate-don-t-block-the-violence-against-women-act-vawa-of-2012-s-1925