A few weeks ago, the Senate approved the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act fairly easily, with a 68 to 31 vote. Though all 31 opponents were Republican men, the measure enjoyed at least some bipartisan support.
But the measure still has to get through the Republican-led House, which will vote on its own, watered-down version of VAWA today. The White House, hoping to make matters clear to the lower chamber, issued a veto threat yesterday, saying the House GOP version is unacceptable.
The House GOP bill is stripped of expanded protections included in the Senate-passed version, which extends coverage to gay, bisexual, and transgender victims of domestic abuse.
"For instance, H.R. 4970 fails to provide for concurrent special domestic-violence criminal jurisdiction by tribal authorities over non-Indians, and omits clarification of tribal courts' full civil jurisdiction regarding certain protection orders over non-Indians," the White House said in a statement.
"The bill also fails to include language that would prohibit discrimination against LGBT victims in VAWA grant programs. No sexual-assault or domestic-violence victim should be beaten, hurt, or killed because they could not access needed support, assistance, and protection."
The Violence Against Women Act has been a bipartisan success story for nearly two decades, and this year's reauthorization was not expected to be one of the year's more contentious disputes. But the Senate version, co-written by a liberal Democrat (Vermont's Pat Leahy) and a conservative Republican (Idaho's Mike Crapo), is apparently too much for the House.
So, the Republicans have gutted the Senate version. Indeed, the House proposal "adds burdensome, counter-productive requirements that compromise the ability of service providers to reach victims, fails to adequately protect Tribal victims, lacks important protection and services for LGBT victims, weakens resources for victims living in subsidized housing, and eliminates important improvements to address dating violence and sexual assault on college campuses. Among the most troubling components of this bill are those that jettison and drastically undercut existing and important, long-standing protections that remain vital to the safety and protection of battered immigrant victims."
House Republicans are likely to pass their version anyway, sending VAWA to a conference committee. Time will tell how that turns out. But in the meantime, when it comes to assessing the GOP's efforts to undermine women's interests in 2012, the fact that Republicans are putting the Violence Against Women Act in jeopardy clearly deserves a place on a very long list.
Leave a Comment:
The GOP is throwing away this and every subsequent election as long as they continue to argue and litigate the issue of birth control, discrimination and other big government power grabs aimed at infringing on the rights of Americans. Voters do not want another culture war, but that is exactly what conservative and the Republican establishment are giving the country.The most extreme elements of the right wing are dictating the policy and principles of the GOP. Whoever is telling Republicans that these are winning issues is giving out bad advice... http://www.sunstateactivist.org
Pshaw. War on Women?
/sarcasm
Funny, but the right wing has no problem with China and its forced abortions to maintain one child per couple policy. No calls for boycotts, tariffs, or disinvestment and lots of shopping at Wal-Mart.
It's a war on American women only!
"...weakens resources for victims living in subsidized housing..."
Are you @!$%#ing kidding me? How do these people sleep at night? Sigh . . . just fine, I imagine.
Somehow got a double post, so let me think of something else to say . . .
Um . . .
Go Seminoles!!
Why do immigrant women need protection? Here's why:
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/human-rights-watch-says-female-farmworkers-suffer-sex-064222341--finance.html
What don't they get about the quote "We are all created equael"? I guess they are going to fight this tooth and nail. But, we have the documents to back this up. Who is voting against the Bill of Rights? Those who believe only their rights matter, after all the Bill was named after them, they should be proud to uphold the words and to find them self evident. Why, just looking at them I know we need to treat everyone equaelly. They are looking kind of pale though, even Boehner with his tan, he can't fool me. He loves sinking those little balls doesn't he?
Given that most of these far right bozos ever got sex in college other than by date rape, and probably beat their wives and screw their daughters regularly like the good patriarchal fundies they are (violence and incest occur at much higher levels among Southern Baptists than any other religion), someone is surprised by this???
We can't stop the Supreme Courts ruling. But we can do this!
http://www.change.org/petitions/major-media-companies-stop-accepting-money-from-superpacs
I am 1/4 Choctaw.
Does this put me below the law and therefore it is OK for me to be abused?
OMG. I usually watch Fox, because they are fair. I jump back and forth to your show, and that of crazy Ed. I do this so that I can get both sides of the story. That of the Right(Correct), and you lefties. Why must you always attack President Bush and all the Republicans that have dropped out of the race? Why not 'report' on obummer's record? Oh! There isn't a record! You losers make me laugh, and I appreciate the entertainment. I'm changing my home page to Fox. You people are nuts.
Oh, you must have soooo many fans!? Eleven, counting me. Rachal, you are sooo popular.
Why Democrats are against providing protection to heterosexual males, while
homosexual men can seek protection under VAWA? If gay men can seek protection, then why the name of this bill still contain the word "women"? Are gay men same as women?
The hypocrisy is out there to see as Obama and democrat team refuses to change the name to "intimate partner violence act (IPVA)".
So -- violence against women is a good thing. Bullying kids in schools is a good thing. Hate crimes are a good thing. Beating your children is a good thing. The Gilr Scouts (eewwww) are a bad thing. Health care for women is a bad thing. And this is because their imaginary friend in the sky said so.
We have some seriously @!$%#ed up individuals here.
Leave it to the left wing to demonize the conservative right... It is politically popular to just add in LBGT and immigrant confidentiality and then blame the failure on Republicans. If you want to pass the act easily, keep it as-is!! Otherwise tell us how much the increase in support and grant money will cost to cover all these new eligible victims and, more importantly, where you plan to get this money from!! Better yet, here's a thought, introduce a SEPARATE bill for LBGT and those other new provisions and debate on THAT!
Republican War on women... Gimme a break! Democrats are pushing their agenda at the expense of women and this landmark act. C'mon people, WAKE UP!
Get the women's against violence act reenacted by congress!
My video story of abuse and domestic violence as a child and how you can stop the cycle of violence.
Please repost to get the women's against violence act reenacted in Washington.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6FEED8d2E0&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Get the women's against violence act reenacted by congress!
My video story of abuse and domestic violence as a child and how you can stop the cycle of violence.
Please repost to get the women's against violence act reenacted in Washington.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6FEED8d2E0&feature=youtube_gdata_player
The current version of the law provides that a non-immigrant woman can gain permanent U.S. residency just by claiming to be a victim of DV. There is no provisions for proof or evidence. This has given thousands of women who would otherwise be ineligible for permanent residency a great incentive to fabricate false claims of D.V. against their U.S. citizen husbands. One of the major differences in the Republican version is safegaurds to protect innocent U.S. citizens against getting falsely accused of domestic violence without reducing any of the protections it provides for truly battered and abused women. No rational person with honorable intentions can possibly argue against this. This is not a right vs left or Democrat vs Republican issue; the ultra-faminist agenda that is against this simple protection for the innocent is full of hatred directed at all men in general. They are using the popular sentiment against domestic violence as a means to enact their hatred towards men. They are a treat to the integrity of family and the society as a whole. Their next male victim could be your brother, son, or father. The vast majority of men do not commit domestic violence. Why can't we have a law that protects everyone? By making this a men vs women issue, the ultra-faminist forces are playing the system and the society's good intentions to bolster thier own agenda of hatred and revenge against all men.