Associated Press
Sen. Patty Murray has been the Democratic point person on the Violence Against Women Act.
Congress had a lengthy to-do list as the end of the year approached, with a series of measures that needed action before 2013 began. Some of the items passed (a fiscal agreement, a temporary farm bill), while others didn't (relief funding for victims of Hurricane Sandy).
And then there's the Violence Against Women Act, which was supposed to be one of the year's easy ones. It wasn't.
Back in April, the Senate approved VAWA reauthorization fairly easily, with a 68 to 31 vote. The bill was co-written by a liberal Democrat (Vermont's Pat Leahy) and a conservative Republican (Idaho's Mike Crapo), and seemed on track to be reauthorized without much of a fuss, just as it was in 2000 and 2005.
But House Republicans insisted the bill is too supportive of immigrants, the LGBT community, and Native Americans -- and they'd rather let the law expire than approve a slightly expanded proposal. Vice President Biden, who helped write the original law, tried to persuade House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) to keep the law alive, but the efforts didn't go anywhere.
And so, for the first time since 1994, the Violence Against Women Act is no more. Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), the Democratic point person on VAWA, said in a statement:
"The House Republican leadership's failure to take up and pass the Senate's bipartisan and inclusive VAWA bill is inexcusable. This is a bill that passed with 68 votes in the Senate and that extends the bill's protections to 30 million more women. But this seems to be how House Republican leadership operates. No matter how broad the bipartisan support, no matter who gets hurt in the process, the politics of the right wing of their party always comes first."
Proponents of the law hope to revive the law in the new Congress, starting from scratch, but in the meantime, there will be far fewer resources available for state and local governments to combat domestic violence.
As for electoral considerations, Republicans lost badly in the 2012 elections, thanks in large part to the largest gender gap in modern times, but if that changed GOP attitudes towards legislation affecting women, the party is hiding it well.
Update: Reader AG asks about the House version that was approved several months ago. As I reported at the time, the House gutted the bipartisan Senate bill with a watered-down version, which was widely seen by everyone involved as a joke that undermined the interests of victims. It had no support in the Senate and drew a White House veto threat. House Republicans knew this, and instead of revisiting the issue and/or working with the Senate on a compromise, GOP leaders simply decided the law was not a priority. The result was this week's outcome.
Leave a Comment:
or check out the Federal HHS site for who are the #1 perps of most child abuse...even murder of their own...yup...it's dear old MOM:) The dirty little secret...shhh
If children were removed from the homes of these women...OVER HALF the violent crime/murder and abuse of children by parents would end. We need to pass the legislation...not PC but it's the right thing to do for the kids.
It's true that women abuse and rape. But they are also abused and raped. Why block legislation that helps certain victims just because it doesn't cover ALL the victims? Now nobody is protected.
That's what I think, too. The argument against doing something and turning the conversation into "men are abused too, so this is sexist" (I don't think it is) so we won't do that and complain about men being victimized by the bill, not what ithe article says: they did not like the expansion to include LGBTQ, immigrants and Native Americans so they let it expire.
It does not say because it was sexist or discriminatory to men.
I think that is the problem. Must be all over rw media to cry discrimination against men to have something that does protect men. Judging from glancing at comments here. I do not absorb rw media. I have a built in filter that blocks most of it.
Not that I do not ever consider another view, but it's the way it's presented.
I think you are right that the only reason the law was allowed to expire is that House Republicans simply cannot countenance those people being protected in any way. But I also think it's about fear of the loss of privilege. I mean, just consider all the hatred and vitriol being spewed by the (I suspect) paid wingers that just suddenly (hah!) appeared for a subject that just by coincidence (wink) is a provocation to the far right. Something is behind the extreme frothing, and it's not legislative imperfections. It's simply about about privilege. It's about thinking the whole pie is yours and resenting the fact that it's really everybody's pie. They are vicious, bloody-minded children who refuse to share the world. That's all it is: straight, white male resentment. Archie Bunker's revenge.
I think that is truly the case. Privilege is something for them only, fighting to keep it to themselves.
Dragoon means more rope to hang themselves. 2014: the mass self lynching of the GOP or its ending since the Republicans seem to be lynching themselves, as Dragoon said, any time they open their mouths. By 2014 there will be no one left.
Actually, the Republicans would've passed VAWA if it weren't for some of the additions made, particularly with respect to extending juristiction to tribal courts.
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/223719-house-gop-to-keep-controversial-issues-out-of-their-violence-against-women-act
The Republicans are dead right at least with respect to the tribal court jurisdiction. When, in the entire history of the U.S., did we allow Non-Native American citizens to be subject to Tribal Law? As for the people arguing that this leaves a loophole for non-natives to rape natives on reservations, it does not as it is extremely well settled that disputes between non-natives and natives, even on reservations, are subject to the jursitiction of the state or the federal government. If the DOJ is not prosecuting cases under VAWA in such circumstances, that is the fault of the DOJ and not for any lack of jurisdiction.
It looks as if the Democrats have completely forgotten about the Rule of Law, or wanted to play politics at the expense of women. Since the democrats weren't going to yield on that, then yes, there should be no compromise. Even if it involves voting against a "Prevent people from killing puppies" type of law, that is bound to provoke irrational emotional responses and to be used as political gamesmenship against the Republicans. And it appears to be working in view of the comments here.
Also, with VAWA, the state and federal government would still maintain the same control over these cases. What it does it give extra power to tribal courts where not enough is being done. Specifically: domestic violence, dating violence, and violations of protection orders. Over 86% of rape on Native American women is committed by non-Native men. Considering only 65% of rape cases were prosecuted by the Justice Department, I see it fit that the government gives them some power. Again, if this is a serious constitutional no-no, I would understand, but I don't see where it is.
It is a serious constitutional no-no because reservations are considered separate soverigns from the Federal Government, with the constitution clearly defining them as separate entities for handling only their own affairs for their own members. Non-Indians are not subject to tribal law.
Because they are separate soverigns, Federal law and tribal law will run concurrently over those lands. But since they are concurrent, they would violate the constitution if, for example, there arises a situtation where "domestic violence, dating violence, and violations of protection orders" is violated under tribal law but not federal law. Suppose a reservation's laws include mere adultery as domestic violence and imposes criminal penalties, whereas the federal government does not. Should tribal law control in this situation over an Non-Indian American citizen, even though he didn't violate VAWA under normal state law?
And, if you force the laws to be consistent for acts of "domestic violence, dating violence, and violations of protection orders" over Indian law, then you are violating tribal soverignty by forcing them to change their laws to match the federal government, and thereby violating the constitution.
"Considering only 65% of rape cases were prosecuted by the Justice Department, I see it fit that the government gives them some power."
Perhaps the Justice Department should just do its job if this is really a problem, instead of having legislators violate the Constitution.
Also, why should 100% of rape cases be prosecuted? Think very carefully as to what that really means.
The argument against VAWA on the grounds that it does not protect men subject to domestic violence is flawed. Not because men statistically experience much less and much less severe domestic violence, it's perfectly true that they need support as well. It is flawed because something beneficial should not be blocked on the grounds that it doesn't help everyone. New acts can be made, new laws put in place to further the protection and resources for those affected by domestic violence. So yes, this act doesn't include men. But now it doesn't protect women either, because it doesn't exist.
So if Obamacare only protected the health of men but left out women, you would vote for it? Somehow I think not. (Though Obamacare is another piece of law that is heavily biased against men, but of course that's ok because who cares if men are discriminated against.)
That isn't a parallel. Obamacare is THE healthcare bill. This is one act of Congress that compliments preexisting laws that make rape, domestic violence, abuse, etc, illegal and punishable by law for EVERYONE. The Violence Against Women Act gives additional legislation to areas of specific concern.
So no, of course I would not vote for Obamacare if that were the case. And yes, I do care about men being discriminated against. I care about anyone being discriminated against. Do not assume that being pro-woman means anti-man.
You guys are stuck on feeling sorry for yourselves. Take this bill for what it actually is, not what you perceive it to be. Victimhood? Nobody is saying women never do violence against men here.
Distorting anything with the word women in it into this is anti men. It is not anti men.
Is it pathetic to say we won't protect LGBTQ, immigrants or Native Americans because it discriminates against men? I think so.
Lesbians are protected already as they are women. VAWA protects all women from abuse. The Senate wants additional funding to be used for Lesbians because they are sometimes turned away though not as much as men are turned away when they seek help. And the House bill does protect immigrants. Again, all women are protected. The Senate wants more funds to go to give more visas to immigrants while the House version still protects immigrants. What the House version does is also give protections to the accused, many of whom have been duped by illegals into marriage just to be falsely accused of DV and an easy ticket for a green card. The House wants to change this. Would you be ok being accused of a crime and not being told about it at all? Not being given due process to prove your innocence? That is how the law works now. Those accused have their lives destroyed while illegals just have to make a phone call, claim being threatened, and take all the accused's assets and home and if there are any, take the kids too. It's happened to men and women. I guess you are ok with the 14th amendment being thrown in the garbage. And Native American women are protected too. Just the Senate wants men accused of abuse to be tried on tribal lands. This means they are not protected by the constitution of this country. Again, no due process. So everyone's claim that the GOP hates women or wants women to be beaten is pure BS. All those groups are protected in both VAWAs. The only group not covered in the Senate bill is heterosexual males. I guess that's ok with you then. Like that man stabbed 27 times, cut and shot, I guess it's ok that if he wanted help he'd be told only women are helped. Or he'd be the one arrested if he called police if the woman just claims she was threatened, because only men are abusers, right? The House version does also give greater accountability as to how the funds are spent. There has been many cases where checks have shown malfeasance and misappropriation of funds, thus leading to actual victims not getting the money. Anything wrong with that?
Lane3- My point was that VAWA does not cover men- they are not protected the same way as women are despite men being victims equally to women. VAWA is written based on the bigotry of the Duluth model which says all women are oppressed and victimized by abusive men and all men are the abusers. Hence, that's why they promote and fund policies that criminalize a man if he defends himself from a violent woman. Suddenly he is the abuser and gets hauled off to jail. So you would be ok then with an OSHA bill that only used men in the language and only helped men who got injured on the job since they are a group of specific concern. Women who got injured can be told, "we only help men" if they call to report an injury. If you truly cared about men being discriminated against you would call your representatives and make sure the bill was gender neutral. And you'd sign and share this petition, although I doubt you will:
http://www.change.org/petitions/the-president-of-the-united-states-stop-sexism-in-the-affordable-care-act
Guys, do you think that, like the refusal to vote on relief to NY and NJ for the damage from Sandy, this refusal to vote was payback? If women aren't going to vote for the repubs, they aren't going to do anything for women. So there!
What a bunch of junior high school jerks!!!
Is giving Tribal courts jurisdiction over Non-Native on Native rape cases unconstitutional? I am just a little unclear on this part of the opposition. I don't understand why something having never been done before is reason for it not to be done.
This was meant for Fujil Takeshi's comment .
Personally, I'm also unclear about the uncontitutionality of that. If a male member of a tribe leaves the reservation and rapes a non member off the reservation he is liable to be prosecuted under the law and courts in the jurisdiction in which the offense occurred. If someone not a member of a tribe rapes a Native American woman on the reservation that person should be tried under the law and in the courts in the jurisdiction in which the offense occurred. If the tribal counsel wishes it could allow the offender to be tried off the tribal lands in the non Native American courts, but the counsel should have some sort of say in the matter. Right now it doesn't.
Remember what Queen Ann said....We love you women! Yuh RIGHT!
Wait, did this say that the Republicans are not supporting the bill due to it benefitting Native Americans? What the hell, they are the First Nation. I am in shock, but actually not. I just cannot imagine someone outright saying they didn't want support for Native Americans, this is beyond racism and classism.
It's not because it benefits Native Americans. It's a debate about tribunal vs federal and state courts and whether or not tribunal courts have the right to prosecute non natives who rape, beat, or stalk natives. Most opposition would agree that they don't, and that's by and large why the act didn't pass.
However, this bill WOULD greatly benefit Native American woman and would give their justice system a role in cases that directly affect approximately one third of their people.
This is the real terrorism.
Any law that protects half of the population and not everyone is an illegal law and very discriminatory. Anyone that would support such a law is an extreme bigot.
I'm confused by what you're saying. Many laws only pertain to specific groups of the population. These laws, against rape, against domestic violence, they still apply to men just as equally. VAWA is a measure to strengthen enforcement in certain cases.
They do not apply to men. Men do not get the same protections women do. There is a clause in VAWA (Senate version) that makes it legal to discriminate by gender if it can be shown to be warranted. Men are presumed guilty and if men are abused and defend themselves, VAWA makes the self-defense a criminal act and if the man calls for help, the police arrest him, not her. VAWA also forbids any funds from being spent on reducing violence by women against men. And forbids any funds from being used for men's shelters ( ever wonder why there are no programs being taught about abusive women or male victims or why there are more abuse shelters for animals than there are for men? VAWA.) Also women use this as a weapon against men in divorce. All they have to say is they are scared and the man is removed from his own house. The woman gets the house and his assets. Gets the kids. Gets everything and the man's life is destroyed forever. That's one reason so many men commit suicide and the rates are rising.
Of course you're confused, Lane. What he and the other 'mascunlists' are saying makes no sense. And I don't think it's really meant to. It's just a primal scream of inchoate rage masquerading as language.
Yes, when men ask to be treated equally it makes no sense to you. As long as women are protected when men aren't, then you feel it is gender equal. Lane's comment that these laws apply to men equally is total rubbish.
So that you know what you're talking about...
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr4970/text#
Thanks!
It is not gender neutral. If so, why was Valerie Jarrett so livid about the House version containing gender-neutral language?
http://pjmedia.com/blog/next-war-on-women-showdown-looms-over-vawa-reauthorization/
The Govt. wants DV to cover women but leave male victims to have to stay abused in abusive relationships. VAWA makes any man that defends himself from abuse a criminal via the primary aggressor policy, which makes a man that calls police subject to arrest if he defends himself. Also 80% of the time a man calls a DV agency he is told to get lost as only women are assisted. 53% of the victims of physical violence in domestic relationships are men. 42% of the victims of the most severe DV are men. This is from the CDC report issued last year. Tables 4.1/4.2 and 4.7/4.8. Also the House version has a much greater accountability of where the funds are spent. Those opposed to that version don't want so many audits. There has been quite a bit of misspent funds and lack of accountability in the past. Why oppose this? Why oppose men being protected too? Why oppose using funds to reduce violence by women, not just men? Why oppose using funds for men's shelters? VAWA also circumvents the 4th amendment to due process and advocates presumed guilt. VAWA is used extensively by women in divorce cases to falsely accuse spouses of abuse even if no crime has ever been committed. They get the kids. All his assets including the house. More families have been destroyed by this bill than anything else before it. More men have been rendered broke, imprisoned and childless due to it as well. False reports are financially encouraged and never is there punishment when false accusations are found out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lHmCN3MBMI
The current agenda of most House Republicans has nothing whatsoever to do with balancing the budget/reducing the deficit and everything to do with implementing their socially regressive political ideology.
The GOP sees an opportunity to damage or eliminate programs and organizations that conflict with their quest for social devolution -- hence their self-serving attacks on labor unions, the EPA, FEMA, Planned Parenthood and access to contraception, public television and radio, public education, medical care for the poor, health care reform, domestic violence programs, gay marriage rights, etc.
Wow! VAWA gets shut down and lets look through the comments at all the feminazi's that come out raging and bitching!
It's about time that someone realizes that that law was only good for enabling organizations like NOW to advocate false abuse accusations against innocent men and for the Department of Children and Families (or whatever you call it in your state) to legally kidnap children away from families for profit!!
Guess organizations like DCF will have to find other means of funding now that their Title IV-D money well has dried up!!
Are you really, really sure that those guys aren't bought by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his band of ayatollahs?
This is great news for men and fair-minded women everywhere. Thank you Rep Cantor and house Republicans - even though most of you are RINOs. VAWA funds the huge Domestic Violence Industry and enables false accusers to ply their hateful trade. It is Feminism's crowbar to batter men. Also, it is an open invitation for foreign women to take advantage of American men, but pretending to love them, winning their trust and then stabbing them in the heart and stealing their money - all the while getting free legal services, free housing, free job training and free green card. VAWA was all about harming men. May it die forever. May this be a new day for Men's Rights in America.
VAWA is a sexist law that discriminates against and profiles male victims, and has zero accountability for how its funds are spent. The majority of the discrimination occurs at the state level, which receive grants for female-only programs and fund arrest policies that profile males. See more at saveservices.org.
A person who says that opposing VAWA is the equivalent of advocating abuse of women is like someone who says opposing a law discriminating against blacks just doesn't care about protecting those good ol' white folk from those bad ol' black folk. Far more often than not, the sexists are not those who oppose VAWA, but those who support it. You keep saying the word "equality." I do not think you know what that word means.
UNBELIEVABLE!! "But House Republicans insisted the bill is too supportive of immigrants, the LGBT community, and Native Americans -- and they'd rather let the law expire than approve a slightly expanded proposal." God forbid we should do ANYTHING to help any of THOSE people!! The most ridiculous thing I've heard since the pre election nonsense! Just a bunch of Do-Nothings. It's not hard to tell that by their standards it's better than doing SOMETHING!! No wonder this country is in the shape it's in!
And to all the men out there claiming that men need to be protected from women, there's a reason why there are no men's shelters!!!! Because they don't really need them, do they??!! Please give us all a break with that horse cr*p!
Men and any problems they face in this world have nothing to do with this issue or what's being discussed in this article. Not that you don't have problems that need solving. But it ain't THIS ONE!
And you'd know this from your vast experience being a man, right?
Seriously though, women abuse men just as often as men abuse women, so get down off your high horse. And don't give me that "But men hurt women more" crap. You know how to spot an idiot? It's someone who hits someone else who happens to be larger than themselves, then complains when that person defends himself and they get hurt. Guess what, princess? The first lesson most boys learn on any playground is that when you hit someone bigger than you, you're gonna get flattened. It's about time that women start learning that lesson as well.
Oh, right. Women only get beaten up by their male partners because they've been asking for it. What's the air like on your planet? Methane-rich, I'm guessing.
No, there are men that are abusive and they deserve to be arrested. However, the CDC states that 70% of interpersonal violence is initiated by the woman. Ever see that bus driver that punched the woman? That's a classic case. That woman spit on him as he drove the bus and then when he stopped, she went for his throat. Yet when he fought back, all people could say was how could you hit a woman? She deserved it. And another study also shows that women are injured most severely when they do the initiating of the violence.
Today is officially a day of rejoicing!!! The corruption, oppression, and persecution of men through the Violence Against Women Act is officially over. Its been 18 years of civil rights violations and nothing but a witch hunt against men, fathers, and boys brought about by a bunch of shady feminists lawyers in Washington. Ding dong the real witch is dead!!!
As a 44 year old man I have witnessed female violence on many occasions and been a victim of it personally. Do people actually believe that women never commit violence, both emotional and physical?
Do they actually believe that men cannot be victims?
All citizens should be treated equally in the eyes of the law, regardless of gender, sexual persuasion, religion or race.
The Violence against Women Act is unconstitutional, pure and simple.
Most of the recent studies show that the most important precursor to a woman being abused is her abusing him first. Domestic violence is usually reciprocal but due to his greatest strength she often fares 2nd best after a fight. Giving men shelters to get away from abusive women will diffuse an escalating situation and help prevent men retaliating.
All MRAs are pushing for is EQUALITY - the very thing that feminists keep saying they are striving for .
This ridiculous VAWA did nothing to protect women from domestic violence. If you beat your wife, you should get hard time behind bars, not removed from the home and a restraining order.
Also, it did fund lots of gender bias. Lots of good dads can't see their kids because of false accusations. Ex-parte restraining orders are a scam.
Any step toward killing this man-hating group is good for everyone.
The biggest man-hating Judge, Sue Carbon, who ran VAWA came back to New Hampshire for her old job of screwing men. You'd think that the bone-heads who let her back could read or hear what she represents as a radical feminist. How does one hire someone who espouses gender bias to be a judge? The Executive Councillors who approved this fiasco need an MRI from the neck up.
As someone who works in this field as both a researcher and a practitioner, I can tell you that this money goes to serving all victims regardless of gender. In the state in which I work there are dozens of programs dedicated specifically to male survivors. The trolls on this site who would have you think otherwise are trying to conflate this issue with what they perceive to be the female upperhand in cases of custody battles, alimony, and DV-related arrest/parental rights. It called the "Men's Rights" movement and it seeks to suggest that men are victims of a system that favor women, it's the new reactionary patriarchal strategy by people who are either too delusional or too anxious to understand the impact of sexism on women's lives. The fact that VAWA can't pass is a travesty and we should all be ashamed.
Show me one program or educational initiative that targets reducing violence by women? There isn't a penny that goes to that. And how dare you claim that women don't use VAWA as a weapon to remove men from their homes, children, and assets in divorce cases. I know a matrimonial lawyer and he tells me almost every women seeking divorce in family court claims abuse of some kind. What state are you in? Please include links to the dozens of programs dedicated specifically to male survivors of DV?
Where is there a list of all of the people who voted not to vote on this law??!! We need to start making phone calls!!!
Tabaqui, while the VaWA act is not written in gender neutral language, it is indeed used by men to get immigration relief. Like many other legislative acts it is not perfect and is interpreted by USCIS and advocates to cover women, men and children.