Getty Images
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy (D-Vt.)
It was just last week that Senate proponents of the Violence Against Women Act re-introduced the measure that died in the last Congress, and supporters already have enough support to overcome a possible Republican filibuster.
Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, D-Vt., announced Thursday that he has built a 60-vote, filibuster-proof majority to advance the Violence Against Women Act -- an 18-year-old measure protecting domestically abused Americans that lapsed at the end of last Congress when lawmakers failed to approve its reauthorization. [...]
According to the Judiciary Committee, which Leahy leads, the seven Republicans who will join Democrats to support the measure are Sens. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Michael D. Crapo of Idaho, Susan Collins of Maine, Dean Heller of Nevada, Jerry Moran of Kansas, Mark S. Kirk of Illinois and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.
The Senate version has been tweaked from the version considered last year, with sponsors scuttling a provision on law-enforcement visas given to undocumented immigrants who've been the victim of domestic violence. Democrats did this for procedural reasons -- it gives the House fewer excuses to ignore the bill -- and expect to address this in a comprehensive immigration reform bill, so the issue isn't being dropped altogether.
VAWA supporters in the Senate did not, however, get rid of LGBT provisions or a measure that extends tribal courts limited jurisdiction to oversee domestic violence offenses committed against Native American women by non-Native American men on tribal land.
House Republicans have balked at these provisions in the past, but at least for now, senators don't care.
The next question, of course, is whether VAWA will pass.
In the Senate, success is now assured. The bill was easily reauthorized in the last Congress -- though 31 Republican men voted against it anyway -- and in light of Leahy's announcement yesterday, VAWA should face minimal resistance this year. We can expect a vote this month, perhaps as early as next week.
And what of the House, which killed the law last year? Sahil Kapur noted we still don't know what to expect.
House Republican leaders have for weeks declined to reveal how they intend to proceed on VAWA. And they're still holding their cards close to the vest.
"The House is continuing to work with VAWA advocates on the best path forward to ensure we protect women and prosecutor offenders," said a House GOP leadership aide.
If I had to guess, I'd say House Republicans give in on this and it passes this year. Boehner & Co. don't want this hanging over them -- VAWA's demise has become a higher-profile issue recently -- and probably don't want to run the risk of making the gender gap even worse.
It's hardly a lock, and House GOP leaders have made plenty of inexplicable decisions in recent memory, but I'm cautiously optimistic.
Leave a Comment:
With all the attention on the filibuster recently, I'm sure the GOP offered up a few sacrificial
lambsSenators, as an end-run around the more radical members of their caucus, so that "GOP filibusters VAWA" wouldn't hit the papers.The Senate passed this last session with the same votes.
The House T-Party won't vote for it. Guess they think Native Americans and the LGBT crowd don't count as human beings.
What year is this again?
There is absolutely no reason why this bill should not pass both Houses.
Do NOT bet on it passing in the House. The majority of the majority are firm believers in Violence Against Women.
So that they can seduce women into buying semiautomatic rifles!
Perhaps the right to choice will be further protected if this passes. The violence against abortion clinics is obviously a direct attack on women's rights and health. The attempts to terrorize workers at these clinics is emotional abuse, and threats of violence should be illegal under conspiracy laws.
Letting the In'juns have legal authority over White Men? Why I never heard of such a thing! They's just savages! And them hoomoseckshuals don't know what real marriage is either.
The real Republican position on the issue.
I can't believe they dropped the jurisdiction in tribal courts for Native American women living on reservations. I don't know if many of you know this, but if a Native American woman is raped or beat on the rez by a non-native nothing gets done about it. We're still getting raped and beat by the white man, and it's okay with out government.
Benen's post said that provision was NOT dropped from the bill set to go before the Senate for the vote. Yet, you say it was. Which is it?
That provision was NOT dropped, and shall NOT be dropped.
The GOTP is all for violence against women!
Really? Now conservatives like to beat up women. Go #4$@ yourself @#$%^&e! What a jerk. You should be a cop and go out there and arrest all those awful men who try desperately to keep their marriage togther while the woman goes bonkers and calls the police and tells you that her husband is abusing her. It happens all the time. Women are just as violent as men in a home setting if not more. The problem is they simply aren't as strong. Accept for raging feminazi on steroids or some sell-out male like you. get a life.
In the past year or two, the Republican party seems to have been increasingly unable to connect with the mainstream. I'm doubtful that any amount of pressure would cause House Republicans (many of whom come from safely Republican districts) to change their tune.
"Why", is there even any "Question" concerning "Protecting" women from "Any" form of violence???
Many of you already know how "women" are treated in Arab and Islamic countries causing me to conclude that "Those women" are very dangerous and must be beaten or maimed or scared for life or killed???
I didn't realize "Our" women were that dangerous and not protected by both our Constitution and Declaration of Independence???
I personally think that those "Elected" members who are voting "Against" passing this "Unnecessary" law must really hate and despise "All" women or are being pressured by their religious belief systems and by doing so will punish "Women" forever because their mothers or girlfriends told them,,,NO,,.
In "Simpler Terms", "No man, women, or child should ever be punished in "Any" way or form unless they are "In Fact" proven (by equally qualified women and men) to be, dangerous.
By the way,, aren't there more "Men" in jail than women???
How were these "Imbeciles" elected in the first place and by what voters??? Just makes me conclude why we are at each other throats all the time. r
"I" don't think you "understand" what "quotes" are "for".
The real reason this is being blocked has nothing to do with what they're saying in this article, unfortunately. It has to do with a lack of Gender Neutrality involved in the writing of this act, and the criminalization of men and victimization of women as a standard of practice. Which experts have said time and time again is false, needs to be addressed, and feminists block any attempt to approach it in an unbiased manner based on real research.
With a few changes I'd want this passed post haste, but unless those changes come forth this is just another piece of bad legislature being pawned off as well made. It's hyperbole set to law.
It was rewritten as gender neutral previously.
The only difference I can think of may be that women's shelters receiving assistance through this bill may remain exclusive to women, as originally designed. These shelters are important since some women who are dependents often feel incapable of escaping to an independent (safe) environment without initial resources of their own.
There are other shelters that are designed for both genders and their families. As far as I can tell, the remaining resources and protections in the bill are gender neutral upon community need. So I'm not sure why some retain their strangle-hold opposition under the pretense of a hyped-up Gender Neutral argument.
Glad to see VAWA may live again, but disappointing that there wasn't a bigger push to continue the U-Visa provision. This has served to increase reporting of domestic violence in the undocumented community, and the failure to continue it leaves these women no recourse unless they are prepared to risk deportation. Here's hoping the provision will rise again if those imbeciles in Congress actually address comprehensive immigration reform.
One simple question: Who in the name of tarnation (you can guess at my expletives here) would vote against the violence against women act? Idiots who beat up women? Monsters who get their friblies by thinking of beating up women? Good God in heaven or wherever, what kind of insane world do we live in? PASS the damned act and stop behaving like a bunch of testosterone-crazed adolescents!