icki/Flickr
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy (D-Vt.)
Just six weeks after Republicans in the last Congress blocked reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, the Democratic Senate made the law a top priority and approved the bill in a lopsided vote this afternoon.
The Senate voted overwhelmingly Tuesday afternoon to pass legislation reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act with expanded protections for gays, undocumented immigrants and Native American women who suffer from domestic abuse.
The final vote of 78-22 came after the Senate rejected Republican-sponsored amendments to replace the bill with a scaled-back reauthorization and to eliminate a provision permitting Native American courts to try non-Native Americans accused of domestic abuse on tribal lands, which many Republicans say is unconstitutional.
The legislation also adopted an amendment by VAWA's chief sponsor, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), providing law enforcement more tools to combat human trafficking (by a 93-5 vote), and another by Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) to make sure child victims of sex trafficking are eligible to receive grant assistance (by a 100-0 vote).
For the record, the five senators who took an inexplicable stand against a measure to combat human trafficking were Republican Sens. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), and Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.).
As for the final vote on VAWA, all 22 votes against the proposal were Republican men. Indeed, it's worth noting that there are only 45 Senate Republicans total, so just about half of the GOP caucus opposed reauthorizing a bipartisan bill intended to help combat domestic violence. These Republicans -- including Sen. Marco Rubio and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell -- knew VAWA would pass the Senate anyway, but wanted to be on record against the law.
The total of 22 GOP opponents was, however, down slightly from the 31 Senate Republicans who voted against the Violence Against Women Act in the last Congress. Perhaps this is what passes for "progress" in contemporary conservative politics?
VAWA now moves to the House, which is where it died in the last Congress, and where it may once more run into right-wing opposition.
As recently as 2005, there was a Republican majority in the House, but the Violence Against Women Act was reauthorized on a vote of 415 to 4. No, that's not a typo. But as Republicans became increasingly radicalized, the bill that garnered 415 votes a few Congresses ago couldn't even get 218 votes last year.
It's unclear whether House GOP leaders will even consider the Senate bill, but it's worth noting that some House Republicans are tiring of their party's games on this issue.
More than a dozen House Republicans sent a letter to their party leaders on Monday night urging them to "immediately" reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act with a bipartisan bill -- something the House failed to do in the last Congress.
"Now is the time to seek bipartisan compromise on the reauthorization of these programs," reads the letter to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), signed by 17 House Republicans. "VAWA programs save lives, and we must allow states and communities the opportunity to build upon the success of current VAWA programs so that we can help even more people."
We'll see what happens -- I'm cautiously optimistic -- but in case electoral considerations matter, I'd note that Republicans lost badly in the 2012 elections, thanks in part to the largest gender gap in modern times.
If the GOP intends to improve its standing, it may want to reconsider the wisdom of killing the Violence Against Women Act twice.
Leave a Comment:
I don't think that they care too much about general elections. The ones voting against the VAWA are doing it because in their particular neck of the woods they have to worry about people even further into the sewer than they are, so they want to be somewhere to the right of Ghengis Khan. Otherwise their voters will think that they're working with the Democrats.
And they wonder why the AMERICAN PEOPLE voted President Obama back into office?
Republicans are a vote againt women.
I would go as far as to say a vote for Republicans is a vote for stupidity and governmental policies from the 20s.
All we need now is for the GOPT representatives to get off their dead, fat behinds and give this bill the votes needed to pass.
I thought Rubio was supposed to be the new voice of the party? Sounds like the same old voice to me.
.....but wanted to be on record against the law.
There's a primary season coming up..... gots ta woo the knuckle draggin' element.
Iffin' Dems are for it I'm agin' it.
It's OK you dick. We'll remember and use it in ads when you try to get the women's vote
Now we see if Boehner will invoke the Hastert rule, and if so, whether Pelosi will crush him with a Discharge Petition.
If Boehner brings a floor vote, would it set a precedent, implying loss of his position as House leader?
These Republicans -- including Sen. Marco Rubio ....
And he's on the 2016 short list? The Dems will pound him with this if he runs.
In their upside down world, VAWA makes women weaker: the "logic" being that seeking protection from the government makes one more vulnerable. Of course, you and I know that's a crock, but somewhere I assume they have focus group data that backs them up. Yeah, the Democrats can try to exploit them on the issue, but as long as mainstream media outlets insist on playing the "both sides of the issue" game, Rubio can take a pass.
And so they should. No woman should vote for him...not one.
To vote for this bill is a small step forward for women. Maybe baby steps for the GOP.
and it will die in the house just like before.
OK Boehner...show YOUR 'guts' and PASS THIS BILL!!!
Unfortunately it appears that John Boehner's courage may come only from a bottle.
I'm okay with that. I'll happily supply him with enough liquid courage to bring this up for a vote.
Just maybe those 17 House GOTP'ers recalled the shellacking that they've just taken, or maybe they still have a heart/brain when it comes to women's issues.....
Whatever it is, I'm glad that they did draft and sent that letter to the "Speaker" - maybe now he'll stop whining.....
The wives, mothers, daughters, and sisters of those 22 "men" should be ashamed for their male relative!
Irresponsible. Reprehensible. Illogical. To vote against VAWA.
Those 22 GOP Senators have thus voted FOR rape, domestic violence, human trafficking, and other criminal acts against women. Violence is non-discriminatory, even if their vote isn't. Thus, they have voted to support continued violence against their female constituents, against THEIR wives, mothers, daughters, sisters, aunts, etc.
This is one of those issues and pieces of legislation where one is either part of the solution - or - part of the problem. A "no" vote represents being part of the problem.
Appalling.
Well stated ang-1652651. I try to remember that unless you've "walked in the other's shoes" you may not be seeing the whole picture. Or, for example, I like to remember that to "keep your enemies close" is a way to know/understand them better. Because of this, I occasionally read or listen to those folks whose opinions differ from mine on important issues such as the VAWA and Roe vs Wade. (It is usually an uncomfortable experience — can't spend too much time there.) Your comments about wives, mothers, daughters, sisters, aunts brings the issue to a fine focus. And it is this, and this alone, that I come back to when I try to understand how a person could believe that Roe vs Wade or VAWA, for example should not be supported. It is unbelievable to me that a person would oppose legal protections for their female loved ones' physical safety or personal rights.
Have any of you actually read the bill? It's insane. It also turns a shouting match between Mom & Dad into a FEDERAL CRIME so long as ONE PERSON claims they have mental distress! Please tell me you people aren't THAT stupid and desperate for another "feel good" law? Sure, there are provisions that will help women, but like EVERY bill before the DemocRATic Senate, they sneak in stuff that has nothing to do with the "eye-catching" VAWA title.
Please show me that part of the bill, because I didn't see it.
Unassigned: Have YOU actually read the bill? Or -- just the "talking points" of Heritage Action - which FALSELY makes the similar claim?
Please see the link to the Ntl Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women - Fact Sheet countering the false/misleading statements by Heritage Action: http://4vawa.org/pages/resources-research.
I can assure you that I don't need another "feel good" law -- but even if that is "all" this is --- at least it is SOMETHING. And should you or one of your loved ones ever find themselves on the abused side - am wondering about what you will think about VAWA's provisions then?
You missed the info from the Concerned Women for America.
That's the group who also claims that it was created to fill feminist coffers and promote active hatred of men.
mistake
How a bout we assign you back to the Moron Brigade from whence you came, little brainless wingnut PoS? You're behind on your schedule for fornicating your sheep, little boy. Turn off the Faux Snooze and perhaps you'll get that single-digit positive-number IQ back.
So those 22 republicans Rubio included believe that women are just objects meant for pulverizing. I hope the ladies and sane men of his state remember how he voted come his next election.
They've probably been reading that wingnut best seller, "The 1872 Husband", about men wielding their prerogatives and the "little woman" knowing the penalty for getting "uppity."
This is unbelievable to me. Is their position in power all that they care about? At what point do you actually take a stand for what is right?
Of course, they may have voted against it because it is a lousy law, but don't let that interfere with your rhetoric.
Do tell Yardpilot, proceed as to just how lousy this particular law happens to be! Let us know your insight! -Kevo
Back to the yard, pilot, you're behind in your quota for sheep fornicating today.
Let's have us a FOXNEWS moment and ask the 22 dear Senators if they've stopped beating their wives yet! -Kevo
The GOP: Protecting guns...not women
Oh I like that ..I am totally stealing it
Shout that from the rooftops!
GOP: Guns have more constitutional rights than American woman.
(opps - the rhetoric keyboard got out of control.)
With this NO vote Rubio is over before he even begins. Remember this Marco, the bigots in the party that hate a black president will also destroy a Latino.
two words Marco . Michael Steele
MSNBC ain't going to hire you after you're done
The Republicans actions on this bill and the war on women's rights are going to boomerang. When they attacked voting rights, the voters turned out in large numbers to vote in states that tried to restrict voting. Likewise, attacking women's rights will do the same in the upcoming elections. But not only will women turn out to vote, but they will be running for more offices and some of those will be in red states and districts. The North Dakota senate election is going to be repeated on many levels of government when more women challenge incumbent politicians some of whom will lose in upsets.
Here's the complete list, broken down by region
West:
Jim Risch (Idaho), Orrin Hatch (Utah), Mike Lee (Utah), John Barrasso (Wyo.), Mike Enzi (Wyo.)
Plains:
Chuck Grassley (Iowa), Pat Roberts (Kansas), Roy Blunt (Mo.), Mike Johanns (Neb.)
Midwest:
Ron Johnson (Wisc.) [That one really sticks out, hope who ever runs against him next election hangs it around his neck.]
South:
Jeff Sessions (Ala.), John Boozman (Ark.), Marco Rubio (Fla.), Mitch McConnell (Ky.),
Rand Paul (Ky.), Tom Coburn (Okla.), James Inhofe (Okla.), John Cornyn (Texas),
Ted Cruz (Texas), Lindsey Graham (S.C.), Tim Scott (S.C.).
One blue state vote, two swing state votes [including "moderate" Rubio], 19 red state votes.
No "no" votes from New England, The Northeast, The Mid-Altantic or the West Coast....and one lonely vote from the upper Midwest.
All the female Senators voted yes.
half from the south...surprising. I'm happy that my state doesn't appear on that list
I'd be fascinated to hear that argument. The knots they must tie themselves in to put a constitutional wrapper around "can't let them injuns put a white man on trial for actions in their jurisdiction" must be amazing.
So, at least 22 Senators will be sleeping on the couch tonight.
Depends on if they are paying cash.
I'm somewhat optimistic about my district and the district I use to be in (before gerrymandering in 2010). My representative (KS-3rd District) although represented by a republican, is also represented by a woman (Lynn Jenkins). She's pretty conservative, but I seriously doubt she'd vote against it. Kansas's 2nd district is represented by a pro-gay republican Kevin Yoder (or at least he use to be, in the state assembly). I am optimistic about those two specifically...if it could happen in Kansas, I'm sure it could happen in far less conservative states. We'll see though...
I am pleased to see that one of my state's senators, Dan Coats, for once did not register a crazy, ultra right wing vote. It is really disappointing to me that this one-time sane Republican (he even voted for gun control once upon a time!!) had been acting like a Tea Party representative lately. I guess that is what we get in the era of the Citizens United decision.
.
are we not a Democratic/Republic? Boehner shoulkd simply bring it to the floor for an up/down vote to understand where this truly stands.