Getty Images
Sen. Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) is one of the lead sponsors of VAWA in the Senate.
It's been about a week since a bipartisan Senate majority overcame far-right opposition and reauthorized the Violence Against Women Act. All eyes quickly turned to the House, where VAWA died in the last Congress.
Though it's unclear what might happen in the lower chamber, we may not have to wait much longer to find out -- the Huffington Post reports that House Republican leaders intend to "move forward on legislation reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act as soon as next week." Whether the House votes on the Senate bill or its own watered-down version remains to be seen.
While the process unfolds on Capitol Hill, though, I'm still fascinated by arguments from VAWA opponents. We talked a few weeks ago, for example, about the religious right movement's efforts to kill the bill because VAWA is used "to lobby for feminist objectives and laws." Today, National Review's Andrew Stiles raises a new line of criticism I hadn't heard before.
Welcome to the scorched-earth phase of the Democrats' "war on women" campaign, and the beginning of a ruthless offensive to hold their Senate majority, and possibly to retake the House, in 2014.
Democrats have nearly perfected the following exercise in cynical electioneering: 1) introduce legislation; 2) title it something that appeals to the vast majority of Americans who have no interest in learning what is actually in the bill, e.g., the "Violence Against Women Act"; 3) make sure it is sufficiently noxious to the GOP that few Republicans will support it; 4) vote, and await headlines such as "[GOP Lawmaker] Votes No On Violence Against Women Act"; 5) clip and use headline in 30-second campaign ad; and 6) repeat.
So, let me get this straight. Nearly two decades ago, Democrats and Republicans easily approved the Violence Against Women Act. It's been reauthorized since with overwhelming, bipartisan support (As recently as 2005, there was a GOP majority in the House, and VAWA was reauthorized on a vote of 415 to 4).
And now the same proposal is, what, a fiendish electoral scheme hatched by Democrats in their quest for a House majority? National Review thinks it's less likely policymakers simply want to help prevent domestic violence and more likely that cooked up a "ruthless" partisan plot in 1994, the results of which we're seeing now?
Leave a Comment:
National Review's Andrew Stiles is an unfinished piece of art, and his "artist" has been dead for years!
What a bunch of cockamamie balderdash - rubbish - in its full display! Stiles' hair is rather dusty as his analysis is offered in a vacuum, and his intellectual honesty is non-existent!
Hey dude over there at the National Review did it dawn on you you are merely a political hack willing to write any nonsense you think will further your myopic view of who is worthy and who is not, or at least muddle the political debate to prey upon unassuming Americans who have more important things to do than be confused by your cynical screed!
Just for you Stiles - your name sake is explained in full by the lyrics of Neil Young's song, For the Turn Stiles! Check it out, it's on the On the Beach album where Mr. Young also has a song regarding Charlie Manson's hold on unassuming young Americans!
Maybe, Mr. Stiles, you and Charlie were separated at birth! -Kevo
I wonder where he got the idea that legislation is not something people hope will find enough support to be voted into law, but is more to be regarded as a noisemaker toy for delivering partisan messages.
Oh where oh where could he have gotten that idea. Could it be:
I wonder. I wonder.
Made sure to recommend based on the music reference (as well as the attack on Stiles). That album is chock full of applicable wisdom. From "Ambulance Blues":
I never knew a man
Could tell so many lies
He had a different story
For every set of eyes
How can he remember
Who he's talking to?
'Cause I know it ain't me,
And I hope it isn't you.
This is especially rich given that Republicans practically invented the "name a bill so that it completely obscures what it actually does" game.
Incurious George was famous for this. Remember the "Clear Skies Initiative", which basically threw industrial air pollution regulations down the toilet? How about the bush "Healthy Forests Act" which opened up millions of acres of federal forestland up to be mown down and sold to Japan and China for the private profit of the rapacious, slash-and-burn timber barons?
Those republicans--they've raised disingenuous obfuscation to the lowest of artforms.
You have to understand from whence they came. Read some of the republican backed bills in this State. Republicans are masters at writing bills in such a manner as to get unpopular measures passed by A)wording it so that voting no means yes B)titling it as if it is a bill to help the poor like calling it a medicare reform when it in fact guts medicare.
The very idea that the republicans are trying to pin this on dems is laughable. Democratic bills are written in english and explained in detail. Of course the republicans do love to jump in and confuse people by attaching false claims to the bills (even when they are forced to retract those claims their minions continue to spread them)
So it seems we once more hear the echo of "Have you no shame,..."
House
eyesogles Violence Against Women ActFixed that.
House eyes
oglesViolence Against WomenAct.Republicans regard history like those old "Magic eye" posters
You have to let your eyes unfocus and your vision get fuzzy in order to make out what is hidden underneath
only the problem is that in this case there really isn't anything there beyond what is conjured up by their imagination
"We should support whatever the enemy opposes and oppose whatever the enemy supports." - Chairman Mao -- It appears that the Republicans have been absorbing the wise teachings of Mao Tse Tung.
What do you expect from people who watch Glen Beck Internet TV?
Buerre Says:
"The National Violence Against Women Act, even though men are covered as well and it is not called The National Violence Against EVERYBODY Act has a few Constitutional problems within the framework of the proposed legislation, the least of those problems being "gender-prejudicial" against men. But I digress:
1. The Federal Courts DO NOT want to get involved in every domestic violence case that is prosecuted in the State courts. It takes Orders of Protection and prosecution out of the hands of the States, where criminal law is adjudicated, and sets it squarely on the doorstep of the Federal Court system.
2. The Federal Courts are designed to address issues of Federal concern. The Federal Courts are not designed as a collection agency for every divorce case or Order of Protection that comes down the pike. Based on the number of domestic violence cases that are reported each and every year, such an influx of cases would be cost-prohibitive and actually add to the Federal deficit, instead of delivering justice in a timely and efficient manner...to the victims...to the children...
3. The money lost in trying these cases in Federal Court would be better-spent on informational and educational programs at the local and State level. Nearly all of the individual states allow for victim's recompensation in civil cases; that is, criminal cases that require restitution involve court-fees, administrative costs and the like. A civil proceeding for damages may be brought in a civil court for the benefit of an aggrieved party, and State juries are far more likely to award greater damages to a victim than a Federal court would.
4. Passing a law is not going to stop individuals from committing violent crimes, no matter what gender they are. There are already laws with significant penalties on the books in each and every state. A few of these laws include:
1. Battery
2. Assault and Battery
3. Aggravated Assault
In many States, additional penalties and mandatory jail time are added for habitual abusers and violent individuals. The government does not have enough money to build more prisons to house "federal domestic violence offenders," which is where the jurisdiction would fall if this Act were ratified.
There is no way in "H-E- Double Hockeysticks" that the Republicans are going to give the Federal Government police power over codified State crimes; Republicans hate big gov'ment, unless they are the ones making it bigger. This is all covered at any local Community College. You may have to turn off the reruns of "What's Happening" and enroll in a class to figure this out.
Google: Federal Courts USA
Women's rights are a Federal concern, don't you think? It effects all of us, men and women. When women are treated with the same dignity afforded to men, there will be no need for this type of legislation. A man killing his wife spends a lot less time in prison than a woman who kills her husband.
There is a woman in Florida who fired warning shots over her abusive husband's head, and she was awarded 20 years in prison for "standing her ground." There was a restraining order on her husband for abusive behavior. She got the jail time.
Paranoid deminted mentally deranged people can be smart, or clever, and do have a perspective. Their only problem is getting their perspective accepted by others then - in defense of objection or protest - to declare that they - the sickos - are right and everyone else is wrong.
The National Violence Against Women Act has had many, many changes to the wording of it. For example, they had to strike the request that individuals "charged" with a crime be forced to submit to mandatory HIV testing. There is an inherent Constitutional problem with that. The best thing that this ACT did was establish, in the US Department of Justice, an Office dedicated to Violence prevention. Since we are all created equally under the United States Constitution and Declaration of Independence, and since we enjoy due process under the 14th amendment of the Constitution, it would be discriminatory to establish an office that dedicated Federal monies ONLY for the benefit of women. Since female on male violence is not a phenomenon but A FACT, it would behoove all of us to educate ourselves on what is and what is not acceptable behavior in the home and in the workplace. The Federal Government keeps statistics on violent crime in this country, and violent, malicious and murderous women are featured prominently in those statistics. The U.S. Department of Justice has those figures, and they are easily accessible at their website.
Domestic Violence Fact: Women are more likely to kill their children than men.
Source: U.S. Department of Justice
Fact: The Constitution states that "All Men Are Created Equal". This is also discrimination. Until the Constitution states that "All People are Created Equal" or "All Men and Women Are Created Equal", there is a need for the Violence Against Women Act. For the same reason, there is a need for Paycheck Fairness. Women are not protected equally under the law, and these are measures to address that. The best change will be when the ERA passes.
WWW.USDOJ.GOV
This is the website for the United States Department of Justice. They have many interesting articles and data on different aspects of "Domestic Violence" in the United States. State government websites may contain statistics as well, because they are the providers of this information to the United States Federal Government.
Women are more likely than men to kill their children...
1. Andrea Yates stacked her kids like cordwood after drowning them in a bathtub.
2. That lady in North Carolina who drove her medicated children into a retention pond and drowned them. She was having a bad day.
Google: Women who Kill and the men who forgive them
Strawman alert
Why do I get the feeling that you got beat up by a girl (probably a LIBERAL girl) on the school playground? You seem bitter, and scared.
VAWA is used "to lobby for feminist objectives and laws."
Yeah and your point is? The churchies have a whole hell of a lot of nerve to even speak much less to express that! I guess I've just got to stop reading the "news".
God is obviously a misogynist!
Looking forward to seeing you in Houston!! {;>)
It is unimaginable to me that anyone would object to VAWA in this day and age.
"By thy self shall ye know others" comes to mind. Republicans have been practicing the set-up-and-blame game for some time now. Not entirely successfully, I might add. Nevertheless, once you practice the game, you become paranoid that it will be practiced upon you. And/or you start practicing set-up-and-blame 2.0, in which you preemptively accuse others of the same dirty tricks you yourself have been turning, as when Republicans claimed the Democrats had won the election by disenfranchising voters.
I just do not get it why the right wing opposes equal rights ? Is it necessary part of the conservative mindset to harbor prejudices ? They might not call them so. Principles.
I took a moment to read that National Review article mentioned. It doesn't really give any reasons why Republicans are voting against it, except for a brief mention about non-Native Americans and tribal courts. Their main argument seems to be that the Democrats are in favor of it.
The Republicans accuse the Democrats of a 'scorched earth' campaign and their only real problem with the legislation is that Democrats support it. Who's really playing politics with women's lives. The answer is obvious.
There is literally a break down in the rule of law for women on the furthest flung margins of our society. This abstract argument about jurisdiction is an obscenity. The women on reservations I grew up near are being denied justice because of these petty delays. These women are not abstractions. Please for the love of God we cannot live in a country where literally the rule of law does not apply to our most vulnerable. We should not read about gang rapes in the United States of America and expect nothing is going to be done about it. Please read and share this article.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/02/on-indian-land-criminals-can-get-away-with-almost-anything/273391/