Senate Democrats/Flickr
Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), seen in the center, has been the Democratic point person on the Violence Against Women Act.
In the last Congress, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) played a critical role in blocking reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. In this Congress, Cantor was so eager to get VAWA passage over with, he told House Republicans yesterday to either clear the way for the already passed Senate version or risk causing a "civil war" within the party.
The warning appears to have had an effect. Indeed, the VAWA plan we discussed yesterday was executed this morning exactly as intended.
The final legislation passed the lower chamber by a vote of 286 to 138 after a protracted battle over an expansion of the law and its impact in tribal communities. A majority of Republicans voted against the legislation, with 87 GOP members and all Democrats supporting it.
Republican leaders first tried to pass a House-drafted version of the bill, which Democrats said did not do enough to protect gay couples, immigrants and Native Americans. That measure failed by a vote of 166 to 257.
The House then passed the same five-year reauthorization that was approved by Senate by an overwhelming majority in February.
Because the House passed the expansive Senate version -- and rejected the watered-down alternative -- VAWA will now go directly to the White House, where it will receive President Obama's signature.
Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), who has been the Democratic point person on the Violence Against Women Act, told me this morning, "This is a long delayed, hard won, and badly needed victory for millions of women, especially those who were told that they weren't worthy of VAWA's protections. It means that finally, after over 16 months of struggle, tribal women, the LGBT community, immigrants, and women on college campuses will have the tools and resources this life-saving bill provides.
For those counting on the law's protections and resources, today's vote is obviously excellent news. But in a purely political context, the difficult process offered some illuminating lessons.
First, after 20 years of overwhelming bipartisan support, opposition to the Violence Against Women is now the mainstream Republican position. About half the Republicans in the Senate voted against the law, as did more than half the Republicans in the House.
As recently as 2005, there was a Republican majority in the House, for example, and VAWA was reauthorized in a lopsided, near-unanimous vote. Since then, the number of House GOP members opposed to the law has grown from 2 to 138. What was a fringe position in 2005 is now the GOP majority position in 2013.
Second, we're learning something important about House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and the so-called "Hastert Rule." For those who need a refresher, under modern Republican norms, the Speaker only considers legislation that enjoys "majority of the majority" support -- if most GOP House members oppose a measure, it won't even be considered, whether it can pass the chamber or not.
The non-binding rule is great for party discipline, but lousy for democracy and governing.
For Boehner's part, the Speaker had long believed in enforcing the "Hastert Rule," but he's finding far more flexibility on the issue than we're accustomed to seeing. When it was time to approve the "fiscal cliff" deal, Boehner ignored the rule to pass a bipartisan Senate plan. When he needed to pass relief aid to Hurricane Sandy victims, he bypassed the rule again.
At the time, the Speaker said these were isolated incidents that wouldn't be repeated, but here we are again -- most of Boehner's caucus opposed the Violence Against Women Act, but he brought it to the floor and passed it anyway.
To reiterate a point from several weeks ago, this may seem like inside baseball, but it's extremely important. If Boehner, in the name of getting stuff done, is open to bringing important bills to the floor, and passing them with mostly-Democratic support, there's an opportunity for real governing in the near future. It means comprehensive immigration reform is more likely, and popular measures on preventing gun violence may have a credible chance of success.
If the Hastert Rule is unraveling, that's very good news, indeed.
Leave a Comment:
Another five year extension. Because, after five years, the Age of Aquarius will be in full bloom, and men will no longer feel the urge to beat women.
Just like the overturn of the Voting Rights Act in the Supreme Court, because we now embrace our Black Brothers and Sisters, give them rides to the polls, and offer them our place in line.
Can you just hear those Walt Disney blue birds singing?
Exactly so.
Imagine if Murder were up to a vote every 5 years.
Does not work that way. The so-called I am the boss males have been taught through Bible classes has to be changed to I am an equal partner with my wife and she has a right to declare her objections in decisions as I do and therefore men will be equal partners. I hate when men call me boss it is an insult to may feelings and the teachings of the most sane faith on the earth. See bahai.org for teachings on this issue.
David you can thank the Catholic Church for that atrocity, because of their craving for power, control, and greed. Just like they want to elect another man to be Pope of which they are all just men. Anybody of any real spirituality is not even at the so-called Vatican. Those people are out here in the world where they know they belong and these people certainly do not listen to any Pope, Bishop, Cardinal or preacher around of any church. If these people get spiritual insight, it is from God, Jesus, and the light not some self proclaimed man and they certainly do not impose unrealistic rules on people. Life is hard enough than to be doing nonsense crap.
In general, Deb, I agree with your comment. However, to say there is no spirituality on anybody's part at the Vatican is pure puffery. Stating your opinion as a fact does not make it a fact.
Too bad the 87 Republics With Brains don't separate from the Confederate morons, declare themselves the Real Republican Party, join with the Democrats in a Coalition to Save the Union, take the power away from the traitors, and institute constitutional republican (smal "r") government again? Let the Southern traitors go back to the swamps they belong in. And cut off Federal welfare payments to their districts.
I agree, these anarchist clowns in libertarian disguise (who boldly boast that they cannot spell in their native tongue) should be sent to the swamps to fester. The South should die, again.
"Confederate morons"
These states were not part of the Confederacy and they had reps that voted "No":
MD, KS, IA, MI, Il, AZ, MN, CO, ID...... need I go on?
Take your prejudices elsewhere, please.
Confederate: N. one associated with another in wrongdoing. Synonyms: traitor, conspirator, collaborationist.
I think that about covers the morons who voted No.
Traitors- just like those of the old South- present day breathing versions included. Traitors against democracy, traitors against constitutional protections on voting rights, traitors against constitutional protected rights over one's own body.
Or do you regard labeling such people as seditious traitors is evidence of Yankee prejudice against good old boy hijinx against people with brown/black skin/ people with ladyparts?
I'll take a glimmer of good news where I can get it. The House passage of the VAWA is very good news.
Women by the millions are now going to thow their support behind these wonderful right wing politicians who have such palpable concerns for the ladies...
I am glad this passed, but I think it should have been permanent. Why should women go back to being raped and beaten in five years?
If non-native American men do not want to face prosecution in a tribal court for abusing a Native American woman, they should not victimize and abuse Native women, or any other woman for that matter.
While I hear you, I feel the same way about the Voting Rights Act that is now so "controversial" to the SCOTUS. Frankly both of them should be permanent, but Neanderthal-ism is alive & well.....
Zora: I thought of adding the Voting Rights Act point but got lazy. The Voting Rights Act even has a provision for jurisdictions to opt out if they prove they have a clean record.
My GOP representative from NC Renee Ellmers voted NO. Now as the state has a new GOP governor I expect lots of regression in state. Already standing against ACA medicaid and choosing huge reductions to UI, amount and duration.
My idiot Republican rep from NC, Robert Pittenger, voted NO as well, just as I assumed he would. I don't think you need to "expect" lots of regression here any more, Tamik -- I think we're already sliding backwards just as fast as the GOP can push us. It's terrifying.
I live in New York, one of the bluest of blue states, and I'm terrified for my sisters in the reddest of red states.
With all due respect, it's not just red states suffering with insane reps. My rep, Joe Pitts (PA-16) was a hearty no vote. Interestingly, he voted FOR its reauthorization in 2005. So, has he decided it's no longer necessary? Or is he just against provisions to include LGBT, native Americans, undocumented women? Of course, Joe won't say...his office will just belch out more press releases about him standing up to ACORN, etc.
There is no legitimate reason for not passing this bill and making it permanent. How do the men who voted against this go home and face their wives?
Worse yet, how can women justify voting against this. And 5 years from now we face the same thing? Ridiculous!
Because their wives are clones of Suzanne Venker.
Another Republican mess cleaned up by the Dems. How many more messes do Dems have to clean up before they start demanding a quid pro quo? It is time for Dems to force Boehner to bring other legislation to the floor instead of letting Dems save the Republicans from their idiots on selective issues. The price for the next Boehner bailout should be a major piece of legislation like the sequester.
Hastert Rule, what Hastert Rule - our democracy doesn't need no stinking Hastert Rule! -Kevo
I don't think that Boehner is ignoring the Hastert rule because of "in the name of getting stuff done," He's ignoring it because he doesn't have a choice. Not bringing this bill or the others that were mentioned to a vote would have been completely disastrous to every republican. They realize that 50+% of the voters are women. But the majority of the republican caucus can't think that far ahead and are only interested in keeping women in their place.
I called my representative to encourage him to support the bill. Kvetching is fine. Action is better.
I certainly hope that women keep the count of those republicans that voted against it, and make them pay in 2014. These people have a problem, they all fell asleep in their basic math class, they can't count, women are 51% of the electorate and 56% of the acttual vote, why do they want to continue to fight against women I do not understand. It is beyond comprehension, like someone said before "stupid does, what sstupid does" or something like that.
All of our women's activists' groups worked very hard for this successful conclusion, especially here in Virginia. As you all know, women's rights are continuously under attack in the Commonwealth which, oddly enough, positions us well to engage in rapid response efforts to legislation meant to destroy women's rights. We are also becoming undeniably adept at quickly organizing in support of legislation advancing women's rights. Keep an eye on the women in Virginia! We're tested every step of the way and we need national support to help us hold them back! Rachel, please keep Virginia in your line of vision! Thanks for your continued support!
But I see that Cantor voted "no"
WOW, does Cantor have more influence over the party than Boehner?
I assume that is a rhetorical question!
(Boner chose to ride this tiger- and now he can't get off!)
FINALLY. I'm glad it's done, but I wish I could feel better about it. The last 4 years of non-stop GOP obstruction is shameful. It disgusts me. And now the House goes home to await sequestration? Unbelievable.
None of the women in the Senate, not even the Republican women, voted no. Were there any women in the House who voted no?
Renee Ellmers of NC
Michelle Bachman
Would have been far more interesting to have a recap of the law than one on the intricacies of these games (for some!)
Yay! Though I am not LGBT or a native American woman I am a woman and this is evidence that civil rights can be passed one incremental vote at a time. Thank you for your persistence on this issue.
Well, at least something positive got done.
About freakin' time!
Wow, I sure am glad they finally made beating a single group of people illegal -_-
Women voters -- listen up! Or, read up -- the list of those that voted against this ... They are not your friend on this issue - or economic issues - on any other issue. (I think the same applies to the male population -- violence against a woman in a man's life (as a brother, son, husband, uncle) is violence against them as well, but know that it is not a shared perspective. Maybe one day...)
You do have power -- as long as you can find & wait in the line at your polling place -- to do something about this in 2014, 2016 & beyond.
Do it.
Vote.
I don't know if I should find this funny, sad, or a combination therein.
Does anyone remember when Maddowblog initially posted about the VAWA and it being filibustered/voted against by Republicans? All the daily Republican posters who blog here at Maddowblog were crying their hearts out about how this bill was sexist because it doesn't protect male victims of abuse. How dare our congress try to pass a law that wasn't focused on helping ALL victims of abuse! It's not just women who suffer at the hands of violence. Won't somebody please think about the male victims of violence?! And on and on the cries went.
Normally I'd be right there with someone supporting protection for all victims of abuse, but I always found it hard to believe that Republicans actually cared that anyone was a victim of abuse. Afterall if you really were that upset about people being abused wouldn't you want to pass this bill and just add an amendment that includes male victims? Or wouldn't you want to introduce a separate bill that was specifically focused on male victims and ride that PR gravy train express all the way? I couldn't figure out for the life of me what the rationale was for denying this bill on the basis of supposedly wanting equal protection for all. Passing a bill to protect women doesn't invariably mean that you have now suddenly stopped protecting men, nor does it mean that you can not pass another bill to protect men. So what was the big deal? And I asked our usual bloggers of blanks and the like to please give me an explanation (to which I was met with the usual: regurgitation of the same point, dismissal of the inherent stupidity of their own comment, and no direct answer).
And now I see that since the bill is on it's way to the White House our Republican friends are just BESIDE THEMSELVES with anger at how we're not protecting the male victims anymore, right? Right?
Whaaaaat? Not a single post bringing up this issue????! Oh! But it was all the rage on the last thread about the VAWA!!! Gee, could that quite possibly mean that Republicans really don't give 2 cents about male victims of abuse and that they were just using that as an excuse to not vote for the bill because the Republican Party has became so fringy and deluded with it's own anti-Obamanism that it's now pandering to the most sexist elements of it's makeup????
Pathetic.
With that rant over I am glad we are doing something to help victims of abuse. Here's to hoping that we'll have a future without violence against anyone. I'm glad to see our congress got something done and that it was something as important and protecting victims of abuse.
But, on another curmudgeony note, it does make me very sick to my stomach that there was ever any contention about the idea of helping victims of abuse. Seriously what will Republicans oppose next? School teachers, mom, and apple pie?
Well...they do hate teacher's unions....
Imagine there's no heaven,
It's easy if you try.
No hell below us,
Above us only sky.
Imagine all the people living for today,
You may say I'm a dreamer.....but it's a hell of a lot better than the nightmare that you insist upon.
There is nothing you can do that can't be done .
Nothing you can sing that can't be sung .
Nothing you can say but you can learn how to play the game .
It's easy .
Look! it passed can't you all just be happy with that and move on! Now lets get behind the Supreme court on supporting gay marriage rights. Maybe Obama the great one, will finally get off his duff and put some pressure on the court.