Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Are women not to be trusted?

Posted by on May. 18, 2012 at 11:32 AM
  • 21 Replies

 

America's Women Can't Be Trusted

When you strip everything away, that's the root of the GOP's campaign against abortion, contraception, and laws that protect women from domestic violence.

By |Posted Thursday, May 17, 2012, at 6:54 PM ET

 

Protest for gender equality.

Activists for women's rights demonstrate in Washington, D.C.

Joyce NALTCHAYAN/AFP/Getty Images.

Like many women who are also human beings, I've been following the twists and turns of the "War on Women" meme for weeks now, wondering what the heck it is we're all meant to be fighting about. It seems that some women are worried that a President Mitt Romney and Republican Congress would-as they have promised-move against fair pay for equal work, toss between 14 and 27 million people off Medicaid (of whom about two-thirds are women), cut child care, health care, and food assistance for about 20 million children, defund Planned Parenthood, do away with Title X, and maybe seat a Supreme Court willing to reverse Roe v. Wade. Republican women, in their defense, argue that these and other legislative initiatives don't constitute a war on women, so much as a difference in philosophy, or as 14 Republican Congresswomen put it yesterday in Politico: "We don't see our lives as a product of government handouts. In fact, we resent the idea that we owe our success to bureaucrats, and not our own initiative." As the writers conclude, "We have a right to be self-confident, and we have a right to be suspicious of politicians who say we should be dependent on government programs."

But what's so striking about so many of the GOP initiatives that implicate women this year is that they betray not a deep suspicion of "politicians who say we should be dependent on government programs," but rather a deep suspicion of other women. Underpinning virtually every changed rule and policy, every effort to defund and repeal, lies an argument about the ways in which women are trying to defraud the government and simply can't be trusted.

Start with the Violence Against Women Act, which was passed in 1994 and was reauthorized twice without fuss, but became snarled up yesterday when the House passed a GOP-sponsored version that expressly rolls back protections for Native American women, immigrants, and gay Americans. That version passed, despite the fact that over 320 advocacy groups opposed it, and Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski cautioned that "We should not let politics pick and choose which victims of abuse to help and which to ignore." The White House has threatened a veto.

But what is it about immigrant women that makes protecting them so controversial? As Michelle Goldberg writes today, "It's not entirely clear why the House is so determined to gut VAWA. The immigrant protection provisions have broad backing-they're supported not just by the National Organization for Women but by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the National Association of Evangelicals. The groups that oppose them, on the other hand, are fairly marginal." One of the arguments that these groups (which include the foreign bride lobby) make against protecting immigrant women from their abusers is that there has been widespread bride fraud. Supposedly large numbers of immigrant women come to the United States and then lie about being beaten as a means of fraudulently obtaining visas. (Never mind that these women require police and hospital reports to back their claims.) According to this chilling report by Anna North, Bill Ronan, one of those who has pushed hardest to curtail immigrant protections, claims that countless men in America have lost their homes and financial well-being to fraudulent allegations of domestic violence by immigrant partners. Or as he puts it: "We have welcomed many scam artists into our country."

I'm just going to say that again: The GOP version of VAWA proposes to weaken protections for all immigrant women based on a claim that throngs of scamming immigrant women feign spousal abuse to get visas.

Rest of the story here.

What are your thoughts on this story?

by on May. 18, 2012 at 11:32 AM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
godotherightthi
by on May. 18, 2012 at 12:40 PM
6 moms liked this

 I see it the opposite...liberals view women as so weak that they need the government to intervene to force businesses and tax payers to fund those things for them.

Jambo4
by Gold Member on May. 18, 2012 at 1:15 PM
2 moms liked this


Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:

 

America's Women Can't Be Trusted

When you strip everything away, that's the root of the GOP's campaign against abortion, contraception, and laws that protect women from domestic violence.

What are your thoughts on this story?

My thoughts?  To be honest.. I started laughing after the title and didn't read any further... Maybe if I'm bored later I'll try to get past the title but it's Friday and the weeds are calling me...

Pema_Jampa
Report
Only on CafeMom...
Tuesday at 6:51 PM
by Celeste on May. 18, 2012 at 1:18 PM

There are no conservatives on government assistance? 


Pema_Jampa
Report
Only on CafeMom...
Tuesday at 6:51 PM
by Celeste on May. 18, 2012 at 1:20 PM
1 mom liked this

We want our laws only to protect certain people against violence? Really? 

Yes until they are the ones not being protected. 


Pema_Jampa
Report
Only on CafeMom...
Tuesday at 6:51 PM
by Celeste on May. 18, 2012 at 1:21 PM

No healthcare for the poor. GOP motto :

imagirlgeek
by Bronze Member on May. 18, 2012 at 1:39 PM

Where do y'all think we live??  If a person is getting beat on, and they call the cops, the cops do not first ask if you are a citizen of the U.S., straight or gay, or Native American.  If you are being abused and need to go to a shelter, you are not asked if you are a citizen, gay, or a Native American.  For the life of me, I just can't understand why so many people think we need to define rules and laws for specific groups of people.  It is those lawmakers who are creating limits by defining people by group! 

--------------------------------------------
You don't have to be judgmental and be like "Oh, he's using his freedom the wrong way!  I want him to use his freedom the way I use my freedom!"  You can't do that. You have to be tolerant.  People say "Oh no, you can't be tolerant. What if they do something you don't like?" Tolerance does not mean endorsement.  -- Ron Paul
Pema_Jampa
Report
Only on CafeMom...
Tuesday at 6:51 PM
by Celeste on May. 18, 2012 at 1:42 PM

A few weeks ago, the Senate approved the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act fairly easily, with a 68 to 31 vote. Though all 31 opponents were Republican men, the measure enjoyed at least some bipartisan support.

But the measure still has to get through the Republican-led House, which will vote on its own, watered-down version of VAWA today. The White House, hoping to make matters clear to the lower chamber, issued a veto threat yesterday, saying the House GOP version is unacceptable.

The House GOP bill is stripped of expanded protections included in the Senate-passed version, which extends coverage to gay, bisexual, and transgender victims of domestic abuse.

"For instance, H.R. 4970 fails to provide for concurrent special domestic-violence criminal jurisdiction by tribal authorities over non-Indians, and omits clarification of tribal courts' full civil jurisdiction regarding certain protection orders over non-Indians," the White House said in a statement.

"The bill also fails to include language that would prohibit discrimination against LGBT victims in VAWA grant programs. No sexual-assault or domestic-violence victim should be beaten, hurt, or killed because they could not access needed support, assistance, and protection."

The Violence Against Women Act has been a bipartisan success story for nearly two decades, and this year's reauthorization was not expected to be one of the year's more contentious disputes. But the Senate version, co-written by a liberal Democrat (Vermont's Pat Leahy) and a conservative Republican (Idaho's Mike Crapo), is apparently too much for the House.

So, the Republicans have gutted the Senate version. Indeed, the House proposal "adds burdensome, counter-productive requirements that compromise the ability of service providers to reach victims, fails to adequately protect Tribal victims, lacks important protection and services for LGBT victims, weakens resources for victims living in subsidized housing, and eliminates important improvements to address dating violence and sexual assault on college campuses. Among the most troubling components of this bill are those that jettison and drastically undercut existing and important, long-standing protections that remain vital to the safety and protection of battered immigrant victims."

House Republicans are likely to pass their version anyway, sending VAWA to a conference committee. Time will tell how that turns out. But in the meantime, when it comes to assessing the GOP's efforts to undermine women's interests in 2012, the fact that Republicans are putting the Violence Against Women Act in jeopardy clearly deserves a place on a very long list.

bluespagan
by on May. 18, 2012 at 1:44 PM
1 mom liked this

 I don't get how GOP women say that liberal women are weak because we let the gov. dicatate our lives.

The gov is not dictating out lives but ensuring that our freedoms are protected through laws on gender discrimination, domestic violence, rape and a womans choice.  There is no dictating anything in any of them, just legal securities. 

matreshka
by Gold Member on May. 18, 2012 at 1:46 PM
2 moms liked this

The sad thing is that there is no gender equality, even under Obama. We do have a right to birth control and to keep abortion safe and legal and the GOP does hate women, look at the cartoonish female characters they put into the spotlight to pretend they care about women's rights.

matreshka
by Gold Member on May. 18, 2012 at 1:48 PM

Of course not, you know that ;) and the red states get none of the blue state's federal tax money either lol

Quoting Pema_Jampa:

There are no conservatives on government assistance? 



Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)