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

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

Because of Republicans, for the first time since 1994, the Violence Against Women Act is no more.

Posted by   + Show Post

House GOP blocks Violence Against Women Act

 - 

Associated Press

Sen. Patty Murray has been the Democratic point person on the Violence Against Women Act.

Congress had a lengthy to-do list as the end of the year approached, with a series of measures that needed action before 2013 began. Some of the items passed (a fiscal agreement, a temporary farm bill), while others didn't (relief funding for victims of Hurricane Sandy).

And then there's the Violence Against Women Act, which was supposed to be one of the year's easy ones. It wasn't.

Back in April, the Senate approved VAWA reauthorization fairly easily, with a 68 to 31 vote. The bill was co-written by a liberal Democrat (Vermont's Pat Leahy) and a conservative Republican (Idaho's Mike Crapo), and seemed on track to be reauthorized without much of a fuss, just as it was in 2000 and 2005.

But House Republicans insisted the bill is too supportive of immigrants, the LGBT community, and Native Americans -- and they'd rather let the law expire than approve a slightly expanded proposal. Vice President Biden, who helped write the original law, tried to persuade House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) to keep the law alive, but the efforts didn't go anywhere.

And so, for the first time since 1994, the Violence Against Women Act is no more. Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), the Democratic point person on VAWA, said in a statement:

"The House Republican leadership's failure to take up and pass the Senate's bipartisan and inclusive VAWA bill is inexcusable. This is a bill that passed with 68 votes in the Senate and that extends the bill's protections to 30 million more women. But this seems to be how House Republican leadership operates. No matter how broad the bipartisan support, no matter who gets hurt in the process, the politics of the right wing of their party always comes first."

Proponents of the law hope to revive the law in the new Congress, starting from scratch, but in the meantime, there will be far fewer resources available for state and local governments to combat domestic violence.

As for electoral considerations, Republicans lost badly in the 2012 elections, thanks in large part to the largest gender gap in modern times, but if that changed GOP attitudes towards legislation affecting women, the party is hiding it well.


Update: Reader AG asks about the House version that was approved several months ago. As I reported at the time, the House gutted the bipartisan Senate bill with a watered-down version, which was widely seen by everyone involved as a joke that undermined the interests of victims. It had no support in the Senate and drew a White House veto threat. House Republicans knew this, and instead of revisiting the issue and/or working with the Senate on a compromise, GOP leaders simply decided the law was not a priority. The result was this week's outcome.

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/01/02/16305284-house-gop-blocks-violence-against-women-act?lite

by on Jan. 2, 2013 at 11:42 PM
Replies (51-60):
futureshock
by Ruby Member on Jan. 3, 2013 at 1:09 PM

Excellent point.

Quoting Bookwormy:

Or a non-controlling, non-abusive male for that matter? How can any self-respecting US citizen vote for them unless they are a bigot or an abusive person?


Quoting futureshock:

After all of the horrific things Republicans have said and done to women, how can any female vote for one of them?



yourspecialkid
by Platinum Member on Jan. 3, 2013 at 1:12 PM
1 mom liked this

So I read part of the legislation.....part of the problem is likely the interference with Tribal Authority.  Beyond this...I just don't have the time or the interest to read the whole thing.

If they really wanted to pass it...they should have reauthorized it almost verbatim.

Oh...and I am not a Republican.

yourspecialkid
by Platinum Member on Jan. 3, 2013 at 1:13 PM
1 mom liked this

 ......and raise your hands if you actually READ the legislation before yelling at the Republicans about it.

 

 

k_hall1784
by on Jan. 3, 2013 at 1:18 PM
1 mom liked this

 Before the elction, I was pretty laid back as far as politics were concerned, I am now disgusted with the GOP. I mean, day after day I see reports of just inexcusible nonsense. As a survivor of domestic violence, this saddens me to no end.

PinkButterfly66
by Silver Member on Jan. 3, 2013 at 1:19 PM
1 mom liked this

The republicans are anti-woman... just more proof!

futureshock
by Ruby Member on Jan. 3, 2013 at 1:22 PM

true

Quoting NWP:

More women vote democrat, so I see it is a punishment....just like not passing the Sandy relief to the NE states, which tend to vote democrat. We no longer have a HoR that represents the people of America, only their "side" and one unelected lobbiest. SMDH
Quoting Bookwormy:

Its a spending cut! What it really was was a slap in the face to Biden. & they did it at the expense of domestic violence victims. They might as well kill the women themselves. This is more effective than coat hangers.

Quoting Friday:

I can't imagine any real reason this didn't pass but look forward to seeing some of the Republicans in this group try to justify it.




Sekirei
by Nari Trickster on Jan. 3, 2013 at 1:23 PM
1 mom liked this

are we surprised? Because if anyone is, you shouldn't be.

Natesmom507
by Bronze Member on Jan. 3, 2013 at 1:45 PM

Some activists oppose the bill. A spokeswoman for Concerned Women for America called the Act a "boondoggle" which "creates an ideology that all men are guilty and all women are victims." Conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly denounced VAWA as a tool to "fill feminist coffers" and argued that the Act promoted "divorce, breakup of marriage and hatred of men."[5]

In 2000 the Supreme Court of the United States held part of VAWA unconstitutional in United States v. Morrison on federalism grounds. Only the civil rights remedy of VAWA was struck down. The provisions providing program funding were unaffected.[9]

As of April 2012, the law is currently up for reauthorization in Congress.[10] Different versions of the legislation have been passed along party lines in the Senate and House, with the Republican-sponsored House version favoring the reduction of services to illegal immigrants and LGBT individuals. The two bills are currently pending reconciliation, and it is unclear whether a final bill will reach the President's desk before the end of the year.

futureshock
by Ruby Member on Jan. 3, 2013 at 1:48 PM


Quoting turtle68:

 wow...theyre not even attempting to hide their low opinion of women or should I say poor women.

Exactly.

Bookwormy
by Platinum Member on Jan. 5, 2013 at 12:03 AM
1 mom liked this
I heard an ad for a story on PRI today that domestic violence (DV) has decreased sharply since 1994's passage of VAWA. I didn't get a chance to listen to the story, but I thought that I would research it a bit.

The National Associaion of Attorney Generals says that DV rates have decreased nationally by 50% since the passage of VAWA. Of course folks are still dying of DV, but a 50% reduction in DV incidents is *huge*. Many other groups cite a huge reduction in DV since VAWA was passed. Is it all due to VAWA? Unlikely. But many do credit VAWA for much of the improvements in how DV is handled & this significant reduction in DV incidents in our country.

And not passing VAWA wasn't about money. It was apparently about expanding services to GLBT, American Indians assaulted by non-American Indians, & undocumented residents. And Biden himself I strongly believe.

Getting rid of VAWA also gets rid of MH services/therapy/counseling, batterers programs, law enforcement (LE) training, rape crisis programs, sexual & domestic violence prevention programs, etc.

I have been involved with several DV shelters in 2 very different states since 1990 & not one required the victim to press charges or contact LE. I'm not sure what that's about.

I do hold the House that is not a Home 100% responsible for this awful choice. If the number of DV incidents goes up, if the number of DV deaths go up, they are responsible. Maybe not directly, but you don't get to take away VAWA & then say, "not my problem.". It is everyone's problem, especially theirs, when their no vote can have such a negative impact. They need to be helo accountable for their decisions.


Quoting radioheid:

 I'm troubled by this reply because it seems to suggest government is directly responsible for people dying...from domestic violence and a hurricane. It is just a little ridiculous and absurd.


Domestic violence shelters and hotlines do not prevent abuse, they provide an outlet for people who have already been abused. They do not help people who fear being abused, and they often will not help people who have been abused unless those people first file a police report. The number of women who are abused in domestic situations has not seen a sharp drop since the original VAWA was passed in 1994. I am not opposed to the VAWA personally, but I don't see how failure of Congress to pass it indicts them for murder, either. Women (and men) have been dying of domestic violence even with the VAWA.


As for Superstorm Sandy: I think it is even harder to draw a direct line between Congress and the deaths. Storms are an act of nature. We can't control them. I've read no reports of massive numbers of people dying since the storm. FEMA still has billions in its budget available. And a lot of the things local governments are attempting to get federal money for are barely related to the storm. Insurance was created for a reason...I personally don't feel the federal government should contribute any more than is necessary to ensure people aren't starving and freezing in the street. State and local government, insurance and charity should pick up the bill for the rest.


As for the fiscal cliff crisis, both parties are to blame. Both parties have a major problem with spending and debt. We have got to control our spending. We need to cut welfare spending. We need to cut our defense budget (big time). We need to reduce the amount we spend on foreign aid. We need to eliminate corporate welfare. No more "stimulus" bullshit. I hold both parties responsible. Of course we're going to have another problem in 2-3 months---neither party is willing to sit down, go over the books, and red pen enough items to make a difference.


Quoting Bookwormy:

I really think they did it as a slap in the face against Biden, who wrote the original VAW Act.

Whatever reason they had, they are pigs & deserve to be unemployed. For killing Sandy victims, for killing DV victims, for waiting until 1/1/13 to do anything about the milk & financial cliffs & then not doing near enough & setting up another crisis in 2 months.



Quoting NWP:

More women vote democrat, so I see it is a punishment....just like not passing the Sandy relief to the NE states, which tend to vote democrat.
We no longer have a HoR that represents the people of America, only their "side" and one unelected lobbiest.
SMDH


Quoting Bookwormy:

Its a spending cut! What it really was was a slap in the face to Biden. & they did it at the expense of domestic violence victims. They might as well kill the women themselves. This is more effective than coat hangers.




Quoting Friday:


I can't imagine any real reason this didn't pass but look forward to seeing some of the Republicans in this group try to justify it.






 


Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
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)