Why is the GOP resisting renewal of the Violence Against Women Act?

[Direckshun]

Reportedly, the GOP wants to carve out exceptions against women in samesex couples, American Indians, and, of course, illegal immigrants.

Somebody explain this rationale to me in a way that doesn't make the GOP look bafflingly insane.

You guys understand the GOP just got destroyed in November by the women vote, right?

http://www.startribune.com/opinion/e...1.html?refer=y

Editorial: Renew and expand support for women
Violence Against Women Act provides needed safeguards.
Article by: EDITORIAL BOARD , Star Tribune
Updated: December 11, 2012 - 9:51 PM

In 1994, during the Clinton administration, Congress passed the Violence Against Women Act. That landmark legislation authorized funds for rape crisis centers and domestic violence shelters, the establishment of a national hot line for victims, and measures such as education programs for judges, law enforcement officers and prosecutors.

The law remains critical in battling domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking, of which women remain the overwhelming targets. In the past, Congress readily supported reauthorization of the act, and even expanded its scope to address the needs of disabled women, older women and teens.

But this year's reauthorization has been stalled over the U.S. Senate's effort to better protect Native Americans, undocumented immigrants and LGBT abuse victims. The Senate bill was passed with bipartisan support in April, but the House version, adopted in May, eliminated the additional protections at the insistence of the GOP's right wing.

It's simply indefensible to exclude victims because of their immigration status, sexual orientation, race or ethnicity. Under no circumstances should America become a place that tolerates women being raped or beaten unless they're heterosexual U.S. citizens, not of Native American heritage.

Undocumented women risk deportation if they report abuse, which their abusers exploit. Nonheterosexual women are often turned away from domestic violence shelters and denied orders of protection. And Native American women face higher rates of sexual assault, mostly at the hands of non-Indians.

Tribal courts have no authority to prosecute non-Indians. As a result, victims have few resources for protection, and abusers often are never held accountable. The Senate's bill grants limited jurisdiction -- a constitutional sticking point for many Republicans, such as Rep. James Sensenbrenner Jr. of Wisconsin, who noted that "the Bill of Rights does not apply in tribal courts." But a smart, new proposal offered by two Republicans, including Oklahoma Rep. Tom Cole, a member of the Chickasaw Nation, would give defendants the option to move the case to federal courts.

"There are 535 members of Congress, and 534 of them could go on the Sioux Reservation, commit a crime and not be subjected to local jurisdiction," Cole told Indian Country Today Media Network. "Most American communities have local jurisdiction; Native Americans do not. It's not right."

Nationally, an average of three women are murdered every day by a current or former partner. An estimated 2.3 people are raped or physically assaulted by someone they know. Besides the human toll, the health care, employment, legal and other costs are staggering.

The Violence Against Women Act has long enjoyed bipartisan support. Vice President Joe Biden, then a U.S. senator from Delaware, introduced the original bill, which garnered 225 cosponsors, including vocal support from Sen. Paul Wellstone, a Minnesota Democrat.

You'd think the GOP opposition would eagerly rally behind female crime victims, given the backlash faced from remarks that cost two Senate candidates their elections. In defending staunch opposition to abortion, Missouri Rep. Todd Akin spoke of "legitimate rape" and Indiana's Richard Mourdock insisted that pregnancies that result from rape were intended by God.

Lawmakers have had the common sense to put aside differences to back this act for the past 18 years. It's critical that they do so again before year's end so that the legislative process won't have to start all over again. Women's lives and safety are on the line.

[oldandslow]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Why is this even a federal issue? Crime is dealt with at the local level, as it has been historically,

not always...kidnapping is always federal, as is robbing a bank, post office, etc.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by oldandslow

not always...kidnapping is always federal, as is robbing a bank, post office, etc.

I am not questioning that it's being done. I know that. I am questioning why. Where does the Constitution authorize subsidizing domestic violence or even dealing with it at the federal level?

Kidnapping can cross state lines. So I can see a federal role there.

[cosmo20002]

Geez, Rs are stupid. Have any of you ever dealt with a woman before? Free advice, although I'd prefer you not take it--just give in already. She is going to get her way, eventually--that you can be sure of. She's either getting her way now, or later--after she's made you miserable enough that you do give in. So, you can submit quietly now or after you've lost more more elections.

Also, you probably want to stop making stupid comments about rape. They don't like that.

[Dallas Chief]

Does the original law protect gay men? Or is that a new provision from the Senate version? And if it does in either question, wtf?
Does the original law contain "special provisions" for illegals, Native Americans, and LGBT? Or is this a new provision in the Senate version of the law. If the original law already protected ALL women, then why change it to include special provisions for anybody? Pandering to your voting bloc maybe? Aren't they all women already? Lesbian, Native, or illegal.

If this extends coverage to gay men then I would oppose it too. It is the VAWA, not the VAW..and Homosexual...A. Get your own law for crying out loud. Stop trying to take away valuable resources for the women of our great nation!

[BIG_DADDY]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

Geez, Rs are stupid. Have any of you ever dealt with a woman before? Free advice, although I'd prefer you not take it--just give in already. She is going to get her way, eventually--that you can be sure of. She's either getting her way now, or later--after she's made you miserable enough that you do give in. So, you can submit quietly now or after you've lost more more elections.

Also, you probably want to stop making stupid comments about rape. They don't like that.

Wow, what what a puss boy mentality

[DementedLogic]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Let's work through this, because it really is important that you have an idea about this issue. Domestic violence is real and serious.

1. We can all agree that it's bad, at least. Right?

2. In 1994, VAWA was introduced to combat it:



3. Since then, domestic violence against women has fallen 50%. It's fallen against men, too. And the worst kinds of domestic violence against women, murder, has fallen 30%. (Link.)

So I'll ask again -- why has the GOP resisted renewing the Violence Against Women Act?

Why do your graphs start at 1993 instead of earlier? Here's a graph for you. Without looking at the dates, can you show me where VAWA was passed?

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by BIG_DADDY

Wow, what what a puss boy mentality

Reality.

[Bo's Pelini]

Why are union Democrats practicing violence on innocent people?

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by Bo's Pelini

Why are union Democrats practicing violence on innocent people?

Practice makes perfect.

[BIG_DADDY]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

Reality.

I have friends that live like that. I would rather be single than go down that road.

[A Salt Weapon]

Originally Posted by Bo's Pelini

Why are union Democrats practicing violence on innocent people?

Perhaps we can draft up some legislation to prevent that. That will help.
Posted via Mobile Device

[BIG_DADDY]

Last I checked violence against anyone was against the law.

[A Salt Weapon]

Originally Posted by BIG_DADDY

Last I checked violence against anyone was against the law.

You hush up with your logic and reason, we're attacking the GOP here and there's no room for those kind of facts.
Posted via Mobile Device

[Calcountry]

Why does Direkshun's DC Planet populated with 8/25 threads started? That is why this place has descended into total shit, just like the country.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Calcountry

Why does Direkshun's DC Planet populated with 8/25 threads started? That is why this place has descended into total shit, just like the country.

What about the threads using "crazy", "certifiable" etc. Or the posts. That's the level of discourse these days.