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.

[Brock]

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.

Sorry your life is going so poorly.

[Brock]

Originally Posted by BIG_DADDY

Last I checked violence against anyone was against the law.

Damn, the country really is going to hell. All these laws.

[|Zach|]

Originally Posted by InChiefsHell

I haven't read all that stuff nor do I intend to. My guess is there is a lot more to the act than simply protecting women. The devil is usually in the details, and it's easy to demonize people who don't support it. You can just say they hate women. Winner!

Same as it ever was.

[WoodDraw]

I honestly don't care. As long as the Republicans take these positions, they'll continue to lose elections. So more power to them.


I understand the "it's a states issue" argument, and I at least think it's a legitimate argument. I disagree, because there are certain states that don't give a **** and will never fund things like this. But it at least has some logical theory behind it. I'm guessing most of the GOP house problems come from the gay rights and illegal immigrants part though.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

It's pretty clear right now that you simply don't know what you're talking about.

You've said this several times in this thread so you must be the person to ask. What are democrats trying to add to the VAWA reauthorization bill? Figure that out and you're likely to figure out why the GOP is reluctant to pass it.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by DementedLogic

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?

Nicely done. Direckshun busted for swallowing liberal propaganda.

[FishingRod]

In looking at the chart, it would seem that when fault was removed from divorce proceeding that an unforeseen side effect of easier divorce were less murders. I had a heated exchange via e-mail with a KS representative a number of years ago that wanted to return to the rules that existed prior to incompatibility being an acceptable reason. Can’t even remember his name.

[Velvet_Jones]

Damn. You couldn't swing a cat in this thread with out hitting stupid.

[Direckshun]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...tml?1358356127

Patrick Leahy: Violence Against Women Act Is First Bill I Will Move This Year
Jennifer Bendery
Posted: 01/16/2013 12:07 pm EST
Updated: 01/16/2013 3:47 pm EST

WASHINGTON -- Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) has several big-ticket items on his agenda this year -- gun violence and comprehensive immigration reform among them -- but he singled out one as his first priority: the Violence Against Women Act.

"The first legislation I plan to move in the new Congress is the Violence Against Women Act," Leahy said Wednesday during remarks at Georgetown University Law Center. "Last year, the Senate passed my bipartisan bill, but House leaders refused to agree to protect some of the most vulnerable victims of domestic violence and rape. Like so many other worthy efforts, renewing VAWA suffered from obstructionism that has seeped too much into our legislative process."

Congress typically reauthorizes VAWA with broad support, but the legislation expired last year for the first time since its 1994 inception. The Senate passed a bipartisan bill with new protections for the LGBT community, Native Americans and immigrants, and House Republican leaders refused to bring it up for a vote, charging that it was politically driven. Instead, House Republicans passed their own bill along party lines without the added protections. In the end, neither side would concede and the both bills fizzled out along with the 112th Congress.

Leahy chided House Republicans for refusing to pass his VAWA bill over its expanded protections for abused women.

"A victim is a victim is a victim. We should stop setting up standards that say we will have one standard of law enforcement for one group of victims but not for another," Leahy said to applause. "This is going to be our first priority this year."

The Vermont Democrat said later that he plans to reintroduce the same VAWA bill from the last Congress, but will likely tweak it so House Republican leaders can't accuse him of having a "blue slip" problem. The term refers to an obscure practice the House can use to kill a bill that originates in the Senate if it raises revenue. The Constitution requires that all revenue-generating bills originate in the House.

In the case of VAWA, House Republican leaders argued that Leahy's bill was dead in the water because it would generate revenue by imposing a fee for visas that go to immigrant victims of domestic violence.

"I think we can cure the blue slip problem," Leahy said Wednesday.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...tml?1358356127

Congress typically reauthorizes VAWA with broad support, but the legislation expired last year for the first time since its 1994 inception. The Senate passed a bipartisan bill with new protections for the LGBT community, Native Americans and immigrants, and House Republican leaders refused to bring it up for a vote, charging that it was politically driven. Instead, House Republicans passed their own bill along party lines without the added protections. In the end, neither side would concede and the both bills fizzled out along with the 112th Congress.

Dirk I'm going to have to side with the R's on this one. I'm not against LGBT community, Native Americans and immigrants having the same rights but if you try to stick these groups in with a bipartisan safe bill they had to know the R's would squawk.

Take out the additions and pass the bill.

[Comrade Crapski]

Originally Posted by Velvet_Jones

Damn. You couldn't swing a cat in this thread with out hitting stupid.

[WhiteWhale]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

Reality.

No, it's not.

I get my way far more often than I don't, and there's a reason for it.

[FishingRod]

The life and physical well being of my son is not of lesser value than my daughters.

[DementedLogic]

Originally Posted by DementedLogic

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?

I still don't see what this bill has accomplished, and I would like Direckshun to explain it to me. Violent crime rates against women were falling long before VAWA as passed, and their rate of decline did not increase after its passage.

So what was the legislation accomplishing?

[Direckshun]

The GOP's finest hour.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...-life-support/

The Violence Against Women Act is on life support
Posted by Suzy Khimm
on January 25, 2013 at 3:37 pm

The death knell for the Violence Against Women Act has been sounding for weeks. “The 112th Congress ended Thursday, and the Violence Against Women Act perished with it,” Talking Points Memo wrote in early January.

In reality, the protections for victims under VAWA haven’t completely gone away, but they are being threatened by ongoing legislative gridlock that the new Congress is now trying to overcome.

On paper, VAWA has been technically “dead” since September 2011, when Congress failed to reauthorize it. But the funding for VAWA’s programs has kept going, because the budgeting process is separate from the reauthorization and Congress has continued to appropriate money for the relevant programs, which assist victims of domestic violence by strengthening federal law enforcement and social services.

“There is no immediate to threat [of] programs shutting down and not being funded,” explains Sharon Stapel, executive director of the Anti-Violence Project. The administration hasn’t changed the legal protections (pdf) set forth under VAWA since its last 2005 reauthorization, including the “rape shield law,” which restricts the ability of a defendant to use an alleged rape victim’s sexual history in court.

However, the last Congress’ failure to reauthorize VAWA has made the future of the law uncertain. There are two ways in which the law’s programs could dry up.

First, Congress could decide to stop funding VAWA’s programs any time after March 27, when the current Continuing Resolution expires, and the expiration of VAWA’s authorization could give fiscally conservative legislators a new rationale for making cuts. That’s fueled significant uncertainty for domestic violence shelters and other groups that receive money from programs authorized by the law. Second, if the law is never reauthorized, a future White House could reverse its legal protections.

There’s still strong bipartisan support for VAWA, but the reason that the law has languished is because Democrats want certain expanded protections for immigrant, LGBT, and Native American victims. The Senate successfully passed a bill with the new provisions in April, 68-31. House Republicans passed their own VAWA bill in May without the new provisions, which the White House then threatened to veto. And the two parties have been deadlocked since then, as neither side believes the other’s legislation is acceptable.

Republicans have raised particularly strong objections to a provision in the Senate Democratic bill that would allow Native American tribal courts to prosecute non-native perpetrators, which they believe is unconstitutional. (The GOP version would allow Native Americans to apply for a protection order in US District Courts, even if the abuse happens on Native American land.)

Hopes for VAWA’s reauthorization have risen in the new Congress, as Democrats have made certain concessions to Republicans and the House GOP appears more open to considering an expanded version of the law. On Tuesday, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) reintroduced a new version of VAWA that removed the proposed increase in U visas. Democrats say they made the change for procedural reasons: The visas raise a small amount of revenue, and revenue-generating bills must originate in the House.

But it’s really a major political concession, as no one expects that House Republicans will put the measure in their own version of the bill. Immigration advocates admit it’s a setback, but they stress there are other new protections for immigrant victims in the new Senate VAWA bill, like new immigration protections for the children of undocumented victims and stronger enforcement against overseas marriage brokers of exploited “mail-order brides,” explains Jeanne Smoot of the Tahirih Justice Center, who’s part of a national task force to protect victims of domestic violence and sexual abuse. And they say Democrats have promised to include the increase in U visas in their push for a comprehensive immigration overhaul.

Meanwhile, since the beginning of the new Congress, the House GOP has begun opening its doors to more VAWA advocates, designating House GOP Conference Chair Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers as the point person. Deborah Parker, vice-chair of the Tulalip Tribes in Washington State, was among the tribal leaders to meet with Rodgers and other legislators this week, as the Huffington Post first reported. “She’s ready to get a team together to further explore what type of language would fit, that Republicans would feel comfortable with,” says Parker, who was the victim of domestic sexual assault as a young child.

Parker says she feels hopeful that legislators will ultimately be able to come to a compromise on the tribal provisions of VAWA, given epidemic of domestic violence among Native Americans, who the Justice Department says are 2.5 times more likely to be sexually assaulted than any other racial group. Perpetrators “can get away with so much here—have raped and abused and then fallen through the cracks [of the judicial system],” says Parker. “If it’s on tribal land, our sheriff’s department says ‘Sorry we don’t have jurisdiction.’”