E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
The Senate approved legislation to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act on Tuesday over the objections of a handful of Republicans.
Democrats were joined by several Republican senators in voting to renew the landmark gender and domestic violence law, which lapsed at the end of 2012 after lawmakers in the last Congress failed to reach agreement on a new extension.
Senators voted 78-22 to send their version of the bill to the Republican-controlled House, where it faces uncertain prospects.
Republicans have objected to elements of the reauthorization, most specifically a technical dispute over jurisdiction for Native American tribal authorities in the instances of certain crimes.
Still, proposals like the Violence Against Women Act have become a lightning rod in the realm of gender politics, especially as Democrats cast Republicans during last year’s election as leading a “war on women.” Democrats were all too eager to seize on GOP opposition to a contraception mandate, or controversial statements by Senate candidates Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock about rape.
Perhaps as that political pressure weighs upon Republicans, a group of 17 House GOP lawmakers wrote the party’s leadership on Tuesday urging them to take up the Senate bill passed this afternoon. If those Republicans were to join with every House Democrat in support of the bill, it would be enough to pass the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization in the House.
"Especially in communities like West Virginia where victims of domestic violence and sexual assault in rural and remote communities face unique obstacles in their efforts to escape abusive and dangerous relationships, support provided by VAWA can literally be lifesaving," said West Virginia Rep. Shelley Moore Capito, a relatively moderate Republican who's running for Senate in 2014. "I am urging House leaders to immediately reauthorize this essential Act."
Leave a Comment:
Republicans are against this bill for a good reason. It is a Federal Bill that gives prosecutor authority to a tribal nation that does not recognize federal authority. In other words a non-Tribal member can be prosecuted under Tribal law that recognizes the supremacy of the Tribe over the rule of law.
Not to mention the fact that people who abuse women are already guilty of crimes. The problem is not the need for more laws, which is always the Liberal answer, but enforcement of laws, which liberals never seem to want.
PRoblem is that native American women are 40-50% more likely to get abused on tribal land by a non native. This protects the woman in this sort of event and gives them recourse. Of course, the GOP would have an objection to any woman being protected...
If the crime is commited on tribal land it should be prosecuted on tribal land by tribal authority and if it is committed off tribal land than whoever has jurisdiction over that area needs to handle it regardless who the participants are.
If it is okay to beat one's woman on the reservation maybe the US govt. should work WITH tribal government to change that.
It took these Cognitively Disabled Teabeggers this long to do the common sense thing! Really? The Teabeggers in the GOP "House Of Hoodlum's" have got to go. That is fact!
Killed comment
Why don't they call it Women Against Violence.... the wording Violence Against Women is a bit ambiguous, it could be pro or anti
Domestic violence in this country has not improved and it will not improve until people of all genders realize that bills like this are important step in the equality of women. Why are angry white men so afraid of acknowledging that there are issues regarding voilence against women? That is the point of this bill, to acknowledge a specific problem. Yes, there are men who are victims. Women are still struggling to get men to acknowledge there is a problem for CENTURIES. I will dwell on the woman end of things because statisically more women are abused then men.
Separate protected classes? If you are a woman and are married and reside in some states in the Union, there is no "marital rape" law. If your husband rapes you (sex without consent), they cannot be charged for it. Even if it is rape by any other standard law on the books. Women have been and will be considered the lesser sex until we are recognized as equals.
I realize we are talking violence here, but this country couldn't even pass the Equal Rights Amendment.
How hard is it for men and women in this country just to say "Let's get this bill passed"?
I'm for protecting women, but the angry white men comment? Why is it open season to be prejudiced against white men all of the sudden? It seems to me that the whole tone of this, like so many other issues, is asking for something. Is it that oppressive here? You speak of statistics. Well statistically it was white men who have created a system of government that for all the faults and imperfections in the execution, is light-years ahead of anything anyone else has ever done. Is there no democracy in these states in which it is legal to rape wives? I was unaware that certain areas of the country have become oppressed dictatorships. And the last time I checked not only did the law act on people who are assaulted, but the response to domestic violence calls is heavily skewed in the favor of the woman. The angry white men who started this country did not get "recognized" as free and having human rights, they fought and died for them. Women in this country don't have to do that right now. When they get beaten, they have to call the police and then take action against the offender without voluntarily enabling him to continue. Or here's a shocker, heed the glaringly obvious clues that the guy is a scumbag in the first place. In states where they can be legally raped by their husbands, women need to use their majority to force the issue to be resolved politically. It's a lot of work but it's better than having to fight a war and die for it. As usual, the majority of white men in this country will continue to to do the right thing with our free democracy, sharing the individual human rights and rule of law they died for, even though no one else in history has ever demonstrated that they would do the same if given power. Have the "white men" been as vicious and warlike and greedy as everyone else in history? Absolutely. But so far they have also been the only ones who have created a framework for everyone to enjoy freedom and dignity without having to die overthrowing a dictator or monarch, so give us a freaking break once in a while.
IAMMYOWNWOMAN wrote "I will dwell on the woman end of things because statisically more women are abused then men."
Incorrect. Women do the bulk of the abuse.
" If your husband rapes you (sex without consent), they cannot be charged for it."
How many women are prosecuted for rape of men? Verbal sexual coercion of a woman by a man is considered a rape. Why isn't verbal sexual coercion of a man by a woman considered rape? After all, is a physiological response (vaginal wetness, penile engorgement) sexual consent? As the definition of sexual assault expands, it begins to include sexual assault of men by women.
Every state has laws that force a married husband to be the legal father of every child born from his wife during the marriage even when he is not a DNA contributor.
Men's rights also need an update.
IAMMYOWNWOMAN wrote " this country couldn't even pass the Equal Rights Amendment."
That is because it is not needed but also, no one can really figure out what the ERA would do that the 14th Amendment doesn't already cover. What rights do men have that women don't ?
But if ERA did pass, VAWA would be illegal. Women would be required to register for the Selective Services or face consequences, such as permanent disqualification from most Government jobs and many Federal benefits, including grants for higher education. Employer benefits given to women but not men would be illegal. Lower Social Security contributions by women and higher payouts for women would be under scrutiny. Laws that prohibit charging women more for their higher use of health insurance benefits would be struck out. Health care providers would be required to pay for male contraceptives, and, the BIGGIE : men would have a say in their involvement in and after a pregnancy.
Oh, and laws that protect male children unequally from genital cutting AKA circumcision would also be struck down.
I'm not sure I'm buying that women do the bulk of the abuse, or anything about sexual coercion, but the "white men" crap needs to go, like we've won somehow so now we should relinquish the same rights and standards against bigotry we've given everyone else. Seems to me the last time I've checked there are entire continents of people the evil white man hasn't overthrown and reigned over. Maybe at best they can cry that the white man has oppressed and ruined them from afar. But there are a bunch of Asian, Middle Eastern, and African men who have had their own countries and choices of government and societal standards for a long time, and out of every society so far where do women seem to be doing the best?
Agreed. Women are generally better off in nations headed by Christian white men.
My wife and I are equal partners in our relationship, a relationship lasting 47 years, and not once did I ever think of striking her or her think of hitting me. My father told me it was not right for a man to hit a woman. He never hit my mother and my sister and I got our share of spankings but never beatings and most of those were from mother not dad. I am appalled when we bring homemade quilts to the women's shelter and see what has been done to those women. While women beat up on men too, of course, it is much more prevailant that men beat up on women. Such cowards they are.
Sociopaths love beating up on women, children, small animals etc. My former brother-in-law was a sociopath with my sister-in-law and their kids suffering until she finally got a court order thad makes him stay away from them. They are all much better off now.
Did your mother ever teach you that women should never slap, hit, kick, poison or throw objects at men?
Women are responsible for the bulk of child and domestic abuse. Women initiate more partner violence than men. No shelter exists for battered men or men fleeing a woman that is abusive to their children.
Women's shelters will not even accept men in those situations. That's why you don't see men there : no men allowed.
You watch too many TV shows broadcast for women that paint every man but no women as pedophiliac violent sociopaths. Where are the TV shows with women throwing objects around in an angry rage ?
Protecting the vulnerable is simply the right thing to do. The politics of the GOP has been focused on one thing (or so they say) the economy. If that is indeed the truth then why have the GOP placed so much time in gun issues, abortion, fighting gay rights, and "making this president a one term president"? The sales pitch that the GOP passes (like a stinky fart) that the economy is everything. But when one looks more closely its easy to see the real agenda has very little to do with protecting the vulnerable. Women are only important to the GOP when its their votes that they want. Otherwise Rubio, Paul, Blunt and the other hypocrites will say anything while protecting their wealth and their wealthy buddies. Equzl rights, protections and opportunities will never be given away in the U.S. anymore. They must be fought for and supported through laws that are rigorously enforced.
The idiot who complained about the pork in the Sandy bill, apparently does not read very well. At the time the Repukes, yes the Repukes; from Alaska, yes Alaska added the pork to the bill. Why not ask your Speaker what the Sandy benefits had to do with the pork in Alaska. I wish the tea suckers and other Repukes on these posts became real readers and try, just try to understand how the government of the USA actually works. Most of you jersk failed civics or history apparently. Most of you vote once every four years, and then only for the Repuke party without even reading who is running and what he/she stands for. Anyone who considers Michelle Bachman and others like her, definitely is in dire need of a shrink.
A final list, after the House votes, should be made and published of all the nay votes to be seen by all, especially women, to show what their representative voted, and work to kick them out of Congress in the next election cycle.
Grandpamike, you can see how your congressmen/women voted by visiting:
www_congress.org/congressorg/megavote/signup
Signup and you will receive emails stating the voting record of your state reps. Handy that!
Or, in addition to just seeing how your reps voted, you could actually read what is in the bills they are voitng for.
Someone mentioned Alaska Republican pork in the Sandy bill. Didn't mention the Dems in Oregon or California though.
Then you could make a REASONED decision about whether your reps are doing their jobs.
Or, you could just listen to NBC, Frothy Rehead, etc.
It would be good to petition those Senators and Representatives to pass bills for Men's Rights as well. What would a male-sided version of the Equal Rights Amendment include ?
ian blokesworth
The Constitution is a male-sided Equal Rights Amendment. Recall, women did not have the right to vote and African Americans were not citizens under the Constitution. You might want to review the Constitution and all amendments. Then check out the Equal Rights Act (the Equal Rights Amendment was never ratified).
I don't understand why Congress has to get involved with local laws, it's already against the law(in every state) to assault someone. What about women who beat up on their husbands?
You really don't have a clue, do ya?
I have a clue that you are a libtard numbnut.
@Shawn, and yes, we all have a clue about you numbnuts. You must be one of the low informed base trolling on here. And we doubt you have ever had a clue.
One of the provisions of the wonderful act: allows involantary HIV testing of accused abusers (2005 version of VAWA)
Pregram coverage expanded during 2005 to include stalking - not just violence.
25% of funding from the 2005 version must be spent on sexual assault victims (not limited to domestic violence).
Emotional harm included in 2005 version.
Funds available for defense counsel, but not for prosecution (2005 version)
$10 MILLION per year for victims of elder abuse or neglect - not gender specific.
$10 MILLION per year for women victims over the age of 50 (a/o 2005).
$5 MILLION per year to train judges and their staffs (a/o 2005).
Special program for immigrant women - exemptions from deportation, priority in seeking citizenship.
Special considerations for Cuban women who have suffered as above.
Grants employment authorization for "T" visa holders if they have been abused.
Special grants for non-profits serving communities of color.
$10 MILLION per year to housing assistance programs to handle domestic violence issues.
$1 MILLION per year to fund management and labor organizations to deal with domestic violence victims.
$2 MILLION per year for CDC studies.
$3 MILLION per year for med schools to train on domestic violence.
$5 MILLION per year to promote communication between health care providers, public health departments, and "domestic and sexual violence advocates at the state and local level." (!!!!)
States may use any unspent funds as they see fit. (HR4970 - 2012)
Section 804 of HR4870 gives DOJ control over International Marriage Brokers.
- Since so few will read the Act (192 pages), this is just a short list of special interest groups and government cronies who will benefit. There are numerous articles available showing that the Reps who opposed the bill did so because they wished to end the special protections for illegal (Oops! Undocumented) aliens (Google it and go to New York Times.)
Any VOTE BUYING potential here?
Sorry, but I'm looking through the list and I fail to see your point. I don't care if a female is undocumented or not...violence against another human being is wrong.
So giving special "benefits" to women who are "undocumented immigrants," above what you would grant to American citizens is good by you? Giving even more "benefits " to Cuban undocumented immigrants is OK too? Bucks to trade unions is going to make women safer? Bucks to judges, who are supposed to qualified to read and interpret laws already, for training is good? Significant bucks for seniors - male or female in a bill titled "Violence Against WOMEN Act?
And the point was that there just might be some VOTE BUYING involved in the project. I even put it in all caps for you.
mpa...
I see the point you were making.
These leeches should all be dropped from a plane over the Pacific ocean, no parachute. (I was going to say they should all be shot... you know, we used to say that as a figure of speech, but saying it now could have the Men In Black knocking down your door and dragging you off to Gitmo).
Why can't they just draw up and present an honest Bill without the crap.. just ONCE!
mpa
Thanks for the summary. Some posters apparently have not read the act, or they just do not understand what it provides for abused women and children. Violence against anyone is against the law. This act simply provides funding for such things as safe havens for battered women.
This one is a no-brainer - pass it and move on.....
Why won't the feckless morons enforce the Defense of Marriage Act?
Because DOMA is unconstitutional and will be struck down in June. That would be my guess.
Wait, I thought EVERYONE was protected from violence. Our government has created a caste system. Some groups are more protected than others. Some crimes against certain people are punished more harshly. Why not just punish crimes against anyone severely???? Who can say with a straight face that politicians do NOT buy votes using these tactics.
You got that right, to Obamarama it's all about vote pandering.
Democrats, the party of victims.
Judgements made by idiots who won't look at the facts driving this legislation.
Republicans, the stupid party.
Apparently Republicans discovered that women vote, and not necessarily the way they are told to by their menfolk. Its nice to see some of them at least saw the writing on the wall - or on the ballot.
So now that tons of money is spent on women to improve the lots of women, but not men, how about a similar amount of money spent on men?
Actually, men who are victims of domestic violence are covered under the VAWA.
Feisty, living in Du Page County ... I would think you would be married to a conservative White man. Or did you move from Cook County to be safe from Chicago's thugs?
So Congress is putting expiration dates on their laws now?
This law was originally passed in 1994. It has been updated and renewed twice since then. This renewal will be the third. The Act is more or less "permanent," but the funding is not. As they refund, they "tweak."
It has become routine to pass Acts that will need to be renewed because of funding concerns. Have you not been paying attention?
Perhaps House Republicans will get it right this time since they are rolling out their new and improved woman loving image.
And maybe House Republicans will see that some of the "earmarks" are removed - as Barry promised to do during 2007 & 2008 when he was campaigning.
My guess is that there will be at least a few GOP yes votes in the House from the boys who think they are voting FOR violence against women.
Lets see, the House controls the purse strings, or should it be that they control the money. Now they want Obama to tell them what not to spend on? Gee Boner, Cantor, and other tea baggers, use your own ideas and cut what ever you want to cut.
Just be prepared to defend your cuts this next election. And that is why Obama is leaving it up to the GOP to do. And the GOP is mad, they painted themselves in the corner, and now need help to get out. The middle digit on my hand is all the help you would see.
I think we should have Congress and the White House take up abuse of the American People. Obama and Congress threaten our way of life, they threaten our financial security, they threaten our very life with uncontrolled use of the law, the favor others groups more than they do Americans, they do bodily harm on us when we gather in voice our opinions, they refuse to give us the necessary money to live on and most of all they prey on us everyday of the year.
I'd wager there being a good chance it fails again. Time for republicans to seal their image.
Our @!$%# legislators who voted against this bill are "nuggin futz".
I find it amazing that there are still those goofballs here
calling for State Rights. Do we or do we not live in the
United States? Leave it up to the states! They scream...
right, and if left up to the states we would still have slavery
in some areas of the U.S. Why leave it up to the states?
Are there certain people who want to have that option to be
able to move someplace where it's ok to beat your wife or the gay
kid walking down the street without repercussions?
We need sweeping federal laws to keep everything even in this
country, or do we just go bback to running for the state border
like Bonnie & Clyde?
It is about time, and that includes protection for every woman in the country. Those who oppose it delight in women beating and rape and think we ask for it. There is way too much abuse and too many excuses for those who rape and rampage and abuse.