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.

[blaise]

WAR ON WOMEN

[BucEyedPea]

End the wars!

[patteeu]

Direckshun, are you aware of the spending problem our government has? It's time to start cutting non-essential programs and stop creating new ones.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Direckshun, are you aware of the spending problem our government has? It's time to start cutting non-essential programs and stop creating new ones.

Do you think it's essential to provide federal protections to stave off the legal escape hatch allowed on American Indian reservations that have enabled American Indian women to get abused 2.5 times more than the national average?

What do you think the average voter would say?

What do you think the average woman would say?

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Do you think it's essential to provide federal protections to stave off the legal escape hatch allowed on American Indian reservations that have enabled American Indian women to get abused 2.5 times more than the national average?

No, not even close.

Originally Posted by Direckshun

What do you think the average voter would say?

What do you think the average woman would say?

Who's going to get to phrase the question?

[BucEyedPea]

I've been the victim of violent crime as a female, one violent, the other escaping the situation well enough to help my other gfs, and one last time was chance that saved me from being robbed but not hurt.

I was handled just fine by the cops, hospital emergency personnel, neighbors and family. I could have used the college counselor if I need too. What is the problem here? Are we women, required to check into a Federal govt program or crisis center now? Domestic violence shelters should be locally funded as well as hot lines. I worked on a hot-line in college but we were volunteers.

No one else can do anything. It has to be the Federal govt—far away in DC where the political classes live high on the hog.

I agree with patteeu on this one.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

I agree with patteeu on this one.

You can't go wrong posting something like this.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by patteeu

No, not even close.

Why not?

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Why not?

Because it's not a significant problem, it's not the kind of problem that threatens our existence or our cultural health, and it's something the local authorities can deal with if they think it needs to be addressed.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Because it's not a significant problem, it's not the kind of problem that threatens our existence or our cultural health, and it's something the local authorities can deal with if they think it needs to be addressed.

What? Domestic abuse against women absolutely is a significant problem.

It directly threatens the existence of all abuse victims. They feel like they are in danger -- tell me pat, does feeling like you're in danger constitute fearing a threat to your existence? That's a big "duh" right there. And the idea that VAWA doesn't deal with "cultural health" is laughable on its face. It's the very definition.

Local authorities are dealing with it, the problem is it's done poorly as 2.5 American Indian women are victims of abuse to every 1 of all other American women. At some point, we need to give the local authorities more leverage in solving the problem.

In conclusion, you're basically completely wrong, as I figured you would be.

If domestic abuse against women isn't a matter of cultural health, I have no idea what is.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

What? Domestic abuse against women absolutely is a significant problem.

It directly threatens the existence of all abuse victims. They feel like they are in danger -- tell me pat, does feeling like you're in danger constitute fearing a threat to your existence? That's a big "duh" right there. And the idea that VAWA doesn't deal with "cultural health" is laughable on its face. It's the very definition.

Local authorities are dealing with it, the problem is it's done poorly as 2.5 American Indian women are victims of abuse to every 1 of all other American women. At some point, we need to give the local authorities more leverage in solving the problem.

In conclusion, you're basically completely wrong, as I figured you would be.

If domestic abuse against women isn't a matter of cultural health, I have no idea what is.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

What? Domestic abuse against women absolutely is a significant problem.

It directly threatens the existence of all abuse victims. They feel like they are in danger -- tell me pat, does feeling like you're in danger constitute fearing a threat to your existence? That's a big "duh" right there. And the idea that VAWA doesn't deal with "cultural health" is laughable on its face. It's the very definition.

Local authorities are dealing with it, the problem is it's done poorly as 2.5 American Indian women are victims of abuse to every 1 of all other American women. At some point, we need to give the local authorities more leverage in solving the problem.

In conclusion, you're basically completely wrong, as I figured you would be.

That's the kind of extremely low threshold for federal action that created the fiscally unsustainable entitlement state we live in today.

It's not a problem worthy of spending a single federal penny on. I could name a thousand potentially life threatening issues/situations that threaten the existence of "victims" that don't even begin to rise to the level of a threat to our national existence (or our cultural health) and don't deserve federal attention. To suggest that because it's really bad for the individual victims means the feds need to address it is about as lame an argument as I've ever heard you make.

Originally Posted by Direckshun

If domestic abuse against women isn't a matter of cultural health, I have no idea what is.

Lack of immigration enforcement is an obvious example.

[DementedLogic]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

What? Domestic abuse against women absolutely is a significant problem.

It directly threatens the existence of all abuse victims. They feel like they are in danger -- tell me pat, does feeling like you're in danger constitute fearing a threat to your existence? That's a big "duh" right there. And the idea that VAWA doesn't deal with "cultural health" is laughable on its face. It's the very definition.

Local authorities are dealing with it, the problem is it's done poorly as 2.5 American Indian women are victims of abuse to every 1 of all other American women. At some point, we need to give the local authorities more leverage in solving the problem.

In conclusion, you're basically completely wrong, as I figured you would be.

If domestic abuse against women isn't a matter of cultural health, I have no idea what is.

I've already demonstrated to you that VAWA did nothing to curb domestic violence. Quit pretending that it did.

[Direckshun]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/johnstanton/...awa-opposition

Democrats Slam Republicans Over Opposition To The Violence Against Women Act
As top Republican begins rebranding push, Democrats look to keep focus on opposition to Violence Against Women Act.
John Stanton
posted on February 5, 2013 at 8:42am EST

WASHINGTON — House Democrats Tuesday released a new web ad attacking House Majority Leader Eric Cantor over the GOP's resistance to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act last year.

The ad was timed to coincide with a major policy speech Cantor was scheduled to give at the American Enterprise Institute Tuesday afternoon outlining his vision for party's coming legislative agenda.

VAWA lapsed over two years ago, and Congress has thus far been unable to pass a reauthorization of the popular legislation.

Although Senate Republicans have backed it, House Republicans have balked over inclusion of language protecting transgendered women and undocumented workers and special provisions to protect Native American women.

Although Cantor still backs an emphasis on fiscal issues, his speech is designed to try to steer the party into tackling other "softer" areas that Republicans have a well-established position but haven't focused on in recent years.

Democrats have had success in casting Republicans as being solely focused on cutting spending and implementing conservative priorities, and the Tuesday ad is clearly aimed at blunting Cantor's push to soften the GOP's appearance.

"No matter how much the Tea Party House Republicans try to rebrand their party, the fact remains: They are still the party that is blocking funding to prevent domestic violence," said Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spokeswoman Emily Bittner. "No sales job can change the truth, that Tea Party House Republicans will relentlessly pursue their war on women."

[blaise]

WAR ON WOMEN