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.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Women typically prefer legislation against domestic violence.

This isn't legislation against domestic violence. Domestic violence is already illegal at the state level. This is political

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by patteeu

This isn't legislation against domestic violence. Domestic violence is already illegal at the state level. This is political

The Act provides $1.6 billion toward investigation and prosecution of violent crimes against women, imposes automatic and mandatory restitution on those convicted, and allows civil redress in cases prosecutors chose to leave unprosecuted. The Act also establishes the Office on Violence Against Women within the Department of Justice. Male victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking may also be covered.

Yeah. 100% political BS.

Edit: DNP, 55-0. GOP, 23-22. Worth reposting.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Yeah. 100% political BS.

Edit: DNP, 55-0. GOP, 23-22. Worth reposting.

Oh, did you think it was important that I failed to mention that it included additional spending to add to the Obama spending spree tab? I assumed that part could go without saying. Obama isn't for anything more than he's for spending more money. But like I said before, this doesn't make domestic violence any more illegal.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Oh, did you think it was important that I failed to mention that it included additional spending to add to the Obama spending spree tab? I assumed that part could go without saying. Obama isn't for anything more than he's for spending more money.

So, the money isn't going to fighting domestic violence?

[Direckshun]

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

So, the money isn't going to fighting domestic violence?

The money will largely go to members of a government employees union. It's dressed up with the language you're using in order to fool stupid people and create a political advantage.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by patteeu

The money will largely go to members of a government employees union.

Link?

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

What happened to the overall violent crime rate during that period? Did we see a sudden surge in these domestic violence crimes after 2007?

After doing a bit of research, maybe this bill should be called the defense of battered husbands at the expense of battered wives act. Your graphic says that the murder rate of women only dropped by 35% over the specified period. The overall murder rate in the country dropped by 41% during that same period. Like I said, this legislation is .

[FishingRod]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Would the violence against women not dropping as much as it did against men over the same time suggest it was a failure?

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Link?

Where do you think this "investigate and prosecute" money is going to go? Or don't you care?

[DementedLogic]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Those rates were dropping significantly prior to 1993. The VAWA did not change the rate of decline in violence against women, so what did it do?

[patteeu]

Another deception by Direckshun debunked. Fine job fellas.

[DementedLogic]

[Prison Bitch]

Married women voted for Romney. They must hate themselves to do such a thing.

[BucEyedPea]

Kept women too. This is a state issue—not a federal one.