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.

[Setsuna]

Sigh....

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by patteeu

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.

Originally Posted by DementedLogic

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?

These are fair points, but there's too much documented evidence:

• Expanded legal services such as those provided in VAWA has contributed to declines in domestic violence.
• Given law enforcement greater ability to arrest perpetrators.
• VAWA has been critical to prosecution training.
• Outcomes have been better for everybody, from law enforcement to victims, thanks to specialized law enforcement units empowered and trained with VAWA resources.
• Prosecution is far more successful with the "specialized domestic violence prosecution programs" promoted with VAWA resources.
• VAWA has been documented as a contributor (at the very least) to declines of domestic violence.

The research is expansive on the issue.

I'm not arguing that VAWA is a silver bullet agianst domestic violence, but the research is far too expansive suggesting it is a very strong contributor. The idea that it's a "sham," as patteeu puts it, is comical and completely unsupported by evidence of any kind.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by FishingRod

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

Suggest what was a failure, VAWA?

There's tons of evidence documenting the many gains law enforcement and victims receive from VAWA. I would probably have to see studies suggesting the complete opposite.

Search all you want on the issue. I did.

Occasionally you'll find a study that says "the evidence is inconclusive" when the study was far too limited. But far more frequently, evidence is overwhelmingly strong in VAWA's favor.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by DementedLogic

Well that was pointless.

It takes her 1:15 before she gets to a ****ing point, by the way.

The first argument she makes (that there is "no evidence" that it reduces domestic violence) is flat wrong.

The second argument is that it's REALLY a front to just give money to liberal organizations to re-elect Democrats. Which, is evidentially unsupported.

The third argument is that domestic violence was already illegal (she later calls VAWA "redundant"). But VAWA's entire purpose is to help supplement local law enforcement with additional resources, almost all of them unique to VAWA, so this argument is irrelevent.

The fourth argument is that VAWA is unconstitutional, which is hilariously wrong.

The fifth argument is that it costs $600million/year. Which is... too much to spend to fight domestic violence?

The sixth argument she makes is that "raising your voice at a partner," calling her an offensive name," "just annoying her," qualifies as domestic violence under this law. The US government defines domestic violence as "pattern of abusive behavior in any relationship that is used by one partner to gain or maintain power and control over another intimate partner." So in other words, none of the bullshit the speaker says counts as domestic violence unless it's truly abusive with intentions to leverage power.

She then claims that the bill only helps women, and not men. "Radical feminists are protraying women as helpless victims!" "50% of all partner violence is mutual" -- I haven't read anything supporting that, but it doesn't matter. As has already been proven in this thread, VAWA protects men as well.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by patteeu

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

I know exactly where it's going. You don't.

You just say "government employees union." You have no idea what's being done with the funding.

[DementedLogic]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

These are fair points, but there's too much documented evidence:

• Expanded legal services such as those provided in VAWA has contributed to declines in domestic violence.
• Given law enforcement greater ability to arrest perpetrators.
• VAWA has been critical to prosecution training.
• Outcomes have been better for everybody, from law enforcement to victims, thanks to specialized law enforcement units empowered and trained with VAWA resources.
• Prosecution is far more successful with the "specialized domestic violence prosecution programs" promoted with VAWA resources.
• VAWA has been documented as a contributor (at the very least) to declines of domestic violence.

The research is expansive on the issue.

I'm not arguing that VAWA is a silver bullet agianst domestic violence, but the research is far too expansive suggesting it is a very strong contributor. The idea that it's a "sham," as patteeu puts it, is comical and completely unsupported by evidence of any kind.

All violent crime rates, including domestic crime, were going to be sharp decline regardless of VAWA. It was going to happen because the baby boomers were getting older. Older people are less likely to commit violent crimes. The baby boomers were driving the average age of the population, and as they got older, crime rates were going to fall across the board. This is also why crime rates are leveling off now, and they will probably start to rise again as the baby boomers die off.

If VAWA was effective, there would have been a change in the trend of violent crimes against women, but there wasn't. The rate of decline remained steady. Violent crime against women actually decreased more in the 17 years leading up to VAWA than the 17 years during VAWA.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by DementedLogic

All violent crime rates, including domestic crime, were going to be sharp decline regardless of VAWA. It was going to happen because the baby boomers were getting older. Older people are less likely to commit violent crimes. The baby boomers were driving the average age of the population, and as they got older, crime rates were going to fall across the board. This is also why crime rates are leveling off now, and they will probably start to rise again as the baby boomers die off.

There are a whole lot of reasons why crime can and should stay low, even with the decline of baby boomers in the population. But that's another thread.

Originally Posted by DementedLogic

If VAWA was effective, there would have been a change in the trend of violent crimes against women, but there wasn't. The rate of decline remained steady. Violent crime against women actually decreased more in the 17 years leading up to VAWA than the 17 years during VAWA.

You've already made this argument. I've already rebutted it.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

These are fair points, but there's too much documented evidence:

• Expanded legal services such as those provided in VAWA has contributed to declines in domestic violence.
• Given law enforcement greater ability to arrest perpetrators.
• VAWA has been critical to prosecution training.
• Outcomes have been better for everybody, from law enforcement to victims, thanks to specialized law enforcement units empowered and trained with VAWA resources.
• Prosecution is far more successful with the "specialized domestic violence prosecution programs" promoted with VAWA resources.
• VAWA has been documented as a contributor (at the very least) to declines of domestic violence.

The research is expansive on the issue.

I'm not arguing that VAWA is a silver bullet agianst domestic violence, but the research is far too expansive suggesting it is a very strong contributor. The idea that it's a "sham," as patteeu puts it, is comical and completely unsupported by evidence of any kind.

It's supported by the evidence you quoted for starters. It's a big sham designed for political impact and for transferring dollars from taxpayers to democrat constituencies, not a solution to a problem that needed to be solved (especially at the federal level).

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

I know exactly where it's going. You don't.

You just say "government employees union." You have no idea what's being done with the funding.

If you knew, you'd have posted a novel-length post with several subsections by now.

The law isn't outlawing domestic violence, because states already do this. It's a spending law that rains money on local government with strings attached so the feds can micromanage local law enforcement.

Where does that money end up? It either ends up paying salaries (of government employee union members) or it pays for construction of new facilities or it ends up going to outside domestic violence activist organizations for things like research, training, public education, outreach or counselling. I suspect that the majority, if not all, of the money is going toward the first and third categories which are dominated by democrat constituents.

If we were in an environment where we had so much money that we can't cut taxes enough to reduce the surpluses and we had to find a way to spend it, maybe you could make an argument that this particular type of spending was more valuable than a bridge to nowhere or a Congressional pay increase, but we are in a dramatically less attractive fiscal environment. This kind of spending is a great example of democrats putting politics ahead of fiscal responsibility as they always do. They're a cancer eating away at the health of our nation.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

You've already made this argument. I've already rebutted it.

No, you haven't.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by patteeu

It's supported by the evidence you quoted for starters. It's a big sham designed for political impact and for transferring dollars from taxpayers to democrat constituencies, not a solution to a problem that needed to be solved (especially at the federal level).

Once again, you're stating conclusions but not propping them up with evidence or support.

Do you have any support for this? Is there another commentator that agrees with you? What are you basing any of this on?

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by patteeu

If you knew, you'd have posted a novel-length post with several subsections by now.

The law isn't outlawing domestic violence, because states already do this. It's a spending law that rains money on local government with strings attached so the feds can micromanage local law enforcement.

...so the feds can provide better resources to fight domestic violence.

Originally Posted by patteeu

Where does that money end up? It either ends up paying salaries (of government employee union members)

...who provide resources to fight domestic violence.

Originally Posted by patteeu

or it pays for construction of new facilities

...that are used for responding to the threat and persecution of domestic violence.

Originally Posted by patteeu

or it ends up going to outside domestic violence activist organizations for things like research, training, public education, outreach or counselling.

Right.

So... what's the problem, again?

Originally Posted by patteeu

I suspect that the majority, if not all, of the money is going toward the first and third categories which are dominated by democrat constituents.

Which is irrelevent, of course, if it's serving its intended purpose.

Originally Posted by patteeu

They're a cancer eating away at the health of our nation.

VAWA is a cancer, eating away at the health of our nation.

Ladies and gentlemen: your modern Republican Party platform.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by patteeu

No, you haven't.

re·but/rɪˈbʌt/ Show Spelled [ri-buht] Show IPA verb, re·but·ted, re·but·ting.
verb (used with object)
1. to refute by evidence or argument.
2. to oppose by contrary proof.

Care to try again?

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

...so the feds can provide better resources to fight domestic violence.

The feds could cut taxes and let the states establish whatever taxes they deem necessary to do their jobs as primary law enforcement jurisdictions.

Alternatively, the feds could send taxpayer money to the states without strings attached so that states could decide what the best way to spend that money is.

There's absolutely no reason for the feds to be involved in this law enforcement issue. Particularly in an environment when we're already overspending to the tune of at least $1 trillion per year already. When are you guys going to get the message?

Originally Posted by Direckshun

...who provide resources to fight domestic violence.

Like I said, government employee union members.

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Right.

So... what's the problem, again?

Raining money on democrat constituencies... of course you don't see a problem.

Originally Posted by Direckshun

VAWA is a cancer, eating away at the health of our nation.

Ladies and gentlemen: your modern Republican Party platform.

No VAWA is just one of many symptoms. Unrepentant tax and spend liberalism is the cancer.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by patteeu

The feds could cut taxes and let the states establish whatever taxes they deem necessary to do their jobs as primary law enforcement jurisdictions.

Alternatively, the feds could send taxpayer money to the states without strings attached so that states could decide what the best way to spend that money is.

That was our policy prior to VAWA. VAWA provides unique services that weren't being provided on local or state levels, because the local and state governments weren't doing it.

Originally Posted by patteeu

There's absolutely no reason for the feds to be involved in this law enforcement issue.

General welfare, brother.

Originally Posted by patteeu

Particularly in an environment when we're already overspending to the tune of at least $1 trillion per year already. When are you guys going to get the message?

Spending isn't the problem, broadly. Healthcare spending is the problem, specifically. The key is to bend the cost curve on Medicare.

Originally Posted by patteeu

Like I said, government employee union members.

Yeah, but it sounds a lot less villainous when you actually mention what they, you know, actually do.

They provide resources to fight domestic violence.

Originally Posted by patteeu

Raining money on democrat constituencies... of course you don't see a problem.

If it's going to "research, training, public education, outreach or counselling" for domestic violence, as you just said it does, then I don't give a shit whose constituencies they are.

Country > politics.

I'd suggest you adopt the same philosophy.