Violence Against Women Act Divides Senate

Jeanwah

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/03/go ... n-act.html

GOP No Longer Opposes Violence Against Women

In 1994, Congress passed the Violence Against Women Act, which was a no-brainer for both Republicans and Democrats. Who wants to grab headlines as the party that is not against beating women? Well, no one, but in 2012, thanks in part to a canny bit of maneuvering by Democrats, Republicans are.

The act is up for renewal and, as the Times reports, it's facing "fierce opposition from conservatives" in the Senate. The new version of the law contains expansions that violate certain principles that congressional Republicans feel they just can't sacrifice:

Republicans say the measure, under the cloak of battered women, unnecessarily expands immigration avenues by creating new definitions for immigrant victims to claim battery. More important, they say, it fails to put in safeguards to ensure that domestic violence grants are being well spent. It also dilutes the focus on domestic violence by expanding protections to new groups, like same-sex couples, they say.

So the effective party line, then, becomes that they support no violence against women, but immigrants and gay people? Eh, not their problem! Still, in a moment where women (and not just Democratic women) feel like the GOP has been attacking certain core rights of theirs, the subtle nuances of fiscal policy that Republicans are citing in their opposition aren't going to do much to convince women that the party just doesn't really care about them any more. Plus, there are plenty of conservatives who want to make opposing the act about women's issues specifically. Phyllis Schlafly, for instance, referred to the act as a "slush fund for feminism" and said that it promotes divorce.

It's great timing and optics for the Democrats — especially in an election where women are swing votes — and Republicans know it. "Obviously, you want to be for the title,” Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri said. “If Republicans can’t be for it, we need to have a very convincing alternative.” Is the "Shooting Ourselves in the Foot Act" taken? But Senate Republicans don't seem opposed to that kind of violence, either.

---

And for those who prefer to hear the news from Fox News, here's this:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/03/ ... en-voters/

Yes, there is a Republican war on women voters

Jeanwah

With the rate this is going, Republicans won't have a chance at winning since this will force more women to vote. And they won't be voting Republican.

BinauralJam

Jeanwah wrote:

With the rate this is going, Republicans won't have a chance at winning since this will force more women to vote. And they won't be voting Republican.

Sonds Good to me

Monster Rain

I'm officially declaring your post invalid because you linked to the Fox News website.

Jeanwah

Monster Rain wrote:

I'm officially declaring your post invalid because you linked to the Fox News website.

That was for Godfather.

pandora

says ... "page not found" for me on the fox link

must be a Democratic conspiracy

I was most looking forward to comparing the two sides of the story
that's sometimes a problem on the Train ... not enough progressive purple people

I'll see if I can hunt up something to compare

I'll be back...

Jeanwah

pandora wrote:

says ... "page not found" for me on the fox link

must be a Democratic conspiracy

I was most looking forward to comparing the two sides of the story
that's sometimes a problem on the Train ... not enough progressive purple people

I'll see if I can hunt up something to compare

I'll be back...

Yeah, for some reason this site (pj) is shortening my links and only one at a time seem to be working.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/03/ ... en-voters/

Not much to compare, surprisingly, and that's why I posted both. Because Fox is saying the same thing.

Newch91

I would be shocked at this but I'm not.

pandora

thanks for posting that one, yes it does seems Fox News is agreeing
I read a couple more articles and found a good quote I thought summed it up
and good common sense

Ben Yakas at Gothamist ...

"At the end of the day, either you believe women are human beings with rights to make their own choices—rights to autonomy, safety and equal protection under the law—or you don’t. And by opposing expansion of the VAWA’s protections to same-sex couples, immigrants, poor people and Native Americans—by opposing increasing the availability of free legal assistance to victims and expanding the definition of abuse to include stalking—they are saying the politics are more important than the issues."

I want poor women who are being abused to have what they need to change their lives
and to be safe. The stalking addition is good also ... so many women's x's go crazy
and make life miserable then retaliate and even resort to murder.

EdsonNascimento

Here's the problem - simple people look at things in simple ways. Unfortunately, there's no IQ test before you enter the voting booth.

They are most definitely not against VAW. They are against some provisions tacked onto the bill. So, if you want to say some are anti-gay (which is one of the sticking points for some of them), ok. If you want to say they don't want to create immigration loop holes, then ok. If you find either or both of those views distasteful, then have at it.

But, to use a title like this is exactly the problem with politics. That's not the issue at hand. Yes, that's the title of the bill. But, there's more intracacies to some congressfolks disagreement with this bill. Argue/discuss on THAT level. Not on a simplistic, low IQ, mis-direction basis.

Monster Rain

To be fair (and balanced wocka wocka), the author of that opinion piece on Fox News isn't a conservative at all. Take a look at her website that's linked after the column and you'll see she's definitely one of the people who appears on Fox News as the opposing viewpoint.

Godfather.

Jeanwah wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

I'm officially declaring your post invalid because you linked to the Fox News website.

That was for Godfather.

for me ??? I'm touched...I'm standing beside myself with joy and a warm fuzzy feeling I can't quite figure out,
thanks Jeanwah. you rock !

Godfather.

Jeanwah

Godfather. wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

I'm officially declaring your post invalid because you linked to the Fox News website.

That was for Godfather.

for me ??? I'm touched...I'm standing beside myself with joy and a warm fuzzy feeling I can't quite figure out,
thanks Jeanwah. you rock !

Godfather.

Just because I'm nice to you right now does not mean I'll ever read any of your threads you start off with a Fox link.

No, seriously. :lolno:

pandora

“The simplest things are often the truest.”

This is so politics to add gays and immigration to the bill
that it is a way for blues to get something over on the reds and make them appear
anti women in the same swoop.
That's politics at it's finest. A double hitter!

But it is the real life women who suffer ... doesn't take a genius to see that.

People see this and both sides look bad ... a simple put the bill back through
becomes another huge tug of war.

And once again there is no compromise ... who looks dumb again?

prism

Senate Dems Push for Quick Renewal of Violence Against Women Act, Which Republicans Inexplicably Oppose

By Lauren Kelley | Sourced from AlterNet
Posted at March 15, 2012, 9:21 am

Violence against women = bad, right? Right?? Who could possibly oppose a bill meant to protect survivors of domestic violence?

Republicans, that's who. As the New York Times' Jonathan Weisman reports, Democratic women are planning to march to the Senate floor today to demand the swift renewal of the Violence Against Women Act, a law that was passed during the Clinton administration to support domestic violence programs. Here's what the renewed law would accomplish, via the Times:


The legislation would continue existing grant programs to local law enforcement and battered women shelters, but would expand efforts to reach Indian tribes and rural areas. It would increase the availability of free legal assistance to victims of domestic violence, extend the definition of violence against women to include stalking, and provide training for civil and criminal court personnel to deal with families with a history of violence. It would also allow more battered illegal immigrants to claim temporary visas, and would include same-sex couples in programs for domestic violence.

At the time the legislation was originally passed, in 1994, it had broad bipartisan support. But today, some Republicans oppose the law, putting them in the awkward (and morally reprehensible) position of being anti-anti-violence against women. Why? Because the legislation could "[expand] immigration avenues by creating new definitions for immigrant victims to claim battery. More important, they say, it fails to put in safeguards to ensure that domestic violence grants are being well spent. It also dilutes the focus on domestic violence by expanding protections to new groups, like same-sex couples, they say."

God forbid we support immigrant and gay victims of domestic violence too!

The good news here is that the Republicans' move just paints them as more anti-woman than ever. With Repubs attacking women's rights left and right -- contraception, abortion, etc. -- this could be a fatal blow for a party that needs women voters come November. Republicans know this, and it's making them nervous. Again, the Times:

At a closed-door Senate Republican lunch on Tuesday, Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska sternly warned her colleagues that the party was at risk of being successfully painted as antiwoman — with potentially grievous political consequences in the fall, several Republican senators said Wednesday.


So how 'bout Republicans stop playing political games (which won't help them in the long run anyway) and do the right thing for domestic violence victims?








would someone like to explain why support services shouldn't be expanded for ALL domestic violence victims? what makes it okay to exclude help for illegal immigrants and same-sex victims excaping abuse? why is any woman less worthy of equal protection covered by this expansion of the act?

bigdvs

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism ... N%20TACTIC

brianlux

I know saying this is an over simplification of the issue, but anyone who is not against violence toward women will never get my vote.

prism

bigdvs wrote:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/03/16/DEMOCRATS TRY NEW WAR ON WOMEN TACTIC

just going by the source it was fairly certain to be a caustic opinion piece by a zealot on the right, and it is. only that a pile of rhetoric was from a woman that herself comes off as a woman hater...trying to bring up points based on polls that have nothing to do with the violence against women act.

just because she's blinded by her bitter dislike of obama doesn't mean what she said has validity...if anything it only detracts from her pov. she blantantly tries to twist blame on dems cause that's the easy way out, rather than supporting the senate to do the right thing for ALL women facing domestic violence.

the violence against women act expired last fall and was/is up for Senate review. so it not some tactic invented by democrats to make repubulicans look bad as the author suggests....repubulicans are making themselves look like asshats by once again showing they're callously anti-women.

the republican arguement that only some battered women should have access to domestic violence resources in this country...makes it a war against all women.

EdsonNascimento

brianlux wrote:

I know saying this is an over simplification of the issue, but anyone who is not against violence toward women will never get my vote.

Of course. But by simplifying it they dupe folks not as smart as you. I'm sure you see through this. Just like I'm sure you vehemently oppose their stance on gays as it relates to this bill. That's what's so funny there are easy targets in the opposition. But these folks think so little of their constituents that they pander. So, they are basically calling the folks they want to follow them stupid. :? That wouldn't make me feel good.

_

Jeanwah wrote:

Yes, there is a Republican war on women voters

Of course I totally agree. Except the problem is that it's on women in general, not voters specifically, and too many people who are disproportionately affected by these bills (e.g. poor women, immigrants, etc) don't vote. :(

cincybearcat

The republicans are being really stupid.

But, let's not be stupid ourselves and let a journalist pretend that this is nothing more than a renewal...it is certainly an increase and with that comes an increase in cost. I have no problem being against any act that doesn't define how it is going to be paid for...what goes away, or how are revenues increased. Seems logical, which is why congress never does it. And the democrats like to leave it out so that the republicans have to be against something that makes a good headline...and the public is too stupid to understand.