PDA

View Full Version : Violence Against Women Act



ccmanuals
04-26-2012, 07:04 PM
This should speak for itself.

http://i49.tinypic.com/10ii6h0.jpg

Ian McColgin
04-26-2012, 07:14 PM
For those unsure of the issue:

By Lisa Mascaro
Washington Bureau, LA Times
April 26, 2012, 3:03 p.m.

WASHINGTON -- Sidestepping a politically dangerous fight, Senate Republicans made temporary peace with Democrats to approve the reauthorization of a popular law designed to help prevent and respond to domestic and sexual abuse.

Passage of the Violence Against Women Act on a 68-31 vote gives momentum to the legislation, which would reauthorize more than $650 million in programs. Fifteen Republicans joined Democrats in passage. But the bill still faces hurdles in the House, where Republican leaders plan to offer an alternative proposal.

“The Violence Against Women Act is an example of what the Senate can accomplish when we work together,” said Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), the bill’s author.

Usually the reauthorization has bipartisan support. But this year it has become enmeshed, at least temporarily, in the partisan wrangling that has dominated this Congress.

Senate Democrats sought to expand the legislation to specifically ensure protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. Their version, which had a robust 61 cosponsors, also sought to increase the number of visas available for immigrant women facing abuse.

A Republican alternative largely skipped those provisions, and added new ones that many Democrats did not support, including mandatory sentences for certain criminal convictions.

But Senate Republicans decided to avoid a prolonged fight in an election year in which Democrats have accused them of waging a “war on women.” The GOP had sharply criticized the Obama administration’s requirement that insurance plans offer free contraceptive coverage.

“I’m going to support the Violence Against Women Act even if it falls short,” said Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, who put forward the Republican alternative.

The legislation now goes to the House, where Republican women are introducing their own proposal. It would extend the legislation for five years – rather than one, as in the Senate bill – and would include many provisions similar to those in the Senate GOP proposal.

The House Republican version also aims to shift money to help process the backlog of rape kits, which can help to identify suspects in sexual abuse cases. A similar measure was defeated in the Senate, where Democrats argued it should be added to another bill.

The Violence Against Women Act, originally written by Vice President Joe Biden when he was a senator, was first approved in 1994. The current authorization expired last year, but the programs have been funded through the end of the fiscal year, Sept. 30. This bill, if signed into law, would reauthorize the programs for the next fiscal year.

Approval has been a priority for the administration, given President Obama’s desire to solidify his standing among women voters. Republicans have claimed that Democrats were using the act for political gain during an election year.

The Senate-passed version also provides new protections for Native American women. Those provisions have drawn constitutional questions because they would allow individuals who aren’t Native American to be prosecuted for certain crimes in tribal courts.

# # #

Meli
04-26-2012, 07:30 PM
It would be informative to post the whole vote details:rolleyes:
I'd like to know the gender of all those in favour as I'm sure republican women would.

Not all republicans are ultra conservative and I'm reasonably sure, in fact I know that many fully support single payer health care and a hell of a lot of other "liberal" ideals.

Demonising all republicans only pushes the moderate republicans into a corner, silences reasonable debate and gives power to extremists.

Ian McColgin
04-26-2012, 08:06 PM
Meli, the thirty one senators who voted against are all Republican men.

Meli
04-26-2012, 08:37 PM
and are the 15 reps that voted for it all women?

Just looking for a little twig for the moderates to cling to

Captain Intrepid
04-26-2012, 08:57 PM
Ah shucks. They probably just read the title and thought they were voting against violence against women. ;)

Ian McColgin
04-26-2012, 09:33 PM
It was a vote in the US Senate - 100 members total. The thirty one who voted against were all Republicans. The rest of the Republicans and all Democrats voted for. All seventeen women Senators voted for, including the five who are Republican women.

ccmanuals
04-26-2012, 09:41 PM
Was surprised Rubio voted no. If he ends up on the ticket you will see this in numerous tv spots.

wardd
04-26-2012, 09:52 PM
It was a vote in the US Senate - 100 members total. The thirty one who voted against were all Republicans. The rest of the Republicans and all Democrats voted for. All seventeen women Senators voted for, including the five who are Republican women.

just can't trust republican wimmin

Flying Orca
04-27-2012, 07:07 AM
Am I reading that correctly, in that there is a Republican senator from Kansas named "Moran"? That made coffee go up my nose.

Keith Wilson
04-27-2012, 07:26 AM
There is indeed: Senator Jerry Moran of Kansas. (http://moran.senate.gov/public/) About what you'd expect.

Flying Orca
04-27-2012, 07:55 AM
There is indeed: Senator Jerry Moran of Kansas. (http://moran.senate.gov/public/) About what you'd expect.

Every now and then the universe does something unexpectedly awesome, doesn't it!

Meli
04-27-2012, 08:07 AM
EEK I just opened that link. Put a smaltz warning on next time:mad::D

B_B
04-27-2012, 09:28 AM
Am I reading that correctly, in that there is a Republican senator from Kansas named "Moran"? That made coffee go up my nose.


There is indeed: Senator Jerry Moran of Kansas. (http://moran.senate.gov/public/) About what you'd expect.

And here I always thought this pic was about red-neck stupidity - it's now contextualized in a whole 'nuther manner. I'd always thought he was a Tea Partier protesting 'morons', but in reality he's a Progressive ranting against the venerable Sen. from Kansas and his extended family.

http://members.shaw.ca/robertmcbean/morans.jpg

Flying Orca
04-27-2012, 09:38 AM
B'zackly.

Donn
04-27-2012, 09:40 AM
I have an acquaintance in Canada, named Hugh Moran. He's a very successful businessman, but a failed liberal politician.

Flying Orca
04-27-2012, 09:43 AM
I have an acquaintance in Canada, named Hugh Moran. He's a very successful businessman, but a failed liberal politician.

You sure that's small-L "liberal"?

(The thing that amused me was the the guy is from Kansas, as in "What's the matter with".)

B_B
04-27-2012, 09:45 AM
I have an acquaintance in Canada, named Hugh Moran. He's a very successful businessman, but a failed liberal politician.
Being a Liberal in Manitoba provincial politics in the '70's and '80's and '90's wasn't the brightest idea anyone's ever had. ;)

Donn
04-27-2012, 09:51 AM
Being a Liberal in Manitoba provincial politics in the '70's and '80's and '90's wasn't the brightest idea anyone's ever had. ;)

What do you expect from a Canadian Moran?

BrianW
04-27-2012, 09:51 AM
Hopefully it allows the buggering of dead wives.

Within 6 hours of death of course. I mean, lets be reasonable.

bobbys
04-27-2012, 10:50 AM
There is indeed: Senator Jerry Moran of Kansas. (http://moran.senate.gov/public/) About what you'd expect..

Did not know we stooped low enough to mock names.

Good i have a list.....

bobbys
04-27-2012, 10:51 AM
And here I always thought this pic was about red-neck stupidity - it's now contextualized in a whole 'nuther manner. I'd always thought he was a Tea Partier protesting 'morons', but in reality he's a Progressive ranting against the venerable Sen. from Kansas and his extended family.

http://members.shaw.ca/robertmcbean/morans.jpg.

What do you expect from a Cardinals fan....

wardd
04-27-2012, 10:51 AM
how much violence is ok?

bobbys
04-27-2012, 11:21 AM
WASHINGTON – The Senate overcame election-year gender politics Thursday to pass a bill renewing the government's main domestic violence program.
The 68-31 vote marked the first time since the Violence Against Women Act first passed in 1994 that its renewal has drawn opposition in the Senate, reflecting the increasing polarization of the chamber and hair-trigger political sensitivities over women's issues in this presidential and congressional election year.
"In 2012, we should be beyond questioning the need for the Violence Against Women Act," Vice President Joe Biden said in a statement. He urged the House to act quickly so President Barack Obama can sign the renewal into law.
But the path there could be equally tricky. Majority Republicans are writing their own version, which is likely to resemble a GOP alternative widely rejected by the Senate.
Twice renewed without opposition in the Senate, the bill of programs to prevent domestic violence and sexual abuse ran headlong into the partisan warfare that has shut or slowed legislative business since the 2010 elections. Not helping smooth the way: the broader political fight for pivotal female voters and the Democrats' election-year narrative that accuses Republicans of waging a "war on women."
The bill would reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act for five years with funding of $659.3 million a year, down $136.5 million annually from the last act, which has expired. The money pays for such programs as legal assistance for victims, enforcement of protection orders, transitional housing and youth prevention programs.
Democrats sought to expand the law by adding protections certain to draw conservative opposition. One would explicitly name gays, lesbians and transgender people to the group of those protected under the law. Another would raise the cap on visas granted to abused legal and illegal immigrants from 10,000 to 15,000. A third would expand the authority of Native American officials to handle cases of abuse of Indian women by non-Indians.
The bill drew 61 co-sponsors, more than enough to block filibusters and set up a political dare to Republicans: Vote no, and you're waging a "war against women."
The strategy raised hackles among Republicans, who insisted they had women's interests at heart, too. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said the narrative was a distraction from issues Democrats would rather not discuss, such as the economy and gas prices.
"We face an abundance of hard choices," said McCain, the GOP's 2008 presidential nominee and a leading supporter of Republican hopeful Mitt Romney this year. "Divisive slogans and declaring of phony wars are intended to avoid those hard choices and to escape paying a political price for doing so."
To prove it, Republicans offered alternatives that would delete the references to gays, lesbians and transgender people, keep the cap on visas at its current level and allow tribal authorities to go to federal court for protective orders on behalf of abused Native American women.
But the Senate rejected the options overwhelmingly. And in the end, even its sponsor, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas_and McCain — were among the 15 Republicans who voted for the final Democratic bill.
The 31 Republicans who voted no said they support the spirit of the act but had problems with the Democratic rewrite up for consideration.
Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., for example, said he opposed the bill in part because he believes abused women are best served by state and local governments.
And Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., said he voted 'no' because he believes the tribal provisions in the bill would be unconstitutional. Under the measure, Native American officials would be allowed to arrest, prosecute and imprison non-Indians, who cannot vote in tribal elections or have a say in crafting laws that could be used against him, Kyl said.

BrianW
04-27-2012, 11:36 AM
What are you doing bobby, posting more facts.

We're only suppose to know the names of those who voted "nay" and not care why they did so.

So now we know, democrats think gay men are women. Duh, makes sense. I'm not sure how they figure lesbians are women? Since when did that happen?

bobbys
04-27-2012, 11:42 AM
What are you doing bobby, posting more facts.

We're only suppose to know the names of those who voted "nay" and not care why they did so.

So now we know, democrats think gay men are women. Duh, makes sense. I'm not sure how they figure lesbians are women? Since when did that happen?.

Funny they cannot pass a budget but fall all over them selfs to get a "gotcha" on republicans..

Course to be fair they knew they were under fire for not passing a budget, Why not use a war on woman bill to get the rep Nays on record.

Shameful politics.

What next. A bill about war on puppies.

switters
04-27-2012, 12:11 PM
President Obama threatens to veto bill that would keep interest rates on student loans from doubling.

There, that is all you need to know to form a partisan opinion.

Flying Orca
04-27-2012, 12:49 PM
Being a Liberal in Manitoba provincial politics in the '70's and '80's and '90's wasn't the brightest idea anyone's ever had. ;)

They have one seat and a lame duck leader now, so I'm not sure things have improved much.

ccmanuals
04-27-2012, 12:53 PM
What are you doing bobby, posting more facts.

We're only suppose to know the names of those who voted "nay" and not care why they did so.

So now we know, democrats think gay men are women. Duh, makes sense. I'm not sure how they figure lesbians are women? Since when did that happen?

Facts? that's pretty funny.

Farfalla
04-27-2012, 06:15 PM
http://forum.woodenboat.com/image.php?u=5991&dateline=1331706640 (http://forum.woodenboat.com/member.php?5991-BrianW)BrianW (http://forum.woodenboat.com/member.php?5991-BrianW)
http://forum.woodenboat.com/images/statusicon/user-offline.pngnot your average member



Join DateNov 2002LocationSitka, AKPosts16,534


http://forum.woodenboat.com/images/icons/icon1.png Re: Violence Against Women Act


Hopefully it allows the buggering of dead wives.

Within 6 hours of death of course. I mean, lets be reasonable.






http://forum.woodenboat.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by BrianWhttp://forum.woodenboat.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?p=3393267#post3393267)What are you doing bobby, posting more facts.

We're only suppose to know the names of those who voted "nay" and not care why they did so.


So now we know, democrats think gay men are women. Duh, makes sense. I'm not sure how they figure lesbians are women? Since when did that happen?



Facts? that's pretty funny.

No they are not funny!!
That's offensive garbage and should be removed.
There should be no place for this sort of garbage on this forum. None at all!!

BrianW
04-27-2012, 07:51 PM
No they are not funny!!
That's offensive garbage and should be removed.
There should be no place for this sort of garbage on this forum. None at all!!

You're running low on irony.

PeterSibley
04-28-2012, 01:23 AM
And Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., said he voted 'no' because he believes the tribal provisions in the bill would be unconstitutional. Under the measure, Native American officials would be allowed to arrest, prosecute and imprison non-Indians, who cannot vote in tribal elections or have a say in crafting laws that could be used against him, Kyl said.




You mean like being arrested and tried in a State where you haven't voted and can't vote? It doesn't sound like a major concern, to me at least.:rolleyes::D

I reckon the good Senator is grabbing at excuses .

Farfalla
04-28-2012, 01:48 AM
So now we know, democrats think gay men are women. Duh, makes sense. I'm not sure how they figure lesbians are women? Since when did that happen?


You're running low on irony.

You seriously want to claim that you were being ironic when you posted that comment?
If you do then you are a sadder individual than I thought. At least you could have the backbone to admit when you have made a stupid comment.
If you do in fact think that was irony then I suggest the sort of supplement that you need is a little stronger than a vitamin pill!

Farfalla
04-28-2012, 05:08 AM
But you're from the U.K. so your opinion doesn't count. Besides you people are confused. :D I had to str8n out a professor on FB yesterday. Watch a little telly and you know everything there is to know about the states eh? NOT

Brian was using irony to raise a serious issue under our form of Government which apparently evades most here and of course the U.K. contingent hereabouts. Stuart Varney from FOX would have picked up on it but he doesn't count here because everybody cool in the bilge knows from media matters ( not direct experience ) that FOX LIES.

Bonus points to the first beautiful person to guess what Brian W was referring to with his irony. I'll bet none of you get it right and that will be recursive irony. Yep.

So kind of you to straighten us ignorant beings out about things.
I guess along with all those people who might read those comments that are not totally up on the "Oh so subtle and sophisticated elements of the latest right wing diatribes" I don't see the irony in the statements as they were posted.
If it's necessary to suffer through Faux News to get the secret instructions that reveal the hidden wisdom then I'm afraid I'll just give it a pass and call it how it stands.
In case there is any confusion, I wasn't trying for irony, that's sarcasm plain and simple. After all I'm just an ignorant person unable to grasp the subtlety of such sophisticated discourse as you guys present.
I'm happy to stand by my statements as they actually read and not claim some oh so secret subtle wisdom is hidden within it's bowels.

Meli
04-28-2012, 05:49 AM
I cant be bothered reading the ins and outs of this thread. (I did read the links )

I'm not even going to read if "Violence against women" is the correct name for the act.

If it is, it should be renamed "domestic violence" act or some such.
It it's not, it's prolly because the Dems are opening up a can of worms re Gay or lesbian couples and the whole thing will fail in the fight.

Violence against women is a stupid name, does it leave out children?

This is what politics has come down to all over the world. weak laws to placate.

Hi PD, How's the road show going ? :)

Sophie is quite right to protest at BrianW comment. It was puerile. He is smart enough to know better .

BrianW
04-28-2012, 07:09 AM
I cant be bothered reading the ins and outs of this thread. (I did read the links )

I'm not even going to read if "Violence against women" is the correct name for the act.

If it is, it should be renamed "domestic violence" act or some such.
It it's not, it's prolly because the Dems are opening up a can of worms re Gay or lesbian couples and the whole thing will fail in the fight.

Violence against women is a stupid name, does it leave out children?

This is what politics has come down to all over the world. weak laws to placate.

Hi PD, How's the road show going ? :)

Sophie is quite right to protest at BrianW comment. It was puerile. He is smart enough to know better .

Well, since I agree with your whole post, I'll address the last part...

Men are not women. Not even gay men. The name of the Act specifically mentions women. Like you said, they should change the name of the Act if they're going to change the scope of coverage.

Lesbians have always been women, there's no need to add them to the list of victims.

These changes appear to be a political game, played by Democrats. It's sad that some people are taking the bait, and blaming Republicans for saying "WTF?"

Meli
04-28-2012, 07:35 AM
Well, since I agree with your whole post, I'll address the last part...

Men are not women. Not even gay men. The name of the Act specifically mentions women. Like you said, they should change the name of the Act if they're going to change the scope of coverage.

Lesbians have always been women, there's no need to add them to the list of victims.

These changes appear to be a political game, played by Democrats. It's sad that some people are taking the bait, and blaming Republicans for saying "WTF?"

I'll ignore the bit about not even gay men being women.
It's neither the Dems or the reps.
There is a fear among the reps about nice white boys being hauled in front of a tribal court or a confusion about domestic violence applying equally to MEN:rolleyes:
There is fear among the dems that if they change the name to cover all domestic violence, homophobes will nit pick.
"Violence against women" has a nice paternalistic ring, that will appeal to most.
Weak, but in the current climate, a weak law is better than no law at all.


What about Indian women? Aren't they women, too? I mean if a gay man can be a woman, can''t an Indian woman be a woman? What is wrong with these people?

My idiot detector just blew up. You prolly think this is an obvious bait. sounds like something the high school jock would think say to wind up the nerdy feminist girl in a Bad 70's high school drama:rolleyes:

Ian McColgin
04-28-2012, 09:56 AM
“Ian do you know what percentage of rape victims are male?” [#33]

No. I don’t. No one does. So you can stick that 40% back into whatever dark place you pulled it from and take a look at what the Act actually does in your community.

Violence against women is an international problem, a human problem, that has its own mirror in the US and much of the Act tries to address the unique US issues. However, the victims’ assistance programs the Act funds around the nation really do assist such male victims as come forward.

State rape laws and the victims’ assistance programs don’t ignore men and boys who are rape victims. Tragically, society does, and these men and boys really have a very hard time coming forward to make a criminal complaint for many many reasons. Think of that scene in Pulp Fiction where Ving Rhames tells Bruce Willis that he does not need to mention what he’s witnessed. Great scene for a movie, but it also tells us so much about what’s wrong with our whole understanding of men and rape.

I am sorry that people want to trivialize both this Act and male rape victims by inventing "equality" sounding reasons to defund local victims' assistance programs.

ccmanuals
04-28-2012, 07:10 PM
Why weren't GOP amendments to require BackPage to remove portion of it's online adult classified section that facilitated child sex trafficing?


Why weren't GOP amendments to require an emphasis on processing the backlog of untested rape kits added?


Why weren't GOP amendments to require tougher mandatory sentencing guidleines added for possesion of child pornography and using drugs to redner sexual assault victims unconscious added?


Thankfully a Democrat amendment hasn't yet been added to provide a Sharia law provision similar to the Indian tribe one to give Islamists the same authority as Indians - they treat women equally as well as Indian women are treated on reservations.

Oh well, maybe the House will fix it (except for the last as thankfully the Dems don't have the majority in the House).

From the very beginning, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) led the opposition to reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) — even leading Senate Judiciary Republicans to unanimously vote against it (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/02/15/425816/grassley-takes-straight-domestic-violence-victims-hostage-to-lash-out-at-gay-victims-and-immigrants/) because they object to its protections for LGBT victims, immigrants and Native Americans. Grassley has now teamed up with Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) “offer a substitute (http://www.rollcall.com/news/house-senate-clash-domestic-violence-bill-214107-1.html?pos=hftxt) that would address GOP concerns with the bill.”Although the full details of Grassley and Hutchinson’s watered down protections for domestic violence victims have yet to be released, it is likely that they will map Grassley’s previously stated opposition to providing greater support for LGBT, undocumented, and tribal victims of domestic violence. The Hutchison/Grassley amendment will likely leave out some victims who face particularly harsh discrimination. If Senate Republicans embrace Grassley’s earlier objections to reauthorizing VAWA, they will show that they are willing to tolerate a certain amount of domestic violence by ignoring certain victims:

For Native victims: In 86 percent (https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/223691.pdf) of reported rapes or sexual assaults on Native women, the perpetrators are non-Native. While Hutchison has criticized the tribal provisions, saying that ‘any American’ could be imprisoned (http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2012/04/16/u-s-senator-worries-tribal-courts-will-imprison-any-american-108508) by tribal courts, in actuality, the provisions (http://library.constantcontact.com/download/get/file/1101440258860-824/Tribal+VAWA_Backgrounder.pdf) allow tribal members to prosecute a non-tribal people who commit domestic violence and who either live or work on a reservation, or are married to a tribal member. The Grassley / Hutchison amendment requires any domestic violence to be prosecuted in federal courts, meaning that rural tribal victims won’t seek help. Additionally (http://4vawa.org/violence-against-women-act-cannot-be-a-victim), federal prosecutors “already decline to prosecute half of Indian Country crimes that are referred to them,” and with the added number of domestic violence crimes, victims are likely to never see justice.
For LGBT victims: The new version of the bill also lacks any additional provisions for the LGBT community, blanketing over LGBT-specific issues with gender neutral language that lumps the needs of gay and lesbian protections in with the needs of straight couples. The original version of VAWA says that domestic violence shelters cannot discriminate (http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/02/02/417530/senate-judiciary-committee-advances-lgbt-inclusive-violence-against-women-act/) against gay, lesbian, or trans people, but the new version says nothing about this issue. Grassley has said that he does not believe (http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/02/03/418265/grassley-suggests-lgbt-people-arent-discriminated-against-at-shelters/) discrimination in shelters is an issue — despite the fact that “44.6 percent of LGBT/HIV-positive survivors of intimate partner violence were turned away from shelters.”
For undocumented victims: The Grassley/Hutchison version of the bill takes out the added visas for undocumented people who are beaten and seek assistance from the state. The visas are put in place so that victims aren’t too scared to contact the authorities when they find themselves physically harmed or in danger. When such protections don’t exist, people are forced to work outside of the law to protect themselves.
But there may be a bit of good news in the amendment. It may offer (http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2012/04/cornyn-pushing-to-include-rape.html) increased funding for rape kits, the processing of which is notoriously backlogged (http://www.rainn.org/news-room/news/rape-kit-backlog) in the criminal justice system across the U.S. This funding should be increased, but LGBT, Native American and immigrant victims should not have to suffer for it.

tigerregis
04-28-2012, 08:02 PM
Ah ****, I thought that Moran was a tug boat company putting big things into places where they couldn't get by themselves. When I was a kid in NYC, we were told women's lib was human lib. That turned out to be another big lie told often enough to become second nature. Too bad; who let the dogs out? Let them eat cake.

Meli
04-29-2012, 04:47 PM
Certainly I did. What's your point?

I wish Mark was here, at least after he C&P stuff he has the guts to attempt to explain what he's on about.

I like Mark :D

John Smith
04-29-2012, 06:31 PM
It would be informative to post the whole vote details:rolleyes:
I'd like to know the gender of all those in favour as I'm sure republican women would.

Not all republicans are ultra conservative and I'm reasonably sure, in fact I know that many fully support single payer health care and a hell of a lot of other "liberal" ideals.

Demonising all republicans only pushes the moderate republicans into a corner, silences reasonable debate and gives power to extremists.

Is it fair to demonize all the Republicans in congress who almost always vote in lock step with one another against those things many republicans support?

Meli
04-30-2012, 04:00 AM
I was refering to the rep person not the polly