Originally Posted By skinnerbox <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/02/violence-against-women-act-_n_2398553.html" target="_blank">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...553.html</a> <> House GOP Lets Violence Against Women Act Passed By Senate Die Without A Vote Posted: 01/02/2013 6:38 pm EST | Updated: 01/02/2013 9:30 pm EST WASHINGTON -- Despite a late-stage intervention by Vice President Joe Biden, House Republican leaders failed to advance the Senate's 2012 reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, an embattled bill that would have extended domestic violence protections to 30 million LGBT individuals, undocumented immigrants and Native American women. "The House leadership would not bring it up, just like they wouldn't bring up funding for Sandy [hurricane damage] last night," said Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), a key backer of the Senate version of the bill, in an interview with HuffPost. "I think they are still so kowtowing to the extreme on the right that they're not even listening to the moderates, and particularly the women, in their caucus who are saying they support this." In April, the Senate with bipartisan support passed a version of VAWA that extended protections to three groups of domestic violence victims who had not been covered by the original law, but House Republicans refused to support the legislation with those provisions, saying the measures were politically driven. Instead, they passed their own VAWA bill without the additional protections. In recent weeks, however, even some House Republicans who voted for the pared-down House bill have said they would now support the broader Senate bill -- and predicted it would pass if Republican leaders let it come to the floor for a vote. "I absolutely would support the Senate bill," Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) told HuffPost in late December, speculating that other House Republicans, namely GOP congresswomen, "are very supportive of that." Asked if he thought the Senate bill would pass in the House if it came up for a vote, Cole replied, "My judgment is yes." Last spring, only two of the 25 House Republican women -- Reps. Judy Biggert (Ill.) and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Fla.). -- opposed the House VAWA reauthorization, on the grounds that it didn't go far enough. But in the last couple of weeks, some others signaled they would now support the broader Senate bill. "I think that we should be very open-minded about the Senate provisions," said Rep. Jo Ann Emerson (R-Mo.). "I would be in that category of being open-minded to that," said Rep. Shelly Moore Capito (R-W.Va.). House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) had been guiding House negotiations on the matter, huddling with Republican congresswomen last month and even working directly with Vice President Biden to try to get a deal. House-Senate talks appeared to have broken down over House Republicans' refusal to accept a key protection for Native American women that was included in the Senate bill. "Majority Leader Cantor worked hard seeking to move the bill forward so we can protect victims and prosecute offenders," said Cantor spokesman Doug Heye. Murray said she is "absolutely" planning to reintroduce the bill in 2013. If the Republican Party is concerned about its relationship with women, she added, it should "put that concern to action." "They have the opportunity to do it now," Murray said. "They have the opportunity to take up this bill and show women and men that they understand that women's rights are important." <> Way to go, Boehner. You are indeed worthless.
Originally Posted By tiggertoo Come on. He's just protecting his freedom to show women what their proper role in society is...i.e., subservient to men. These paleo-conservative nutbags are despicable.
Originally Posted By Donny would anyone object to this being a domestic violence law and not just woman,gays and transgenders ??????
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Why do you (seemingly) object to it covering women, lesbians, and transgenders? The sticking point has been the expansion of protections to a). lesbians in abusive relationships, as previous versions just covered women abused by men; b). undocumented immigrant women (you may object to their being here, but since they are here, shouldn't they be protected from abuse?) and c). native American women - I think the objection there is turf wars over laws enforced on the reservations vs. off reservation, but I'm not sure. Apparently some Republicans think certain women aren't worthy of the law's protection.
Originally Posted By SuperDry Why is this a federal issue? Generally speaking, criminal matters that aren't directly a federal matter are handled by the states.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer It's federal because it is a civil rights issue, it deals with crimes that often cross jurisdictional boundaries, and it guarantees certain equal protection to citizens otherwise ignored by the states. Remember that we are not only citizens of our state, but also citizens of the United States.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost >>>would anyone object to this being a domestic violence law and not just woman,gays and transgenders ??????<<< >>>Why do you (seemingly) object to it covering women, lesbians, and transgenders?<<< I know it's no fun not to dump all over Donny (and most of the time, there is a reason for it) in this case I read that line completely different. I read it as a law that isn't anymore specific then ALL HUMAN BEINGS, regardless of gender, sexual preferences and different lifestyles. No one should be segregated when it comes to protection from Domestic Violence.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost As you can see, I am a complete believer that even a broken clock is right twice a day. ;-)
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I know it's no fun not to dump all over Donny (and most of the time, there is a reason for it) in this case I read that line completely different. I read it as a law that isn't anymore specific then ALL HUMAN BEINGS, regardless of gender, sexual preferences and different lifestyles.> There's a case to be made for that, but at this point it's purely academic. Until such a bill is proposed we have the choice of a). including the women the bill was expanded to include, or b). excluding them.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Before the law was passed domestic violence against women was typically swept under the carpet as a marital issue.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>I read it as a law that isn't anymore specific then ALL HUMAN BEINGS, regardless of gender, sexual preferences and different lifestyles. No one should be segregated when it comes to protection from Domestic Violence.<< That's how I understood Donny's statement.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>That's how I understood Donny's statement.<< Ditto. Men as victims of domestic violence is a serious issue, even if at first glance it might seem like something to chuckle at. I have two friends, otherwise normal, functioning guys (with graduate degrees and all that jazz) who have been on the receiving end of violence from their wives. One's wife was even arrested; but she was the one that called the cops to try and scare him. When they showed up, they could see exactly who the problem was and she started throwing things at him in front of them. They cuffed her, and he actually begged them not to do it. I asked him why he didn't want her to be arrested, and he explained that it made him feel emasculated, as if he needs to police to protect him from his own wife. He said she could hit him all she wanted and it didn't really hurt him (although the throwing things was dangerous) but that the whole thing is emotionally awful, and he never understood why abused women wouldn't just up and leave, and now he sees that it's not that easy. Mind, I'm not familiar enough with this legislation or with the issue of domestic violence against men to say one way or another whether there should be special legal protections.
