Using Violence Against Women

House, Senate can’t agree on Violence Against Women Act

Progress on the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act has ground to a halt despite the passage of competing bills in the House and Senate.

Democrats had once made the bill a top priority, but Senate leaders were unable to send their bill to the House because they found it violated the Constitution by raising revenue.

House Republicans say they’ve yet to see any substantive negotiations on the legislation and are waiting for the Senate to fix their bill. Senate leaders, on the other hand, want the House to take up their version, which passed with bipartisan support and had the backing of most advocacy groups.

Domestic violence is like child abuse – nobody is in favor of it. And rightly so. But that is what makes this dispute so dishonest and cynical.

First of all, domestic violence is not a federal offense. Neither are rape and murder. They are state crimes. Every state in the union has laws against domestic violence, rape, murder and child abuse. Every state vigorously prosecutes those crimes.

The original Violence Against Women Act was passed in 1994 and provided $1.6 billion toward investigation and prosecution of violent crimes against women. That money goes out to the states. VAWA was reauthorized in 2000 and 2005. It is up for renewal again. So what’s the problem?

The problem is this is not a simple renewal of an existing law. The Democrats in the Senate loaded up their version with stuff the GOP won’t agree to. The Democrats could easily cut a deal to pass key parts of the act. They don’t want to do that.

This is part of their “Republican War on Women” campaign theme. They care less about passing the act than they do about being able to say that the Republicans support domestic violence.

I’m not saying that the Violence Against Women Act is a bad thing. I’m just saying that the Democrats aren’t trying to pass it, they’re just trying to use it to get reelected.

If VAWA is not renewed, domestic violence will still be a crime.

About Klown Mom

I'm old and I can do what I want.
This entry was posted in Disingenuous Democrats and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to Using Violence Against Women

  1. Lola-at-Large says:

    Agree, but it’s actually a two-prong strategy Democrats are using. One is to further the narrative that Reps are waging a War against Women, as you say. The other narrative that they are trying to reinforce is that the GOP-controlled House is the holdup for all of Obama’s beautiful dreams. They are a do-nothing Congress, just to be racist assholes toward the first black president and make it look like he can’t get anything done. That’s the story, anyway.

    • DeniseVB says:

      Oh my…..

      “The Senate has possession of both bills, so it’s very hard for us to negotiate with the Senate when we don’t even have a bill,” the chief sponsor of the House version, Rep. Sandy Adams (R-Fla.), said this week.

      Adams and other GOP lawmakers say the lack of urgency by the Senate Democratic leadership is evidence that Democrats were politicizing the issue from the beginning as part of their effort to paint Republican policies as detrimental to women.

      Now it makes sense why Reid and the Dems have been all over boxing and BCS this week. Wimmins are just not a priority.

  2. myiq2xu says:

    Whenever you see a story about VAWA, look to see if it describes in detail what’s in the act.

  3. HELENK says:

    by making it a federal crime, doesn’t that help women who live on federal property like military bases?
    Or women who work in federal buildings and such. Where the state has no jurisdiction to act?
    Just for once I would like to see the people who are PAID to represent us do so.

    • Lola-at-Large says:

      The original VAWA act made it possible for the feds to step in when a perp abused across state lines. It also did apply to military personnel, but the military has since strengthened its own protocols significantly.

  4. Lola-at-Large says:

    The other thing, of course, is that domestic violence ain’t what it used to be. We don’t live in the 1930s anymore and the rule of thumb is no longer a legal theory. A significant portion of women who are now in domestic violence type relationships choose to stay in them despite having option (which weren’t available to previous generations) and they perpetrate violence as well. I have seen this countless times in real life; anyone in America can see it for themselves just by watching one of the myriad police reality shows on cable tv.

    That’s not to say that we should stop addressing domestic violence, but we definitely need to stop focusing on it as a “female victims only” type crime. It’s not. Not anymore.

  5. DeniseVB says:

    Isn’t violence against the law anyhow? Even our domestic animals are protected under abuse laws.

    • angienc says:

      Least shocking thing I’ve heard in my life. We were *just* saying last night if Obama could make Hillary the scapegoat on this he would.

      angienc, on June 23, 2012 at 7:32 pm said:

      I wouldn’t be surprised at all if it is TeamObama’s plan to make Hillary the fall guy if they possibly can. The MSM will be happy to help, as will the sexist pigs at DailyKooks. Seriously, if Hillary can be implicated at all in F&F it will be “Hillary behind F&F!” 24/7 in the MSM. They’ll kill 2 birds with one stone — save their precious & take down that b!tch who wouldn’t just quit.

      • Lola-at-Large says:

        They are going to use this construct a Straw Hillary so they can use her as a symbol to beat up on women in public. It’s the Obama campaign’s cheapest, most certain go to. Mark my words.

    • SophieCT says:

      Mike Vanderboegh, the “citizen investigative journalist” pushing this story, sounds like a crackpot to me. Why does this militia leader and violence-inciter have any credibility?

    • WMCB says:

      I’m not seeing this guy being taken seriously anywhere so far. Looks like a crackpot. But Lola nailed it that “pin it on Hillary” would be where they went.

    • WMCB says:

      Okay, upon reading the rest of the Sipsey St article, everything about Hillary in it is wishcasting. But they were honest enough to state that in reality, she insulated herself from the madness. If you read between the partisan lines in the source article, Hillary is a smart cookie:

      The sources hastened, in every case, to explain to me that Hillary kept herself at arms-length from some of the critical strategy meetings at both the White House political level (Obama and Emanuel) and the National Security Council policy administrative level about Mexico and Project Gunrunner program.

      And this:

      Part of this was that Steinberg was, first and foremost, an Obama man and not “loyal” to Hillary as the Clinton partisans saw it. Part also was that Hillary preferred to maintain personal distance from the White House staff, preferring to run her shop and not have to deal with Obama minions, but rather with Obama himself when she felt the need to. But part of it, too, say the sources was Hillary’s cat-like sense of danger where the Obama partisans were concerned.

      Looks like Hill wisely didn’t trust Obama, and made sure she stayed away from the stupidity.

  6. Lola-at-Large says:

    Myiq, my 2008 it Ain’t article is saved as a draft instead of scheduled. I think tomorrow is going to be a helluva news day, so I’ve pulled it. Feel free to schedule it for whenever, or leave it to languish. Your call. I think most people here have seen it already at P&L.

    • HELENK says:

      didn’t I read somewhere that the supreme court may not come out with a ruling until Tuesday on the obamacare case?

      • angienc says:

        Actually, the court could hand down the decision as late as 6/28. It’s going to depend on what they want to do, but 6/28 is the very last day.

  7. WMCB says:

    One of the many things the Dems loaded down the bill with was taking control and money away from the states for their own domestic violence programs, some of which are working very well. So if your state, which has a better handle on where local problems exist and what they are, wants to direct resources here or there, they can’t.

    Another poison pill the put in there had to do with illegal immigrants. I believe it gave automatic legal status/asylum to any woman alleging domestic abuse. More back door amnesty.

    So when the Dems act all horrified that the newly “extreme” R’s are refusing to reauthorize the same VAWA that they have always done before, they are flat out LYING.

    Pols pull this shit all the time. Let’s make a bill about not kicking puppies. And let’s attach funding for a corrupt union, or a stipulation that all the small volunteer shelters have to shut down, or a cushy contract for some crony to upgrade the shelters, and also stick a mandatory hike in highway littering fines and speech guidelines for “bullying” in there. Then when anyone balks at ANY of these items, we can run around screaming how the evil bastards HATES POOR LITTLE PUPPIES!

Comments are closed.