Senate Passes Violence Against Women Act, House Still Uncertain

Feb 2006
13,953
2,618
California
Well, the senate did it’s job — sans the twenty-two Republican a-holes who apparently think beating women is a-OK — and passed the seemingly forever-stalled Violence Against Women Act. In a 78-22 vote in favor of the measure, the bill will now move to the House where it died a slow and painful death last year.

The senators who voted against the bill — all Republican — are as follows:

John Barrasso (Wyo.), Roy Blunt (Mo.), John Boozman (Ark.), Tom Coburn (Okla.), John Cornyn (Texas), Ted Cruz (Texas), Mike Enzi (Wyo.), Lindsey Graham (S.C.), Chuck Grassley (Iowa), Orrin Hatch (Utah), James Inhofe (Okla.), Mike Johanns (Neb.), Ron Johnson (Wisc.), Mike Lee (Utah), Mitch McConnell (Ky.), Rand Paul (Ky.), Jim Risch (Idaho), Pat Roberts (Kansas), Marco Rubio (Fla.), Jeff Sessions (Ala.), Jeff Thune (S.D.) and Tim Scott (S.C.).

So what’s been the brouhaha of opposition to this bill that has been renewed twice, without incident, since its inception in 1994? Well, because like the views of much of the country, the bill has evolved to expand coverage to LGBT women and Native American women living on reservations. But we all know how Republicans feel about evolution, don’t we?

Senate Passes Violence Against Women Act, House Still Uncertain | Veracity Stew

 
Nov 2012
17,436
5,729
Michigan
differences between the house and senate versions of the bill are the hang up, house repubs don't want to extend the protections to same sex couples.

i'm against violence on women, yeah, but you know when you grow up hitting anyone is illegal. so how do you get passed unequal protection under the law?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person

RNG

Forum Staff
Apr 2013
39,795
27,596
La La Land North
Is violence against a person not illegal in all cases? If not, remove the law that allows it in wife beating cases or fix the law that does not include it. Otherwise this is just another, unneeded eye-candy law that gives people warm fuzzies for the exclusive purpose of making political points.

My other question given congress's track record, now much pork is buried in the bill?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Apr 2013
24,581
11,618
The Milky Way
The bill is, as webguy4 says, offering unequal protection of the law. So certain violence against men or boys is okay? The left, always in the process of dumming down.

But it sounds good.
 

RNG

Forum Staff
Apr 2013
39,795
27,596
La La Land North
If women would just learn to obey men, as the Bible says, there would be no problem.
Well, the FF's did say all MEN are created equal. Didn't say nuffin bout them wimmins.

Ms. CJ and waitingtables explode in 3......2......1......
 
Nov 2012
17,436
5,729
Michigan
i think they should just go back to the drawing board with this law, instead of adding all these categories one at time for the "victim du jour" , just say all these special protections are for everyone except straight protestant christian white males born in the US.
 
Apr 2013
24,581
11,618
The Milky Way
Then there's this:

http://www.sunshinestatesarah.com/2013/02/just-because-its-called-violence.html

Today, the Senate voted on the misleadingly-named "Violence Against Women Act," and a number of conservative Republican Senators voted against it. Predictably, the Left is in a self-righteous fury over this, and are falling all over themselves to see who can be the one to call these Republicans women-hating jerks in the loudest voice.

Note first of all that almost all of the headlines from the mainstream media and left-leaning blogs focus on the Republican Senators who "Voted Against VAWA!" (OMG!) and only mention that the bill did in fact have enough votes to pass as an afterthought, buried deep in the articles. Are they trying to make it sound like those mean ol' Republicans were successful in blocking the bill, and now women can expect to the beatings to begin any minute?

BuzzFeed posted the list of those who voted against it as "These Are The 22 People Who Voted Against The Violence Against Women Act," with the first line, "Notice a pattern?" They didn't even try to hide the liberal bias in the post, ending it with "[hat tip] to Think Progress for pointing out the trend." (See my post earlier today with another example of BuzzFeed's bias.)

Ummm, it's not a trend, you goofballs. It's conservative Republicans actually living up to their campaign promises and not voting for bills stuffed with provisions that are unrelated to the purpose of the bill and intrude on states' rights. Is BuzzFeed going to call it a "trend" next time these same Republican vote against a tax increase?

I spoke with someone in Rubio's office earlier today to wish them all luck with his response to the President's State of the Union address, and mentioned this vote. Rubio's office may release a statement later, but they did express frustration at the misleading way that bills are named. This "Violence Against Women Act" had an awful lot of provisions in it that had nothing to do with preventing violence against women. But, hey, the bill says it's "Against Violence," so anyone who votes against it must be a knuckle-dragging, woman-beating Neanderthal, right? Give me a break.

Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) also voted against VAWA, and his office released the following statement less than an hour ago:

Statement on Sen. Ted Cruz's Vote Regarding VAWA

Contact: (202) 224-5922 / press@cruz.senate.gov

Tuesday, February 12, 2013

WASHINGTON, DC -- U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) spokesman Sean Rushton issued the following statement regarding Sen. Cruz's Violence Against Women Act vote, which defends states' jurisdiction over criminal law:

For many years, Senator Cruz has worked in law enforcement, helping lead the fight to ensure that violent criminals—and especially sexual predators who target women and children—should face the very strictest punishment. Indeed,

Senator Cruz has personally argued and successfully defended the Texas Sexually Violent Predator Civil Commitment law before the Texas Supreme Court, and he has repeatedly argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in support of the very strictest punishments for rapists and violent criminals who target women and children.

Nevertheless, he voted against this federal law because

stopping and punishing violent criminals is primarily a state responsibility, and the federal government does not need to be dictating state criminal law.

Part of the reason we are over sixteen and a half trillion dollars in debt is that Congress is all-too-fond of stuffing a lot of unrelated junk into bills with cuddly-sounding names. Look at all the pork that was in the "Disaster Relief Appropriations Bill" that was supposed to help victims of Hurricane Sandy but instead sent billions of dollars to states nowhere near the hurricane's path.

If this is a "trend" - Senators voting against bills that are filled with pork and intrusions on issues properly left to the states - then it's a trend that I hope continues.

UPDATE: Heritage Action has a must-read article, "VAWA Failure," which points out other problems with the legislation, namely that even the Department of Justice has admitted that "We have no evidence to date that VAWA has led to a decrease in the overall violence against women."

Visit Sunshine State Sarah on Facebook

Follow me on Twitter at @rumpfshaker

Posted by Sarah Rumpf at 7:07 PM


(emphasis added)
 
Last edited: