Republican House Opposition To Violence Against Women Act Extension Absolutely Outrageous!

The Republicans in the House of Representatives are again on the warpath against women, holding up passage of the extension of the Violence Against Women Act.

And why are they doing so?

Because they do not wish to extend protection for women subject to domestic violence to the following circumstances:

Native American women on the reservations.

Same sex marriages or relationships of lesbians.

Undocumented immigrant women.

So because of their lack of concern for native Americans, gays, and undocumented immigrants, they have no regard for the safety or protection of women, if they fit into these groups! Who cares about the basic right of safety and security for these groups, which are despised?

So face the facts, that the Republican Party has learned nothing from the election, and are still promoting racism, anti gay viewpoints, and nativism.

How far the GOP has fallen from its days of speaking for freedom, liberty, tolerance, and progress, as represented by Lincoln, TR, and Ike!

23 comments on “Republican House Opposition To Violence Against Women Act Extension Absolutely Outrageous!

  1. A White Southern Christian Progressive February 12, 2013 6:55 am

    The Republicans being anti-woman is why, I, a female, do not vote for them.

  2. Ronald February 12, 2013 7:00 am

    It amazes me that any self respecting woman would do otherwise. The Republican women House members are an embarrassment to themselves and womanhood!

  3. Juan Domingo Peron February 12, 2013 11:27 am

    To add to the debate I will just post this article from Janice Shaw Crouse, Ph.D. who serves on an international task force to end abuse of women. She is senior fellow of Concerned Women for America’s Beverly LaHaye Institute:
    A bad piece of legislation is about to be reauthorized, empowering bureaucrats and tort lawyers and poisoning relations between women and men. The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) could be fixed, but Senate Democrats will not hear of it.
    Vice President Joe Biden says that out of all the legislation that he was associated with while serving in Congress, he is most proud of his role in getting the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) passed in 1994. Now, seventeen years later, even the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), admits that the bill is too broad to be effective. An expert in family violence, Dr. Angela Moore Parmley, concurs: “We have no evidence to date that VAWA has led to a decrease in the overall levels of violence against women.” To the contrary, some studies indicate an increase in violence against women since VAWA was enacted, including in one study a 60-percent increase in intimate partner homicides.
    VAWA has created a vast bureaucracy with an annual price tag of $455 million. Instead of addressing the root problems of violence and ending battering, the broad definitions of violence in VAWA mean that husbands are thrown in jail based on flimsy allegations of causing “emotional distress” or of “unpleasant speech.” Meanwhile, drug-addicted boyfriends and alcoholic cohabitors continue to batter, and all men are assumed to be capable of violence.
    The end result is that a bill that supposedly addresses domestic violence is, instead, a thinly veiled means of promoting feminist ideology, and anyone who dares to raise questions is accused of waging a “war against women.” In such a climate, rational disagreement is virtually impossible. After all, VAWA, like many leftist progressive initiatives, sounds positive. Who, besides jihadists, favors abuse of women?
    Decent people condemn anyone who uses power, physical strength, or superior position to take advantage of, abuse, or batter a vulnerable person. But decent people are also outraged at false accusations, trumped up campaigns to promote hidden agendas, and the rush to judgment that so often obscures facts in favor of emotional accounts of abuse. Crystal Smoot, writing on the website WAVE: Women Against VAWA Excess, wrote, “VAWA creates incentives for people to commit fraud, but does not include penalties to punish those who misuse the law. We cannot assume that everyone reporting abuse is telling the truth when rewards are available, especially when innocent people can find themselves accused of a crime.”
    Yet on February 2, the Senate Judiciary Committee rejected a commonsense amendment that would have curbed the bill’s excesses and ensured that it actually protected anyone (not just women) from abusive attacks. Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) proposed an amendment — instituting accountability measures and streamlining the vast bureaucracy — that was rejected. Imagine such a decision in these days of fiscal crisis, when the national deficit affects everyone’s future. Sen. Grassley’s amendment, he said, “means that less money is spent on bureaucrats, leaving more funds for victims.” Nevertheless, the reauthorization of the bloated legislation passed out of committee on a strict party-line vote. It will now come before the Democrat-dominated full Senate and, even in this time of fiscal crisis, it is expected to pass along partisan lines.
    A major underlying problem with VAWA is that the bill lacks appropriate focus. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) identified approximately 30 causes of domestic violence. From this, we know the factors that lead to violence in the home. Those factors are a complete mismatch with the provisions of VAWA. Domestic violence is a problem that stems from problems in relationships, psychological or social maladjustment, anger, alcoholism, and substance abuse. VAWA is all about restraining orders, arrests, prosecution, batterer intervention programs, fostering false allegations, re-educating judges in feminist ideology and biases, and law enforcement training, all of which have been shown to increase rather than decrease violence. The vast VAWA bureaucracy is a full-employment entity for feminist lawyers and social workers and a boondoggle for feminist organizations who assume that all men are prone to violence and that any accusation a woman makes is fully truthful without question. Any skeptic is labeled “anti-women.”
    An unintended (or perhaps not) consequence of VAWA is that the legislation has created a climate of suspicion of men and an abusive system that contributes to the breakdown of families. The bill is more about pushing a gender ideology than about stopping partner violence. The result has undermined males in general and husbands/fathers in particular. As lawyer Phyllis Schlafly pointed out, “[a]ny man accused of domestic violence effectively loses a long list of Constitutional rights accorded to ordinary criminals. These include due process, presumption of innocence until proven guilty, equal treatment under the law, right to a fair trial, right to confront his accusers, freedom of speech, right to privacy in family matters, custody or visitation rights with his own children and even the right to bear arms. On the other hand, the woman receives free legal representation even if she has presented no evidence of injury or harm.”
    A favorite (unsubstantiated) argument frequently used by feminists is that “controlling communities” foster violence against women; those “controlling communities” are military and religious families. Not only are these families not on the CDC’s long list of risk factors for domestic violence, but the social science data are clear: families that go to church are happier and healthier on every measure of women’s well-being. A married father-mother home is the safest and most nurturing place for the nation’s women and children. Military personnel, too, are not potential abusers of women because of their profession; they are, by and large, honorable men who are in the military to protect their families and nation.
    By now, everyone should know that the majority of “domestic violence” incidents are committed by boyfriends, not husbands. Probably because of that fact, statistics are now kept on “intimate partner” violence, and we refer to “domestic violence” rather than breaking down violence into types of intimate partners or domestic household arrangements. We also know that out-of-control anger, alcoholism, and drug addiction are among the top risk factors; VAWA ignores those problems in favor of “re-educating” judges and law enforcement on the feminists’ version of “women’s rights.”
    In short, VAWA offers women both a “tactical advantage” and a “powerful weapon” when they want to “get back” at a man, have regrets the next morning, or want out of a marriage for any reason at all. Allegations of abuse can cause men to lose their homes, jobs, children, and standing in the community. Once they’ve been thrown in jail because of mandatory arrests and have been assumed guilty, where do they go to get their reputations and their jobs back when the accusations are proven false?

  4. Ronald February 12, 2013 11:37 am

    Juan, you make valid statements here, and clearly, the law needs to be rewritten, but why should native American women, lesbian women, and undocumented immigrant women not have the same ability to be protected by a revised law? Why should their safety and security be considered to be insignificant and not to be protected?

  5. Juan Domingo Peron February 13, 2013 11:23 pm

    I just thought I would add the real reasons why Rubio voted against the Act. Today on “CBS This Morning”, Norah O’Donnell and Charlie Rose lived up to their reputation for hammering Republican/conservative guests, as they interviewed Republican Senator Marco Rubio. O’Donnell strongly hinted that the Florida politician, and Republicans in general, were extremists. Rose led the Rubio interview with his rephrasing of the Obama quote as a question. Rubio answered, in part, that the “problem is that laws are only followed by law-abiding people. The people who commit these gun crimes…don’t care what the law is….And that’s my concern with the proposals that I see coming out, and I also think they undermine…the right of law-abiding citizens to possess arms via the Second Amendment. So, I’m not sure what proposals specifically the President was referring to.” The PBS veteran followed up by asking, “So, you’d like to see a proposal that you can vote on, with respect to gun control?”
    Then, despite the fact the President only briefly mentioned “equal treatment for all service members, and equal benefits for their families, gay and straight” during his State of the Union address, O’Donnell clearly wanted to go after Rubio on the wider issue of homosexuals serving in the military, along with the litany of other issues that she brought up in her first question.The Florida Republican first clarified why he voted against the updated version of the Violence Against Women Act. He continued by noting that the vote to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell” occurred before his tenure in the Senate. But this answer didn’t satisfy the liberal journalist, who interrupted Rubio as he tried to answer the immigration part of her question.
    NORAH O’DONNELL: “Senator, you have been called ‘the Republican savior’. Yesterday, you voted against the Violence Against Women Act. You’ve opposed repeal of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’. You opposed universal background checks for gun buyers. You’ve yet to introduce a bill on immigration reform. Is that the future of the Republican Party?” (You will never see that aggressiveness towards a Democrat).
    RUBIO: Well, first of all, I think that’s an inaccurate characterization. I’m not opposed to the Violence Against Women Act. I’m opposed – I would vote gladly to have re-authorized the law we have right now. I voted against it because it has – it has a provision in there that hurts Florida. It basically mandates that the state must – must spend certain money in certain ways, and, in fact, it undermines domestic violence programs in Florida that work very well. And I’ve made that very clear over and over again. They didn’t want to change the bill. They weren’t going to have my vote.
    Some of the other things you’ve outlined – ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ – that happened before I was even in – in the Senate. And, as far as immigration reform is concerned-
    O’DONNELL: But do you support it now then – the repeal of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell?
    RUBIO:” Well, I’m not – listen, we’re not going to change it, and I’m not saying we should change it. Ultimately, you know, it’s the law. Now that they’ve decided it, I don’t think it’s undermined our military readiness. We’ve debated that and moved on from it. Here’s the bottom line: what I’ve always said on ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’, by the way, is that it’s a decision that we should listen to the military commanders on, not the politicians. I believe that’s what I believe I’ve said on that issue.
    As far as the issue of immigration is concerned – I’ve been here for two years. This is an issue that hasn’t been solved in 25 years. I’m involved in an effort now to try to come up with a reasonable solution – spent a lot of time on that issue; and hopefully, we’ll have a real solution to offer.”
    O’Donnell and Rose have conducted several hostile interviews of Republicans/conservative in recent months. The two anchors took turns pummeling Senator John McCain over his opposition to the potential nomination of Susan Rice to be secretary of state. Then, O’Donnell hounded popular Christian pastor Rick Warren over his support of traditional marriage.Also on December 13, 2012 interview, Rose and co-anchor Gayle King pressed former Senator Jim DeMint over congressional Republicans’ opposition to higher taxes. Over a month later, O’Donnell barely contained her contempt for NRA president David Keene during an interview on the gun control issue. But by contrast, she and Rose conducted a more softball interview of pro-gun control New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg the same morning as the Keene interview, and went easy on Obama senior adviser Valerie Jarrett on this Tuesday. This is our state of the media today. The seem like Pravda!

  6. Ronald February 14, 2013 1:05 am

    Oh come on, Juan, you act as if liberals are not being constantly attacked on conservative talk radio and Fox News Channel. It is the job of media to show the destructive, negative behavior of conservatives and Republicans, and do you wish to interfere with a free media, and tell them what to say and to present? Give me a break! Rubio should be ashamed for his votes, and he has destroyed any chance to be President in 2016, based on his pathetic performance. When else have you seen ANY politician take a drink in the middle of a speech? It is because he knew, in his heart of hearts, the bull he was throwing, a repeat oF Romney rhetoric!

  7. Juan Domingo Peron February 14, 2013 10:05 am

    I have seen Hillary Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama take a drink in the middle of speeches. You realize how irrational you are bringing up a drink of water , don’t you? So here we are, the country going to hell and all the media can do is concentrate on a drink of water? So even though he explained why he voted against the act, even though I have posted further reasons as to what the Act should be modified. None of that seems to matter. If Democrats really cared about women they would have made those simple modifications to have it passed. But no. You know why? Because the Act before it expired never really had an effect on violence against women. Democrats in the sense , the seeking political advantage sense , are not stupid. So they add modifications to the Act, knowing that Republicans won’t vote for it that way. So after the Act is not renewed, they go out to their “low information drones” and together with the “Pravda” media , say ” see the Republicans hate women, they are on a war against women, Republicans are evil”! You know, when I saw the stupid hate ad from the Obama campaign accusing Romney of practically causing cancer to a woman and not caring that she died, I thought ” who the hell is going to be so stupid as to believe that?! Maybe there are few stupid Americans who do believe it, but not the majority. I actually thought it was going to backfire, because surely Americans would think that such a distaste political ad deserves the contempt of the voter. Well I was wrong, millions of Americans believed it. As they also believed that Romney was a felon. That he cheated on his taxes. I thought, when Harry Reid came out and said ” someone told me Romney hasn’t paid taxes in over a decade” and when asked , who told you that? His answer was ” I’m not going to tell you, you should demand that Romney defend himself!” And that is what the “Pravda” media did. I thought then, the American people will not fall for this, but again I was wrong. And millions of drones repeated not only in the US but even worldwide “Romney hasn’t paid his taxes in over a decade”. I even read editorial if foreign newspapers repeat that! With no evidence whatsoever! Yet the drones , believed it. As for repeating Romney rhetoric I wish Romney the moderate would have been as crystal clear on some issues. Like making it clear that “GOVERNMENT” caused the housing bubble and crisis!! But all Romney , the moderate, did was say Obama is a nice guy but just over his head! A nice guy!?? His campaign is accusing you of being a felon, a tax cheat, and causing cancer and all the guy could say is “Obama is a nice guy!” Romney just like McCain was too scared to attack Obama, when Obama was and is the most vulnerable President to attack based on his record and his personal relations with “ex”-terrorists.

  8. Ronald February 14, 2013 4:06 pm

    I agree, Juan, that the water issue is minor, although the way Rubio did it was very awkward.

    But for you to say that Romney was not the most lying candidate for President in American history is stunning, as he was lying through his teeth constantly, and everyone knew it.

    I am not defending everything Obama or anyone else has said or done, as politics is, sadly, a dirty business. But to make Romney holier than thou, and not recognize his constant deceptions, plus his truthful statements said when he thought they were private, is to live in delusion!

  9. Ronald February 14, 2013 4:10 pm

    And to say that Obama is the most vulnerable to attack based on his record is ridiculous, and to bring up the false charge of his personal relations with “ex-terrorists” makes you lose all credibility. Now you have descended into pure bull, and you know it, and if it continues, I will not allow what you say on the blog, because it is totally irresponsible and unbecoming of a serious debater! Please stop!

  10. Juan Domingo Peron February 14, 2013 4:17 pm

    I’m not defending Romney in that sense, after all he is a politician and he was not my first choice by any means. I mean he went after conservatives in the primary furiously , but he did not do the same to Obama. Now where did I even mention or insinuate anything concerning whether Romney was a liar or not?? All I did was talk about his refusal to attack Obama while being attacked viciously by the Obama team and the media. I am really curious you call Romney a liar and I would like to know specifically on what. Yet, on the other hand we had the Liar in Chief the other night repeat lies after lies ,and that don’t seem to bother you at all. Finally his truthful statements about the 47% not paying any income taxes. I don’t quiet understand the problem. Is it because it exposed the Obama lie that the top 1%, %5 or 10% don’t pay their fair share? The truth sometimes offends and is unbearable, therefore the messenger must be destroyed.

  11. Juan Domingo Peron February 14, 2013 4:42 pm

    Wait a minute, did not Obama begin his political career in Chicago back in 1995 at a meet the candidate meeting held in the living room of Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn? I mean that is what they, Ayers and Dohrn claim happened. Are they also liars? Were not Ayers and Dohrn terrorists? Are they not unrepentant terrorist? Are you telling me that every single interview I read and saw with them was a lie? Now look all I am saying is that McCain could have used that in the campaign to discredit Obama, as well as Romney could have used it. I know that doesn’t mean Obama supported or supports Ayers terrorist activities, but that is not the point. The point is to arouse suspicion, just like the Obama campaign does constantly based on lies. Like the Romney didn’t pay his taxes. On the other hand the meeting did take place at Ayers home and the knew each other. So if this is a fact , you can use that to discredit Obama, and it doesn’t matter that he never supported Ayers terrorist activities. All you are doing is using the same tactics that the Democrats, the media and Obama use. You and I know the truth that Obama didn’t ever support Ayers terrorist activities, but millions of low informed voters do not , nor do they care to find out! At least this would not have been based on an invention like Romney causing a woman cancer!! You see what I mean. The Republican campaign could have taken an event that objectively occurred and used it to throw dirt and slime at Obama. But they didn’t . Yes talk radio talked about it, and Fox did, but the “Pravda” media only asked him one question and only once! See what I mean.Compare that to the endless talk this week about Rubio and the bottle of water. Is there any comparison in importance? So I say the McCain and Romney campaigns should have done it. What was there to lose? I mean the “Pravda” media was and is always going to side with the Democrats and Obama anyway. The Republicans are always going to be accused of being hateful etc etc, while on the other hand Democrats can always get away with murder practically. Finally I reiterate, it is not “bull” that Obama had an acquaintance with an “ex-terrorist”.

  12. Ronald February 14, 2013 6:02 pm

    I am not going to spend the time to list all of the lies of the Romney campaign, but they were CONSTANT, and Romney even implied that Obama was not born in America, utilizing the “Birther” argument, and not repudiating Donald Trump. Romney ran the nastiest campaign in memory, and Romney refused to release his tax returns for multiple years as McCain and all earlier Democrats and Republicans had done. So he had a lot to hide!

    Just because someone was radical and stupid years earlier should not be blamed on a candidate who was a child at the time that the radical was acting stupid. It is totally irrelevant!

    And using the term “PRAVDA” is name calling in the worst way, but the true “PRAVDA” is hateful talk radio and FOX NEWS CHANNEL. They spew hatred and propaganda, while the major media report reality and facts, even if you are unable to see that as the truth!

  13. Ronald February 14, 2013 6:05 pm

    So Obama had an “acquaintanceship” with Bill Ayers? So what? I could meet someone and have brief interaction, but that does not make me a believer and follower of that person. This is irrelevant and ridiculous, and does not reflect well on you, as a debater. Come on, Juan!

  14. Juan Domingo Peron February 14, 2013 6:31 pm

    Good grief Ronald. All I said is that it could have and should have been used to attack Obama. Again you and I can say, “so what?”. But the low information voters who make their decision based on sound bites do not. After all they believed Romney caused cancer and was a felon. So I think you are missing my point. As for acting radical and stupid when young , fair enough , but neither Ayers nor Dohrn are repentant on what they did when radical and stupid and would do it again. In other words they are still radical and stupid, though not violent. Their word not mine. As for using the word Pravda, lighten up Ronald. If the majority of the media has the same editorial line as the government when the government is under Democrat control, when they don’t ask questions, when they don’t investigate, when they are a mouthpiece for the government repeating the government talking points and when they practically have an orgasm each time they talk about Obama, well I guess that speaks for itself. They have aligned themselves with the government (or state) . So, since Pravda was a state run media, and Fox is anything but align to the government (state), I don’t think the comparison is valid.

  15. Juan Domingo Peron February 14, 2013 6:32 pm

    Oh and by the way Ronald, all I ask was one blatant lie Romney made, just one. I don’t think that would be hard. And then compare that lie that you find to the “Romney caused cancer” lie and tell me if they are comparable.

  16. Ronald February 14, 2013 7:12 pm

    Your comment about PRAVDA and how, as you say it, some media speak of Obama and have an “orgasm”, caused me to laugh heartily.

    There was constant lying, but I wanted to forget about Romney very rapidly, as I thought he was the most despicable national candidate I have ever seen, bar none, over half a century. He lied about not being at Bain until 2002; he lied about his mistreatment of that kid in high school; he lied about job creation in Massachusetts; he lied about jobs created while at Bain Capital; he lied about the loss of jobs caused by his heartless determination to close down businesses to make the maximum profit, etc etc etc. At the same time, I have no recollection of Romney being accused of causing cancer.

  17. Juan Domingo Peron February 14, 2013 8:09 pm

    He was not at Bain, he had no active position. An incident in High School with a kid? You realize how pathetic that is? Heartless determination to close down businesses?? Now that phrase demonstrates your knowledge of business. Understandable.Here you go: Enough said.

  18. Ronald February 14, 2013 8:16 pm

    This is precisely the reason why we should not have a businessman (Herbert Hoover another example) who has no “people’ skills, and only thinks about profits. And the ad is not approved by Obama, and it is a fact that by losing his job, this gentleman could not have health care for his wife, and you can be sure Romney never had concern about the people he hurt by his bottom line math, without any concern for the effect on people.

  19. Juan Domingo Peron February 14, 2013 8:39 pm

    Ronald, Soptic’s wife had insurance for about a year or two after he lost his job through her own employer. The illness took place in 2006, some five years after Soptic lost his job, and she had no insurance because a shoulder injury caused her to leave a job that provided coverage. That was the immediate reason for her being uninsured, not the plant closure. This only proves that if you, an educated vote from the left , cannot distinguish facts, imagine the low information voter! “Uhh Romney caused cancer,,duhhh”…

  20. Ronald February 14, 2013 9:38 pm

    I am not accepting that Romney is responsible for that woman dying of cancer, but it was clear to me from the beginning that Romney could not give a damn about ANYONE except himself and his family. He is a very selfish, self centered, mean spirited SOB. I would like to see all negative advertising prevented, and Citizens United reversed, but I fear we are cursed to have destruction of our political system for a long time!

  21. Juan Domingo Peron February 14, 2013 10:09 pm

    Wow Ronald, where did all the civility go? Mean spirited SOB?? I think Mark and Sheryl Nixon wouldn’t say that. As well as Pat and Ted Oparowski, Grant Bennett and countless others, some of whom I had the fortune to meet personally and whose identity I shall reserve due to their privacy. On the other hand, the most powerful man on the earth has his half brother living on $15 per year back in Kenya. And even though he doesn’t know him personally, I know that I as well as any decent human being , would do something and feel absolutely embarrassed if word came out that my half-brother is going through that situation while I am so privilege. What’s that the hypocrite always says? Oh yeah, “I am my brothers keeper”. I wonder who is the real SOB. You know, before when I would read your posting and rants I would get either kind of upset or even laugh at the predictability of your mindset, but this time I actually feel sorry for you and sad.

  22. Ronald February 14, 2013 10:28 pm

    My civility has disappeared in outrage at the shabby treatment paid by Republican Senators to Chuck Hagel, who did not deserve the use of the filibuster against him today, including by John McCain, who had said that Hagel was an excellent choice for his own cabinet if he became the 2000 GOP Presidential nominee. Civility is impossible when an entire party becomes willing to obstruct and undermine our national security for a cheap shot against a war hero, who gave his body to his nation, while “chicken hawks”, such as Dick Cheney avoided war and yet are ready to bomb and invade everywhere!

    While the term “SOB” is not the ideal term to utilize, I have never seen Mitt Romney show one iota of concern for average Americans, and he comes across as the stiffest, most detached public figure in living memory. But his persona represents the basic approach to people of most Republicans–meaning they do not give a damn unless it is someone who is contributing large amounts to their campaigns!

  23. Ronald February 14, 2013 10:29 pm

    And, by the way, Juan, your mindset is also, sadly, very predictable!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.