| Author
|
Post |
 
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
The men opposing the Violence Against Women Act
Right now, the Senate is poised to pass the Violence Against Women Act with bipartisan support. But the overwhelmingly male House Republicans caucus, led by Eric Cantor and John Boehner, stand in the way of protecting victims of domestic violence. We need you to act now to ensure that the Senate bill is passed quickly by the Republican-controlled House.
Momentum is on our side. Last year, ten Republicans in the House broke rank with their party and joined Democrats in support of reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. Eight of those Republicans remain in Congress. On the Senate side, Republican women Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins and Kelly Ayotte are all co-sponsoring the bill. It's time to increase the public pressure on the 212 male Republicans in the House to get with their Republican women colleagues and pass the strong Senate version of the VAWA reauthorization bill.
Women's lives are at risk, and there is no more time for partisan delay.
Tell Republican men in the House: Stop blocking the Violence Against Women Act.
The Senate version of the bill is expected to handily pass a floor vote this week with the help of new women Senators from both parties who were elected amidst a national backlash against Tea Party extremists like rape-apologists Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock.
VAWA is an incredibly popular and successful program that has reduced domestic violence rates by 58% since it was first passed in 1994. And it was approved in bipartisan votes every year since it was originally passed -- until the radical takeover of the House by extremist, anti-women Republicans in 2010.
We know that we can't count on Republican men to vote in the interest of their constituents without enormous public pressure from us. House Republican men have voted for shameful bills to redefine rape, defund Planned Parenthood, and to let women die. Despite their appalling record on women's issues, there is hope that men in the Republican caucus in the House will join with their Republican women colleagues in the senate and show concern for domestic violence survivors.
CREDO Action |
|
|
Thu Feb 07, 2013 11:07 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
.
Rachel maddow blog
What motivates opponents of the Violence Against Women Act
By Steve Benen
In all likelihood, the Senate will easily approve the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act today, and the vote will be rather lopsided. But it won't be unanimous -- last year, most Senate Republicans voted against it -- and House Republicans remain deeply skeptical.
The next question, of course, is why anyone in America would oppose the Violence Against Women Act in the first place. It's not like there's a powerful lobbying organization that supports domestic violence pressuring lawmakers to crush the law.
But VAWA is facing well-organized opposition, and as Jillian Rayfield reported, it's coming almost entirely from the religious right movement.
The socially conservative Family Research Council asked supporters to help it oppose the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act because, the group says, the "real abuse" is how much it will waste taxpayer dollars.
In an email alert on Monday, the FRC decried the VAWA ("which, ironically, is supported by the same administration that wants to put women in front-line combat!") as an "abuse of taxpayer dollars" that "does more to promote a radical agenda than it does to help women."
The email quoted conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly, who also opposes VAWA.
Schlafly, head of a right-wing group called the Eagle Forum, dismissed VAWA as a law "used to fill feminist coffers and to lobby for feminist objectives and laws."
I guess we now know the answer to the "why would anyone vote against this" question.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Family Research Council is taking VAWA opposition so seriously that it's told congressional Republicans that this vote will be scored -- if they want to maintain a high rating on religious right scorecards, they'll have to vote against reauthorization.
This probably won't make much of a difference, at least in the Senate. On the vote on the motion to proceed earlier this week, the final tally was 85 to 8, with only Republicans on the far-right fringe -- folks like Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, and Marco Rubio -- voting against even debating the bill.
But among extreme House Republicans, the religious right's opposition may still carry weight, and may stand in the way of completing work on this legislation.
. |
|
|
|
Thu Feb 07, 2013 11:16 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Senate approves Violence Against Women Act despite GOP opposition
By Steve Benen
-
Tue Feb 12, 2013 3:24 PM EST.
Just six weeks after Republicans in the last Congress blocked reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, the Democratic Senate made the law a top priority and approved the bill in a lopsided vote this afternoon.
The Senate voted overwhelmingly Tuesday afternoon to pass legislation reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act with expanded protections for gays, undocumented immigrants and Native American women who suffer from domestic abuse.
The final vote of 78-22 came after the Senate rejected Republican-sponsored amendments to replace the bill with a scaled-back reauthorization and to eliminate a provision permitting Native American courts to try non-Native Americans accused of domestic abuse on tribal lands, which many Republicans say is unconstitutional.
The legislation also adopted an amendment by VAWA's chief sponsor, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), providing law enforcement more tools to combat human trafficking (by a 93-5 vote), and another by Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) to make sure child victims of sex trafficking are eligible to receive grant assistance (by a 100-0 vote).
For the record, the five senators who took an inexplicable stand against a measure to combat human trafficking were Republican Sens. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), and Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.).
As for the final vote on VAWA, all 22 votes against the proposal were Republican men. Indeed, it's worth noting that there are only 45 Senate Republicans total, so just about half of the GOP caucus opposed reauthorizing a bipartisan bill intended to help combat domestic violence. These Republicans -- including Sen. Marco Rubio and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell -- knew VAWA would pass the Senate anyway, but wanted to be on record against the law.
The total of 22 GOP opponents was, however, down slightly from the 31 Senate Republicans who voted against the Violence Against Women Act in the last Congress. Perhaps this is what passes for "progress" in contemporary conservative politics?
VAWA now moves to the House, which is where it died in the last Congress, and where it may once more run into right-wing opposition.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As recently as 2005, there was a Republican majority in the House, but the Violence Against Women Act was reauthorized on a vote of 415 to 4. No, that's not a typo. But as Republicans became increasingly radicalized, the bill that garnered 415 votes a few Congresses ago couldn't even get 218 votes last year.
It's unclear whether House GOP leaders will even consider the Senate bill, but it's worth noting that some House Republicans are tiring of their party's games on this issue.
More than a dozen House Republicans sent a letter to their party leaders on Monday night urging them to "immediately" reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act with a bipartisan bill -- something the House failed to do in the last Congress.
"Now is the time to seek bipartisan compromise on the reauthorization of these programs," reads the letter to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), signed by 17 House Republicans. "VAWA programs save lives, and we must allow states and communities the opportunity to build upon the success of current VAWA programs so that we can help even more people."
We'll see what happens -- I'm cautiously optimistic -- but in case electoral considerations matter, I'd note that Republicans lost badly in the 2012 elections, thanks in part to the largest gender gap in modern times.
If the GOP intends to improve its standing, it may want to reconsider the wisdom of killing the Violence Against Women Act twice.
.
Helen Bedd
Here's the complete list, broken down by region
West:
Jim Risch (Idaho), Orrin Hatch (Utah), Mike Lee (Utah), John Barrasso (Wyo.), Mike Enzi (Wyo.)
Plains:
Chuck Grassley (Iowa), Pat Roberts (Kansas), Roy Blunt (Mo.), Mike Johanns (Neb.)
Midwest:
Ron Johnson (Wisc.) [That one really sticks out, hope who ever runs against him next election hangs it around his neck.]
South:
Jeff Sessions (Ala.), John Boozman (Ark.), Marco Rubio (Fla.), Mitch McConnell (Ky.),
Rand Paul (Ky.), Tom Coburn (Okla.), James Inhofe (Okla.), John Cornyn (Texas),
Ted Cruz (Texas), Lindsey Graham (S.C.), Tim Scott (S.C.).
One blue state vote, two swing state votes [including "moderate" Rubio], 19 red state votes.
No "no" votes from New England, The Northeast, The Mid-Altantic or the West Coast....and one lonely vote from the upper Midwest.
All the female Senators voted yes.
tweets with #Maddow and join the onl |
|
|
|
Wed Feb 13, 2013 8:30 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
House GOP scrambles on Violence Against Women Act
By Steve Benen
-
Wed Feb 27, 2013 11:06 AM EST.
As recently as last week, House Republican leaders indicated they would ignore the bipartisan Senate version of the Violence Against Women Act, choosing instead to vote on a watered-down alternative that lacks LGBT protections and would make it more difficult for tribal courts to prosecute non-Native Americans charged with assaulting women on tribal lands.
A lot can change in a week.
The House is expected to give in to Democratic pressure Thursday and pass the Senate version of the Violence Against Women Act after failing to find a substitute that can garner the support of a majority of its members. [...]
In the end, according to GOP sources, there was greater support in the House for the Senate-passed bill than the House-drafted text.
There's apparently some procedural maneuvering on the way, but House Rules Chairman Pete Sessions (R-Texas) told ranking member Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) that the lower chamber is likely to move on the Senate bill as early as tomorrow.
Of course, given widespread Republican opposition to VAWA, this would mean House GOP leaders would once again be prepared to advance popular legislation by ignoring the so-called "Hastert Rule," which has traditionally meant Republicans would only bring to the floor legislation that enjoyed the support of "a majority of the majority" -- whether a bill has 218 supporters is less important than whether a bill has the backing of most GOP members.
But in this case, it appears the party's leadership is prepared to get VAWA over with. If all goes according to plan -- and in this chamber, things don't always go according to plan -- the watered-down version will be brought up, it will fail, and then the House will vote on the Senate version. With overwhelming Democratic support, VAWA would only need about 18 Republican votes, which should be fairly easy to get, which in turn would send VAWA reauthorization to the desk of President Obama, who's eager to sign it.
If the plan works out, this will be the third time in two months that the House GOP leadership has ignored the Hastert Rule. |
|
|
|
Wed Feb 27, 2013 8:27 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Dogjudge
Hastert used to be my Congressman. Some of his "memorable" moments.
Stopping pedophilia charges against Mark Foley.
Covering up for Tom Delay.
Forcibly changing committee memberships to protect Republicans.
And my FAVORITE. Six months after being re-elected to Congress he resigns because of "personal" reasons that would prevent him serving. That move cost the taxpayers in the district a couple of million to have a special election, which went to the Democrats.
His "personal" reason? He had to start a lobbying group before laws preventing that move kicked in.
Prior to going to Congress, Hastert was a wrestling coach at a local high school. No real personal wealth so to speak. He's now a multi-millionaire. What does that tell you?
His favorite "deal" never happened. An interstate, the route along which he had invested in heavily. |
|
|
|
Wed Feb 27, 2013 8:29 pm |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
FlintTalk.com Forum Index
> Political Talk
