The G.O.P. and Violence Against Women

[CommunitarianKevin]

This is why Repubs will continue to lose...I know, I know, this doesn't represent the view of all Repubs...but these people represent you...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/25/opinion/sunday/the-gop-and-violence-against-women.html?smid=tw-nytopinion&seid=auto&_r=2&

If Republicans are serious about repairing their party’s standing among women, gay and Hispanic voters, they need to adjust some policies and stop sending hostile messages. A good place to start would be for Republicans in the House to stop blocking reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act over provisions deemed too protective of gay and immigrant victims of domestic violence and sexual assault.

The 1994 law remains crucial to the nation’s efforts to combat domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking. Previous reauthorizations sailed through Congress.

A thoughtful renewal measure introduced by Senator Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat and Judiciary Committee chairman, and Senator Michael Crapo, an Idaho Republican, cleared the Senate in April with strong bipartisan support. But it has hit a wall in the Republican-led House. Instead, House Republicans pushed through a regressive version of the measure that omits new protections for gay, bisexual or transgender victims of abuse.

The House bill also left out a needed increase in the number of visas, known as U visas, available for undocumented immigrants who are victims of domestic violence and sexual assaults. And it would reduce the incentive for frightened victims to come forward by ending the current ability of U visa holders to apply for permanent residency after three years.

Speaker John Boehner and his Republican colleagues blame Democrats for the impasse, suggesting the Democrats inserted changes to invite opposition and score political points. But the provisions at issue respond to real humanitarian and law enforcement needs identified by experts working in the field.

By refusing to accept the principle of protecting all victims of domestic violence, House Republican leaders are conveying a belief that rapes of gay people and immigrant women are not “legitimate” rapes, as Representative Todd Akin, the failed Republican candidate for the Senate from Missouri, put it so appallingly. Is that really what Republicans want to stand for?

The act’s reauthorization is must-do business for the lame-duck session. Failure to agree on a bill would mean having to start the legislative process all over again next year. Mr. Boehner should relent and allow the House to vote on the Senate bill. There is a chance it would not muster sufficient Republican votes to pass. But at least it would give Republican representatives who value moderation a chance to dissociate themselves from the narrow-minded prejudices and politics hurting their party.

[Legaia]

Dearest CommunistKevin,

When are you going to give this up?

When are you going to realize the obvious - both parties are mostly made up of authoritarian psychopaths?

When are you going to understand that the political system and federal government are both rigged against us?

Why can't you read up on some history to prove these thoughts?

Why do you continue to view this subject in blue and red spectrums, when I and others have showed you the futility in your mindset time and time again?

When will you understand that division is what "they" want?

Your friend,

RationalNick

[Rafterman]

This is why Repubs will continue to lose...I know, I know, this doesn't represent the view of all Repubs...but these people represent you...

http://www.nytimes.c...&seid=auto&_r=2&

Well perhaps if the Democrats didn't put a bunch of silly additions in the bill to score points in an election year, then it would have passed back in the Spring.

I guess creating a phony "Republican War on Women" was more important than actually protecting women from domestic violence.

[Dredimus]

“The Violence Against Women Act program has strong bipartisan support in the Senate. It’s a shame that the majority party is manufacturing another partisan, political crisis, because in actuality, there is no concern that the VAWA will go away. The law is being funded and VAWA programs are running as they have since the reauthorization actually ran out last year.

“No doubt we need to consider the VAWA bill at the appropriate time, but there must be a fair process that includes consideration of our alternative that ensures more money goes to victims rather than bureaucrats and helps root out more of the well-documented fraud in the program. The Republican leadership has no intention of blocking fair consideration of this bill.”

Senator Chuck Grassley

New York Sen. Chuck Schumer believes he has found a political weapon in the unlikeliest of places: the Violence Against Women Act.

Republicans have several objections to the legislation, but instead of making changes, Schumer wants to fast track the bill to the floor, let the GOP block it, then allow Democrats to accuse Republicans of waging a “war against women.”

It’s fodder for a campaign ad, and it’s not the only potential 30-second spot ready to spring from Senate leadership these days.

From his perch as the Democrats’ chief policy and messaging guru, Schumer wants to raise taxes on people who earn more than $1 million, and many Democrats want to push the vote for April 15, a move designed to amp up the “income inequality” rhetoric just in time for Tax Day.

Schumer has a plan for painting Republicans as anti-immigrant as well. He’s called the author of the Arizona immigration law to testify before his Judiciary subcommittee, bringing Capitol Hill attention to an issue that’s still front and center for Hispanic voters.

None of these campaign-style attacks allow for the policy nuances or reasoning behind the GOP’s opposition, and some of the bills stand no chance of becoming law.

But that’s not really the point.

The real push behind this effort is to give Democrats reasons to portray Republicans as anti-women, anti-Latino and anti-middle class. In the aftermath of a fight over a payroll tax cut for American workers and an Obama contraception policy, Democrats are ready for this next set of wedge issues.

“If a party chooses to alienate the fastest-growing group of people in the country [Latinos] and the majority of people in the country, women, they do so at their peril,” Schumer said Wednesday. “This is an important issue.”

The move carries some risk. The economy is still struggling, with the jobless rate above 8 percent and millions seeking work. Gas prices are skyrocketing. And Schumer himself said last Sunday that Democrats would focus like a “laser” on the economy, a comment Republicans giddily pointed out as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) pushed for judicial confirmations this week.

Schumer and Reid have also shown little interest in bringing forward a budget resolution this spring, saying that overall spending levels have already been agreed upon. That has opened them up to Republican charges they are steadfastly avoiding tough votes on the budget in favor of election-year point scoring.

http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=39748

How about finding out WHY its being blocked instead of complaining and playing into the partisan politics?

[F3SS]

I have a question about the law. Why does it prohibit polygraphing of rape victims. I'm sure most times it is unnecessary but other times it may be quite important. Is it just do to the the potential for polygraph errors?

[Dredimus]

I have a question about the law. Why does it prohibit polygraphing of rape victims. I'm sure most times it is unnecessary but other times it may be quite important. Is it just do to the the potential for polygraph errors?

I did a bit of research when I read this post, I was curious to say the least. In my years of law enforcement / security I have never come across this issue. Heres the best explanation I can find.

They (lobbiest) have contended that women will be discouraged from reporting sexual assaults if police don't simply take them at their word, without question."

~ S. Taylor, KC Johnson, Until Proven Innocent: Political Correctness and the Shameful Injustices of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case, 378 (2007).

Now, in my opinion there has to be more to this than just that. There are documented cases where Rape SUSPECTS have been freed because they passed a polygraph. So the question is, would an accuser taking a polygraph add more stress to them than the SUSPECT going free? This was actually a very hot topic around the time of the Duke Lacrosse Trial and another thread should be started on it if you wish to engage in an open discussion about said topic.

[acidhead]

One of the most pervasive political visions of our time is the vision of liberals as compassionate and conservatives as less caring. --Thomas Sowell

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Even if the GOP blocking the passage of this is the result of politicking from the Democrats it demonstrates a lack of political canny on the GOPs part, they walked entirely into the Democrats' trap and have come out of it playing entirely to the Democrats' playbook - "GOPs war on women" etc etc - rather then passing it and just going on to try and pull a fast one on the Democrats later.

They mightn't have a War on Women or a lack of 21st century morality, but they do lack an understanding of 20th century politics, which frankly is just as bad.

[F3SS]

I did a bit of research when I read this post, I was curious to say the least. In my years of law enforcement / security I have never come across this issue. Heres the best explanation I can find.

~ S. Taylor, KC Johnson, Until Proven Innocent: Political Correctness and the Shameful Injustices of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case, 378 (2007).

Now, in my opinion there has to be more to this than just that. There are documented cases where Rape SUSPECTS have been freed because they passed a polygraph. So the question is, would an accuser taking a polygraph add more stress to them than the SUSPECT going free? This was actually a very hot topic around the time of the Duke Lacrosse Trial and another thread should be started on it if you wish to engage in an open discussion about said topic.

I had a feeling it might have something to do with political correctness but I'm not being derogatory. I'm only saying that there are undoubtedly times when it would've and could be a reasonable thing to conduct and Duke Lacrosse was exactly what I had in mind and maybe Ben Roethlisberger but I think he paid that problem to go away which tells me it was more about money and less about an assault but moving on... That said Dred, I'm not sure I have an entire threads worth of commentary on this.

Even if the GOP blocking the passage of this is the result of politicking from the Democrats it demonstrates a lack of political canny on the GOPs part, they walked entirely into the Democrats' trap and have come out of it playing entirely to the Democrats' playbook - "GOPs war on women" etc etc - rather then passing it and just going on to try and pull a fast one on the Democrats later.

They mightn't have a War on Women or a lack of 21st century morality, but they do lack an understanding of 20th century politics, which frankly is just as bad.

I'm with the understanding here that the whole reason for any kind of blockage is that the GOP wants to modify or amend the law in some way from its current form and the democrats won't let them and are using a loopdy loop reverse political tactic to turn it around on them. Seams slimy to me. It's like the GOP says hey I like that bill but since it's up for reinstatement we'd like to take a look and maybe add or change a few things and put it up for review before we pass the old law as is again. And the democrats are saying yea I betcha would but we don't care, we're not going to let you and then we're going to tell everyone you hate this law and you hate women!Ha! So what if some want to see if they can improve it. See what they have to say and then see if you like it. If not, THEN you tell everybody how outrageous the GOP is for wanting these ideas put into law. At least base an attack off of some substance rather than a pre-emptive political strike. Maybe there was something good to come out of it and maybe a fight wouldn't be necessary and maybe that's called acting like adults and working together on something like we want you to.

[darkmoonlady]

The issue is if Republicans want women to vote for them, don't say things that alienate them. Simple but true. Women aren't stupid and rape is a crime. It seems that SOME Republicans like to comment on rape and end up with their foot in their mouth. For some women (especially in this election) having men say that 'some women rape easy" is not going to earn you their vote. For some women saying that being raped and getting pregnant is "a blessing" or "god's will" makes me not want to vote for someone. Nor do women hear "a woman can just shut that whole thing down" referring to pregnancy from rape and want to vote for that person. It isn't a war against women, it's not a democratic ploy, some Republican men are ignorant, misogynist and sexist. Some Democrats are too but maybe they're just better at keeping their mouth shut during elections. All I know is as a women, I'd never vote for anyone who said (and meant) anything those men said during their campaigns. I value myself enough to NOT vote for someone who says and means those statements.

Edited November 26, 2012 by darkmoonlady

[Rafterman]

Even if the GOP blocking the passage of this is the result of politicking from the Democrats it demonstrates a lack of political canny on the GOPs part, they walked entirely into the Democrats' trap and have come out of it playing entirely to the Democrats' playbook - "GOPs war on women" etc etc - rather then passing it and just going on to try and pull a fast one on the Democrats later.

They mightn't have a War on Women or a lack of 21st century morality, but they do lack an understanding of 20th century politics, which frankly is just as bad.

That would work if it were a fair fight, but it's not.

If we actually had a press that explained to the American people what the Democrats were trying to do, then the Republicans would stand a chance.

But as it is now, if Republicans make a stand against such political gamesmanship, the Democrats label them as anti-women and the press just sits there and says "yeah, you're anti-women".