Tag Archives: Violence Against Women Act

What The Violence Against Women Debate Is Really About

Posted on by

Prepare to hear that Republicans are continuing the ‘war against women’ by refusing to support the Violence Against Women Act. If you have any common sense, you want to know what is really going on. Yesterday’s Washington Examiner posted the story behind the coming headline.

The House of Representatives this week will take up the Violence against Women Act.

The Washington Examiner reports:

House Democrats want a bill similar to the one passed by the Democratically controlled Senate. That bill would provide special protections for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals. It would also expand the authority of Native American authorities to prosecute non-Indians who commit violence against a Native American on tribal lands.

The Republican bill excludes all of those special protections.

The Democratic version of the bill approved by the Senate also would raise the number of special U.S. visas issued to prevent the deportation of illegal immigrants who claim to be victims of domestic violence. House Republicans want to maintain the current cap on such visas and tighten the rules for who would qualify for such protections, including requiring anyone who received such a visa to aid the prosecution of the alleged abusers.

This bill is one example of why things are not getting done in Washington at this time. A simple bill dealing with the issue of domestic violence would easily pass both houses of Congress. There is a serious question in my mind whether or not the Democrats are negotiating in good faith. No Democrat wants to run for re-election this year on jobs, the national debt, spending or the economy. It is much easier to run around shouting that the Republicans have declared war on women. This may be another bill that will not get passed until after the election.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Why You Need To Read Between The Lines

Posted on by

John Hinderaker at Power Line posted an article today about some of the fund raising methods currently being used by the Democrat party. Fund raising for Democrats is not going as well as hoped, so they are trying to kick up the numbers before an FEC fundraising deadline Monday at midnight.

The article reports that Debbie Wasserman-Schultz sent out a fund raising email that included this message:

This week, the Senate voted overwhelmingly to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. Here’s how the vote went: Sixty-eight in favor, thirty-one against.

Each of the 31 senators who voted against it were Republican men.

Every time these guys get the chance to put women’s health before politics, they fail to.

That just sounds so unfair (those evil Republicans are at it again)–until you begin to look at the details:

The Democrats’ Senate version of the bill adds 10,000 U-visas annually, but the Democrats refused to include any protections against immigration fraud in the issuance of such visas. The bill extends the criminal jurisdiction of Indian tribal courts to cover non-Indians; this has to be unconstitutional. And the Democrats’ bill includes hundreds of millions of dollars for grant programs, but the Democrats rejected all audit and oversight provisions, even though a Department of Justice investigation found that in the past, some grantees have misused more than 90% of the money they received through VAWA.

During the political silly season, nothing is what it appears to be. The bill is headed back to the House of Representatives where the extra things added in will probably be taken out. At that point we will see who is willing to support a bill that actually addresses the issue of violence against women.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Taking A Good Concept And Making It Unacceptable

Posted on by

We have all been hearing a lot lately about the Republican’s ‘war on women.’ I wondered about that since I am a Republican and I wasn’t aware of any war against me. Well, as usual, it is about an attempt by the current administration to run for re-election on any issue other than their record.

John Hinderaker at Power Line posted an article yesterday that helped me understand some of the issues. Hopefully it will be helpful to all of us. Please follow the link to read the entire article– I have just posted a few examples of what is going on.

Mr. Hinderaker states that the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) was supported by both political parties when it was introduced in 1994 and reauthorized in 2000 and 2006. So what changed? A few poison pills were added to change to bill to make it unacceptable so that it could be used as a political issue.

The article reports:

Last year, when the Judiciary Committee marked up the bill, it contained controversial provisions that were never included in earlier versions of the bill. It also lacked much needed fraud protection provisions regarding grant funds and immigration. …

Senator Grassley introduced an amendment that authorized aid for victims and also protected against fraud and misuse of funds. The Democrats refused to work with Republicans to write a bill that could enjoy bipartisan support in Committee.

…The Leahy bill creates 5K more U-visas annually, but lacks needed provisions to ensure that the purpose of the visa is fulfilled. The Democrats refused to support such provisions.

The Grassley amendment contained provisions that will ensure that the available 10K visas go to immigrants who actually qualify by:

* Requiring that the crime on which the visa is based be reported within 60 days of its occurrence;
* Requiring that the statute of limitations has not run on the crime, which would prevent prosecution; and
* Requiring that the crime be under active investigation or prosecution.

…Tribal Jurisdiction: In a dramatic break from legal precedent, the Leahy bill gave criminal jurisdiction over non-Indian individuals to Indian Tribes. A hearing was never held on this provision, so the consequences of such a drastic measure are unknown.

While the bill’s jurisdiction is limited to domestic violence offenses, once such an extension of jurisdiction is established, there would be no principled reason not to extend it to other offenses as well. A non-Indian subject to tribal jurisdiction would enjoy few meaningful civil-rights protections. Courts have held, for example, that tribal governments are not bound by the Constitution’s First, Fifth, or Fourteenth Amendments.

…Lack of Grant Oversight: The Leahy bill authorized over $600K [sic] for VAWA grant programs. While this was a reduction from the 2006 authorization, the bill lacked much needed oversight provisions for the spending of grant funds. There is overwhelming evidence that without oversight provisions, the funds given to grantees under VAWA may not be used to protect victims of domestic violence.

No, there isn’t a Republican war against women–there’s a Democrat war against voters.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta