Violence Against Women Act.31 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


thishereboi -> Violence Against Women Act.31 (5/3/2012 11:14:31 AM)

31 Senate Republicans just voted to send the victims of abuse, assault, and even rape back to the arms of their attackers—and make it harder to send abusers to jail.1

That's the real-world impact of voting against the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act.

The act provides a lifeline for the victims of domestic abuse, through shelters, hotlines, and a better promise of prosecution for their abusers. Women in abusive relationships are often unable to leave because they are kept socially isolated and financially dependent, or are trying to protect their children, so shelters are absolutely necessary in providing safe spaces for escape.

That's why the Violence Against Women Act has been a bi-partisan bill since its passage in 1994, and in both of its previous reauthorizations.2 That's why every Republican woman in the Senate voted for it.3

But now House Republicans are threatening to block the reauthorization of the act.4 And if they aren't stopped, then millions of abused women will have no place to turn but back into the arms of their attackers and rapists. The media isn't reporting on this much yet, so in order to turn things around, we need a massive public outcry with a huge petition:

Reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act now. No delays, no excuses, no restrictions.

The horror of a physical attack, sexual assault, or rape is terrible enough. But imagine being trapped in a life of assault and rape. That's the reality for victims of domestic abuse. To really understand what it means not to have the Violence Against Women Act, consider this:

Rape. 76% of women who report being raped since the age of 18 said it was an intimate partner, including husbands and cohabiting partners.5
Assault. More than 60% of violent crimes, assaults, and aggravated assaults against women are committed by someone they know.6
Murder. Everyday in the U.S., more than three women are murdered by their husbands or boyfriends.7
Escape. Access to shelter services leads to a 60-70% reduction in incidence and severity of re-assault compared to women without access to the shelter.8

And here's one more compelling number: 74% of us personally know someone who is or has been the victim of domestic violence.9 That means the end of the Violence Against Women Act could end up hurting someone we know or love. Don't let that happen—sign the petition today:

Reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act now. No delays, no excuses, no restrictions.
Why the sudden opposition to help for victims of domestic violence? Because some Republicans don't want protections extended to rural and tribal populations, immigrant women, or LGBT victims of domestic violence.10 But no one deserves to be abused, regardless of their ethnicity, sexual orientation, or immigration status.

http://pol.moveon.org/savevawa/?id=40589-20751015-RMyKRzx&t=3

.




Lucylastic -> RE: Violence Against Women Act.31 (5/3/2012 11:24:38 AM)

It passed the senate last week I believe?
But now the repubs are bringing out their own version
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/05/vawa.html

Though the bill has just passed the Senate, House Republicans drafted their own version that excludes protections for gay and transgender, immigrant, and tribal issues, ignoring groups at a high risk of becoming victims of domestic violence and crime.

Public support for VAWA has been unwavering and close to two decades after passage, its provisions have proved life-changing for many Americans.
SO altho the senate passed the reauthorisation they want to exclude certain groups?
Fucked up assholes.




GotSteel -> RE: Violence Against Women Act.31 (5/3/2012 11:35:30 AM)

[sm=ofcourse.gif]




Mupainurpleasure -> RE: Violence Against Women Act.31 (5/3/2012 11:55:45 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

It passed the senate last week I believe?
But now the repubs are bringing out their own version
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/05/vawa.html

Though the bill has just passed the Senate, House Republicans drafted their own version that excludes protections for gay and transgender, immigrant, and tribal issues, ignoring groups at a high risk of becoming victims of domestic violence and crime.

Public support for VAWA has been unwavering and close to two decades after passage, its provisions have proved life-changing for many Americans.
SO altho the senate passed the reauthorisation they want to exclude certain groups?
Fucked up assholes.

some groups dont deserve equal protection....according to some




Lucylastic -> RE: Violence Against Women Act.31 (5/3/2012 12:26:02 PM)

Yeah well those groups dont have anything the republicans want, they dont "deserve" the same protections as violence victims with money.[8|]




tweakabelle -> RE: Violence Against Women Act.31 (5/3/2012 12:52:07 PM)

I wish I could describe this development as unbelievable, but sadly, given other recent GOP 'initiatives' in the field of health, especially women's health, this is all too easily believable.

It seems that some people might believe that some victims of violence shouldn't receive the same legal protection as others. It's almost as if they are positively condoning or even encouraging violence against more marginalised sections of society. It's implicitly saying marginalised lives have less value. Sad. Shocking.




PeonForHer -> RE: Violence Against Women Act.31 (5/3/2012 1:21:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
Though the bill has just passed the Senate, House Republicans drafted their own version that excludes protections for gay and transgender, immigrant, and tribal issues, ignoring groups at a high risk of becoming victims of domestic violence and crime.


On what logical and moral bases are those groups to be excluded? I'd be fascinated to see what kind of rationale has been put together.




Kirata -> RE: Violence Against Women Act.31 (5/3/2012 2:48:38 PM)


It's no wonder that truth is stranger than fiction. Fiction has to make sense. ~Mark Twain

K.




Dom4subssub4doms -> RE: Violence Against Women Act.31 (5/3/2012 4:50:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
Though the bill has just passed the Senate, House Republicans drafted their own version that excludes protections for gay and transgender, immigrant, and tribal issues, ignoring groups at a high risk of becoming victims of domestic violence and crime.


On what logical and moral bases are those groups to be excluded? I'd be fascinated to see what kind of rationale has been put together.

same reason a gay advisor got forced out in the ARTomney campaign, there is a small vocal powerful minority who dontoppose gay marriage they oppose any idea of equal proetection for somem groups




Karmastic -> RE: Violence Against Women Act.31 (5/3/2012 5:27:38 PM)

FR-

I applaud you for raising awareness about this important issue.

I denounce you for this...

"...send the victims of abuse, assault, and even rape back to the arms of their attackers"

Partisan shillish (sp) and sensationalistic shit like this discounts and cheapens this noble cause, and gives fodder to those who oppose portions of the bill.

It's sensationalistic because no rape victims are being sent back into their rapists arms. This isn't Afghanistan (where that did just recently happen, and the girl killed herself - might have the country wrong). Extremely disingenuous.

It's partisan and shillish because you childishly demonize repubs, and claim the repubs want to send rape victims back into their abuser's arms. But at the same time, you tell us Republicans support the bill (it's contents, sans one provision). I.e., they merely oppose one provision. You disingenuously mislead people who don't realize that it's perfectly normal for one party or the other to oppose certain provisions of some bills, and to threaten to block if some provisions aren't changed or removed.

I suspect that the repubs having a problem with specifically protecting specific groups (like LGBT) arises less from their Christian homophobic platform, and more to do with not frivolously including specific groups in a law that covers everyone. I.e., LGBT is already covered. Extremely disingenuous for you to say repubs think anyone "deserves to be abused". Most of the other groups you named are also already covered and can gain from the bill; immigrants might not be eligible for some govt assistance, but that's an entirely different debate.

Disclaimer: no, I'm not supporting nor denouncing republican actions. yes, I think it's a good bill, with or without the provision. I hope the dems are smart enough to get the bill passed by giving in, rather than throwing the baby out with the bath water and getting nada.




thishereboi -> RE: Violence Against Women Act.31 (5/3/2012 5:32:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Karmastic

FR-

I applaud you for raising awareness about this important issue.

I denounce you for this...

"...send the victims of abuse, assault, and even rape back to the arms of their attackers"

Partisan shillish (sp) and sensationalistic shit like this discounts and cheapens this noble cause, and gives fodder to those who oppose portions of the bill.

It's sensationalistic because no rape victims are being sent back into their rapists arms. This isn't Pakistan (where that did just recently happen, and the girl killed herself - might have the country wrong). Extremely disingenuous.

It's partisan and shillish because you childishly demonize repubs, and claim the repubs want to send rape victims back into their abuser's arms. But at the same time, you tell us Republicans support the bill (it's contents, sans one provision). I.e., they merely oppose one provision. You disingenuously mislead people who don't realize that it's perfectly normal for one party or the other to oppose certain provisions of some bills, and to threaten to block if some provisions aren't changed or removed.

I suspect that the repubs having a problem with specifically protecting specific groups (like LGBT) arises less from their Christian homophobic platform, and more to do with not frivolously including specific groups in a law that covers everyone. I.e., LGBT is already covered. Extremely disingenuous for you to say repubs think anyone "deserves to be abused". Most of the other groups you named are also already covered and can gain from the bill; immigrants might not be eligible for some govt assistance, but that's an entirely different debate.

Disclaimer: no, I'm not supporting nor endorsing republican actions. yes, I think it's a good bill.


quote:

I denounce you for this...


It was cut and pasted straight from the move on site that sent it to me. If you have a problem with the wording I suggest you take it up with them.




Lucylastic -> RE: Violence Against Women Act.31 (5/3/2012 5:39:24 PM)

the bill did pass without the "provision"
But the repubs are trying to get one in that DOES remove the said groups. It goes before committee this week? I believe




Karmastic -> RE: Violence Against Women Act.31 (5/3/2012 5:43:47 PM)

quote:


It was cut and pasted straight from the move on site that sent it to me. If you have a problem with the wording I suggest you take it up with them.

I'm very sorry for missing that. I direct my comments to the author of the article.




thishereboi -> RE: Violence Against Women Act.31 (5/3/2012 5:44:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

the bill did pass without the "provision"
But the repubs are trying to get one in that DOES remove the said groups. It goes before committee this week? I believe



That could be why they sent out the petition. Not sure if it will help but it doesn't hurt to try.




thishereboi -> RE: Violence Against Women Act.31 (5/3/2012 5:45:41 PM)

No problem.




Karmastic -> RE: Violence Against Women Act.31 (5/3/2012 5:45:55 PM)

thanks for the update. if it passed without the provision (quotes aren't needed, that's what it's called), then why are they going to committee for one that DOES remove said groups? i.e., they were already removed.




fucktoyprincess -> RE: Violence Against Women Act.31 (5/3/2012 5:48:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dom4subssub4doms


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
Though the bill has just passed the Senate, House Republicans drafted their own version that excludes protections for gay and transgender, immigrant, and tribal issues, ignoring groups at a high risk of becoming victims of domestic violence and crime.


On what logical and moral bases are those groups to be excluded? I'd be fascinated to see what kind of rationale has been put together.

same reason a gay advisor got forced out in the ARTomney campaign, there is a small vocal powerful minority who dontoppose gay marriage they oppose any idea of equal proetection for somem groups


I have said it before in these forums and I will say again (yes, I will) gay Republicans are voting AGAINST self-interest. And gay Republicans who actually work on Romney's campaign - what - is there even a word for that? [&:]




Lucylastic -> RE: Violence Against Women Act.31 (5/3/2012 5:53:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

the bill did pass without the "provision"
But the repubs are trying to get one in that DOES remove the said groups. It goes before committee this week? I believe



That could be why they sent out the petition. Not sure if it will help but it doesn't hurt to try.

very true, Im sure there will be more on it, Cornyn posted an article today saying nothing about the provision being removed, Only why they were bringing in a new one
http://www.chron.com/default/article/Let-s-seek-justice-for-women-3498843.php
just to give him a side (below snipped from the url given above)


Those of us who care deeply about VAWA's mission understand that it must remain a bipartisan cause. To that end, the Texas Council on Family Violence and the Texas Association Against Sexual Assault (TAASA) have issued a statement calling on members of Congress to avoid divisive tactics during the current reauthorization process. I hope we embrace their advice, because VAWA is much too important to be dragged through the mud of election-year politics.

The overwhelming majority of Republicans believe it should be reauthorized, and I have cosponsored legislation to do just that. Our bill contains some commonsense proposals that would bolster VAWA and also remove a series of controversial provisions from the Democratic alternative.

Unfortunately, due to partisan politics, it will not become law. That's why I have introduced a stand-alone Justice for Victims Amendment that would: (1) increase the funds available to reduce the rape-kit backlog; (2) create a national sexual-assault forensics registry to help with audits of untested evidence; (3) strengthen penalties for domestic violence, sexual abuse and child-sex trafficking; (4) make it easier for the U.S. Marshals Service to track down and apprehend fugitive sex offenders; and (5) urge the website BackPage.com to eliminate its "adult entertainment" section, which has been used to facilitate child prostitution.




PeonForHer -> RE: Violence Against Women Act.31 (5/3/2012 6:09:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dom4subssub4doms
same reason a gay advisor got forced out in the ARTomney campaign, there is a small vocal powerful minority who dontoppose gay marriage they oppose any idea of equal proetection for somem groups


OK, I certainly get that . . . but there's always some rationale for these things. The politicians involved have to make their crap sound reasonable in order to sell them to the electorate. I mean: what's the *stated* justification? I can't even see a veneer of reason on this. I mean, presumably, no Republican has got up and said, "These minorities, they don't deserve such protection, because they're just scum that we don't need to care about".
Over here in the UK, we're used to seeing some kind of quasi-reasonable gloss put on politicians' prejudices. It seems that in the USA, versus here, Rightie politicians can get away with picking out some piece of lunatic drivel from the Bible and justifying themselves on that alone - but I can't even see that here.




Lucylastic -> RE: Violence Against Women Act.31 (5/3/2012 6:14:04 PM)

I dont think the rationale has been given, personally, from Cornyns "blather" hes focussing on WHY his should work better.
Ive looked, but havent found anything but im a busy bitch today





Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
6.152344E-02