Violence against women act reauthorized - All Republican Men vote NO

[Crazedclerkthe2nd]

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/arti...cans/comments/

All the Republican WOMEN (of which there are only 5) voted yes.

This America, is your 2012 Republican Party.

I'm not going to make any further comments on this and let the facts speak for themselves.

[RedRoseSpiral]

No shock here. Still disgusts me that Blunt got reelected.

[HYHYBT]

The article does not say that all the Republican men voted no. It says that all those who voted no were Republican men.

[Greenday]

Perhaps explaining what this act is would be relevant.

After looking, I can't find anything that is relatively convincing on why this act is so needed.

[Duelist925]

Perhaps explaining what this act is would be relevant.

After looking, I can't find anything that is relatively convincing on why this act is so needed.

From skimming over the bill itself, it seems to be a bill concerning mainly with grants for prevention of crime, with an emphasis on crimes againt women. theres also a secton concerning federal penalties for sexual crimes.

Some of it is assistance to victims of sexual assault, safe homes for women, grants for shelters, the national domestic violence hotline, some education and community programs concerning domestic violence, civil rights for women

Some stuff regarding prevention of family violence, confidentiality for abused people, for research into effective ways to address violence against women elder abuse, protection for battered immigrant women and children, a task force, court training.

Overall, it seems to be a bill concerning violence and abuse towards towards women, domestic and family violence, and a variety of other things that fall into similar purveiws, IE violence against youths, the eldery, neglect thereof either, and ranges from money for such things, to how to handle them legally, and certain provisions for sexual crime, such as pre trial detention of sexual criminals.



Ive just skimmed over it, and most of thats from the index. How is this not needed?

[Greenday]

How is this not needed?

Pretty redundant given what we have now. We already have the resources out there to take care of this. People just need to actually use them.

[Rebel]

Pretty redundant given what we have now. We already have the resources out there to take care of this. People just need to actually use them.

...such as?

[Greenday]

...such as?

Some of it is assistance to victims of sexual assault, safe homes for women, grants for shelters, the national domestic violence hotline, some education and community programs concerning domestic violence, civil rights for women

Those things.

[Duelist925]

Pretty redundant given what we have now. We already have the resources out there to take care of this. People just need to actually use them.

Yeah...thats what the bills for. Making sure that the resouces are used properly, kept funed, and given attention, rather than being allowed to slip through the cracks.

[bara]

Im okay with this act. Hell even the ACLU says its effective even though they have some misgivings about it.

Looks like it provide some pretty good things. I will say that something like this should not have to be taken care of at the federal level as I do think federal government is seriously over reaching. But seems legit to me.

EDIT: Fixed link to wiki page.

[Gravekeeper]

After looking, I can't find anything that is relatively convincing on why this act is so needed.

The act has been in place for 16 years. So this would effectively be repealing an existing support system. Before it, there wasn't even standarized police procedure for handling violence against women. So yeah, its pretty damn needed. Dropping it would mean cutting funding to rape crisis centers, victim protection services, etc.

The problem the Republicans have is the act was amended to *gasp* protect lesbians from violence too. They have a God given right ( apparently ) to prosecute and beat gay people. So they couldn't stand for that.

[Slytovhand]

By following a link, I was able to find that while 31 Republicans voted nay, 15 voted yea! (and one Rep didn't vote).

Also from following links, I found:

In addition, the Senate-passed measure provides protections for gay, lesbian and transgender couples, provides visas for undocumented immigrants who have been victims of abuse, and provides new authority for Native Americans officials in cases of abuse of Native American women by non-Native Americans. Republicans sought but failed to weaken these provisions through the amendment process.

Perhaps (just perhaps) they had issues with parts of the legislation, not all of it! (that's the usual way with politics, yeah??) I would think that granting a visa to a woman who has suffered abuse in America would certainly be one issue they have with it. (interesting way to get a green card... accuse someone of such violence, get an extended visa, stay longer.... not so different to marrying a green card, really!)

Also -

Some conservative activists opposed the bill. A spokeswoman for Concerned Women for America called the Act a "boondoggle" which "creates an ideology that all men are guilty and all women are victims." Phyllis Schlafly denounced VAWA as a tool to "fill feminist coffers" and argued that the Act promoted "divorce, breakup of marriage and hatred of men."[5]

Did I also read rightly that any person (man??) accused of sexual violence will also automatically be detained without bail??? What happened to 'innocent until proven guilty'? (or was that a mis-reading??)

[Greenday]

Did I also read rightly that any person (man??) accused of sexual violence will also automatically be detained without bail??? What happened to 'innocent until proven guilty'? (or was that a mis-reading??)

This is what bothered me most. Any time I see the word "mandatory" when it comes to any crime, I tend to get a little bit nervous. Mandatory punishments are never good.

[crashhelmet]

Perhaps (just perhaps) they had issues with parts of the legislation, not all of it! (that's the usual way with politics, yeah??) I would think that granting a visa to a woman who has suffered abuse in America would certainly be one issue they have with it. (interesting way to get a green card... accuse someone of such violence, get an extended visa, stay longer.... not so different to marrying a green card, really!)

It's very different from marrying a green card. A Visa only gives you a limited amount of time for a very specific reason.

Work Visas are issued for a job with a specific company. Lose that job and you lose the visa. School Visas are issued to foreign students. Quit or complete school and you lose the Visa. Personal Visas are issued for a specific amount of time. Your ass needs to be on a plane and out of the country before the time runs out or they will personally escort you out.

Issuing a Visa to an abuse victim could be for the length of time needed to receive medical care for any injuries sustained and prosecuting the attacker. I doubt it would be an open ended, never ending green card.

[Seifer]

I would think that granting a visa to a woman who has suffered abuse in America would certainly be one issue they have with it. (interesting way to get a green card... accuse someone of such violence, get an extended visa, stay longer.... not so different to marrying a green card, really!)

The idea of giving battered immigrant women an extended VISA is so they can get away from their attackers and seek medical attention or find somewhere else to stay. If an abused woman is basically forced to stay with an abuser just because she doesn't want to get deported, then that's a travesty. People shouldn't have to stay in an abusive situation just so they can stay in the country. Human rights and all of that.

Did I also read rightly that any person (man??) accused of sexual violence will also automatically be detained without bail??? What happened to 'innocent until proven guilty'? (or was that a mis-reading??)

Which article did you find that information? I want to read up on it a bit more.

Going by only what you've said, I'm assuming they want to hold the accused so they can perform HIV tests (which are also mandatory under this act) and get some sort of restraining order set up. The last thing the police want is for the accused to get out of a holding cell and end up beating the shit out of the victim. Maybe holding them for a specific amount of time allows the police to set-up a safe location or program for the alleged victim?

Like I said, without reading the article I can only assume the mandatory detainment is for the victims sake.