Republicans Vote Against Violence Against Women Act - But Claim They Support It

[TruthOut10]

WASHINGTON -- When Congress passed the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization bill late last month, more than 130 House Republicans voted against it. But some of those same lawmakers are putting out misleading statements that make it look like they voted for the bill instead.

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), for one, issued a statement with the headline, "King Votes in Support of Violence Against Women Act." But King didn't vote for the VAWA bill. Instead, he voted for a GOP alternative bill that failed to advance.

"I supported VAWA in 2005, 2012, and today I voted in support of the House version to see that victims of domestic violence and sexual assault have access to the resources and protection when they need it most," King's statement reads.

Then there's Rep. Bill Johnson (R-Ohio), who disputed his VAWA vote with a constituent during a Facebook Town Hall. "Please make sure you have the facts right. I DID vote in favor of VAWA today," Johnson wrote. But he didn't.

The list goes on. As Steve Benen of The Maddow Blog first reported, a smattering of local newspapers have called out lawmakers including Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.), Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-Mo.), Rep. Keith Rothfus (R-Pa.) and Rep. Tim Murphy (R-Pa.) for being deceptive about how they voted.

Some Republicans found creative ways to make it look like they voted for VAWA. In a statement titled "Proud to Support House VAWA," Rep. Tim Griffin (R-Ark.) says he voted for "House passage of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) Reauthorization (H.Res. 83)." But that measure isn't the VAWA bill or even the GOP alternative; instead, it's a resolution that authorizes a procedural step forward to begin debate on VAWA.

Violence Against Women Act Now Touted By Republicans Who Voted Against Bill

 

[TruthOut10]

Hypocrisy

 

[whitehall]

The VAW act is just another gigantic taxpayer giveaway (650 million per year) to deal with crimes that are already on the books. They threw in the transgender freakazoids as a token to the democrat base.

 

[Mad Scientist]

If this is passed will there be no more violence against women?

 

[NeoTemplar]

VAWA is based on a false premise to begin with its just an excuse, used to empower greedy power hungry Feminists. I know this because it screwed my uncle over.

 

[Stephanie]

good grief, this was ALREADY posted

troll hypocrite

 

[Katzndogz]

The intent of VAWA was to ease immigration. Whatever else it did that was already dealt with by numerous other laws, what it did for immigration is the whole point of VAWA's existence.

A man marries a woman, she could be here legally or illegally. Once married, or in a relationship living with a man, she could claim domestic violence, force him out of the house but continue to support her. Since she is a victim of domestic violence, she can now become self-petitioning and doesn't need him to petition for an adjustment of status any longer. Once she is self-petitioning, she can now petition for her entire extended family to come here. She needs family support to deal with her trauma.

The changes in VAWA extend domestic violence to same sex couples, couples who are not actually living together and expand the definition to verbal abuse and withholding communication.

 

[AmyNation]

This story has been done to death. If dems wanted the bill to pass they should have left it as is, instead of expanding it in a way they knew would cause republicans to reject it.

 

[Katzndogz]

It's part of the democrat plan. They create a bill that is as obnoxious as possible. When it's rejected they can say republicans like violence against women.

They do it every time. They did it with the aid to Sandy Hook bill. They loaded it with nonsense, then said Republicans don't want to help the people harmed by the storm.

 

[AmyNation]

Oh pleaseIts a political game that republicans play just as much as dems do. Take a bill, give it a name that will appeal to the masses, include some positive stuff and include something you know your opponent will never vote for. Then run and whine to all and sundry when they vote no on your "world peace" bill.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

This story has been done to death. If dems wanted the bill to pass they should have left it as is, instead of expanding it in a way they knew would cause republicans to reject it.

Be that as it may, the Rs are lying, saying they voted for it or giving the idea they voted for it even though they didn't.

Why couldn't they simply say why they didn't want to vote for a new version? Why do they have to lie about this too?

 

[TruthOut10]

This story has been done to death. If dems wanted the bill to pass they should have left it as is, instead of expanding it in a way they knew would cause republicans to reject it.

Be that as it may, the Rs are lying, saying they voted for it or giving the idea they voted for it even though they didn't.

Why couldn't they simply say why they didn't want to vote for a new version? Why do they have to lie about this too?

And that is why I posted the story.... After reading several replies from dedicated "knuckle draggers", you were the only one to undersand why I posted it.

 

[Stephanie]

This story has been done to death. If dems wanted the bill to pass they should have left it as is, instead of expanding it in a way they knew would cause republicans to reject it.

Be that as it may, the Rs are lying, saying they voted for it or giving the idea they voted for it even though they didn't.

Why couldn't they simply say why they didn't want to vote for a new version? Why do they have to lie about this too?

And that is why I posted the story.... After reading several replies from dedicated "knuckle draggers", you were the only one to undersand why I posted it.

go drag you knuckles back at thinkprogess..that article has been posted here 5 times already...are you too stupid to do a search?

 

[whitehall]

Why can't liberals comprehend the fact that republicans are against violence directed at women but aren't crazy about authorizing 659 Million (over five years) to get democrats elected?

 

[Stephanie]

Why can't liberals comprehend the fact that republicans are against violence directed at women but aren't crazy about authorizing 659 Million (over five years) to get democrats elected?

because they don't care about the games their party plays with the peoples money..then they can say, see see see

 

[eflatminor]

I'm pretty sure that violence against anyone is already against the law. Why would we need another law for women? Do we therefore need even more laws to punish violence against other groups?

 

[Stephanie]

I'm pretty sure that violence against anyone is already against the law. Why would we need another law for women? Do we therefore need even more laws to punish violence against other groups?

Democrats see women as weak and helpless

you think women would be offended by how they view them

 

[eflatminor]

I'm pretty sure that violence against anyone is already against the law. Why would we need another law for women? Do we therefore need even more laws to punish violence against other groups?

Democrats see women as weak and helpless

you think women would be offended by how they view them

Good women are.