Why Is The GOP Against Reauthorizing The VAWA?

[RetiredGySgt]

Since VAWA was first passed into law in 1994, reporting of domestic violence has increased by 51 percent, the rate of non-fatal intimate partner violence against women has decreased by 61 percent, and the number of women killed by an intimate partner has decreased 26 percent. Furthermore, research estimates that VAWA saved nearly $14.8 billion dollars in net averted social costs in its first six years.
The VAWA

I certainly hope nobody here is arguing against it being reauthorized without the recent amendments that have the GOP currently blocking it are they? Some certainly seem to be.

I thought this was a discussion about the recent expansions to the law that does have the GOP blocking a bill that has been reauthorized in a bipartisan fashion many, many times before.

So, what are the objections to the expansions?

Take out the new stuff and it passes easily

 

[Dick Tuck]

Republicans are opposed NOT to the act , they want to reauthorize. They are opposed to specific things ADDED this year that do not belong in this bill.
In fact the Republican leadership has stated for the record they would vote to reauthorize the bill if the added material was NOT in it. The OP has presented a basic lie as some kind of fact. he has claimed that because the republicans oppose the new material they support violence to women and don't agree with the basic law. All proven to be straight up LIES.

He was informed he was wrong and continues to make the claim, that means he has chosen to lie about it. Further he has been presented numerous times in this thread with the reason the Republicans oppose the CURRENT bill and keeps claiming no one will explain why the Republicans support violence to women. Another lie.

The fact remains that Grassley and his ilk have been caught in a lie about their reason for opposition. The significant change in the bill is the number of temporary visas issued from 10,000/yr to 15,000 a year. This was inserted at the request of law enforcement. Grassley and the Republicans now want to come up with some tin foil theory that this would lead to immigration fraud. There's your lie.

Which does not explain your claim that left leaning republican women (Snow, Collins and Murkowski) would be anti women.

Snow, Collins, Murkowski, are for the bill. Kay Bailey Hutchinson also wants it to go to the floor for debate. I never made the claim they were anti-women. That dubious honor goes to the male Republicans on this issue.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Wouldn't violence against women be a local problem better handled at the local and state level? I know it's a strange concept for those who need the federal gubmint to wipe their asses for them, but you really should try it.

Many small communities don't have the resources for shelters for battered women or training of police and parole officers on how best to deal with it. Certainly congress believed it important enough to pass and reauthorize in 1994, 2000, and 2005.

That begs the question how much violence against women takes place in a small community?

According to Senator Murkowski, quite a bit.

 

[Synthaholic]

The next time you pull a stunt like this, a rhetorical question about an obscure issue with no facts anywhere, it goes to the rubber room.

What a bunch of bullshit. Just because you are ignorant of current events in Washington, it doesn't make this obscure. It's been on the news all week long.

Did you even put VAWA into Google before this post? Apparently not, since it immediately comes back with multiple links.

 

[Synthaholic]

in order to start a thread, you need to post links proving any assertions made. You made assertions, and failed to provide links supporting your claim.

it isn't rocket science. If you SAY something, link to something that SUPPORTS it. It's not our job to research YOUR comments to see if they are true or not. It's YOUR job to offer proof of your statements.

Google VAWA, and you'll pull up 598,000 hits, with at least the top 100 dealing with the current news event.

are you really too stupid to understand the point?

YOU made claims. It is not MY job to research them. It's YOURS.

It's common practice on the board that when you make a claim, you post a link to a source backing up what you say, and not just say 'Trust me' or 'google it to see I'm right'.

It is immaterial that we can also research your claims. We should not HAVE to, unless we take exception to them or the source posted... in which case we WILL research the claims.

Again, are you simple too stupid to understand this basic board principle???

Who forced you to post in this thread, all ignorant-like?

 

[Dick Tuck]

If they put new wording and new funding and added to the bill, it is not a reauthorization as you claim. Only a stupid partisan hack with shit for brains would think so. Secondly, your stat of 53% is seemingly way off and by you hanging on to it proves you don't want real facts or real information, you just want to believe whatever you are told by a party. Sometime try thinking for yourself.

It turns out that Native American women are physically and sexually abused at much higher rates than others. More money was needed for services on tribal lands. This request, btw, was made by Republican Senator Murkowski. It seems that this is a serious problem in Alaska, where she stated that rapes are 2 1/2 times higher than the national average.

So Alaska needs to add state laws that elevate the penalties for crimes against women. We don't need a federal laws to handle a state issue.

Why does it need to be handled federally?

What part of "on tribal lands" don't you understand?

 

[Synthaholic]

And by assuming, you made an ass of yourself.

It is NOT the same bill as always. See my previous post.

Learn from this experience.

And you got that off the Brainfart (RIP) blog? So you think that the fact the bill explicitly states that even those who are undocumented ought to able to have police protection is a compelling reason to allow this important bill to lapse. Yeah, tell me again how Republicans aren't trying to set back women's rights.

the fact that you've had your error in the OP (making a claim without offering proof) pointed out by 3 different posters... and utterly refuse to understand the problem... shows you to be a simpleton or a partisan hack.

Which are you?

If you can't keep up, go play with mal in the flame zone.

 

[Mr.Nick]

What's their excuse now? Do they not believe that domestic violence is a problem that needs to be dealt with? Is this just another part of their war against women? In the past, the VAWA was a law that had bipartisan support. Even with 59 singatories, including Republican Sens. Lisa Murkowski (AK), Olympia Snowe (ME) and Susan Collins (ME), Mark Kirk (IL), Scott Brown (MA) and Mike Crapo (ID), the GOP is blocking the vote for reauthorization.

Because it's ******* stupid and redundant...

Because it costs taxpayers 1.6 billion dollars.

It's a needless program. We call shit like this pork.

If someone has been hurt or abused there will be an investigation into the alleged crime REGARDLESS.

What are you going to say next to defend your pork swindle? woman are systematically denied an investigation if they claim they've been abused??

Here is how dumb this "law" actually is...

The Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA) is a United States federal law. It was passed as Title IV, sec. 40001-40703 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, H.R. 3355, and signed as Pub.L. 103-322 by President Bill Clinton on September 13, 1994. It provided $1.6 billion to enhance investigation and prosecution of violent crimes perpetrated against women, imposed automatic and mandatory restitution on those convicted, and allowed civil redress in cases prosecutors chose to leave unprosecuted.

What do you think would happen if I walked across the street and beat the shit out of my female neighbor???

Oh, I suppose the cops would be called and I would be arrested - as would I if I assaulted a male neighbor..

The law is redundant...

 

[Dick Tuck]

If they put new wording and new funding and added to the bill, it is not a reauthorization as you claim. Only a stupid partisan hack with shit for brains would think so. Secondly, your stat of 53% is seemingly way off and by you hanging on to it proves you don't want real facts or real information, you just want to believe whatever you are told by a party. Sometime try thinking for yourself.

The significant change was that law enforcement asked them to increase the number of temporary visas, so they could prosecute scumbag abusers. Republicans are making tin foil claims that this would lead to fraud, without any real evidence. Yeah, let them stand on that lie and use that excuse with their constituents. Why not just send victims and witnesses home if their visa expires or were here undocumented. Better to let those who prey on women go free than someone stays in this country too long.

Do you really believe this lame excuse is going to work?

Wrong! There are already provisions for special visa's it is part of the law, it is the part that Republicans will renew without issue. You are either dishonest or very ignorant on the subject and are reacting out of emotion.

And law enforcement asked that the number be raised from 10,000 to 15,000 annually, to help assist in prosecution. The Republicans are using some tin foil theory to claim that this would result in major immigration fraud. Sorry, but that's a lame excuse.

 

[Synthaholic]

Well, that is a good start.

You might google up a few articles to demonstrate your assertion that there is widespread opposition (there is) which also, interestingly enough, explains the various apples of discord the Democrats have tossed into the bill. Such as giving Indian tribes the right to prosecute non tribal members, granting rights under the act to illegals, and giving protections to Lesbians from acts by their partners.


Usually, when you start a thread like this, you should include enough basic information so that people know what you are going on about, plus a couple quotes from the people involved as to their reasoning.

I found pages of stuff where the issues were discussed. You could have included at least one republican quote from at least one of them.

Rhetorical questions about weird acronyms don't help move the debate forward. In order for there to be a useful discussion, you need facts and clear statements.


The next time you pull a stunt like this, a rhetorical question about an obscure issue with no facts anywhere, it goes to the rubber room.

So in order for me to start a thread, I have to educate people who don't know about it? I did my research before I started it. Perhaps you ought to do yours before you opine.

dick tuckedupyourass:

You used an acronym, dip shit.

You presume people know about your ******* pet causes?

You presume that opposition is about favoring violence against women?

Baruch just taught you a lesson. You are too ******* dense, arrogant and petty, however, to learn from it.

You ignorant piece of shit. **** off.

Was that beyond you ability to decipher?

 

[Conservative]

With the implementation of the VAWA, violence DID drop.

Uniform Crime Reports [United States]: Supplementary Homicide Reports, 1976-2004

Senator's Leahy and Crapo seek to expand the bill to addresses the needs of gay victims, immigrant victims, foreign brides, and Native women on tribal lands...because they are not being addressed.

A 2011 survey of NCAVP coalition members and affiliates found that nearly 85% of survey participants responded that they had worked with an LGBTQ client/survivor of domestic and intimate partner violence, dating violence, sexual assault or stalking who reported that they were turned away or denied services (such as shelter, crisis intervention, police or legal response) because of their sexual orientation and/or gender identity.
Regarding Resolution 1064 Calling Upon the United States Congress to reauthorize the
Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)

Native American women endure much higher levels of sexual and domestic violence than their non-Indian peers. A U.S. Department of Justice study on violence against women concluded that more than one in three American Indian and Alaska Native women will be raped, as compared to fewer than one in five of their nonIndian peers. This study concluded that Native women are 2.5 times more likely to be raped or sexually assaulted than American women in general
Honoring Native Women by Stopping the Violence

In fiscal years 2005 through 2009, U.S. Attorney's Office (USAOs) resolved about 9,000 of the approximately 10,000 Indian country matters referred to their offices by filing for prosecution, declining to prosecute, or administratively closing the matter. USAOs declined to prosecute 50 percent of the 9,000 matters. In addition: (1) About 77 percent of the matters received were categorized as violent crimes, and 24 percent as nonviolent crimes. (2) Declination rates tended to be higher for violent crimes, which were declined 52 percent of the time, than for nonviolent crimes, which were declined 40 percent of the time.
U.S. Department of Justice Declinations of Indian Country Criminal Matters

A... I am pleased that violence of ANY type went down.
B... the chart shows murders only, not overall domestic violence. There is domestic violence without death.
C... This information indicates that the figure of 53% drop in domestic violence cited by Dick TucksHisDiickInHisMouth, is not accurate. Thank you for doing HIS job for him.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Since VAWA was first passed into law in 1994, reporting of domestic violence has increased by 51 percent, the rate of non-fatal intimate partner violence against women has decreased by 61 percent, and the number of women killed by an intimate partner has decreased 26 percent. Furthermore, research estimates that VAWA saved nearly $14.8 billion dollars in net averted social costs in its first six years.
The VAWA

I certainly hope nobody here is arguing against it being reauthorized without the recent amendments that have the GOP currently blocking it are they? Some certainly seem to be.

I thought this was a discussion about the recent expansions to the law that does have the GOP blocking a bill that has been reauthorized in a bipartisan fashion many, many times before.

So, what are the objections to the expansions?

Take out the new stuff and it passes easily

Take out the provisions requested by law enforcement and Senator Murkowski's request for native Americans? Why? Bring it to the floor for debate, and if Republicans have a good case to remove them, they can offer amendments. That's the way things work.

Nope, it looks like the Republican males want to hide behind a filibuster so they don't have to be on record.

 

[daveman]

Who forced you to post in this thread, all ignorant-like?

You talk to yourself a lot.

 

[Conservative]

Until there's proof that Senator Murray pulled this out of her butt, I have no reason to disbelieve it. If you don't believe it, there are ways to prove her statement is false. Until you can do that, that's the only readily available information I have.

Translation: I am either too lazy, or too stupid, to consider trying to verify a statistic given by a single Democrat. It's just so much easier to take their word as Gospel, than it is to try and actually verify their statement.

 

[daveman]

And you got that off the Brainfart (RIP) blog? So you think that the fact the bill explicitly states that even those who are undocumented ought to able to have police protection is a compelling reason to allow this important bill to lapse. Yeah, tell me again how Republicans aren't trying to set back women's rights.

the fact that you've had your error in the OP (making a claim without offering proof) pointed out by 3 different posters... and utterly refuse to understand the problem... shows you to be a simpleton or a partisan hack.

Which are you?

If you can't keep up, go play with mal in the flame zone.

He has kept up. I know you believe Dick's claims because you're stupid and gullible, but normal people need real proof.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Since VAWA was first passed into law in 1994, reporting of domestic violence has increased by 51 percent, the rate of non-fatal intimate partner violence against women has decreased by 61 percent, and the number of women killed by an intimate partner has decreased 26 percent. Furthermore, research estimates that VAWA saved nearly $14.8 billion dollars in net averted social costs in its first six years.
The VAWA

I certainly hope nobody here is arguing against it being reauthorized without the recent amendments that have the GOP currently blocking it are they? Some certainly seem to be.

I thought this was a discussion about the recent expansions to the law that does have the GOP blocking a bill that has been reauthorized in a bipartisan fashion many, many times before.

So, what are the objections to the expansions?

Take out the new stuff and it passes easily

Take out the provisions requested by law enforcement and Senator Murkowski's request for native Americans? Why? Bring it to the floor for debate, and if Republicans have a good case to remove them, they can offer amendments. That's the way things work.

Nope, it looks like the Republican males want to hide behind a filibuster so they don't have to be on record.

Or maybe this bullshit is just a retarded and redundant piece of pork that costs taxpayers 1.6 billion..

You may as well attempt to assert that crimes against woman AREN'T investigated and WEREN'T investigated before the manifestation of this stupid ass "law."

You may as well assert that beating woman before this dumb shit was passed was legal.

 

[Two Thumbs]

What's their excuse now? Do they not believe that domestic violence is a problem that needs to be dealt with? Is this just another part of their war against women? In the past, the VAWA was a law that had bipartisan support. Even with 59 singatories, including Republican Sens. Lisa Murkowski (AK), Olympia Snowe (ME) and Susan Collins (ME), Mark Kirk (IL), Scott Brown (MA) and Mike Crapo (ID), the GOP is blocking the vote for reauthorization.

It's a useless political stunt to get retards all wound up about it.

grats, they know you well.

 

[Conservative]

the fact that you've had your error in the OP (making a claim without offering proof) pointed out by 3 different posters... and utterly refuse to understand the problem... shows you to be a simpleton or a partisan hack.

Which are you?

If you can't keep up, go play with mal in the flame zone.

He has kept up. I know you believe Dick's claims because you're stupid and gullible, but normal people need real proof.

I find it hilarious that the same libtards morons who ***** and moan at conservative posters if they do not link to proof of a claim, seem to think that it is okay for them not to have to follow the same protocols they insist other do.

Bunch of hypocritical douche-nozzles.

 

[Conservative]

What's their excuse now? Do they not believe that domestic violence is a problem that needs to be dealt with? Is this just another part of their war against women? In the past, the VAWA was a law that had bipartisan support. Even with 59 singatories, including Republican Sens. Lisa Murkowski (AK), Olympia Snowe (ME) and Susan Collins (ME), Mark Kirk (IL), Scott Brown (MA) and Mike Crapo (ID), the GOP is blocking the vote for reauthorization.

It's a useless political stunt to get retards all wound up about it.

grats, they know you well.

sure worked on Dick.

 

[Two Thumbs]

What's their excuse now? Do they not believe that domestic violence is a problem that needs to be dealt with? Is this just another part of their war against women? In the past, the VAWA was a law that had bipartisan support. Even with 59 singatories, including Republican Sens. Lisa Murkowski (AK), Olympia Snowe (ME) and Susan Collins (ME), Mark Kirk (IL), Scott Brown (MA) and Mike Crapo (ID), the GOP is blocking the vote for reauthorization.

It's a useless political stunt to get retards all wound up about it.

grats, they know you well.

sure worked on Dick.

The dims have wasted time and money like this before.

On re-doing the Ledbetter law.

?

it's a stunt, and when the gop doesn't want to wast the time and money, the retards scream WAR on whatever.

Liberals are just too ******* stoopid to be allowed to vote. Isn't there a law, that says retarded people can't vote?