The Violence Against Women Act passed in the Senate by a vote of 78 to 22.
The Act, which has done statistically nothing to reduce violence against women, and steps upon local and state regulations against domestic violence, was up for renewal in 2011.
But according to Annie-Ross Strasser and Adam Peck from Think Progress:
VAWA expired during the previous Congress, and because of Republican opposition to provisions for Native American, undocumented, and LGBT victims of domestic violence, the different versions approved by the House and by the Senate were never reconciled, and the bill died without final passage at the end of 2012.
First of all—the “Native American” provisions would subject any woman who was a victim of domestic violence to tribal law if she were in tribal country, instead of constitutional law. So it’s not anti-Native-American-woman, it’s a bizarre provision that cuts the Constitution out of vast swaths of America.
Second, the “undocumented” provisions gave visas to women who were victims of domestic violence with no oversight, which must thrill everyone who has been waiting in line for a visa for decades.
And third, the bill is “Violence Against Women”, already covering women. Extending to “LGBT” means that “gays, lesbians, and transgendered individuals” are covered, which literally excludes everyone except straight men from being covered. Why not just make it a Violence Against People Act? Because we already have laws against that.
Ross-Strasser and Peck make arguments for the bill’s usefulness:
Since its inception in 1994, VAWA has established a system for helping women in danger. The law created the National Domestic Violence Hotline, made stalking illegal, and helped drive down the number of partner homicides.
No stats for the last one of course. Don’t we already have a national hotline for domestic violence? Oh yes, it’s called 911. And stalking did not just suddenly become illegal in 1994 when the act passed.
Ross-Strasser and Peck highlight the “22 REPUBLICAN MEN WHO VOTED AGAINST THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT”, reminding readers that “[e]very female Senator supported the bill”.
It’s almost as if they’re saying that one’s gender colors their ability to understand logical arguments for and against the bill. Oh wait…that’s exactly what they’re saying, with zero proof. They just want to insinuate that because opponents against the bill are Republicans, and are men, that they should be ostracized for opposing the Act.
And this is another reason why the Act is ridiculous: just look at its name. “Violence Against Women Act”. And then if you oppose it, look at what will happen to you. “So-and-so votes against stopping violence against women? WHAT A MONSTER”. Despite the fact the act just creates more bureaucracy where none was needed and does nothing to stop violence against women.
When the Act was originally passed, it’s detractors noted that:
the increased penalties were excessive, the mandatory arrest measures were “repugnant” to the Constitution, the mandatory HIV testing of the accused represented an infringement of privacy rights, and the requirement for payment of full restitution was non-judicious.
That’s not from some conservative group either—that was from the American Civil Liberties Union.
But that’s something you won’t read at ThinkProgress or other biased media outlets.
