iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Violence Against Women Act Becomes Partisan Issue


First Posted: 02/14/2012 4:16 pm Updated: 02/16/2012 5:33 pm

WASHINGTON -- Protecting women from violence and abuse has been an issue of bipartisan cooperation since President Clinton signed the landmark Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) in 1994. It was reauthorized with overwhelming bipartisan support in 2000 and again in 2005. Not this year.

On Feb. 2, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved legislation (S. 1925) reauthorizing VAWA. The bill was sponsored by Chair Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) -- who is not on the committee -- and cosponsored by 34 senators from both parties. Nevertheless, the legislation attracted no GOP support among committee members and passed out of committee on a party-line vote of 10-8. It was, according to Leahy's office, the first time VAWA legislation did not receive bipartisan backing out of committee.

"Helping victims of domestic violence shouldn't be partisan," said Leahy in an interview with The Huffington Post. "I remember when I was a prosecutor and I'd go to a crime scene at 2:00 in the morning where [there were] victims of domestic violence. ... I never remember the police saying, 'Well, we can only investigate this if it's a Democrat or a Republican or whatever else. Their reaction was, 'How do we find the person who did this?' It's outrageous to make this a partisan issue."

Since VAWA was first enacted, reporting of domestic violence has increased by as much as 51 percent. The legislation, originally introduced by then-Sen. Joseph Biden -- who continues to be an outspoken advocate on the issue -- was aimed at improving the response to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking. Yet according to national statistics, more than three women are, on average, murdered by their husbands or boyfriends every day.

The Leahy-Crapo reauthorization would place an increased emphasis on reducing domestic homicides and sexual assault, strengthen housing protections for domestic violence victims and focus more on the high rates of violence amongst teens and young adults.

The objections, led by Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) and a few conservative organizations, are not over the VAWA as a whole, but over a few new provisions in the reauthorization -- specifically, protections for LGBT individuals, undocumented immigrants who are victims of domestic abuse and the authority of Native American tribes to prosecute crimes.

The Leahy bill enumerates protections for LGBT victims of domestic violence, forbidding discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity by VAWA grantees.

The VAWA reauthorization also expands the availability of visas for undocumented immigrants who have been victims of domestic violence and may be reluctant to come forward because of the risk of deportation. VAWA has always protected this group of individuals, but the reauthorization would raise the cap on visas for battered women and sexual assault victims from 10,000 to 15,000. The additional visas would come from recaptured visas in previous years that haven't been utilized.

Additionally, the reauthorization provides limited jurisdiction to tribes to be able to prosecute against Indian and non-Indian offenders in domestic violence cases. The tribal provision is taken from the SAVE Native Women Act, which had bipartisan support and passed out of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee.

In a Feb. 2 hearing, Grassley said he backs VAWA reauthorization, but he could not support the Leahy-Crapo version, in part because of the aforementioned provisions on LGBT individuals, immigration and tribal authority.

"The substitute creates so many new programs for underserved populations that it risks losing focus on helping victims, period," he said of the new LGBT protections, adding, "If every group is a priority, no group is a priority."

Grassley also objected to the tribal language, saying it was the first time the committee would "extend tribal jurisdiction over non-Indians."

On the immigration front, Grassley said, "VAWA is meant to protect victims of violence. It shouldn't be an avenue to expand immigration law or give additional benefits to people here unlawfully."

The amendment Grassley proposed in committee would have focused more on immigration fraud, so that VAWA is not "manipulated as a pathway to U.S. citizenship for foreign con artists and criminals."

Leahy is concerned that his colleagues are objecting because, in his words, the bill is trying to "protect too many victims."

"You cannot say that we will seek to stop domestic violence, but only for certain people," he said. "It just boggles the mind. It goes against everything I ever knew as a prosecutor, but it also goes against everything I know as a human being.

In a Feb. 9 editorial, The New York Times lambasted Grassley and other Republicans for their objections.

"The bill includes smart improvements aimed, for example, at encouraging effective enforcement of protective orders and reducing the national backlog of untested rape kits," the Times wrote. "The Republican opposition seems driven largely by an antigay, anti-immigrant agenda. ... Recalcitrant Republicans should be made to explain to voters why they refuse to get behind the federal fight against domestic violence and sexual assaults."

A Democratic senate aide familiar with the legislation largely agreed with this assessment in an interview with The Huffington Post.

Leahy recently said on the "Diane Rehm Show" that he is confident that VAWA will pass the full Senate and that Crapo, his co-sponsor, is still behind it.

"I talked with Mike the other day when -- on the Senate floor after we had passed the bill out of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and he's strongly in support of it," he said.

Lindsay Nothern, a spokesman for Crapo, told The Huffington Post, "Crapo has been a long-time advocate for victims of violence. I believe there are other Republicans who would support the legislation in a floor vote."

Leahy also pointed to the Republican co-sponsors on the bill and added, "I've had other senators tell me -- Republican senators -- that they just cannot understand how this happened."

The Republican co-sponsors of the Leahy-Crapo bill are Sens. Scott Brown (Mass.), Susan Collins (Maine), Mark Kirk (Ill.) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska).

On Tuesday, Lynn Rosenthal, the White House adviser on violence against women, put up a blog post urging the Senate to approve VAWA reauthorization.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-Nev.) office did not return a request for comment about when the VAWA reauthorization would be on the floor for a full vote.

Also on HuffPost:

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
 
 
  • Comments
  • 1,710
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (48 total)
05:16 PM on 04/28/2012
Violence Against Women Act Becomes Partisan Issue?

It's not a partisan issue it a Civil Rights Issue!!!

Equal Rights = Equal Responsibility

Time to women up girls.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Darrell Honrine
Atheist Libertarian Gun Owner
04:26 PM on 04/06/2012
VAWA is unconstitutional and must be stopped.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Erik G Nyquist
Rational and Progressive since 1982
08:39 PM on 03/25/2012
The Republicans don't think that everyone deserves equal protection? "If everyone is a priority..." If everyone could expect the full protection of the law that they are entitled to as a citizen...but we don't live in that world, so we need to pass laws like this to point out specific areas where we fail as a society to protect our people and uphold justice.
photo
PLDgyrl
We won Mitches!!!!!!!
07:15 PM on 03/25/2012
I just don't understand why someone would be granted a visa in a domestic violence situation. Of course they should receive help and needed protections but I just don't understand the visa part.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mickey Ellis
11:27 AM on 03/15/2012
Protect women? Not a Republican thing.
12:42 AM on 03/06/2012
Terkel: Conservatives argue against VAWA provisions to protect LGBT people and undocumented immigrants.

Terkel's Source (Diane Rehm Show):
REHM "And to you, Janice Crouse, has there been objection to including the lesbian, gay and transgendered community as well as undocumented immigrants?"
CROUSE "No, not as such. I think any time there's violence, we need to cover that. The main objection we have is that it targets specifically women. And I think that's overly precise. It's overly slanted in a feminist way."

Terkel on the claims that VAWA is gynocentric: ...*chirp*...*chirp*...
08:37 AM on 02/20/2012
The Violence Against Women Act is a well intentioned sounding on the law on the surface but if one took the time to read the fine print it is in reality a faulty piece of legislation, based upon faulty research, personal opinions disguised as facts used to arrive at false conclusions that are used to justify every increasing and always more insane legislation.

The immigration portions of this bill under Title VIII makes it much easier for immigrants to enter the country under false pretenses. The immigrant simply feigns abuse so they can get a free green card while the American citizen who sponsors an immigrant on a fianceee visa is not allowed to defend themselves against heinous charges levied afgainst themselves.That doesn't seem fair. Also contained within Title VIII is a section to to regulate MARRIAGE BROKERS by requiring American citizens to submit to background checks. The word marriage broker is a misnomer used to suggest that 99% comminication will result in marriage. These are dating sites-not brokers, that simply facilitate communication across international boundaries. The government needs to get out of the dating/ romance and communication regulation business.
photo
Fedelia
Lunch Lady Counselor
06:45 PM on 03/15/2012
Now we know you hate women, too.

Good luck with that.
09:31 PM on 03/15/2012
You don't know me and I don't know you. Therefore there is no basis for your statement. It does however reveal that you are a troubled person. Good luck.
11:17 AM on 03/17/2012
Fedilia... people only clanging and droning people.

Chuck Schumer has laced the bill DELIBERATELY with poison pill language so that Republicans will have to oppose it, so that YOU can complain.

That's why he stands for.... by being complicit, that's what you stand for. It's not about women.... it's only about your ideology.

I do NOT wish you good luck with that. Destroyer.
09:22 PM on 02/18/2012
VAWA is NOT good for women! VAWA has NOT reduced domestic violence. It is a flawed bill. That's why the republicans voted against it, not because they are anti-women. Learn the truth. It sounds good...but it is not. A much better option is the Partner Violence Reduction Act. http://www.saveservices.org/pvra

Now, stop playing politics and do the right thing...support the PVRA.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dee Amschler
on the edge
01:46 AM on 02/19/2012
Out of curiosity, are you a men's rights organization? Your "much better option" which, BTW, refers repeatedly to your own website not to anything government or at least neutral, sure does a lot to protect the abusers and accused abusers - and to keep their families together.

As a woman who escaped an abusive marriage that went on far too long, I have to ask: who gets to determine the abuse was "minor" and what are the criteria for "minor abuse"? Does the victim (or alleged victim) even get a say in the matter?

The truth of the matter is, domestic violence has not been reduced because abusers continue to think there is nothing wrong with THEIR behavior and continue to see that consequences for their behavior is the exception to the rule. This has nothing to do with VAWA or with your pet proposal.
11:49 AM on 03/04/2012
Dee why is it when someone talks about a fair aprouch to protecting BOTH men and women from domestic violence you need to try and bash them?
04:00 PM on 03/07/2012
SAVE is not a men’s rights organization SAVE is for doing what is right. VAWA IS NOT RIGHT. The truth is DV has never been reduced because the agencies are not managing the funds well. As a woman who has not escaped the collateral damages of an abusive husband and step children ,adult step children who sought to use the Family Courts and the system against me I can assure you without hesitation VAWA is a disservice to humans . Alleged victims of abuse get free legal, and a free ticket to jail pass, to use at their disposal. Oh and guess what that free legal my husband used to have an ex parte order or protection placed on me and evict me from my home, take my car, among other things, cost him zero. It cost me over $20.000 in legal services. His was free, we made over 100,000 a year combined household. So how many women were denied services while a liar was receiving free legal? While I do not discount DV is real. My friend what is becoming more real is the fact that men and now one women are being railroaded into the courts based on false allegations or trumped up embellished statements Do you know why they did this; my step daughter was in a custody battle with her ex husband who was overseas in the army. My story is below
http://mariadibari.com/false-allegations-and-extreme-punishment-for-a-dutchess-county-resident/
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Nyah Molineaux
09:51 AM on 02/18/2012
Having a debate on birth control without women and now disagreeing with the Violence Against Women Act because God forbid it would include protecting LGBT people. I dont know what to call these people, but pro-life isnt one of them.
photo
groland
socially left, fiscally right
02:58 PM on 02/17/2012
What is most unfortunate is that we seem to need these bills in the first place. Isn't assault already against the law, inflicting bodily harm, assault with a weapon, assault with intent to injure, all of this is illegal.

It should not matter if two people live together or if they are married. When an assault occurs, just enforce the law. Sometimes you may need to encourage people to press charges, but that will happen regardless.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
10:13 AM on 02/18/2012
This is the most sane comment I've read in awhile. Gosh I miss good old fashioned American law.
03:32 PM on 02/16/2012
Violence Againts Women Act
How upset would women and feminist become if men had a bill/law that just addressed the male gender.
How about if we say Violence againts Men and Women Act.
06:26 PM on 02/16/2012
A dozen states do not have laws stating equal rights for women. This federal mandate is one of the few pieces of legislation that can protect them at all.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
10:12 AM on 02/18/2012
This sort of rhetoric is comforting for the thousands of people who refuse to acknowledge the truth, because it hurts their little ignorant feelings (aka, lack of accountability.) Men are accountable for over 90% of the murder in this country when it comes to family annihilations, murder of a spouse, sexual abuse and murder of children. However, given the cultural indulgence in their egos, we’re supposed to all pretend WE as a society should somehow pay for a spoiled little man who didn’t get his way. Hate women? Don’t marry and breed with one. This is why I believe in prostitution.
05:08 PM on 02/22/2012
I have to say that this comment really stuck me as funny. It is not that I totally agree because I do, we as a society should not have to indulge these egos. However, I do believe that laws in all the reforms, that they have been stretched to cover so much that they actually have lost their ability to do their job by sticking fear in a person to keep them from breaking them.
photo
mareejohnston
Take back the debate.
06:08 PM on 03/25/2012
The article states that three women are killed every day by Husbands and Boyfriends. How foolish the GOP look in their partisan rhetoric. Protecting Women from violence and abuse should be a fundamental concern of every American, the GOP seems to have fashioned itself as the party that is against any redeeming social value. The new party name: Grand Oppression Party.
03:21 PM on 02/16/2012
Domestic Violence case with the Death Penalty

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/10/jodi-arias-death-penalty_n_1269216.html
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Merersu
Tempering the Rage through Revelation
03:03 PM on 02/16/2012
Everyday the GOTParty does something against women more repugnant than the day before. I'll say it again, any woman, person of color, or LGBT person that calls themselves a Republican, deserves all the pain the GOTParty gives them. Self loathing at its greatest!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Demarcus Jackson
Southern Psychology Professor
02:37 PM on 02/16/2012
Republicans are sick.
11:52 AM on 03/23/2012
Hey Mr CC Professer understand the law and understand what it does . All baby Ma Ma has to say is I am in fear for my life he abused me. Shazam you are out of your home , in jail , with no rights because you are a Man and Woman has spoken. Sorry Mr. Jackson I am for real

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=sorry+miss+jackson+I+am+for+real&mid=A297CC244D0072DD8712A297CC244D0072DD8712&view=detail&FORM=VIRE1
08:51 AM on 02/16/2012
This is the original study done on Domestic Violence over thirty years ago. It has been hidden from the general public because it does not represent the views of Womans Groups. Anyone can google their names and see fist hand the reports.
With support from the National Institute of Mental Health, Murray Straus Ph.D., and Richard Gelles Ph.D. conducted a nationally representative survey from the Family Research Laboratory at the University of New Hampshire, of married and cohabiting couples regarding domestic violence. The results were first published in 1977 as was a book with co-author Suzanne Stienmetz Ph.D., in 1980. Straus & Gelles followed up the initial survey of more than two thousand couples, with a larger six-thousand-couple group in 1985. In minor violence (slap, spank, throw something, push, grab or shove) the incident rates were equal for men and women. In severe violence (kick, bite, hit with a fist, hit or try to hit with something, beat up the other, threaten with a knife or gun, use a knife or gun) more MEN were victimized than women. It's time to hold women acountable!!!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Vicki Trusselli
12:40 PM on 02/16/2012
equality....equality...for men women of all races and tribes and etc and martians
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
WhatTheHolyHeck
smiting trolls since 1984
12:53 PM on 02/16/2012
How about something more recent? Say, a LOT of information more recent?

http://www.americanbar.org/groups/domestic_violence/resources/statistics.html