iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

War On Women: Chuck Schumer Says Violence Against Women Act Will Get Senate Vote

Violence Against Women

First Posted: 03/14/2012 7:38 pm Updated: 03/15/2012 10:43 am

WASHINGTON -- Senate Democrats are set to try renewing the Violence Against Women Act as early as next week, opening a new and more literal front in what they see as a Republican war on women, The Huffington Post has learned.

The Violence Against Women Act passed overwhelmingly in 1994, and was renewed easily in 2000 and 2005. But it suddenly became a partisan issue last month, when every Republican on the Judiciary Committee opposed it, and it passed in a 10 to 8 vote.

Republicans objected to new language in the bill that would extend protections to undocumented immigrants and LGBT victims of domestic violence, as well as allowing native American authorities to prosecute some non-native offenders.

Democrats said they see that opposition as something that needs to be overcome for the sake of domestic abuse victims and another opportunity to highlight what they see as an increasingly hostile attitude toward women by Republicans.

"We were sort of shocked when every Republican on the Judiciary Committee voted against this," said Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), a member of the Judiciary Committee and the Democrat in charge of his party's policy priorities and message.

He said the act did enormous good, and that the new version would help more. But he argued that Republicans are looking for ways to satisfy the conservative base of their party and seizing on things like contraception, women's health, and now even their safety.

"Their issue has been the economy, the economy, the economy. But it's getting better," Schumer told The Huffington Post Wednesday. "They need something particularly to appease their hard-right wing, and going against women seems to be it."

Schumer cited the recent conservative outburst against contraception, and noted that even though polls find the issue is hurting Republicans, the GOP has not relented, especially in the House.

"It makes no sense politically for any political party to alienate the fastest growing group of voters, Hispanics, and then alienate a large chunk of the majority of voters -- women," Schumer said, referring to numerous anti-immigration stances the GOP has taken in recent years, including objections to helping undocumented immigrants in the Violence Against Women Act. "It makes no sense at all."

The bill has five Republican co-sponsors, but would need at least seven GOP votes to get to the 60 needed to break a filibuster and pass the Senate. Such a level of support seems achievable in the upper chamber. The Republican-controlled House has taken no action on companion legislation.

Schumer argued that if the bill does not pass, it reveals the true extremism of the GOP base.

"They have a bunch of excuses for opposing the bill. None of them are good, and all of them are ideological," he said, referring to objections on immigration and helping tribes.

"Just as they said their anti-contraception bill wasn't about contraception, of course now they're saying their opposition to [the Violence Against Women Act] has nothing to do with violence against women," Schumer said. "But you can't oppose an important act, and say it has nothing to do with violence against women. It's going to be a losing argument if they try to block the measure."

Schumer said he wasn't sure that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell or House Speaker John Boehner would be able to marshal the support for the bill because of problems with the GOP base.

"When either party is held captive by an extreme group at their far right or their far left, respectively, they lose out. You have ideologues, and that's what's happening here," Schumer said.

"Speaker Boehner is in a struggle, and Leader McConnell to a lesser extent," Schumer said. "They're trying to have a foot on each stool and the stools are getting further and further apart."

"The hard-right wants to bring up the Blunt amendment," Shumer said, referring to Missouri Republican Sen. Roy Blunt's failed attempt to exempt employers from having to provide insurance that covers contraception. "I think in his heart Speaker Boehner knows better than to do that. It's a loser for him, substantively and politically, but that's the two stools."

Schumer said he thinks one stool includes most Americans, who want contraception coverage and protections for abused spouses.

"This shows you where the Republican Party is moving," he said. "But we have no problem with highlighting women's issues. Women are a majority constituency. They often get forgotten in a male-dominated culture and political culture around here. And we believe that it's important to focus on problems of women, including violence against women."

The act, estimated to have dramatically reduced domestic violence, funds a broad range of training programs and aid for victims. It expired last year, and Schumer argued that letting it lapse longer will hamper progress that has been made.

"Before it passed and I was the House sponsor in 1994, women would routinely show up at police stations, bloody and beaten, and the police officers, not having any training or any ability to do anything, would say it's a domestic dispute, go home and solve it," Schumer said. "It needs to be renewed. It's been very successful."

If Senate floor action proceeds swiftly, the act could be brought up there next week. Schumer said the goal was to get it done before Congress takes its Easter break.

Michael McAuliff covers Congress and politics for The Huffington Post. Talk to him on Facebook.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON -- Senate Democrats are set to try renewing the Violence Against Women Act as early as next week, opening a new and more literal front in what they see as a Republican war on women, The Huf...
WASHINGTON -- Senate Democrats are set to try renewing the Violence Against Women Act as early as next week, opening a new and more literal front in what they see as a Republican war on women, The Huf...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 2,171
  • 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 »  (31 total)
  1 of 3  
COMMUNITY PUNDITS
realpolitic 01:01 PM on 03/15/2012
Yes, the bill itself and Republican opposition is good politics for Democrats. What party besides the modern GOP could oppose a violence against women bill, especially given that women are more than half the electorate?  Women vote and violence against them by stronger males is appalling!  In Arizona recently, the far right just passed a bill saying that women can be fired for taking contraception  Read More...
08:48 PM on 03/28/2012
"War on Women" ... you must be kidding! Twisting the ex parte provisions of VAWA helped my ex abduct our infant children to a toxic industrial site in Wyoming to live with a sexual prefator and have their teeth rot out of their head! Any law that presumes only men are abusive is ignorant and abusive prima facie. 25 months later my children were retuened to NY while she swore she was never a NY resident and she had been a lesbian since junior high. I am still fighting exparte VAWA funded persecution from Wyoming over 4 years later. Of course. in addition, CPS let the good mommy off the hook for the rotten teeth and found against me (when the kids weren't even with me) so I am in court with that too. Please save the "War on Women" talk for somebody in a coma ... my children are suffering because of anti-male bias that bleeds over into family courts across the nation.
06:48 PM on 03/17/2012
There are more than 100 solid scientific studies that reveal a startlingly different picture of family violence than what we usually see in the media. For instance:

Comparative Spousal Violence Data From Three National Studies

Definitions Of Spousal Violence MINOR VIOLENT ACTS: SEVERE VIOLENT ACTS: 1. Threw something 1. Kicked/bit/hit with fist 2. Pushed/Grabbed/Shoved 2. Hit, tried to hit with something 3. Slapped or spanked 3. Beat up 4. Threatened with gun or knife 5. Used gun or knife

Spousal Assaults Expressed As Rate Per 1000 Couples Minor Assaults: Year Assault by Assault by husband wife 1975 98 98 1985 82 75 1992 92 94

Severe Assaults: 1975 38 47 1985 30 43 1992 19 44

Wives Report They Have been severely assaulted by husband 22 per 1000 severely assaulted husband 59 per 1000

Husbands Report They Have been severely assaulted by wives 32 per 1000 severely assaulted wives 18 per 1000

Husbands & Wives Both Report wife has been assaulted 20 per 1000 husband has been assaulted 44 per 1000

Violence against children by women is another issue where the public attitude is very different than the facts revealed by formal studies.

* Women commit most child abuse in intact biological families. When the man is removed from the family the children are at greater risk. * Mother-only households are more dangerous to children than father- only households.
06:44 PM on 03/17/2012
Gloria Steinem made this men hat speach statement, "The patriarchy requires violence or the subliminal threat of violence in order to maintain itself." And feminist icon Andrea Dworkin spewed this shocking tirade: "Under patriarchy, every woman's son is her betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman."
06:07 AM on 03/17/2012
HuffPost is too gender feminist. People are starting to finally realize it is necessary to have an Intimate Partner Violence Reduction Act, because society is not just SEXIST it is BISSEXIST. I know men who were attacked by their partners, few people don't know that. If you want to keep this "war against women" claims, at least notice there is a "war" against every group, including men, who are victims of violence in and out of home and victimized by family court bias, etc., even HuffPo bias. Or then we call war only when it is actually WAR. Men are not more in need of restraint, less of protection, just because they are THE MEN, the "privileged group". That's just lie and/or ignorance.
07:57 PM on 03/16/2012
How about a violence and cruelty against men act? Providing shelters, legal aid, medical care and counseling for male victims of domestic violence. It would also provide relief for men falsely accused of domestic violence, (which can result in being jailed, banned from his home, and his restrained from seeing his own children) and false rape accusations. These are very real problems and threats facing male citizens, so in the interest of fairness, an act should be passed to aid male victims.
07:42 PM on 03/16/2012
Extending this act to illegal immigrants is a mistake. Every time you grant citizen rights to people who come here illegally, we get caught up in a mess. Previous acts of this sort have resulted in schools being required to admit children of illegals, which led to requiring bi-lingual teachers, which led to huge tax burdens on the state, etc. This is just one example where we have shot ourselves in the foot. If they are going to revise this act, they might include language this extend equally to both genders, along with changing the name to be inclusive of men.
photo
KiaOrana
Opposable thumbs are overrated.
08:55 PM on 03/16/2012
So, if a guy beats up a woman who was born in El Paso, the woman deserves help. But if a guy beats up a woman born in Juarez, we should just let her suffer. If you looked into her eyes, could you let that happen?
photo
moonwolfph
Open the Doors, See All the Sheeple.
04:51 PM on 03/16/2012
Why does this law have to be RENEWED periodically anyway?!
In case they decide it's now become OK to beat on Women?!
I wouldn't be F'ing SURPRISED.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
p c r
Compassionate and Conservative are polar opposites
05:47 PM on 03/16/2012
The renewal is supposed to be about raising the funding to go toward the programs to protect abused women. The GOP is trying to make it into an anti-woman plank on their efforts to nail us back in the 1910's.
deepthicket
A man is as big as the things that make him mad.
03:29 PM on 03/16/2012
If Violence Against Women is illegal, doesn't that make Republicans outlaws?
photo
ProgressivesLoveAmerica
Former disciple of Mises, Hayek & Milton Friedman
12:59 PM on 03/16/2012
It would appear as if Republicans need a lesson in history to help them understand why special protections for women, the LGBT community, and undocumented immigrants may be necessary.

For those who know the history & still oppose the bill, their bigotry & bias is blatantly apparent. It's really that simple.
07:45 PM on 03/16/2012
Special protections for women, LGBT and illegals? Really? This protection should afforded to every citizen of the United States, male, female, gay, lesbian, etc. Women commit just as much domestic violence as men, so why should they get "special" protection?
photo
ProgressivesLoveAmerica
Former disciple of Mises, Hayek & Milton Friedman
01:17 PM on 03/17/2012
I understand the principle that you are appealing to & I actually used to believe in this way of thinking many years ago. I've come to realize that the sentiment you expressed in your reply to me is deceptively naïve at best and dangerous at its worst.

I think it's naïve to believe seriously that people everywhere (including the people who comprise the various local governments whether at the town, city, or state level) all throughout this vast country of ours would all agree to respect the rights of every single one of the citizens & residents living within their geographic area. This is why in my comment I made a reference to the need for people to know & understand their history. Why do you think the Voting Rights Act was necessary? Some states cannot be trusted to respect the rights of all their citizens. There's a history behind that & it's a reality you can't honestly ignore. "Special" attention is necessary to help people keep a watchful eye for the kinds of abuses that have historically been the most egregious in American history, & which do pervade to this very day.

Now I say that, at its worst, the principle you appealed to was dangerous because that same exact argument can be used to defend a status-quo that tacitly endorses the abuses against historically discriminated against groups of people.
09:11 PM on 03/16/2012
Special protections aka privileges. Privileges that can used for evil means against others who do not posses these privileges, such as in the case of VAWA where detaining men indefinitely in jail due to groundless accusations of DV can be easily performed by the female.

You believe in freedom for some, and equality for some. It's that simple, eunuch.
11:08 AM on 03/16/2012
The Democrats continually suck the Republicans into standing up for bigotry, racism and ordinary people. The Democrats have to stop trying to help the citizens of the U.S. since every time they do try to legislate for the benefit of humanity it shows up the GOP agenda. You are right on Mitch the Dems just keep trying to drag the U.S. into the 21st Century and that just won't sit well with the GOP base.
10:51 AM on 03/16/2012
Republicans are always at war with something! Mostly the future!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
p c r
Compassionate and Conservative are polar opposites
05:49 PM on 03/16/2012
Heck! They still can't cope with the present!
10:17 AM on 03/16/2012
OK libs. Tell me now what this bill does? All domestic violence cases as well as any violence cases are handled at the local level. And guess what. YES, even ILLEGALS get the same response from the local authorities. PANDER, PANDER, PANDER, that is all the dems do. Why do we even need a FEDERAL law for this? Except of course to spend more money and allow politicians to pat themselves on the back. And then of course, to buy votes. This is what is wrong with congress and our politicians. All they want to do is suck up their paychecks, have power, and then retire nicely. WE DONT NEED A CONGRESS TO BE IN SESSION ALL YEAR. WE DONT NEED MORE LAWS AND BILLS JUST TO SATISFY SOME POLITICIANS EGO.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Anthony Hughes
Where has all the common sense gone?
11:13 AM on 03/16/2012
I guess we also don't need the civil right act, suffrage or fair housing among others... and that dog-gone Ledbetter Act is a bummer too, imagine having to pay women equally? How absurd all these silly laws are... we'll behave and be fair on our own, won't we?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Cherylana GarrityStavrou
There's something wrong with being right
01:53 PM on 03/16/2012
Fanned and faved!!!
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
judibluiz
There is no planet B
01:00 PM on 03/16/2012
The Violence Against Women Act was enacted in 1994, It has always enjoyed bi-partisan support, until now. This is not a a new "law."
09:41 AM on 03/16/2012
Y'all should have seen the way Rick Perry treated Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson when she decided to run for governor. So far most Texas women were indifferent or ok with that.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Bombadillo22
Not all who wander are lost...
09:39 AM on 03/16/2012
""It makes no sense politically for any political party to alienate the fastest growing group of voters, Hispanics, and then alienate a large chunk of the majority of voters -- women," Schumer said, referring to numerous anti-immigration stances the GOP has taken in recent years, including objections to helping undocumented immigrants in the Violence Against Women Act. "It makes no sense at all."

I'm so tired of hearing the phrase 'why would they continue alienating so many large voting blocks?' It's about time astute politicians, investigative journalists or concerned citizens should begin looking for other angles from which that absurd lot (GOPTPTY) are approaching this next most profound election.

One scenario I can envision, wherein candidates have no fear of touching previously 'third rail' topics,' nor enraging a vast segment of the voting public is they already know they are going to win--whether because they have the the electronic vote rigged, like they did in so many crucial battleground states, particularly Florida, in BUSH vs Gore, and Bush vs Kerry or enough money this 'superpac, free for all' election cycle to buy off even the most principled elections officials.

PS (McCain vs Obama was a moment in time when no republican wanted the presidency, as the US economy tanked, its coffers bare. GOP thought no president of any color would survive more than one term and they'd be right back in the thick of things.)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
terssolawrence
09:36 AM on 03/16/2012
The GOP is giving way to much credit to Democratic strategy, instead of the long term liability of their base. Utilizing prejudice has short term gains with long term diminishing returns. I believe the GOPTP is heading for reckoning that was inevitable when they started purging intellect in favor of frothing mouths, starting back when Clinton got elected.