At long last, Congressional Republicans, have you left no sense of decency?
March 15, 2012 11:09 AM Subscribe
After the Virginia mandatory ultrasound bill, the Blunt Amendment, and the Sandra Fluke/Rush Limbaugh "slut" fiasco, you might be wondering what else Republican lawmakers can do to prove they're anti-woman. Well, how about defending violence against women just because a bill includes protection for immigrants and gays?
The Violence Against Women Act was passed with bipartisan support in 1994, and although the Supreme Court struck down parts of the law related to the Commerce Clause in 2000, it has since been reauthorized by Congress twice (in 2000 and 2005), signed by both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. The VAWA is responsible for the creation of the Department of Justice’s Office on Violence Against Women, which recently expanded the definition of rape to include same-sex perpetrators, assaults with objects, and lack of consent due to intoxication after attempts by Republicans to limit it to "forcible" PIV intercourse.
Now, many members of the Senate GOP are now in the position of opposing the reauthorization of VAWA because it includes language that expands the definitions of what constitutes domestic violence to include same-sex couples, and also allows illegal immigrants to apply for temporary visas. Despite being drafted before the current public outcry, and having 58 co-sponsors including several Republicans, the bill passed out of the Senate Judicary Committee without a single Republican vote. Some--spoiler alert: they're all male--Senators have rather predictably claimed that it's a form of legislative entrapment where Democrats are forcing them to consider voting against the bill as part of an ongoing "gotcha" campaign. GOP allies, most notably the Concerned Women of America and Phyllis Schafly, have already gone on the attack against the bill, and in response Senate Democratic women led by Dianne Feinstein will take to the Senate floor today to vigorously defend it.
The Violence Against Women Act was passed with bipartisan support in 1994, and although the Supreme Court struck down parts of the law related to the Commerce Clause in 2000, it has since been reauthorized by Congress twice (in 2000 and 2005), signed by both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. The VAWA is responsible for the creation of the Department of Justice’s Office on Violence Against Women, which recently expanded the definition of rape to include same-sex perpetrators, assaults with objects, and lack of consent due to intoxication after attempts by Republicans to limit it to "forcible" PIV intercourse.
Now, many members of the Senate GOP are now in the position of opposing the reauthorization of VAWA because it includes language that expands the definitions of what constitutes domestic violence to include same-sex couples, and also allows illegal immigrants to apply for temporary visas. Despite being drafted before the current public outcry, and having 58 co-sponsors including several Republicans, the bill passed out of the Senate Judicary Committee without a single Republican vote. Some--spoiler alert: they're all male--Senators have rather predictably claimed that it's a form of legislative entrapment where Democrats are forcing them to consider voting against the bill as part of an ongoing "gotcha" campaign. GOP allies, most notably the Concerned Women of America and Phyllis Schafly, have already gone on the attack against the bill, and in response Senate Democratic women led by Dianne Feinstein will take to the Senate floor today to vigorously defend it.
This post was deleted for the following reason: As we ramp up to election season, posts about "what the other side is doing" need to be a lot less "look at these assholes" than this post is. Please reframe it and post tomorrow. -- jessamyn
Makes sense, watering it down would have the effect of protecting 'Our kind of people' for the GOP. You don't get many votes for doing that but they'll lose a hell of a lot of votes if they go the other way (on top of the votes they wouldn't have gotten anyway this year).
So is that really entrapment, or a legislative way of showing the GOP just how small of a corner they've painted themselves into?
posted by Slackermagee at 11:15 AM on March 15, 2012
So is that really entrapment, or a legislative way of showing the GOP just how small of a corner they've painted themselves into?
posted by Slackermagee at 11:15 AM on March 15, 2012
Hmm. Well, you know, I have a hard time getting worked up about legislation that I support being brought up for a vote. If the biggest worry of the people against it is that it makes them "look bad," then I have a big can of fuck you that they can eat.
posted by Joey Michaels at 11:19 AM on March 15, 2012
posted by Joey Michaels at 11:19 AM on March 15, 2012
misogynistic backwoods illiterates that can't read
I bet they can't even recognize redundancy when they see it, either.
posted by Faint of Butt at 11:20 AM on March 15, 2012 [2 favorites]
I bet they can't even recognize redundancy when they see it, either.
posted by Faint of Butt at 11:20 AM on March 15, 2012 [2 favorites]
Is the immigration language germane? If not then it's a pretty cheap trick regardless of the merits of the bill.
posted by xorry at 11:22 AM on March 15, 2012
posted by xorry at 11:22 AM on March 15, 2012
I think we need a constitutional amendment that clarifies personhood: i.e., corporations are not people, and neither are the unborn.
Sometimes I wonder if there could be a way to prevent legislators from wasting the public's time and money by advancing legislation designed solely to take away human rights. Like we don't have bigger problems right now.
posted by clockzero at 11:24 AM on March 15, 2012 [1 favorite]
Sometimes I wonder if there could be a way to prevent legislators from wasting the public's time and money by advancing legislation designed solely to take away human rights. Like we don't have bigger problems right now.
posted by clockzero at 11:24 AM on March 15, 2012 [1 favorite]
I think we need a constitutional amendment that clarifies personhood: i.e., corporations are not people, and neither are the unborn.
Yeah, a big hell no to that, dude. In the current political climate we'd end up with women and anyone LGBT being denied personhood.
posted by elizardbits at 11:26 AM on March 15, 2012
Yeah, a big hell no to that, dude. In the current political climate we'd end up with women and anyone LGBT being denied personhood.
posted by elizardbits at 11:26 AM on March 15, 2012
« Older NEYKHUD | Keith Haring's Journals Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
You first.
I know that this thing has gone on for decades and that both sides do it. So detente already.
posted by gauche at 11:14 AM on March 15, 2012 [2 favorites]