START A PETITION 27,000,000 members: the world's largest community for good
1,307,676 people care about Women's Rights

Dems Call GOP Bluff On Domestic Violence Act. Will It Work?

Dems Call GOP Bluff On Domestic Violence Act. Will It Work?

House Republicans have not been shy with their misogyny. In particular they seem most proud to grind their collective axes on the backs of immigrant women, voting not once, not twice, but three times to block renewal of the Violence Against Women Act in 2012.

Well, it’s a new legislative session and the very popular legislation has been re-introduced in the Senate by Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), this time with a little tweak. Republican’s stated opposition to the bill in 2012 was over an increase in the number of visas for undocumented victims of domestic violence, as well as an extension of tribal authority over nontribe members who abuse American Indian partners and some added protections for gay and lesbian domestic-violence workers.

But, as Adam Sewer explains, House Republicans were able to shift focus on those unseemly reasons for opposing the bill and argue that the real problem is that it was procedurally flawed, that the bill raised revenue by virtue of the application fees for visas, and was therefore required by the Constitution to originate in the House, not the Senate.

Sens. Leahy and Crapo apparently decided to call John Boehner and Eric Cantor’s bluff because the new version of the bill resolves this procedural objection by striking the part of the bill that increases the number of special visas alloted for undocumented domestic violence victims. And while that’s not great news, since presumably this means fewer domestic violence victims will report their abuse as the threat of deportation is often used to pressure victims from reporting, women’s groups are supporting the bill.

One reason for the support despite the capitulation on visas is the hope the visa issue can be addressed in a potential immigration reform bill — though the likelihood that House Republicans would allow the provision to get attached to any legislation seems slim. Another reason is simply the fact that nobody believes House Republicans will support this bill either, but the only way to know for sure is to stand united behind by this latest version and wait for the Republicans to find some new excuse to block it.


Related Stories:

Sexual Assault Epidemic Against Native Americans-Will VAWA Help

House Passes VAWA Bill So Bad Menís Rights Group Endorses It

House GOP Version Of VAWA Protects Only SOME Victims


Read more: , , , , ,

Photo from martinak via flickr.

have you shared this story yet?

some of the best people we know are doing it


+ add your own
5:23AM PST on Feb 5, 2013

Susan, the answer to your question is because of what you posted and what it implies. A real gun owner is not likely to claim or imply that most other gun owners in America don't know what they are doing with a firearm. A real gun owner would not claim that other gun owners would go "oops I forgot how to shoot" and "oops now where did I leave my weapon?" The fact that you are from the "South" does not automatically mean you have had any real experiece with guns if any at all, although that seems to be part of the stereotypical view of the liberal mindset.

9:19PM PST on Feb 4, 2013

Susan A, I can't send you another star, but you deserve a bunch for a well reasoned comment. Nice one.

9:01PM PST on Feb 4, 2013

Matt, as I said, I have no wish to debate guns with you on this thread, but I couldn't resist just this one question. Why would you assume that I do not own a gun and do not know how to use one? Just because I think that there needs to be some controls, such as background checks, assault weapons bans, etc., should in no way be taken as presumption that I am totally anti-gun. Hell, I live in the south. I grew up in this country. I don't want right-wing conservative idiots, ready to overthrow a legally elected government, to be the only ones with guns. But, I don't feel a need for a damn arsenal either.

8:40PM PST on Feb 4, 2013

post continued

...But like any other illegal product such as drugs, if a disqualified person wants one or more guns and has the money they will be able to buy them illegally of course from other criminals. It makes zero sense rationally speaking to try and disarm the people who are not the problem( i.e. legal gun owners) and put roadblocks in their way when it is the criminal element which would include the crazies and the addicts that needs to be focused on. As I said before, and as all the "gun free" zone shootings attest to, it is a foolish choice to go about unarmed. Being defenseless only invites trouble often where it can least be afforded like at Sandy Hook.

8:36PM PST on Feb 4, 2013

Susan A., My post which you responded to was a reply to Mary who brought up the gun issue. As this thread isn't about guns I don't want it or me spinning off on a tangent So I'll be brief as I can and then move on. By what stretch of the imagination do you presume that gun owners don't know how to handle their weapons? Actually it is you that presupposes much that isn't true. Starting with the idea that a person who has absolutely no gun experience and training buys one on a whim and then does not bother to learn what they need to learn. You and other anti-gun people love to talk about "training." But what does that really mean and why do you think you know anything about it not being a gun owner yourself and having no gun experience? What a person needs to know about guns can easily be learned in a few minutes. The level of skill to follow as it referes to accurately hitting your target then becomes a function of how often one trains. Frankly not that much is necessary for self-defense shooting in the range of 10 feet or less which is where most shootings fall under according to FBI stats. When one starts shooting at distances beyond 15 feet that's when the real need for regualr practice comes into play, but again that is not a matter of self-defense but target shooting for pleasure. The law already forbids felons, drug addicts, and mental incompetents from legally owning firearms. But like any other illegal product such as drugs, if a disqualified person wants one or more

11:09AM PST on Feb 4, 2013

and the straw Matt returns glomming onto a simple comment about a gun and running the thread way off the tracks.

Did you even read what I wrote before you wrote your own insipid reply or had you been thinking of exactly what straw-man charge you'd make if I DARED come back with my opinion YET AGAIN.

Your reply, by the way mister law and order... is called libel.

7:56AM PST on Feb 4, 2013

Matt B. writes, "The fact is that most gun owners in America are quite responsible with their weapons. We don't pull out a weapon to shoot at the person who cut us off on the road..." Well, now that's a good point you've made there Matt, but the problem is we have many emotionally disturbed people who will do just that in a fit of rage. I looked at your video and I understand your point. Guns are an equalizer. You seem to think that all of these gun owners are properly trained and not scared to death to use the gun or because of lack of background checks, the gun is in the hands of the mentally unstable now. If we were in a country, such as Israel, where every single person is trained very well and is generally in the military for a stint, that would be one thing, but that's not America. Because the new gun owner gets a few lessons, doesn't mean that years from now, they will remember any of that when they actually need to use the gun or find it and use it when someone is breaking into their house. You presuppose alot that simply is not true. I have no intention of debating the subject with you. After reading many of your posts, you honestly remind me of a bully and I think we have more than enough of those already. I think most of us would like to live in a peaceful world and we don't think guns in the hands of every single citizen of the world is the way to achieve that.

1:37AM PST on Feb 4, 2013

I see I got cut off again by the entirely too small a limit on the post sizes here. Instead of trying to retrace what I finshed up with Mary just go to this link and read the essay called "Why the gun is civilization."

If you don't get guns after reading this then you probably never will, but if you want to make the attempt then by all means read it and tell me what you then think about it.

1:32AM PST on Feb 4, 2013

Mary B. Try and understand this. A firearm is a very simple tool. It can be used to a good effect such as stopping a criminal from killing and/or robbing you, or it can be used for bad effect like a criminal killing you with one. The gun is neither god nor bad, it is the end result which is good or bad and that is determined by how it is used. The fact is that most gun owners in America are quite responsible with their weapons. We don't pull out a weapon to shoot at the person who cut us off on the road, and we don't pull it out and start killing people because our dog told us it was a good idea. We gun owners have all the ups and downs in life that everyone else has but in our case we are also prepared to defend ourselves if criminals attack in some way. Not everyone in the world can bench press 500 lbs, nor know enough and are skilled enough in matial arts to beat anybody who tries to attack them. Some people are too young to handle their attackers, some are too old, some are too sick or injured, some may be outnumbered, and some may be some combination of these things or something else entirely. The point here is this, the gun evens the odds and puts the weaker defender on even terms or something reasonably close to a stronger attacker. If someone makes the criminal choice of trying to attack me why should I or anybody else be required to meekly submit or put things up for grabs in a hand to hand battle? Gun ownership if anything should be something women could get behind.

11:09PM PST on Feb 3, 2013

Matt B......we are obviously never going to agree on most things. I have a question for you as this is a "world wide site", why can't you understand, or at least try to, why folks who post here from other than the US have a totally different perspective on guns and how they impact lives......This article is about domestic violence and I have seen time and time again over the last few weeks that a gun in a home where there is a history of violence is the one thing likely to kill him or her ( from US sources).......The US seems to think they have a monopoly on telling other countries about their gun violence to justify the horrific numbers of gun deaths in the US ( murder, suicide, accident,etc.).......FYI.....we will probably NEVER understand the gun mentality.

add your comment

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Care2 - Be Extraordinary - Start a Care2 Petition
ads keep care2 free

Recent Comments from Causes

LET HIM ALONE .. needs to keep venting for those who'd love to but won't. Plenty of time left. When…

People NEVER fail to amaze me! The greedy owners of the zoo that have to know what they're doing is…

Not one of our greatest actions. It is one disaster after another. An experiment gone bad. Stopping…

meet our writers

Kristina Chew Kristina Chew teaches and writes about ancient Greek and Latin and is Online Advocacy and Marketing... more
ads keep care2 free

Select names from your address book   |   Help

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.

site feedback


Problem on this page? Briefly let us know what isn't working for you and we'll try to make it right!