Respectfully submitted by Lawrence E. Rafferty(rafflaw)-Guest Blogger
This past week a vote was taken in the United States Senate and it was not a vote to end a filibuster! The vote that I am referring to was a vote to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act.(VAWA) It was noteworthy that the vote actually took place at all, but the results of the vote were especially interesting. The vote to reauthorize VAWA, which was co-sponsored by Sen. Patrick Leahy, passed by a 78 to 22 margin. All 22 votes against the measure were by male Republican members of the Senate.
Before we disclose some of the members who voted against this bill, let’s discuss just what this bill has done for women. “As the country celebrates the 18th anniversary of the legislation, here are some of the victories achieved through VAWA:
- Victims can call for help. The National Domestic Violence Hotline was established as part of VAWA. It currently serves over 22,000 victims a month and has taken a total of 3 million calls.
- Law enforcement officers are trained to help victims. 500,000 law enforcement officials, judges, and prosecutors a year are trained with VAWA funding to help domestic abuse victims.
- Partner violence and homicides fell. From the year before VAWA’s passage until 2008, the number of women being killed by partners dropped 43 percent, and partner violence against women fell 53 percent.
- Stalking became illegal. Before VAWA, stalking was not a federal crime. The law established stalking as a felony offense.
- Rape is rape, no exceptions. Since the passage of VAWA, each state in the United States has updated its laws so that rape by a partner is treated equally to rape by a stranger.” Think Progress
I guess I could understand a Senator voting against the reauthorization if they thought the bill was too expensive and had not been successful in protecting women in the past, but that does not seem to be the case. Some of the reasons the dissenting Senators gave for voting against the VAWA are startling. One reason given was that the VAWA reauthorization included Native American women and LGBT women and undocumented women.
“Two Senators — Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) — also offered significant amendments to the VAWA bill. Grassley’s amendment stripped all Native American, LGBT, and undocumented victim protections. It was voted down on Thursday of last week. Cornyn’s, aimed exclusively on the bill’s language relating to tribal lands, failed on Monday. Grassley and Cornyn amendments
Does it surprise you that all 22 of the dissenting Senators were male? If this act was so bad, you would think that at least one female Senator would have voted against it. Even in this current political climate, I just cannot understand how approving a bill that has helped prevent violence against women could be voted against by anyone. Eight of the Senators even voted against moving the bill ahead to a vote.
The original VAWA passed in 1994 with even more Republican Senators voting against it, so maybe we are making progress. VAWA As I think about it, there were probably fewer female members of the Senate in 1994, so maybe we are not making progress after all. Why do you think that some of the dissenting Senators wanted to omit Native American women from the VAWA protections? Aren’t Native American women citizens? I realize that some of the Republican’s Native American concerns involve the Native American courts being able to deal with non-Native American participants. LA Times
From a political standpoint, I was surprised to see so many Republican Senators vote against reauthorizing VAWA. Especially in light of the Republican Party’s public attempts to court Hispanic voters, it seems strange that some of the leading Republicans in the Senate would vote against a bill designed to continue programs that have helped protect women at risk.
I think we should ask Senate Minority leader McConnell and GOP Presidential hopeful Marco Rubio and Sen. John Cornyn and Sen. Lindsey Graham and Sen. Chuck Grassley, and the other dissenting Senators, if they think women do not deserve the legal protections afforded them in this important piece of legislation. Would women in these dissenting Senator’s states agree with their votes on this legislation? Do these gentlemen remember how many voters are women? What do you think of this legislation?
Additional sources: Talking Points Memo; Think Progress;
Most of this law is about supporting women who are being abused, many times in fear for their lives from men.
In most cases abuse is investigated by male police officers, many of whom are abusers themselves.
Case: Woman has been abused by her husband such that she has been afraid for her safety at least once a week. They have an argument. She calls 911, takes their toddler and goes to the car to leave. He follows and tries to choke her. She bites his arm to stop the choking. Cops arrive. She is judged the aggressor. She has to leave, the child stays with him. She is about 5’2″. He is over 6′ and works the oil rigs. That’s an example of the kind of thing that women have to put up with.
Why have laws that spedically protect women? Gee, I don’t know may be because women are the targets of certain types of violence and that until this law was first past law enforcement and judges often treated domestic violence as no body’s business even if the woman was killed. Would the commenters who object to this law object to laws that allow shareholders to sue when the company in which they own shares acts against their interest in a derivative suit . There are many laws that provide special protections to persons or entities because of their status or other special characteristic should we do away with all of these laws?
The VAW Act is a reasonalble and rational law to redress the imbalance in the criminal justice system when it comes to domestics violence and related violations. I wish that women did not need this law but they do. When certain crimes happen to women, they are treated differently. As a result, a crime is not a crime in these instances. I suggest that those who object speak to some victims and victims advocates to see if this law is one that only pits women against me or if it really answers a serious need.
Responding to the following comments about amendments: “Grassley’s amendment stripped all Native American, LGBT, and undocumented victim protections. It was voted down on Thursday of last week. Cornyn’s, aimed exclusively on the bill’s language relating to tribal lands, failed on Monday…Why do you think that some of the dissenting Senators wanted to omit Native American women from the VAWA protections?”
Based on my (admittedly secondhand) understanding of the details of the amendments, it is probably a gross misrepresentation to say that some senators wanted to “omit Native American women” from coverage under the law. I believe the issue was not whether Native American women were covered, but who would have jurisdiction over cases involving non-Native Americans in incidents committed on tribal lands. The VAWA act places all such cases under the jurisdiction of tribal authorities. I think reasonable people can disagree whether all such cases should be handled under the U.S. justice system, under tribal justice systems, or perhaps assigned to jurisdictions on a case-by-case basis, depending on the details of the allegations. Or maybe at least allowing appeals to federal courts, which I don’t believe is possible under the VAWA. And I’m not sure an amendment stripping the language on tribal jurisdiction necessarily reduces protections for either Native Americans or women as a class, because I am not familiar with how tribal courts tend to treat cases where the alleged perpetrator is a Native and the alleged victim is non-Native American, or vice versa. A number of Native American settlements are considered sovereign nations, and I don’t know to what extent U.S. Constitutional protections are enforced in tribal courts.
As for the provision on protections for alleged victims who are living in this country illegally, I believe it grants temporary visas to any such person who claims to be a victim of violence. On the one hand, I can understand why someone may be unwilling to get help if she risks being deported when she goes to the police. But I can also understand that there may be some unfortunate unanticipated consequences if illegal residents on the verge of being deported can receive visas if they accuse someone of illegal acts.
I’m not defending all votes against the bill or for amendments, or all the reasons people may have opposed it. But experience has taught me that you can’t judge the actual impacts of a law by the values touted in its title, and you can’t automatically assume that people voting against the bill are doing so because they oppose the stated goals of the bill’s sponsors. (And what is more interesting, I’ve learned that you can’t assume everyone voting FOR a bill has the same understanding of what the bill does, or shares the same goals as the other people voting for it. Some bills only pass because there is enough disagreement about its probable impact to allow people of wildly different philosophies to vote the same way.)
It is hard to believe that in the nineties Texas had a democratic feminist governor. Of course Cruz and his sidekick Cornyn voted against the bill. All the top officials in Texas are republican evangelicals.
Let us remember that men are abused also. Women bearing false witness and an unjust, unfair judicial system placing full blame on the man. My sons are better parents than their spouses, you could call them “Mr. Moms”. Many men have been removed from the lives of their children only to result in those children’s suffering. Women like to party and have a “good time” but refuse to accept the responsibility of their actions. The children need a family life, not just a way to collect welfare checks and child support. My mother told me not to have any children until I was able to support them and wanted them. I praise the Republican’s for their brave vote. While they are at it, may I suggest getting rid of CPS, CAPTA and all the other useless organizations?
Bron,
Mike S. already did a good job in responding to Dave, but you must also remember that this is not a new law. It is a reauthorization of a law originally passed in 1994 and it has been reauthorized, two times before this, if I remember correctly. It is a fact that women are treated differently than men. You still have Congressmen and state reps suggesting that only “forcible” rape should be charged as a rape. You have state governments suggesting that women should be forced to submit to invasions of their bodily cavities in order to obtain sonograms before a state will allow a legal abortion. Do men have these kind of problems in a state court with violations of their body before they are allowed to have a legal procedure?
Before VAWA, a women had very little recourse in a stalking case and VAWA has protected women from stalkers who could become killers.
Finally, Bron, many laws are designed for specific individual groups that need special protection. Just look at the protections that the banksters get.
I share the concern with another commenter about making this only apply to women. I believe it should apply to anyone for equal protection purposes. It is rather easy to make most of it apply to both genders and still protect women.
I would rather see this handled by state courts unless there was a true federal jurisdiction such as interstate commerce or actions between the states. Though I recognize that this can cause some issues if a particular state fails to enact and enforce a similar state statute.
Here are some reasons for this being in a state court.
Federal prosecutions are more cumbersome and remote compared with local jurisdictions. If a crime happened in many parts of the country, the victim and witnesses can be forced to travel hundreds of miles from home to testify or participate in interviews. Federal law enforcement is not as dispersed as local officials. Immediate response is best on the local level, though it certainly can be transferred to a federal law enforcement level.
Federal law enforcement is not equipped to handle the number of domestic violence cases the happen on the state level for which the state can handle regularly It could become the case were US attorneys might hand it back to the state for prosecution. Federal gov’t does this for juvenile offenses most of the time.
THat is not to say I wouldn’t support a reaonable and dedicated effort to debate this legislation and most of it I feel could be helpful though.
Requiring the Criminal and Social Service divisions of state in local governments to provide information to victims and training to officials is very beneficial and worthwhile to all involved in my experiences.
rafflaw:
How do you answer Dave? He makes a legitimate point.
At some point, if laws are only made for certain groups, then individuals will have no rights unless they join with some group.
That pits different groups against each other for rights from the federal government. A group is comprised of individuals and only individuals can have rights. Group rights are a fiction.
I don’t agree w/ hate crime laws because they create a protected class based on arbitrary rules. I do support this legislation because of biology. Men are the predators and women the physically weaker victims. The same holds true for laws protecting children, biology dictates they need added protection, from both men and women.
I hope it passes the House which is even more full of loonies than the Senate is.
“However, while I don’t disagree with any of the goals of it, I disagree with the principle that we put women in a group as opposed to men.”
Dave,
The reason a law like this is necessary is because despite all the progress women are still treated worse than men and it was only through VAWA that this began to change. These aspects, that Larry pointed out in his excellent article are all negative situations towards women that VAWA changed:
“Victims can call for help. The National Domestic Violence Hotline was established as part of VAWA. It currently serves over 22,000 victims a month and has taken a total of 3 million calls.”
Prior to this women, the vast majority of domestic violence victims were isolated and felt they had nowhere to turn.
“Law enforcement officers are trained to help victims. 500,000 law enforcement officials, judges, and prosecutors a year are trained with VAWA funding to help domestic abuse victims.”
Prior to VAWA LEO’s didn’t understand DV and weren’t sympathetic to the pain and terror victims suffered.
“Partner violence and homicides fell. From the year before VAWA’s passage until 2008, the number of women being killed by partners dropped 43 percent, and partner violence against women fell 53 percent.”
About 90% of homicides were done by people close to the victim. Much of those were done by the persons significant other.
“Stalking became illegal. Before VAWA, stalking was not a federal crime. The law established stalking as a felony offense.”
Because of lack of stalking laws the police were helpless to intervene prior to a violent act being committed. The act of stalking someone induces terror in the victim and prevents them from leading their normal life. This alone has saved many women.
“Rape is rape, no exceptions. Since the passage of VAWA, each state in the United States has updated its laws so that rape by a partner is treated equally to rape by a stranger.”
Living with a person in, or out of wedlock, does not give someone the right to have sex on demand. Prior to VAWA the belief was that a domestic partner couldn’t be raped.
your complaint is that we already have laws on the books to deal with this and my response is that was not the case before VAWA.
As to these 22 Senators who voted against this bill they are simply pigs and I pity anyone who is forced to live with them, much less have sex.
Like I said I’m not against its goals, the hotline and making stalking a crime are definitely good things. Anyone who is helped by this I’m all for it, I’m just arguing the principle of grouping people for legislation is bad law. Again we are all individuals, hotlines etc are good, but why does this need to be law? We can’t have women’s advocates groups doing this? A crime is a crime, if we’re talking about a new crime or a previously not legislated crime I get it, just remove the group think policy, crime is crime.
Excellent article, raff.
“Even in this current political climate, I just cannot understand how approving a bill that has helped prevent violence against women could be voted against by anyone. ”
I think Republican men are putting idiotology ahead of their responsibilities in governing for all the people. Consider what the Republican controlled states have been doing to make it impossible for a woman to have an abortion. There is an on-going debate about making contraceptives available to women. The efforts to shut down Planned Parenthood, if successful, would important eliminate health care for many women. The have declared war on women, especially poor women. Their votes aren’t a surprise to me.
Bllouise,
I have my fingers crossed that there is some progress!
Thanks Metro. I have the same questions that you state.
Dave,
whether you are willing to admit it, the VAWA has already helped protect the people that claim don’t need this protection.
” … so maybe we are making progress. …”
Keep on keeping on
Thanks Raff as always great work….For the life of me I don’t understand republican men, don’t they have wives, daughters, mothers, sisters and female friends that they feel should have these protections…I would bet money that psychiatrists would have a field day trying to work with these really sad excuses for men.
No one advocates violence against women, but do we need more laws that distinguish one group from another? Stalking, the hotline, rape are all noble attempts to help women, & I understand the inclination to make laws. However, while I don’t disagree with any of the goals of it, I disagree with the principle that we put women in a group as opposed to men. It’s the same as hate crime legislation, civil rights etc. We are all individuals, the group think legislation is praiseworthy in its goals, but makes what should be a crime distinct for no reason other than its against a woman, black, etc. This should be voted against on moral grounds that we are all equal, all crimes are crimes, and we don’t need to give any crime special treatment simply because its against some advocate groups will. To many laws today simply reinforce differences between people, where there is no need. A crime is a crime, be it against a man or a woman.
Thank you for your contribuiton. It was encouraging to learn that our nation is moving toward the right direction.
I wrote a letter to the White House today so that President Obama will press Japan’s PM during his visit this Friday so that PM will officially apologize to South Korea’s victims of Japan’s Army which made these women their sex slaves.
Thank you for your efforts to actively represent and help your constituents…all of them, even the ones that are marginalized and wholly dismissed as not mattering. Keep on going.