Republicans War on Women

Posts : 9728

Any woman that votes Repub should have their head examined...
Republicans Retreat on Domestic Violence

Quote :: Even in the ultrapolarized atmosphere of Capitol Hill, it should be possible to secure broad bipartisan agreement on reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act, the 1994 law at the center of the nation’s efforts to combat domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking. The law’s renewal has strong backing from law enforcement and groups that work with victims, and earlier reauthorizations of the law, in 2000 and 2005, passed Congress with strong support from both sides of the aisle.

Yet not a single Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee voted in favor last week when the committee approved a well-crafted reauthorization bill introduced by its chairman, Senator Patrick Leahy, and Senator Michael Crapo, a Republican of Idaho, who is not on the committee.

Posts : 6988

Artie60438 wrote:

Any woman that votes Repub should have their head examined...
Republicans Retreat on Domestic Violence

Quote :: Even in the ultrapolarized atmosphere of Capitol Hill, it should be possible to secure broad bipartisan agreement on reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act, the 1994 law at the center of the nation’s efforts to combat domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking. The law’s renewal has strong backing from law enforcement and groups that work with victims, and earlier reauthorizations of the law, in 2000 and 2005, passed Congress with strong support from both sides of the aisle.

Yet not a single Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee voted in favor last week when the committee approved a well-crafted reauthorization bill introduced by its chairman, Senator Patrick Leahy, and Senator Michael Crapo, a Republican of Idaho, who is not on the committee.

Artie60438 wrote:: You do realize that we're living in the 21st century and women are equals to men,don't you? Do I detect a bit of Misogyny here?

Posts : 9728

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Any woman that votes Repub should have their head examined...
Republicans Retreat on Domestic Violence

Quote :: Even in the ultrapolarized atmosphere of Capitol Hill, it should be possible to secure broad bipartisan agreement on reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act, the 1994 law at the center of the nation’s efforts to combat domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking. The law’s renewal has strong backing from law enforcement and groups that work with victims, and earlier reauthorizations of the law, in 2000 and 2005, passed Congress with strong support from both sides of the aisle.

Yet not a single Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee voted in favor last week when the committee approved a well-crafted reauthorization bill introduced by its chairman, Senator Patrick Leahy, and Senator Michael Crapo, a Republican of Idaho, who is not on the committee.

Artie60438 wrote:: You do realize that we're living in the 21st century and women are equals to men,don't you? Do I detect a bit of Misogyny here?

Wow. You obviously don't even understand the definition of Misogyny,do you? Incredible!

I guess in your twisted world a woman getting the crap beat out of her from a guy who is bigger and stronger is perfectly all right with you.

Posts : 6988

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Any woman that votes Repub should have their head examined...
Republicans Retreat on Domestic Violence

Quote :: Even in the ultrapolarized atmosphere of Capitol Hill, it should be possible to secure broad bipartisan agreement on reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act, the 1994 law at the center of the nation’s efforts to combat domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking. The law’s renewal has strong backing from law enforcement and groups that work with victims, and earlier reauthorizations of the law, in 2000 and 2005, passed Congress with strong support from both sides of the aisle.

Yet not a single Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee voted in favor last week when the committee approved a well-crafted reauthorization bill introduced by its chairman, Senator Patrick Leahy, and Senator Michael Crapo, a Republican of Idaho, who is not on the committee.

Artie60438 wrote:: You do realize that we're living in the 21st century and women are equals to men,don't you? Do I detect a bit of Misogyny here?

Wow. You obviously don't even understand the definition of Misogyny,do you? Incredible!

I guess in your twisted world a woman getting the crap beat out of her from a guy who is bigger and stronger is perfectly all right with you.

Why do women need a special law if, as you yourself said:

Artie60438 wrote:: You do realize that we're living in the 21st century and women are equals to men,don't you?

Why can't it be called the Violence Against Everbody Act?
Do I detect a bit of misogyny here?

Posts : 9728

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Any woman that votes Repub should have their head examined...
Republicans Retreat on Domestic Violence

Quote :: Even in the ultrapolarized atmosphere of Capitol Hill, it should be possible to secure broad bipartisan agreement on reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act, the 1994 law at the center of the nation’s efforts to combat domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking. The law’s renewal has strong backing from law enforcement and groups that work with victims, and earlier reauthorizations of the law, in 2000 and 2005, passed Congress with strong support from both sides of the aisle.

Yet not a single Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee voted in favor last week when the committee approved a well-crafted reauthorization bill introduced by its chairman, Senator Patrick Leahy, and Senator Michael Crapo, a Republican of Idaho, who is not on the committee.

Artie60438 wrote:: You do realize that we're living in the 21st century and women are equals to men,don't you? Do I detect a bit of Misogyny here?

Wow. You obviously don't even understand the definition of Misogyny,do you? Incredible!

I guess in your twisted world a woman getting the crap beat out of her from a guy who is bigger and stronger is perfectly all right with you.

Why do women need a special law if, as you yourself said:

Artie60438 wrote:: You do realize that we're living in the 21st century and women are equals to men,don't you?

Why can't it be called the Violence Against Everbody Act?
Do I detect a bit of misogyny here?

Nope,just your own trolling,troll. Sleep

Posts : 6988

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Any woman that votes Repub should have their head examined...
Republicans Retreat on Domestic Violence

Quote :: Even in the ultrapolarized atmosphere of Capitol Hill, it should be possible to secure broad bipartisan agreement on reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act, the 1994 law at the center of the nation’s efforts to combat domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking. The law’s renewal has strong backing from law enforcement and groups that work with victims, and earlier reauthorizations of the law, in 2000 and 2005, passed Congress with strong support from both sides of the aisle.

Yet not a single Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee voted in favor last week when the committee approved a well-crafted reauthorization bill introduced by its chairman, Senator Patrick Leahy, and Senator Michael Crapo, a Republican of Idaho, who is not on the committee.

Artie60438 wrote:: You do realize that we're living in the 21st century and women are equals to men,don't you? Do I detect a bit of Misogyny here?

Wow. You obviously don't even understand the definition of Misogyny,do you? Incredible!

I guess in your twisted world a woman getting the crap beat out of her from a guy who is bigger and stronger is perfectly all right with you.

Why do women need a special law if, as you yourself said:

Artie60438 wrote:: You do realize that we're living in the 21st century and women are equals to men,don't you?

Why can't it be called the Violence Against Everbody Act?
Do I detect a bit of misogyny here?

Nope,just your own trolling,troll. Sleep

Ah, the trusty old ‘Boredom Card’, played every time you find yourself painted into some ridiculous corner of your own making.

Posts : 3520

happy jack wrote:: Why do women need a special law...

So is that their objection then? That it should include men as well?

Posts : 6988

Heretic wrote:

happy jack wrote:: Why do women need a special law...

So is that their objection then? That it should include men as well?

I don’t know.
The New York Times, self-admittedly, doesn’t know either.
But that sure didn’t stop them from throwing out gratuitous and unfounded accusations against the Republicans, as
evidenced by their use of the word “seems”.

“The Republican opposition seems driven largely by an antigay, anti-immigrant agenda …. “
No evidence offered.

“…. the sticking points seemed to be language in the bill to ensure that victims are not denied services because they are gay or transgender and a provision that would modestly expand the availability of special visas for undocumented immigrants ….”
Once again, no evidence offered.

“Recalcitrant Republicans should be made to explain …. “
If, as the Times implies, the Republicans have yet to explain, then the Times has no legitimate reason to comment on their motives until their explanation is heard and some hard evidence is set forth.

Posts : 3520

Just wondering. I couldn't care less what the Times thought. Your statement,

happy jack wrote:: Why do women need a special law...

suggested that you don't believe the law is necessary at all.

Posts : 6988

Heretic wrote:

Just wondering. I couldn't care less what the Times thought. Your statement,

happy jack wrote:: Why do women need a special law...

suggested that you don't believe the law is necessary at all.

Laws against violence are absolutely necessary.
And those laws should protect men, women, children, gays, transgenders, all races, all ethnicities, and those of all faiths.
If I left out any group, feel free to insert it.
There is no reason whatsoever to have a separate law to protect each group.
Violence is violence, no matter against whom it is directed, and those who perpetrate that violence should be prosecuted with equal vigor, regardless of which group the victim falls into.

Posts : 3520

happy jack wrote:: Laws against violence are absolutely necessary

Thought so. It's not a "law against violence". It's a funding bill for various programs for protecting the victims of domestic abuse, victim services, as well as offering redress for victims ignored by the courts. In a lot of domestic abuse cases, the victims have had restraining orders that went completely unenforced by the courts and law enforcement. Here's a short list of programs from Wiki:

Quote :: The Violence Against Women laws provide programs and services, including:
Community violence prevention programs
Protections for victims who are evicted from their homes because of events related to domestic violence or stalking
Funding for victim assistance services, like rape crisis centers and hotlines
Programs to meet the needs of immigrant women and women of different races or ethnicities
Programs and services for victims with disabilities
Legal aid for survivors of violence

It's integral in protecting people as well as prosecuting cases, cases that are notoriously difficult to prosecute, having to overcome gender biases (the name itself, for example, "violence against women act", the false perception that only women are victims of dv) and religious justification (women should be subservient to men, in the Judeo-Christian faith), assuming they even get that far in the court system. It also helped formulate policy on making stalking an actual crime.

Perfect? No. Integral to protecting victims and help prosecute their cases? Yes. Next time the St. Jude House has their Domestic Violence Vigil, you should go. They'll be able to tell you specifically how the law helps their cause, and how much it would be set back without it.

Posts : 6988

Heretic wrote:: It's not a "law against violence".

Uh …. OK …. I guess this is what had me fooled. Rolling Eyes

Heretic wrote:: The Violence Against Women laws provide programs and services, ….

Posts : 3520

happy jack wrote:

Heretic wrote:: It's not a "law against violence".

Uh …. OK …. I guess this is what had me fooled. Rolling Eyes

Heretic wrote:: The Violence Against Women laws provide programs and services, ….

I was referring to your perception that it was some sort of criminal statute, especially given that your argument was the same ole tired nonsense usually offered against hate crime legislation. That's why I said:

Quote :: It's a funding bill for various programs for protecting the victims of domestic abuse, victim services, as well as offering redress for victims ignored by the courts.

Perhaps you missed that. Yes, it's still a law, as all legislation is (isn't it?), but we all know your objection wasn't so trivial as semantics.

So are we in agreement, then? That it should include all victims of dv rather than not used at all?

Posts : 6988

Heretic wrote:: I was referring to your perception that it was some sort of criminal statute, especially given that your argument was the same ole tired nonsense usually offered against hate crime legislation.

My argument against hate crime legislation may be old and tired, much as the repetition of the Golden Rule may be old and tired.
Both are old and tired, but both are unassailably valid.

Posts : 3520

happy jack wrote:: Both are old and tired, but both are unassailably valid.

Hmm...

I wrote:: So are we in agreement, then? That it should include all victims of dv rather than not used at all?

Is that a no, then?

Posts : 6988

Heretic wrote:

happy jack wrote:: Both are old and tired, but both are unassailably valid.

Hmm...

I wrote:: So are we in agreement, then? That it should include all victims of dv rather than not used at all?

Is that a no, then?

Sorry, meant to answer that part, too.
All laws should include all victims.
And all perpetrators should be punished based upon what they did, not based upon who they did it to.
That's the point I've been making all along.

Posts : 6988

Heretic wrote:: Perhaps you missed that. Yes, it's still a law, as all legislation is (isn't it?), but we all know your objection wasn't so trivial as semantics.

What objection?

Posts : 3520

happy jack wrote:: What objection?

I was referring to this:

happy jack wrote:: Why do women need a special law...

There's no need to question it's existence unless you think it's unnecessary. I was trying to figure out if you opposed it like the Republicans in the article, and if so, why. Your subsequent posts suggested that you were opposing it based on the faulty assumption that it functions like hate crime legislation rather than on what it actually does for victims.

happy jack wrote:: And all perpetrators should be punished based upon what they did, not based upon who they did it to.

Are there laws that do?

Posts : 6988

Heretic wrote:

happy jack wrote:: And all perpetrators should be punished based upon what they did, not based upon who they did it to.

Are there laws that do?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime
In crime and law, hate crimes (also known as bias-motivated crimes) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her perceived membership in a certain social group, usually defined by racial group, religion, sexual orientation, disability, class, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, gender identity, social status or political affiliation.[1]

Posts : 3520

happy jack wrote:

Heretic wrote:

happy jack wrote:: And all perpetrators should be punished based upon what they did, not based upon who they did it to.

Are there laws that do?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime
In crime and law, hate crimes (also known as bias-motivated crimes) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her perceived membership in a certain social group, usually defined by racial group, religion, sexual orientation, disability, class, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, gender identity, social status or political affiliation.[1]

Exactly. What they did was "target a victim because of his or her perceived membership in a certain social group", which makes everyone in that group a victim, in addition to the individual attacked. It's like multiple instances of intimidation against the community at large. Should that not be punished more severely?

I'm sure I posted this before, but it may be worth reading again:

Quote :: The criminal’s motivation is also relevant in terms of the effect such crimes have on society as a whole. The intent of bias crimes is to send a message to a group that they will not be tolerated. As such, the number of victims of a crime motivated by bias is much larger than the number of people being injured.

U.S. law has already recognized the interest of the federal government in dealing with crimes intended to intimidate and coerce beyond their immediate victims. Federal law addresses such crimes under RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) when they are motivated by profit. These bills address a smaller group of crimes when motivated by bias.

Posts : 3520

happy jack wrote:: And all perpetrators should be punished based upon what they did, not based upon who they did it to.

Looks like other Republicans disagree:

Quote :: 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.

. . .

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.

Domestic abuse is domestic abuse, unless they're gay or illegal. Classy!

Posts : 9728

Republicans War on Women Progress-Report-chart

If you go to the webpage you can click the individual boxes for interactive links http://thinkprogress.org/progress-report/

Posts : 6988

Heretic wrote:

happy jack wrote:: And all perpetrators should be punished based upon what they did, not based upon who they did it to.

Looks like other Republicans disagree:

Quote :: 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.

. . .

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.

Domestic abuse is domestic abuse, unless they're gay or illegal. Classy!

The only valid point Grassley has is this -

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."

- but even that shouldn't be used as a deal-breaker in holding up reauthorization.

Posts : 6988

Heretic wrote:: What they did was "target a victim because of his or her perceived membership in a certain social group", which makes everyone in that group a victim, in addition to the individual attacked. It's like multiple instances of intimidation against the community at large. Should that not be punished more severely?

No, the punishment should be no different than if the crime was committed out of greed, lust, or whatever, because, first of all, you'd need to read the mind of the perpetrator in order to prove it was a hate crime. And second, there is only one individual who went through whatever he happened to go through - the victim. The rest of his group may have had their feelings hurt, but they did not undergo what the actual victim underwent.

Posts : 3520

happy jack wrote:: ...you'd need to read the mind of the perpetrator in order to prove it was a hate crime.

Which renders the entire legal concept of intent, the entire cornerstone of our legal system, out of existence, since we apparently lack the psychics to prove it. That's brilliant. Laughing

happy jack wrote:: And second, there is only one individual who went through whatever he happened to go through - the victim. The rest of his group may have had their feelings hurt, but they did not undergo what the actual victim underwent.

I mean, that's why we all think so positively of the KKK/white supremacists nowadays, right? Because there were only a few blacks and homosexuals curb stomped, and absolutely no one else was affected at all.

lol!

Um... no. The immediate victim suffers the physical harm, yes, to serve as a warning others, which is a very real act of intimidation (it is an actual crime, btw) in addition to the physical violence as much as you'd like to complain to the contrary. No amount of foot stomping or fist waving or bouts of denial change that fact, and you've certainly not offered any reason why they should be ignored. Well, nothing other than a remarkably callous and heartless disregard for the communities truly ~~terrorized by such violence~~ "had their feelings hurt."