GOP's version of the violence against women act
 

I have worked with the violence against women act for quite a while and have seen, up close and personally, what great things it has done to protect women from violent crimes.

BUT, the GOP has blocked all attempts to renew this act. SHAMEFUL! Now, they have come up with a version of their own that has sliced away the protections regarding rape, domestic violence, human trafficking and stalking. What the HECK???

And you say there is not a "war against women"? How could the Republican Party put their weight behind this travesty?

These stances just amaze me, especially at a time when the GOP is trying to figure out how to appeal to a wider base of voters. Alienating half of the population may not be the best way to do THAT, IMHO.

Democrats Blast GOP’s Violence Against Women Act | TPMDC

I'm ashamed to say that I know very little about the act in question, and even less about the American government, but it doesn't surprise me at all that they're cutting away from something good. Just the other day I had a discussion with a man a bit older than be on the bus (going to my Women's Studies class, reading articles for said class) who was adamant that there are no longer any women's issues in Canada. Unfortunately it's a fairly widespread view. I'll definitely be bringing this article in to class on Wednesday, I'm sure it'll spark a bit of discussion (read: outrage).

You know, I had a response typed, but decided your post wasn't worth getting into an argument about. I'm sorry, but your post is a bunch of bull.

For anyone that wants to know the facts and the differences between the Democrat and Republican versions - research them or read the two versions of the bills, or summaries of them, for yourselves...

Allison once again the social conservatives in the House are willing to derail their parties hopes for future progress to win favour with a vocal minority of their party.
this legislation should have been easily voted and signed into law.
They never cease to amaze me at how out of touch they are and how willingly they ignore the desires and needs of women and minorities. Shalom

from what I looked up and have been reading. The Senate version
added some new coverage . That non natives can be tried in
tribal courts and it also included new protection for gays and lesbians.


During debate, the major divisive issue was a provision that allows tribal courts to prosecute non-Indians accused of assaulting Indian women on reservations. Republicans, arguing that subjecting non-Indians to Indian courts was unconstitutional, offered two amendments to strip that section from the bill, but both were defeated.

Supporters of the bill say a 1978 Supreme Court decision that denies Indian tribes the power to try non-Indian citizens makes an exception for proceedings that are acceptable to Congress. The National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women says the provision is tailored to make sure that all rights guaranteed under the Constitution are given to non-Native defendants.

The Indian court issue is expected to be a hurdle as lawmakers try to reconcile the Senate bill with the eventual House bill. Two House Republicans — Reps. Tom Cole of Oklahoma, who is of Native American heritage, and Darrell Issa of California — have been pushing a compromise that would give defendants the right to request that their trial be moved to a federal court if they felt they were not getting a fair trial. Others have argued that those tried in Indian courts should have better defined rights to appeal to federal courts.

Senate votes to reauthorize Violence Against Women Act

If the rape occurred on tribal land then what is the problem?
Gays and lesbians are raped too along with numerous men and are also victims of domestic violence as well. Again whats the problem? Shalom

tribal courts might mete out more meaningful justice. I have heard of them using things like having the criminal make REAL restitution to his victims, and be publicly shamed and such. Seems like that might actually be a better form of punishment than a long, drug out litigation, a suspended sentence, or some kind of house arrest or other types of gut-less punishments that our courts deal out.

A disapppointing post, db. I expect others to sensationalize and be headline grabbers, but not you.

Be informed...READ THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION....it does NOTHING AF said. The difference between the Republican and Democrat versions concerns Native American tribal counsel jurisdiction, illegal alien qualifications, and homosexuals. I can see and understand someone disagreeing with the homosexual issue, but if you are basing your response on the misinformation in AF's post, you are wallowing in the dark. The proposed Republican legislation DOES NOT 'slice away the protections regarding rape, domestic violence, human trafficking and stalking', and to say it does is quite frankly rather silly - as is the irrational insistance that there is a "war against women". I thought we had logically sttled that weeks ago. HELLO...half the conservatives are women. Are they suicidal? Duh...that is as silly as the "conservatives have a lower IQ" thread...

There are numerous law enforcement agencies, womens and domestic violence
organizations that support this legislation Faceman. As well as most members of the GOP side of the Senate.
The House GOP members are ignoring the many agencies and organizations that support this bill that increases protection and encompasses a broader range of individuals. What is wrong with that. Any elected official should vote for increased protection for all their constituents and fellow citizens that reside here, I highly suspect that the social conservatives are pandering for votes once again. They panic at any legislation that might protect undocumented workers, or gays and lesbians. Shalom

This doesn't surprise me, it's pretty shocking and disgusting what many of the GOP want to do, and are doing, in regards to this issue.

And yes... if the rape occurs on tribal land, what is the problem? Why not try them in Tribal Court?
They have rights too. Gays and lesbians too, again, what is the problem?? Are you (Regalcharm) suggesting that they have no rights?