Marco Rubio’s excuse for voting against the Violence Against Women Act doesn’t pass the smell test:
Unfortunately, I could not support the final, entire legislation that contains new provisions that could have potentially adverse consequences. Specifically, this bill would mandate the diversion of a portion of funding from domestic violence programs to sexual assault programs, although there’s no evidence to suggest this shift will result in a greater number of convictions. These funding decisions should be left up to the state-based coalitions that understand local needs best, but instead this new legislation would put those decisions into the hands of distant Washington bureaucrats in the Department of Justice. Additionally, I have concerns regarding the conferring of criminal jurisdiction to some Indian tribal governments over all persons in Indian country, including non-Indians.
As asiangrrlMN pointed out recently:
Native American women are American citizens, too. They deserve to have the same rights and protections that we all do. The VAWA will mean that Native American women who are raped by non-Native American men will have their day in Tribal Court.
As for Rubio’s concern about diverting funding from domestic violence programs to sexual assault programs, Eric Holder pointed out the benefit of VAWA back in September:
On the front lines of this effort, the Office on Violence Against Women administers VAWA programs, providing states, territories, local and tribal governments, and nonprofit organizations with critical resources to initiate and sustain efforts to reduce and stop violence against women.
Besides, can women trust states to have their best interests at heart? Not if last year’s attempt by Kansas to decriminalize domestic violence is any indication.
Marco Rubio is no savior to women. He’s just a thirsty jerk.
[cross-posted at ABLC]