The Violence Against Some Women Act

They just never stop.

Share On Facebook
Share On Twitter
Share On Google Plus
Share On Pinterest
Share On Reddit

52 replies
  1. 1
    cathyx says:

    I don’t see how that’s even legal to exclude some females.

  2. 2
    TooManyJens says:

    I can’t agree with the tag of “Teabagger Stupidity.” It’s not stupidity, it’s a complete lack of giving a shit about anyone who’s not them.

  3. 3
    Sayne says:

    Dirtbags.

    I think The Onion’s take on the Violence Against Women Act rings truer and truer every day: http://www.theonion.com/video/.....h-p,31381/

    No punch pretty lady! (Unless lady gay! Then OK punch gay lady!)

  4. 4
    Robin G. says:

    It has to be exhausting to be such assholes day in and day out. How do they not just get tired of it?

  5. 5
    MikeJ says:

    @cathyx:

    I don’t see how that’s even legal to exclude some females.

    That’s not actually what the Republican bill does.

    The Senate version of the bill provides extra grant money to organizations that help historically under served populations. One of those populations is lesbians. The house version removes extra money for grants to organizations that serve lesbians.

    While the house version is bad, it’s not true to say that it makes it ok to abuse gay women.

  6. 6
    Alison says:

    Well, you know. Lesbians don’t worship the almighty pen1s, so fuck them, amirite?

    I mean…I wouldn’t be surprised if many male GOPers were of the “gay women just haven’t fucked the right guy yet” school of thought.

    Assholes.

    (ETA to hopefully get out of mod?)

  7. 7
    efgoldman says:

    @Sayne:

    I think The Onion’s take….

    I fear for The Onion. Its long past time that the over-the-top TeaHadis have disintegrated into self-parody.

  8. 8
    TooManyJens says:

    @MikeJ: You’re right, but it does convey that they are OK with LGBT people (because they also took out extra help for people who are underserved due to gender identity) not getting as much help to prevent or escape violence as heteros.

  9. 9
    Higgs Boson's Mate says:

    @TooManyJens:

    From the link

    The House bill also gives states some wiggle room by shifting greater authority to state government to decide which victimized groups are “underserved” and therefore deserve funding.

    The “We ain’t go no love for queers” states will of course determine that no one is underserved.

  10. 10
    Mr Stagger Lee says:

    @Robin G.: I always wondered if one is born a dickhead, or do you have to work at it. I am inclined to believe the former.

  11. 11
    BGinCHI says:

    I think this is the same bill being pushed by the “Friends of Hamas.”

  12. 12
    Roger Moore says:

    The Republicans changed their minds about the Violence Against Women Act when they discovered it was an attempt to prevent, rather than promote, it.

  13. 13
  14. 14
    TooManyJens says:

    Mind you, in theory, having states or even localities determine their particular needs is a fine idea. In practice, some people have demonstrated that they can’t be trusted with it.

  15. 15
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    Like Obama’s sequester deal, I imagine this would pass if there were an anonymous vote, if by a smaller margin.

    Ron “Karl Rove is doing the Lord’s work” Fournier whined on the twitter last night

    Ron Fournier ‏@ ron_fournier
    When did centrists become a “cult” — or “naive” dolts on the “extremes”? Or is it just so on Twitter and Drudge? #ThisIsCrazy #NoLabels
    Expand Reply Retweet Favorite More

    I don’t really understand that middle part, but when you look at shit like this, and you still can’t bring yourself to admit what and who the problem is in Washington, you just might be a Cultist of The Center.

  16. 16
    Stillwater says:

    @TooManyJens: That’s exactly right. If there’s a nuanced way for conservatives to justify those exclusions on any terms other than bigotry, I’ve yet to hear it. Even arguments attempting to justify the proposal on federalist grounds devolve to bigotry. I’m sure plenty of people within the GOP fully realize that fact and are unable to do anything about it.

  17. 17
    efgoldman says:

    @Stillwater:

    Even arguments attempting to justify the proposal on federalist grounds devolve to bigotry.

    Its not bigotry if Gaw-ud came to them and said don’t do it!

  18. 18
    becca says:

    @Robin G.: I know I’m beyond tired and no longer even slightly amused by the GOP war on sanity.

    Che’s and McVeighs are what the future holds if this keeps up much longer.

  19. 19
    pamelabrown53 says:

    Maybe our side just needs to be smarter. Why instead of adding categories of women can’t we just write ALL WOMEN…period. Takes away their phony reason of not voting for “special rights”.

  20. 20
    WereBear says:

    This is such a slimeball move. It is a sign of how deep in the evangelical weeds they must be that they think PRO Violence Against Women is the way they want this to go down.

    And they are the party of Frank Luntz.

  21. 21
    Redshift says:

    @TooManyJens: The conservative version of “states rights” is that it’s better to leave decisions to the states except when they decide wrong, and then Congress should override their decision.

  22. 22
    Roger Moore says:

    @pamelabrown53:

    Why instead of adding categories of women can’t we just write ALL WOMEN…period.

    Two reasons:

    1) Most of the cases where they’re specifying groups of women, it’s not to give them special legal treatment but to ensure that groups that are being poorly served now get extra money. This makes sense if the goal is to protect all women in practice because women who are being badly served by the current system aren’t being protected.

    2) The case of Native American women is a case where there are odd legal quirks in the current system that need to be fixed in order to prevent injustice. The law currently excludes certain perpetrators- non-Native American men who commit domestic violence on an Indian Reservation can’t be prosecuted by either tribal or federal courts- so it makes sense to change it to make it possible for somebody to prosecute them.

    @Redshift:

    The conservative version of “states rights” is that it’s better to leave decisions to the states except when they decide wrong, and then Congress should override their decision.

    I think this is the general idea of federalism that everyone uses: decisions where we prefer the way the federal government does things should be federal powers and decisions where we prefer the way states do things should be state decisions. It’s just that liberals generally prefer decisions that protect the rights of as many people as possible, while conservatives prefer decisions that protect the power of the powerful.

  23. 23
    handsmile says:

    @TooManyJens:

    Yes, but as evidenced by recent rulings on state campaign finance laws, state and local gun safety regulations, and soon voting rights, there are at least five members of the current Supreme Court who will gladly assure those “some people” that they have nothing to worry about.

    For the Roberts Court, federalism is a theory of conveniently flexible construction for which “originalism” is the multi-use tool.

  24. 24
    1bb3 says:

    Poor dears. They just cannot seem to get a handle on this whole outreach and re-branding thing. Is there no one on their side that knows how it’s done? Perhaps they could hire OFA to do a consult.

  25. 25
    Redshift says:

    @Roger Moore: I have no problem with federalism. I have a problem with lying for political gain about “states rights” and more local government always being better.

  26. 26
    The Red Pen says:

    Does the VAWA do anything for battered gay men? Men in abusive relationships with other men often have no resources.

    I saw a post somewhere in the wingnut-o-sphere calling for opposition against VAWA because it didn’t protect men. Shouldn’t they be calling to expand it?

    There are men who are battered by women and they often have no place to turn, either. I don’t think opposition to VAWA can possibly have anything to do with support for battered men, however.

  27. 27
    bemused says:

    @1bb3:

    Indiana is taking rebranding in whole ‘nuther direction with a bill that says one transvaginal probe isn’t enough. Now they want two. Oh hell.

  28. 28
    Cacti says:

    @handsmile:

    For the Roberts Court, federalism is a theory of conveniently flexible construction for which “originalism” is the multi-use tool.

    When Roger Taney Roberts strikes down Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, I’m curious what tortured reasoning will be employed to reach the outcome, as it’s quite plainly within the “original intent” of the 15th Amendment.

    I imagine he’ll task Thomas with writing something along the lines of minorities being “so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.”

  29. 29
    22over7 says:

    @WereBear:

    You know, I almost (almost, not quite) feel sorry for Frank Luntz. He has to be out there somewhere, doing focus group after focus group, and finding no language that his customers can use to make sales.

    And even if he did cobble together some kind of word salad that makes this lunacy seem plausible, the teabaggers would reject it as insufficiently pure and keep right on hating as loudly as before.

  30. 30
    General Stuck says:

    Last gasps, and all that. Old white guy values are old and less valuable than they were. The Silent Generation can choke on its bigotry whilst it wither away to worm food.

    Their personal and tribal Titanic is going under as they scramble for a life boat. Fewer and fewer, and just not enough of them, anymore.

  31. 31
    Stillwater says:

    @The Red Pen: I saw a post somewhere in the wingnut-o-sphere calling for opposition against VAWA because it didn’t protect men. Shouldn’t they be calling to expand it?

    I think I read that one too. It was from Heritage. The argument wasn’t that VAWA violated men’s rights, tho, but that it violated “men’s rights”. Those rights don’t apply to the gayz.

  32. 32
    Redshift says:

    In other asshole news, there’s currently (unless there’s been an update that I haven’t seen) a standoff going on in the Virginia legislature over the Medicaid expansion. The legislators seem to have worked out at deal to pass it, but asshole governor “Transvaginal Bob” McDonnell has declared his opposition to it because he insists that paying for it would increase the “immoral national debt.”

    Apparently the Jesus they teach about at Regent preaches that the national debt is immoral, but low-income people being unable to afford healthcare isn’t. But at the same time, the immorality of the national debt is not severe enough to raise taxes to avoid it.

    It looks like the Senate Dems are playing hardball, and refusing to pass the compromise transportation plan unless McDonnell agrees not to veto the budget (which includes the Medicaid plan.) So far they’re holding firm. This is helped by the fact that the transportation plan sucks, but it sucks less than the governor’s original proposal, so if it goes down in flames, there are plenty of Dems who won’t be unhappy.

  33. 33
    efgoldman says:

    @General Stuck: Old New Yorker feature: “Block that metaphor.”

    Fewer and fewer, and just not enough of them, anymore.

    Especially because some of them is us, or at least, me.

  34. 34
    General Stuck says:

    @efgoldman:

    metaphors being metaphors, are not literal and readers with a brain cell can use it. I can still remember my name and wipe my own ass, but am no spring chicken either.

  35. 35
    efgoldman says:

    In other news: As if Penn State didn’t have enough troubles.

    Every downtown establishment that sells alcohol will refrain from doing so Saturday, said Damon Sims, university vice president of student affairs and co-chairman of a committee known as the Partnership: Campus & Community United Against Dangerous Drinking. The majority of the funds to pay for the subsidies to businesses would come from campus parking fees collected during previous State Patty’s Day weekends, he said.

    http://bigstory.ap.org/article.....pattys-day
    h/t monkey cage

  36. 36
    pamelabrown53 says:

    @Roger Moore: Thank you Roger, for reiterating the reasons. Still, my point stands. Wouldn’t it be easier for subgroups to file a legal challenge if their rights are abrogated?

    Granted, I don’t know about the thorny, schizoid law pertaining to Native Americans but they too are American women so if they brought a discrimination suit why wouldn’t it be heard?

    Do you see me as Pollyanna? You wouldn’t be the first.

  37. 37
    Roger Moore says:

    @The Red Pen:

    I saw a post somewhere in the wingnut-o-sphere calling for opposition against VAWA because it didn’t protect men. Shouldn’t they be calling to expand it?

    Unpossible. The wingnut response to some people having fewer rights than others is to take away rights from the people who have more, not to give more rights to the people who have fewer. Unless the wingnuts are in the group that has more rights, in which case life isn’t fair, and the people who have fewer rights are just going to have to live with that.

  38. 38
    Regnad Kcin says:

    @efgoldman:
    It was a finger of speech—I apologize! Why, I LOVES yo’…!
    ……
    With pot licker an’ black-eye peas, you loves me, sir? HA! Us is through!

  39. 39
    TooManyJens says:

    @The Red Pen:

    Does the VAWA do anything for battered gay men? Men in abusive relationships with other men often have no resources.

    Yes, it does. While it’s called the Violence Against Women Act because that’s where the majority of the problem is, it does provide for resources for male victims of abuse as well.

    My understanding is that one reason some “family” groups are against the bill is that it “breaks up families” — i.e., gives women the ability to leave abusive marriages rather than encouraging them to stay in those relationships while they try to get the man to change. You can imagine how much sympathy I have for that argument.

  40. 40
    Roger Moore says:

    @pamelabrown53:

    Wouldn’t it be easier for subgroups to file a legal challenge if their rights are abrogated?

    Except that the whole point is those subgroups are generally weak and voiceless. If they had the wherewithal to effectively fight against their situation, they wouldn’t need the extra support. Sometimes people who are genuinely oppressed need a hand up to get out of their oppression, and it’s the job of liberals and progressives to give them that hand up even if assholes want to keep them down.

  41. 41
    General Stuck says:

    @Roger Moore:

    Sometimes people who are genuinely oppressed need a hand up to get out of their oppression, and it’s the job of liberals and progressives to give them that hand up even if assholes want to keep them down.

    Well stated!!

  42. 42
    1bb3 says:

    @bemused: “Well one sure pissed off the Libs, two should make their heads asplode.”

    Another “please proceed” moment. That laser focus on “jobs, jobs, jobs” is starting to pay off. They’ll have so much to show for their time in power. Creeps.

    I am quite looking forward to their comeuppance in ’14 and beyond.

  43. 43
    Dangerfield says:

    No one should be suprised by this, hateful shit is what the Rethuglicans do. Its what they do, they will never stop the best way to deal with them is to kick thier asses at the ballot box. Over and Over again. Unless you are retarded all talk on the left of voting for a third party should be elinated, quick, fast and in a hurry.

  44. 44
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    In the spirit of the GOP’s legal theory behind this, and other GOP legal theories, I propose a new rule on the death, accidental or otherwise, of other human beings: if someone kills, under any circumstances, a Rethuglican office holder, they are automatically considered to be “standing their ground” and are fully exonerated of any and all criminal or civil liability for such an act.

    It’s only fair.

  45. 45
    handsmile says:

    @Redshift:

    Sorry to advise, but just returned from reconnaissance of Kaplan Test Prep Daily and this was posted less than an hour ago:

    “VA lawmakers approve landmark transportation plan”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....ml?hpid=z3

    However, the foray was not without benefit: a strong if early contender for best headline of 2013:

    “US to air-drop mice laced with drugs toxic to Guam tree snakes” (!)

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....ml?hpid=z2

    But now the bad news. The Village Monarch, Bob Woodward, has published an opinion piece there on the sequester that will be ALL the rage among Sunday morning’s bobble-heads. (You can find your own damned link for this one.)

  46. 46
    Redshift says:

    @handsmile: Yeah, I saw a post from a friend who’s a member of the House of Delegates. He suspects this means they worked out a deal on Medicaid, but doesn’t have specific confirmation yet. I’m keeping my fingers crossed.

  47. 47
    Mnemosyne says:

    @The Red Pen:

    Does the VAWA do anything for battered gay men? Men in abusive relationships with other men often have no resources.

    As I understand it, what the Republicans did was remove the inclusive language that would have allowed grant money to be allocated to services for gay men and transgender people:

    Where the Senate bill granted access to federal grants for LGBT victims, the House bill is silent, removing all mention of “sexual orientation” or “gender identity.”

    So it’s not just lesbians or gay men that this will hurt — it’s also transgender people.

    And the Native American part sucks, too — it limits the sentences that tribal courts can give for domestic violence to a maximum of one year, plus it allows anyone who gets prosecuted in a tribal court to sue to have the case overturned.

  48. 48
    becca says:

    @handsmile: Baghdad Bob strikes out again.

    Still living off Bernstein’s largesse.

  49. 49
    ruemara says:

    @The Red Pen: Battered men would be covered by VAWA.

  50. 50
    rikyrah says:

    Native American women don’t deserve protection, don’t ya know?

    since there are no Black or Brown men near those reservations…

    we know who is raping the Native American women….

    and thus why the GOP is protecting those RAPISTS.

  51. 51
    Duge says:

    @Alison: LOL! Best.Response.Ever! :thumbsup:

  52. 52
    Duge says:

    @Alison: LOL! Best Response Ever!

Comments are closed.