• RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
SueInCa On March - 11 - 2013

vawavote

People all over the internet are heralding the re-authorization or is it passing – finally – of VAWA.  I searched for stories on it’s passing and did not see one with a question as to why it should have even gotten to this point.   Most of us are aware of how the GOP and their factions are working feverishly to do away with anything that has given women power over their own lives.  Rape, Abortion, Protection from abusers, The Glass Ceiling, Equal pay for equal work, women in the workplace period, are all being attacked from the right of the political spectrum.  I  watched the PBS special, Makers – The Women Who Made History and a light bulb went on when they were covering the NON ratification of the ERA.  I was reminded again of how the right mobilized to ensure the Equal Rights Amendment passed but was never fully ratified by all 50 states.  That is why the praise over VAWA irritated the hell out of me.  Since when did we start praising people for obstructing the renewal of this bill?  And why is everyone so eager to let it go?  For years women were subject to ridicule and were powerless to do much about any adverse behaviors men perpetrated against them and there were far too many who shed tears and put in sweat equity over the years to go backwards, but the right seems determined to do just that.  I know, deep in my soul, that their biblical world view is responsible however again they take scripture they like and to hell with anything that might change that.

domesticviolenceIt took forever for spousal abuse to even become a word you could whisper about and as the documentary explained, Tracy Thurman and the law suit she filed was the catalyst for sweeping change in the United States.  Tracy was a young mother who lived with her husband, Charles Buck Thurman, in Connecticutt.  Buck was an abusive man and Tracy had called the police department on several occasions to try to get help.  At the time, women did not talk about abuse if they were suffering, nor were there many options for a woman to leave such a relationship especially if the abuser had threatened to “get her” no matter where she went.  So Tracy felt trapped in her marriage and her situation.  As a result of the police ignoring the growing violence Tracy was subject to, her husband was able to build up his rage which culminated in a terrible beating where Tracy almost died.  Tracy’s husband stomped on her head in the presence of police officers who were finally propelled to react, yet it took something so horrific for them to finally take a stand with the abuser.  Tracy eventually sued the city police department in Torrington, Connecticut, claiming a failure of equal protection under the law against her abusive husband Charles “Buck” Thurman, Sr.  The civil suit judgment was granted because it was deemed that the local police had ignored growing signs of domestic violence and had casually dismissed restraining orders and other legal bars to keep Charles “Buck” Thurman, Sr. away from his wife.  The Thurman lawsuit brought about sweeping national reform of domestic violence laws, including the “Thurman Law” passed in Connecticut, making domestic violence an automatically arrestable offense, even if the victim does not wish to press charges.

The World Conference on Human Rights, held in Vienna in 1993, and the Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women in the same year, concluded that civil society and governments have acknowledged that domestic violence is a public health policy and human rights concern.

The Violence Against Women Act was developed and passed as a result of extensive grassroots efforts in the late 80’s and early 1990s, with advocates and professionals from the battered women’s movement, sexual assault advocates, victim services field, law enforcement agencies, prosecutors’ offices, the courts, and the private bar urging Congress to adopt significant legislation to address domestic and sexual violence. Since its original passage in 1994, VAWA’s focus has expanded from domestic violence and sexual assault to also include dating violence and stalking. It funds services to protect female adult and teen victims of these crimes, and supports training on these issues, to ensure consistent responses across the country. One of the greatest successes of VAWA is its emphasis on a coordinated community response to domestic violence, sex dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking of women; courts, law enforcement, prosecutors, victim services, and the private bar currently work together in a coordinated effort that had not heretofore existed on the state and local levels. VAWA also supports the work of community-based organizations that are engaged in work to end domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking against women, particularly those groups that provide culturally and linguistically specific services. Additionally, VAWA provides specific support for work with tribes and tribal organizations to end domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking against Native American women.  There have also been grant programs that Congress has funded for entities that work in the field.

In 2011 the law expired. In 2012 the law was up for re-authorization in Congress, however different versions of the legislation have been passed along party lines in the Senate and House, with the Republican-sponsored House version favoring the reduction of services to undocumented immigrants and LGBT individuals. Another area of contention is giving Native American tribal authorities jurisdiction over sex crimes involving non-native Americans on tribal lands. This is considered to have constitutional implications as non-tribes people are under the jurisdiction of the United States federal government and granted the protections of the US Constitution, protections that tribal courts do not often have. The two bills were pending reconcilation, and a final bill did not reach the President’s desk before the end of the year, ending the Act after 18 years as the 112th Congress ended and 113th started. In 2013 the question of jurisdiction over offenses in Indian country continued to be at issue over the question of whether defendants who are not tribal members would be treated fairly by tribal courts or afforded constitutional guarantees.

On February 11, 2013, The Senate passed an extension of the Violence Against Women Act by a vote of 78-22. The measure went to the House of Representatives where jurisdiction of tribal courts and inclusion of same-sex couples were expected to be at issue. Possible solutions advanced were permitting either removal or appeal to federal courts by non-tribal defendants. The Senate had tacked on the Trafficking Victims Protection Act which was another bone of contention due to a clause which requires provision of reproductive health services to victims of sex trafficking.  Finally, on February 28, 2013, in a 286 to 138 vote, the House passed the Senate’s all-inclusive version of the bill. House Republican had previously hoped to pass their own version of the measure — one that substantially weakened the bill’s protections for certain categories. The stripped down version, which allowed only limited protection for LGBT and Native Americans, was rejected 257 to 166.  The renewed act expanded federal protections to gays, lesbians and transgender individuals, Native Americans and immigrants

chicagomarchThe thing is why, as a member nation of the United Nations, would anyone in this country think it ok to withhold certain human rights from certain people?  And why would Republicans in Congress hold up re-authorization of a bill for almost two years for the reasons stated above?  Because they can and because they have continuously shown just how little they respect the rights of women.  And where there is no respect for women there is no respect for other people, Native Americans, LGBT, Transgender, Immigrants and Human Trafficking Victims all included.  When will they decide they do not like men with red hair, women with only one child, people who reject their religious ideologies?  Oh I forgot, they already do not like the latter people.  And you know what the kicker is in all of this?  The Republican party – prior to 1980 – supported an Equal Rights Amendment, so you know how the change came about – the surge of the religious right.  Yet religious ideology or not, how could a woman in this day and age be against protection for vicitms?  Does their God tell them it is good for some, but not for others?  Do they seriously not believe in equal rights for men and women?  Can they not support an ERA amendment and maintain their submissive lifestyle?  To me it is mind boggling that a group of people would so disdain human rights and I cannot think of how they could possibly be favored in God’s eyes.

Right now I feel the left is doing what they can to take advantage of the floundering GOP but like the ERA you can never let your guard down.  When you do, the right will power back and they are even now writing bills trying to take away rights from women.  It is a war on women and others.  I just hope we are smart enough to continue to face it head on and not rest on our laurels.

Written by SueInCa

I am a soon to be 59 Nana to Anthony who is 11. I live in Benicia CA with my husband and Shih Tsu. I worked in Banking and the Financial Industry for 24 years in Fraud, Risk Management, Account Management, Program Management, Project Management and Customer Service. I was a Fraud Investigator for Credit Card and Merchant Business and investigated internal fraud and responded to Bank robberies. I was also management in most of these positions. Now I am content to find a part time job where I am just a worker bee, no more corporate BS for this gal. I also make jewelry. I can spend hours in a bead shop just touching all the fine baubles. Only another beader would understand that one.

31 Responses so far.

Click here to leave a comment
  1. BourneID says:

    Good morning, Sue

    I hoped to send my thanks and compliments to you earlier for this fine work, but I have a problem with staying on schedule some days. Your insightful, thoroughly researched, valuable summary of the dysfunction that paralyzes the Republican party is commendable. You’ve done a great service for all women, many of whom have been silenced so long that they need someone like you to speak for them.

    I have asked time and again, “Where are the wives, mothers, grandmothers, sisters, aunts of these cavemen who control their lives?” Their silence stuns me as much as their submission to stupidity. I wish it were possible for them to read what you’ve written.

    I enjoyed reading the short but concise CV printed above your article. I’m impressed with your professional experience and accomplishments. i’m still interested in meeting you and CL personally in the near future and hope we follow through on that. Benicia is just an hour away -- that is, of course, if all the other cars stay out of my way

    I’m logging in to Vox tonight. I hope AdLib has Ted Cruz on the agenda some evening -- an ambitious, dangerous man. We could perform quite an intellectual autopsy on him. Talk to you this evening.

    • SueInCa says:

      Bourne

      I must have missed you last night. It was a good session, I was on for and hour and forty minutes, not quite the whole time but I did regret having to sign off. Thank you so much for your kind words. You have put into writing exactly why I wrote this. I wanted to speak for all the women who do not have a voice or who might be afraid to put into words what this war on women is doing to people.

      I was just so outraged that they would pretend to say this was a re-authorization when, in fact, the original bill sponsored by Joe Biden had expired.

      As always I would be glad to meet with you and CL too. We could meet half way, no problem. There is also a place on ARden called Crickets that CL and I love to go. Since I am self employed and on my own time, I would not even mind meeting you up there.

  2. Kalima says:

    Sorry I’m late Sue, really swamped over here. Good post btw.

    I just can’t get past the confusion of why this basic human right had to be voted on at all in 2013, in what the world believes is a forward looking, civilized and leading country. I just don’t get it, it made my head spin.

    Is there a violence against men act too, if not, why not, it makes little sense to me.

    • SueInCa says:

      Kalima

      There is protection under a constitutional amendment. That is the “equal protection under the law” clause and it is what Tracy Thurman used in her civil suit. But I think because men do not generally report, it may not be of importance to Congress? Look how long and hard the fight was to get VAWA back in as a law. It is just incredible to me how men could be against this, unless, of course, they are abusers themselves? Who knows and no one can tell by looking at a couple what is really going on behind doors. Personally I think Boehner’s wife is a victim of alcoholism. She just has that frightened bird look.

      Here is an interesting op-ed on the National Coalition For Men website addressing your question, so no, men are not
      included.

      http://ncfm.org/2013/03/action/ncfm-advisor-gordon-finley-ph-d-blasts-vawa-for-causing-the-deaths-of-men/

      • Kalima says:

        Hi Sue, I was being sarcastic about the “Violence against men” act and why in this day and age there needs to be such an act especially for women. America is not some developing African country or ruled by Sharia law, so I find it appalling that something so basic has to be voted on. Protection of all citizens, regardless of gender or religious beliefs is a basic human right, and to single out women in a country believed to be civilized and forward thinking in 2013 seems Neanderthal to me. Violence against any human being is a criminal offence and should be treated as such by the police. Domestic violence is a crime and not just another category.

        • SueInCa says:

          The only problem is that leaves it up to individual states and further down at the law enforcement level you could not count on equal protection and rather than have a dead woman, the law was put into effect. Of course women will still die at the hands of the abuser but it is far less likely when they contact police prior to a final blow up. Now they HAVE to act. I would assume a civil case for negligent homicide could be filed against PD who do not act.

          • Kalima says:

            Hi Sue, that is a problem in the U.S. when states are given too much individual power, sometimes their laws sound as if they are not even a region of the same country. In this case there should be no exceptions, it should be the same law protecting all women everywhere. Women make up half the population of your country.

            • Kalima says:

              I didn’t mean that states can’t decide how to protect their own interests, but women’s rights is a global concern and seeing Republicans against it is an abomination. This is not something for a state to decide, this should be the law of the land without exception and without having a vote on it. Not everyone around the world knows that it’s the Republicans who are against anything that is decent, so when stories like this are reported on in the foreign press, it gives the impression that it’s a normal thing in America, and that it portrays a very bad image of America which of course isn’t true.

            • SueInCa says:

              Hi Kalima

              The Universal Declaration of Human Rights set forth by the UN should be enough to take care of it, but R’s think the UN is The New World Order. I agree to a point on states rights but some laws are particular to that region so having the option is good. CA passed no drilling on our coast. We care about our beautiful coastline other states? Not so much.

  3. MurphTheSurf3 says:

    Thanks Sue for your fearless, uncompromising statement of what “absolutely should be” in this country but has of late become “it might be possible.”

  4. MurphTheSurf3 says:

    WE’RE FOR IT TOO…THE GOP AND VAWA……

    In February 2013, the Senate passed an extension of the Violence Against Women Act by a vote of 78-22, and the House of Representatives passed it by a vote of 286-138, with unanimous Democratic support and 87 Republicans voting in the affirmative.

    Don’t you just love the GOTP who are trying to get credit for supporting a bill they voted against. Just boast of supporting the amendment proposed by Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, the one that only covered some women, the one that was never going to get through the Senate, the one the president said he would not sign—and ignore those pesky “no” votes they cast when the House voted on the real bill. Who will know the difference, right?

    Here’s the Rouges list (courtesy of the Daily Kos)

    Rep. Michelle Bachman of Minnesota

    “Rep. Bachmann recognizes the importance of giving local law enforcement and nonprofit programs the resources they need to fight against domestic violence and sexual assault, which is why she supported the stronger House version of the Violence Against Women Act,” said Bachmann spokesman Dan Kotman. She did vote for measure that passed- the one that was the stronger and more inclusive one.

    Rep. Tim Griffin of Arkansas issued this statement:

    For nearly two decades, VAWA has protected and helped victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. The House version extends the law for five years while strengthening criminal penalties, providing more resources for sexual assault investigations and care for victims, and I was proud to support its reauthorization.

    And here’s Rep. Steve King of Iowa applauding himself:

    “I supported this legislation because I know how important it is to empower women in difficult situations. If a woman is at risk, she should know that she has a place to turn for support and assistance. I supported VAWA in 2005, 2012, and today I voted in support of the House version to see that victims of domestic violence and sexual assault have access to the resources and protection when they need it the most.”

    Missouri Rep. Vicky Hartzler’s is also very proud of herself:

    “I am pleased to support efforts to protect all women in this country from domestic abuse and other forms of violence,” said Hartzler. “The House version of VAWA supports assistance to adult and youth victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking.”

    “Violence against women, in all its forms, is unacceptable,” added Hartzler. “I support efforts to prosecute to the full extent of the law all those who engage in these deplorable acts of abuse and violence. This legislation provides states with the resources needed to combat domestic violence and allocates funding to college campuses for safety programs -- all while ensuring no one is discriminated against. The House version of the Violence Against Women Act protects women, provides funding for the Rural Grant Program, and reauthorizes the Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) program. As a former board member of CASA, I understand how important it is to provide support for abused children and ensure the perpetrators are brought to justice.”

    Michigan Rep. Tim Walberg went on the radio to crow about his vote:

    Rep. Walberg told a local radio station that “he was proud to have voted in support of the act.” Walberg explained how “as a husband, father of a daughter and grandfather of a granddaughter, he is strongly committed to ensuring that all women have access to resources they need to protect themselves, their children and their families.”

    SOME OTHERS: Keith Rothfus, R-Pa., Tim Murphy, R-Pa., and Bill Johnson, R-Ohio AND Sen. John Cornyn

    • SueInCa says:

      I am so sick of the GOP and the GOTP. I don’t think I am wrong when I say the version they passed gave powers back to the states to design their own policy. So if you live in a state where teabillies rule or evangelical christians, you are most likely out of luck because they would not be able to go behind the bushes and accept federal funds for those programs. Then you have the statistical piece of it, where all states report back DOJ and national stats are published to give a better idea of how bad or how improved the crime is by year.

      Yes, the losers who always want to cry after a bill is passed won’t understand the difference in the votes, nor will they take the time to figure out just what happened. I just hope anyone up for re-election uses this vote as an issue against the teabillies and GOP. If they don’t they are as ignorant as the people who pay no attention to what goes on in Washington.

      PS you should have Adlib tag your post on to the end of the orignal so a clearer picture is given on voting. That is one thing I was not real clear on.

  5. kesmarn says:

    Very nice article, BFF! And right on the money.

    I know I’m a bit late to the party, but I finally was able to watch the film “What’s the Matter with Kansas?” (based on the book)

    I highly recommend it, and it deals very directly with the same issues you’ve raised here about the religious right and — especially — the way they regard women, their rights and their role in society.

    I know I’ve said this before, but I think one of the most damaging things about them is their strictly hierarchical view of the universe: a dominant, male, punitive “God” figure (in no way related to the God of love and peace that Jesus spoke of) who delegates authority to a “favored” country, which then empowers males to rule families. Children and animals are even further down the food chain, with women merely the vessels for producing children and serving males. There’s never a sense of partnership at any time between deity and humans, men and women — nowhere (except maybe in capitalist ventures? :roll: )

    And I must say, female “collaborators” like Michelle Bachmann (who voted against VAWA), Anne Coulter (who said women should never have gotten the vote), Sarah Palin and Ann Romney really don’t help.

    • SueInCa says:

      Kes another note, I just went to look for that movie and found the book too. It is no longer being printed so they jacked up the Kindle price to 9.99. That just makes me mad lol. I will get it from the library although I love my kindle and very seldom read a hard cover or paperback now.

    • SueInCa says:

      Kes

      I never saw that documentary but will now look it up. Sam Brownback is an evangelical hiding, at times, behind appearances at the local Catholic church. Even as a Catholic he is Opus Dei so he is the radical leader Kansas needed to go off the deep end. It just infuriates me to see these women put down their own sex although with Ann Coulter her sex is debatable.

      Tony and I talk about this all the time as he and I were raised in homesw where God and Jesus were peaceful people and there was not absolute emphasis on the religious side of things although both families attended services. He has a unique way of looking at it -- he says most of the violence in the Old Testament(and God’s interference) is because man could not get it right so as a last resort he sent his son to bring peace. I am not much into religion of any kind but I like his explanation whether right or wrong.

      As for the women who voted against it, they are so depraved they could sleep at night if they knew someone was going to die as a result of their vote. And that is exactly what their no vote said. You get beat up, you die, tough shit.

  6. choicelady says:

    Sue -- I do not even need to recap a single thing. You have noted ALL the hypocrisy, lying, obfuscation -- everything.

    One note I KNOW you and I agree upon, is the deeply overlooked creepiness of how many Republicans are also Dominionist Christians whose reading of Scripture justifies abuse against women. I should like to affirm LOUDLY that Scripture says no such thing, but THEIR reading of it, the Old Testament only, twists meanings and seems therefore to make the husband the owner of his wife.

    When you put together that self righteous self justification with the obviously erratic and peculiar deviance only the GOP can attain (never heard of a Dem patronizing a prostitute to have her diaper him…) you find a world view of sexual and physical abuse as a normative standard.

    Of course these men don’t want to protect women! They think abuse is “normal”. Wouldn’t want to hurt MEN now would we? That IS what got said about the failure to protect indigenous women -- it could hurt men (white men) if they were hauled into tribal courts and made to account for the rapes they perpetrate on tribal lands.

    Never underestimate the force of phony religious justifications for any of this. Too many good ol’ boys have either a legacy, friendships, or a sick desire for abuse to want to make men accountable for the harm they do against women.

    VAWA is a bombshell in their world. Wonder how many legislators rushed out and put attorneys on retainer. You know. Just in case…

    • SueInCa says:

      I almost said LOL on your last statement, but it is not a laughing matter. I don’t know if we all have seen this happen, but I know a few people it happened to and I know how hard it was for them to heal. There is no cause for this war on women except for the misinterpretations, as you say, of the scripture. I wonder if God is getting ready to pull another coup on the world? Some of our fellow human beings just cannot get it right.

      • choicelady says:

        OK -- if God is taking on the idiots, may His/Her/Its aim be straight and true taking THEM out and leaving the rest of us!

        Passover is near. Let the chips fall where they may, but not on us.

  7. Nirek says:

    Sue, to anyone who cares about their wife, daughter, mother, sister or self or any other woman this should have been automatic. It just tells me that those who argued against it could care less about anyone but themselves.

    I am so glad it passed , it should never have to be brought up again.

    • SueInCa says:

      I am too Nirek but had the obstruction not taken place, a mere re-authorization would have been sufficient.

      It seems there are plenty of people who do not think like you, but shame on them woman or man

  8. glenn says:

    Sue--Loved your article--great post. Since the VAWA has been passed, republicans/tpartiers who voted AGAINST it are taking credit for passing it. It was in many on-line “venues”, so I’m not sure where the article originated. Doesn’t matter where it originated, republicans/tpartiers are just such liars, they can’t help themselves. I have posted a link below. Apparently, the press is FINALLY calling them out on their lies, or at least it looks like it from the link.

    http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/03/republicans-vawa-take-credit-voted-against.php --

  9. SallyT says:

    You did good, Sherlock! I understand your frustration and I have a lot to say on this, also. I will add more later if I can but I just wanted you to know I read your post and agree with you, which isn’t too much of a surprise. :)

  10. AdLib says:

    Excellent article Sue and excellent question to ask…why was reauthorizing VAWA “a victory” when it should have been a matter-of-fact approval?

    Personally, I think it was an opportunity for frustrated Repubs to vent their chauvinism which they are unhappy about having to keep under wraps since they were punished for in the 2012 elections and another “Obama’s for it so we have to be against it and block everything he wants” thing.

    Their excuses for opposing it were so paper thin and specious…yes, they’re worried about people committing crimes on reservations being adjudicated by a reservation (I suppose they’re also against people committing a crime in New York being tried in NY?).

    Again, 2012 continued to expose the prejudice and animosity Republicans have towards women (not to mention Latinos, black people, the poor, voters, etc.). They continue to work towards forcing women to have babies, even when it is a result of rape and/or incest, destroying Planned Parenthood, the one medical facility millions of women depend on for health screenings and treatments, slashing the social safety net from helping poor single parent families with food or housing, etc.

    How a hate group can be a major political party in America is astounding.

    • SueInCa says:

      Absolutely correct and I ask myself every day how such a party can exist in this America. I am so disappointed in Congress overall right now. There are a few people I would leave out of that equation but even some of the more well known Dems are on my “shitlist”. I am so tired of supporting a group of people who will not speak up but to support Repubs is not even on the radar. I have a difficult time understanding why Democrats did not make this a big deal. Why did they not hit them over and over on this? There are many people who have either experienced this, I will call it a crime because I think it is, that would have been so grateful to see a champion in Washington speak out.

      Granted I do not watch the network news anymore and there could have been someone somewhere but I do peruse the headlines and I never saw a real champion for the women and men who experience this crime.

      • AdLib says:

        Sue, the Repubs tried to innoculate themselves from criticism over opposing the legit bill by voting for the phony Repub version that cut out many protections for women. Pure politics to deceive the public as to their true agenda and positions. They knew their bad version would never pass so they could vote for that then vote against the real VAWA…and later claim they supported it.

        So the Dems apparently saw it difficult to hammer the Repubs since they constructed this facade to hide behind.

        I do think that in the 2014 elections, this will come back to haunt them in ads, their cowardly dodge won’t be much of a defense then.


Leave your Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.


Back to top
PlanetPOV Tweets
Ongoing Stories
Features