Violence Against Women Act - Who Voted Against It?

[Andy9o8 0]

Here's who:

John Boozman R AR
Tom Coburn R OK
John Cornyn R TX
Ted Cruz R TX
Michael B. Enzi R WY
Lindsey Graham R SC
Charles E. Grassley R IA
Orrin G. Hatch R UT
James M. Inhofe R OK
Mike Johanns R NE
Ron Johnson R WI
Mike Lee R UT
Mitch McConnell R KY
Rand Paul R KY
Jim Risch R ID
Pat Roberts R KS
Marco Rubio R FL
Tim Scott R SC
Jeff Sessions R AL
John Thune R SD


http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/113/senate/1/19

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/13/us/politics/senate-votes-to-expand-domestic-violence-act.html?hp&_r=0

Quote

Senate Votes to Expand Domestic Violence Act

WASHINGTON – The Senate, with broad bipartisan support, voted overwhelmingly Tuesday to expand the reach of 1994’s landmark Violence Against Women Act by fortifying the power of Native American courts and explicitly protecting gay victims of abuse.

The 78-to-22 vote raised the pressure on the House to act and expanded by 10 votes the margin of approval that a nearly identical bill garnered in the Senate last April. Twenty-three Republicans backed the measure, up from 15 previously. The vote came after 17 House Republicans on Monday wrote Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio and Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia, the House majority leader, demanding immediate action on an antidomestic violence bill that can get bipartisan support, unlike the House bill that passed largely on party lines last year.

[airdvr 198]

Are these new laws to protect women? I guess we didn't have laws protecting them before then.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[BatMasterson 0]

Reasons for voting against the act:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/02/why-would-anyone-oppose-the-violence-against-women-act/273103/

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/rubio-votes-against-violence-against-women-act

[davjohns 1]

I've learned not to get too excited until I have read the act. Everyone mis-represents what the act says for their own purposes. And the names of acts almost never represent all the little extras that can kill it's value.

Anyone have a link?

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Are these new laws to protect women? I guess we didn't have laws protecting them before then.

That's historically been one of the sillier "standard arguments" against just about any new law.

ETA - Anyhow, my post #8 addresses this.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Reasons for voting against the act:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/02/why-would-anyone-oppose-the-violence-against-women-act/273103/

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/rubio-votes-against-violence-against-women-act

You've got some very Rich points there, John.

By the way, John, what part of "The vote came after 17 House Republicans on Monday wrote Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio and Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia, the House majority leader, demanding immediate action on an antidomestic violence bill that can get bipartisan support..."... is lost on you?

ETA- Also please look at my post #8, Sock Puppet.

[randompoints 0]

I disagree with the push to mandatory arrest on a call. Every situation is different and their has to be discretion of the police to determine what is right. We have seen time and again where certain mandatory actions backfire. The 5 year old arrested for playing cops and robbers with his finger as an example.

I have a personally been on scene where the call is made, it was very clear that it was a divorce action. Meaning the women made the call to accuse and arrest to better her court position,. Lucky the guy had her family including mom and grandmother on site to dispute. Mandatory someone goes to jail. We discussed and thought that best course was for her to leave, but arrest wasnt needed, as no one was in danger.

Police have to the ability to use common sense, and apply the spirt of the law. Just my opinion

[Andy9o8 0]

You make a reasonable point that using an extreme to remedy an injustice can sometimes result in an opposite injustice, but an injustice nonetheless. FWIW, those type of provisions in more recent domestic violence laws (many states have their own similar versions) were drafted specifically to remedy the long, long chronic problem of a man beating up a woman, but when the police arrived they did essentially nothing, because it was just "a domestic matter". It amounted to a de facto license - not just to batter women, but to keep on battering them - and such laws were intended to remedy that.

[wmw999 2,146]

In a domestic disagreement situation, there is absolutely nothing which cannot, and will not, be abused by vengeful spouses of one gender or another. The perceived alternatives seem to be "open season on women" and "open season on men."

Neither of those is acceptable, either.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[deltron80 0]

I guess I'm just confused about why we need new laws that punish only men and make women appear even more universally innocent when in fact domestic violence is near 50/50 split on who the offender is, and it's usually mutual violence.

Why are we only concerned about "violence against women?" Why not be concerned about violence against anyone? Men are by far the bigger victims of violent crime.

We already have laws in place that require the male to be taken away even when he is the victim of domestic violence. Women attack and kill their partners with almost no repercussions in the law whatsoever. Most go completely unpunished. I don't understand why we want to go further down this road.

Most male victims of domestic violence are too scared to even say anything or report it because they will just be ridiculed. If you're laughing right now you're only proving my point.

[randompoints 0]

And I agree and understand the thought process Just there has to be room for common sense. The act passed so hopefully it will be implemented fairly. Those Who opposed it I'm not sure are bad guys. They may read it the way I do and see to much room for poor execution of the act. I don't think they just opposed because they hate women or want to keep them down. I haven't read any of their counter arguments and I would prefer to judge each senator based on why they voted no vs hating them for the no

[BatMasterson 0]

Quote

I guess I'm just confused about why we need new laws that punish only men and make women appear even more universally innocent when in fact domestic violence is near 50/50 split on who the offender is, and it's usually mutual violence.

Old time thinking against men.

What are little boys made of?
Slugs and snails
And puppy-dogs' tails,
That's what little boys are made of.

What are little girls made of?
Sugar and spice
And everything nice,
That's what little girls are made of.

[BatMasterson 0]

Quote

I've learned not to get too excited until I have read the act. Everyone mis-represents what the act says for their own purposes. And the names of acts almost never represent all the little extras that can kill it's value.

Anyone have a link?

H.R. 11: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d113:1:./temp/~bdGLuU::|/home/LegislativeData.php|

[BatMasterson 0]

Quote

You've got some very Rich points there, John.

Thank you, Frank.

[jgoose71 0]

So I guess it's now safe to assume that if the police show up and the woman is beating the holy livin' dog shit out of the man, it's mandatory for the man to still go to jail?

If it's a couple of gay men in a dispute, they both go to jail?

If it's a lesbian couple, the police grab a bag of popcorn and watch? (If they are hot and in bra and panties fighting that is...)

I think the point of some of the other posts is that there are already laws about beating the shit out of someone, I don't see what this law does other than create another layer of government bureaucracy to be abused, although voting for the name would certainly make one feel good.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[davjohns 1]

Thanks for the link. Sadly, it says the search has timed out. I'll take a look at it later if I have the time.

Ideologically, I'm a bit divided on legislation like this. I'm all for protecting women. I'm a man raised in strict Southern traditions of opening doors, standing up for any woman, etc. But if we are all really equal, why do we have laws that imply otherwise? Some of the retoric about the law specifies that women don't have the courage to talk to the police when they arrive. Seems we are collectively heading in two different directions. We claim women are equal, but have legislation that says otherwise. It starts looking like that definition of 'fair' that means "I want more".

IDK...when I was a cop, we didn't need special laws to tell us what to do. We removed the weaker party from the situation and created breathing room. Maybe cops today are too afraid of getting sued.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[davjohns 1]

Violence Against Women Act - Who Voted Against It?

Shouldn't everyone vote against it? I mean, it's an act that requires violence against women, right? Maybe the name isn't really all that helpful. But quite often, that's the point, isn't it?

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[popsjumper 2]

All a woman has to do is claim abuse and the man gets screwed with a restraining order, moved out of his house, limited, if any, child visitation rights, and continued payment on everything that he no longer has access to.

Does it happen that way when the man complains?
Well, I'd agree that it may have, maybe somewhere.

The shit part, Andy is that all that happens on the woman's complaint and if you think women haven't taken advantage of that, you'd be wrong.

If this new legislation fails to address that discrepancy, then i would get a NO vote from me.

Equality? BS

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

So I guess it's now safe to assume that if the police show up and the woman is beating the holy livin' dog shit out of the man, it's mandatory for the man to still go to jail?

It's quite obviously a "guess", because it's wrong.

Quote

I don't see what this law does

That's obvious, too.

[davjohns 1]

You wake up sarcastic and surly every morning. Don't you drink coffee?

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[Andy9o8 0]

I think I make a reasonable point in post #8 above, when I describe the policy reasons for the new trend of laws - to eliminate the long-standing open season on women in "domestic" cases. But you're also correct that it can be abused on someone's say-so. The key is to strike the appropriate balance, without creating a new problem - not to just cross our arms across our chests and simply refuse to address the old problem, under the childish mantra of "Duh...why do we need new laws?" (not referring to you, Andy)

[davjohns 1]

Why can't it just be aimed at preventing domestic abuse? Men get abused as well. The name just doesn't sit well with me.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Shouldn't everyone vote against it? I mean, it's an act that requires violence against women, right?

Excellent point! That was the problem with the Alien and Sedition Acts - everyone was born on Earth; so no real aliens! I think.

[davjohns 1]

What about the sedition part?

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Why can't it just be aimed at preventing domestic abuse? Men get abused as well. The name just doesn't sit well with me.

The word "Johnson" is sometimes abused, too. Life's funny that way. Just sayin'.

OK time to hit shower.