JavaScript is required to use Bungie.net

OffTopic

Surf a Flood of random discussion.
2/12/2013 9:31:05 PM
4

Violence Against Womens Act Passes Senate - Rubio votes No Hours before SOTU Response

[quote]WASHINGTON -- The Senate easily passed its Violence Against Women Act reauthorization bill on Tuesday, officially punting the issue to the House, where Republican leaders still haven't signaled how they plan to proceed. The bill passed 78 to 22. It already had 62 cosponsors, which ensured its passage, but it picked up additional support from a handful of Republicans who weren't already sponsoring it. Senators who voted against the bill included Republicans John Barrasso (Wyo.), Roy Blunt (Mo.), John Boozman (Ark.), Tom Coburn (Okla.), John Cornyn (Texas), Ted Cruz (Texas), Mike Enzi (Wyo.), Lindsey Graham (S.C.), Chuck Grassley (Iowa), Orrin Hatch (Utah), James Inhofe (Okla.), Mike Johanns (Neb.), Ron Johnson (Wisc.), Mike Lee (Utah), Mitch McConnell (Ky.), Rand Paul (Ky.), Jim Risch (Idaho), Pat Roberts (Kansas), Marco Rubio (Fla.), Jeff Sessions (Ala.), Jeff Thune (N.D.) and Tim Scott (S.C.). Rubio, who put out a statement on his VAWA stance Tuesday, will give the Republican response to President Obama's State of the Union address later Tuesday evening. The bill authorizes $659 million over five years for VAWA programs. It also expands VAWA to include new protections for LGBT and Native American victims of domestic violence, to give more attention to sexual assault prevention and to help reduce a backlog in processing -blam!- kits. Created in 1994, VAWA has helped to strengthen programs and services for victims of domestic violence, dating violence and stalking. Ahead of the vote, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the bill's sponsor, questioned why anybody would vote against his legislation since it just expands protections to vulnerable groups. "It is difficult to understand why people would come in here and try to limit which victims could be helped by this legislation," Leahy said. "If you're the victim, you don't want to think that a lot of us who have never faced this kind of problem, sat here in this body and said, 'Well, we have to differentiate which victims America will protect.'" Senators voted on a few amendments to the bill. They voted 93 to 5 to include a provision targeting human trafficking, and 100 to 0 on a provision to ensure child victims of sex trafficking are eligible for grant assistance. They rejected amendments by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) to consolidate certain Department of Justice programs and to allow grants for sexually transmitted disease tests on sexual assault perpetrators. VAWA typically gets reauthorized with little fanfare. But Congress failed to do so last year amid House Republican objections to provisions in the Senate bill that expanded protections for LGBT, Native American and undocumented immigrant victims of violence. This year's Senate VAWA bill includes the LGBT and Native American provisions, but leaves out the piece for undocumented immigrants. Leahy has pledged to attach that piece to immigration reform legislation. The onus is now on House Republican leaders to advance VAWA. They haven't given any indication as to what their bill will look like or who will sponsor it, and even some in their own party are pressuring them to get moving. Seventeen House Republicans wrote to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) on Monday night urging them to "immediately" pass a bipartisan VAWA bill. They didn't specifically endorse the Senate bill, however.[/quote] [url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/12/vawa-vote_n_2669720.html]Source[/url] Nice way to start off the day, Rubio.

Posting in language:

 

Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • From what I read its basically an Anti-white male act.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

    1 Reply
    • Most of the opposition comes from political posturing as opposed to ideological disagreements with funding anti-violence measures against women, anyway. Not that that should immediately make you agree with their opposition, but just to clarify what it most likely is and isn't

      Posting in language:

       

      Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

    • The main reason they didn't vote on it the first time was due to politicking and republicans not wanting to give the democrats any sort of win during an election and during the budget talks. So they're not as awful as you'd think; instead of being anti-women, anti-Native American, and anti-LGBT, they just value their party more than their country (they're still awful people for that kind of politicking).

      Posting in language:

       

      Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

      2 Replies
      • Why no violence against men bill?

        Posting in language:

         

        Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

        10 Replies
        You are not allowed to view this content.
        ;
        preload icon
        preload icon
        preload icon