Justin's Political Corner

Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who is currently out on bail while appealing his three year prison sentence in his corruption case, took the time to join Rick Scarborough on a March 7th Tea Party Unity conference call where he criticized the Violence Against Women Act.

He attacked the law because it “includes homosexuality, transgender; setting up all kinds of different classes of sexual deviance,” and later called it “unconstitutional.”

While they were having a meeting with the Values Action Team, which is reaching out to those values organizations, in the same week they passed the Senate’s Violence Against Women Act that includes homosexuality, transgender; setting up all kinds of different classes of sexual deviance. It’s just absolutely amazing that they did that. They fashioned a rule so it would be easier to pass the Senate bill, which is a wacko leftist bill. We as groups need to understand that that’s happening and reach out to the members of the House and the Senate and tell them enough is enough.

…

This is how we took over the House for the first time in forty years in 1994’s election is that for five years we spent five years providing alternatives to everything the Democrats were doing: alternative bills, alternative amendments, alternative press releases. We expressed ourselves by always having an alternative. The same here, if there is a Violence Against Women Act there should be a conservative alternative. First and foremost, they should point out the fact the whole act itself is unconstitutional.

DeLay insisted that conservatives need to “rebuild our infrastructure” in order to win elections again, by establishing new groups to “hold the media accountable” and creating “an outside organization that is focused on taking over our schools.”

h/t: RWW

Here we go again: serial distortion artist Dana Loesch has attacked the recently reinstated REAL version of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), while supporting the House GOP’s fake version (certain GOPers supporting their faux-VAWA bill and taking credit for passing it, while voting against the real version). She has a long history of attacking VAWA.

VAWA is NOT a “slush fund”, you fucking arrogant nutjob!

(cross-posted from DanaBusted.blogspot.com)

It was only last year that Concerned Women for America CEO Penny Nance criticized the term “war on women” as “phony, focus-grouped rhetoric” geared to “raise money and hackles” among Democrats. She predicted that women would turn on Obama and wouldn’t vote on issues such as abortion rights or birth control access (unless they are anti-choice). Of course, exit polls showed that Obama carried women voters over Romney 55-44% and that 59% of voters said abortion should be legal either in all or most cases.

So it should come as no surprise that Nance is now using the “war” rhetoric in her latestWashington Times op-ed: “When high-sounding legislation becomes a war against women.” That’s right, she now believes that there is in fact a war on women, but that it comes from supporters of the Violence Against Women Act.

She claims that VAWA “hurts sex-trafficking victims,” even though 93 Senators voted for a Sen. Patrick Leahy’s amendment focused on combating the trafficking of women and girls.

h/t: Brian Tashman at RWW

Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) on Monday openly admitted that she opposed the latest reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) because it included protections for LGBT, Native American, and undocumented victims of domestic violence.

In an appearance on MSNBC, Blackburn pointed out that the latest iteration of the law protects “different groups” and thus dilutes funding for straight, non-Native American women with the proper documentation:

When you start to make this about other things it becomes an “against violence act” and not a targeted focus act… I didn’t like the way it was expanded to include other different groups. What you need is something that is focused specifically to help the shelters and to help out law enforcement, who is trying to work with the crimes that have been committed against women and helping them to stand up.

Watch it:

Domestic violence is domestic violence, period. And there is no way to justify Blackburn’s suggestion that some victims of this violence are more deserving than others. 

Additionally, the reauthorized VAWA includes provisions to prevent serial rapists and similar abusers from preying on Native American women. If Blackburn considers Native American women a “different group,” then it’s one she should be most concerned about: Three out of every five Native American women has been assaulted by an intimate partner.

H/T:  Think Progress Justice

WASHINGTON — The Violence Against Women Act is finally heading to the president’s desk this week after a dragged out political fight over expanding protections to Native American, LGBT and immigrant victims of abuse.

The House voted 286 to 138 on Thursday to pass the bipartisan Senate version of VAWA.

The vote came just after the House rejected its own GOP bill, 166 to 257, which drew loud cheers in the chamber. Sixty Republicans voted against the GOP bill.

Throughout the debate, House Republicans maintained that their bill would have covered all women. But the reality is that it didn’t go as far as the bipartisan Senate bill. The House bill stripped out protections for LGBT victims of abuse, it didn’t give tribal courts new authority in certain domestic violence cases and it added new eligibility restrictions for U Visas for abused immigrant women. The House bill also entirely left out two separate measures attached to the Senate bill: the SAFER Act, which helps law enforcement address a backlog in untested rape kits, and the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, which targets human trafficking.

The House Republican bill appeared doomed before it hit the floor. It had zero support from Democrats, and a growing number of Republicans were saying they couldn’t support it.

H/T: Jennifer Bendery at HuffPo

After nearly a year of resistance that has damaged them politically with women voters, House Republicans have found a clever way to back down on the reauthorization of an expanded Violence Against Women Act, aides confirmed to TPM late Tuesday.

The original plan was for the Republican majority in the House to pass its version of the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization and then go to conference conference committee with the Senate. The Senate has already overwhelmingly passed a more aggressive bill, with protections for LGBT, Native American and undocumented women that have been at the heart of the dispute with House Republicans.

But all that changed Tuesday night. The Rules Committee instead sent the House GOP’s versionof the Violence Against Women Act to the floor with a key caveat: if that legislation fails, then the Senate-passed version will get an up-or-down vote.

The big admission implicit in this latest move is that House GOP leaders don’t believe they have the votes to pass their version of the bill but that the Senate version is likely to pass the chamber. So this way they’ll give House conservatives the first bite at the apple as a way of saving face and still resolve an issue that has hurt them politically.

Here’s how Democrats expect it to play out.

After the House finishes debating the GOP-version of the bill on Wednesday and Thursday, it will get a vote, but will fail to muster enough votes for passage due to conservative and Democratic opposition. So the Senate-passed bill will get a vote instead, and Democrats as well as a faction of more moderate Republicans will carry it to victory. Then it will go straight to President Obama’s desk for his signature.

“[Rules Committee Chairman] Pete Sessions laid it out in not so many words that this is what the majority’s plan is,” a House Democratic aide said Tuesday evening. “They’re anticipating that their version gets voted down. But it’s clear the Senate bill will pass with flying colors.”

h/t: Sahil Kapur at TPM

Once again, Dana Loesch is absolutely lying about the Violence Against Women Act, by falsely claiming that the Senate Democrats version of the bill as “pork” and baselessly accusing Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) of “exploiting women.” Remember, she has a long history of misleadingly accusing Democrats and liberals of being ”anti-women.”

Loesch lies about VAWA again on her radio show blog:

The VAWA has enjoyed bipartisan support for years until Leahy tried to exploit the women he claimed to protect with this act by using them as front. 

Democrats use VAWA as a litmus test for female concern, so why then are they jeopardizing it? 

Speaking of violence against women, let’s revisit the Colorado Democrats and how women should just take the violence visited upon them.

Here’s the real truth about VAWA that Loesch intentionally decided to distort in order to defend the House GOP version, via Jennifer Bendery at the Huffington Post:

The House GOP bill entirely leaves out provisions aimed at helping LGBT victims of domestic violence. Specifically, the bill removes “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” from the list of underserved populations who face barriers to accessing victim services, thereby disqualifying LGBT victims from a related grant program. The bill also eliminates a requirement in the Senate bill that programs that receive funding under VAWA provide services regardless of a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity. Finally, the bill excludes the LGBT community from the STOP program, the largest VAWA grant program, which gives funds to care providers who work with law enforcement officials to address domestic violence. 

Another notable difference in the House bill relates to a provision targeting Native American victims. Under the Senate bill, tribal courts would gain new authority to prosecute non-Native American men who abuse Native American women on reservations. The House bill also grants that new authority — a major change from the bill House Republicans put forward in the last Congress — but adds a caveat that would allow those people to move their case to a federal court if they feel their constitutional rights aren’t being upheld. 

Congress failed to reauthorize VAWA last year for the first time since the law’s inception in 1994, due in large part to House Republican opposition to the tribal provision. The fact that the House bill includes some kind of tribal provision reflects some movement by GOP leaders toward a bill that can pick up broader support. But even some House Republicans who have advocated for a compromise on the tribal piece say the bill needs to go further on that front. 

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) trashed the GOP proposal altogether.
“House Republicans just can’t help themselves,” Pelosi said in a statement. ”Even with a strong, bipartisan bill passed by the Senate for the second Congress in a row, even with countless women in need of support and protection, Republicans are still turning the Violence Against Women Act into a partisan political football.”

On Twitter, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA12) rightfully slammed the House GOP version of VAWA as a “non-starter”:

House Republican VAWA bill is a non-starter for our nation’s women. America’s mothers and daughters deserve better. 1.usa.gov/VBC3h8

— Nancy Pelosi (@NancyPelosi) February 22, 2013

(Cross-posted from DanaBusted.blogspot.com)

WASHINGTON — House Republican leaders are ready to move forward on legislation reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act as soon as next week, a GOP source familiar with the plans told The Huffington Post on Wednesday.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) still haven’t sorted out whether they plan to take up and amend the VAWA reauthorization bill that passed the Senate or introduce an entirely new bill, said the source. But either way, the Republican leaders are likely to act on some kind of legislation next week, and aides in Cantor’s office have been meeting with committee staff and member offices this week in preparation, the source said.

Cantor spokesman Doug Heye said only that GOP leaders are working on having a VAWA bill ready “in the coming weeks,” and that his office has been in regular contact with GOP staffers on the issue every week for the past several months.

The Senate overwhelmingly passed its VAWA bill last week, authorizing $659 million over five years for various programs targeting domestic violence. The Senate bill includes new protections for LGBT and Native American victims of domestic violence, gives more attention to sexual assault prevention and takes steps to reduce a backlog in processing rape kits.

The news that the House is ready to act comes as a handful of House GOP lawmakers unveiled a separate bill that could provide a path forward on what has become the biggest obstacle to getting VAWA through Congress and to the president’s desk: a provision in the Senate bill that grants new authority to tribal courts to prosecute domestic abusers.

Currently, tribal courts have no authority over non-Native American men on tribal lands who domestically or sexually abuse Native American women, who endure such abuse at two-and-a-half times the rate of other women. The Senate VAWA bill includes a provision that would grant tribal courts the authority to prosecute in those cases, but many House Republicans oppose the provision and argue that tribal courts wouldn’t uphold the constitutional rights of non-Native Americans. This specific issue became so divisive in the last Congress — and both sides were so firm in their positions — that it ultimately led to the failure to reauthorize VAWA for the first time since 1994.

But Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) on Wednesday reintroduced his compromise proposal from last year, the Violence Against Indian Women Act, which would grant tribes the new authority over non-Native American domestic abusers but give those abusers the option to transfer their cases to a federal court if they felt their rights weren’t being upheld. The bill has seven Republican co-sponsors: Reps. Tom Cole (Okla.), Mark Amodei (Nev.), Jeff Denham (Calif.), John Kline (Minn.), Patrick McHenry (N.C.), David Schweikert (Ariz.) and Michael Simpson (Idaho).

Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), one of the leading proponents of the Senate VAWA bill, told HuffPost earlier this month that she wasn’t sure if she could get behind Issa’s compromise language if it were what passed in the House. But she called his approach “responsible” and noted that, at least in the last Congress, it had the backing of Native American tribes.

“Until I have the language in front of me, and I’m sure it provides protections, I’m not going to commit either way,” Murray said. “But tribes have expressed to me that [Issa] is being fair and rational.”

Meanwhile, during the final days of the last Congress, Cole told HuffPost that he expected the House VAWA bill to include Issa’s proposal in this Congress. He predicted its inclusion would mean VAWA was “a done deal” in the House, and that it would ease certain Republicans’ fears that tribal courts wouldn’t honor the constitutional rights of non-Native Americans who came before their courts. As it is, tribal courts are already bound by the Constitution.

“People seem to have this fantasy that Indians and courts are going to try to make up for what happened to them for hundreds of years of history,” Cole, who is the only registered Native American in Congress, suggested as the reason some GOP lawmakers were so upset by the provision. “That’s just not true. Most tribes want non-tribal members to come in — if you’re gaming, for tourism, commerce. That’s their lifeblood.”

h/t: Jennifer Bendery at HuffPo

The Violence Against Women Act reauthorization passed through the Senate on Tuesday afternoon, by a vote of 78 to 22. Of those opposing the legislation, all 22 were Republican men. Every female Senator supported the bill.

Among the most notable votes against the bill were Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL).

VAWA expired during the previous Congress, and because of Republican opposition to provisions for Native American,undocumented, and LGBT victims of domestic violence, the different versions approved by the House and by the Senate were never reconciled, and the bill died without final passage at the end of 2012.

Since its inception in 1994, VAWA has established a system for helping women in danger. The law created the National Domestic Violence Hotline, made stalking illegal, and helped drive down the number of partner homicides.

The version passed by the Senate today will next go to the House for a vote, where it is expected to encounter some difficulties, particularly over the protections of tribal women included in the bill.

h/t: Annie-Rose Strasser at Think Progress Health

The conservative grassroots is pushing lawmakers to vote against the Senate’s reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, which has 62 cosponsors and is slated for a final vote early this week.

Heritage Action and FreedomWorks, two well-financed right wing activist groups, are lobbying to scuttle the reauthorization. In short, they lament the expanded provisions, which beefs up funding for local law enforcement to prosecute domestic abusers while expanding coverage to gays, illegal immigrants and Native Americans. They claim VAWA hasn’t proved to be effective and argue that federal funding for law enforcement is both redundant and unconstitutional.

In a blog post, FreedomWorks criticized the cost of the legislation — $660 million — and pointed out that domestic violence is “already illegal in all 50 states.” It added: “Supporters of the VAWA portray women as helpless victims - this is the kind of attitude that is setting women back.”

Heritage Action is scoring VAWA as a “key vote” in determining a lawmaker’s conservative credentials.

Claiming that the reauthorization would expand the definition of domestic violence to include “emotional distress,” Heritage declared that the “expansive and vague language will increase fraud and false allegations, for which there is no legal recourse.”

FreedomWorks also worried that the legislation would be unfair to men.

“The newest version of the VAWA, S.47, contains very vague and broad definitions of domestic violence,” the organization wrote. “A man that raises his voice at his partner, calls her an offensive name, stalks her, causes her any emotional distress, or simply just annoys her can potentially be prosecuted under the VAWA. Calling your spouse a mean name is not advised or polite, but it isn’t the same thing as violence towards her.”

In response, the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women (NTF) — a coalition of more than 250 national, tribal and local advocacy organizations — called Heritage’s claims “egregious” and accused it of “misrepresent[ing] the truth.”

NTF’s Response To Heritage Action On VAWA by

h/t: Sahil Kapur at TPM