PDA

View Full Version : My Friend's Letter From Her Congressman on Why He Opposes VAWA



IMPress Polly
02-16-2013, 08:07 AM
An online friend of mine posted the letter she got back from her Congressman after she'd written urging him to support renewing the Violence Against Women Act. I thought it pretty interesting, so I figured I'd re-post it here below (removing her name and address and such, of course, to protect her privacy) along with her thoughts on the subject and those of some of her Facebook Friends (whose privacy will also be respected). Here's the letter she (and I want to again stress this is a SHE) got back:


Dear Mr. [Last Name Here]:

Thank you for taking the time to express your thoughts on the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). Domestic violence is a real problem and is unfortunately far too common in our society. Those that commit these deplorable acts of violence deserve to be punished to the full extent of the law.

As you know, VAWA was initially established in 1994 as a federal attempt to reduce the plague of domestic violence in our country. Although I agree with the stated intent of the bill, I have substantial concerns with how the reauthorization represents an expansion of the program in ways not originally intended in the act. For instance, the proposed reauthorization includes male prisoners who may be subject to violence while in custody. More importantly, I believe that domestic violence enforcement and reduction is best handled by state and local governments. Rest assured, I will keep your perspective in mind as the bill progresses and comes to a vote.

Clearly, violence against anyone should not be tolerated-especially women or children. However, I strongly believe that state and local governments should be the primary actors responding to domestic violence.

To stay informed on this issue and others, feel free to sign up for my monthly e-letter by visiting stewart.house.gov (http://stewart.house.gov). Again, thank you for contacting my office. If you have any other questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me.


Sincerely,
Chris Stewart
Member of Congress

Here are her posted thoughts on this letter:


From Congressman Chris Stewart explaining why he can't renew the violence against women act. Something about new sneaky legislation that would limit violence against men in prison. Also, he reminds me of Marcie on Peanuts. I'm pretty sure I didn't select "Mr." in my mandatory title selection. I probably selected "Ms." which maybe he's never heard of. Next time, I'm going with "sister."

Here are those of various of her Facebook Friends:


Female Friend: WOW. Thank you for sharing. Awful that he won't take a critical stand.

Male Friend, Response 1: To be fair he says his belief that it's up to the locals to protect women is more important than this point: "I have substantial concerns with how the reauthorization represents an expansion of the program in ways not originally intended in the act. For instance, the proposed reauthorization includes male prisoners who may be subject to violence while in custody." Obviously there's an "And...." missing. Please proceed Mr. Stewart. Expound upon that last sentence in detail. I'm not sure but it sounds like he's saying that prisoners shouldn't be protected against violence? *sigh*

Male Friend, Response 2: It is noteworthy they will find any excuse to not support the VAWA but will not find a single excuse to support it.

Here are my thoughts:

The whole letter is nothing but BS. First he complains of the alleged inconsistency of this bill with the original's intent. Then he follows up by proclaiming that the whole purpose of the original bill -- to establish federal protections, state and local ones being shown inadequate -- is illegitimate. The key here is what state of affairs this position objectively corresponds to. "State's rights" is today and has always been simply a BS excuse for not wanting to go public with a clear position on a given issue. Traditionally, Southern states have used it as an argument against things like integrating school buses without trying to sound racist about it. President Obama used to use the state's rights argument to avoid taking a clear stand on same-sex marriage such as to avoid offending anyone. Mr. Stewart's state's rights argument is of the same nature. He puts out this line simply to conceal the fact that he's objectively voting for more rape and abuse, and not "just" of prisoners.

countryboy
02-16-2013, 08:59 AM
Gee, another pack of libs upset because someone didn't bow and scrape before them in absolute agreement. What a surprise. http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-rolleyes010.gif

To make the absolutely ridiculous statement, "He puts out this line simply to conceal the fact that he's objectively voting for more rape and abuse, and not "just" of prisoners", is disingenuous, at best. How could one possible glean that from the congressman's letter? Wow.....

Chris
02-16-2013, 09:44 AM
Have to agree with countryboy, polly, you have completely distorted Stewart's letter with lies.


The whole letter is nothing but BS.

OK, your opinion, which I assume at this point you will begin to support.


First he complains of the alleged inconsistency of this bill with the original's intent.

So what does he complain about specifically? You need to expand on this so you have something to criticize more than a straw man.


Then he follows up by proclaiming that the whole purpose of the original bill -- to establish federal protections, state and local ones being shown inadequate -- is illegitimate.

Ditto.


The key here is what state of affairs this position objectively corresponds to.

IOW, rather than address what he wrote, you will make up a straw man to attack.


"State's rights" is today and has always been simply a BS excuse for not wanting to go public with a clear position on a given issue. Traditionally, Southern states have used it as an argument against things like integrating school buses without trying to sound racist about it. President Obama used to use the state's rights argument to avoid taking a clear stand on same-sex marriage such as to avoid offending anyone. Mr. Stewart's state's rights argument is of the same nature. He puts out this line simply to conceal the fact that he's objectively voting for more rape and abuse, and not "just" of prisoners.

Completely false. Where do you come off psychoanalyzing his motives? Simple, you made it up to suit your agenda.


Now I'm not against your agenda to protect women, but your ad hom straw man tactics just don't cut it.

Peter1469
02-16-2013, 09:59 AM
Violence against women is an extremely important issue. However, it is an issue better dealt with at the state level. If we, as a people, decide it should be a federal issue, then we ought to amend the constitution to add another enumerated power to Art. 1, sec. 8, U.S. Constitution.

countryboy
02-18-2013, 07:20 AM
I guess Polly just wanted to bash the congress critter without having any meaningful debate. Color me unsurprised.