Violence Against Women Act to Expire

[IMPress Polly]

The Violence Against Women Act is set to expire at the end of September, which, being as Congress doesn't reconvene until September 4th, gives both the House and Senate together just 11 legislative days to reauthorize the law. In spite of previous versions of the legislation passing with bipartisan support, the updated measure introduced to reauthorize funding for violence prevention and redress services (shelters, attorneys, that sort of thing) doesn’t have a single Republican co-sponsor, and had to be introduced in the House of Representatives instead of the Senate for the first time, which suggests that the bill's champions in the Senate were not confident of having sufficient or immediate support. The bill will also have to be signed into law by the current president and, if it signals anything, the Department of Justice is responsible for carrying out VAWA but the head of the DOJ, Jeff Sessions, opposed even a more modest version of the Act in 2013 when he was a Senator. I also frankly think we know what the general attitude of the current president toward questions of domestic and sexual violence is by the many accusations that stand against him and any number of his campaign and White House hires to date and by the way that he and his have thus far responded to them.

What I'm trying to say is that I'm not at all confident that this crucial law will be reauthorized. This is an important law and I think it would be remarkable if the governing political party's response to the popularization of the #MeToo movement over the last year were indeed to allow this law, which is the only federal law that treats domestic and sexual violence as serious crimes (and yes its services do attend to male victims as well; the name of the law simply recognizes who the principal victims of such violence overwhelmingly are), to expire. That would say quite a lot about what the Republican Party has become of late.

[Peter1469]

This is something that must be done at the state and local level. The federal government has no authority in this matter. See US Const., Art 1, sec. 8.

I have somehow stumbled into our local safe houses for abused women. We have good programs but of course I am in a major population center. I would support initiatives to encourage localities to make this a priority.

[Lummy]

Is there really anything in it that isn't already covered in other law?

[Adelaide]

This is something that must be done at the state and local level. The federal government has no authority in this matter. See US Const., Art 1, sec. 8.

I have somehow stumbled into our local safe houses for abused women. We have good programs but of course I am in a major population center. I would support initiatives to encourage localities to make this a priority.

Parts of it were struck down in United States v. Morrison by an arguably conservative court in 1994 (Rehnquist, during his Commerce Clause enforcement spree). I actually agree with that ruling, but my point is that there is really no reason that the remaining portions can't be a federal act/action. The Crime Victims Rights Act is perfectly legal, so I do not see a reason VAWA can't be.

And it is necessary because some states have been rapidly defunding support and crisis centers. Same reason there has to be federal legislation about the rights of all victims of crime. State legislation largely mimics the federal legislation, but it probably wouldn't if the federal legislation did not exist.

[Peter1469]

Parts of it were struck down in United States v. Morrison by an arguably conservative court in 1994 (Rehnquist, during his Commerce Clause enforcement spree). I actually agree with that ruling, but my point is that there is really no reason that the remaining portions can't be a federal act/action. The Crime Victims Rights Act is perfectly legal, so I do not see a reason VAWA can't be.

And it is necessary because some states have been rapidly defunding support and crisis centers. Same reason there has to be federal legislation about the rights of all victims of crime. State legislation largely mimics the federal legislation, but it probably wouldn't if the federal legislation did not exist.

That points to a bigger problem: states emasculating themselves before the federal government.

[Adelaide]

That points to a bigger problem: states emasculating themselves before the federal government.

States need guidance sometimes. Generally, I support state rights and do not agree with many of, what I view as, abuses by the federal government. But on this specific issue, the states do some whacky $#@! and both VAWA and the Crime Victims Rights Act protect victims.

[Peter1469]

States need guidance sometimes. Generally, I support state rights and do not agree with many of, what I view as, abuses by the federal government. But on this specific issue, the states do some whacky $#@! and both VAWA and the Crime Victims Rights Act protect victims.

In the United States, states do not need guidance from the federal government. That is how this was set up.

But it turned out poorly. Much of the blame goes to people who don't understand our Constitution and people who actively are against it. Like Obama.

[nathanbforrest45]

I want to know when are they going to pass the Anti Violence Against Elderly Bald Head Men Act. I mean everyone else is covered by a specific act. Why not us?

Not to make light of violence against women (my wife was an apartment manager for a complex established by the YWCA for battered women) but there are already dozens of laws covering assault and harassment. Why do we need a federal law that can easily be handled by the state or local government?

And by states needing "guidance" what you really mean is states need to be forced to do what the federal government dictates they should be doing.

[donttread]

The Violence Against Women Act is set to expire at the end of September, which, being as Congress doesn't reconvene until September 4th, gives both the House and Senate together just 11 legislative days to reauthorize the law. In spite of previous versions of the legislation passing with bipartisan support, the updated measure introduced to reauthorize funding for violence prevention and redress services (shelters, attorneys, that sort of thing) doesn’t have a single Republican co-sponsor, and had to be introduced in the House of Representatives instead of the Senate for the first time, which suggests that the bill's champions in the Senate were not confident of having sufficient or immediate support. The bill will also have to be signed into law by the current president and, if it signals anything, the Department of Justice is responsible for carrying out VAWA but the head of the DOJ, Jeff Sessions, opposed even a more modest version of the Act in 2013 when he was a Senator. I also frankly think we know what the general attitude of the current president toward questions of domestic and sexual violence is by the many accusations that stand against him and any number of his campaign and White House hires to date and by the way that he and his have thus far responded to them.

What I'm trying to say is that I'm not at all confident that this crucial law will be reauthorized. This is an important law and I think it would be remarkable if the governing political party's response to the popularization of the #MeToo movement over the last year were indeed to allow this law, which is the only federal law that treats domestic and sexual violence as serious crimes (and yes its services do attend to male victims as well; the name of the law simply recognizes who the principal victims of such violence overwhelmingly are), to expire. That would say quite a lot about what the Republican Party has become of late.

It turns out a shocking number of men are physically abused , many by women. They are equally emotionally abused as well. Granted the violence is often less severe due to physics but it's still assault. Yet some "domestic violence " organizations simply use the female pronoun on their websites. So any such program helped by the government needs to be gender neutral ( separate buildings of course)
However, I don't think we need special laws. Just enforce what we have. If a woman slaps her husband that's assault. If a man beats a woman , drags her around the house and prevents her from leaving charge him with the multiple felonies he has committed.
If either sex uses weapons to intimidate their partner they should be charged.

[Chris]

Dems introduce measure to reauthorize Violence Against Women Act

But the reauthorization bill introduced Thursday adds some provisions to the law, such as expanding housing protections for survivors and creating a Violence Against Women director position within the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

Democrats were dumb to add provisions. Probably a political ploy.