Pages Menu
TwitterRssFacebook
Categories Menu

Posted by on Feb 10, 2012 in Health, Law, Politics | 9 comments

The Republican War On Women Continues Apace


A centerpiece of the Republican Party’s social agenda in the new millennium has been to deny women new rights and take away old rights, but it stands to reason that everyone of every political stripe would be opposed to neutering laws that seek to combat domestic violence and sexual assault.

But Republicans are less reasonable with every passing election cycle, and so we had the specter this week of every Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee voting against the reauthorization of the 1994 Violence Against Women Act because the party is determinedly anti-gay and anti-immigrant.

The reauthorization bill, introduced in the spirit of bipartisanism by Senators Patrick Leahy and Michael Crapo, a Democrat and Republican respectively, includes improvements that encourage more effective enforcement of protective orders and reducing the national backlog of untested rape kits, but Republicans object to language in the bill that ensures that victims are not denied services because they are gay or transgender and a provision that would modestly expand the availability of special visas for undocumented immigrants who are victims of domestic violence.

Senator Charles Grassley, the committee’s ranking Republican, has offered a substitute bill that not only cut out those improvements but called for a huge reduction in authorized financing, and elimination of the Justice Department office devoted to administering the law and coordinating the nation’s response to domestic violence and sexual assaults. The measure was defeated along party lines.

Thankfully, the GOP’s previous efforts in recent months in their war against women have fallen short. These include a law to permit hospitals that receive federal funding to deny women abortions even when their lives were at stake and a law redefining what constitutes forcible rape that would not protect women women who were drugged before sex and became pregnant, women whose health was in danger and became pregnant, and women who were mentally retarded and became pregnant.

The Violence Against Women Act was passed unanimously in 1994 but finding 60 votes in the Senate this time around will not be easy. Nor will it be easy for Republicans to explain to woman voters why their are turning to blind eye to their battered, stalked and assaulted sisters.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2012 The Moderate Voice
  • JDave

    The Repubs position on this is despicable.

  • Tell it, brother.

  • ShannonLeee

    Republicans do know this is an election year right? Wow, just wow.

  • dduck

    I agree, that the Reps are off base on this one.
    Is, Obama off base on his exempting Catholic organizations from the free contraception rule?
    And, please explain what is meant by the “it’s up to the insurance companies”. What does that mean?

  • zephyr

    Reps seem less and less concerned about their facade anymore. How do they figure this open misogyny will boost thier power? By all rights this should bite them in the ass bigtime.

  • bluebelle

    If 99% of women use contraception— that sounds like a lot of enemies to make unnecessarily.

    It comes down to the desperation the GOP has been feeling after unemployment fell below 8.5%

  • Jim Satterfield

    Well, they do worship the past. This is just an example of worshiping it warts and all.

  • Dabb

    Totally despicable, JDave

  • bookworm914

    I see you agree, Mr Mullen, that the NYTimes piece covered this despicable political posturing nicely. You might acknowledge that in your post, though…
    Remarkable similarities throughout the play-by-play, but in particular Compare your text in this paragraph

    “Senator Charles Grassley, the committee’s ranking Republican, _has_ offered a substitute bill that not only cut out those improvements but called for a huge reduction in authorized financing, and elimination of the Justice Department office devoted to administering the law and coordinating the nation’s response to domestic violence and sexual assaults. _The_ measure was defeated along party lines.”

    To the text in the NYTimes article:

    “Senator Charles Grassley, the committee’s ranking Republican, offered a substitute bill that not only cut out those improvements but called for a huge reduction in authorized financing, and elimination of the Justice Department office devoted to administering the law and coordinating the nation’s response to domestic violence and sexual assaults. His measure was defeated along party lines.”

    Literally 2 words different. Shame on you.

    The NYTimes article is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/10/opinion/republicans-retreat-on-domestic-violence.html

    My apologies if you are the author of the NYTimes editorial, but google doesn’t know of any Shaun Mullen associated with the NYTimes, so I’m skeptical.

Twitter Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com