Violence Against Women Act extension 2013 (1 Viewer)

the-commish

Super Forum Fanatic
Joined
Sep 16, 2002
Messages
6,521
Reaction score
5,705
Location
Henderson, NV
Offline
Many Republicans (maybe not ALL) are refusing to support extending the Violence Against Women Act in 2013. There was an attempt to re-authorize the act in 2012, but was scuttled by the GOP-controlled House. In 2000, this act was passed by a 414-3 vote in the House of Representatives; in 2005, the House vote was 415-4 in favor. Now, in 2013, this extension has 193 Democratic co-sponsors in the House, and ZERO Republican co-sponsors.

It seems the GOP hasn't yet learned the lesson not to make women angry. Same old same old.
 

TechDawg09

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
4,020
Reaction score
5,764
Location
Dallas
Offline
They should rename that bill; it seems very pro-violence against women, kind of like how the Freedom of Information Act is pro-freedom of information. Given the educational backgrounds of many of the Tea Party representatives, I'm not 100% convinced of their literacy capacities.
 

Cosmic201

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Sep 5, 2009
Messages
3,014
Reaction score
4,553
Location
Baton Rouge
Offline
Republicans in the House have long thrown away any pretense that they're doing anything other than obstruction at all costs.


Can anyone explain why this is something Republicans feel they need to make a stand on?


How does this do anything but solidify the growing opinion that Republicans are the party for no one but rich, old white men?
 

Dre

More than 15K posts served!
Joined
Nov 18, 2000
Messages
16,709
Reaction score
4,754
Age
41
Offline
I thought the Republicans had their own version.
 

saintfan-n-alex

Super Forum Fanatic
Joined
Feb 16, 2005
Messages
9,801
Reaction score
3,298
Online
Democrats added provisions this year changing the law tha has had bipartsian support prior to this year

not sure why the objection to illegal immagrants as i am for all prosecution\penalty of all bodies in this country immagration status can be an additional charge if "illegal" but exclusion from laws should not be the case,

the Homosexual part would be woman on women violence i would assume?

but i understand the objection to the native american court part of the bill - there shouldnt be sparate court systems in this country IMO and if so they should be limited to those who they are setup to judge - to have a separate court system judging peoples of other races, nationalities etc for crimes against people of the same nationality of the court can lead to biases and lack of proper due processes -


"Critics specifically object to provisions which would expand the law’s coverage to illegal immigrants, homosexuals, and American Indians, who would have greater authority to persecute non-Indians who commit crimes against American Indian women. Republicans argue that these were purely political additions designed to induce GOP lawmakers to oppose an otherwise popular bill, giving Democrats more ammunition in their campaign argument that Republicans are “anti woman.” Furthermore, some conservative activists object to the law entirely, arguing that it does not cut down on—and might even increase—instances of domestic abuse while overextending the federal government’s jurisdiction"

http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-the-violence-against-women-act-be-reauthorized
 
Last edited:

Taurus

More than 15K posts served!
VIP Contributor
Joined
Dec 20, 1997
Messages
26,084
Reaction score
15,900
Age
52
Location
Yacolt, WA
Offline
Democrats added provisions this year changing the law tha has had bipartsian support prior to this year

not sure why the objection to illegal immagrants as i am for all prosecution\penalty of all bodies in this country immagration status can be an additional charge if "illegal" but exclusion from laws should not be the case,

the Homosexual part would be woman on women violence i would assume?

but i understand the objection to the native american court part of the bill - there shouldnt be sparate court systems in this country IMO and if so they should be limited to those who they are setup to judge - to have a separate court system judging peoples of other races, nationalities etc for crimes against people of the same nationality of the court can lead to biases and lack of proper due processes -


"Critics specifically object to provisions which would expand the law’s coverage to illegal immigrants, homosexuals, and American Indians, who would have greater authority to persecute non-Indians who commit crimes against American Indian women. Republicans argue that these were purely political additions designed to induce GOP lawmakers to oppose an otherwise popular bill, giving Democrats more ammunition in their campaign argument that Republicans are “anti woman.” Should the Violence Against Women Act Be Reauthorized? | Debate Club | US News Opinion
Republicans just don't get it. It's like they have this bizarre blind spot where ethics, fairplay and morality used to live. They really want to blame democrats for including protection for all women, legal, lesbian or Lakota.

They're like some lone Bushwood holdout, looking around at all the unfriendly, offended faces saying "What?!? That Ni**** joke was funny!. What the hell's wrong with you people?"
The part about Native women is legit, btw. That law needs to be changed, asap. It's simply crazy.

Law Enforcement Gaps Leave Native Women Vulnerable to Rape and Domestic Violence | America's Wire
 

saintfan-n-alex

Super Forum Fanatic
Joined
Feb 16, 2005
Messages
9,801
Reaction score
3,298
Online
Republicans just don't get it. It's like they have this bizarre blind spot where ethics, fairplay and morality used to live. They really want to blame democrats for including protection for all women, legal, lesbian or Lakota.

They're like some lone Bushwood holdout, looking around at all the unfriendly, offended faces saying "What?!? That Ni**** joke was funny!. What the hell's wrong with you people?"
The part about Native women is legit, btw. That law needs to be changed, asap. It's simply crazy.

Law Enforcement Gaps Leave Native Women Vulnerable to Rape and Domestic Violence | America's Wire
which is why i would advocate that the state and federal courts have jurisdiction of these cases and not limit to tribal courts which is what Dems want - if tribal courts want to maintain jurisdication over cases that involve Native-American assailant and victim i guess that would be ok if thats what they choose - though any position the tribal courts may take in lack of prosecuting Native-American men who assault Native-American women should be left up to those courts if they want to maintain separation from the courts to whom you and i would answer.


there is no way in todays political climate can the blame-game be placed soley or IMO even close to the level of the Dems current postion on everything. - these war on "x" is another example of misleading, mis-representing or ignoring half of the position.

like the war on women position when it comes to abortion - Dems say Reps (or pro-life regardless of party) are against women when if fact they are pro-fetus - the woman is rarley brought up and IMO the ignoring of the fetus to claim war on women is repugnant and an example of true self centeredness.

im pro-choice though unlike many pro-life people i fully understand and respect those who fight for rights of the fetus - but im very open-minded
 
OP
the-commish

the-commish

Super Forum Fanatic
Joined
Sep 16, 2002
Messages
6,521
Reaction score
5,705
Location
Henderson, NV
Offline
there is no way in todays political climate can the blame-game be placed soley or IMO even close to the level of the Dems current postion on everything. - these war on "x" is another example of misleading, mis-representing or ignoring half of the position.

like the war on women position when it comes to abortion - Dems say Reps (or pro-life regardless of party) are against women when if fact they are pro-fetus - the woman is rarley brought up and IMO the ignoring of the fetus to claim war on women is repugnant and an example of true self -centeredness.
I think you misinterpret the "war on women." If you think the GOP's war on women is all about pro-choice vs pro-life, you are sadly mistaken. It's about vaginal probes; about telling a woman abortion causes cancer; about forcing a victim of rape or incest to make a decision she might not want or be prepared to make. It's about hundreds of other sly stick it to women pieces of legislation proposed or enacted by state legislatures all around the country, overwhelmingly by males, with little or no female input. It's about, as Bobby Jindal would say, being the "stupid party."

The largest single voting block in this country are women (52% of the electorate). Might I opine that making this segment of the electorate angry is really asinine.
 

Taurus

More than 15K posts served!
VIP Contributor
Joined
Dec 20, 1997
Messages
26,084
Reaction score
15,900
Age
52
Location
Yacolt, WA
Offline
which is why i would advocate that the state and federal courts have jurisdiction of these cases and not limit to tribal courts which is what Dems want - if tribal courts want to maintain jurisdication over cases that involve Native-American assailant and victim i guess that would be ok if thats what they choose - though any position the tribal courts may take in lack of prosecuting Native-American men who assault Native-American women should be left up to those courts if they want to maintain separation from the courts to whom you and i would answer.
How about we just ignore the race of the perp? How would that be?

Read the following and answer how it can be anything but utterly racist to let it go on?

Much of the law enforcement paralysis is caused by laws that prevent tribal authorities from arresting non-Natives for violent crimes in most states, while state authorities can’t arrest tribal members. Public Law 83-280, a federal statute enacted in 1953, transferred authority over crimes involving Natives on Native territory from the federal government to only six states — Alaska, California, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon and Wisconsin.

“The law can be tricky,” El-Fakahany says. “In Minnesota, tribal police can’t go after non-Natives, but tribal and state law enforcement can go after Natives. Basically, there are non-Native perpetrators who don’t have to be held accountable for their actions, but Natives do.”

In all other states, federal and tribal governments maintain concurrent jurisdiction for major crimes committed in Indian Country. Tribal governments have jurisdiction over all crimes that are committed in Indian Countryand involve a Native offender and Native victim. States retain jurisdiction for non-Native crimes committed in Indian Countrybut only those in which neither offender nor victim is a Native.

El-Fakahany’s experiences at the resource center underscore the extent of challenge for law enforcement. “Crimes against Native women are rarely prosecuted,” she says. “We see a spike in attacks during hunting and fishing season,” adding that non-Native men “can go onto the reservations and then go back to their homes five hours away. With tribal jurisdiction, tribal police cannot touch you, and it becomes a federal matter.”

According to the Census Bureau, 77 percent of residents on reservations and other Native lands are non-Natives, and about 56 percent of Native women are married to non-Natives. Still, tribes have no authority to prosecute a non-Native for domestic violence, even if the offender resides on the reservation where the assault occurred or is married to a tribal member.

Consequently, prosecution for domestic violence crimes committed in Indian Country is rare. The federal government has exclusive jurisdiction but oftenhas neither resources nor the desire to pursue misdemeanor domestic cases.

According to government data, U.S. attorneys decline about 67 percent of sexual assault cases referred from Indian Country. Enforcement gaps created by PL 83-280 and indifferent attitudes help to perpetuate cyclical violence against Native women.

Olson says assault cases often are not even investigated. “One woman told me, ‘I would have validated my rape if someone had called or followed up’,” she says.

Others blame PL 83-280. “The obstacles presented by Public Law 280 to address sexual assault relate to data collection, training or awareness, lack of resources targeted at tribal communities, lack of well-funded tribal police departments, animosity toward tribal communities and lack of reporting from tribal community members,” the Tribal Law and Policy Institute in West Hollywood, Calif., reported in December 2007.

Essentially, the system allows non-Natives who commit domestic violence crimes to act without fear of penalty.Statistics show that non-Natives commit 88 percent of violent crimes against Native women.

“It’s like they’ve [Native women] become this mythical creature, and when you mystify something, you tend to destroy it,” El-Fakahanysays. “There is an ill-conceived idea that they are not real people. If you don’t believe in something, it is really easy to destroy it.”

Tribal authority is further limited because the federal Tribal Law and Order Act, signed in July 2010, limits the maximum sentence a tribal offender can receive for a single crime to three years.
there is no way in todays political climate can the blame-game be placed soley or IMO even close to the level of the Dems current postion on everything. - these war on "x" is another example of misleading, mis-representing or ignoring half of the position.

like the war on women position when it comes to abortion - Dems say Reps (or pro-life regardless of party) are against women when if fact they are pro-fetus - the woman is rarley brought up and IMO the ignoring of the fetus to claim war on women is repugnant and an example of true self centeredness.
What? Self-centered to think that maybe you ought to be brought up in the conversation when the subject is your own body? How rude! How dare these walking incub..err..women, think they ought to be included?
im pro-choice though unlike many pro-life people i fully understand and respect those who fight for rights of the fetus - but im very open-minded
Hey, if you want to promote a world where every baby is wanted and every pregnancy is tended to with compassion and skill, be my guest. I'll help.
If you want to treat women as second-class citizens without a voice in the decisions that affect them most...now we got a problem.
 

Jeff Miller

Shaw 1988, NYIT 2009
Joined
May 27, 2002
Messages
18,424
Reaction score
8,917
Age
50
Location
Vancouver, WA
Offline
Many Republicans (maybe not ALL) are refusing to support extending the Violence Against Women Act in 2013. There was an attempt to re-authorize the act in 2012, but was scuttled by the GOP-controlled House. In 2000, this act was passed by a 414-3 vote in the House of Representatives; in 2005, the House vote was 415-4 in favor. Now, in 2013, this extension has 193 Democratic co-sponsors in the House, and ZERO Republican co-sponsors.

It seems the GOP hasn't yet learned the lesson not to make women angry. Same old same old.
yeh because a elected officials #1 priority is pander to every segment group in order to assure re-election.

thanks for reminding us that the same old same old problem is alive and well with no end in site.
 

Taurus

More than 15K posts served!
VIP Contributor
Joined
Dec 20, 1997
Messages
26,084
Reaction score
15,900
Age
52
Location
Yacolt, WA
Offline
yeh because a elected officials #1 priority is pander to every segment group in order to assure re-election.

thanks for reminding us that the same old same old problem is alive and well with no end in site.
Not deliberately antagonizing equals pandering now?
 

Saintman2884

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Dec 17, 2003
Messages
14,309
Reaction score
2,090
Online
Even if some of these abortions are due to selfishnes, lack of responsibility than legitimate long-term medical risks a child might bring, or some unwed teens frightened at possibilities a newborn will bring. I'm not niave to why sometimes that leads women to get abortions. We need to increase funding for sex-ed in HS, stop demonizing both sides as illogical, irrational caricatures, that ******** needs to stop, Taurus. And abortion certainly affects women most, and ultimately it's her choice, but let's not pretend the man doesn't or shouldn't be allowed to have opinions particularly if some might object to the abortion because they don't have uteruses, "not their bodies" even if they do play an important role in pregnancies unless its lesbian couples using artificial insemination where men aren't involved directly.
 

saintfan-n-alex

Super Forum Fanatic
Joined
Feb 16, 2005
Messages
9,801
Reaction score
3,298
Online
How about we just ignore the race of the perp? How would that be?

Read the following and answer how it can be anything but utterly racist to let it go on?

Much of the law enforcement paralysis is caused by laws that prevent tribal authorities from arresting non-Natives for violent crimes in most states, while state authorities can’t arrest tribal members. Public Law 83-280, a federal statute enacted in 1953, transferred authority over crimes involving Natives on Native territory from the federal government to only six states — Alaska, California, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon and Wisconsin.

“The law can be tricky,” El-Fakahany says. “In Minnesota, tribal police can’t go after non-Natives, but tribal and state law enforcement can go after Natives. Basically, there are non-Native perpetrators who don’t have to be held accountable for their actions, but Natives do.”

In all other states, federal and tribal governments maintain concurrent jurisdiction for major crimes committed in Indian Country. Tribal governments have jurisdiction over all crimes that are committed in Indian Countryand involve a Native offender and Native victim. States retain jurisdiction for non-Native crimes committed in Indian Countrybut only those in which neither offender nor victim is a Native.

El-Fakahany’s experiences at the resource center underscore the extent of challenge for law enforcement. “Crimes against Native women are rarely prosecuted,” she says. “We see a spike in attacks during hunting and fishing season,” adding that non-Native men “can go onto the reservations and then go back to their homes five hours away. With tribal jurisdiction, tribal police cannot touch you, and it becomes a federal matter.”

According to the Census Bureau, 77 percent of residents on reservations and other Native lands are non-Natives, and about 56 percent of Native women are married to non-Natives. Still, tribes have no authority to prosecute a non-Native for domestic violence, even if the offender resides on the reservation where the assault occurred or is married to a tribal member.

Consequently, prosecution for domestic violence crimes committed in Indian Country is rare. The federal government has exclusive jurisdiction but oftenhas neither resources nor the desire to pursue misdemeanor domestic cases.

According to government data, U.S. attorneys decline about 67 percent of sexual assault cases referred from Indian Country. Enforcement gaps created by PL 83-280 and indifferent attitudes help to perpetuate cyclical violence against Native women.

Olson says assault cases often are not even investigated. “One woman told me, ‘I would have validated my rape if someone had called or followed up’,” she says.

Others blame PL 83-280. “The obstacles presented by Public Law 280 to address sexual assault relate to data collection, training or awareness, lack of resources targeted at tribal communities, lack of well-funded tribal police departments, animosity toward tribal communities and lack of reporting from tribal community members,” the Tribal Law and Policy Institute in West Hollywood, Calif., reported in December 2007.

Essentially, the system allows non-Natives who commit domestic violence crimes to act without fear of penalty.Statistics show that non-Natives commit 88 percent of violent crimes against Native women.

“It’s like they’ve [Native women] become this mythical creature, and when you mystify something, you tend to destroy it,” El-Fakahanysays. “There is an ill-conceived idea that they are not real people. If you don’t believe in something, it is really easy to destroy it.”

Tribal authority is further limited because the federal Tribal Law and Order Act, signed in July 2010, limits the maximum sentence a tribal offender can receive for a single crime to three years.


What? Self-centered to think that maybe you ought to be brought up in the conversation when the subject is your own body? How rude! How dare these walking incub..err..women, think they ought to be included?

Hey, if you want to promote a world where every baby is wanted and every pregnancy is tended to with compassion and skill, be my guest. I'll help.
If you want to treat women as second-class citizens without a voice in the decisions that affect them most...now we got a problem.
im all for ignoring the racial part, the way i read the argument i posted was the dems want non-native americans to be adjudicated in a tribal court, im saying they should be adjudicated in a state/fed court - though im not calling for an end to tribal court, probably not a bad thing for tribal cases - having two separate court systems with one designed to adjudicate a certain nationality or race can be a biased format for someone not of that race/nationality - and when i read that article it seems the lack of prosecution seems to be due to the fed gov.lackof desire for prosecution -

my point was that the entire argument of abortion of late is about the woman - nothing much said about the fetus - right to lifers arent out to get the woman, not out to remove or not allow them rights etc. the right to lifers main focus as ive always heard it (im not an advocate) was about the unborn's rights, not an attack on women as the dems play it out to be - granted there are some out there with some beliefs on rape etc and how the body can reject pregnancy and other crazy ideas but its not all of them and none of the anit-abortion people i know (most who are women) see it that way -

my opened mindedness allows me to respect the womans right to choose and those who believe life is God given and not to be destroyed have a right to state their opinions and not endorse or pay for abortions just as i can not blink an eyeif a woman has oneor more abortion as long as the payment is not mandated by orgs that have belief system that doesnt condone abortions - the gov can pay for them, a private entity can pay for them if they choose but to mandate a corp/org to pay for abortions against their will/belief/morals is not right IMO - especially when the gov can provide the service

i know a couple of women who have had them, know more women who are anti-abortion i see them in the same light -
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Saints prepare for chilly Chicago temperatures at Soldier Field on Sunday against Bears Saints RSS News Feeds 0
jasonsw Foles has been terrible since come back win against Atlanta Saints Super Forum (Main Board) 23
Overreactions from the Saints Week 5 game against the Panthers Saints RSS News Feeds 0
WATCH: CSC’s What Just Happened talks Saints 27-24 win against Carolina Panthers Saints RSS News Feeds 0
Fleur-de-Links, October 26: Saints emerge victorious against Carolina Panthers following bye week Saints RSS News Feeds 0
Dan in Lafayette Drew Brees excellent throughout, Marcus Davenport comes up with big sack in New Orleans Saints victory against Panthers SR News Page Articles 0
El Caliente The Case Against Benching Marcus Williams Saints Super Forum (Main Board) 84
Saint Kamara Receivers for rematch against Tampa in a couple of weeks Saints Super Forum (Main Board) 26
NFL, Buccaneers will be monitoring pending sexual assault lawsuit against Antonio Brown Saints RSS News Feeds 0
Inactive players for Saints matchup against the Panthers Saints RSS News Feeds 0
What the Saints did without Emmanuel Sanders against the Chargers in Week 5 Saints RSS News Feeds 0
Film Study: How the Saints Pass O shapes up against the Panthers zone-heavy Pass D Saints RSS News Feeds 0
Joe Brady's path to NFL offensive coordinator comes full circle with game against Saints Saints RSS News Feeds 0
Michael Thomas ruled out for Sunday's game against the Panthers Saints RSS News Feeds 0
HouseCall N/S Looks like the Raiders won’t be giving the Saints much help against the Bucs this Sunday. Saints Super Forum (Main Board) 20
Does Sean Payton still script first several offensive plays, and if so, could teams use that against us? Saints Super Forum (Main Board) 6

Similar threads



Headlines

Top Bottom