The Conservative War On Women

No, because the way that health insurance currently works in the US means that individuals purchasing their own insurance are -- not to put too fine a point on it -- completely f*cked.

One more year...

I don't quite think this got the attention it should have because of all the hullabaloo regarding the fiscal cliff, but one of the last acts of the Republican-controlled House was to not re-authorize the Violence Against Women Act, the first time since it was signed into law in 1994. Republicans balked at the idea of expanding the law to cover undocumented immigrants, Native Americans, and LGBT victims.

What would it take to make this permanent instead of needing to vote for it every so often?

Edwin wrote:

What would it take to make this permanent instead of needing to vote for it every so often?

A constitutional amendment, or an enabling act to endow an existing agency or a new agency with that power.

OG_slinger wrote:

I don't quite think this got the attention it should have because of all the hullabaloo regarding the fiscal cliff, but one of the last acts of the Republican-controlled House was to not re-authorize the Violence Against Women Act, the first time since it was signed into law in 1994. Republicans balked at the idea of expanding the law to cover undocumented immigrants, Native Americans, and LGBT victims.

Those "expansions" make it essentially a different law though - it would be like the right floating the original bill with expansions to protect the unborn. An obvious political nonstarter.

Sad times when expanding rape and sexual abuse protections to women is an obvious political nonstarter because some people don't want it to cover all women.

I doubt it was too conscious. They also did nothing to provide much needed relief for areas hurt by Sandy. I think the House is just inept.

That's a good point. Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to incompetence, I guess :p

NormanTheIntern wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

I don't quite think this got the attention it should have because of all the hullabaloo regarding the fiscal cliff, but one of the last acts of the Republican-controlled House was to not re-authorize the Violence Against Women Act, the first time since it was signed into law in 1994. Republicans balked at the idea of expanding the law to cover undocumented immigrants, Native Americans, and LGBT victims.

Those "expansions" make it essentially a different law though - it would be like the right floating the original bill with expansions to protect the unborn. An obvious political nonstarter.

By protecting a specific group of people (women in this case) regardless of their race, their immigration status or their sexual orientation it becomes a different law? I'm confused.

Yeah. Are immigrants and illegal alien women not, well, women?

NormanTheIntern wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

I don't quite think this got the attention it should have because of all the hullabaloo regarding the fiscal cliff, but one of the last acts of the Republican-controlled House was to not re-authorize the Violence Against Women Act, the first time since it was signed into law in 1994. Republicans balked at the idea of expanding the law to cover undocumented immigrants, Native Americans, and LGBT victims.

Those "expansions" make it essentially a different law though - it would be like the right floating the original bill with expansions to protect the unborn. An obvious political nonstarter.

Do they not have the ability to resubmit the law without the expansions, if that's the case? Could they not make statements saying "We would have passed it, but the expansions prevented us from doing so."

They made no effort and will never get that level of benefit of the doubt from me. It's not a political nonstarter, they chose not to do it. They chose not to make it work.

Demosthenes wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:

Those "expansions" make it essentially a different law though - it would be like the right floating the original bill with expansions to protect the unborn. An obvious political nonstarter.

By protecting a specific group of people (women in this case) regardless of their race, their immigration status or their sexual orientation it becomes a different law? I'm confused. :(

I think your premise is confused on a couple of points, yes. First, the existing law provided services to all women, it's not like lesbians were turned away. Secondly, it's not just "women in this case", it covers all lgbt couples (or at least all same-sex couples, I read a couple conflicting points there). Stripping all qualitative analysis out of the picture, the fact alone that it moved from establishing grants for support programs and training to touch things like immigration and visas means it's a substantively different law.

NormanTheIntern wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:

Those "expansions" make it essentially a different law though - it would be like the right floating the original bill with expansions to protect the unborn. An obvious political nonstarter.

By protecting a specific group of people (women in this case) regardless of their race, their immigration status or their sexual orientation it becomes a different law? I'm confused. :(

I think your premise is confused on a couple of points, yes. First, the existing law provided services to all women, it's not like lesbians were turned away. Secondly, it's not just "women in this case", it covers all lgbt couples (or at least all same-sex couples, I read a couple conflicting points there). Stripping all qualitative analysis out of the picture, the fact alone that it moved from establishing grants for support programs and training to touch things like immigration and visas means it's a substantively different law.

So the newer version of the law tried to change immigration/visa procedures or enforcement for undocumented female immigrants? Or did they more clearly state that this law still applied regardless of immigration status? The first doesn't make sense, but I could see the law being blocked by that. The second, not so much.

SixteenBlue wrote:

Do they not have the ability to resubmit the law without the expansions, if that's the case? Could they not make statements saying "We would have passed it, but the expansions prevented us from doing so."

Good point and they did exactly that. Went nowhere in the Senate.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...

They made no effort and will never get that level of benefit of the doubt from me. It's not a political nonstarter, they chose not to do it. They chose not to make it work.

I'm sure they still won't get the benefit of the doubt from you desipte making the effort, and that's by design. The timing of the re-authorization, coming just after the backlash from the mandated birth control issues, the fact that there are several nonstarters added in, and the fact that the vanilla version was passed by the House all indicate this is simply political showmanship designed to make the Republicans appear to be anti-women. As I said, would the Democrats accept a modified VAWA with a fetal protection clause? Of course not - that doesn't mean they're anti-woman either.

KingGorilla wrote:

I doubt it was too conscious. They also did nothing to provide much needed relief for areas hurt by Sandy. I think the House is just inept.

Demyx wrote:

That's a good point. Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to incompetence, I guess :p

The House is voting on $9.7 billion aid package for people affected by Sandy today...

NormanTheIntern wrote:

I'm sure they still won't get the benefit of the doubt from you desipte making the effort, and that's by design. The timing of the re-authorization, coming just after the backlash from the mandated birth control issues, the fact that there are several nonstarters added in, and the fact that the vanilla version was passed by the House all indicate this is simply political showmanship designed to make the Republicans appear to be anti-women. As I said, would the Democrats accept a modified VAWA with a fetal protection clause? Of course not - that doesn't mean they're anti-woman either.

That puts the Republicans in the position of being the party that seeks to protect the rights of the abusers of women. Not the best analogy.

edit: in fact, following your link:

The House also voted down, by a vote of 187 to 236, a request to send the bill back to the Judiciary Committee. Rep. Gwen Moore (D-WI) introduced the motion, saying that the Republican’s bill violates the confidentiality a victim is entitled to by telling her abuser that she called the cops.

following those internal links:

The GOP-led House’s version of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)...also contains a dangerous provision that violates an undocumented victim’s confidentiality by allowing immigration officials to speak with, and ask for evidence from, his or her abuser.

OG_slinger wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

I doubt it was too conscious. They also did nothing to provide much needed relief for areas hurt by Sandy. I think the House is just inept.

Demyx wrote:

That's a good point. Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to incompetence, I guess :p

The House is voting on $9.7 billion aid package for people affected by Sandy today...

Only took two months. Is that progress or is it worse, compared to other legislation and other disaster relief pushes?

Demosthenes wrote:

So the newer version of the law tried to change immigration/visa procedures or enforcement for undocumented female immigrants? Or did they more clearly state that this law still applied regardless of immigration status? The first doesn't make sense, but I could see the law being blocked by that. The second, not so much.

The former, the Senate version scaled back the requirements for obtaining a visa if the applicant was also a victim of domestic violence.

CheezePavilion wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:

I'm sure they still won't get the benefit of the doubt from you desipte making the effort, and that's by design. The timing of the re-authorization, coming just after the backlash from the mandated birth control issues, the fact that there are several nonstarters added in, and the fact that the vanilla version was passed by the House all indicate this is simply political showmanship designed to make the Republicans appear to be anti-women. As I said, would the Democrats accept a modified VAWA with a fetal protection clause? Of course not - that doesn't mean they're anti-woman either.

That puts the Republicans in the position of being the party that seeks to protect the rights of the abusers of women. Not the best analogy.

edit: in fact, following your link:

The House also voted down, by a vote of 187 to 236, a request to send the bill back to the Judiciary Committee. Rep. Gwen Moore (D-WI) introduced the motion, saying that the Republican’s bill violates the confidentiality a victim is entitled to by telling her abuser that she called the cops.

following those internal links:

The GOP-led House’s version of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)...also contains a dangerous provision that violates an undocumented victim’s confidentiality by allowing immigration officials to speak with, and ask for evidence from, his or her abuser.

Cheeze makes good points, showing that what they did is not exactly what I suggested. That said, I take my back my statement though, it's at least an attempt rather than a blatant disregard of the entire bill. Clearly I didn't know what I was talking about.

House Republicans Derail Bill Targeting Rapists

Spoiler: This isn't the VAWA, it's another one..

The Sexual Assault Forensic Evidence Registry Act, also known as the SAFER Act of 2012, was introduced by Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) in the Senate in May, and by Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas) in the House in December. It would have reallocated $117 million to help make a dent in the nationwide backlog of untested "rape kits," which contain forensic evidence collected after sexual assaults that can help identify perpetrators. There are some 400,000 untested kits sitting in labs around the country. As long as this DNA evidence goes unanalyzed, it's easier for rapists to avoid arrest and prosecution.

The legislation would have required at least 75 percent of federal grants already allocated for rape kit testing to actually be used for that purpose, or to increase law enforcement agencies' capacity to process the kits. (Some of that money was being spent on conferences and processing DNA for other crimes.) It would also set up a reporting system to track localities' progress in reducing their backlog, and would require yearly audits of the number of untested kits.

Demosthenes wrote:

So the newer version of the law tried to change immigration/visa procedures or enforcement for undocumented female immigrants? Or did they more clearly state that this law still applied regardless of immigration status? The first doesn't make sense, but I could see the law being blocked by that. The second, not so much.

The new law would have made it so women wouldn't have to choose between deportation and staying with an abusive spouse. It would have removed one more tool abusers used against their victims, as well as ensure that abusers couldn't just delay trial until the victim gets deported.

PiP wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:

So the newer version of the law tried to change immigration/visa procedures or enforcement for undocumented female immigrants? Or did they more clearly state that this law still applied regardless of immigration status? The first doesn't make sense, but I could see the law being blocked by that. The second, not so much.

The new law would have made it so women wouldn't have to choose between deportation and staying with an abusive spouse. It would have removed one more tool abusers used against their victims, as well as ensure that abusers couldn't just delay trial until the victim gets deported.

Sooooo... this change to immigration was to avoid situations where abusers could game the system... and Republicans are OK with being against the victims here? If so, my brain is getting close to that ragequit moment again.

GOP Rep: Todd Akin ‘Partly Right’ On Legitimate Rape

Rep. Phil Gingrey, an ob-gyn and chairman of the GOP Doctors Caucus, explained to the audience at the Cobb Chamber of Commerce breakfast Thursday in Smyrna, Ga., that Akin wasn’t far off on the science when he said rape victims rarely get pregnant because their bodies have “ways of shutting that whole thing down.”

OMFG.

Tanglebones wrote:

GOP Rep: Todd Akin ‘Partly Right’ On Legitimate Rape

Rep. Phil Gingrey, an ob-gyn and chairman of the GOP Doctors Caucus, explained to the audience at the Cobb Chamber of Commerce breakfast Thursday in Smyrna, Ga., that Akin wasn’t far off on the science when he said rape victims rarely get pregnant because their bodies have “ways of shutting that whole thing down.”

That article kills me, because it shows a very clear window into the delusional mind of a die-hard GOP politician. He believes he is trying to assert what people like Akin "really meant" and was misconstrued, but it boils down to him trying to defend indefensible statements. By doing so, he (later in that same article) states that his position was obviously twisted in the media. You know - just like poor Akin. Who he totally wasn't defending, just trying to clarify. Until all those media types came around and twisted his words!

So even when you say something terrible, illogical, or indefensible, you can just say "no that's not what I meant," even though it's clearly the only thing you could have meant. And from there, it's a very small step towards Victimized By the Liberal Media martyrdom in your own mind.

...please tell me someone is taking away his medical license to practice as an OB-GYN.

Why would they do that? Jim DeMint just put out a twisted "I'm taking the reins!" piece in the WaPo explaining that the problem with the Republican positions is that they have not been marketed as the successes they are, and that's what Heritage will do from now on. He's seeking to change the political climate for Republicans, and indeed that's his closing line - "...and that's climate change I can get behind!"

When the whole problem is that your ideas have worked for the last 30 years and no one has figured that out, you don't have to worry about changing anything. You can just keep on going and make sure your side of the story is even more prevalent in the press. (DeMint seems to think that there have been no media supporting Republicans lo these last 30 years, so he's gonna fix that with his mad advertising skillz... Yeah.)

"...and that's climate change I can get behind!"

Change number one for your political climate is a personal change you can make Mr. DeMint. Stop treating science as fake. It makes you look stupid to a lot of people who might otherwise be inclined to agree with you on other things. Being a big science guy, the more your party acts as though science is all just opinions that you're entitled to disagree with for the sake of corporate profits and ambiguous moral high grounds... the less likely I am to vote for you!

Must be nice to go around life knowing that all of your failings and shortcomings are someone else's fault.

As a matter of fact, I think that is called life as a teenager. I really think we do have a problem in this country with middle aged men active as infants, and spoiled ones at that.

Texas rules to restrict health care access already impacting low-income women http://t.co/8DeVurD6