It’s been very frustrating to watch the debate over The Violence Against Women act continue with our lawmakers. While the Senate was set to pass the bill this week, there were still questions on whether or not the House of Representatives would follow suit and make this important piece of legislation law. 

Really, we shouldn’t even be discussing it had lawmakers done their jobs and renewed it in 2011.

Just to give some background, The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) is a federal law aimed at ending violence against women and remedying the laws and social practices that have fostered and justified the history of violence against women. VAWA was first passed in 1994, as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, and it was reauthorized in 2000 and 2005. The current authorization expired in 2011.

VAWA focuses on nine specific areas of intervention: enhancing judicial and law enforcement tools to combat violence against women (Title I); improving services for victims (Title II); services, protection, and justice for young victims of violence (Title III); strengthening America’s families by preventing violence (Title IV); strengthening the healthcare system’s response (Title V); housing opportunities and safety for battered women and children (Title VI); providing economic security for victims (Title VII); protection of battered and trafficked immigrants (Title VIII); and safety for Indian women (Title IX). 

You look at the nine specific areas and have to wonder what our lawmakers were thinking when first they didn’t renew it, and now, when they are struggling over whether or not to bring it back.

This is another example of why Republicans are struggling to earn support from women. They have been holding up legislation based on one aspect where they don’t like the Indian reservations being able to prosecute suspects who commit crimes.

At the end of the day, I would rather know that these extra protections are in place to help all women, rather than letting some petty difference halt this vital legislation.

I think the amendments being proposed in the new legislation are good ones. VAWA chief sponsor Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) proposed amendments that would beef up resources to combat human trafficking, and would expand provisions to extend coverage to gays, illegal immigrants and Native Americans who suffer from domestic abuse.

In an exchange on the floor last week, House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD) provoked Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) on VAWA. Cantor responded that it’s a “priority” for Republicans to “move and act on this bill” - but signaled that divisions linger.

“We want to protect the women who are subject to abuse on tribal lands, and unfortunately there are issues that don’t directly bear on that that have come up, that have complicated it,” Cantor said. “But in working with [Hoyer’s] office as well as the vice president’s, I hope to be able to deal with this and bring it up in a expeditious manner.”

However, according to reports, by the end of the week there was no progress to speak of.

At the end of the day, Republicans focusing on 2016 should start realizing that actions speak louder than words.

(2) comments

John Flanagan

Does one wonder why there are so many duplicate laws on the books? Does one new law really help the quality of life in America when there is already a mountain of unenforced and ambiguous legislation at the height and expanse of Mount Rushmore on the American landscape? Let the 13,000 page Obamacare be set before us as another example of the monolithic presence of our givernment's addiction to continually adding new laws. As for the legislation being considered far as I know, there are already criminal laws and consequences for violence against women. It always makes liberals feel better when solving a problem and a social issue results in some new law. After all, why strengthen existing laws?
If you look closely at this new legislation, you will find the Democrats have did what they instinctively do, plug in some additional gems of bureaucratic creativity, which they can use to argue against the opposition when they object.
This new law, like many others, is not needed, and therefore, the Democrats will ignorantly and spitefully push for it's passage into law.


Well I checked both Snopes and Truth or Fiction web sites and could not back up Thelma Grimes against Eric Cantor. I also went to web site in an attempt to gather actual facts and figures to support Thelma's claims. I wish Thelma would begin report facts and resources in which she gets her information. Her columne should be news you can use, not "We Say". I think if facts are correctly presented we are smart enough to form our own opinion. Where are the Paul Harvey;s and Tom Brocaws of the media? BTW, I checked with Charity Navogators . org and they have no information on Don't send them any money.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.