It's time to reauthorize funding for the 1994 Violence Against Women Act, and - as with basically everything these days - that means a lengthy, bitter partisan fight in Congress over something that most of us thought was pretty well settled some time ago. I can sympathize with Republicans who have issues with new provisions in the legislation and who rightly worry that voicing any criticism will lead to yet another week of "Republicans Hate Women!!!" headlines. (Here's where having some capital with women could come in handy. Capital y'all maybe shouldn't have wasted on forced ultrasound bills, personhood amendments and calling us sluts. Just saying.) So, what are the Republicans' objections?
The legislation would continue existing grant programs to local law enforcement and battered women shelters, but would expand efforts to reach Indian tribes and rural areas. It would increase the availability of free legal assistance to victims of domestic violence, extend the definition of violence against women to include stalking, and provide training for civil and criminal court personnel to deal with families with a history of violence. It would also allow more battered illegal immigrants to claim temporary visas, and would include same-sex couples in programs for domestic violence.
Republicans say the measure, under the cloak of battered women, unnecessarily expands immigration avenues by creating new definitions for immigrant victims to claim battery. More important, they say, it fails to put in safeguards to ensure that domestic violence grants are being well spent. It also dilutes the focus on domestic violence by expanding protections to new groups, like same-sex couples, they say.
Okay, I can see why the GOP would take issue with anything immigration-related, because that's just one of their things. But it's the "diluting the focus" thing I don't understand. How does reaching MORE domestic violence victims "dilute" a program whose sole purpose is reaching domestic violence victims? That's like turning away starving children from a soup kitchen by saying, "Sorry, kids. This is only for starving children." Change the name of the bill, if it's that big a deal, from the Violence Against Women Act to something like Extra Funding for Programs to Help Anyone Who's Getting Physically Abused at Home Act. EFPHAWGPAHA should work just find for the literal-minded Senator Blunt, I'd think.Again, because it's too early in the morning, I can't tell if I'm the only one who had this reaction, or if the reporter who wrote it would've dearly loved to have had space to pin down Senator Blunt, et al. I want a longer story about this, please. One that I can read on my lunch hour.
No comments:
Post a Comment