Because the original version of the Violence Against Women Act was too strongly against violence against women for the taste of some Republican Senators.
What War On Women? Sure Republicans say they are voting for the Violence Against Women Act, but behind closed doors they are fighting to make sure that doesn't include Lesbians, Trans-sexuals, Native Americans or Un-Documented Immigrants. And yet they wonder why Romney is losing the female and latino vote in a landslide . . .
From the very beginning, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) led the opposition to reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) — even leading Senate Judiciary Republicans to unanimously vote against it because they object to its protections for LGBT victims, immigrants and Native Americans. Grassley has now teamed up with Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) “offer a substitute that would address GOP concerns with the bill.”
Although the full details of Grassley and Hutchinson’s watered down protections for domestic violence victims have yet to be released, it is likely that they will map Grassley’s previously stated opposition to providing greater support for LGBT, undocumented, and tribal victims of domestic violence. The Hutchison/Grassley amendment will likely leave out some victims who face particularly harsh discrimination. If Senate Republicans embrace Grassley’s earlier objections to reauthorizing VAWA, they will show that they are willing to tolerate a certain amount of domestic violence by ignoring certain victims
ThinkProgress.org
Really? Wow. Really?
Basically, Senate Republicans support the Violence Against Women Act in principle, but feel that the current proposal is too strong and should allow for some acceptable levels of violence against certain kinds of women that Republicans do not approve of.
WTF?
More below the fold
Really? With their plutocratic poster boy for President Mitt Romney failing hard at winning over women voters and latinos, I don't think this is going to help.
I mean seriously?
Rep. Kristi Noem, also a co-sponsor, said that Republicans want to ensure that the final version of the measure does not have any unintended consequences with regard to criminal law.
“It’s not meant to exclude anyone; the intention is to truly get the funding and the programs for the victims,” the South Dakota Republican said. “We want to make sure that we are getting the help to victims. We just need to make sure that we are also consistent throughout our criminal law policies.”
Noem comes from a state with a significant Native American population, and she said, “We are checking out and doing some more research on” whether Native Americans would need any additional provisions in the bill.
Her comments came as Senate Democrats argued today that the Native American provisions are needed, as well as the other provisions opposed by Republicans.
“Every time we have reauthorized this bill, we included bipartisan provisions to address those that are not being protected ... today,” said Sen. Patty Murray (Wash.), who chairs the Senate Democrats’ campaign arm. “However, for some reason this time some of our colleagues would like to pick and choose who qualifies for this assistance.”
rollcall.com
As ThinkProgress.org reports, in reality things don't work quite the way Republican Rep Noem says it does . . .
The Grassley / Hutchison amendment requires any domestic violence to be prosecuted in federal courts, meaning that rural tribal victims won’t seek help. Additionally, federal prosecutors “already decline to prosecute half of Indian Country crimes that are referred to them,” and with the added number of domestic violence crimes, victims are likely to never see justice.
The full article at ThinkProgress has more details about how the Grassley/Hutchinson amendment would exclude many LGBT women and undocumented immigrants from the Violence Against Women Act.
Yes, the GOP "concerns" over the Violence Against Women Act is that it should be less effective and more bigoted and discriminatory. What the GOP Senators standing with Chuck Grassley are saying is "I mean, sure, the idea of protecting women from violence is all well and good, but let's not get carried away with it."
And Republicans wonder why they have a problem with female voters. Sure, Republicans believe in protecting women from violence, just as long as those women are the right kind of women and it doesn't get in the way of our burning Republican hatred of gay people, immigrants and other minorities Republicans disapprove of . . .
FAIL
You can follow me on twitter @JesseLaGreca