Actually, though, "Violence Against Women Act" is about as dry and straightforwardly descriptive name for the law as you can find. A manipulatively motherhood-and-apple-pie title for a bill that exists to protect women, mothers included, from violence might be the "Protecting Our Mothers, Daughters, Sisters, and Wives from Abuse Act." The "Keep America's Womenfolk Safe Act." It could be named after a few victims of particularly heinous crimes. There's all sorts of directions that could go. But "Violence Against Women Act"? That's just truth in labeling.
Don't get Duncan wrong. He's not saying he's in favor of violence against women. In fact, "Like most men, I'm more opposed to violence against women than even violence against men," he said. "Because most men can handle it a little better than a lot of women can." See! Totally opposed to violence against women, on account of they're weak. As long as, well, you know ...
"Last time my main concern was the money," said Duncan, who voted for the most recent renewal in 2005.Oh, so as long as preventing violence against those wimpy women can be done on the cheap, he'll consider it. As it happens, the current bill includes less funding than the 2005 bill did, so Duncan will have to come up with another excuse if he wants to vote against it. Lucky for him, he can still fall back on opposing the Senate bill's expansion of protections for immigrants, Native Americans, and LGBT people. Plenty of his fellow House Republicans will be doing just that.
Sign the petition from Daily Kos and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee urging House Republicans to protect all women by passing the Senate version of the expanded, bipartisan Violence Against Women Act.