Skip to footer

House passes Violence Against Women Act, grudgingly

The Violence Against Women Act breezed through the Congress in previous years, but it's suddenly a heavy lift. The GOP House passed its version of the bill on a largely party-line vote, but getting to yes with the Senate will be tough.

|
J. SCOTT APPLEWHITE/AP PHOTO
Rep. Gwen Moore (D) of Wisconsin recounts her own history of being sexually assaulted as a child, then raped as a young woman, at a press conference on Capitol Hill to push for an unrestricted reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act on May 16.
  • By David Grant Staff writer

| WASHINGTON

A day of dramatic, emotional debate in the House of Representatives gave way to a narrow but largely partisan vote to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act on Wednesday.

VAWA, passing 222-205 with 23 Republicans in opposition and six Democrats in favor, will now join another once-uncontroversial measure – the transportation bill – in a conference committee between the two chambers.

The act provides some $660 million in funding over five years for programs ranging from protecting victims of domestic violence and community violence prevention to legal aid for survivors of violence.  Historically a light political lift, VAWA breezed through Congress in its two prior reauthorizations.

RECOMMENDED: Top 9 reasons Congress is broken

But just like the 2012 transportation bill, a bipartisan measure passed first in the Senate was initially blocked by House Republican leaders – and bitter partisan rancor followed.

Democrats said the GOP’s bill – which removed Senate-passed provisions relating to extending protections to Native Americans, lesbian, gay, and transgender Americans and illegal immigrants – showed a shocking lack of concern on the part of House Republicans.

“The indifference in this bill toward some, just some, is as chilling and callous as anything I have seen come before this Congress in modern times,” said Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D) of New York at a press conference Wednesday. “Do they not bleed, and bruise, and are injured just as much as anyone else?”

Republicans accused Democrats of using the bill to back their claim that Republicans were waging a “war on women.”

“Can we stop the election-year gimmicks? Can we stop these manufactured wars that pit one group of Americans against another group of Americans?” thundered freshman Rep. Trey Gowdy (R) of South Carolina on the House floor Wednesday.

The White House, for its part, supports the Senate measure and said it would veto the House bill because the measure “rolls back existing law and removes long-standing protections for victims of domestic violence and sexual assault – crimes that predominantly affect women.”

The House and Senate versions of VAWA have several key differences:

  • The Senate adds language that explicitly mentions gay and transgender Americans for protection, while the House version is gender neutral. Republicans contend that their measure allows all Americans to receive protection because it does not specify who qualifies for various programs. Democrats, however, say that local law enforcement could use the lack of specificity to discriminate against gay or transgender people.
  •  The House bill does not include a Senate provision that would allow Native American women to take American citizens who abuse them to court within the tribal legal system. Republicans say that the Senate measure is unconstitutional and replace it with a proposal that allows Native American women to apply for protection orders from local US courts. Democrats contend that without the Senate’s proposals, Native American women abused on an Indian reservation are often left without legal recourse. 
  • The House bill does not allow for a path to citizenship for illegal women who have been abused and agree to cooperate with the police investigation of the crime. Moreover, it holds the cap on temporary visas offered to women cooperating in legal investigations to 10,000, below the Senate’s increased 15,000 level. Republicans say the citizenship provision is akin to amnesty for illegal immigrants. Democrats, on the other hand, say that women fearing deportation may never come forward to take abusers off the street under the House bill.

Perhaps emblematic of the highly partisan atmosphere around a bill that once enjoyed widespread agreement are freshman Rep. Sandy Adams (R) of Florida and Rep. Gwen Moore (D) of Wisconsin. Congresswoman Adams, the GOP bill’s sponsor, and Congresswoman Moore, who sponsored the House version of the Senate legislation, have heart-wrenching stories of their own experience with domestic violence and sexual assault, respectively. And both said the bill should not be subject to partisan political concerns. 

 So had the two women ever crossed the aisle to speak about  the bill?
 
“No,” Moore said.

After the vote, however, the two women embraced on the House floor.

Next, House and Senate negotiators must find a way to embrace a common version of the bill that can pass both the House and Senate.

RECOMMENDED: Top 9 reasons Congress is broken

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.
editor@csmonitor.com
Subscribe
Mark Sappenfield
Editor

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

Subscribe to insightful journalism

QR Code to House passes Violence Against Women Act, grudgingly
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/DC-Decoder/2012/0516/House-passes-Violence-Against-Women-Act-grudgingly
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe