House Renews Violence Against Women Measure

A House vote to reauthorize the landmark Violence Against Women Act ended a battle that had highlighted problems Republicans are having with female voters.

Comments: 222

  1. It's not a victory for Obama: it's a victory for women.

  2. And men. VAWA makes us all safer

  3. Yes it is. Because without this it would be legal to beat up women. Right?

  4. Picky, picky, picky.
    Why can't it be a victory for everyone?

  5. Wow! Good news emanating from Capitol Hill!! How refreshing!!!

  6. Though you call it a victory for Obama it is a Victory for Human Rights! Too bad there was even a single member of the house who dared vote against it.

  7. What human rights are you talking about?

  8. Maybe, Mr Boenher is finally interested in governing rather than being beholden to his 18th century Tea Party members

  9. More than likely, interested in being re-elected.

  10. As a reminder, he was able to muster only 87 Republican votes. I'd say its indication that the 18th Century lives on, and the Republican Party is very comfortable with that.

  11. While I rejoice at this significant victory, I am dismayed that a provision that had strong bipartisan support for many years required such strenuous advocacy to pass this time around. To me, this is a sad commentary on some of the less senior members of the House.

  12. Mr Speaker, now is the time to save our country,
    not insist on a majority of the majority.
    Thank you Congress for this vote.

  13. Boehner is finally becoming Speaker of the House, and not just a Tea Party puppet. Hopefully this is the beginning of a trend.

  14. Yes, indeed. A majority of the House of Representatives is required to pass legislation, not a majority of one caucus within it. The Hastert Rule, was a personal rule Hastert invented, invented by a not very distinguished Speaker. Given the current difficult circumstances, Speaker Boehner should be looking to put together a coalition that can compromise and get important legislation passed and leave those on the fringes out in the cold. That's assuming he doesn't agree with them. The Tea Party members have the right to speak their opinions and should represent their constituents. They should introduce legislation and the Rules Committee should let it be voted on. And when their legislation keeps losing 345-90, they should start to learn their lessons. But 15% or 20% of the membership should not be allowed to act like thugs, intimidating the rest of the House because it doesn't agree with them.

  15. I wouldn't be counting on that. A leader he's not. He's part of that tea party

  16. The extremist Republicans in the House are at last not dictating the result of EVERY stalled piece of legislation they receive from the Senate. What a small step for mankind. Take back America! Support bipartisan legislation! It's as though the country is recovering from a stroke (circa 2001 to 2008) and is just learning to walk upright and speak clearly again.

  17. Actually, the stroke was in 2010. Prior to that it was mostly the usual aches and pains.

  18. Don't hold your breath.
    They will filibuster some thing very soon to remind you that they haven't changed a bit.

  19. Representative Raúl Labrador is concerned that people voted according to their districts will and not according to their party's ideology? I must be really old. I remember when it used to always be that way.

  20. If Boehner would continue to let the House vote on Senate bills we could actually make some progress. The real question is what were the 137 nays opposed to?

  21. Excuse me, why does this have to spoken of as a "victory for Obama". Its like poking a stick in the eye of any Republicans that voted for it, and a good number did so. Are they the "vanquished". I know newspapers are desparate to come up with flashy and provacative slants to the "news", but I would hope that the Times wouldn't sink to that level.

  22. No, the more pertinent question is why this is spoken of as a "victory for Obama" rather than for abused women.

    You might want to ask yourself why Cantor and the rest of the GOP keep acknowledging that they're having problems with women voters, but keep trying to block, for example, assistance for Native American women, who suffer the highest rate of domestic violence in the nation . . .

    and they vote.

  23. This was exactly my response! I think the point here is that this is a victory for women at risk for violence. I don't know whey everything has to be about political "team sports."

  24. The Moderate Republicans voted for it and it is a victory for them too. I hope they are not the vanquished. Does this make you feel better?

  25. Great news, but it's sad that Rep. Labrador reproaches Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Cantor for acting with common sense and for the good of the women of this country. Still, the inclusive nature of the new Violence Against Women Act makes its passage a time for celebration. Let's hope President Obama signs the bill into law as soon as possible.

  26. Either we are for Equal Protection Under the Law, or we are for Some Are More Equal that Others, expediently.

  27. We say we are for equal protection under the law but that is a sham and most people know it. That's why we have to enact additional protection for those who are (under the radar) less equal.

  28. It's sad reflection on our political environment when this type of legislation counts as a "victory" for the White House. Just a few years ago it would have breezed through Congress with little controversy.

  29. That was before the Tea Party took control of the Republican Party. You know, the guys who do everything opposite from what we used to do.

  30. My point exactly. Republicans, too, should be proud, not ashamed of having voted for this bill, and those who voted against it should not receive a single female vote in 2014.

  31. Not governing is a huge concern for all of us.

  32. It is about time..what a shame men who are suppose to protect women become the accused...Stop violence against women period...I ASK WHAT DO WE VALUE IN THIS COUNTRY..THANKS AGAIN MR. PRESIDENT...

  33. I thought the whole point of this is it is a victory - not for Obama - but for violence against women - regardless of how it got there - they are the real winners - aren't they?

  34. Dennis: That's exactly what I was thinking. This is a victory for all American women (immigrants included) regardless of their party affiliation. It's long past due.

  35. It's Republican-initiated-and-stoked hyper-partisanship that makes everything in washing a partisan battle of us vs. them. Yes, VAWA was a victory for women first, just as stopping the sequester would be a victory for all of us.

    But nooooooo, as John Belushi might have said. Republican hyper-partisanship and continual obstructionism of a sitting President simply because he is not of their party makes everything in Washington us versus them.

    Get the Republican Party off the dime if you want to see things done for the good of the country and not for the sake of Republicans trying to avoid being "primaried" by right wing extremism.

  36. Dennis, your point would be well taken if the Republicans had not tried their darnest to block passage of the Violence against Women Act. So, what should have been the simple matter of passing the legislation turned out to be yet another "battle" to defeat anything Obama and the Democrats favored.

    Therefore, because of the GOP's stubborn obstructionism, the passage of the bill did, in fact, turn out to be a victory for Obama and Democrats--although it really didn't have to be that way if the Republicans weren't so clueless.

  37. The violence against women act, throughout its history, including portions that were struck down as unconstitutional, has just been bad law, regardless of its politically fashionable title.
    Throughout the course of the debate over this bill, many have been saying "How could anyone possibly oppose a Violence against women act?" I'll bet many such people have no idea what the actual provisions of the act are. Should we pass any act that cites a politically fashionable cause in its title, regardless of the specifics?
    A violent act against a women is not more important than one against a man. According to FBI statistics, the number of murders of husbands by wives is about the same as vice-versa. No law should ever be passed making violence against one group of people more important than violence against other groups.
    Second, it is not the job of the federal government to police person-on-person violence. This is outside the range of federal powers, and is why original versions of the VOW act were struck down as unconstitutional.
    Third, the law has plenty of unwise provisions. For example, granting US residence visas to women who claim to have been victims of some kind of abuse is unnecessary and will encourage false reports. And, why does claiming to have suffered violence entitle women to residence visas to live in the US, but not men?
    People jumping on the "how can anyone oppose a "VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN" act?' should try taking the analysis a bit beyond the title of the act.

  38. "Should we pass any act that cites a politically fashionable cause in its title, regardless of the specifics?"

    Spare me - we do that all the time. It's marketing, the trend in Washington ever since the car dealers replaced the New Dealers.

    "Second, it is not the job of the federal government to police person-on-person violence."

    Sure it is, if disctrimination against a class is involved. Catch upn the last 100 years or so if jurisprudence.

    "(G)ranting US residence visas to women who claim to have been victims of some kind of abuse is unnecessary and will encourage false reports."

    Perhaps, but this concern is outweighed by the fact that people who want to comehere on the whole have more to offer this country than the people who are hell-bent on stopping them. And by simple human decency. Which is expressed as a national value bu the title of the act.

  39. Someone please fact check Jack.

  40. He was frustrated with the possibility that Mr. Boehner would yet again bring legislation to the floor that required Democratic votes to pass. Isn't that called bipartisanism?

  41. Apparently some Democrats also voted against this bill. It would be nice to know who and why.

  42. I just googled this. You can google it at Final Results for Roll Call 55. The website that records every vote is

    clerk.house.gov

  43. There weren't any Democratic 'No' votes. There was one Dem who did not vote: Rubin Hinojosa (TX). I don't know why he didn't vote. He has publicly supported the bill and been very vocal in his opposition to the Republican efforts to undermine the legislation.

    Maybe Rep. Hinojosa was still over at the SCOTUS where he had joined demonstrators in support of upholding the Voting Rights Act.

  44. What a sad commentary that number one we need a law to tell us that violence against women is a crime and most significantly only 87 Republicans in the house supporting such a bill?????

  45. It's still a disgrace that so many Republicans condone violence including rape against women...even though they decided to do the right thing...for the wrong reason.

  46. It's fantastic that such an important bill made through, but am I the only one who finds the following statement amazing? And - also - a darn good summary of what's wrong with the place. Apparently bi-partisanship is a really bad thing.

    "Representative Raúl Labrador, Republican of Idaho, said that while he did not necessarily oppose the content of the Senate’s version of the Violence Against Women Act, he was frustrated with the possibility that Mr. Boehner would yet again bring legislation to the floor that required Democratic votes to pass.

    “It’s a huge concern,” he said."

    God forbid any legislation get past the Republicans with Democratic support.

  47. That comment really caught my eye. It is a "huge concern" for Rep. Labrador because the creation of a centrist coalition of Republicans and Democrats would necessarily diminish the power of the far-right. This could be a first step toward continued effective action in the Congress. We can hope at least.

  48. Thinking about today's Republicans, I can't help but ask, "When will they learn, when will they ever learn?"

  49. This was NOT a victory for President Obama; it was a victory for the American People! The sort of headlines like the one on this article foster the "us v. them" mentality that separates the reds and blues into hostile camps. Republicans and Democrats can and should work together and when they do, the Nation reaps the benefits.

  50. Bravo.
    Well said.
    I resent this politcizing as much as you do.
    Would that Ashley Parker recognize it for what it is: A vicotyr for the American people, especially women. It disgusts me that republicans stalled this so long. It will be remembered.

  51. It is "us vs. them". You'll recall that the Republicans wouldn't support this bill in the last legislative session, so Boehner didn't even call it for a vote. Ditto the relief for Hurricane Sandy victims. It's difficult to imagine that elected representatives would be against helping their own citizens crushed by a natural disaster, but that's exactly what House Republicans did.

  52. This is only a "Victory for Obama" because of the extremism among the Republican House Members that led them to oppose even non-controversial measures like the VAWA. From the smearing and then stalling of Chuck Hagel by the Senate Republicans to holding the economy hostage again and again there is clearly something rotten in Washington. But, and please no false equivalency here, it is not Obama, nor the majority of the Democrats in the Seneate or the House. No what is rotten in Washington is the party that places its own success and exercise of power over what is right for the American people.

  53. According to the reporter, Representative Labrador "was frustrated with the possibility that Mr. Boehner would yet again bring legislation to the floor that required Democratic votes to pass. " Isn't that what bi-partisan means?

    I think that is a disgusting attitude for a member of Congress to hold, and even worse, express.

  54. This is good news and a victory and not only for the President but for all those in Congress who stood up for these rights and in some cases with legislators who crossed the aisle. Indeed this is the process that America is yearning for now with positive gains vigorously debated and defended.
    At a time when many in Congress are calculating their vote against a measure of their own job security, how gratifying to see those who have the courage to stand up for what is right.

  55. Any American who is equipped opposite to me regarding genitalia should be asking herself why in the world the Republican Party fought this measure to better protect women from domestic violence. The same question should trouble men who care about women.

  56. The fact that anyone would vote against the Senate bill is completely insane.

  57. Another sad day in the balkanization of America.

  58. As the article states. "Representative Raúl Labrador, Republican of Idaho, said that while he did not necessarily oppose the content of the Senate’s version of the Violence Against Women Act, he was frustrated with the possibility that Mr. Boehner would yet again bring legislation to the floor that required Democratic votes to pass."

    There it is in his own words: Representative Labrador doesn't object to the content of the bill—only that Democrats also liked it. If that's not a plain and simple admission of putting party before country, I don't know what is. He'd rather compromise the safety of women than disappoint the extreme wing of the Party of No.

    “It’s a huge concern,” he said. Yes, Mr. Labrador, it really is.

  59. And no wonder there are no "moderates" left in the Republican party. All who aren't part of the Tea Party crowd are toast since there aren't enough of them in the Republican caucus to out vote the crazies.

    I think the Speaker is doing the right thing when he allows the whole House to vote on issues and not hold the place hostage waiting for the crazies to give permission for Congress to debate the issues. Hello, this is the people/voters out here wondering why nothing gets done and now we know why! Since when is majority rule only for one party's caucus?

  60. Honestly-it's a victory for women and a very much needed Act.

  61. Thoughts/questions:

    Are the 87 Republicans who vote for VAWA smarter than the 138 Republicans who voted against VAWA or just less bigoted?

    The Hastert Rule has been taking a beating lately...

  62. Hurrah as more of our liberties are tossed away. Silly me I always thought violence against anybody was a crime.

  63. What liberty has been tossed away?

  64. Wow. Really? Pray tell: EXACTLY which liberties of ours were "tossed" away?

  65. The liberty that comes when government does not see the need to put one segment of society above another for no other reason than to curry favor. That is the right of Kings not presidents or congresses for that matter.

  66. Great news, a year late but Republicans couldn't blockade this overwhelmingly popular legislation forever.

    The specific Republican opposition to new domestic same sex protections should be remembered in future elections by all who believe in equal protection.

    Hopefully it is a stake in the heart of the abominably undemocratic Hastert Rule, which has obstructed the passing of critical legislation for too long for purely partisan purposes.

  67. This is fantastic news and long overdue! The only exception I have with the article is when the author wrote- “The legislation passed on a vote of 286 to 138, with 199 Democrats joining 87 Republicans to push the reauthorization of the landmark 1994 law...”

    To me this makes it seem like the 199 Democrats went along with the 87 Republicans, as if it was the Republicans who were pushing the bill. Maybe a better way to write it would have been- “…with 199 Democrats joined by 87 Republicans…” That seems more like the 87 Republican went along with the 199 Democrats which is really what happened. This maybe a knit-picky point to make, but I hope it emphasizes that more Republicans should have joined the Democrats to support this legislation. Republican legislators still don’t get it do they?

  68. All = significant? Is that the exponential value of significant as it approaches infinity?

    I am sitting here watching Representative Donna Edwards leading a colloquey of a few Democratic women before an almost empty House chamber. Apparently Boener/Cantor decided that it's been a very stressful week, and it would be better for them to be out raising more campaign funds than dealing with the massive budget/sequester problem at hand!

  69. Every step we take from the realms of inequality to equality we gain integrity to our humanity. Hopefully this scenario will continue on up to our finical abilities, for the distributions of our laborers productivity.

  70. so, when the republicans cooperate and work together with democrats to pass a law, it is hailed in the press as a "victory for obama" and a "victory for democrats." And you complain about "partisan" bickering. For you, it is always the enlightened dems fighting the evil repubs, and luckily, every once in a while the forces of good "win" and the repubs are "defeated."

    Why should repubs cooperate, when all they get is kicked in the teeth for working together?

  71. Did you not read the news in 2012? Republicans fought this tooth and nail for the entire year. And still, only 87 Republicans voted for it!

  72. I'm curious about this--please provide examples of Republicans trying to work with Democrats, and getting kicked in the teeth for their efforts.

  73. Though I would have preferred the headline to have read "victory for women". In this case it is the Republicans reaping what they sewed by refusing even the slightest legislative plus to President Obama before the election. There are still 130 Republican representatives who are either opposed to the bill or the President. Take your pick.

  74. Sorry about Raul. Lot's of guys out there like him though and far too many of them living in Idaho. These guys just don't get it. Never will.

  75. A victory for women but also a victory for Obama. What is it with these Republicans that didn't vote for it? Their wives should cut them off completely. I suspect those Republicans that did vote for it only did because of the power of the female vote.

  76. Can someone please explain to me what the true rationale is behind the 130 members of this congress that voted NAY on this bill? Are they FOR violence against women?

  77. you must remember....to many republicans, women are a thorn in their side, a bone to contend with, second class citizens and an irritant. that has voting rights. The only reason they voted for the bill is that women do have voting rights. The GOP figured that out in November.

  78. They put their self-interest first, in front of everything. They are all men, probably sexists and given existing violence against women statistics may be racist as well. To answer your question--I am in the boomer generation and can remember hearing claims a woman deserved rape, wanted it, even liked it "because, look at the way she was dressed." Equally awful claims were made against minority women and their levels of physical desire. How do I know this? Over the years I foiund myself in settings where I heard these conversations. I stayed quite and I never forgot the knowing winks, nodding heads and group support those making the statements received. I stayed away from those settings as much as possible and now work to bring about change.

    The statements were and are disgusting, wrong and arrogant certainly but maybe those voting against the bill came from communities or--dare I write this?--families that had/have those opinions, behind closed doors of course. There is no legal niceity tht excuses those negative votes. Let's have the supporters publicize those negative votes and get the lobbying and campaigns in place to get those people defeated as soon as possible.

  79. You want a reason. Here is one.

    "Rules of Marriage", compiled by Friar Cherubino in 1450 AD, with the agreement of the church, says:

    "When you see your wife commit an offense, don't rush at her with insults and violent blows.... Scold her sharply, bully and terrify her. And if this still doesn't work .... take up a stick and beat her soundly, for it is better to punish the body and correct the soul than damage the soul than spare the body.... Then readily beat her, not in rage but out of charity and concern for her soul..."

  80. This is not a "victory for Obama," as your headline states, it was a victory for democracy.

    For far too long, the media have ignored the fact that Boehner has not allowed votes on bills that would pass the House (America Jobs Act, for example) but yet they write endlessly about the fact that Reid does not allow votes on bill that would not pass the senate.

    For the first time in 3 years, democracy has returned to the US congress. If the media highlight that fact then maybe it will stay?

  81. Representative Raúl Labrador is concerned about Boehner bringing legislation to the floor that requires Democratic votes to pass? What kind of world are we living in when the House of "Representative" should not be able to vote on any matter before the people? Partisanship is doing great damage to our country and its institutions. If the Republicans do not have enough faith in their positions to test them before the full body of the House.

  82. Comparing the Democrat votes and the Republican votes for the legislation (199 Democrats vs 87 Republicans demonstrates that still a large quantity of republicans are stuck in the past. This piece of legislation shouldn't be a partisan issue. There could be small seemingly irrelevant details of the Act itself that could cause one to perhaps promote discussion to fix any mixups, but I would argue that there are very few excuses for not passing the Violence Against Women Act. It's the right thing to do.

    The American people support this act. The fact that 138 elected representatives voted against it demonstrates why there is a disconnect between Congress and the American People (Congress's approval rating is lower than 15%).

    And here comes the sequester...

  83. Perhaps I didn't understand ....a victory for OBAMA???? Does the headline mean a victory for WOMEN????

    Oh, Sorry, I forgot that governmentofthepeoplebythepeopleforthepeople is just a figure of speech.

  84. Boehner, and many other republicans, create an impression of an America that is unevolved, biased toward the wealthy, and frankly from another time in history. It is so important to embrace new concepts in all arenas ( world politics, economy, social issues, education, ecology) if this country is to be a contender in leadership ofthe future. The reticence of the GOP to reflect the changing American landscape will be its downfall, but hopefully not America's downfall.

  85. It's too bad Harry Reid isn't willing to do the same in the Senate. It is obvious that at least some Republicans are willing to work across the isle. Now it is time for Democrat's to do the same.

  86. Except that in the Senate without at least 60 votes on a procedural vote to move a bill forward, no bill gets voted on.

    The sequestral filibustering Republican No-no senators seem to enjoy living in a parallel universe.

  87. You're talking about Democrats. They talk the talk, but refuse to walk the walk.

  88. But this wasn't a democratic bill

  89. What an incredibly pathetic, stupid, clueless bunch. An embarrassment to themselves, their base, and the nation.

    And, I say that as someone who is right of center on most issues.

  90. All those women who vote republican. why do you vote for men who basically support violence against women?

  91. The Republicans are going to continue to have problems with women if they continue to elect men who don't understand biology, psychology, and science in general. Mark Warden, a republican state representative from New Hampshire said, "people like being in abusive relationships." adding that if they didn't like it, "they can leave."
    Statistics show that abused women (and sometimes men) are kept isolated with no one to turn to. They are often threatened with death if they leave, and are stalked if they do leave. They often have no access to money. But Mr. Warden thinks they can just walk out with their children, with no place to go and no money and everything will be just dandy.

  92. Well, this bill makes it easy to leave, but Rep. Warden apposed it

  93. I was psychologically abused for over twenty years. I was terrified of leaving, despite the fact that I was never hit. I was isolated. I had no place to feel safe. DOWN with Mark Warden! He, and his Republican House of "representatives" cronies need to get their heads out of the sand; but I think they're unfortunately stuck. It's up to us, as the people who are giving them their jobs, to give them continuous doses of reality.

  94. Jen - I hope things are better for you now. We've had two women in our community who were killed by abusive husbands, the threat these women face is very real.

  95. How is it wrong for me to deduce, in light of Republican House members' opposition to this measure, that Republicans don't think much of females? This includes my wife, adult daughters and wonderful 4-year-old grand-daughter.

  96. Because this measure gives advantage, not equality, to women. I think it would be more accurate to say that those who voted in favor don't think very highly of males.

  97. This article would have been better if had included a brief summary of specifically what the legislation does to protect women.

  98. This Democrat also thanks Speaker Boehner and the 87 Republicans who voted with the Democrats. It is the right vote. God bless each and every one

  99. Why cannot the NYTimes automatically give us all a link so that we can track who voted for and against any given legislation? It would be a huge public service.

  100. Because there is not just one vote but a series of votes that lead to the final vote. The real vote is not the last vote; it is often a procedural vote that determines whether the last vote will occur. Having tested the waters, the final vote is really a sham for all and a fig leaf for the opposition.

  101. This is a win for women and men who care about women, not a win for Democrats!

  102. On the other hand, were the bill defeated, there are plenty of Republicans who would claim that as a victory for Republicans. Count on it.

    And, why not let it be called a victory for Democrats? It was Democrats, after all, who have been fighting for the re-instatement of this law ever since it was allowed to lapse by the Republican majority. Had it been left to the Republicans, it never again would have seen the light of day. No, it was vigorous advocacy and organizing by Democrats that resulted in the law's passage. I'm happy to give them credit for it and I'll bet that women all over the country join me in this.

  103. The article doesn't explain if this includes the wives in a same sex marriage. Doesn't this make sense?

  104. Under such circumstances, how does one define "wife"? Is this protection about marriage partners or about females? What about unmarried couples? Women do not need to be espoused to be subject to domestic violence or workplace violence or random violence.
    Sticky questions, but easily solved: Do NOT abuse anyone, whether that person is your partner or a total stranger. The purpose of all law is to protect the weak from the strong.
    http://emcphd.wordpress.com

  105. Let's not forget that the House Republicans took issue with the Senate version because of the Native American issues. This reauthorization will allow Tribal law enforcement/courts to arrest and prosecute non-Native men who come onto Tribal lands and physically and/or sexual assault Native women. This they had a problem with. I'm thankful for the courage it ttook for those House Republicans that bucked their party to do the right thing!

  106. Unless I read wrong, this bill was passed WITHOUT the provision for tribal jurisdiction over non-Native American men who assault Native American women on tribal lands.

  107. It's my understanding that they weren't able to pass the House version and accepted the Senate version, which included those provisions. BUT Boehner had to open the voting to Dems or it wouldn't have passed at all.

  108. The House passed the senate version of the reauthorization of VAWA with all the Native American issues intact.

  109. For every- and anyone who wants to know how the voting went, google Final Results for Roll Call 55. Or go to the website that records every vote:

    clerk.house.gov

  110. Poor repubs. Cave, cave, cave. That's all they do. And they have to endure loss, loss, loss. That's because they are wrong, wrong, wrong. On just about everything.

    So their time to stand up now is sequestration? Why do they do it? Because the repubs are stupid, stupid, stupid. They didn't listen to their man Bobby Jindal. The repubs are the Party of Stupid. Again, and again, and again.

    Look up the word cave in Webster's. First definition is a big hole in the ground. Second definition is the repubs. Poor repubs.

  111. Well, it's curtains for Representative Raúl Labrador. He inadvertently spilled the beans about the GOP hatred of all things Democratic (with or without a large "D") and when Boehner gets back from the bar at the golf course there will be hell to pay. That is, if Boehner remembers. After all this is the man who does not know the difference between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence and is demonstrably ignorant when it comes to how the Congress passes laws. What a pathetic state of affairs...
    http://emcphd.wordpress.com

  112. I hope we're beginning to see the tea running through a cracked cup at the party! It is unconscionable that the Republicans in the House would, virtually, stand up and approve what is tantamount to a posturing of "violence FOR anyone," albeit women, gays, lesbians, Native Americans or even closed minded Ohioans and Virginians whose vindictive anger has reached out to hurt people with opposing views to their own.
    If Humpty Dumpty does fall off the wall and breaks his shell in 2014, I hope we replace it with a fertile egg espousing wisdom, compassion and concern for everyone.

  113. This is a "Victory Mr. Boehner". The Speaker must be rewarded for doing the peoples business in the face of such strong opposition. The title of the article only feed the partisan beast.on either side of the aisle.

    The true victor is the American woman.

  114. Congratulations, President Obama, Speaker Pelosi.

  115. What do Republicans have against Native Americans, gays, bisexuals and trannies? Oh wait, these groups don't tend to support automatic weapons, corporate welfare and environmental degradation. It's amazing that these bullies ever got elected!

  116. Without a doubt this is a "victory for Obama and the Democrats" in the House. A long overdue one. But I hope for a day, hopefully in the lifetime of my children (it certainly will not happen in mine) when the media can frame their headines correctly identifying such progress as a victory for the American people and our unique system of government.

    As a hard core Liberal - I realise this will reek of treason to many of my peers - I still cannot help but cringe at the wording of headines like these, so reminiscent of the "we won the most medals!!!" obsession that still taints the Olympic Games coverage. Oh for the day when American politicians can learn to prevail with grace and conciliation, when they can achieve victory and set an example for future leaders with dignity. I'm sorry but both parties share guilt for the massive failures here.

  117. I would be interested to hear from you which victory was greeted by Democrats in an ungraceful or non-conciliatory way. As a hard care Liberal, I'm a little tired of assertions that "both sides do it," when we're talking about something that, really, only one side does. When Republicans took control of the House in 2010 their Leaders' initial statement was proclaiming as a top priority their intention to assure that Obama would be a one-term president. Now there's a lack of grace for you.

  118. I am a die hard conservative and I agree with you.

  119. I agree with all but the last sentence. Don't get me wrong, I'm completely fed up with the weak Democrats who have also been bought and sold and no longer stand up for the positions they used to hold dear, but the right wing of our country have always been the big bullies. The modern version of the bullying started with Reagan's war on government, continued with the Gingrich house and the impeachment of Clinton, and has grown exponentially worse in the 21st century. Until we can separate big money from politics, I fear it will only get worse. And until Americans see for themselves how policy directly affects their lives, they will continue to vote against their own interests because of "God, Guns, and Gays."

  120. Good to see it passed and we all need clarification as to federal jurisdiction on this issue. The supreme court case U.S. v Morrison clearly stated the congress exceeded it's authority when itmade rape a federal crime since all rapes are local. All domestic violence is local. Declaring someting applies to allk women and specific groiups clearly identified the underlying issue of federal jursidiction remains. Why hasn't this been clearly discussed and brought to the forefront of the debates?

    Any law that lacks enforcement ability because Congress has, accourding to a highly conservative if not outright regressive Supreme Court, exceeded its constitutional authority is meaningless. Every civil rights violation occurs locally, any domestic violence or violent act against a single woman is "local" but the implications are nationwide. Where are the lawyers, male and female, all political persuasions, ages and of any skin color who are standing ready and able to take on this foundfational issue?

    Where is the media on this? If the law lacks any realistic enforcement possibility why isn't this front and center for all supporters?

  121. I think the answer to your question is that from the media's standpoint, it is easier and cheaper to frame the issue as the bad, awful, ugly Republicans in Congress versus the heroic, wonderful, correctly-thinking President. And that dumbed down slant is pandemic at this poitn.

  122. This isn't a victory for Obama. This is a victory for all women in this country.

  123. "[A]ll women" except Native American and immigrant women, apparently.

  124. @The Artist: It seems the House passed the Senate version which included the broader coverage. BUT, Boehner had to open up the votes to Dems since he couldn't pass it within his own party, a majority of which voted against it.

  125. Keep digging your hole deeper, clueless and bigoted Republicans. Even Saturday Night Live could not create a skit as funny as, for example, having a hearing on women's health without any women on the panel or as witnesses. And now this. You will never be a majority party again no matter how many binders of women you have. By the way - whatever happened to Mitt Romney?

  126. The mittens is now in a binder of failed GOP candidates for president.
    That is a very thick binder.

  127. Last seen driving his rambler station wagon to Canada with Karl Rove on the roof.

  128. I hope this works out better for women than getting guns, a false illusion of security. With honest enforcement, it should.

    Hopefully Mr. Boehner will notice that things work better when the Speaker represents the bipartisan majority of Congress, as was the case in times when our government was less dysfunctional.

  129. I can just see this in the 2014 House election campaigns of those 138 or so troglodytes trying to justify to their female constituents why it was that they voted in favor of violence against women.

  130. Mark: I agree with you wholeheartedly. I would add one thing, however. You stated that:

    "Republican hyper-partisanship and continual obstructionism of a sitting President simply because he is not of their party makes everything in Washington us versus them."

    While it is true that the teapartyrepublicanhypocrits have a problem with having a Democrat as President, sadly and much larger is their problem with having a BLACK President.

    Some people have great difficulty with their "Christianity" when it comes to race, women and money.

  131. Laudable, to say the least. But women are not the only victims of domestic violence.

  132. Any woman who votes Republican, supports violence against women.

  133. 87 Republicans just helped pass this bill. Didn't read past the headline, did you?

  134. Correct in 2 of 3 cases, which is the proportion of Republicans who opposed it. You called it right.

  135. :Representative Raúl Labrador, Republican of Idaho, said that while he did not necessarily oppose the content of the Senate’s version of the Violence Against Women Act, he was frustrated with the possibility that Mr. Boehner would yet again bring legislation to the floor that required Democratic votes to pass. "

    So, Mr. Labrador is essentially admitting that he's more concerned about the power/politics than he is about substance. His statement is a perfect example of why the current system is in such shambles.

  136. Why the partisan title?
    This can be celebrated as the House members working together for the good of its constituents, rather than "a big victory for the President and Democrats in Congress." This is a partial victory for those in our nation who need this kind of legislation, albeit somewhat limited.

  137. When will we stop looking at legislation as a victory for a particular political party and instead as a victory for the people of this country?

  138. Why should Congress doing its job be considered a victory? Finally they have passed a piece of important legislation with bi-partisan support. That should be business as usual not cause for anyone claiming victory, but because it happens so rarely these days and because Republicans seem so determined that it won't happen, passing anything at all is a victory for Democrats as well as a victory for the people.

  139. It is definitely both, but having been subjected to the Party of Obstruction, it is a moment to celebrate for Democrats. The Republicans should be applauded for waking up and smelling the coffee ! All wives, mothers, daughters will benefit from this bipartisan legislation.

    Let's see if the Republicans can tend to the business of the country in President Obama's second term.

  140. Thank you for stating this--my thoughts exactly and as I was about to write to the TImes I spotted your comment. The headline on this article only contributes to aggravating an already nauseatingly polarized government and populace.

  141. If Congressman Labrador is concerned that a bill he "did not necessarily oppose" required Democratic votes to pass, sounds like his quarrel should be with his fellow Republicans, rather than with the Speaker.

  142. I can't help but think, if the GOP had won the WH in November, Republicans in the House would not have felt the need to pass this bill.

  143. Music to my ears or eyes in this case...

  144. "...he was frustrated with the possibility that Mr. Boehner would yet again bring legislation to the floor that required Democratic votes to pass."

    "It's a huge concern"

    - Raul Labrador

    So he is concerned that Boehner is willing to work with all Americans, regardless of political party, to pass meaningful legislation? Oh the humanity.

  145. In spite of the opposition of most Republicans, this essential bill has passed Congress and now awaits the President's signature. But congratulations to the 87 Republicans who voted yes, whether it was for political motives or because it was the right thing to do.

  146. How about branding it as a win for women? Saying its a win for Obama only makes it less likely the Republicans will support sound legislation on the issue in the future...

  147. Because Republicans really care what the New York Times says. Not.

  148. I'm glad any bill passed as victims of any type of abuse or violenced should be helped. So, next should be a bill to protect men from abusive women, and some can be.

    I'll never get married.

  149. This bill protects men as well.

  150. Nice to read some good news about what Congress does for a change. Let's have more of that!

  151. Why isn't this mostly a victory for women, rather than politics of any brand? Isn't this the problem? No one side can really make anything happen alone.

  152. Because politics of a particular brand tried to stop it.

  153. It is truly unbelievable that Congress finally redressed an overtly racist Supreme Court opinion from the 1970s that had "implicitly divested" American Indian tribes from having criminal jurisdiction over non-members. Until that opinion, it was firmly settled that tribes retain their governing authority until Congress takes it away by legislation.

    The more depressing part is that although we scored a huge victory today, the rest of the country generally has no idea that the federal judiciary has usurped power dedicated to another branch (i.e., Congress), and has used this power to "implicitly divest" tribes of governing authority. If this were any other area of the law, people would be outraged at such an egregious breach of separation of powers.

    Moreover, I read many comments expressing outrage over Justice Scalia's hypocritical and racially insensitive questions during oral argument in the Voting Rights Act case before the Court yesterday. All I have to say to these people is go read his work in the field of federal Indian law if you really want to see a textualist hypocrite. But we are such a small minority that no one--the media included--really understand what's going on. I mean, just think about what we did today: we scratched and clawed and were finally able to get a limited jurisdictional fix to prosecute non-members that sexually assault our women. Where else in America is this issue completely ignored (until today, thankfully)?

  154. It's not a "victory for Obama," it is a victory for women.

    Now, when is the House of Representatives going to do its number one job, at least according the Constitution, and that is get a budget out of the House.

    Why the Republicans blame the President and the Senate for the lack of action on the part of the House is beyond me.

    Why a Democrat hasn't put forth a bill to simply to not do the sequestration also puzzles me.

    And, why has the House of Representatives been in sessions for only two days a week (on average) since the election back in November is a disgrace, but no one talks about it. Supposedly, we have these crises and deadlines, yet none of these people paid $175,000 per year, and given a lifetime pension and medical benefits not doing anything to earn it.

  155. The bill also included the Trafficking Victims Reauthorization Act which helps the 27 million people still stuck in slavery including 300,000 here in the U.S. check out enditmovement.com Ijm.org and polarisproject.org for more info.

  156. "Mr. Obama beat Mitt Romney among women by 11 percentage points, and Republicans lost high-profile races amid a backlash from female voters after the Republican candidate made controversial statements about rape or abortion."

    The above is misleading because it seems to imply that "the Republican candidate," i.e., Romney, made "controversial statements about rape or abortion," when actually he made no such comments. The story should have said, "and two Republican candidates lost high-profile races amid a backlash from female voters after they made controversial statements about rape or abortion." Also, I would point out that Romney won the majority of married women, though losing among women overall.

  157. That can be inferred, but could have been avoided with the word "other". A better solution would be to break up the first sentence with period after "percentage points." Start the second sentence with... Other Republicans lost their house seats...

    BTW, I read it as I believe the author intended, probably because of the change of tense, Republicans. However, it isn't very clear, as to your point.

  158. No, Romney didn't say those hateful and stupid things, but he made only one commercial for a Congressional candidate and it was for one of those two Republicans that he made it.

  159. Romney may not have made those vile statements, but he willingly endorsed someone who did. And I don't recall Mitt's loud condemnation of his fellow travelers who lashed out against women who suffered rape. Silence is as good as agreement. "Qui tacet consentit." Tacit agreement is agreement nonetheless.
    http://emcphd.wordpress.com

  160. Obama may have supported the bill. but the victory is not entitrely his.
    It is a win for for all women

  161. Great news of course. Those folks who do not think domestic violence is a concern should volunteer in a woman's shelter for a weekend and look at the faces of the wives and children. Guaranteed to change their mind as to who needs protection.

    Saddest news, that is unfortunately not new, is that it is “It’s a huge concern,” the the Speaker would introduce legislation that actually passes with support from both sides of the aisle. How is it possible for an elected official not to be embarrassed by such a comment? Should not Rep. Labrador be more concerned about the substance of a law rather than on who scores more political points with passage. I am happy to pay my share of taxes, but do expect logic and effort from those we elect to spend it. Why cannot "we all just get along" for the good of OUR country? If Congress does not feel the same, can they at least fake it to get something good actually accomplished. (See above article)

    What a sad, sad day it is when all expect Congress to not act when faced with difficult issues and they live down to those expectations.

    And I got all the way through this note without mentioning, sequestration, oops!

  162. I second the motion for a roll call link, which would be a valuable addition for your readers.

  163. Bravo Gwen Moore, Democrat of Wisconsin, and her elegant reference to Soujourner Truth's sacred outrage. Someone quick make sure Sojourner Truth will be on the test so children will need to know about her. And who are these 186 guys (ok 185 guys and Michelle Bachman) again? I celebrate when democracy works. It doesn't happen every day.

  164. And now we would like a list of the republicans who voted against the bill. Thank you.

  165. This is a victory for all women and all actual and potential victims of violence and abuse---that is what the headline should have said.

  166. "Representative Raúl Labrador, Republican of Idaho, said that while he did not necessarily oppose the content of the Senate’s version of the Violence Against Women Act, he was frustrated with the possibility that Mr. Boehner would yet again bring legislation to the floor that required Democratic votes to pass. "

    So much for the myth that the Republicans want bipartisanship and the Dems are the evil ones. Maybe the bi- in "bipartisan" means the Republicans and the tea party.

  167. Has the polar axis finally flipped? I feel sorry for devout republicans, but I am enjoying watching the beast devour itself. The list of speakers at CPAC speaks volumes about why some republicans are starting to resist the loons and vote for more centrist and actually popular resolutions. Now about that sequester.

  168. Republicans have finally figured out that their obstinance won't have anything to do with Obama winning or losing a third term. Duh...

  169. Perhaps those "legitimate rape" comments of last year had some effect after all--just not the effect intended!

  170. Yes, Poet - Turns out women do have the ability to protect themselves by 'shutting that whole thing down'. It's called the vote.

  171. If we don't begin to teach our young men to treat women and girls with a respect equal to what they give other males, we are no better off here than are women and girls in Afghanistan and other misogynistic countries. In my opinion, educating young people and reducing domestic violence is far better than coming up with more and more programs for assisting victims.

    My motto: "Don't legislate when you can educate."

  172. Educate and Legislate !

  173. I agree with the sentiment of your comment, but no different than Afgahanistan? Really?

    Maybe you should read up on the rights of women in Afganistan.

  174. "[Representative Labrador] was frustrated with the possibility that Mr. Boehner would yet again bring legislation to the floor that required Democratic votes to pass.

    “It’s a huge concern,” he said. "

    Does Mr. Labrador not believe in the democratic process laid out by the US Constitution? That is a "huge concern", too.

  175. truly amazing that there are still roadblocks to human rights issues. Abuse is unacceptable behavior--period--regardless of the target. Bullies, they are, who think otherwise. But why am I surprised? The foxes are still minding the henhouse.

  176. Why is this a "Victory for Obama?"

    He had nothing to do with it...it came out of the Senate.

    I wish someone...anyone...in DC would start a campaign to stop polarizing this country and bring people together to REALLY get some work done.
    Stop the Blame Game, already.

  177. It's a huge win for the president because he pushed it through the Senate.

    It's not a game when the people being blamed deserve it.

  178. More importantly, IMO, it was Minority Leader Nancy Pelozi who kept her delegation togethe -- all the house Democrats stayed firm and voted Aye!

    Thanks Nancy ... and thanks Steny!

    P.S. Michelle Bachmann voted NO!

  179. Sounds like a good bill was passed with substantially bipartisan support, something we could use a lot more of, and should credit both parties with. Too bad NYT's headline turns it into a story about political battle and one party "beating" the other. Spinning news this way is a big part of the problem IMO.

  180. Well, if Boehner hadn't changed the voting rules it wouldn't have passed the House....which would indicate that it did not have "substantially bipartisan support".

  181. "substantially bipartisan support" when the GOP voted almost 2-to-1 against even the version that passed? Not even Rosemary Woods could pull off that stretch.

  182. "Representative Raúl Labrador, Republican of Idaho, said that while he did not necessarily oppose the content of the Senate’s version of the Violence Against Women Act, he was frustrated with the possibility that Mr. Boehner would yet again bring legislation to the floor that required Democratic votes to pass.

    'It’s a huge concern,' he said."

    Concern for the country? or for the GOP?

    www.towardasensibleorganization.com

  183. Isn't it interesting that when the vote was counted, Sr Labrador was on the wrong (No) side of the ledger. So, because of him, they needed one more Republican to cross the aisle in his place. I'd like to think if was one of our NY reps ... like Mr. King or Mr Grimm who both made the journey. Thanx guys.

  184. I was psychologically tortured for over twenty years. I was systematically isolated from my career, friends, family, and any interests I had. I couldn't purchase anything without being scrutinized; he went out and spent thousands at a clip. I was made to feel ugly and worthless. Why would I leave? I didn't think I could do any better. Anyone who thinks those who are victimized can "just" leave should experience this themselves...and THEN let us know what they think!

    Republicans need to wake up and realize that domestic violence doesn't just happen in male to female abuse situations. YAY to the Senate for recognizing this...and BOOOOOOO to the House for wimping out. Not including underserved populations that get enough prejudice within this realm, is a major slap in the face. It's just another way that victims get re-victimized. Those abusers will be allowed to victimize their partners again and again, thanks to the House of "Representatives". This is a clear indication that their interests lie in getting re-elected, NOT in doing the right thing for all people.

    To those of you who have "representatives" who didn't vote for this bill or who were part of changing it in the negative, PLEASE make a statement to your government and call them to let them know this is NOT acceptable.

  185. I fear you missed the story. The House has passed the Senate version of the bill. President Obama surely will sign it, and that will be the law.

    This doesn't mean that the Republicans in House who voted "no" shouldn't be contacted and held to account -- but your comment sounds as if you think the House adopted its own version leaving out protections for LGBT and Native women. The House version was defeated before the Senate version was brought to the House floor and adopted by a majority of House members.

  186. You said yourself that "Why would I leave? I didn't think I could do any better", which means no matter what rescources might have been available to you, you wouldn't utilize them. Meaning in your situation any law or group of laws that would or wouldn't be on the books would be non sequiters.

  187. Jeesh, those women don't look too happy about Obama's victory.

  188. Please, could someone tell me the names of those who voted against this legislation? I really want to know who these lawmakers are.

  189. Here ya go: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll055.xml#.US-ZKUKn47s.blogger

    Note that Democratic Member names are in Italics, Republicans in Roman. See all those italicized names in the "No" vote box? Oh, wait, there aren't any! Maybe this is why it's called a Democratic victory -- not a single Democrat voted against it.

  190. John Thune- republican senator from South Dakota, my state, my shame. Disgraceful.

  191. Reminds me of an old David Crosby song
    "I wonder who they are
    the men who really run this land
    and I wonder why they run it
    with such a thoughtless hand
    what are their names
    and on what streets do the live
    I`d like to ride right over
    this afternoon and give
    them a piece of my mind"

  192. This is a Democartatic and Obama victory because 87 Republicans voted for the Senate version and 145 Republicans voted against it and this is the bill that Democrats and Obama wanted.

  193. Now please list the ones that voted against it. That is important. They must be removed next chance we get.

  194. exactly!

  195. Among those voting "No" we're Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Michele Bachmann, Marsha Blackburn, and Virginia Foxx. Not surprising, I suppose, but truly discouraging in 2013. Will we remember in 2014?

  196. I have not checked, but I just bet not a single Oklahoma Congressman (all males, all extremely conservative Republicans) voted in favor of the Senate version. And I bet they are really proud of themselves, too. No foreseeable chance of voting them out, either.

  197. Mr. Mabry asked: "Should we be happy about that the fact that something passed at all…?" Absolutely, given the GOP scorched earth operating procedure. There were enough who could not otherwise come up with a plausible reason "why not" to their districts.

  198. Rep. R. Labrador: Where in the Constitution does it say that that you MUST have a majority of YOUR party's conference to bring a bill to the floor? Please show me! READ the Constitution, UNDERSTAND it, THEN and ONLY THEN, run for Congress.

  199. Congressman Labrador has a deeply flawed understanding of how American democracy was designed to work. It is true that James Madison's "checks and balances" guarantee "minority vetoes," requiring majorities to negotiate with established minorities if policy outcomes are to be reached.

    But this is far different from what Labrador's rendition of the Hastert rule--itself invented out of thin air--seeks to do. What Labrador wants is for the House Republicans to use their narrow majority--an artificial majority representing only a minority of voters in the 2012 House elections--as a constant means to block any kind of government action, even if acceptable to a large number of their own party members.

    The Hastert rule is the House's parallel to the constant abuse of the filibuster in the Senate. In both cases resort to such novel means of subverting meaningful government can be explained only by a deep ideological hostility towards the very idea of constitutional government. Tea Party Republicans are not constitutional conservatives. Conservatism is an approach to government, not commitment to destroy it.

  200. This trend, if it is real, may anger the extreme right, but it is the right thing to do for our country. Thank you, Speaker Boehner and Rep. Cantor for allowing this to happen. Now, how about seeing what else you can do with bipartisan support.

  201. It's interesting that the argument often used against the VOWA is that special consideration for women is discrimination against men and should not be allowed.

    It's also interesting that the same men are often the ones who consciously choose not to hire, promote or pay the same salaries/wages to women as they do to men.

    Can't have it both ways, fellas. Women will be heard, one way or the other.

  202. I really don't know the issues here but it seems to be everyone is now a protected and special class of citizen in this country, everyone that is except if you happen to be white and a male.

  203. Mike, before you exhibit your resentment publicly, you ought to read the law which equally protects everyone.

  204. In the context of this legislation, I find it rather difficult to reconcile a self-styled civilized and First World nation with the fact that 148 of its citizens' representatives rejected the principle that at-risk victims of violence must be granted special protections.

    Name names. Extract explanations. Keep this memory fresh. Put 'em up on posters until 2014. There is no defensible argument in an enlightened society for a fundamental tenet of human dignity to be so misunderstood by people put in a position of public trust.

    It's shameful enough that the underlying issues are rampant to the point that this sort of legislation is required in the first place. But to inflict the second wound of denying the legislation's necessity in Congress corrupts the place's essence.

    Cantor and Boehner have a lot to answer for as it is. It's a measure of both of them that they've acquired all the characteristics of the low of the low; to be as insistent as lunatics in their claims that they are serving the people when it's been made clear through all of this that their one god is the compromised GOP.

  205. It's good to have some positive news from Congress, with sequestration about to hit and so many other issues left unresolved.

    It is interesting to see that all the GOP representatives from Georgia voted against it, with a battle for the senate seat about to begin. Also interesting that Michele Bachmann and others voted against VAWA, while all the women senators -- GOP and Democratic--voted for it. While I am grateful to the Republican congressmen who crossed the aisle on this issue, it is disconcerting that so many were opposed. This is exactly why there is such a big gender gap in politics these days and so many GOP candidates last year thought there was nothing wrong with talking about "legitimate rape".

    http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll055.xml Roll Call

  206. Golly, gee, isn't sequestration the law that Obama not only created, applauded, endorsed, and signed? Seems he is getting exactly what he called for!

  207. Bruce, no. The GOP owns the sequestration and all the budget messes. Check the polling. It's in black and white. America blames the GOP for the dysfunction in Washington.

  208. Thank you, Alice

  209. "Representative Raúl Labrador, Republican of Idaho, said that while he did not necessarily oppose the content of the Senate’s version of the Violence Against Women Act, he was frustrated with the possibility that Mr. Boehner would yet again bring legislation to the floor that required Democratic votes to pass. “It’s a huge concern,” he said."

    Labrador's statement is, for me, both typical and a clear indictment of the hard right wing that thinks it should control the nation. With a majority of members of both houses supporting this action he nonetheless thinks it should have been ignored.

  210. A natural and desirable thing when the hard Left is currently in control.

  211. Hard left Bruce? Compared to what? The United States has never had a hard left government, and certainly does not have one now. I'd say that relative to 1st world governments from 1950 to present, we are slightly right of center on both social and economic policies.

  212. Wow, I had no idea that up until our benevolent regime acted, it was not illegal to commit violence against women. Please. All these bills accomplish is the carving out of tax rolls to run even more bureaucracy and prop up an ever-growing expansive government. Dems appeal to emotions and they are effective at convincing our low-information voters that they are necessary for our life. Probably because they educated the majority of our nation while the real workers were actually building something. Divided we fall, and I can't read anything from this regime without hearing us divided into some group or another... Wake up.

  213. Michael F, the bill isn't about criminalizing violence against women -- which, as you say, is already illegal -- so much as it's about preventing it from happening in the first place, and, where that is unsuccessful, about taking care of the victims afterwards.

  214. And you speak at though there are NO laws and programs on the books to take care that!

  215. The Act appropriates funds toward investigation and prosecution of violent crimes against women and (insert interest group here). It establishes an Office and bureaucracy to accomplish said functions. -- Essentially federal gov assumes people and states are unable to function without massive oversight from their omniscient bureaucracies and appropriates funds from national tax rolls to expand their power. Simple motivation for the type of personality that gravitates toward government work. Opposition to the bill was for provisions that gave illegal immigrants refugee status if "battered", and Native American courts' ability to pass judgement on non-native citizens. Dems grab all the power they can in these bills and because they are attached to an emotional issue, they can stifle opposition by generalizing it...Republicans want violence against women. Ludicrous, ridiculous, and expected.

  216. It is a big victory for women, first, then Obama and Democrats.

  217. Like "hate crimes", "hate speech" laws, and the catch-all phrase, "for the children," we have another "special interest" group law written "for the women" to garner votes rather than correct a shortcoming in existing law.

  218. Women are not a special interest group, they are half of the population.

  219. For those who keep asking, only one Democrat did not vote. All other Democrats voted for the bill. All no votes were Republicans. In fact, more than 60 percent of Republicans voted against the bill. Anyone who thinks both parties are the same is delusional.

  220. Nice job Eric Cantor!

  221. The other ones who got this bill through are the House Republicans who refused to vote for the weakened "alternative." That break in party discipline showed Boehner that he was going to lose, so he gave in and let the bill come to the floor even though a majority of his caucus was against. I doubt it all 87 who voted for final passage of the Democratic bill were initially against the Republican "alternative." It would be good to know who those Republicans were who stood up (at least this time) to their leadership and right-wing crazies, even if it is only because they fear voters in their home districts.