VAWA Passes in House and Senate; Right-Wingers Sulk

On February 28th, the House of Representatives voted 286 to 138 to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), with all 199 Democrats and 87 Republicans voting in favor. The House passed the full version of VAWA that was approved by the Senate, rejecting a watered-down version supported by House Majority Leader Rep. Eric Cantor. The VAWA reauthorization now awaits President Obama's signature.

VAWA, first passed in 1994, has strengthen victim services and provided funding for investigation and prosecution of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. VAWA provides grants for law enforcement, victim services, and violence prevention initiatives, among many other programs, making it an invaluable anti-violence boon.

The 2013 reauthorization of VAWA is remarkable because it includes several new provisions related to underserved communities. First, it allows tribal courts to prosecute non-Natives who perpetrate domestic violence or sexual assault on Indian lands. By doing so, VAWA helps overcome previous jurisdictional barriers that left Native American victims vulnerable. The new VAWA is also LGBTQ-inclusive, prohibiting denial of victim services based on sexual orientation. Finally, the new VAWA authorization will assist undocumented immigrant victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. All three provisions proved controversial with some Republican lawmakers, who tried and failed to have them removed from VAWA.

Right-wing figures have long expressed their contempt for VAWA (see here, here, and here), and they show no signs of simmering down now. First, in a March 4th statement at the Concerned Women for America website, Penny Young Nance alleged that the full version of VAWA supposedly "sold sex trafficking victims, and the groups that want to help them, down the river." Nance alleged that Senator Patrick Leahy's amendment to VAWA would supposedly decriminalize prostitution of minors and eviscerate "conscience protections" of religious groups such as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. Nance not only fails to provide evidence for these claims, but ignores VAWA's many provisions for serving sex trafficking victims, combating trafficking, and punishing traffickers. Did she not read VAWA's Title XII, the whole freaking section devoted to trafficking victim protections? (See www[dot]cwalac[dot]org/article_1262.shtml)

Even before the House vote, right-wing organizations were voicing their displeasure with the full version of VAWA. For example, the Family Research Council encouraged supporters to pray over the Senate vote on VAWA, demonizing the bill as "a liberal public relations campaign, loaded with measures that conservatives could never vote for, so that liberals can carry on their charge that conservatives are conducting a "war against women." The FRC lobbed the usual attacks at VAWA, claiming that it does little to combat violence against women, ignoring evidence of VAWA's efficacy and its many provisions for tackling gender-based violence. (See www[dot]frc[dot]org/prayerteam/prayer-targets-general-booth-children-boy-scouts-hhs-mandate-vawa-hagel)

Moreover, in a February 25th commentary at the Independent Women's Forum website, Charlotte Hays claimed that some of VAWA's provisions "are so far removed from protecting women as to belong in some other piece of legislations." She criticized "ideology-driven" training programs funded by VAWA, as well as the alleged "power-grab for tribal courts" in the full version of VAWA. She defended the McMorris Rogers bill as "a failure to pander" to the LGBTQ community, rather than a failure to protect LGBTQ persons from victimization. Hays complained that Republicans who criticized VAWA provisions would allegedly be branded as misogynists. (See www[dot]iwf[dot]org/blog/2790640/Whither-VAWA-)

"But Republicans know that, if they put forward a serious critique the legislation, they will be hailed as sexists who don't care about the welfare of women, a ridiculous but nevertheless potent charge in the wake of the Obama campaign’s successful “War on Women” strategy."

Other right-wing voices were condemning VAWA even before the Senate vote. In a February 9th commentary at Freedom Works, Julie Borowski mocked VAWA as "unconstitutional" and claimed that it has failed to reduce violence against women despite allegedly wasting money. (She ignores evidence that VAWA grants have not only reduced rape and assault rates, but have also saved money in net averted social costs.) Borowski outrageously claims that the true purpose of VAWA is to "shell out taxpayer dollars to liberal organizations that help elect Democrats". (see www[dot]freedomworks[dot]org/blog/jborowski/reasons-to-oppose-the-so-called-violence-against-w)

Borowski's commentary suggests that she has done little, if any research on what VAWA actually does. For example, she insists that VAWA allegedly reinforces stereotypes of men as "natural predators" who aren't victimized. She ignores the actual language of VAWA, which says no such thing. At several points, VAWA specifically legislates funding for programs that serve men, women, and minors.

Also, Borowski claims that VAWA is unnecessary because domestic violence is already prosecuted on the state level. If she had researched VAWA more in depth, she would have learned that it funds numerous domestic violence and sexual assault victim services programs, rape prevention and education (RPE) programs, law enforcement initiatives to encourage arrest policies and protection order enforcement, sex offender management programs, anti-trafficking initiatives, and housing protections for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. VAWA funds countless important services and initiatives, not just prosecution.

Every time VAWA advances, right-wing voices lob the same false, anemic criticisms at it. To all the right-wingers out there who are demonizing this important legislation, I ask that you ACTUALLY BOTHER TO READ WHAT VAWA SAYS BEFORE ATTACKING IT.

And to everyone who advocated for the full version of VAWA, and the service providers who use its funds to create a safer and more just world, I send out my warmest thanks. Victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking are counting on the assistance that VAWA will continue to provide.


For additional commentary, visit the following links.

Alternet: The Nine Republican Men Who Refuse to Even Consider VAWA

Slate: Congress Finally Passes the Violence Against Women Act

Los Angeles Times: Voting for women, and against violence

2013 CPAC Is Fast Approaching!

The 2013 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), a project of the American Conservative Union, will take place on March 14-16 in Washington D.C. CPAC is an annual gathering of conservative political leaders and activists, with speakers serving as a who's who of the American right-wing. This year's scheduled speakers will include National Rifle Association CEO Wayne LaPierre, Sen. Rand Paul, Sen. Marco Rubio, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, and former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, among many others.

A celebration of right-wing culture, CPAC will include book signings for books such as Return to Order: From a Frienzied Economy to an Organic Christian Society. Among the many Citizens United films to be screened are Occupy Unmasked, which paints a sinister picture of the Occupy movement, and The Gift of Life, an anti-abortion film produced by former governor Mike Huckabee. CPAC film schedule will take plenty of jabs at Democrats, screening films such as The Hope & The Change and 2016: Obama's America, both of which are critical of President Obama. Hillary Clinton has by no means been forgotten, as CPAC is scheduled to screen Hillary The Movie as well.

As always, CPAC will offer a colorful array of right-wing workshops:

- “The Fight for Religious Liberty: 40 Years After Roe v. Wade"

- “Fatherless America: The Headwaters of Poverty, Crime& Social Dysfunction”

- “Stop THIS: Threats, Harassment, Intimidation, Slander & Bullying from the Obama Administration”

- “The United Nations vs. The United States: The End Run Around the American Way of Life"


While skimming the 2013 CPAC program, I noticed that the conference has devoted more attention environmental issues -- or rather, denying environmental issues. For instance, CPAC will host a screening of FrackNation, which defends hydraulic fracturing ("fracking") and confronts "threats, cops and bogus lawsuits questioning green extremists for the truth about fracking." Also on the conference's screening schedule is Truthland: Dispatches from the Real Gasland, which also defends hydraulic fracturing.

Several speakers from the conservative Heritage Foundation are scheduled to take part in a panel discussion entitled "Individuals, Liberty & the Environment: Seizing the Environmental Issue". The CPAC panel discussion comes after the January 2013 release of the Heritage Foundation report, Environmental Conservation Based on Individual Liberty and Economic Freedom, which critiques environmental laws and argues that "private property protections and free markets" offer promise for environmental protection.

Finally, a panel discussion entitled "How I Learned to Stop Worrying & Love Plastic Water Bottles, Fracking, Genetically Modified Food, & Big Gulp Sodas" will no doubt feature controversial messages about the environment.  Where might the speakers stand on environmental and food safety issues? Let's take a look.

One speaker, Julie Gunlock, is director of the Independent Women's Forum Women for Food Freedom project, the website for which insists, "Governments at every level are seeking to more vigorously dictate what Americans can and cannot eat.  This is government over-reach and paternalism at its worst." The project looks askance at government influence on food-related policy, advertising, and marketing, arguing that "Americans simply don’t need a nanny state to help them choose the food that’s best for them and their families."

Another speaker, Angela Logomasini, is a Senior Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. The organization's website states its opposition to "policies based on the beliefs that prosperity threatens the environment, that the answer to every environmental challenge is more regulation, and that risks can be abolished by limiting human ingenuity."

Yet another speaker, Jeff Stier, serves as a Senior Fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research. The organization's Center for Environmental and Regulatory Affairs promotes "private, free market solutions" to environmental issues, frowning on "the perverse nature of many government-first environmental policies through the collection and promotion of regulatory horror stories, which attach human faces to very real problems caused by regulation." 

Noticing a pattern? Disdain for environmental regulation policies. The free market as the supposed solution to environmental issues. Disgust for the so-called "nanny state". This should be interesting, especially for observers who doubt such right-wing conclusions and want genuine answers to environmental problems. In the face of climate change, pollution. energy challenges, and concerns about sustainability, and in the wake of a massive climate change march in Washington D.C., we need substantive public discussions about the environment. I have doubts that CPAC will be a setting for such discussions.

CPAC, along with the annual Values Voters Summit, gives observers a picture of the issues drawing the attention of the American right-wing. As conference material becomes available this spring, I'll be eager to hear what messages circulate within CPAC's conference rooms.


For more information on CPAC, click here. For additional commentary, visit the following links.

Huffington Post: CPAC 2013 Adds Potential 2016 Candidates Marco Rubio, Rick Santorum To Speaker List

Politico: Sarah Palin to Speak at CPAC

The Maddow Blog: TRMS writing challenge: The missing CPAC panels

Even More Right-Wing Voices Angry at VAWA

As highlighted in a prior post, the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), currently up for reauthorization, has been the target of attacks from the far-right. For your edification, here are a few more examples of the right-wing's anti-VAWA rhetoric.

First, in a recent commentary at its website, the FRC called the push for VAWA reauthorization a "cheap political trick" meant to paint Republicans as "sexist Neanderthals." The column accused VAWA supporters of trying to use abused women as "pawns" for their reelection by casting VAWA opponents as anti-woman. The commentary specifically criticized Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nevada) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-New York) for adding "loopholes for immigration" and "special homosexual protections" to the bill. The author speculated that the purpose of adding these provisions was solely to make VAWA unpalatable to Republican lawmakers, thereby forcing them to vote against it and foster the "lie" that the GOP is misogynist. VAWA, the commentary concluded, "does real violence to the budget and individual freedom."

Next, in a recent letter to the Washington Times, Gordon E. Finley accused VAWA supporters of "bullying" lawmakers to support the legislation. Finley asked if the country could afford to lose money down the "rathole" of allegedly unsuccessful "gender-ideology programs." Predictably, he claimed that VAWA was one of the left's weapons for destroying the traditional family by supposedly denying fathers their Constitutional rights, removing the father from the home, and damaging parental relationships through "false" allegations. Sound familiar?

In a February 19th commentary at the Independent Women's Forum website, Christina Villegas wrote that VAWA should be rewritten to address sexual assault and domestic violence "more generally" rather than create "special protections" for victim groups. Villegas claimed that "VAWA, from its inception, has sought to redistribute power and resources solely to female victims."

Actually, no it hasn't. VAWA clearly states that both male and female victims are eligible for services. I'm growing increasingly more annoyed with claims that VAWA allegedly excludes male victims when a short perusal of the legislation shows otherwise. Furthermore, acknowledging that certain groups need additional resources to address violence isn't "special protections," it's practical policy.

Also, a March 15th commentary at the Independent Women's Forum website claimed that VAWA too often gives funding to "advocates who view violence against women as rooted not in a criminal mindset or psychological problems but in the notion that there is a patriarchy that harms women."

Well, yeah. Violence against women is entwined with misogynist attitudes. It's not merely the result of mental illness, and it does not merely consist of isolated, gender-neutral crimes. What seems to be the problem with acknowledging that patriarchy exists?

Writing at Breibart, Dan Riehl insisted that the revised version of VAWA would increase funding for areas prone to fraud and increase the danger of visa abuse via deception by undocumented immigrants. Riehl claimed that the revised VAWA would give Indian tribes criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians, thereby supposedly endangering Constitutional protections. He reserved special criticism for the new VAWA's provisions for U-visas, which grant victims of certain crimes temporary legal status and work eligibility for a maximum of four years. Riehl claimed that U-visa recipients aren't required to aid criminal investigations.

Actually, according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, U-visa applicants must provide a certification from a law enforcement authority that they have been helpful, are being helpful, or are likely to be helpful to authorities investigating the crimes of which they were victims.

I expect the far-right to continue attacks on VAWA, ignoring the legislation's social and fiscal benefits. On a bright note, I also expect enlightened men and women to defend VAWA and encourage lawmakers to reauthorize the legislation, for the sake of domestic violence and sexual assault survivors across the country.


For additional commentary, visit the following links.

The New Civil Rights Movement: Tony Perkins: Violence Against Women Act A “Slush Fund” Unfair To Men

Philadelphia Enquirer: Score political points or help rape victims?

Slate: Why Is The GOP Turning Against Anti-Domestic-Violence Legislation?

The Root: Violence Against Women Act at Risk?