It would take quite a monumental asshole to oppose providing assistance to victims of domestic violence. But, here we are in 2012, enmeshed in serious discussions about whether a woman's boss should be able to decide what health care she's allowed to purchase through insurance and if a woman carrying a stillborn fetus should be barred from having it removed until she gives birth. Exciting times, these. So it should come as no surprise that Senate Republicans have continued the noble GOP battle against mothers, wives, and daughters by opposing renewal of the Violence Against Women Act, a law that has historically had bipartisan support.
The Violence Against Women Act first became law in 1994, and has been renewed with near-unanimous support every time it's come up for review. But according to the New York Times, when it came up for renewal again last November, Republicans on the judiciary committee noticed that there were new provisions in the act that rubbed them the wrong way. While it passed out of committee, no Republicans voted for it. And now, it's headed for a full-on Senate Battle Royale, with Republicans crying that the bill's expansion is a nakedly political move. Jeff Sessions of Alabama says,
I favor the Violence Against Women Act and have supported it at various points over the years, but there are matters put on that bill that almost seem to invite opposition. You think that's possible? You think they might have put things in there we couldn't support that maybe then they could accuse you of not being supportive of fighting violence against women?
keyboard shortcuts: V vote up article J next comment K previous comment