After 18 Years, Violence Against Women Act Has Saved Countless Lives

[kentay]

After 18 Years, Violence Against Women Act Has Saved Countless Lives
By Annie-Rose Strasser posted from ThinkProgress Justice on Sep 13, 2012
 

[Woody]

What are the specific provisions?

[Woody]

For information not provided in the OP

http://abcnews.go.com/politics/t/blogEntry?id=16364003


In a nutshell, the act has been approved twice in 18 years.  The native American objection is in the senate bill, the bill the WH approves grants tribal courts the ability to try the cases.  The House version is the old bill which leaves the process to the federal courts.  Repubs feel the addition is unconstitutional. 

[Woody]

More details left out of the OP:

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.[/size][/font]

[/list]

• 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

[/list]

[/list][/size]http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2012/0516/House-passes-Violence-Against-Women-Act-grudgingly[/color]


[/size]To summarize, the House passed a bill that is the same as the old bill and authorizes 660 million in funding over 5 years.  The senate bill proposes the same amount.  The dems added to the bill provisions they knew the GOP would not vote for.  [/color]

[/size]Yet the accusation is that the republicans are holding up the bill.  Odd.[/color]

[kentay]

Woody I fully support the Violence Against Women Act, do you? And if you do then what's wrong with your conservative men who don't? And if you don't, why don't you support women? kentay

Factsheet: The Violence Against Women Act

[Woody]

Woody I fully support the Violence Against Women Act, do you? And if you do then what's wrong with your conservative men who don't? And if you don't, why don't you support women? kentay
;

 :strawman:




I never said I didn't kentay.  I merely posted the details your meager cut and paste omitted.  If you love it so much tell the senate to pass the house bill. 

[kentay]

More details left out of the OP:

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.[/size][/font]

[/list]

• 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

[/list]

[/list][/size]http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2012/0516/House-passes-Violence-Against-Women-Act-grudgingly[/color]


[/size]To summarize, the House passed a bill that is the same as the old bill and authorizes 660 million in funding over 5 years.  The senate bill proposes the same amount.  The dems added to the bill provisions they knew the GOP would not vote for.  [/color]

[/size]Yet the accusation is that the republicans are holding up the bill.  Odd.[/color]

Woody do you support the Republican changes to the VAWA Bill, you posted? If you do please tell me your rational for giving your support for them, that way we can have a discussion, thanks kentay

[Woody]

More details left out of the OP:

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.

[/q][/q]

• 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

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2012/0516/House-passes-Violence-Against-Women-Act-grudgingly

To summarize, the House passed a bill that is the same as the old bill and authorizes 660 million in funding over 5 years.  The senate bill proposes the same amount.  The dems added to the bill provisions they knew the GOP would not vote for. 

Yet the accusation is that the republicans are holding up the bill.  Odd.


Woody do you support the Republican changes to the VAWA Bill, you posted? If you do please tell me your rational for giving your support for them, that way we can have a discussion, thanks kentay



The republicans did not add any changes.  The senate did.  If we are going to have a discussion one should post facts.  That way we can have a discussion.  Thanks woody.

[kentay]

Woody why are you so sneaky, and only post parts you think back up your rhetoric? kentay

House passes Violence Against Women Act, grudginglyTop 9 reasons Congress is brokenhttp://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2012/0516/House-passes-Violence-Against-Women-Act-grudgingly

[Woody]

I did not post anything sneaky.  Why are you so dishonest?  Gave you a link dumbass.   


The fact is the pubs passed a bill that is very similiar to the other two renewal bills.  You left out this onfo, you got caught, and now you lash out.


You sir are the one who got sneaky.  Well, you didn't.  Your sources did.  They left out the additions that the senate added

[kentay]

I did not post anything sneaky.  Why are you so dishonest?  Gave you a link dumbass.   


The fact is the pubs passed a bill that is very similiar to the other two renewal bills.  You left out this onfo, you got caught, and now you lash out.


You sir are the one who got sneaky.  Well, you didn't.  Your sources did.  They left out the additions that the senate added

Woody In your heart of hearts,  is Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D) of New York, right?  kentay




Woody, when you call someone a dumbass it reflects on you because you don't do it all the time only when you think someone get the best of you, why do you do it because it will only shorten your life. kentay

[Woody]

More details left out of the OP:

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.[/font

[/q]

• 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

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2012/0516/House-passes-Violence-Against-Women-Act-grudgingly

To summarize, the House passed a bill that is the same as the old bill and authorizes 660 million in funding over 5 years.  The senate bill proposes the same amount.  The dems added to the bill provisions they knew the GOP would not vote for. 

Yet the accusation is that the republicans are holding up the bill.  Odd.

Maybe the font isn't the right color




Maybe the font isn't the right color.

[kentay]

Ok Woody I get your message loud and clear, you don't want a discussion you only want one liners, have a nice day. kentay

[Woody]

Ok Woody I get your message loud and clear, you don't want a discussion you only want one liners, have a nice day. kentay

Bullsh?t.  What I don't want is to have to repeat myself.  I posted the answer to your question quite sometime ago.  Read it if you want a serious discussion.


Actually, don't.  You don't u defrost and what a serious discussion is.  Carry on....