"Obviously, you want to be for the title."—US Senator from Missouri Roy Blunt (R-Eprobate), on how the Republicans totally for sure definitely want to support the Violence Against Women Act, or at least its title, but Democrats make it impossible by inserting icky things like protections for same-sex couples and undocumented immigrants.
Oh the humanity, etc.
"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," said Senator Jeff Sessions, Republican of Alabama, who opposed the latest version last month in the Judiciary Committee. "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?"Senator Sessions, and his reprehensible colleagues, fail to understand that lack of support for the renewal of this legislation is "not being supportive of fighting violence against women," given that their argument is essentially only women of whom they approve, i.e. cis female citizens in different-sex relationships, are deserving of state support.
Republicans say the measure, under the cloak of battered women, unnecessarily expands immigration avenues by creating new definitions for immigrant victims to claim battery. More important, they say, it fails to put in safeguards to ensure that domestic violence grants are being well spent. It also dilutes the focus on domestic violence by expanding protections to new groups, like same-sex couples, they say."Protect the sanctity of traditional domestic violence!"—The GOP.
Shakesville is run as a safe space. First-time commenters: Please read Shakesville's Commenting Policy and Feminism 101 Section before commenting. We also do lots of in-thread moderation, so we ask that everyone read the entirety of any thread before commenting, to ensure compliance with any in-thread moderation. Thank you.
blog comments powered by Disqus