White House ‘Cannot Support’ House VAWA

[cal04]

Last edited Tue Feb 26, 2013, 11:47 PM - Edit history (1)

Source: TPM

(snip)

The Administration is pleased that the House of Representatives has committed to reauthorizing the landmark Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), but the Administration cannot support the House substitute to S. 47 as currently drafted.

The bill omits crucial provisions that would address the high rates of violence experienced by young women on college campuses. For example, the Senate bill requires colleges and universities to provide information to students about dating violence and sexual assault and to develop policies that improve reporting, investigation, and services for victims of these crimes. Every parent who has sent a child off to college knows the importance of these commonsense measures to keep young people safe.

The House bill also would inhibit the successful prosecution by tribal authorities of non-Indian perpetrators of domestic violence. The proposal as currently drafted would continue to allow for disparate treatment of Indian and non-Indian offenders and fails to adequately address serious criminal violations of domestic violence in Tribal communities. The Administration urges the House to adopt the Senate language recognizing Tribal criminal jurisdiction in domestic violence cases.

The Administration is disappointed that the House bill does not require covered housing programs to implement emergency transfer plans for victims of domestic violence and sexual assault and does not explicitly protect LGBT victims of crime from discrimination when they seek services or protections funded by VAWA. Unfortunately, the House measure also does not reauthorize the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, which provides critical protections and services for victims of modern day slavery.

The Administration urges the House to fulfill its commitment to reauthorize VAWA by scheduling a vote on the bipartisan version of S. 47 that overwhelmingly passed the Senate and was championed by both Democrats and Republicans.



Read more: http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/white-house-cannot-support-house-vawa

---

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/113/saps47r_20130226.pdf
Statement of Administration Policy

[freshwest]

1. Pretty hard for the House to stop supporting violence against women during their war on women...

[AndyTiedye]

3. That's Why I Call Them RAPEuglicans

[freshwest]

12. Most appropriate. They also favor looting and pillaging.

[Ken Burch]

14. or "Ruleofthumbpublicans"...

...since they'd probably go along with the idea that beating women is ok as long as the stick used to beat them isn't excessively thick.

[sheshe2]

7. Damn them, just damn them to hell! nt

[freshwest]

11. Yes, they won't be satisfied until...

I see no other purpose in their treachery.

[another_liberal]

2. The Republicans would legislate their religious beliefs . . .

The Republicans would like to legislate into federal law their religious beliefs regarding, "A woman's proper place in society." This is a violation of several Constitutional Amendments (most notably the First Amendment) and should be fought against by every American who truly believes in equality before the law.

[freshwest]

13. +100,000

[rickyhall]

4. ERA

As I remember it, this whole RW anti-woman crusade began with the attempted passage of the Equal Right Amendment in the '70s.

[patrice]

6. +1

[msongs]

5. good for "the white house" nt

[sheshe2]

8. May the collective GOP, rot in Hell.

cal04, this just makes me so mad!

[Liberalynn]

9. I applaud the President for this

[jenmito]

10. K&R. Good for the WH! n/t