Fri Feb 22, 2013, 09:29 PM
struggle4progress (88,513 posts)
House G.O.P. Offers Violence Act With Fewer Specific Protections
February 22, 2013, 7:24 pm
By ASHLEY PARKER
The version of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act that House Republicans unveiled Friday afternoon — which excludes specific protections for gay, bisexual or transgender victims of domestic abuse, and offers limited provisions for Native American women on reservations — is already facing fierce criticism from Democrats and women’s and human rights groups.
“This is unacceptable and must be rejected in the strongest possible terms,” Michelle Ringuette, Amnesty International USA’s chief of campaigns and programs, said in a statement. “The U.S. government has a responsibility to ensure that all women are protected from violence, not just those favored by political expediencies.”
The bill, which reauthorizes a 1994 law that assists victims of domestic and sexual violence, is similar to a reauthorization bill passed in the Senate last week with 78 votes, including those of all female senators, all Democrats and just over half of Republicans. But the House version differs in two crucial respects: it eliminates “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” from a list of “underserved populations” who face barriers to accessing and receiving victim services, and it falls short of the Senate bill in offering protections for American Indian women.
Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Republican of Washington and the chairwoman of the House Republican Conference, will take the lead on the bill, which the House is expected to vote on next week ...
2 replies, 489 views
Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
House G.O.P. Offers Violence Act With Fewer Specific Protections (Original post)
Response to struggle4progress (Original post)
Fri Feb 22, 2013, 10:13 PM
DreamGypsy (2,225 posts)
1. Anyone interested in a Constitutional Amendment establishing a unicameral Federal legislature?
Guess which chamber I would suggest for elimination.
Do I really need that sarcasm thingie... when the statement is only 49% sarcastic?