Republicans kill Violence Against Women Act – pretend you’re surprised

I’m confused. I thought the Republicans wanted to end abortion because they see it as violence against women, but apparently they’re just fine with domestic violence against women. While the fiscal cliff negotiations were grabbing all the headlines, the House quietly killed the extension of a bill that provided federal help to states in fighting domestic violence. The reason? It would have extended support to those vile immigrants, LGBT women and Native Americans. Much better, according to Republicans, that more women and children die of domestic abuse than that we risk helping people they apparently find problematic on some level.

I have no words to classify their thinking. This bill has had broad bipartisan support since 1994. And the original bill still had that support – it was just the inclusion of immigrants, LGBT and Native Americans (jurisdictional issues, mainly) that upset the House. Why, I don’t even want to know. And to add insult to injury, they just let the whole bill die – to hell with women!

It goes so nicely with the “forcible rape” bill that Paul Ryan and Todd “Legitimate Rape” Akin sponsored.

People: stop voting for these extremists. There’s nothing wrong with voting for individual Republicans who don’t seem to hate everyone but rich white guys, but these extreme Republicans and their attitudes toward women are reminding me that Ted Bundy was a proud Republican who worked for the party.

Comments

  1. Red says

    Good grief.

    Someone posted over 20 facts related to domestic violence and abuse of women. Another poster suggested they be put on a poster and posted EVERYWHERE.

    Sounds like a plan to me. :) Maybe put a website address with all recent and factual information regarding domestic violence.

  2. Maartje says

    My first reaction was: How could anyone be against helping in cases of domestic violence? Then I turned on my radio and heard the “news” that some soccer-player is splitting up with his wife. The DJ who came on after the news didn’t waste a moment to make a comment about the wife being very blue about it- and black. On my facebook some guy (now blocked) shared a old picture of the husband and wife posing for a picture in bed, only with some bruises added onto the wife… Because her getting beat up is funny? Because domestic violence between celebrities is only another source of entertainment for us, the masses?

    So no, not surprised.

  3. Amy McCabe says

    Yes. I was pissed off to hear that. They were originally more than happy to ignore Sandy victims too, until notable members of their own party started telling people not to give the Republican party any money.

    I really wish I could say I was surprised they didn’t pass the Violence Against Women act, but I already knew they don’t see women as people.

  4. says

    Amy McCabe: until notable members of their own party started telling people not to give the Republican party any money.

    For what it’s worth, stuff like this is giving me hope. I really think we’re witnessing a massive schism between Republicans who actually want to get elected and are willing to adjust their platform to make that happen, and extremists who just want to wreck the country on some kind of weird principle.

  5. Alex says

    A dark idea that bounced across my mind when I read this story. Now, it’s pretty obvious the republicans are generally anti-female. They support platforms that remove female rights, strengthen the rights of (overwhelmingly male) rapists, restrict access to female health care through protests over birth control and abortion, treat the idea of women in the workplace as laughable, and have even complained about “minority voters” voting against them (which is surely because they’re parasites and not because the party endorses a top-heavy, unscalable plutocracy of a shrinking group of white christian heterosexual cisgender men).

    With this in mind, does anyone else think it’s possible their objections over abortion are because male babies die alongside female ones? And if they were being brutally, unelectably honest, would the less religiously-brainwashed republicans support abortions of female children? They don’t care what happens to women in adulthood, so why would it go as far back as conception for anything but principle?

  6. Alara Rogers says

    Alex,

    No, they’re quite ok with the death of countless little boys from lack of health insurance, lead poisoning, gun violence, police brutality, unregulated food, toxins in the environment, and being allowed to go to war before they’re 18. Republicans may want to preserve the lives of their own sons, but they still don’t care about anyone else’s, or there wouldn’t be a Selective Service.

    The reason they don’t want abortion is that a pregnant woman is more vulnerable and easier to control than a woman who is not pregnant. It wouldn’t matter to them if the pregnant woman was carrying fish, or a litter of puppies, as long as it served to control her and weaken her. The moment the baby is born, it’s ok with Republicans if it dies to serve the interests of big business or the military war machine; it’s *only* important to preserve its life while it hampers its mother’s life.

    So I don’t think they would be secretly fine with aborting girl babies. I do think they would be secretly fine with starving girl babies to death or selling them into prostitution at the age of 5 or something, but they’re also ok with the deaths of boy babies… just as long as the baby has already served its purpose of punishing its mother for being female.

  7. says

    Alara Rogers, that was very well said. The driving political force against legal abortion objectifies the children. They are just objects that provide another way for people to “put women in their place.” That’s why whenever someone tells me they are politically active (even by just voting) against legal abortion, I question how much effort they’ve put into dealing with child abuse, child poverty, cleaning up the adoption/fostering system, etc. Most people honestly don’t understand what the one has to do with the other. It’s mind-boggling how short-sighted human beings typically are.

    I think I’ve told this story before, but once when I was going to my OB-GYN for a checkup on my polycystic ovarian issues, protesters tried to block me while shouting “Adoption not abortion!” I looked at this white blond/blue woman with her little white blond/blue kids with her, and shouted back, “Yeah? How many kids have you adopted?” She looked absolutely stunned. There she was, putting in the effort to be at this protest and specifically advise adoption, but would she adopt herself? The thought had evidently never, ever occurred to her tiny little mind. In fact, the whole crowd went silent. I think it hadn’t occurred to anyone that if you’re advocating a particular solution, maybe you ought to be part of that solution. Duh?

  8. Amy McCabe says

    Jennifer Kesler: I think it hadn’t occurred to anyone that if you’re advocating a particular solution, maybe you ought to be part of that solution.

    I wonder how many anti-abortionists feel so compelled to protests that rapist should be legally barred access to their children, which provides not only easy access to their victim, but in many cases a second potential victim.

  9. says

    SunlessNick, that’s a good question. While a lot of them may be in denial and therefore believe they have a mandate to destroy women’s rights, I suspect they’re realizing this is their last stand. The country just doesn’t appear to be all that into destroying the rights of women or minorities anymore, but it’s what the financial backers of the party want. So I think these people are making one final big push while they still have any power at all.

  10. says

    Jennifer Kesler: The country just doesn’t appear to be all that into destroying the rights of women or minorities anymore

    Wait, did I actually just type that? Is it really possible? I know I’ve always said the die-hard haters are a small minority and the big numbers come from people who follow along somewhat mindlessly until the next trend… but are we really starting the next trend? Are people really just getting tired of bigotry?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>