weather icon 58° Partly Cloudy
The Latest:

Moran Applauds Passage of Violence Against Women Act

by ARLnow.com | February 28, 2013 at 2:00 pm | 2,224 views | 46 Comments

Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.) is applauding today’s House of Representatives passage of the Violence Against Women Act.

This original bill expired in 2011. The latest version includes specific protections for lesbian, gay and transgender people, as well as Native Americans and immigrants.

The bill, which first passed the Senate, passed the house by a vote of 286-138. It not heads to President Obama’s desk.

Today’s passage of the Violence Against Women Act will ensure that our nation’s mothers, sisters, daughters, and friends continue to receive federal resources that help keep them safe from harm. I was proud to cosponsor this bill and vote for its passage today.

Violence is an all-too-common reality in the United States. Nearly one in four women are the victims of rape or abuse by a partner during adulthood. With the programs established through the Violence Against Women Act, no man or woman should be afraid to report domestic or dating violence.

VAWA works. Since it was first enacted in 1994, reporting of domestic violence has increased by as much as 51 percent, while the number of individuals killed by an intimate partner has decreased 34 percent for women and 57 percent for men.

While I applaud the passage of VAWA, its reauthorization took far too long. This bill passed in the Senate last May, but Republican House leadership refused to bring it to the floor. Instead, they wasted valuable time on an alternative version that deliberately omitted protections for certain vulnerable, underserved populations, allowing VAWA programs to expire at the end of the year. Today, their version of the bill failed on the floor while the Senate version was enacted.

The bill that now heads to the President’s desk includes important reforms to ensure LGBT, Native American, and immigrant women receive the protections they deserve.

Rep. Moran’s son, Patrick, pleaded guilty last year to assaulting his girlfriend outside a D.C. bar. Despite the plea, Patrick Moran’s girlfriend later said that the incident was “an accident that has been blown out of proportion.”

Print Friendly and PDF
  • novasteve

    1. Great irony he’s a sponsor of it.
    2. How about a violence against everyone law? oh wait, that’s a state issue first, and 2, assulting anyone is already illegal, but I guess some people are more equal than others.

    • Rory

      On Native American reservations, if a non tribal male assualts a female she has no recourse. 80% of assualts on Native American women on reservations are perpetrated by non tribal men, who cannot be tried or prosecuted by the local tribal justice system. This is what this law is partially addressing, among other things.

      • novasteve

        I don’t know much about Native American law, but is the US government allowed to pass such a law impacting tribal land? And what is the constitutional authority for having a a federal law re: assault? I don’t see any interstate commerce here, and it’s not enumerated anywhere… And states already criminalize assault.. Though that leaves a complication for Native American Tribal lands, but that’s not eh only issue the VAWA covers.

        • ArlNowReaderEnMass

          We agree with your confession: “I don’t know much.” And, it has been obvious for a long time so the confession is not necessary.

      • kalashnikev

        That’s because if a “non-tribal male” assaults a female on a reservation they kill him, bury him, and forget about him.

        “Who? Never heard of him…”

  • drax

    No FREDTERPs for the easy jokes, people. FREDTERPs are not awarded for just anything.

  • SomeGuy

    Why don’t they just call it the “Domestic Violence Act,” so it doesn’t trivialize the domestic violence experienced by men? Citations I’ve found say that men are covered under the act, so it’s a shame they wouldn’t title it accordingly.

    Maybe generalizing the name just wouldn’t score the same political points though.

    • ph7

      Because if 99.5% of the events protected by the law in reallty apply to one class of people, it is silly to homogenize the Title so every other class feels included. This is especially true where the 99.5% class has been historically disadvantaged under the law and bear a greater burden. (Women with children at home are far less likely to leave an abusive home, whereas men, not the traditional care takers, are far more likely to leave an abusive household). I’m sure you can conjure up lots of exceptions, but that would also be silly. Homogenizing the name would trivializes the actual need this law was primarily intended to protect.

      • novasteve

        are you saying only .5% of domestic violence is against men?

        http://www.oregoncounseling.org/handouts/domesticviolencemen.htm

      • drax

        Well, sure, but everyone already know that most domestic violence involves female victims. On the other hand, not everyone knows that this bill covers male victims too.

        • novasteve

          I’ve actually read anywhere between 35-40% of reported domestic violence is against men (could be by other men or women), but that men are less likely to report it due to shame, and also that police will not understand the situation and arrest the man despite he was the one who was abused and called the police.

          • School Marm

            Fox Hatentertainment is not facts.

          • novasteve

            LOL ALL we need to do is just bring up fox and that makes any point invalidated. If fox said the earth is round, you could disprove it by saying BOOOSH or FOX NEWS!

          • drax

            Steve, the link you posted said there’s no way to know how many men are victims because the number is a) underreported and b) really small.

            I seriously doubt it’s 35-40%.

          • novasteve

            http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/sep/05/men-victims-domestic-violence

            http://www.dvrc-or.org/domestic/violence/resources/C61/
            Between 600,000 and 6 million women are victims of domestic violence each year, and between 100,000 and 6 million men, depending on the type of survey used to obtain the data.
            (Rennison, C. (2003, Feb). Intimate partner violence. Us. Dpt. of Justice/Office of Justice Programs. NXJ 197838.
            Straus, M. & Gelles, R. (1990). Physical violence in American families. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers.
            Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2000). Extent, nature, and consequences of intimate partner violence. National Institute of Justice, NCJ 181867.)

          • drax

            How many of those involve both partners beating each other up?

          • novasteve

            I would presume 100% since they said “domestic violence”. Also lets not forget of ovverall violence, not just domestic violence, men are by far more the victims of overral violence despire being behind most of it as well, but doesn’t take away that men are still be largest victims of violence out there.

      • SomeGuy

        The law should be intended to protect people equally under it, regardless of race, sex, religion, sexual preference, etc. And the campaign behind it should attempt to raise awareness to all who are protected by it, including men. The name obscures the protection afforded to men under this law, and in fact, I had to do research to make sure men could even receive protections under it. I’m “99.5%” sure there are abused men who don’t realize they’re afforded protections under a law named exclusively for protections granted to women. As for trivializing “the actual need this law was primarily intended to protect,” I’m pretty sure it’s intended to protect DOMESTIC VIOLENCE VICTIMS, no? How does their sex make them any more or less protected by the law? I think it would be sensible to name the law accordingly, so I’m surprised you’d argue otherwise, but to each his/her own.

    • Trev

      Political posturing and pandering. Moran is a pro.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=38406174 Matthew Colter Hurtt

    Wow, stunning bit of irony here.

    • flux

      I think the title of the bill might have confused him.

      • kalashnikev

        LOL!

      • drax

        You are awarded 1/2 FREDTERP.

  • kalashnikev

    He and Patty celebrated by smashing their ladies heads into two trash cans, and then into each other for a finale… BONK!

  • http://www.facebook.com/roquer.este Roquer Este

    Guess the good Congressman better start worrying a little now. He might actually get his sorry self locked up next time he assaults his wife!

    • novasteve

      Probably Patrick might not be so “lucky” to have a woman blame her shoes next time he gets drunk and shoves her head into a gate.

  • novasteve

    Too bad Bill Clinton can’t sponsor a federal law against cheating on your spouse in a government building.

    • Clarendon Cruiser

      They should name it the Kennedy Brothers act in honor of their personal example with the treatment of women

      • novasteve

        Didn’t you hear that Ted Kennedy had a bill mandating that all cars float like the original VW bug? Then again there would have been a witness.

  • novasteve

    Were there ever any studies on visa fraud/immigration fraud resulting from the original VAWA and will there be any for the new one? You can now stay in the country if you are an illegal alien that claims they are being abused. They use the term “immigrants” in the description, but people legally present were already covered. They are now referring to illegal aliens.

  • JimPB

    The rate of domestic violence by one gender toward the other is not that different. However, there is a big gender difference in the violence severity experienced by women.

    • novasteve

      And nearly 100% of on the job fatalities are of men, and 100% of mining deaths are of men, so where’s the legislation to protect these men specifically? Not some gender neutral workplace safety law?

      • A Simpleton

        Do you have specific proposals, or is this just a Fox Hatenterainment “discussion”? Legislation is more than the title, or maybe you have never read legislation.

        • novasteve

          Yes, I propose an “Act to reduce and prevent deaths of Men in the workplace”. I’m sure there will be no objections to that title. If Legislation is more than the title, why was it ABSOLUTELY insisted upon thise be called VAWA and not a gender neutral title like the current trend in all other legislation?

          • The Professor

            It is clear that you have not read the legislation except for the title or maybe you heard about it on Fox Hatentertainment. In any event, all the readers agree with your self assessment that you “do not know much.”

  • Southie

    I wonder if Moran or anyone else who voted for this bill can cite the section of the Constitution that allows Congress to pass such a law. Oh, wait, it’s not there.

    • S. Cooke

      Don’t know much about history

      Don’t know much biology

      Don’t know much about a science book

      Don’t know much about the French I took

      But I do know that “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts
      and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and
      general welfare of the United States.”

      • drax

        You are awarded one and a half FREDTERPs.

        Nicely done.

    • novasteve

      Since when have democrats allowed the constitutionality of things to get in the way? If they think its good, it doesn’t matter if it’s a state issue and reserved to the states. THere’s no clearer example of a 10th amendment violation, but the republicans will be accused to “hating women” if they try to challenge it. This is a state issue. If you don’t like the constitution, amend it, but don’t go around violating it.

      • A Simpleton

        So, so, so, wrong. Congress has the power to spend money.

        • novasteve

          Yes, for things it has the authority to do, not things it doesn’t.

          • The Professor

            F. This post lacks any cogent reasoning. Screaming fire in a theater does not mean a fire exists.

  • JimPB

    Do the programs funded by the Violence Against Women Act (1) help victims and (2) prevent such violence? I am not knowledgeable about research that address 1. I do know the research evaluations of interventions for batterers. These evaluations rather definitively find that these programs do not protect women, i.e., they do not reduce subsequent domestic violence. A big reason: the programs do not address major risk factors for domestic violence. A major factor that is often not addressed: alcohol consumption. Alcohol is neither necessary nor sufficient for domestic violence (domestic violence occurs without alcohol consumption, and most episodes of alcohol consumption are not accompanied by domestic violence) but is robustly associated with the much domestic violence. When alcohol consumption is reduced, domestic violence is also decreased.

    We need a vigorous program of research to develop and validate effective assessments to determine who is at high risk for recidivistic domestic violence (physical aggression is the norm among young adult couples, but most do not become career domestic violence perpetrators) and effective interventions, and then how to obtain the high fidelity implementation of effective methods.

  • Montel Williams

    The Act expands the definition of abuse from harming a woman to women, men, homesexuals, transgender and includes harmful language and mental stress. So, the definition has been watered down, making easier to convict more people. Since you can’t get a gun with a felony on your record there will be less people allowed to have guns. So, enteres Moran promoting the bill despite not knowing what it really means.

  • http://www.facebook.com/aattura Azar Attura

    My mother, had she lived, would have applauded this day. Hubby beat her so badly so many times that when she was finally able to leave the relationship, she was a shadow of her former self. Rest in Peace, Ma. PS- the judicial system was NOT very kind to her back then.

  • Atticus Fisticuffs

    Why shouldnt we add more laws to makes stuff that is already illegal …still illegal??? Its like double secret probation! These misnomer bills convince only the uneducated.

×

Subscribe to our mailing list