the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee sent out this fundraising email:
First we learned that Mitt Romney wanted to “get rid of” Planned Parenthood.
Now, there are news reports that Republicans in Congress will oppose re-authorizing the Violence Against Women Act.
Enough is enough! The Republican War on Women must be stopped NOW.
We must raise $17,581 more by midnight tonight to double-down on our Women’s Health Accountability Fund.
Will you chip in $3 by midnight tonight to hold Republicans accountable for their War on Women?
…
Americans deserve to know that Mitt Romney and Republicans in Congress are willing to put women’s lives in danger.
Of course the Democrats "know" that everyone will "check" why they put "get rid" in parentheses.
So, what's all this then?
Here are the actual facts surrounding re-authorization of the Violence Against Women Act, courtesy of the Senate Republicans:
The VAWA was originally passed in 1994 and has remained in effect through both Republican and Democrat Congresses.
Well, that's refreshing.
On March 12, 2012, the Judiciary Committee voted on the reauthorization of S. 1925, the Violence Against Women Act, introduced by Senator Leahy.
OK, should be a no-brainer, right?
Unlike the last reauthorization of VAWA in 2006, which passed by unanimous consent, S. 1925 contained provisions that had never appeared in past authorizations of VAWA.
Well, there's no problem in trying to improve upon a Law that works I suppose. So what did Leahy suggest?
The Leahy bill contains a number of new and controversial immigration provisions. For example, it expanded eligibility for and increased the number of visas available to certain individuals (whether in the U.S. or a foreign country) who may be helpful in the investigation of a crime.
OooK, how this affects women is a bit beyond me, but, OK, I guess.
However, as the law is currently written, this visa category is subject to rampant fraud and misuse, e.g., sham marriages; false allegations of a crime.
Ah-ha, so Leahy wants to expand a program that is known to be misused and full of fraud.How did the Republicans feel about that?
Sen. Grassley, the Ranking Member, offered a Republican substitute amendment to the Leahy bill:
The Grassley substitute contained fraud-prevention measures.
That seems reasonable.
So they could come in and immediately grab welfare benefits? SWEEET! I mean, wtf?The Leahy bill also eliminated the requirement making these visa applicants ineligible for admission if they would become a public charge upon entry in the U.S.
What else did Leahy's Bill bring up?
In a dramatic break from legal precedent, the Leahy bill also gave criminal jurisdiction over non-Indian individuals to Indian Tribes and allowed Tribes to expel non-Indians from privately held land.
That doesn't seem very neighborly.
But wait, what the hell does this have to do with the VAWA???
By any objective measure, the Leahy Bill deliberately contains unserious legal provisions on issues such as immigration designed to create the false appearance of obstruction—an effort made all the more remarkable given that Senate Democrats opposed a better version of the legislation and haven’t scheduled theirs for a vote.
Well, that's what the Republicans WOULD say, inn't? <snork>
This from: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2 ... tinues.php
But wait again, what does Chuck think of this?
New York Sen. Chuck Schumer believes he has found a political weapon in the unlikeliest of places: the Violence Against Women Act.
Republicans have several objections to the legislation, but instead of making changes, Schumer wants to fast track the bill to the floor, let the GOP block it, then allow Democrats to accuse Republicans of waging a “war against women.”
And none of the objections are about women's issues afaik.
t’s fodder for a campaign ad, and it’s not the only potential 30-second spot ready to spring from Senate leadership these days.
From his perch as the Democrats’ chief policy and messaging guru, Schumer wants to raise taxes on people who earn more than $1 million, and many Democrats want to push the vote for April 15, a move designed to amp up the “income inequality” rhetoric just in time for Tax Day.
Schumer has a plan for painting Republicans as anti-immigrant as well. He’s called the author of the Arizona immigration law to testify before his Judiciary subcommittee, bringing Capitol Hill attention to an issue that’s still front and center for Hispanic voters.
None of these campaign-style attacks allow for the policy nuances or reasoning behind the GOP’s opposition, and some of the bills stand no chance of becoming law.
But that’s not really the point.
The real push behind this effort is to give Democrats reasons to portray Republicans as anti-women, anti-Latino and anti-middle class. In the aftermath of a fight over a payroll tax cut for American workers and an Obama contraception policy, Democrats are ready for this next set of wedge issues.
“If a party chooses to alienate the fastest-growing group of people in the country [Latinos] and the majority of people in the country, women, they do so at their peril,” Schumer said Wednesday. “This is an important issue.”
The move carries some risk. The economy is still struggling, with the jobless rate above 8 percent and millions seeking work. Gas prices are skyrocketing. And Schumer himself said last Sunday that Democrats would focus like a “laser” on the economy, a comment Republicans giddily pointed out as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) pushed for judicial confirmations this week.
Schumer and Reid have also shown little interest in bringing forward a budget resolution this spring, saying that overall spending levels have already been agreed upon. That has opened them up to Republican charges they are steadfastly avoiding tough votes on the budget in favor of election-year point scoring.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/03 ... z1pWTYZoUA
So, there's your War Against Women.
And a bit more from Powerline:
This is just one more in a series of Democrat scams, intended to 1) divert attention from the Obama administration’s record of failure, and 2) raise money from the Democrats’ gullible base. What is actually going on, as we wrote yesterday, is that Senate Democrats have slipped extraneous provisions into this year’s version of the Violence Against Women Act, and have refused to consider the Republican alternative, drafted by Senator Grassley, that strips out those inappropriate provisions or imposes safeguards to prevent their abuse.
Jesus, people.
For the full read about what the Democrat's "initiatives":
One area of abuse by the Democrats relates to immigration. You may wonder what immigration has to do with the Violence Against Women Act:
U-visa expansion
Background: 10,000 U-visas are available annually to immigrants who are likely to aid in certain criminal investigations. The purpose of the U-visa is to aid law enforcement in investigations. Immigrants who are here illegally as well as immigrants who are not in the country may apply for a U-visa. There is no requirement that the U-visa recipient actually aid in an investigation or that there even be an investigation underway. The immigrant may stay here for 4 years under a U-visa. After 3 years, a U-visa recipient may apply for an adjustment of status and become a legal permanent resident. This creates a breeding ground for fraud because illegal immigrants that are currently in deportation proceedings may apply for a U-visa with intention of actually aiding law enforcement.
The Leahy bill creates 5K more U-visas annually, but lacks needed provisions to ensure that the purpose of the visa is fulfilled. The Democrats refused to support such provisions.
The Grassley amendment contained provisions that will ensure that the available 10K visas go to immigrants who actually qualify by:
* Requiring that the crime on which the visa is based be reported within 60 days of its occurrence;
* Requiring that the statute of limitations has not run on the crime, which would prevent prosecution; and
* Requiring that the crime be under active investigation or prosecution.
The Democrats’ unwillingness to accept such common-sense provisions to prevent fraud demonstrates their bad faith. There are also issues relating to “self-petitioners,” another category of immigrants who can get visas under the Violence Against Women Act. (Who knew?) Once again, the Republican version of the bill contains obvious measures to prevent immigration fraud, which the Democrats refuse to consider or vote on.
In a departure from all legal precedent, the Democrats’ version of the VAWA renewal, authored by Pat Leahy, extends the criminal jurisdiction of Indian tribal courts to cover non-Indians. The Republican version tries to rein in this shocking–and I would think unconstitutional–innovation:
Tribal Jurisdiction: In a dramatic break from legal precedent, the Leahy bill gave criminal jurisdiction over non-Indian individuals to Indian Tribes. A hearing was never held on this provision, so the consequences of such a drastic measure are unknown.
While the bill’s jurisdiction is limited to domestic violence offenses, once such an extension of jurisdiction is established, there would be no principled reason not to extend it to other offenses as well. A non-Indian subject to tribal jurisdiction would enjoy few meaningful civil-rights protections. Courts have held, for example, that tribal governments are not bound by the Constitution’s First, Fifth, or Fourteenth Amendments.
Unbelievable. The last area where the two versions of VAWA differ relates to the Republicans’ effort to minimize fraud in the administration of cash grants. The Democrats, as usual, simply want to pass money out to their cronies without any meaningful oversight of how it is spent:
Lack of Grant Oversight: The Leahy bill authorized over $600K [sic] for VAWA grant programs. While this was a reduction from the 2006 authorization, the bill lacked much needed oversight provisions for the spending of grant funds. There is overwhelming evidence that without oversight provisions, the funds given to grantees under VAWA may not be used to protect victims of domestic violence.
The Department of Justice Inspector General (DOJ/OIG) has frequently questioned grantees’ use of sizable portions of the grants.
For example, a July 2010 audit of the Community Legal Aid Society, Inc. in Wilmington, Delaware, resulted in the questioning of the use of 93% of the $891,422 Legal Assistance for Victims grant. Similarly, a September 2005 audit of Legal Aid of Nebraska questioned 64.5% of its $1,981,552 grant for the same purpose.
Most of the grantees audited by the DOJ/OIG in 2010 were found to have used some grant funds questionably and had often failed to properly document their use of the funds (21 out of 22 grantees audited). The Grassley amendment addressed these problems by requiring the DOJ/OIG to audit 10% of all grantees annually and discontinuing funds for those grantees that are found to be using them for unallowable purposes. Democrats did not support this provision.
