Congresswoman Annie Kuster (NH-02) today joined Democratic colleagues at a press conference to announce the reintroduction of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), historically bipartisan legislation that established landmark protections for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, and other crimes.
“I’m proud to join with my colleagues in reintroducing the Violence Against Women Act,” said Kuster. “For nearly two decades, VAWA has extended critical protections to victims of domestic violence and other crimes, and enjoyed broad support from members of both parties – as it should. Protecting women from violence should be above partisanship and politics. This is about extending fundamental protections to every woman in America, and working to eliminate domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, and other forms of violence from our communities.”
VAWA has improved the criminal justice system’s ability to keep victims safe and hold perpetrators accountable. Based on this legislation, every state has enacted laws to make stalking a crime and strengthened criminal rape statutes. Since VAWA was signed into law, the annual incidence of domestic violence has dropped more than 50 percent, and reporting of domestic violence has increased as much as 51 percent.
“Domestic violence affects families and communities in New Hampshire and all across the country,” Kuster added. “It’s long past time for Republicans and Democrats in Congress to come together to reauthorize and strengthen this critical legislation.”
In April 2012, the Senate passed its version of the VAWA reauthorization bill with broad bipartisan support. The Senate bill streamlined existing VAWA programs and contained a number of long-overdue updates that have been recommended by law enforcement, religious, legal, education, and service professionals who work with victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. Unfortunately, the bill that passed the House of Representatives (H.R. 4970) last year failed to expand access for victims, and, in fact, actually rolled back protections for some victims of violence.
The legislation announced at today’s press conference mirrors the bipartisan version of VAWA introduced by Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Mike Crapo (R-ID) earlier this week.
Really??
7:42 am on Thursday, January 24, 2013
It was amazing to see how low the GOP would go, using VAWA to attack gays and minorities last session. Every congress since 1994 was at least bipartisan enough to get this passed, but not those GOP hacks in the 112th Congress.
Lets hope the 113th Congress can muzzle this kind of right wing hatred.
Atlant Schmidt
7:56 am on Thursday, January 24, 2013
To me, the sad part is that such an act should even *NEED* "reauthorization".
I mean, what are we saying here? "Okay, for this biennium, we don't care about violence against women!" Shouldn't violence against women be opposed for all time?
Swamp Fox
10:21 am on Thursday, January 24, 2013
What is sad is the lack of accomplishments by the democrat party and Kuster bragging about doing nothing. Typical democrat strategy.
No Longer interested
11:14 am on Thursday, January 24, 2013
Not enough "accomplishment" to satisfy the perverse need for neocons to see people suffer. They need Kuster to cut unemployment benefits, deploy barbed wire at the Mexican border, cut meals on wheels for the elderly, you know, some real "accomplishment" that causes real suffering.
How about starting another war with some obscure Muslum nation that results in torture? That will really satiate the neocon need to see their fellow humans sufffer.
Patriot
2:52 pm on Thursday, January 24, 2013
Hello Ray, you OUT THERE??????
""How about starting another war with some obscure Muslum nation that results in torture? That will really satiate the neocon need to see their fellow humans sufffer."""
No Longer interested
3:08 pm on Thursday, January 24, 2013
Patriot,
you are apparently out of touch with what makes necons like Dick Cheney happy (besides shooting his hunting partners in the face).
David Pittelli
9:46 am on Thursday, January 24, 2013
Why don't we just federalize the entire criminal code then, and be done with it? The Constitution (like federalism and perhaps the states themselves) is just a relic of dead white men. Oh, and perhaps of the elected officials who swear to uphold it.
Atlant Schmidt
12:24 pm on Thursday, January 24, 2013
David:
I realize you meant your comment sarcastically, but I actually have often wondered why we still do maintain separate, overlapping, and often-conflicting state and Federal criminal codes. Okay, I understand the whole Is Louisiana Napoleonic Code thing and how that came about, but the rest of our country operates under laws that trace back to English common law; why not *HARMONIZE* the criminal codes and be done with it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Louisiana
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_law
David Pittelli
2:46 pm on Thursday, January 24, 2013
Because the Constitution does not allow it. And that's because the states, when forming the federal government, did not sign on to that. If you want a unified federal criminal law, then get a constitutional amendment. I will oppose you, because I believe that divided government is one thing preventing tyranny, and that the division of governmental power into a limited federal government and the sovereign states is as important to that as is the division of the federal government into legislative, executive and judicial branches. Your constitutional amendment would go nowhere, because in the abstract most people agree with me. But when it comes to emotional issues like beating on women, I agree that many voters (and hence politicians) are ready to ignore the separation of powers.
Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it. Federalism is a force for freedom for peoples of all states, not just a force for reaction. Remember that if you expect Texas to be forced to accept liberal dictates from Northeastern politicians, then you may similarly have to accept reactionary dictates from the likes of Texas politicians.
steve forte
3:16 pm on Thursday, January 24, 2013
Also keep in mind , what works one place dosnt in another. Some laws that may be wanted in one state have little use or desire in another.
Atlant Schmidt
4:15 pm on Thursday, January 24, 2013
Actually, "harmonization" is perfectly constitutional.
This is the policy whereby multiple groups simply adopt the same standards/laws/what-have-you.
Atlant Schmidt
4:17 pm on Thursday, January 24, 2013
Actually, I'd just as soon the South secede again (and they can take Texas with them!)
"Better Off Without 'Em"
A Northern Manifesto for Southern Secession
By Chuck Thompson
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/22/books/better-off-without-em-by-chuck-thompson.html
Patriot
2:56 pm on Thursday, January 24, 2013
David, it is closer than we know!
Seamus Carty
9:46 am on Friday, January 25, 2013
"victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, and other crimes."
It is not just women that are victims of these acts. Calling the legislation the "Violence Against Women Act" is wrong. Will the law just apply to female victims?
Patriot
1:31 pm on Friday, January 25, 2013
Absolutely agree!
It is not like we are a lawless country.
Mike black
4:35 pm on Friday, January 25, 2013
How many jobs has Ann created so far ?
David Pittelli
8:53 am on Saturday, January 26, 2013
In her defense, she just took office what, 3 weeks ago?