This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

House GOP lets Violence Against Women Act die.

#41JIC XPosted 1/3/2013 2:46:15 PM
EternalSlim posted...
All groups should have this. They should just change it to the Violence Against People Act.


Isn't that substantially similar to aggressive TSA searches of babies and old ladies with walkers?

Congress has found, on the basis of historical and contemporary research, that women face certain disadvantages in our society, one of which is a relatively higher vulnerability to physical and sexual assault.

Must it address that identified problem by overbroad means just because it might arguably appear fairer to do so?
If so, that's but an analytical hop, skip, and a jump away from some really undesirable possibilities.
---
And that is why the age of magic is at an end. {WoT}, Emeritus
#42hunter_gohanPosted 1/3/2013 3:21:20 PM
JIC X posted...
Isn't that substantially similar to aggressive TSA searches of babies and old ladies with walkers?


I don't see how providing violence prevention programs, protection for victims evicted from their homes in relation to domestic violence or stalking, funding for victim assistance services, programs and services for victims with disabilities, and legal aid to victims of violence for everyone is in anyway comparable to stuff the TSA does like preventing a baby from flying because his (common) name is on the no-fly list or something.

Congress has found, on the basis of historical and contemporary research, that women face certain disadvantages in our society, one of which is a relatively higher vulnerability to physical and sexual assault.


That's nice(well not really :p). They can continue to be the group that most takes advantage of the hypothetical Violence Against People Act. Why does this mean we should ignore the minority violence, or that they aren't worth helping?

Must it address that identified problem by overbroad means just because it might arguably appear fairer to do so?


What exactly is overboard about the things I said at the top of this post?

If so, that's but an analytical hop, skip, and a jump away from some really undesirable possibilities.


What exactly is undesirable about the things I said at the top of this post?
---
If you find yourself falling into madness -- dive. -Malkavian Clan Book 1st edition
We eat gods for breakfast. - Dr Egon Spengler
#43dermoratrakenPosted 1/3/2013 3:26:16 PM(edited)
A quick read of the fact sheet doesn't indicate any bias towards women in the benefits offered by the law. The gop isn't arguing against the name though, they just want to deny support for certain demographics. Regardless of one's stance on these demographics, this would be a mistake because any instance of nonreporting is harmful to society as a whole.

www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/vawa_factsheet.pdf
#44JIC XPosted 1/3/2013 3:26:56 PM
I said "overbroad," not "overboard."

i.e. if a legislature wanted to ban dog ownership, legislation that prohibited the ownership of all vertebrates would achieve that end by overbroad means.

What I'm saying here is that Congress has determined that violence against women is an acute problem in American society. Does it need to address that problem by using means addressed to other problems (for example, violence perpetrated against men by women)?

Generally, I think the government should have the leeway to implement its policy choices.
If Congress thinks there's a problem of violence against women that requires specific legislative attention, it should go ahead and address that problem.

The recourse for those who disagree is the ballot box.
Simple.
---
And that is why the age of magic is at an end. {WoT}, Emeritus
#45hunter_gohanPosted 1/3/2013 3:37:54 PM
JIC X posted...
I said "overbroad," not "overboard."

i.e. if a legislature wanted to ban dog ownership, legislation that prohibited the ownership of all vertebrates would achieve that end by overbroad means.


Ah I thought that was a typo. Banning something is entirely different than protecting victims. It's more comparable to legislature passing a bill that protected and provided services for victims of theft, but only men. There is nothing overly broad about providing these protections to everyone. Even if there is one group that will take advantage of it the most.

What I'm saying here is that Congress has determined that violence against women is an acute problem in American society. Does it need to address that problem by using means addressed to other problems (for example, violence perpetrated against men by women)?


Again, why does that fact mean we shouldn't help the minority of victims and provide them the same protections and services?
---
If you find yourself falling into madness -- dive. -Malkavian Clan Book 1st edition
We eat gods for breakfast. - Dr Egon Spengler
#46sfcalimariPosted 1/3/2013 3:38:41 PM
From: YouAreCrumbs | #008
AceVanquish posted...
Can you explain it in your own words? Do you know what it does?


The Act provided $1.6 billion toward investigation and prosecution of violent crimes against women, imposed automatic and mandatory restitution on those convicted, and allowed civil redress in cases prosecutors chose to leave unprosecuted. The Act also established the Office on Violence Against Women within the Department of Justice.

These are just facts, it is undeniably a good thing. Why do you want it in his own words?


GRAAA BIG GUVERMINT TAX AND SPEND
---
...things that work interest us less than things that don't.
--Adam Gopnik
#47babyeatermaxPosted 1/3/2013 3:38:44 PM
JIC X posted...
What I'm saying here is that Congress has determined that violence against women is an acute problem in American society.


>The congress that just let VAWA die
#48JIC XPosted 1/3/2013 3:46:54 PM
No, an earlier Congress.
---
And that is why the age of magic is at an end. {WoT}, Emeritus
#49JIC XPosted 1/3/2013 4:02:39 PM(edited)
Ah I thought that was a typo. Banning something is entirely different than protecting victims. It's more comparable to legislature passing a bill that protected and provided services for victims of theft, but only men. There is nothing overly broad about providing these protections to everyone. Even if there is one group that will take advantage of it the most.

You have to bear in mind that the government works with limited resources, and has to allocate those resources accordingly. Top priorities get first dibs.

The ordering of legislative priorities is fundamentally a political matter, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Again, why does that fact mean we shouldn't help the minority of victims and provide them the same protections and services?


(I'm writing this without knowing the precise services provided under the Act or the extent to which it applies to non-females):

It's up to Congress.
You don't like what they're doing? Write a letter to the editor. Write your Congressman. Post about it here. Run for office. Vote the bums out.

You have recourse.
---
And that is why the age of magic is at an end. {WoT}, Emeritus
#50OrcaPosted 1/3/2013 4:07:30 PM
General_Juma posted...
and now to play Devil's Advocate, but should not the Bill extend to everyone then? Even if there are much fewer cases of something, if it happens to someone, should it not still be something that is tried to be dealt with?


That's like addressing undereducation by expanding scholarships needed for the poor to include rich kids.
---
Libertarian Socialist - Combining the two worst people you met at college into one.