Is The Violence Against Women Act, Really Necessary?

Is it mandatory to have a Voting Act, that was first enacted in 1965?

How about a Defense of Marriage Act?

Should there even be a discussion between human beings that spells out that you should treat other human beings with dignity and respect?
I say a resounding, NO!

To the 138 Republicans including one woman from South Dakota, who voted against the VAW Act, should there be legislation that says specifically, women should not be abused on an Indian reservation? No woman should be abused, no matter where she lives or her ethnicity.

By that same measure,a human being should not be subjected to violence, or any form of intimidation based on who they choose to share their lives with.

Every American citizen has a right to get married to the person they choose.
Was there a judicial decision handed down when you decided on your life partner?

Should there be a law limiting your right to vote? If you say yes, who should have the right to decide?
Certainly not Republicans, who has tried to suppress the votes of certain citizens who they feel do not agree with their philosphy on how this country, and it's citizens should be controlled.
The goal should be to get as many voters as possible, to exercise that most basic of RIGHTS.

Suppression is never good.

So many laws and Acts what about "do not enslave another human being".

It's true you cannot legislate morals, but common decency should be EVERYONE'S GOD GIVEN RIGHT.
As one female Democratic Senator said "these laws should be swept away in the dustbin".

So the answer is still no, human beings should not have to be mandated to "treat others as you would want to treated."

It's not too late America, while the world waits and watches,these decisions will have an impact on future generations.

Choose wisely, how you would want to be remembered.


Leave a comment
  • I agree with the ACLU which said in 2005 that " the Violence Against Women Act is one of the most effective pieces of legislation enacted to end domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. It has dramatically improved the law enforcement response to violence against women and has provided critical services necessary to support women in their struggles to overcome abusive situations.."

  • In reply to Aquinas wired:

    You are absolutely right.
    My reasoning is why should "we"need legislation to compel us to treat all people; men, women and children humanely.
    The VAW Act also specified not abusing Native American women on their reservations to avoid prosecution. Crimes on reservations did not apply to non Native Americans.
    So it's just treat all people, like you want to be treated.

  • I think you fail to mention that the VAW act also includes men. The bury your head view is that men are not abused by women, but the level of actual physical abuse is not as highly reported by men and as accepted by authorities, so the knife thrown at the husband in anger but misses is not reported, and if it is, the number of arrests made by authorities much lower.

    Also in the legislation is "verbal abuse". Who is to decide that? The accuser or the officer who arrives on the scene? Will that officer have a list of cross-gender "abusive" words and phrases and determine an offense based on this list? Who makes the list?

    Your hyperbole about the Republican vote is misguided. To vote the act the way it is written can actually reduce and degrade the term "violence", just as the word "rape" has been degraded and changed.

    This act actually gives women less freedom over their bodies, as a guy who is threatened can simply pick up his cell and call the police and possibly have the woman arrested, for what she may consider a pillow talk joke about "bobbittsizing" him. Can't happen? Well maybe the man is thinking that he is wanting to move on and this would be his way of shouting the degraded "rape" word. There are consequences to every law, and where there is broad generalizations allowed, it will lead to less protection and protection of rights than it proposes to protect.


  • In reply to Richard Davis:

    Again, I feel the meaning of my post has been overlooked.
    As I stated neither men, women or children should be abused, no matter the form.

    Why the need for an Act to force human beings to treat each other with decency and respect?

    I so appreciate your comments and thoughts, however nothing can dissuade me from Thinking, the Republican party are doing more harm to the country, and their chances of winning a national election.

  • VAWA does much more than just mandate the way that people treat each other. It's a set of laws that give those in abusive domestic situations certain rights. For example, when I was a domestic violence attorney, I worked routinely to get residency for women who had been brought here from other countries by their husbands and who were afraid to divorce or leave their husbands because they feared deportation and having to leave their American children behind.

    VAWA allows non-residents, who were permitted to enter this county only because their spouse had a green card, to apply for residency of their own. VAWA is extremely important because it gives these women a way out that they would otherwise not have.

  • In reply to Julie DiCaro:

    Julie, I'm so stoked that you not only read my post, but commented as well.

    It is no doubt that I believe in the validity of this legislation, and I'm proud it was reauthorized.
    I recognize that my title was provocative and attention grabbing, but I guess my true feelings were lost.
    In any event, I agree with and appreciate your views.
    Please continue to read.

Leave a comment