Bipartisanship: Senate votes 78-22 to renew and expand Violence Against Women Act

  • Article by: JIM ABRAMS , Associated Press
  • Updated: February 12, 2013 - 3:03 PM
  • 27
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
deadbovineFeb. 12, 1311:51 AM

How about a "voilence Against Anyone Act"? "Violence Against Women Act" seems pretty sexist! But now includes indians, gays and immigrants??

7
24
deadbovineFeb. 12, 1311:52 AM

So as a male I not covered by the "Voilence Against Women Act" unless I get a sex change?

6
24
eman2001Feb. 12, 13 1:33 PM

VAWA represents all that is wrong with politics. Driven by advocacy groups who benefit from the funding, funded out of fear of the backlash of anything that might offend feminists, and nearly totally ineffective since the beginning. Rates of domestic abuse have dropped at about the same rate as other crimes, due mostly to changes in demographics rather than policy. Do some research and find out about this failed policy.

5
25
mcleanmFeb. 12, 13 2:37 PM

Why does everything always need to be divided inot groups? Violence agains women, violence against gays, violence against blacks and so on. Deadbovine hit the nail right on the head.

5
20
omakristyFeb. 12, 13 3:09 PM

Bravo. It's gratifying to see that bipartisan activity resulted in the right thing. And gentlemen-as soon as you are subject to sexual assault and domestic violence in the same numbers as women, you have reason to consider this discriminatory. The reality is that women are sexually assaulted and are the targets of domestic violence at a disporportionate rate. Be grateful. And teach your sons to respect the women in their lives. I mean it.

18
4
fishergFeb. 12, 13 4:39 PM

It is truly sad and disappointing in this day and age to see the postings of some on this forum attempting to denigrate this effort. Women in our society are violently victimized far too often and renewal of this act is LONG overdue.

11
2
dontknowjackFeb. 12, 13 4:41 PM

Seems that the "Violence Against Women Act" pretty much excludes 50% of the population.

3
13
zekefaxFeb. 12, 13 5:05 PM

Fish and Omak, agree with you both. Women are victims of abuse much more often than men and need this protection!

11
2
Thumper5316Feb. 12, 13 5:24 PM

As female and the mother of three sons I don't like this. Why exclude anyone because of their gender and why is this needed anyhow? What's wrong with the laws we have against violence to anyone? Why the sexism?

2
11
marsbonfireFeb. 12, 13 5:38 PM

Well, it never fails...put protection of women in the headline and watch the resident misogynists come out to comment on how unfair it is.

9
1

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT