GOP on defensive over Dem votes on policies geared toward women

"House Republicans are playing defense as Democrats hold votes on a series of measures that could make it more difficult for the GOP to recoup losses with female voters in 2018.

The House on Wednesday approved the Paycheck Fairness Act, which strengthens penalties against employers that discriminate against female workers with lower wages.

And this week, the House is set to vote on a renewal of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) after it expired in late December.

“We were put into the majority by the women of this country. And so I think it is only fair as we forge ahead with our ‘For the People’ agenda that we try to deal with some of these obstacles,” said Rep. Lois Frankel (D-Fla.), co-chairwoman of the Democratic Women’s Caucus."

Now here’s a good question. Did women put democrats back in power in the House because they are tired of a male chauvinist pig being the leader of the country. Or did women put democrats back in power in the House to make sure there is song legislation penalizing companies who discriminate against women.

Or both.

The idea that the House couldn’t even manage to keep the Violence Against Women Act in place shows where things had devolved to under Republican leadership. I guess they were too busy trying to take healthcare away from people for the 97th time.


Should have kept reading at least as far as VAWA goes.


Stefanik also put forward “clean” legislation to extend current VAWA policy for one year, which is backed by House GOP leaders.

Republicans say Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) could just put a clean extension on the floor and it would pass.

“I think the best thing for us to do is to extend the current VAWA into the rest of the year,” House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said at a press conference on Thursday, pointing to Stefanik’s bill.

Ahh…so the Republicans let it lapse under their watch in December, which clearly means the Democrats are to blame. It appears GOP opposition to the current VAWA legislation has to do with the NRA objecting to it because it restricts gun access to domestic abusers.

Quite a hill to die on. And now we know why women are flocking away from the Republican party.


“For the People who are women agenda”

Because violence against people who can’t write their name in the snow is really bad.

Has our nation historically had an issue with domestic violence, especially against women?

1 Like


1 Like

No, the objection is, it expands it to include people merely accused of wrongdoing, removing their right to own a weapon without due process.

Well tell that to Democrats who pay their women employees and staff LESS then they pay men! Obama did it and so did Hillary! It’s another example of authoritarian “do as I say, not as I do” mentally of leftist Dem wannabe dictators.

1 Like

Prove that claim.

You are talking to a poster who defends the Trump administration while claiming Obama had a cabinet filled with criminals. Logic and facts don’t really enter the equation.


As one who does charity work in shelters for battered wives, I can assure you it is pretty bad. I can speak from personal experience here. I grew up in a house (I won’t call it a family, because it wasn’t) where my dad beat my mother regularly. It didn’t stop until I got old enough to knock him back on his ass. LE was basically worthless back then. I, for one, am glad progress has been made since then.


Do you believe someone accused of beating their spouse should have access to a gun? Why not at least a temporary removal until the situation is adjudicated?

Because we don’t remove people’s rights without due process. If you think they are too dangerous to have a gun, hold them until trial. Most men don’t need a gun to kill their wife or girlfriend. Do you?

And what happens when someone get’s the really obvious idea to make an accusation to disarm someone they want to kill?

1 Like

So under what circumstances do you see this taking place? A wife accuses her husband of punching her in order to later murder him herself?

Men can’t get protection orders against women? Because I am pretty sure they can.

The data are quite clear that the ownership of a gun, for a person under a domestic violence restraining order increases the likelihood that that person will murder the person they abused.

Sometimes rights have to be balanced. Here the choice is an act that would save the life of a number of woman vs an act that would inconvenience a percentage of gun holders. Is the right to life or the right to possess a firearm paramount?

Either way, someone is going to have their rights infringed.

So a man accuses his spouse/girlfriend of beating him, gets the weapon removed, and then murders her?

I guess I don’t really see that as an especially logical way to go about things as you would immediately put a spotlight on yourself as a suspect.

Yes it has.

1 Like

They always look at the spouse or boyfriend first anyway so I don’t see how it increases your risk of being looked at.