Shame on Blunt, Roberts for their anti-women votes today
Yael T. AbouhalkahOnly 22 U.S. senators voted ‘no’ today on the Violence Against Women Act, which fortunately passed 78-22.
Shamefully, two opponents were from the Heartland: Missouri’s Roy Blunt and Kansas’ Pat Roberts. (The rest of the Shameful 22 are listed at the bottom of this post.)
Roberts’ stance could have been expected.
The ultra-conservative Republican is pretty much in the pocket of tea party extremists these days on all kinds of issues. The days from a decade ago when he was supposed to be a respected, old-guard leader on intelligence issues are long gone.
What a disappointment he is now for traditional Kansas values.
Blunt’s vote was a bigger disappointment.
He’s one of the supposed “moderate” Republicans who could take a leadership role on fiscal and social issues during the second term of President Barack Obama. Goodness knows the country needs some in the GOP party to work in the best interest of compromise and moving the country forward.
Blunt should be one of those leaders. Alas, he wasn’t on the Violence Against Women Act vote.
Missouri Democrat Claire McCaskill voted for the act, as did Kansas Republican Jerry Moran. Good for both of them.
The U.S. House now gets the bill containing the Violence Against Women Act. In a positive move, some Republicans seem to be open to passing a version of the act this year, after killing it in 2012.
Today’s vote exposed the fact that the U.S. Senate simply needs more women in it, in part to balance out the totally backwards views by male senators on women’s issues.
All 22 who voted against the act were men. And all were Republicans - although it’s a bit encouraging to point out that 23 Republicans (including Moran) did vote for it.
The 22 Republicans who voted against it were Sens. John Barrasso (WY), Roy Blunt (MO), John Boozman (AR), Tom Coburn (OK), John Cornyn (TX), Ted Cruz (TX), Mike Enzi (WY), Lindsey Graham (SC), Chuck Grassley (IA), Orrin Hatch (UT), James Inhofe (OK), Mike Johanns (NE), Ron Johnson (WI), Mike Lee (UT), Mitch McConnell (KY), Rand Paul (KY), Jim Risch (ID), Pat Roberts (KS), Marco Rubio (FL), Tim Scott (SC), Jeff Sessions (AL) and John Thune (SD).
George Hunsucker
Northland
3 months agoso tell us yt, what does this piece of legislation that is sooooooooooooooo important do for women?
Gulliver Foyle Jr.
3 months agoIf you are opposed to violence against women, does that mean you are in favor of it? Looks like the Tea party segment of the GOP, at least in the senate, figures they don’t need votes from women. Might come back to bite them.
Mark Hastert
3 months agoIn all fairness there are a couple of riders in the bill that are the real issue. One has to do with domestic violence on First Nations land.
Reginald Thornton
3 months agoViolence on women? Yael’s abuse of the word “shame” should be a concern too. ‘Shame this, shame that, shame them, shame on you for not recognizing the shame that I must point out to you’.
Yael, would you mind very much actually describing in even the slightest way what this bill is about? I suspect that you shaming everyone means there’s not much substance there.
Do you really think anyone seriously believes this must be a perfect bill, for so many congressmen to vote against it? You then make yourself look small by shaming those who probably have a pretty good reason for their vote. Apparently better than your reason, since you won’t even deign to list it here.
Rick Adams
3 months agowhy don’t you read it reggy ? it has mostly little words.
Rick Adams
3 months agoAnd it will be interesting to see how well this is forgotten in Mr. Rubios district come next election. I know, I know Reggy … it has no value. Thats what Mr. Akin thought too.
Gulliver Foyle Jr.
3 months ago22 out of 100 can not be called “so many.” Over 90% of those voting against it are older white male Republicans, an endangered group if ever there were one. These guys, supported by Tea partiers or fearing a challenge from the right, knew they could cast a meaningless vote, in favor of violence against women, because it was going to pass overwhelmingly no matter how they voted. Of course, now the loons in the house can fail to act and women’s lives will be endangered by Republican politics. History is going to laugh at today’s Repubs, just like they do at their fight against integration, or the fight that led to them losing the Civil War.
George Hunsucker
Northland
3 months agoI am still waiting for you bleeding hearts to say what is soooooooooo important in this bill other then YT bitching about it….. Such a hoot you are libbers…..
Mark Hastert
3 months ago“I am still waiting for you bleeding hearts to say what is soooooooooo important in this bill”
Oh so sublime….GH as you have so often said ad nauseum. read the bill or a brief synopsis. There is plenty to recommended it and until now, it’s enjoyed bi-partisan support. I can’t believe that the Republicans are stupidly painting themselves into this corner. It’s clear that none of our conservative friends (or legislators) understand what it’s all about. They used to be smarter than this but then they got Tea-ed on.
Reginald Thornton
3 months agoThey continue to ignore repeated pleas to point out the perceived differences in current and proposed legislation. Instead, they suggest only to read the proposed legislation. I truly believe they don’t get it. Their world is about adding to laws, adding and adding. All that matters is they have proposed a new law, not at all whether it addresses what is already addressed, whether existing laws are insufficiently enforced, or whether the new law is counter-productive to existing good law if not also an impediment to other law and law-abiding citizens.
This new legislation is all of that. I know, because I read it- even the bigger words- and compared it to existing legislation. Clearly, its “supporters” here have not read anything but Democrat talking points, which must be written only in smaller words.
Christopher Michael Lindsey
3 months agoSo Gulliver, this is what has become of modern politics? Pass ineffective and unenforced new laws that pander to voting blocs to prove you care? You and your hipster buddies are the very reason this country is declining so precipitously…you and the Star flock get goose bumps every time one of our “Public Service Heroes” in DC takes to the soapbox announcing new (and likely unconstitutional) new laws, empowered by the knowledge that they have millions of bleating sheep “journalists” and their low-information followers happily fiddling while Rome burns.