Vicky Hartzler's deception on Violence Against Women Act
Yael T. AbouhalkahPoor Vicky Hartzler. The Missouri congresswoman has such little respect for her constituents that she will try to blatantly mislead them.
Or, more accurately, she’s willing to try to deceive them, to lie to them.
Hartzler last week voted against the version of the Violence Against Women Act that passed in Congress and went to President Barack Obama for his signature.
You can see the proof of the fact that Hartzler voted against this bill here, provided by the Clerk of the U.S. House. Scroll down to the middle of the “noes” votes.
But wait.
Hartzler soon afterward issued a press release.
Under the headline “Hartzler votes to protect women from acts of violence,” it said, in part, “Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler (MO-4) has voted to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) - legislation that provides vital protection for vulnerable women and children.”
It turns out that Hartzler, in the release, acknowledges that she actually voted for the “House” version of the bill.
What she doesn’t mention is that this was the more restrictive version of the bill that failed in the House vote.
Here’s what happened, as succinctly laid out in Talking Points Memo:
“The House GOP leadership gave a nod to conservatives with a procedural move to hold a vote on their version first and, only if it were to fail, allow a vote on Senate-passed version. The open secret is they knew the GOP version would not pass — that conservatives and Democrats would kill it, which is what happened.”
So to sum up, Hartzler voted for a weak version of the Violence Against Women Act.
She knew it wouldn’t pass. Everyone knew it wouldn’t pass.
So when it failed, Hartzler had the opportunity to vote for a stronger version of the Violence Against Women Act.
She failed to do so.
Despite Hartzler’s opposition to a bill that protects women against violence, this version of the bill actually passed.
It will become law - without Hartzler’s support.
UPDATE: Hartzler later issued a more detailed - and more open admission - of what this was all about. Find it here.
George Hunsucker
Northland
2 months, 1 week agomore victimhood legislation yt….
Mark Robertson
2 months, 1 week agoLibs obvioulsy start out with the position that they despise conservatives, especially conservative women.(See Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann and now Hartzler.) Then they fill in the blanks with something that they “think” makes them look bad and that low information voters will rally behind. Thank you. Mark Robertson Independence
Mark Robertson
2 months, 1 week agoNo, Rep. Hartzler voted for a constitutional version of the Violence Against Women Act. Hartzler is an outstanding member of Congress. The VAWA that passed was unconstitutional, which is why Hartzler opposed it. It expands coverage to men,homosexuals, “transgendered” and even prisoners. It shreds the Bill of Rights. It even puts women in more danger. As usual, with liberals, their “solution” will make things worse. (See: Say No to the Violence Against the Constitution Act, by Daniel Horowitz, The Madison Project, 4-23-12) Hang in there Vicky. You are doing great. The fact that the Star Board can’t stand you is a good sign for your constituents.(See Sam Brownback) Thank you. Mark Robertson Independence
Jay Minnick
2 months, 1 week agoOnce again, Yael, you are not telling the entire story. But I am guessing you already know that. Or, you refuse to do your homework and you are more interested in your agenda than the truth. Vicky has explained her stance on her website (link below). You seemed to have forgotten to explain in your article why she voted against the senate version of the bill. For those who do not want to go to her website here is one paragraph:
“The House version failed, however, and the more controversial Senate version passed. It contains provisions which many view as unconstitutional regarding tribal jurisdictions, which could jeopardize Indian women’s safety by overturning convictions against those who committed violence against these women. It excludes Catholic Charities from providing services to victims of sexual trafficking, even though this organization has been one of the premier providers of services and has helped thousands of young victims. It also doesn’t contain the accouontability provisions of the House version to ensure domestic violence grants go to the victims, not bureaucrats. For these reasons, I could not support the Senate version. It did pass, however, and is being sent to the President’s desk. While I opposed the controversial new sections, I am glad the other positive provisions are being renewed and that continued help will be sent to women and children in need.”
http://hartzler.house.gov/press-release/view-capitol-congresswoman-vicky-hartzlers-newsletter-week-february-25-march-1-2013
Taunia Adams
2 months, 1 week agoHartzler changed her website today to further explain why she does not support all women. Ike Skelton voted to protect all women (HR 1133) and he didn’t have to lie about his votes because Missouri believes in protecting women.
Loree Voigt
2 months, 1 week agoThank you Mr. Abouhalkah for correctly pointing out Hartzler’s deception! As a woman in her district, I am disgusted with her on so many levels. But,her blatant attempts to disguise her vote for the watered down version of this bill while voting against the REAL bill, that actually supports Women, is a new low for Hartzler! Shame on you Vicky, some of us will never let you forget this one!
George Hunsucker
Northland
2 months, 1 week agoso whomever “reported” Mr. Robertson’s comments as the dreaded “toxic” must be a lib not wanting to see the truth…. nice touch….
Mary Platt-Lindley
2 months, 1 week agoVicky Hartzler is and continues to be a good little soldier for the far right agenda. She knew exactly what she voted on; and her deception was only to cover her back side. I, too, receive her updates and she has a way to spin everything going on in Washington. She’s as phoney as a 3 dollar bill. She continues to show how out of touch with reality she is…from her previous birther comments to farm subsidies to corporate welfare. She claims, “I am a common-sense pro-life conservative Republican representing Missouri’s 4th Congressional District.” The common sense is not so common in her camp. She represents the GOP special interests; not the 4th congressional district…that is where her real loyalties stand.
Mark Robertson
2 months, 1 week agoPosts for this column confirm that there is not much that riles up a lib woman more than a conservative woman. Great points Jay. But obviously, a story that can be twisted to attack a conservative, especially a conservative woman, trumps the truth.
And I see that my two previous posts had to much truth for someone to swallow. Truth is “toxic” to many libs. My previous posts can still be read though by just clicking the wording now there. Thank you. Mark Robertson Independence
Mark Hastert
2 months, 1 week agoThis sounds a little like John Kerry’s “I voted for I before I voted against it” (or was it the other way around?) nonsense. It’s clear that she’s not standing behind her “principles” with all this spin. Her vote against the bill that became law is the vote on record. She must be catching hell for it or she wouldn’t be backtracking…
Mark Robertson
2 months, 1 week agoRep. Hartzler is not backtracking or spinning at all. The Senate version is unconstitutional, as she explains. She is standing by her principles. You are the one who is spinning with familiar propaganda speak that trys to make low information believe you. Thank you. Mark Robertson Independence
Tony Hulen
2 months, 1 week agoSuprise Suprise Suprise a politican that lies, never heard of such a thing