Can't Beat That with a Stick--'Cause "That" Is a Woman, and It's Against the Law!

Congressional Republicans are incensed that Senate Democrats have brought up the renewal of the Violence Against Women Act.  They claim the Democratic majority wants to make the GOP look bad by forcing them to vote on the issue.  I don't get it.  Why would supporting this broadly popular legislation to protect women from violence make Republicans look bad?

Oh.

Seriously?

Yes, seriously, folks! The party that brought you mandatory trans-vaginal ultrasounds and now, in Arizona, legislation allowing employers to fire women who use birth control pills--that party now has a problem with reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act.  Which, of course, is all a Democratic plan to make them look bad.  No doubt the Dems also tricked Rush Limbaugh into slandering Sandra Fluke.

In fairness, Republicans are most emphatically NOT in favor of domestic violence.  International violence, sure, but that's another story.  No, the Republicans simply object to some of the law's proposed new requirements:

The legislation would continue existing grant programs to local law enforcement and battered women shelters, but would expand efforts to reach Indian tribes and rural areas. It would increase the availability of free legal assistance to victims of domestic violence, extend the definition of violence against women to include stalking, and provide training for civil and criminal court personnel to deal with families with a history of violence. It would also allow more battered illegal immigrants to claim temporary visas, and would include same-sex couples in programs for domestic violence.

So, there: Republicans just oppose the idea of preventing violence against Native American and rural women.

No, no, no. . . .They really just have problems with the immigration provisions, as well as questions about the way some of the grant money is being spent.  Unfortunately for them, if these arguably legitimate concerns lead conservatives to vote against the measure, Democrats will likely wield these votes as ammunition in their campaign to paint Republicans as a party actively hostile to women's rights.  Sucks for them, but then again, the GOP wouldn't have this problem if it hadn't done such a good job at painting itself as actively hostile to women's rights.

As for GOP complaints about Democrats willfilly misrepresenting Republican positions, well, guess what, folks?  That's called politics.  When you feel bad about being misrepresented as misogynstic neanderthals, just remember two words: Death panels.

******************************************
Sidenote: Rabid anti-feminist and Viagra antidote Phyllis Schlafly describes the Violent Against Women Act as "legislation that promotes 'divorce, breakup of marriage and hatred of men.'” Speaking as a man--indeed, speaking for all men (as I do)--I can assure Schlafly that VAWA does not make me feel hated.  Indeed, I would hazard that the only men who feel hated because of this legislation are those who are inclined to commit violence against women.  Which I would think is kind of the point, no?