|
Dear Group, Weeks after the vote, McMorris Rodgers’ got around to posting her logic for her No vote on the renewal of the funds for the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), H.R. 1585. The vote was taken on April 4. This study in non-explanation finally appeared on her website long after the news cycle had moved on. She writes: The Violence Against Women Act has always been a broadly supported bipartisan bill. While I strongly supported an extension of VAWA, the majority inserted highly partisan sections that ensure this legislation will only collect dust in the Senate. Instead of caring for the women helped by this bill, the majority wanted to score political points. I look forward to voting for a bipartisan re-authorization of VAWA. McMorris Rodgers wishes us to believe the Democrats in the House inserted something awful that prevents her from voting for the VAWA renewal, but she refuses to tell us what the something is. Her staff told me otherwise when I called the Spokane office in mid April. When I pressed for specifics of McMorris Rodgers’ objections to H.R.1585, the staffer told me there was a clause that would “allow biologically male transgender individuals who identify as female into women’s shelters.” McMorris Rodgers, the staffer said, wanted to “protect the women in these shelters.” I read the bill and word searched it. I can find no such clause. Is McMorris Rodgers’ using this No vote among her partisans to advertise her fealty to Republican transgender phobia? The more widely offered explanation for Republicans voting No on H.R.1585 is that H.R.1585 closes the “boyfriend loophole.” Here’s the main point of contention: Under current federal law, only people convicted of domestic violence offenses against spouses or family members can lose their gun rights. The [new version of the] VAWA would add people convicted of abusing their dating partners, closing the so-called “boyfriend loophole.” It would also prohibit people convicted of misdemeanor stalking offenses from owning or buying firearms, as well as abusers subject to temporary protective orders. Is this the “highly partisan section” to which McMorris Rodgers objects? Is she advertising her No vote to her loyal NRA following while she refuses to communicate to her general constituency the actual substance of her objections? McMorris Rodgers fails to explain the ideological substance of her No vote to the constituents she is pretends to represent. Worse, she takes refuge instead behind her own partisan rivalry, vaguely tarring Democrats with “partisanship” over issues she refuses to name. Keep to the high ground, Jerry |