Congress' Failure To Reauthorize VAWA 'Inexcusable,' Sen. Murray Writes

January 8, 2013 — More than "250 days since the U.S. Senate passed a bipartisan and inclusive bill [S 1925] to extend the landmark Violence Against Women Act, the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives allowed the clock to run out on protections that bill would have provided to millions of women across the country," Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) writes in a CNN opinion piece. She adds, "It was an inexcusable failure by House Republican leaders" that "will have real-life implications."

Murray continues, "Surely, we should all be able to agree that where a person lives, their immigration status or who they love should not determine whether or not perpetrators of domestic violence toward them are brought to justice," adding, "Surely no police officer should ever have to ask the sexual orientation or immigration status of a woman who lies bruised and battered at the scene of a crime."

According to Murray, some moderate Republicans expressed support for the Senate bill and "made clear" that the bill would pass if brought to a vote on the House floor. However, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) "[i]gnor[ed] voices in their own party and the clear message sent by American women in the last election," she writes.

"In the next Congress one of our absolute first priorities must be passing an inclusive and bipartisan bill to extend protections to the millions of new women included in the Senate bill," Murray states, adding, "As a nation we cannot accept further discrimination or delay from House Republican leaders" (Murray, CNN, 1/5).

NPR Discussion on VAWA Sticking Point

In a discussion on NPR's "All Things Considered," NPR justice correspondent Carrie Johnson explains that one of the main barriers to passing the Senate version of VAWA in the House was new protections for Native American women. Although "[t]he central nature of the objection [from conservatives] was never fully specified in public," it seemed to involve the "notion that expanding some jurisdiction for the tribal courts raised bigger questions about the authority of the tribal courts," according to Johnson (Lyden, "All Things Considered," NPR, 1/6).