Tags

, , , ,

Previously:

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): maybe if corporations were women… (February 28, 2013)

Rep. Ann Wagner (r): maybe if corporations were women… (February 28, 2013)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): through the looking glass (March 2, 2013)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): Доверяй, но проверяй? (March 4, 2013)

Today, from Yael T. Abouhalkah at the Kansas City Star:

Vicky Hartzler’s deception on Violence Against Women Act

Yael T. Abouhalkah

Poor 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.

[….]

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.

[….]

As if anyone’s surprised?

A press release from Representative Hartzler’s congressional web site:

….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 [sic] 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….

[emphasis added]

Uh, Representative Hartzler (r) didn’t tell us that she voted against the final version of the bill when she issued that first press release:

Hartzler votes to protect women from acts of violence

Feb 28, 2013

[….]

“I am pleased to support efforts to protect all women in this country from domestic abuse and other forms of violence,” said Hartzler. “The House version of VAWA supports assistance to adult and youth victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking.”

[….]

[emphasis added]

It must all depend on what your definition of “controversial” is:

….Representative Gwen Moore, Democrat of Wisconsin and a victim of domestic and sexual violence herself, spoke passionately about the need to pass the Senate’s reauthorization bill.

“I pray that this body will do as the Senate has done and come together as one to protect all women from violence,” Ms. Moore said. “As I think about the L.G.B.T. victims who are not here, the native women who are not here, the immigrants who aren’t in this bill, I would say, as Sojourner Truth would say, ‘Ain’t they women?'”

“Ain’t they women?” she repeated, emphatically….

Well, ain’t they women?