|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:26 PM October 3rd, 2005 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
I just sent 14 Faxes, and snail mails: Specter has 7 field offices plus his Washington office. Here is his Washington Fax# 202-228-1229. I still have to do emails.
I was never able to reach Sen. Specter's Wilkes-Barre office. The number just rang and rang and never picked up. ???
After Faxing Specter, I decided to make approriate changes in wording, and sent Faxes to Sen's. Biden, Feinstein and Boxer. I found out on Sen. Biden's web site that Sen's. Boxer and Feinstein are both current co-sponsors of VAWA. Here is a link to Biden's site to see if your Senator is a Co-sponsor of VAWA.
Ray
List of Senators Co-sponsoring VAWA
Is your Senator a VAWA co-sponsor? See Below:
Quote:
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT OF 2005
Senate Bill Number: S. 1197
Senate Bill Introduced: Senators Biden, Hatch and Specter introduced the bill on June 8, 2005.
Current Co-sponsor List: (47) If your Senators are not listed below please feel free to contact them at: www.senate.gov and ask them to cosponsor S. 1197, The Violence Against Women Act of 2005.
ALASKA: Stevens (R-AK)
ALABAMA:
ARKANSAS: Pryor (D-AR)
ARIZONA:
CALIFORNIA: Boxer (D-CA), Feinstein (D-CA) -THANK YOU CALIFORNIA!
COLORADO: Salazar (D-CO)
CONNECTICUT: Dodd (D-CT), Lieberman (D-CT) - THANK YOU CONNECTICUT!
DELAWARE: Biden (D-DE), Carper (D-DE) - THANK YOU DELAWARE!
FLORIDA:
GEORGIA:
HAWAII: Inouye (D-HI)
IDAHO: Crapo (R-ID)
IOWA: Grassley (R-IA), Sen Harkin (D-IA) - THANK YOU IOWA!
ILLINOIS: Durbin (D-IL), Sen Obama (D-IL) - THANK YOU ILLINOIS!
INDIANA: Bayh (D-IN)
KANSAS:
KENTUCKY:
LOUISIANA: Landrieu (D-LA)
MAINE: Collins (R-ME), Sen Snowe (R-ME) - THANK YOU MAINE!
MARYLAND: Mikulski (D-MD), Sen Sarbanes (D-MD) - THANK YOU MARYLAND!
MASSACHUSETTS: Kennedy (D-MA), Kerry (D-MA) -THANK YOU MASSACHUSETTS!
MICHIGAN: Stabenow (D-MI), Levin (D-MI) - THANK YOU MICHIGAN!
MINNESOTA: Dayton (D-MN)
MISSISSIPPI: Cochoran (R-MS)
MISSOURI:
MONTANA:
NEBRASKA: Nelson (D-NE)
NEVADA:
NEW HAMPSHIRE:
NEW JERSEY: Lautenberg (D-NJ), Corzine (D-NJ) - THANK YOU NEW JERSEY!
NEW MEXICO: Bingaman (D-NM)
NEW YORK: Clinton (D-NY), Schumer (D-NY) - THANK YOU NEW YORK!
NORTH CAROLINA:
NORTH DAKOTA: Dorgan (D-ND)
OHIO: DeWine (R-OH)
OKLAHOMA:
OREGON:
PENNSYLVANIA: Specter (R-PA)
RHODE ISLAND: Chafee (R-RI), Sen Reed (D-RI) - THANK YOU RHODE ISLAND!
SOUTH CAROLINA:
SOUTH DAKOTA: Johnson (D-SD)
TENNESSEE:
TEXAS: Hutchison (R-TX)
UTAH: Hatch (R-UT)
VERMONT: Leahy (D-VT), Jeffords (I-VT) - THANK YOU VERMONT!
VIRGINIA:
WASHINGTON: Cantwell (D-WA), Murray (D-WA) - THANK YOU WASHINGTON!
WISCONSIN: Kohl (D-WI)
WEST VIRGINIA: Byrd (D-WV), Rockefeller (D-WV) - THANK YOU WEST VIRGINIA!
WYOMING:
After Faxing Specter and Biden here's what I sent to Ms. Feinstein and Ms. Boxer:
October 3, 2005
Senator Dianne Feinstein
Hart Office Bldg.
Room# 331
Washington, D.C. 20510
Senator Dianne Feinstein:
Ms. Feinstein, Why are Disabled Boys Ineligible for VAWA Services?
Section 1402 of the Senate version of VAWA states how the funds will be used:
Section 1402, (b) USE OF FUNDS- Grants awarded under this section shall be used--
(1) to provide personnel, training, technical assistance, advocacy, intervention, risk reduction and prevention of domestic violence, dating violence, stalking, and sexual assault against disabled women and girls;
Note that disabled women and girls qualify, but apparently not disabled boys or men. This is simply outrageous. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and as a cosponsor of the Violence Against Women Act, you have strong influence to help remove this discriminatory language.
Remove specific references to women and girls (like in Section 1402) to make the language gender-neutral.
Add clear and explicit language clarifying that male DV victims are entitled to service. The Senate bill currently has male-inclusive language, but we want to make it much stronger.
Sincerely,
XXX XXXX
(Vietnam Veteran & domestic violence victim)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:48 PM October 3rd, 2005 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
I read in S. 1197 (Reported to Senate) the following wording. I believe the wording was already changed before it was sent to the full Senate. Can anyone verify this? I have added links to both the "introduced" and "reported" versions from loc.gov.
S.1197 (Reported to Senate): http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:8:./tem p/~c109zoyuID:e520257:
S.1197 (Introduced to Senate): http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:6:./tem p/~c109zoyuID:e97921:
======
This is from the "Reported to Senate" one:
`(b) USE OF FUNDS- Grants awarded under this section shall be used--
`(1) to provide personnel, training, technical assistance, advocacy, intervention, risk reduction and prevention of domestic violence , dating violence , stalking, and sexual assault against disabled individuals;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Thomas on 06:38 PM October 3rd, 2005 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
I don't pretend to be an expert in constitutional law, but I have to wonder about the following. It seems to me that Section 1 of the fourteenth amendment to the constitution states:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." (Emphasis mine.)
This clearly does not apply to the federal government. However, in an article published by the Legal Information Institute, the author(s) states, "Actions by the federal government, however, that classify individuals in a discriminatory manner will, under similar circumstances, violate the due process of the fifth amendment."
The fifth amendment states: "No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
This stikes me as equal protection for the accused. It does not, however, seem to require that all laws equally protect citizens who are not accused of crimes -- in other words, men, boys, women, and girls who are accused of attacking disabled women and girls would, by these amendments, be treated equally under the law. It does not, however, seem to require that punishment for a crime committed against a member of one group of citizens be the same as punishment for committing the same crime against a member of another group of citizens -- in other words, it seems to allow for greater punishment for commission of a crime against a white person or a female than for commission of the same crime against a black person or a male. It also doesn't seem to require that state or federal governments put equal resources into protecting all citizens.
An amendment to the constitution requiring equal treatment for all citizens (with exceptions for children or those serving in time of war, for instance) might be required to stave off both the sexist VAWA and all other laws that treat one group of citizens better than they treat any other group of citizens.
I'd love to hear people's thoughts on this, especially the thoughts of anyone who is something of an expert on constitutional law.
Thomas
-- Creating hostile environments for feminazis since the 1970s.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
Section 1402 of the Senate version of VAWA states how the funds will be used: