Forum Thread

Marsha Blackburn reveals her prejudice

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 4 Posts
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
    ThinkProgress, March 4, 2013: GOP Congresswoman: I Opposed Domestic Violence Bill Because It Protected Too Many Groups

    GOP Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn said on MSNBC that she voted against the Violence Against Women Act because she "didn’t like the way it was expanded to include other different groups."

    The "other different groups" that Ms Blackburn cites includes the LGBT community, Native American women, and undocumented immigrants, precisely the groups that are more often targeted for abuse.

    As per ThinkProgress:

    "The reauthorized VAWA allows programs targeting LGBT victims of domestic violence to compete on equal footing for grant money with other groups serving underserved populations, and it ensures that LGBT victims will not be turned away from shelters and other services because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. These victims of violence deserve the same protections as anyone else caught in domestic abuse.

    "Additionally, the reauthorized VAWA includes provisions to prevent serial rapists and similar abusers from preying on Native American women. If Blackburn considers Native American women a “different group,” then it’s one she should be most concerned about: Three out of every five Native American women has been assaulted by an intimate partner."

    Marsha Blackburn seems out of touch with the rest of the nation including a majority of Representatives and Senators that voted for and approved the act. I wonder how her constituents in Tennessee feel about her.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
    Oh my goodness,
    "Other Groups" ? How could you not want this to protect "all women" ? Un-freakin believable !
    I fear this won't get enough notice because the ones who voted for her probably have the same
    narrow minds.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
    The thing I find most disturbing is the way Congress writes laws and interprets them. Should it be necessary to write Why is it necessary to write a law for each group. If we are all considered equal then one law should be sufficient to cover everyone. Could it be she missed the bill (or what ever, that declared Native Americans as Human Beings pasted inthe 191X (don't recall the exact year in the teens.
    Can a small part of a humans anatomy encompass their whole being? In her case it does.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
    I sure second your words McClellan, I mean it isn't like anyone was suggesting extending the application to dogs and cats. These are all human beings, EQUALLY deserving of ANY protection offered by our Constitution. And the law is now passed, so no one can deny its application to ANY and ALL females within our borders.