Marsha Blackburn & VAWA. Would it Protect Too Many Women?

Marsha Blackburn represents an odd shaped district in Western Tennessee. She's a Republican and considered to be among the most conservative women in the House of Representatives. I'm anything but a Republican, but when it comes to anti-violence issues and law and order, I find common ground with many in the GOP. John Ashcroft, the US Attorney General under George Bush, was not someone with whom I agreed on most issues, but his efforts to protect children from online exploitation in particular (at a time when Internet and computer facilitated abuse was exploding) was a welcome focus as far as I was concerned.Blackburn was an original supporter of the re-issue of the Violence Against Women Act in May of last year. VAWA has, since 1994, provided billions of dollars in funds for various aspects of the response to sexual and intimate partner violence. It's also led to changes in Federal and state laws that have made it easier to hold offenders accountable and spare victims some of the worst indignities and unfairness of the system.The liberal online publication Think Progress flat out insists that Blackburn opposed the Senate version of the bill (which finally passed last week) because it seeks to provide specific, targeted protection to women who are gay and lesbian, Native American women on reservations, and undocumented aliens. I haven't heard Blackburn admit to that in those words, but her own reasoning for voting against the latest iteration of VAWA doesn't leave much room for an alternative explanation.When questioned on MSNBC about why she voted against the latest iteration, Blackburn first asserts that whatever was in the Senate version would "dilute" the efforts of previous versions. She mentions the importance of shelters for domestic and sexual violence and also child advocacy centers (CAC's are generally funded by non-VAWA grant programs) and decries the law becoming "an anti-violence act" instead of something she considers more "targeted and focused."Targeted and focused on whom? is the question begged.After a few seconds of universally agreed upon loftiness about the issue, she's directed back to what she didn't like in the final version she voted against. It's then she utters the already infamous statement about not liking how it was expanded "to include other different groups."These "other different groups" are groups of women. Females of her species that, in fact, have been traditionally victimized at far greater rates than whatever "groups" of women Rep. Blackburn appears to find worth protecting. Native women are notoriously underserved and overrepresented as victims of domestic and sexual violence. Those who are thrust into the shadows by their legal status (undocumented persons) or for cultural and religious reasons (Lesbian, Gay, Transgendered and Bi-Sexual) are far too often terrorized into silence and grossly under-supported when they do seek help.The interviewer didn't press the Congresswoman further to identify the groups she was referring to, and instead let her end the segment with diversionary politic-speak about how she's sponsored this and attended that in her home district (again referring largely to Child Advocacy Centers which are a great idea but not the focus of VAWA).  Glaringly obvious, though, is the path the bill took and the emergence of religious and conservative opposition to the provisions designed to address under-served populations. Being a part of that opposition, Blackburn should better explain why.Conservative opposition to government spending programs regardless of their intent and scope is nothing new and nothing shameful. But Blackburn's issue isn't the money as she supported the original House version. Maybe her concerns include VAWA's effect on the jurisdictional boundaries of Indian tribunals as it did for Eric Cantor. That's about as charitable a characterization as can made with regard to that "group," and if so she should attempt an argument. As for other women often relegated to the margins of society like the undocumented or LGBT?  Perhaps she thinks there isn't a need for additional focus against violence toward them. If so, she is startlingly ignorant. But I'm not betting on that. I'll bet on bigotry instead; the sad but apparent fact that Blackburn values some women over others, period. I'll stand by that until proven incorrect.