‘VAWA’ isn’t just a bill with a good name, it’s a good bill

>>> it was one of those weeks in congress again. the house stood in recess meaning nothing could get done. last week, the senate voted overwhelmingly in favor of the violence against women act reauthorization. they voted 78-22. yep, 78 means this bill has bipartisan support in the senate. over in the house, we continue to wait, even as reports surfaced this week saying that some republicans are pushing to get a bill of their own passed soon. that is, assuming they can get their own members on board. which is why my letter this week goes out to one of the most vocal holdouts, republican congressman john duncan of tennessee. better known as jimmy. dear congressman duncan, it's me, melissa. this week, you were really on a metaphorical rampage with this lovely little insight about your resistance to the violence against women act . you said every bill is given a motherhood and apple pie title but if you voted based on the title, you would vote for every bill up here. okay, jimmy. you sort of have a point there. there have been a lot of destructive legislative actions that are given deceptively friendly names. no child left behind . of course, no one wants to leave a kid behind but we should totally have left that law behind. or the defense of marriage act . it's pretty clear it doesn't defend anything but inequality. and then there's the patriot act . yeah. right. okay, the titles all sound good but that's before you read the fine print. so jimmy, that's just not the case with the violence against women act . it's not just a bill with a good name. it's a good bill. this legislation has been reauthorized twice with consistent bipartisan support. even you have voted for it twice. it's a good thing, because it's partly responsible for a 67% decline in the rate of intimate partner violence . but even if you can get past the name issue, congressman, you said your main concern was cost. oh, yeah, the republicans' favorite red herring for shredding the social safety net . it all costs too much except that argument doesn't hold up, jimmy. the new bill will cost $659 million over five years. but that's a decrease in cost since 2005 . even though the bill offers more protections and isn't that what you business-savvy folks like best? doing more with less? so it's not the name and it's not really the cost. maybe your reluctance lies in this other bizarre point you made this week. you said like most men, i'm more opposed to violence against women than even violence against men, because most men can handle it a little better than a lot of women can. say what? you are all for this bill when it protected a narrow slice of victims, but now you're not so sure. i don't really know what to make of that, but maybe it's because the new senate version expands protection for men and women in same sex relationships. is it that lesbians and gay men can just take a punch better than straight women? or maybe you've decided that native american women are particularly good at handling intimate violence, because you and other house republicans still refuse to support a bill that gives tribal authorities the ability to prosecute those who commit acts of violence on tribal lands. maybe your refusal to reauthorize the bill is actually based on a belief that when some people are abused, it's just not a big deal because they can handle it. well, jimmy, every year 1.3 million women and 835,000 men are physically assaulted by an intimate partner in the united states and while you're over there making excuses, these human beings are left without meaningful and effective protections that this bill offers. so how about getting over yourself and getting on board. it's time to reauthorize the bill with both a good name and good effects. we are not buying your lies and lines any longer. sincerely, melissa.

>>> when we come back, the state of the american man and why kevin bacon may be the best actor to play the movie version of