Representative Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) explains why she voted against the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).
The Senate version. You know, what you do is you begin to dilute the money that needs to go into this sexual assault centers, domestic abuse centers, our children advocacy centers, all of those I’ve helped to start in my area here in Tennessee. When you start to make this about other things it becomes an “against violence act” and not a targeted focus act that there is there to address the issue of violence against women.
[...]
I didn’t like the way it was expanded to include other different groups. What you need is something that is focused specifically to help the shelters and to help out law enforcement, who is trying to work with the crimes that have been committed against women and helping them to stand up.
My immediate reaction to this was to ask why Blackburn would oppose a “Against Violence Act,” but upon further examination, and by taking everything she said into account, I realized what Blackburn is really saying.
Blackburn goes out of her way several times to mention how great the shelters are in her district in Tennessee. And do you know what there is a surplus of in Tennessee? God-fearing white people.
Blackburn supported a version of the bill that would have maintained the status quo for her personal collection of white people in Tennessee’s affluent 7th congressional district, but when you “begin to dilute” funding for her district by expanding protection to immigrant women, Native Americans, and lesbians that simply isn’t acceptable by her standards.
This piecemeal approach to selectively supporting or opposing certain initiatives based on racial and economic cross-sections effectively nulls what political points you would otherwise score for supporting social progress, and Republicans don’t seem to understand this.
They believe they should receive at least half of a point for voting to protect some groups of people.