Skip to content

Why Doherty doesn’t support changing the Violence Against Women Act

October 4, 2012

In case you’ve been living under a rock, the battle for women voters has emerged as a central theme in the intensifying First Congressional District race between Republican Brendan Doherty and David Cicilline.

Doherty today changed his tactics, adopting a tougher tone in accusing Cicilline of being hypocritical by questioning Doherty’s commitment to protecting women.

Cicilline’s camp has responded by rapping Doherty for failing to support changes to the federal Violence Against Women Act. The critique dovetails with the Cicilline campaign’s message of linking Doherty with congressional and other Republicans.

A September 16 column by ProJo political columnist Ed Fitzpatrick examined the back-and-forth between the two sides on women’s issues. It included this:

Doherty said he created the first domestic-violence victim’s-advocate position in the state police. And under his leadership, the state’s public safety department disseminated grants under the Violence Against Women Act, which first passed in 1994 and has financed the investigation and prosecution of violent crimes against women. “This was a very important bill submitted in 1994, and it’s important to keep it as is,” he said. “If members of Congress want to add protections for people in other walks of life, that’s fine, but submit another bill.”

Doherty’s reason for opposing changes to VAWA seemed a bit unclear, so I asked his campaign for an explanation. Via email, campaign manager Ian Prior says his candidate’s stance comes down to this:

[T]o the extent that federal funds are directed to investigate and prosecute violence against male transgender individuals, it should not be part of VAWA.

One suspects we haven’t heard the last of this debate.

7 Comments leave one →
  1. David G. Napier permalink
    October 5, 2012 7:40 pm

    I find it incredible that the former head of the State Police seems to have no concept of the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection under the law.

  2. October 5, 2012 10:52 pm

    David, if you haven’t you should read the linked report about Doherty’s event in Central Falls. He said he fully supports the right of individuals to legal representation. His gripe was something different.

    • David G. Napier permalink
      October 5, 2012 11:20 pm

      Thanks. I’ll check it out when I get home later.

  3. October 6, 2012 3:48 am

    If Doherty’s gripe is with Diego Sanchez, someone ought to explain to him that Diego works for Barney Frank, not Cicilline.

  4. Craig O'Connor permalink
    October 6, 2012 11:42 am

    No, Doherty simply seems to think that the government shouldn’t pro-actively care about violence against transgendered people. Only good old anatomically correct people. I guess there is wiggle room in the response allowing that he would support funding for this in a separate bill from VAWA – did we ask for a clear answer about that?

Trackbacks

  1. Progress Report: Wishful Thinking with Mitt Romney; Good Week for Liberals; Collins Quest to Debate, Highway Murals
  2. Doherty Doesn’t Want to Protect Transgender People

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: