Here’s How a GOP Congressman Opposed the Violence Against Women Act—Then Pretended He Was for It


By now, most Americans know that Congress reauthorized the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) on February 28, giving the government the resources to better investigate, prosecute, and stop violent crimes against women. Lawmakers have proudly announced that they helped pass the law—in some cases even when they voted against it.

Representative Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE) was one of the 160 Republicans who voted against the reauthorization of VAWA. Prior to that, he had voted for a GOP version of the bill put forth in the House, which gutted key protections for Native Americans, members of the LGBT community, and undocumented immigrants. The bill was rejected by the House. Nevertheless, Fortenberry issued a statement on February 28 suggesting that he supported both versions of the bill, according to screenshots from his official website obtained by Mother Jones. Later that day, after his office started receiving criticism of his statement, Fortenberry changed the statement to more accurately reflect his actual vote. Here is what was changed and added, marked up in red: 

And here’s what commenters had to say on Fortenberry’s Facebook page about the changes: 

Fortenberry, who has not responded to a request for comment, isn’t the only lawmaker to issue a misleading statement about the vote. According to The Huffington Post, Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), Rep. Bill Johnson (R-Ohio), Rep. Tim Griffin (R-Ark.), and several other Republicans also played up that they supported the version of the bill that failed. The House version may have been designed in part to give them cover on the issue, but the question is: Do these lawmakers really care more about their voting records than stopping violence against women?

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest