you will if you stay with us and you'll learn its importance in feeding america's hungry. >> hello, i'm bonnie erbe. welcome to "to the contrary," a discussion of news and social trends from diverse perspectives. up first, a prominent woman outs herself as a victim of rape. congress continues its battle over renewing the violence against women act or vowa. one representative took to the house floor to recount her own experiences with sexual violence to emphasize the need to renew vowa. >> this is not a partisan issue. >> cat went public with the fact she'd been raped and sexually assaulted. >> in the early '70s i was raped. went to the hospital, called the police, was brave enough to get on the witness stand. i found myself on trial. >> vowa offers federal grant money to nonprofits. it's stalled in the republican controlled house, the bill received bipartisan support in the past but democrats broaden the scope of some of its programs. one such as boosting the number of viass or immigrants for victims of domestic violence drew republican opposition. congresswoman moore says republican opposition hurts women. >> it's becoming because of the ideological battle grounds that have been drawn. but, i fear that this is just another piece of the contraction of rights for women that we see. we see these battle grounds being drawn, week after week after week with respect to women's rights and women's health. >> will representative moore's account on the floor of her rape help secure passage of vowa? >> i have to say that took a lot of courage on her part and it will definereonal personal perspective. >> no, i don't think it's going to secure passage, nor should it because this has very heavily politicized bill which is to embarrass republicans. >> i think that this just illustrates the importance of having more women in spaces where men are making decisions about our lives, one in five women will be sexually assaulted stand that voice is integral on the house floor, i'm really proud that she stood up made that decision to tell that story. >> i think her story reinforces why vowa in its prior form was accepted overwhelmingly passed. unfortunately the democrats highly politicized this by adding -- >> why do you think that -- because the bill has had bipartisan support in the past and they added three amendments to broaden the scope. one of which was -- let's talk about increasing the number of immigrants, female immigrants who are in the u.s. illegally who are victims of sexual abuse while they're here giving them legal visas, now, you can debate whether that's a good thing or not bought they're already 10,000 of those visas issued each year. why, sort of take your stand and not have whole bill renewed waiting to expand one category of women helped by it. >> i have to say, my early career as a lawyer was actually domestic work among immigrants women. i don't have the figures but i imagine what is motivated calling for increase in visas is that there are not enough. the question, did you deny the visa for someone justified to get it because of domestic violence simply because the quota has been already met. so, do you really want to help the people, do you want to meet a quota. i think the littization of the debate started earlier. and what i think democrats are trying to do is to come up with a bill that really address the issue that women are facing. >> well, let's be clear, first of all the 500 million dollars in funding that goes -- comes from this bill is still intact. that's not necessarily at issue here, the overwhelming bipartisan support coming from republicans and democrats has been because the bill, domestic violence, sexual 'wise for women these things are important, we need to fund it. the problem that the g.o.p. side has our side said, the visa that we're talking about is a u-visa. in that requires law enforcement certifies that the person who you're giving this visa to is legitimate darks -- has legitimate place in this investigations. are they legitimately under threat, are they legitimately helping the investigation, what democrats want to do remove the law enforcement certification part. what happens you have a lot of abuse. we see a lot of illegal immigrants looking at this and they say, oh, i was abused by my husband so that they can get a green card. that is the problem that we have inserting increasing the u-visa just one part. increasing the u-visa from 10,000 to 5,000 and it's a problem because there's lot of fraud. >> domestic and sexual violence doesn't just happen to white documented middle class women. i am really glad that the democrats and republican women who support this bill are taking a stand and saying, this time, no, we're not actually going to throw marm falllized women under the bus. in this case, they're adding for instance women -- actually higher rates of domestic violence than straight women. so, i think it's really great that we're coming back saying, you know, we're not going to leave you out any longer because fighting forgoes face just for a certain group of -- >> can i just interject totally different note. domestic abuse is a syracuse problem. pray is a serious problem. if you look at violent statistic again in the united states men are the biggest victims of violence, abuse, sometimes by acquaintances by stringers, much more likely to be a homicide victim -- >> that's not domestic violence. >> well, it isn't. >> it's not sexual violence. >> well, sometimes it is. but the point is i've always been bothered by this notion that somehow we treat women differently than we treat men. if we want to have a pot of money that we use to help victims of violence, i think that's a great thing. >> we need to go back to the roots of this law to understand why because someone that was there before the law doing work with this women, they were completely ignored. they were beaten by their husbands, some of them killed by their husbands. law enforcement was doing nothing because you see with the -- >> by the way it's -- >> we have really -- things have really evolved and they have evolved but we haven't eradicated the program. >> let me jump up here, because you said something that really surprised me. yes, there are two other provisions, the immigration provision but one that prohibits federal funds from going to nonprofit organizations that help these mainly women, domestic violence victims, i hate that word, victim, i wish we'd come up with another one. but that's not so charged. you said that a lot of these women are in same-sex relationships and they're victimized by their female partners? >> very high rates of domestic violence and sexual violence on women who are in gay partnerships. some that have is not coming from their female partner but situations in they are being discriminated against for their sexual orientation. there are -- they are victims of violence putting them in this legislation and saying they deserve help, too, shouldn't be controversial. unless you're trying to make this political issue and domestic violence should never be a political issue. >> senator grassley has been very up front, he was very supportive of the bill prior years and he said that they asked where have there there been instances of women being discriminated against or denied services because they were in same-sex partnership. they had for the report. it has yet to be produced. we're trying to come up to a solution that we don't know even if it exists. >> let me ask you -- let me ask you -- >> no one getting -- >> let me ask you, though, all republican women in the senate support it. even in -- does not embarrass the man in to thinking that they should support it? >> not necessarily. there's a lot of very more moderate to liberal republican women on the senate size -- >> women republicans are always on -- >> well, not necessarily in the house -- >> on average. >> there's another issue involved here. that is why is so much attention being focused on this issue now. i said it's being politicized, it seems that they want -- republicans want to get on with the jobs bill. debate on that is being ground to a halt in order to debate this and it seems pretty clear to me that the democrats are on a role. they think way to win the white house -- >> i think this is fantastic -- definitely who brought contraception issues. who is trying to turn back for women's -- >> barack obama brought the contraception issue in. >> here we are. >> this is -- >> last word. >> in fairness the republican party has botched this, the war on women issue for last few months starting with the birth control debate. they have allowed it to get away. republican women on our side have not been out strong enough to say, there is no war on women, this is a politicized democrat fantasy but there are allowing it to -- this is bill right here is the way for them to do it. >> the fact that we are discussing taking away contraceptions in 2012 dash. >> did we're not -- >> wait. basically fact that we're having that conversation that we rather have the conversation about whether or not women should be able to have contraception have it paid for if they need it versus, no, we shouldn't be helping survivors of domestic and sexual violence -- >> all right. we are out of time on this topic. sorry. let us know what you think. follow me on twitter @bonnieerbe. from violence against women to women's health. >> the future of the obama administration's health care reform law is in doubt following this week's supreme court arguments on its constitutionality. female commentators are divided on whether reform is good or bad for women. as divided as the justices seemed during oregon arguments. conservative commentators sabrina shafer frequent "to the contrary" panelist wrote, when government gets in to the business of health care, bureaucrats not individuals and their doctors will be making health care recommendations. progressive commentator wrote, the affordable air exact has done more to expand women's access to health care than any other piece of legislation in more than 50 years. without this law women may not get the preventive care early detection tests, or cancer treatment, is that they need representative michelle bachmann has been outspoken against reallot care reform even basing her presidential campaign on overturning it. >> on this original author of the bill to repeal obama care. obviously i'm hoping that the courts find that this bill is unconstitutional and strikes down 100% of the rule. from the comments that we heard over three days looked that they were not impressed with the individual mandate. looked like they may in fact declare the entire bill unconstitutional. that's what the american people want. >> this week back man reaffirmed her vows not to stop until so-called obama care is repealed. >> i think president obama had it right when he said the problem in health care was cost. what he got wrong was the answer, the government taking over of healthcare already before the bill is implemented is abject failure. i want to make sure that women have full and complete access to all of the health chair choices that they want. not that some government bureaucrat says, yes, you can, no, you can't. i want women empowered when it comes to health care. >> so, linda, first of all do you think -- do you agree with the majority of coverage out thereaid that the justices looked like they were leaning toward striking down the individual mandate and secondly, if so, what impact on women's health? >> first of all i guess i'm a little bit of a pessimist. i think that it's a big hurdle, i think a lot of deference is givenly have congress passing the bill, the president signing it. i do hope that the individual mandate is struck down and found unconstitutional. i think there is -- there are better arguments on that side than there were on upholding it. what concerns me a little was justice scalia's remarks that, how could they be expected to read all 2,000-plus pages of the bill. of course that was part of the problem in the beginning, members of congress did not read the 2,000-plus pages of of the bill before they signed it. i doubt the president read it before he signed the bill. in terms of what it's going to do to women's health -- women are -- take two-thirds of all the dollars out there in the health care. for health care. they are the largest recipients, it is not at all clear to me that this bill is going to improve health care in america. migrate fear is that we've got the best health care system in the world, and that this is actually going to hurt health care. hurt individuals, it may make it more equally distributed but not necessarily better. >> well, i can turn around the position say the opposite of what she said. i think we agree on the facts, that women overwhelmingly are the users of the system and any reform that take it to the -- in terms of increasing access and affordability will help women's health. there's just no doubt about that. i also agree with her that it's hard to read the court, the deference, that was the argument of the obama lawyer, deference to congress with the political issue and issue of court should allow political process to solve the problem. i want to be optimistic, it's hard. it's a very complicateddish eye because we're frying to salvage system not to completely reform it. >> that's the problem. if the bill is 2,700 pages even nancy pelosi find out what is in the bill after we pass it. this is what kind of -- this is backward. the cbo they just scored bill again said it's going to be double now that they originally thought the cost would be. it's going to $1.79 trillian to implement this. it is unprecedented expansion of government intervention in to a private decision. health care unfortunately the other side doesn't seem to get it is a service, not a right in this country. we have never, ever in the history of this country forced anything like the individual mandate, forcing people to buy something like this. that's what's at question here. with the supreme court whether they should strike or not it's not up to them to change what legislative process should be. but they are -- individual mandate which is funding mechanism that goes, the whole bill goes. we can solve this problem or at least come close to it with a 51 page bill like representative paul brown's bill which is the patient option act, 51 pages. doesn't need 2,700 pages. >> i obviously think if it's struck down women lose. we can go back to gender rating having to pay for more health care because we're women. young people lose, young people like me who are able to stay on their parent's insurance until 26 years old that is not going to be possible any more. i think that real downside for us. but to go back to the argue. that they say that this is government intervention in health care. i'm sorry, you can't at the same time make argument trying to make the health care better for americans, but forcing women to have medical procedures that they don't want when they go to access legal medical procedure is not. you can't make both arguments at the same time. >> you have a problem with women paying more. insurance, the whole concept of insurance is based on actuarial tables. they're sharing risks. if women takes two-thirds of the dollars that come in to the the health care system of course they "pay more. women, you know, have longer longevity than men. you know, they have -- they get cut rates on life insurance. but if they use more health care should the rates for them be higher, yes. >> this is fundamental for me it's the role of government. i think when republicans say, you know, bureaucrats will make a decision i feel corporate bureaucrats are making the decision. now the governmental bureaucrats. i differ from you in the sense that i think the government who is -- whose interest is my well being -- >> corporate interests towards to make profits making those decisions. >> we are out of time on this topic. behind the headlines: ending hunger. the society of st. andrew is aiming to do just that using a technique that very few americans know exists -- and it's inexpensive: >> right now we have around 45 million americans who live in poverty and in need of food. and if you do that math, we are throwing away about 1.5 tons of food for every hungry man, woman and child in this country. and most of that is perfectly good food to eat and that doesn't count what you and i waste at home. >> the usda estimates 100 billion tons of food go to waste each year. thousands of society of st. andrew volunteers pick a small percentage of what is left in already-harvested fields. it's called "gleaning." >> we work with thousands of farmers all over the country and we save and distribute between 25 and 30 million pounds of fresh produce. it's all highly nutritious fresh produce and we distribute it to feeding agencies which already exist. we don't need to create more feeding programs. we just need to take that excess from the farm and get it to people who can use it to feed those who need the food >> the society of st. andrew picks the food, loads it onto trucks and delivers it to local food banks across the country. their mission? to deliver healthy, nutritious food to children and families and combat the obesity epidemic. >> families that get food from food banks and that type of agencies, normally what they get there is generally long shelf life type items of food which is needed and appreciated but not always most healthy. so everything we give, come really out the fields after harvest and we get it directly to where it's going to be used. so we do around 25-35 million pounds of food a year, we don't own a single truck or warehouse. so it goes directly towards where it's going to be used. so, it definitely improves the nutrition and the diet of those who end up eating that produce. >> some fields are gleaned to make way for the next crop. others are gleaned to remove produce that doesn't look good enough to sell. >> one of the reasons for all this food waste is because the american consumer demands such a high quality of food in the grocery stores or supermarkets. when you go to a grocery store and you could buy tomatoes for example. you could see a nice pile of tomatoes and they all look alike and even with that perfect batch of tomatoes we are still looking around trying to get the best one out of that lot. so grocery stores and supermarkets know what would sell. >> many americans are surprised to hear how much food we waste. the evolution from small family farms to large corporations has changed the face of food production. so, too, has a growing population all contribute to waste. >> everyone is amazed at just how much food goes to waste because we've really lost touch with where our food comes from. family farms are not that big anymore, people are not used to farm work and where does the food come from. so when they go out into an orchard or a field and see the tremendous amount of food left behind in harvest simply because it wasn't good enough for grocery stores, they are shocked. >> and for an organization that relies solely on volunteers and donations, the society of st. andrew has grown during its 33 years in existence. but the mission hasn't changed. >> each year we have over 30,000 volunteers and there are not many organizations that can say they have 30,000 volunteers. each year that's a lot of volunteers to coordinate and that's grown obviously over the 33 years. and when we started it there was really no one doing this at all. in fact the idea of getting fresh foods and vegetables in the food pantries and soup kitchens was a bit of a challenge cause it needs little more processing but even that has caught on because awareness about nutrition has increased so much in recent years. >> your thoughts about why we waste so much food and have people hungry at the same time, i don't get it. >> i just want to say something. this is -- point out this is completely private-run organization, no government intervention. all volunteers. they are able to serve people for two cents a serving. that's an example of how private sector works. why do we waste food? people can't donate food to government-run food banks because they don't what the caloric content is because government needs to monitor it. look at things like that completely as nine policy and you wonder why we waste food and water. good for them for doing it in the private sector. >> isn't it amazing we waste food, have people going hungry and obesity program. make sense of any of that? it's wonderful to see the volunteers, i think government has a place. >> by the way the nicest thing about this -- these are vegetables and fruits that are being given to people. we do have obesity crisis. in the old days you were skinny, now if you're poor you're fat it's because you're eating high calorie, low cost foods instead of the more expensive fruits and vegetables. >> i just say who thought we could make food a political issue. >> sit in an agricultural committee here. >> corporations like trader yeah's waste tons of food because they refuse to donate it because of liability concerns. >> because of the government. >> right. >> we need to talk a little bit more about this. americans know exists -- and it's inexpensive: that's it for this edition of "to the contrary." next week: pay equity and lilly ledbetter. please follow me on twitter @bonnieerbe and check our website, pbs.org/ttc, for ttc extra. this week, women work harder than men for less money. and whether your views are in agreement or to the contrary, please join us next time. >> funding for "to the contrary" provided by: the cornell douglas foundation committed to encouraging stewardship of the environment, land conservation, watershed protection and eminating harmful chemicals. additional funding provided by: the colcom foundation. the wallace genetic foundation and by the charles a. frueauff foundation. for a copy of "to the contrary" please contact federal news service at 1-888-343-1940.