Reforms meant to combat crime against Native American women, provide resources for domestic violence survivors and increase rape kit testing nationwide hang in legislative limbo after they passed the House of Representatives last week to a frosty reception in the Senate.

The changes, part of a reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, are some of the more popular provisions of a law that has touched off debates over gun rights and LGBT equality that could drag on for years.

The law is in a holding pattern currently — federal spending law has already provided nearly $500 million for the grants and other programs under VAWA for this year — while Congress has dug in for a political staredown over how the country handles crimes against women.

VAWA's authorization lapsed officially in February and Democrats didn't agree to a temporary extension, betting instead that they would be able to push for a bigger reform bill in the interim. Their bill, which passed the House 263-158 Thursday, expands federal prohibition on gun ownership for domestic violence offenders, increases tribes' ability to prosecute nontribal offenders, increases federal protections from eviction for domestic violence victims, increases rape kit testing grants and more.

"No woman, no child, no family should fear for their life because of domestic violence," Rep. Debbie Dingell, D-Mich., said in a floor speech Wednesday. "Without updates and support for the critical programs in VAWA, we're moving backwards."

That bill isn't going anywhere in the Senate right now and Republicans have objections to large portions of the legislation. Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said he will defer to the negotiations between Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, and ranking member Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. Both Ernst and Feinstein have said they haven't been able to arrive at a final product yet.

In the past few weeks leading up to the House vote Thursday, Republicans have accused Democrats of adding "poison pill" provisions to the legislation and using the bill as a partisan cudgel. Rep. Doug Collins, R-Ga., said in a floor speech that he's wanted to pursue bipartisan talks on the bill rather than consider the Democratic package.

"Instead of a good-faith grand coalition, my colleagues have doubled down," Collins said. "They have sought to turn this bill into a political weapon rather than a resource for law enforcement."

Some of the loudest complaints have come from the National Rifle Association, which has put pressure on Republicans to oppose the legislation. Taking away Second Amendment rights for misdemeanor offenses like stalking go beyond what the government does when taking away other civil rights in response to a crime, the NRA contends.

Additionally it has pointed out that federal law already covers such surrenders for misdemeanor domestic violence and the language applying the gun provisions to "former dating partners" could be applied too broadly. In a statement, NRA spokeswoman Jennifer Baker said the gun control provisions "politicize" the bill.

"It's unfortunate that the anti-gun leadership in the U.S. House allowed the bill to expire for the purpose of using it to advance their gun control agenda and we are hopeful the U.S. Senate will advance this important legislation without Nancy Pelosi's gun control provisions," Baker said.

That has put a lot of pressure on the sole Republican cosponsor of the bill, Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa. The suburban Philadelphia Republican and former FBI agent worked on his own to try and whip up Republican support for the legislation, and he said the gun control provisions would have gotten fewer than the 33 Republican votes the bill did receive if they had been debated separately.

Still, Fitzpatrick and others said they would fight to have the provisions included in the final legislation.

"The best predictor of future crime is past crime and regardless of the crime, misdemeanor or felony they should be included," Fitzpatrick said.

Fitzpatrick said he and Democratic sponsor Rep. Karen Bass, D-Calif., are set to sit down this week and strategize about their next steps now that the bill has gone over to the Senate. He acknowledged that members have used the bill for political purposes, but doesn't think it's inherently political.

"Both parties are always guilty of that to some extent, unfortunately, but I helped write this bill, so I don't think it was political," Fitzpatrick said.

The political timing of the reauthorization has crept into the discussion though; Democratic sponsor Bass has referred to the current bill as the best "negotiating position" in the talks with the Senate. She also thinks the fact that next year is an election year will help smooth its passage, as it will be politically tough for Republicans to oppose the bill.

"I do think we are going to be able to [avoid that delay], are you kidding me? Election year is next year," Bass said last week after the bill was set for floor debate.

The last time the law expired, in 2011, it took until after the 2012 presidential elections to pass a reauthorization. That law provided tribes with some ability to prosecute domestic violence against nontribal members for the first time since the 1970s, a legal assistance program for victims of sexual assault and protections for LGBT victims.

Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., one of the 33 Republicans who voted for the bill, said he doesn't think the current legislation will not pass into law. Although he is a fan of the bill's expansion for tribal jurisdiction over nontribal offenders — and wants to see those provisions in the final bill — it's going to take some movement from Democrats to get them into law.

"Until Democratic House is prepared to compromise with Republicans they are not going to get this enacted into law," Cole said. "I think it was a mistake not to extend the current one while they negotiate it out, I think they will regret that."

--Editing by Pamela Wilkinson.

Have a story idea for Access to Justice? Reach us at accesstojustice@law360.com.