“I intend to vote for the underlying bill even with its flaws,” Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas announced even as she pressed for changes, including one that would limit advertising on Backpage.com, a Web site that has an “adult services” section.

If there are to be fireworks, they will have to come when the Senate version comes up against the House’s. House Republican women this week announced that they would introduce a version of the violence act when they return from next week’s recess, with a final House vote expected by mid-May.

The House bill is likely to be stripped of three provisions that have incensed some conservatives. One would subject non-Indian suspects of domestic violence to prosecution before tribal courts for crimes allegedly committed on reservations. Another would expand the number of temporary visas for illegal immigrant victims of domestic violence. The last would expand Violence Against Women Act protections to gay, bisexual or transgender victims of domestic abuse.

Newsletter Sign Up Continue reading the main story Please verify you're not a robot by clicking the box. Invalid email address. Please re-enter. You must select a newsletter to subscribe to. Sign Up You will receive emails containing news content , updates and promotions from The New York Times. You may opt-out at any time. You agree to receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services. Thank you for subscribing. An error has occurred. Please try again later. View all New York Times newsletters.

“We’re not going to be looking at the controversial issues,” said Representative Sandy Adams of Florida, who is the main sponsor of the impending House bill.

Republicans say the American Indian courts provision could deny due process in some cases and could be ruled unconstitutional. They suggested Democrats were stealthily expanding “amnesty” to some illegal immigrants while pursuing pro-homosexual social policy under the guise of domestic violence legislation.

Stripping out those provisions, Mr. Leahy responded, “would result in abandoning some of the most vulnerable victims ... battered immigrants, Native women and victims in same-sex relationships.”

Mostly, however, Republican leaders accused Democrats of adding those provisions to the reauthorization expressly to pick a fight for political advantage. But it is unclear how potent those concerns will be. Only 36 senators voted Thursday for the version shorn of those measures.

For some conservative groups, however, even the core of the nearly 20-year-old law was unacceptable. The Concerned Women for America and Independent Women’s Forum had said the law had devolved into a “slush fund” for feminist causes that harms men unfairly and encourages the dissolution of marriages.

But from the beginning, many Republicans were declining to take up that cause. The legislation had five Republican co-sponsors, including Mr. Crapo, at its introduction. The two Republican senators facing the toughest re-election races, Dean Heller of Nevada and Scott P. Brown of Massachusetts, quickly signed on.

Advertisement Continue reading the main story

Democratic protests aside, the bill’s passage was secured well before the final vote was called when eight Republicans signed on as co-sponsors. The final vote was supported not only by moderate Republicans like Susan Collins and Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, but also by Republican stalwarts like John McCain of Arizona and unflinching conservatives like David Vitter of Louisiana.