VAWA Posts:
Delaware Sen. Biden to abandon presidential bid because of poor Iowa showing
Associated Press Archive
January 4, 2008
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Delaware Sen. Joe Biden abandoned his bid for the Democratic presidential nomination Thursday after a poor showing in the state's caucuses.
"There is nothing sad about tonight. We are so incredibly proud of you all," Biden told his supporters. "So many of you have sacrificed for me and I am so indebted to you. I feel no regret. I ain't goin' away.
"I want to thank the people of Delaware and I'll be going back to the Senate as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee," he said.
The veteran lawmaker received less than 1 percent of the vote despite a spirited campaign in which he emphasized his international policy credentials and long career in public service.
Thursday night was a case of deja vu for Biden, who sought the Democratic presidential nomination 20 years ago -- in 1988 -- but left the race before the Iowa caucuses that year amid accusations that he had plagiarized from speeches by a British Labor Party leader.
This time, Biden campaigned extensively in Iowa, focusing on his plan for ending the Iraq war and the broad foreign policy experience he gained from more than 30 years in the Senate. Biden also noted the many time his rivals acknowledged agreeing with him.
His advisers had hoped for a fourth-place finish and thought even third place was possible.
Biden, 65, went to the Senate in 1973 after winning a race few expected him to. He was only 29, but turned 30 -- the minimum age for service in the Senate -- shortly thereafter.
In the years since, he has overcome personal tragedy and near death experiences.
Five weeks after his election, a station wagon driven by his wife, Neilia, was broadsided by a tractor-trailer in Delaware as she drove home with a family Christmas tree. She and the couple's 18-month-old daughter, Naomi, were killed. Their two young sons, Beau and Hunter, were seriously injured.
Biden said at first that he no longer wanted the job he had just won, but Senate leaders persuaded him to assume his seat. He was sworn in from the hospital bedside of one his sons. It remains his habit not to work on Dec. 18.
In 1977, Biden married Jill Tracy Jacobs. They have a daughter, Ashley. Both of his sons are lawyers, and the elder son, Beau, was elected state attorney general of Delaware in November.
Biden himself had a close brush with death in February 1988, when he was hospitalized for two brain aneurysms. It was seven months before he could return to the Senate.
Biden voted to authorize the war in Iraq, but since has become one of Congress' most vocal critics of the Bush administration's handling of the war. He was the only Democrat in the presidential race who advocated partitioning Iraq as a means of ending the war and U.S. military involvement there.
He was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee from 1987 to 1995, and presided over two of the most contentious Supreme Court confirmation hearings, for Robert Bork in 1987 and for Clarence Thomas in 1991.
During his tenure on the Judiciary Committee, Biden wrote several anti-drug laws and the landmark Violence against Women Act of 2000, which contains a broad array of measures to combat domestic violence and gender-based crimes. Part of the law was later struck down as unconstitutional.
Biden is known for a tell-it-like-it-is speaking style that resonates with ordinary Americans, with a quick wit and colorful phrasings that have made him a sought-after guest for television and radio interviews. But he's also developed a reputation as a long-winded publicity hound.
In one Democratic debate last year, Biden drew laughs when, commenting on Republican candidate Rudy Giuliani's foreign policy experience, he said the former New York mayor's message amounted to "a noun, a verb and 9/11."
That Biden is regarded as a loquacious orator underscores how far he's come from his roots in New Castle, Del., where he was teased by his classmates because he stuttered.
Abuse victims' visas put on hold
Argus, The (Fremont-Newark, CA)
January 6, 2008
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
More than a decade ago, Congress passed a law providing a path to citizenship for certain married immigrants who were victims of domestic violence. The hope was to keep them from suffering in silence, too afraid to report the crime because they might risk being forced from their new home.
But now, immigration attorneys are advising clients who en-tered the United States illegally not to seek the full benefits of the law, amid growing concerns the government's new interpretation of which immigrants are eligible will put them on a path out of the country instead.
Those concerns have taken on new urgency in recent months — and lawmakers are calling for answers — as immigration officials have either rejected or indefinitely put on hold several applications for permanent residency.
Locally, one San Jose woman who accused her husband of beating and sexually assaulting her was among those denied, and she now fears she'll have to return to Mexico.
"I did everything I was told to do to become a citizen," the 26-year-old, who is working with Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto, told the Mercury News, a sister paper of The Argus. "They now say it's not enough. I'm scared."
Immigration officials last week maintained that nothing had changed in their approach to the 1994 Violence Against Women Act, which allows qualifying immigrants who are married to U.S. citizens or legal U.S. residents to begin the lengthy process of obtaining citizenship without the help of their spouses.
The law and several revisions were created so victims could report crimes without fear that their abusers would hold their immigration status against them and silence them with threats of deportation. There is no dispute on how the law applies to legal immigrants.
However, an issue has arisen over whether the law was meant to create a special process for illegal immigrants, since those immigrants would normally have to leave the country first in order to become eligible for permanent residency. Lawmakers like Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose, and Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., who have written to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services seeking answers, say that penalty should not apply in the case of domestic violence victims.
But federal immigration officials are arguing that the Violence Against Women Act and its revisions don't include special provisions for illegal immigrants. They note that illegal immigrants should be required to return to their home countries to get a visa, with the added restriction that if they have lived in the United States illegally for a year or more, they cannot return for 10 years.
That would apply to the San Jose woman. The woman, whose name is being withheld because MediaNews doesn't identify victims of sex crimes, snuck into the country in 2003 to join her siblings.
Soon after, she met her future husband, a Mexican native living in the United States legally. Almost immediately after their marriage, she said, he began coming home drunk and abusing her. She and their daughter, now 3, left him about a year ago.
The woman then took the first step toward citizenship, which includes getting federal approval to apply for residency as a domestic violence victim. The approval — which hinges on a detailed account of the abuse, which would include police reports and court documents — allows victims to continue to work in the country and to obtain a driver's license.
It was only when she was interviewed a few months ago for the next step in the process, the application for permanent residency, that her illegal entry into the county was found out and her request denied. Her attorney is now appealing the decision.
"I think this interpretation flies in the face of congressional intent," said her attorney, Mary Dutcher of Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto. "It's hard to think what is reason and logic, and cause and effect in this world of immigration."
USCIS spokesman Chris Bentley said director Emilio Gonzalez would respond to lawmakers' concerns directly, but he provided no timetable.
While immigration officials say they have been consistent in their interpretation of the domestic violence law, immigration-rights advocates say that illegal immigrants were treated more leniently under its provisions until August, when an e-mail reportedly went out to immigration officials around the country advising them to turn down applications for anyone who entered the country illegally, regardless of whether they were victims of domestic violence.
The e-mail came just as the Bush administration was announcing a renewed push to enforce immigration laws. Susan Bowyer, the managing attorney for the Oakland-based International Institute of the Bay Area, said USCIS officials who process applications read excerpts of the e-mail to members of her staff.
Bentley, however, said he was unaware of any e-mail and added that there are several reasons to deny a residency application, including misdemeanor convictions for crimes such as petty theft. He added that he couldn't comment specifically on any of the denied cases.
It's unknown exactly how many applicants have so far been denied or held across the country, but based on anecdotal evidence advocates and attorneys say they've seen dozens during the past few months.
In her letter, Lofgren wrote that Congress made an exception for domestic violence victims in one of its immigration revisions, and that any other interpretations of the law "flies in the face" of plain language.
Advocates and attorneys are hoping the matter is resolved soon, but in the meantime, they're suggesting their clients take only the first step — getting federal approval to apply for permanent residency as a domestic violence victim — so they can continue to work in the United States legally.
Attorneys say they will suggest that their clients renew their work permits as often as they can until the issue is cleared up.
Added Bowyer: "What really scares me is there are a lot of people unknowingly blundering into this situation."
NCADV: Romney and Others Should Know About The Violence Against Women Act
PR Newswire (USA)
January 10, 2008
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
The following statement is being issued today by Rita Smith, Executive Director, The National Coalition Against Domestic Violence.
I woke up this morning to disturbing news. Not the surprising reports of the outcome of the New Hampshire primary, although it is related to that primary. What disturbed me was during the last crush of campaign appearances, Gov. Mitt Romney exposed a significant lapse in his preparing for national leadership.
During one of his campaign stops, a man asked Gov. Romney if he became President if he would veto the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. The man asked that question based on his assertion that men are falsely accused of domestic violence and lose contact with their children unjustly as a result of that. The questioner's facts were not accurate, and exhibited a widely held belief that men are denied custody without due process and for no real reasons. My experience while working in this field for over 25 years is that just the opposite is true. Mothers are far more likely to lose custody when it is contested, and regardless of the evidence they may have of the father's violence perpetrated towards her or the children.
That's not what disturbed me the most, although the continual use of some men's groups to spout bogus facts and statistics is a problem we need to correct. What disturbed me is that a smart and articulate candidate for President was unaware of an act that was passed in 1994 that addresses a significant issue for 50% of the people he is seeking to represent. I don't believe that Gov. Romney believes that domestic violence is a good thing, or that he thinks the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), which addresses domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking and dating violence, is a bad act. I'm concerned that he did not make it a point to learn about federal legislation that is directed at making all of our homes, communities and schools safer.
VAWA has been a strongly supported bi-partisan piece of federal legislation from its inception through the most recent reauthorization. Both Democrats and Republicans in both the Senate and House voted in huge numbers for this bill. It is literally saving lives, and that is an issue Gov. Romney, and every other candidate running for President should know about, be familiar with and be willing to support vocally if they want my vote.
The National Coalition Against Domestic Violence is celebrating its 30th anniversary this year, and we would be happy to assist any of the candidates, from any party, in learning more about this important piece of legislation and how they can help make every home a safe home.
The National Coalition Against Domestic Violence
Firearms law often shirked
Salt Lake Tribune, The (UT)
January 21, 2008
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Seven states take guns away from a person covered by a domestic violence protection order. In another 12, judges issuing the orders are explicitly allowed to ask police to seize a gun.
Utah isn't among them.
While federal law bars anyone under a protection order from having, possessing or buying a firearm, it does not set up a mechanism for states to confiscate weapons.
Utah relies on an honor system that assumes a person under a protection order will stay away from firearms - even when there is a record of a threat to use one.
Salt Lake County sheriff's deputies serve more than 1,500 protection orders a year from 3rd District Court, which issues more orders than any other judicial district.
But Lt. Paul Jaroscak, an office spokesman, said the commander who supervises delivery of the orders could not recall a single one in the past four years that required a deputy to take away a firearm.
"That order doesn't say we have to take it away from you, it just says you can't have it," said Jaroscak, which highlights the loophole between federal law and state practice.
The system also applies to Utah's restraining orders, and it can have deadly consequences, as happened Jan. 6 when David L. Ragsdale allegedly fatally shot his wife, Kristy, in a Lehi church parking lot.
Assuming compliance
A month earlier, Ragsdale had threatened to use a gun to "take care of things" during an altercation. A judge issued a protection order that noted Ragsdale, who kept a 9 mm Glock firearm in the trunk of his BMW, was not to have, possess or transport a weapon.
That prohibition was included in a mutual restraining order the couple agreed to in mid-December. Two weeks later, Ragsdale allegedly used the weapon to kill his wife.
Kristy Ragsdale's family assumed the gun had been taken away, but Lorie Fowlke, Kristy's attorney, said she and her client knew it had not.
"It might have made a difference if he had not had such easy access to a weapon," said Fowlke, who is also a state lawmaker. "Then again, he might just have gotten one from somebody else."
Utah judges assume that a person under a protective order will get rid of any guns, according to Utah State Court spokeswoman Nancy Volmer.
Lehi Police Lt. Harold Terry said a family member or friend is usually put in charge of making sure a restricted person doesn't have access to a gun.
And putting it in a "closet or car or a home that you have control over is not enough," notes Stewart Ralphs, director of the Legal Aid Society of Salt Lake.
But no one checks. If a restricted person is later found to be in possession of a weapon, he or she can be arrested. "If you violate the protective order, you go to jail," Terry said.
Getting the gun away
Other states have managed to tip the scale in favor of the safety of domestic violence victims.
California, one of seven states that requires surrender, gives a person 24 hours after receiving a restraining order to hand over a weapon to police or sell it to a firearms dealer. He or she must submit proof that the gun has been relinquished.
Hawaii requires officers to confiscate firearms while serving a protection order, said Lindsay Nichols, staff attorney for the Legal Community Against Violence, a California-based law center focused on prevention of gun violence.
"It puts victims in danger when somebody is in possession of a firearm and then becomes subject to a protective order," Nichols said. ". . . A gun is going to increase the lethality of any violence that is going to occur."
Guns were used in a majority of cases of fatal domestic violence nationwide that involved young couples with protection orders, said Sonia Salari, an associate professor of human development and family studies at the University of Utah, who has studied intimate partner violence.
"Our argument is the [Violence Against Women Act] is supposed to prevent people with protective orders from having firearms and it's not working," Salari said.
One route to a gun - a licensed dealer - is being further closed off by the new federal NICS Improvement Amendments Act.
It provides $1.3 billion in grants for states to improve the FBI database check by dealers for those barred from firearm possession, including anyone under a protection order or convicted of domestic violence, with a juvenile record, or with a mental illness.
Utah already cross-links such records. In 2006, the most recent data available, about 860 gun purchase requests were rejected after Utah's Bureau of Criminal Identification system revealed existing domestic violence misdemeanor convictions or protection orders.
Considering confiscation
Fowlke said she is mulling legislation to balance the right to be free from violence versus Second Amendment rights. "It's a hard call," she said.
In the Ragsdale case, "the only thing I can think of that might have made a difference is actually confiscating the gun. Maybe we need to look at that."
One noted gun rights advocate in Utah agrees that, in cases like the Ragsdales that involve a credible threat, removing an already-owned firearm may be appropriate.
"The law is the law," said Clark Aposhian, chairman of the Utah Shooting Sports Council. "If you get a protection order issued against you, you're not supposed to have firearms."
He believes judges and attorneys should take more responsibility to see that the federal prohibition is enforced in domestic violence cases. Judges could order police officers confiscate guns, he said.
But protection orders are often misused in divorce proceedings, Aposhian said, adding: "Before I say pick them all up, I would certainly like something done about those protective orders issued on a whim because they carry with them so much weight to deny a person their lawful right to self-defense."
HILLARY IS PLAYING GENDER POLITICS
Sun Sentinel (Fort Lauderdale, FL)
January 21, 2008
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
With unsurpassed campaign brilliance, Sen. Hillary Clinton managed to confluence two of her most critical campaign themes - gender politics and immigration - into four words: "No woman is illegal." She also threw in health care to make it a Trifecta. All this was reported in the Las Vegas Review Journal on Jan. 11, 2008 in an article titled "Las Vegas Stop: Clinton pitch hits home - Democratic hopeful goes door to door"
So, as a man, I am kind of wondering how this would work if Sen. Clinton became President Clinton. Presumably, every mode of transportation would be full of women from every corner of the earth flocking to America because they would not have to worry about trifling matters such as immigration status, citizenship, and health care. Presumably also, any man swimming upstream against the inflowing tide of women would be declared "illegal" and sent back to wherever. Do I read it right: "Men need not apply?" Men, you still are illegal?
Critically, how would the United States - which most people believe is sliding into a recession - support this incoming tide of women? Easy, they would be supported by another of Hillary's favorite programs - the Violence Against Women Act. It works this way. All non-illegal women would immediately marry (or at least have a child with) any available legal U.S. citizen - male, of course. At anytime of her choosing following the delivery of her baby, the newly minted non-illegal woman simply goes to any local family court judge and declares that she is "afraid" of her formerly legal male citizen. The family court judge, without hearing the man's side of the story, immediately issues a restraining order making the formerly legal male citizen now a non-legal male citizen. What a VAWA restraining order means to the man is that he is thrown out of the house, required to stay away from his non-illegal wife and child, and immediately required to begin paying exorbitant child-support to this non-illegal woman for 18 years.
Problem solved! And, with this flood of non-illegal women entering the country, being supported by formerly legal male citizens, there also is a huge pool of Democratic voters just itching to develop more of these kinds of programs which have served them so well. Perhaps even more importantly, it provides a gigantic bastion of women inclined to vote more women into office who will give them even more of what women want.
So, if you think that this is a great idea, vote Hillary. Otherwise, start looking around for candidates who believe in equality, equal opportunity, and support the old fashioned notion that boys and men deserve the same chance for a good life in America as do girls and women.
Gordon E. Finley is professor of psychology at Florida International University in Miami.
Overstating blame in domestic violence does not prevent deaths
Charleston Gazette (WV)
Editorial
Author/Byline: Laurie Thompsen - health and mental health coordinator at the West Virginia Coalition Against Domestic Violence in Charleston
January 27, 2008
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Driving to work recently I saw something that made me turn around and head back for a second look. There along the road was a garish yellow billboard showing silhouettes of three women, arms in chains above their heads.
"42 percent of all domestic violence homicide victims are male," the sign proclaimed in bold letters. In larger letters to the side was printed "Help protect all victims."
All homicides are tragedies, and every life lost is worth mourning. However, the statements and images displayed imply that females were the perpetrators in all of these cases. Many male victims of domestic violence have actually been harmed or killed by another male family member, even an ex-husband or ex-partner of a girlfriend or wife.
Between 2000 and 2005, females were about three times more likely than males to be murdered by an intimate partner (66.7 percent), according to the state Division of Criminal Justice Services' "Official Report of Domestic Violence Victimization." Males were more likely to be murdered by an offender who was another male in the family (66 percent).
Domestic violence occurs within a broad spectrum of relationships, but this billboard clearly portrays an unfair depiction of women as typical perpetrators of domestic violence homicides. Women killing their male partners are especially rare. The U.S. Department of Justice cites that only 3 percent of male murder victims were killed by an intimate partner.
Another disturbing message was "Help protect all victims" juxtaposed against the image of the handcuffed women. This is clearly a veiled inference that there are no supportive services for men in our state.
The West Virginia Coalition Against Domestic Violence recognizes that males can be victims of domestic violence. We fully support services for all people - women, men and children.
During fiscal year 2005-06, about 15 percent of the people receiving services from the 14 licensed domestic violence programs were male. Of the total males served, about two-thirds were adults.
Make no mistake about it, however; domestic violence is predominantly a gender-based crime against women. A U.S. Department of Justice Study found that while women are less likely than men to be victims of violent crimes overall, women are five to eight times more likely than men to be victimized by an intimate partner.
The West Virginia Domestic Violence Fatality Review Team, through the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, will soon release a report on domestic violence fatalities for 2003. It analyzes both homicides and suicides related to domestic violence. During that year, more than 10,000 domestic violence offenses were reported to various West Virginia law enforcement agencies. Of those 10,000, three-fourths of the victims were women. The Medical Examiner's Office identified 39 family violence-related fatalities: 26 homicides and 13 suicides.
Analysis of 2003 figures shows that 26 people committed domestic violence homicides - 23 males and three females. Of the men who committed homicide, 15 had documented histories as perpetrators of domestic violence. Of the three females who committed homicide, none had histories as perpetrators, though all had documented histories as victims of domestic violence.
There were 13 family violence-related suicides that year. Twelve of the suicides were men. In 11 of the 12 cases, these men committed suicide after committing a homicide related to domestic violence.
While we may hear figures that support a specific conclusion, misrepresenting statistics is not analysis. It is irresponsible and detrimental to all victims of domestic violence as well as to our children and to long-standing community prevention efforts.
When the crime of domestic violence is the cause of death, the tragedy generally receives media limelight. The reporting, though, often reveals little about the painful history that preceded the violence. Repeatedly, when women try to leave they continue to be stalked, threatened, harmed and victimized. These abusive tactics increase their risk of death. For safety reasons and out of concern that they and their children will be further hurt or killed, women often return to the abusive situations when threatened by increased violence if they refuse.
In spite of overwhelming statistics, women are routinely accused of activities such as making false allegations of child abuse or intimate partner violence by groups such as Men and Women Against Discrimination, the organization who placed the billboard. While unable to substantiate their claims, the group moves forward in these and other assertions that, in the long run, are harmful to victims of domestic violence, their children and their families.
A common theme in the dynamic of oppression is for victims to be blamed for the harm done to them. Cruel stereotypes are often attributed to oppressed persons to make it acceptable.
Suzanne Pharr, a noted social justice theorist, recognized the phenomena of "victim-blaming."
"In order for oppression to be thoroughly successful, it is necessary to involve the victim in it," Pharr said. "The victim of oppression lives in an environment of negative images ... backed up by violence, victim-hating and blaming. It is also safer to express hostility toward oppressed folks than the oppressor."
Therefore, it is critical that systems in the role of protection and support for victims (courts, law enforcement, faith communities, etc.) hold batterers accountable for their behavior and not blame victims for the abuse done to them.
Domestic violence is defined as a pattern of power and control of one human being over another in a relationship, without regard to the needs or wants of the person being victimized. The backlash expressed by Men and Women Against Discrimination and similar groups toward women and the impact of their irresponsible initiatives are destructive and demeaning to all victims of domestic violence, regardless of gender.
It is the hope of the West Virginia Coalition Against Domestic Violence that all homicides, suicides and victimization due to domestic violence will end. For this to happen, the public needs accurate information and meaningful strategies from credible organizations that prioritize victim safety and effective community response.
Thompsen is the health and mental health coordinator at the West Virginia Coalition Against Domestic Violence in Charleston.
Men and Women Against Discrimination to take part in hearing
Herald-Dispatch, The (Huntington, WV)
January 30, 2008
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
CHARLESTON -- Men and Women Against Discrimination will participate in an informational hearing Wednesday at the state Capitol, according to a recent press release issued by the agency.
The hearing will be held in the House Chamber between 1 and 3 p.m. The date was incorrectly stated in Tuesday's edition of The Herald-Dispatch.
The group, and its opposition, will present several speakers with opinions about pending bills, including the Joint Parenting Act, Paternity Fraud, False Allegations Legislation and a bill that addresses visitation denial.
President Bush Requests Funding Cuts That Endanger Domestic Violence Victims
PR Newswire (USA)
February 5, 2008
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Domestic violence advocates are outraged by President Bush's Budget Request for Fiscal Year 2009, saying the measure deals a devastating blow to women and children. The Budget Request released yesterday proposes cutting $120 million from life-saving domestic violence services created by the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).
"We are appalled to see the President proposing such devastating cuts to vital programs that save American lives," said Sue Else, President of the National Network to End Domestic Violence (NNEDV). "VAWA has been proven to save millions of lives and over $15 billion in health care, law enforcement, other social costs. It is fiscally irresponsible to propose such cuts and it turns a blind eye to the most vulnerable citizens of our country."
In addition to cutting VAWA funding by one-third, the President's plan eliminates the $2 billion balance in the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) Fund, a non-taxpayer funded resource serving over 3 million crime victims each year. The VOCA Fund has made it possible for domestic violence, sexual assault and child abuse victims to receive critical support. It also has been used to provide counseling services to victims of terrorism and mass violence, including $68.1 million to support the victims of the September 11 terrorism attacks.
"The VOCA Fund is not funded by taxpayer dollars. It is funded through fines and penalties collected from convicted criminals," explained Else. "Abolishing the VOCA Fund is an insult and injustice to battered women and victims of crime across the country."
The President's disturbing budget cuts come on the heels of NNEDV's release of the National Census of Domestic Violence Services (NCDVS). According to the census, in just one day, domestic violence programs did not have the resources to meet 7,707 requests for emergency shelter, legal assistance or other advocacy services. When the resources do not exist for victims to receive domestic violence services, victims are left with no choice but to return to their abusers.
"The more resources and advocacy that victims receive, the better chance they have of breaking the cycle of violence. Cuts in funding cost lives," explained a domestic violence program in Missouri.
"VAWA changed the landscape for victims who suffered in silence," added Else. "However, if the President's budget cuts remain, victims will not have a place to turn for help and innocent lives will be lost. We urge Congress to restore VAWA funding and increase it to levels that will protect victims of domestic violence."
To learn more about the President's Budget Request and how it impacts domestic violence victims, please visit http://www.nnedv.org.
About the National Network to End Domestic Violence
The National Network to End Domestic Violence (NNEDV) is a membership and advocacy organization representing the 54 state and U.S. territory domestic violence coalitions. NNEDV is the voice of these coalitions, their more than 2,000 local domestic violence member programs, and the millions of domestic violence survivors who turn to them for services. In 2000 and 2005, NNEDV members all across the country played a crucial role in the reauthorization of VAWA. Through its extensive state and grassroots network, NNEDV continues to mobilize a powerful constituency to make their voices heard in Congress. For more information, please visit www.nnedv.org.
National Network to End Domestic Violence
BIDEN Amendment Boosts Funding for Essential Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) Programs
Government Press Releases (USA)
March 14, 2008
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Washington, DC - The Senate today passed an amendment to the FY 2009 Budget Resolution, introduced by U.S. Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (D-DE), that increases the funding for key Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) programs. The Violence Against Women Act of 2005, which was unanimously passed by Congress, authorized a little over $1 billion for programs. The President's FY 2009 budget proposes $472 million in funding - a drastic $120 million cut to VAWA programs, as well as a plan to collapse over 20 separate VAWA programs into one "consolidated competitive grant program." This funding reorganization proposal would create an unfair playing field, forcing both small and large entities like victims service organizations, police, judges and states to compete against each other for funding.
"We cannot afford to turn our backs on women and families in need of protection" said Sen. Biden, author of the landmark Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). "We have made too much progress since 1994 to cut off the flow of funding now - we need to reinvigorate funding for Violence Against Women Act programs today."
Sen. Biden's amendment would add $100 million to the funding allocation for VAWA programs, which are administered by the Department of Justice and the Department of Health and Human Services. Sen. Biden's amendment would provide a much-needed funding boost to programs that will train more police officers, judges, and prosecutors, expand transitional housing for victims, improve services for battered women in rural areas and Indian land, launch prevention programs aimed at boys and young men and much more.
Domestic violence impacts one in every four women, yet the Administration proposed cutting spending by almost a third - a dramatic deviation from historic spending on family violence programs. If this budget is followed, the number of abused victims and their children turned away from critical services will likely increase. National figures since the Act's passage in 1994 show substantial progress: domestic violence has dropped by almost 50 percent, incidents of rape are down by 60 percent, and the number of women killed by an abusive husband or boyfriend is down by 22 perfect. Today, more than half of all rape victims are stepping forward to report the crime, acts of bravery that often need the protection and encouragement that VAWA's funding provides.
###
Since passage of the Act, Delaware alone has received more than $10 million in federal assistance for counseling, legal services, and safe housing for victims and their children to start anew. In Delaware, dedicated local organizations, police and judges have led the fight to eradicate domestic violence, using federal funding to reduce domestic violence incidents by over 1,000 since 2001. Service providers in the State and across country are clamoring for help as more and more women gather their courage and report the violence to police, emergency room nurses or hotline operators. For more information on VAWA funding and programs, a coalition of domestic and sexual violence advocacy organizations has prepared a detailed report found at a www.nnedv.org/pdf/BriefingBook08docs/Policy/BriefingBookFY09.pdf.
10,846 APPROVED FOR INTERIM RELIEF: U.S. to grant U Visas to some illegal immigrants
Visa designed to protect victims of serious crimes from being deported
Charlotte Observer, The: Web Edition Articles (NC)
March 30, 2008
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Maria remembers the day in August when she slumped outside her apartment, sobbing from the pain of a broken nose and bruises swelling on her face.
The 29-year-old drywall worker from Mexico said her boyfriend had beaten her that morning and she felt helpless.
"I couldn't defend myself or even talk because he'd choked me," said Maria, whose last name has been withheld for her safety. "I couldn't yell or anything."
Worse, she was afraid to report the domestic violence because she thought police would find out she had entered the country illegally and arrest her.
She didn't realize illegal immigrants can be protected against deportation if they are victims of crime.
This year, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services will begin granting a special "U Visa" to victims of certain serious crimes who cooperate with law enforcement. Legal assistance groups are now helping about 50 victims from the Charlotte region, including Maria and a few men, apply for permission to live and work in the United States.
Congress initially authorized the visa in the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 to encourage more illegal immigrants to report crimes. But with the restructuring of the Homeland Security Department and other bureaucratic delays, it took seven years before the official visa regulations were published in October.
In the meantime, immigration officials have approved 10,846 people nationwide for "interim relief" -- the ability to stay in the country and get work permits.
The idea is that stopping violent crime is more important than someone's legal status, victim advocates said.
"We don't want victims suffering through this and being scared to report it," said Charlotte-Mecklenburg police Capt. Lisa Goeltz.
Goeltz said the U Visa benefits investigations because it makes it easier for police to follow up with illegal immigrants and get them to show up for court.
Each year, 10,000 U Visas will be available to victims (plus spouses and children) of a list of about 25 crimes including rape, human trafficking, kidnapping, sexual assault and murder.
The visa lasts up to four years and visa holders who stay in the country for three consecutive years can apply for permanent residency.
Critics say the system could be abused by immigrants falsely reporting crimes to get visas.
But victim advocates say those people get caught because the extensive application forces them to prove they suffered "substantial physical or mental abuse." A law enforcement official also must sign a form to certify that the visa applicant is helping the investigation.
Legal assistance groups say the majority of their U Visa cases in the Charlotte region come from domestic violence victims. Before the U Visa was created, the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 provided some protection, but only for victims whose spouses were legal residents. Under the U Visa, it doesn't matter if the abuser is legal or even married to the victim. That's how Maria qualified for protection.
She said a friend had to literally drag her to the hospital that day in August, where she later filled out a police report and learned about the visa.
Shawn Saucier, spokesman for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, said he expects more people to apply for U Visas now that law enforcement agencies are learning it became official last fall.
Victim advocates say it could take a while to see the increase in Charlotte. For one thing, they said, organizations that offer free, bilingual legal assistance don't have enough staff, so they've been turning people away.
Plus, they said, illegal immigrants have seemed more afraid to report crimes since the Mecklenburg County Sheriff's Office started a partnership with federal immigration officials about two years ago.
Some victims don't realize that sheriff's officials check the legal status only of those who are arrested, not the person reporting them. Even if victims heard they could qualify to remain in the country legally, they hesitate to go to police because they can see the number of deportations rising, advocates said.
A 27-year-old from the Dominican Republic who is applying for a U Visa said she can understand that fear. She carries a card from her lawyer that says she's in the middle of a domestic violence investigation, in case immigration officials question her status. But that card doesn't guarantee that police won't decide to arrest her anyway. She's still technically illegal until the visa comes through.
"I don't go onto the street," she said. "I don't get into a car alone."
Maria actually spent time in a detention center before lawyers were able to get her released on an interim U Visa. She was pulled over in September for expired license plates. Because she didn't have a driver's license, she said, police arrested her in front of her 11-year-old son. She said she tried to explain that she was applying for a visa but was automatically put through the deportation process.
She spent more than three months in jail, first in Charlotte and later in Etowah County, Ala., before her visa paperwork was processed. She was eventually released on Jan. 10.
If she doesn't get the visa, Maria said she'll return to Mexico. Even a better future for her son isn't worth the constant fear of living an "illegal" life, she said, or worse -- going back to a detention center.
Help for victims of domestic abuse
Immigrants and Spanish-speakers who need help with domestic abuse should call police if they feel their lives are in danger.
BIDEN/LUGAR Op-ed: We Must Confront Violence Against Women
Government Press Releases (USA)
June 18, 2008
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
One in three women worldwide will experience gender-based violence in her lifetime. In some countries, that's true for 70 percent of women. No country is immune. From the trafficking of women in Eastern Europe, to "honor" killings in the Middle East, to the use of rape as a weapon of war in Darfur and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, violence against women and girls crosses all borders and affects women in all social groups, religions and socio-economic classes.
Violence against women and girls violates their basic human rights. It prevents girls from going to school, stops women from holding jobs, and limits access to critical healthcare for women and their children.
Moreover, violence against women is a global health crisis, not just because so many women and girls are injured and die, but also because the violence interferes with efforts to save the lives of pregnant women and babies. Rape increases vulnerability to the transmission of HIV/AIDS, a disease that in many countries disproportionately afflicts women. In sub-Saharan Africa, for instance, women account for close to three-quarters of those living with HIV/AIDS between the ages 18 and 24.
For humanitarian reasons alone, the United States should do what it can to end this scourge. But equally important, it has a profound impact on the health and development of countries worldwide. Stopping gender-based violence isn't just the right thing to do; it's also smart diplomacy. Violence contributes to the poverty, inequality and instability that threaten our security and our broad national interests.
Specifically, because it impedes women's full and active participation in their communities and societies, it is one of the biggest obstacles that limit our effort to foster development around the world. Programs to address poverty and disease will be seriously encumbered as long as women face violence in their homes and communities.
At this year's World Economic Forum, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stated that if she could focus on one thing in developing countries it would be the empowerment of women.
The good news is that local organizations are working in communities around the world with courage and sensitivity to help women overcome violence at home, in school and at work. Governments are bringing together all sectors of their countries to try to prevent and end abuse. But they need our help.
Significant progress has been made in reducing violence against women here in the United States since Congress passed the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) in 1994. It's time to throw our weight and leadership behind efforts to help women and their families worldwide lead safer, healthier lives.
Last fall, we introduced the International Violence Against Women Act (IVAWA). This bipartisan legislation would ensure that our foreign assistance programs include efforts to end gender-based violence. We would accomplish this goal in three ways:
First, we propose to reorganize and rejuvenate the gender-related efforts of the State Department by creating one central office, the "Office for Women's Global Initiatives," directed by a Senate- confirmed ambassador who reports directly to the secretary of state. The coordinator will monitor and oversee all U.S. resources, programs and aid abroad that deal with women's issues, including gender-based violence. This centralization will help prioritize initiatives and ensure the efficient use of taxpayer funds.
Second, we mandate a five-year, comprehensive strategy to combat violence against women in 10 to 20 targeted countries. We would allocate $175 million a year to support programs dealing with violence against women in five areas: the criminal and civil justice system, healthcare, access to education and school safety, women's economic empowerment and public awareness campaigns that change social norms.
Third, in humanitarian crises and in conflict and post-conflict situations, women and girls are especially vulnerable to violence. Reports of refugee women being raped while collecting firewood, soldiers sexually abusing girls through bribery with token food items, or women subjected to torture as a tool of war are horrific and all too common. The Act requires training for workers and peacekeeping forces, and establishes reporting mechanisms and other emergency measures.
The legislation brings together, for the first time, coordinated American resources and leadership to this global issue. As the world continues this month to commemorate International Women's Day, we believe this is the ideal time for the United States to get actively engaged in the fight for women's lives and girls' futures. We urge our colleagues to support this measure.
Biden is the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Lugar is the committee's ranking member.
###
Elizabeth Alexander - Communications Director, Office of U.S. Senator Joe Biden
BIDEN Encourages Secretary Rice to Support Bipartisan International Violence Against Women Act
Government Press Releases (USA)
June 19, 2008
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
BIDEN Encourages Secretary Rice to Support Bipartisan International Violence Against Women Act
Washington, DC - Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (D-DE), encouraged Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to support his and Ranking Member Richard G. Lugar's (R-IN) bipartisan International Violence Against Women Act (IVAWA) in her remarks to the United Nations Security Council today at a special session entitled "Women and Peace and Security." Senators Biden and Lugar coauthored an oped yesterday on IVAWA urging their colleagues in Congress to support the measure, which offers a comprehensive plan to fight violence against women around the globe.
"In her speech today at the United Nations, Secretary Rice will have the opportunity to offer the United States' support in ending one of the most pervasive international health and human rights crises we face: violence against women," said Senator Biden. "Senator Lugar and I have laid out a detailed plan in IVAWA to provide coordinated leadership and resources from the United States to target gender-based violence. I encourage Secretary Rice to support the bipartisan efforts of the Congress to address and prevent the scourge of violence against women around the world."
The full text of the oped coauthored by Senators Biden and Lugar is below and a copy is attached.
The Hill
We must confront violence against women
By Sens. Joseph Biden (D-Del.) and Richard Lugar (R-Ind.)
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
One in three women worldwide will experience gender-based violence in her lifetime. In some countries, that's true for 70 percent of women. No country is immune. From the trafficking of women in Eastern Europe, to "honor" killings in the Middle East, to the use of rape as a weapon of war in Darfur and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, violence against women and girls crosses all borders and affects women in all social groups, religions and socio-economic classes.
Violence against women and girls violates their basic human rights. It prevents girls from going to school, stops women from holding jobs, and limits access to critical healthcare for women and their children.
Moreover, violence against women is a global health crisis, not just because so many women and girls are injured and die, but also because the violence interferes with efforts to save the lives of pregnant women and babies. Rape increases vulnerability to the transmission of HIV/AIDS, a disease that in many countries disproportionately afflicts women. In sub-Saharan Africa, for instance, women account for close to three-quarters of those living with HIV/AIDS between the ages 18 and 24.
For humanitarian reasons alone, the United States should do what it can to end this scourge. But equally important, it has a profound impact on the health and development of countries worldwide. Stopping gender-based violence isn't just the right thing to do; it's also smart diplomacy. Violence contributes to the poverty, inequality and instability that threaten our security and our broad national interests.
Specifically, because it impedes women's full and active participation in their communities and societies, it is one of the biggest obstacles that limit our effort to foster development around the world. Programs to address poverty and disease will be seriously encumbered as long as women face violence in their homes and communities.
At this year's World Economic Forum, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stated that if she could focus on one thing in developing countries it would be the empowerment of women.
The good news is that local organizations are working in communities around the world with courage and sensitivity to help women overcome violence at home, in school and at work. Governments are bringing together all sectors of their countries to try to prevent and end abuse. But they need our help.
Significant progress has been made in reducing violence against women here in the United States since Congress passed the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) in 1994. It's time to throw our weight and leadership behind efforts to help women and their families worldwide lead safer, healthier lives.
Last fall, we introduced the International Violence Against Women Act (IVAWA). This bipartisan legislation would ensure that our foreign assistance programs include efforts to end gender-based violence. We would accomplish this goal in three ways:
First, we propose to reorganize and rejuvenate the gender-related efforts of the State Department by creating one central office, the "Office for Women's Global Initiatives," directed by a Senate- confirmed ambassador who reports directly to the secretary of state. The coordinator will monitor and oversee all U.S. resources, programs and aid abroad that deal with women's issues, including gender-based violence. This centralization will help prioritize initiatives and ensure the efficient use of taxpayer funds.
Second, we mandate a five-year, comprehensive strategy to combat violence against women in 10 to 20 targeted countries. We would allocate $175 million a year to support programs dealing with violence against women in five areas: the criminal and civil justice system, healthcare, access to education and school safety, women's economic empowerment and public awareness campaigns that change social norms.
Third, in humanitarian crises and in conflict and post-conflict situations, women and girls are especially vulnerable to violence. Reports of refugee women being raped while collecting firewood, soldiers sexually abusing girls through bribery with token food items, or women subjected to torture as a tool of war are horrific and all too common. The Act requires training for workers and peacekeeping forces, and establishes reporting mechanisms and other emergency measures.
The legislation brings together, for the first time, coordinated American resources and leadership to this global issue. As the world continues this month to commemorate International Women's Day, we believe this is the ideal time for the United States to get actively engaged in the fight for women's lives and girls' futures. We urge our colleagues to support this measure.
Biden is the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Lugar is the committee's ranking member.
###
Olivia Alair - Deputy Press Secretary U.S. Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr.
Senate Appropriations Committee Passes $15 Million Increase to Fund Desperately Needed Services for Domestic Violence Victims and $45 Million Increase to Fund Services for Victims of Crime
PR Newswire (USA)
June 23, 2008
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Advocates from across the country praised the Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies (CJS) Subcommittee of the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee for approving $415 million in funding for the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) and $635 million in funding for the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA).
"Domestic and sexual violence victims and their advocates thank the leadership of CJS Appropriations Subcommittee Chairwoman Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) and Ranking Member Richard Shelby (R-AL), as well as Appropriations Committee Robert C. Byrd (D-WV) and Ranking Member Thad Cochran (R-MS)," said Sue Else, President of the National Network to End Domestic Violence (NNEDV). "They have worked tirelessly to increase funding for VAWA and VOCA and these increases are an important step toward meeting the dire needs of victims of domestic and sexual violence."
Each year, more and more victims of domestic violence find the courage to reach out for help. According to NNEDV's National Census of Domestic Violence Services, in just one day domestic violence programs served more than 53,000 adults and children. At the same time, more than 7,707 requests for help went unmet because the programs did not have the resources to help them. The struggle to meet victims' needs was compounded by extreme cuts to VOCA and cuts to essential VAWA programs in FY 08. Advocates see the Senate bill's increases as essential to supporting domestic violence victims.
"Funding increases to VAWA and VOCA are critical for helping victims nationwide access lifesaving services," said Else. "We recognize that the Committee faces a tight fiscal year. We applaud their continued commitment to victims of domestic violence and look forward to working with them as the bill moves forward in the Senate."
The Senate CJS bill includes increased funding for key VAWA programs, increasing the efficiency and ability of police, courts, battered women's shelters, rape crisis centers, and other victim services providers to respond to life-threatening situations faced by victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking. Critical programs receiving funding increases include: STOP grants that support collaborated community approaches to ending domestic violence; legal services for victims; services for victims in rural communities; and support for sexual assault programs.
VOCA is a key funding source to support victims of all types of crimes, including domestic and sexual violence. Approximately 4,400 agencies rely on VOCA funding to serve 3.8 million domestic and sexual assault victims each year. Increases to VOCA will further the efforts of local domestic violence shelters to serve victims and their families.
The National Network to End Domestic Violence (NNEDV) is a membership and advocacy organization representing the 56 state and U.S. territory domestic violence coalitions. NNEDV is the voice of these coalitions, their more than 2,000 local domestic violence member programs, and the millions of domestic violence survivors who turn to them for services. In 2000 and 2005, NNEDV members across the country played a crucial role in the reauthorization of VAWA. Through its extensive state and grassroots network, NNEDV continues to mobilize a powerful constituency to make their voices heard by policymakers. For more information, please visit www.nnedv.org.
National Network to End Domestic Violence
BIDEN Op-ed in Legal Times: 'Wrong Way' McCain
Government Press Releases (USA)
July 1, 2008
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
The Supreme Court has just adjourned for the summer. When the Court reconvenes in October, we will be in the final weeks of the campaign to pick the next president.
That president will likely have the opportunity to appoint several justices to the Supreme Court, where today "originalists"--those who limit their interpretation of the Constitution to what they imagine the Framers intended--are on the verge of gaining a solid majority. Just one more appointment in the mold of Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. or Justices Samuel Alito Jr., Antonin Scalia, or Clarence Thomas would cement the conservatives' hold on the high court for a generation.
The next president will also appoint a significant number of judges to the federal courts of appeals. In an era when the Supreme Court reviews only about one-half of 1 percent of federal appellate decisions, federal circuit judges effectively have the last word on most issues. Moreover, because federal judgeships are lifetime appointments, these judges have an impact that long outlasts the power of the president who appoints them.
Sen. John McCain has made clear what the federal judiciary would look like under a President McCain. In a speech at Wake Forest University last month, he outlined his judicial philosophy. He promised to appoint judges like Roberts and Alito, who in their short tenure on the high court have already erased decades of hard-won progress for minority and gender equality.
Roberts and Alito were the deciding votes in such 2007 cases as Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., which prevented a female employee from recovering pay in a gender discrimination case even though she demonstrated that she had been paid significantly less than similarly situated male colleagues, and Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, which held that the school district's desegregation plan was unconstitutional and thus dealt a major blow to the promise of equality and opportunity in the 54-year-old landmark Brown v. Board of Education. And they have demonstrated a predilection for the interests of big business over those of individuals in cases such as this year's Riegel v. Medtronic Inc., which deprived individuals injured by defective medical devices of their right to sue the manufacturers under state tort law.
STRAINED THEORY
In his Wake Forest speech, Sen. McCain also pledged not to appoint "activist" judges who usurp power and legislate from the bench, but rather judges who would adhere strictly to the text of the Constitution. This is an unobjectionable statement on its face. But the decisions McCain used (and did not use) to illustrate his point showed that he supports the strain of originalism that, under the guise of discerning the Framers' original intent, would dismantle the power of the federal government and liquidate constitutional protections for personal privacy and social justice.
As an example of "judicial activism," Sen. McCain cited Roper v. Simmons, a 2005 case in which Justice Anthony Ken-nedy wrote a 5-4 decision holding that the Eighth and 14th Amendments prohibit the execution of offenders who were under 18 when they committed their crimes. The Court considered, among other things, what Kennedy called our nation's "evolving standards of decency"--namely, the ban that a majority of states already imposed on the execution of minors and the growing reluctance to execute minors in those states that still allowed it. McCain ridiculed Kennedy for invoking "evolving standards of decency," calling it a "poor substitute for clear and rigorous constitutional reasoning."
Sen. McCain preferred the "constitutional reasoning" of Justice Scalia, who suggested in dissent that the Eighth Amendment would not prohibit a state from executing 7-year-olds because that was the minimum permissible age for execution in the 18th century, when this country was founded. It did not matter to Scalia that our standards of decency and our understanding of brain development have evolved significantly over the course of 220 years. All that mattered to him was that at the time the Framers drafted the Constitution, at least one state's laws permitted the execution of 7-year-old children.
Although he denounced judicial activism, Sen. McCain made no mention of one of the modern Court's most egregious cases of judicial overreaching, Bush v. Gore (2000). And although he promised to appoint judges who "understand that there are.?.?. clear limits to the scope of federal power," he ignored cases where the Court struck down federal statutes even though the government clearly had authority to act--including United States v. Lopez (1995), where the Court struck down the Gun-Free School Zones Act, and United States v. Morrison (2000), where the Court struck down the civil rights remedy in the Violence Against Women Act.
Sen. McCain clearly aligned himself with proponents of the theory that power should be devolved from the federal government to the states. But the Framers never intended to hamstring the federal government in favor of the states. They abandoned the Articles of Confederation and fashioned a government that was both federal--comprising sovereign states--and national in power. Even in 1789, the Framers recognized that only the federal government can address truly national issues like interstate commerce. And as rivers and wagon trails have given way to highways, railways, and air travel, those issues within the province of federal power have expanded.
'OUR WHOLE EXPERIENCE'
A return to the cramped originalism advocated by Sen. McCain would be a tremendous step backward. The Founders did not intend to consign us forever to the thinking of the past, but instead recognized that, as Thomas Jefferson said, "Our laws and our institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind." Their genius is reflected in a Constitution that does not bind the country forever to the specific laws of 1789, but rather sets forth general principles for maintaining our system of government and our most fundamental values even as the nation evolves.
Writing for the Court in Missouri v. Holland (1920), Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. captured this sentiment well: "The case before us must be considered in the light of our whole experience and not merely in that of what was said a hundred years ago."
Eight years later, Holmes joined Jus-tice Louis Brandeis' dissent in Olmstead v. United States, which held that individuals had no Fourth Amendment privacy interest in the content of their phone conversations. Brandeis wrote that while the Constitution had been drafted to address particular "evils," "its general language should not.?.?. be necessarily confined to the form that evil had theretofore taken. Time works changes, brings into existence new conditions and purposes. Therefore a principle to be vital must be capable of wider application than the mischief which gave it birth."
History has taken the side of Justices Bran-deis and Holmes: The Court reversed Olmstead 40 years later in Katz v. United States (1967), holding that private phone conversations are protected by the Fourth Amendment.
Sen. McCain's strain of originalism ignores the principal genius of the Con-sti-tu-tion recognized by Holmes and Bran-deis--its ability to encompass within its principles new eventualities and to accommodate the growth and evolution of our nation. If McCain's philosophy were to become ascendant on the Court, the consequences for our rights and liberties would be significant. In addition to revisiting decisions we now take for granted--such as those prohibiting racial discrimination and securing reproductive rights--a Court dominated by originalists would struggle to determine how the Constitution applies to a host of issues the Founders could never have imagined. What were the Founders' views, for instance, on whether employers should be allowed to access their employees' genetic information or whether the government can use neuroimagery to determine whether a person is inclined toward criminality or violent behavior" The justices whom McCain admires seem always to fill the gaps left by their judicial philosophy by finding no individual right to privacy or protection in the face of new technologies.
No matter who is elected this fall, the world will continue to evolve and advancements in science and technology will change the way we live and the way we view ourselves. The president who appoints the next several justices will set the direction of the Supreme Court and the country: Will the next generation be able to harness and control the power of science and technology" Will we achieve the full measure of our potential by expanding individual liberties in tandem "with the progress of the human mind"? Will we have a federal government that is strong enough to provide for the safety and welfare of its citizens" That's what is at stake this November.
Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Biden, a Democrat, served as chairman of that committee from 1987 to 1995.
Elizabeth Alexander - Communications Director, Office of U.S. Senator Joe Biden
Department of Justice discriminates against ‘liberal’ groups
Valley Morning Star (Harlingen, TX)
Author/Byline: JAMES C. HARRINGTON/ Texas Civil Rights Project
July 5, 2008
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
A number of social justice and environmental groups, including the Texas Civil Rights Project, recently learned that we appeared on the U.S. Department of Justice employment "hit list." The June 24 report, prepared for Congress by the DOJ Offices of Inspector General and Professional Responsibility, revealed rampant partisan, politically motivated hiring at DOJ.
Anyone who ever worked with TCRP was barred from DOJ employment. We were branded as a "liberal" organization, as juxtaposed to "conservative" groups (from which DOJ would hire).
There is nothing uniquely "liberal" about TCRP's work. In fact, you could just as well call it "conservative," since our job is to protect and defend the constitutional and civil rights of poor and low-income people who do not have the resources to hire their own attorneys.
What the administration really was doing, until caught, was "no-listing" organizations that it perceived as opposing its policies or actions, and favoring those groups that were supportive.
I have been doing civil rights work for 35 years, and it makes not one bit of difference to me whether the administration is Republican or Democratic; if the government violates the law and hurts people, the courts are there for redress. Our job is to help people find redress.
The most reprehensible part of this secret DOJ agenda was how it hurt the lives of young folks, especially law students, who come to volunteer with us. About 25 law students and volunteers generously give their time every year to help us help people. Examples of the some of their work include handling cases for people with physical disabilities, assisting abused immigrant women become independent and get status in this country under the Violence Against Women Act, helping farm workers collect minimum wages, suing police officers who engage in brutality, and so on.
Why should their future careers be penalized because of their personal generosity and sacrifice as students? They give up significant summer salaries to help people, only to be punished by their government.
In prior administrations, both Republican and Democratic, DOJ has hired students who have worked with TCRP, but that was when DOJ hired people on merit. That has not been the case with this administration. One would think that DOJ would want to hire students or lawyers who have done community work and understand the day-to-day application of the law.
If the First Amendment means anything, it is that people have to right to say, think and do as they want, so long as they don't hurt others, without any political retaliation from the government. DOJ apparently has yet to learn, and practice, that basic premise of our democracy.
It's especially reprehensible when this systemic political discrimination occurs in the very agency charged with enforcing fair and impartial justice throughout the country.
On July 4, we celebrate our declaration of independence from a monarchy that plagued the colonies with political suppression and favoritism. The question to ask ourselves this year is how does it happen that our Department of Justice is now doing the same thing, albeit in a kinder and gentler fashion, but still oppressively? And, once having asked the question, what are we going to do to make sure our government respects our rights and does not undermine them?
Harrington is director of the Texas Civil Rights Project.
Representative Lewis Champions $35.2 Million Increase to Fund Desperately Needed Services for Victims of Domestic Violence and $60 Million Increase for Victims of Crime
PR Newswire (USA)
July 9, 2008
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Advocates from across the country recognize Representative Jerry Lewis (R-CA), Ranking Member of the U.S. House of Representatives Appropriations Committee, for his efforts toward increasing FY '09 funding to $435 million for the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) and $650 million for the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA).
"Rep. Lewis has expressed his commitment to victims of domestic violence by ensuring that these lifesaving programs received funding increases," said Sue Else, President of the National Network to End Domestic Violence (NNEDV). "We sincerely appreciate Rep. Lewis' leadership and his prioritization of victims' needs despite a tough budget year."
Each year, more and more victims of domestic violence find the courage to reach out for help and this funding is a critical step toward meeting victims' needs. According to NNEDV's National Census of Domestic Violence Services, in just one day, domestic violence programs in California served 3,049 adults and children. At the same time, 571 requests for help went unmet because the programs did not have the adequate resources. The struggle to meet victims' needs was compounded by extreme cuts to VOCA and cuts to essential VAWA programs in FY '08. Advocates see the House bill's increases as essential to supporting domestic violence victims.
"Victims of domestic violence rely on the critical VAWA programs to help them escape dangerous and situations. These increases, championed by Rep. Lewis, will help millions of victims rebuild their shattered lives," said Else. "We thank Rep. Lewis and his colleagues and look forward to working with them as the bill progresses in the House."
The House CJS bill includes additional funding for key VAWA programs, increasing the efficiency and ability of police, courts, battered women's shelters, rape crisis centers, and other victim services providers to respond to life-threatening situations faced by victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking. Critical programs receiving funding increases include: STOP grants that support collaborated community approaches to ending domestic violence; legal services for victims; services for victims in rural communities; and support for sexual assault programs.
VOCA is a key funding source to support victims of all types of crimes, including domestic and sexual violence. Approximately 4,400 agencies rely on VOCA funding to serve 3.8 million domestic and sexual assault victims each year. Increases to VOCA will further the efforts of local domestic violence shelters to serve victims and their families in immediate crisis.
The National Network to End Domestic Violence (NNEDV) is a membership and advocacy organization representing 56 state and U.S. territory domestic violence coalitions. NNEDV is the voice of these coalitions, their more than 2,000 local domestic violence member programs, and the millions of domestic violence survivors who turn to them for services. In 2000 and 2005, NNEDV members across the country played a crucial role in the reauthorization of VAWA. Through its extensive state and grassroots network, NNEDV continues to mobilize a powerful constituency to make their voices heard by policymakers. For more information, please visit www.nnedv.org.
National Network to End Domestic Violence
Amnesty International USA Hosts Former Female Child Soldiers from Liberia for Discussions and Public Screening of New Documentary Film
PR Newswire (USA)
July 18, 2008
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Amnesty International USA will host public screenings of a new documentary film, "Women of Liberia: Fighting for Peace", by Academy Award-nominated filmmaker Jonathan Stack, on July 22-29 in New York and Washington, DC with discussion afterward by three visiting former female child soldiers who are featured in the film. The women will discuss the social stigma they have faced as former female fighters and their struggle to build better lives for themselves and their children after Liberia's devastating wars.
Upwards of 30,000 women and girls were associated -- through force or desperation -- with the fighting forces in Liberia's war that ended in 2003. They were constant targets for rape and sexual violence by male fighters, and now they are trying to piece together new lives -- burdened by poverty, their missed school years and the social stigma they face as former fighters and ongoing victims of rampant sexual violence.
The former female fighters, Jackie Redd, 30, Mickey Kesseley and Florence Ballah, both 27, will speak at screenings at 7 p.m. Thursday, July 24 at the Tribeca (200 Hudson St.) location of the 92nd St. Y, and at 7 p.m. Tuesday, July 29, at the E Street Cinema in Washington (555 11th St. N.W.)
The screenings are free and open to the public. For more information, please visit: www.amnestyusa.org/womenofliberia
Amnesty International is hosting the woman under its priority campaign for passage of the International Violence Against Women Act, a bipartisan bill now before Congress. The bill is a comprehensive approach to U.S. policy to prevent violence against women and girls, which affects an estimated one of three women worldwide and is a leading contributor to poverty in the developing world. The bill specifically addresses post-war situations and would help ensure that former female child soldiers receive the education, skills training and care they need to help sustain better lives for themselves and the next generation.
"Women of Liberia: Fighting for Peace" was directed by Jonathan Stack, a two-time Academy Award nominee whose award-winning work includes "The Farm", about Louisiana's prison in Angola, and two other films about Liberia: "Liberia: An Uncivil War" and "Iron Ladies of Liberia", which aired on PBS.
Journalists who wish to attend the public screenings or interview the three women are asked to contact: Suzanne Trimel, Media Relations Director, at 212-633-4150.
Amnesty International
Taking part, taking action in Washington
Marin Independent Journal (San Rafael, CA)
Author/Byline: Eric Harr
July 20, 2008
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
MY FOUR-YEAR-OLD daughter is a lobbyist. A bonafide Washington lobbyist. And, I could not be more proud.
In her first visit to The Hill, Vivienne attended the national conference of CARE - a leading global humanitarian organization - as we discussed poverty, hunger and the climate crisis with members of Congress.
In this election year, lobbying carries a heavy stigma. It conjures up images of unctuous tobacco, gun and insurance agents in surreptitious, back-slapping meetings over scotch-rocks with members of Congress, as they carve out more for the powerful at the expense of the marginalized.
But, when it comes to lobbying, it's not the what that matters; it's the who and why. As Bill Clinton said in defense of Hillary's reception of lobbyist money: "What gives the lobbyists influence is the people who hire them. It's all the people they represent."
Lobbying is merely the act of meeting with our elected officials to ask them to support something in which we believe.
Vivienne believes in Disneyland princesses, the violin and lemon sorbet. She also believes in feeding the hungry, keeping girls safe and protecting our planet. She is only 4, but she does not like that 850 million people are chronically hungry in the world. She does not like that violence against women and girls is on the rise. And, she does not like that our planet is heating up and that that is hurting poor people the most.
So, Vivienne took her place in history alongside thousands of intrepid, compassionate souls who, over a span of six decades, have forged CARE into a global superpower for change - defending dignity and fighting poverty. CARE allocates an industry-leading 91 percent of the money it receives to people in need on the ground.
Three urgent issues were discussed with members of Congress:
- The global hunger crisis: Food prices have increased 55 percent since June 2007. We conveyed to Congress that traditional food aid does not work the way it should. We asked them instead to provide short-term emergency food aid, as communities build better systems to protect themselves against food insecurity.
- Violence against women and girls: It is at epidemic levels worldwide. We asked for support on the International Violence Against Women Act (IVAWA). At the conclusion of our meetings, Vivienne gave staffers big, warm hugs and heartfelt thank-yous. The perfect close.
- Climate change: We pushed for a mandatory cap on greenhouse gas emissions; voluntary measures don't go far enough. Whether it's our personal health or our planet's health, we must wake up to gradual change, or we may suffer catastrophic loss.
I went to the hill with absurdly low expectations. I presumed that these politicians would be cynical robots who would nod approvingly as they mentally reviewed their morning's golf scores.
In fact, the opposite was true. For the most part, these are good people intent on doing the right things. They merely differ on how to do it. If you are willing to take the time to meet with them, they will take the time to listen. The system may be slow and ceremonial, but it works.
When Vivienne was bleary-eyed and out of gas, she said: "Papa, did I do a good job as a loppyist? I'm tired. Can we be done now?"
I said, "Yes, honey, you helped people you'll never meet and who cannot help you back. That's the best kind of help to give. I could not be prouder of you. Now, let's go get some lemon sorbet."
Eric Harr of Fairfax is a CARE ambassador, best-selling author, former professional triathlete and host of NBC's new show "Organic Living."
Marriage fraud
Hutchinson News, The (KS)
July 26, 2008
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Americans live in a world of many threats from abroad. One of the least understood or talked about is marriage fraud. Foreign nationals, who marry American citizens solely to gain entry into the United States.
Thanks to the Violence Against Women Act, or VAWA, safeguards that once protected U.S. citizens from this type of fraud have been largely swept away.
There are Web sites that instruct foreigners how to circumvent U.S. law by using VAWA and an abundance of attorneys who specialize in distorting the well-meaning intent of this law.
While we wage war in Afghanistan and Iraq to combat terrorism, this insidious form of terrorism is taking its toll on American citizens inside our own borders.
Don't count on help from your government or elected officials, you will be met with indifference or open hostility. Chief among this group is Sen. Sam Brownback. Only Sen. Ted Kennedy has a more liberal voting record on this issue.
This elitist group has turned a blind eye to fraud perpetrated against their own honest, hardworking citizens, while claiming to do so in the name of justice and fair play.
GREGORY H. BONTRAGER - Hutchinson
OBAMA MUST WIN OVER FRUSTRATED CLINTON BACKERS
Capital Times, The (Madison, WI)
August 23, 2008
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
It was called "the dream ticket" -- a pairing of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton as the Democratic candidates for president and vice president in 2008.
But the dream died around 2 a.m. Saturday, when Obama's camp e-mailed millions of supporters to tell them that the African-American man who made history by securing the party's nomination would not be running with the woman who made history by almost securing the nomination.
Or did it?
Delegates to the Democratic National Convention will, of course, have an opportunity to vote for Clinton when the presidential roll call takes place.
But what if Clinton diehards take advantage of procedures outlined in the convention rules for a vice presidential roll call vote?
According to party rules for the convention, there is supposed to be a roll call ballot to choose the vice presidential candidate: "After nominations for vice presidential candidates have closed, the convention shall proceed to a roll call vote by states on the selection of the vice presidential candidate. The roll call voting procedure shall be conducted in the same manner as that heretofore provided for the selection of the nominee for president of the United States."
The Obama camp, obsessed as it is with managing every detail of the convention, will not be enthusiastic about a vice presidential roll call vote. There will probably be a call for approval of the Biden nomination by acclamation. But there are no assurances that Clinton backers -- of whom there will be more than 1,500 on the floor -- will greet such a call with cheers.
For her part, Clinton is officially on board with the O'Biden ticket.
Clinton and Biden are members of the club -- perhaps not political soul mates but Senate allies and, to the extent that it is possible in Washington, friends.
So it comes as no surprise that the woman who might have been president, and who might have been vice president, is speaking well of Obama's decision to name Sen. Biden as his running mate.
"In naming my colleague and friend Sen. Joe Biden to be the vice presidential nominee, Sen. Obama has continued in the best traditions for the vice presidency by selecting an exceptionally strong, experienced leader and devoted public servant," read the statement Clinton released Saturday morning. "Sen. Biden will be a purposeful and dynamic vice president who will help Sen. Obama both win the presidency and govern this great country."
That's gracious, and sincere -- Clinton knows that Biden would be her best ally and conduit in an Obama White House.
But it is not going to satisfy the most frustrated of Clinton's supporters, who experienced a brief flurry of -- dare we use the word -- "hope" when Clinton's name surfaced as a prospect in the final days of Obama's veep search.
"It's a big mistake not to choose her," objects Jenny Doggett, a Clinton backer who has urged a floor fight at the convention. "It's sad and it's a sure way to guarantee the Republicans will win."
California Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez has been vocal in her expression of frustrations regarding the treatment of Clinton by the Obama team -- which reportedly made no effort to vet the former first lady as a possible running mate -- but says Clinton will be a team player at the convention.
"She'll go in, she'll wow them and she'll get out of the way," Sanchez says of Clinton's anticipated Tuesday night address to the gathering.
In fact, if Clinton really wants to help her friend Biden, she will have to talk him up at the convention.
Clinton will not allow her name to be placed in nomination for vice president, even if her supporters were to gather the required 300 delegate signatures on a petition seeking to place her in nomination.
But if a vice presidential roll call vote takes place, the rules are clear: "Delegates may vote for the candidate of their choice whether or not the name of such candidate was placed in nomination. Any vote cast other than a vote for (a candidate who has been formally nominated) shall be considered a vote for 'present.' "
But a substantial number of "present for Hillary" votes might be one of the bigger actual news stories of the convention.
So it is that, when the nomination speeches are made for Obama's vice presidential selection on Wednesday, there will have to be some prominent women and Clinton backers speaking up for Biden. And they will have to emphasize Biden's feminist credentials -- especially his leadership role in writing and passing the landmark 1994 Violence Against Women Act. (The Clinton-friendly National Organization for Women was hailing the Biden pick, arguing, "We know that Sen. Biden will bring the crucial issue of violence prevention to the forefront as he travels the country discussing issues of concern to voters, especially women voters.") If Hillary Clinton were to return to the stage Wednesday as one of those nominating Biden, it would be a powerful statement -- although asking her to take such a role might be seen as demanding too much of a defeated contender who, as she recently noted, has already done plenty of heavy lifting for the presumptive nominee.
The fundamental fact with regard to Barack Obama's vice presidential selection is this: The selection of Biden has created a new, and important, convention test for the Obama team. They need not just to present Biden to the convention and the nation but also to do so in a manner that is satisfying, respectful and, ultimately, appealing to Clinton's most committed supporters -- not just on the convention floor but nationally.
Lose your temper, lose your firearm
Coal Valley News (Madison, WV)
August 27, 2008
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Losing your temper and taking it out on your spouse will result in losing your second amendment the right to bear arms.
Anyone convicted of a domestically related violent misdemeanor offense may lose the right to own or purchase a firearm, according to federal law.
As of the effective date, Sept. 30, 1996, federal law 18 U.S.C. 922(g)9 states that any person convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor may no longer possess a firearm or ammunition.
Unlike the provisions in The Violence Against Women Act of 1994, law enforcement officers and other governmental officials are not exempt.
According to Boone County Magistrate C. Porter Snodgrass, anyone convicted of a domestic assault misdemeanor must sign a document, titled, ‘Federal Notification Regarding Conviction of Domestically Related Violent Offenses.’
This document states that a domestically related violent misdemeanor offense includes assault, battery, domestic battery, malicious wounding, or unlawful wounding. The use of physical force or threatened use of a deadly weapon would also qualify as a domestically related violent misdemeanor.
For those in violation of this federal law, it would be illegal to carry, possess, own, or purchase a firearm, including a handgun or a long gun, or ammunition.
Opinion: Biden selection is bad news for America's fathers
Mercury News, The: Web Edition Articles (San Jose, CA)
Author/Byline: Glenn Sacks, Mike McCormick
September 2, 2008
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
When Democratic Party presidential candidate Barack Obama announced his selection of Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., as his vice-presidential candidate, one of the two pieces of Biden legislation he saluted was the Violence Against Women Act of 1994. Biden, who has long been the principal architect of federal domestic violence policy, spearheaded two subsequent re-authorizations and calls the act "what I'm most proud of in my entire career."
Biden means well, but he has consistently misunderstood the domestic violence issue, and his legislation has harmed many innocent men. Given recent legislation Biden has proposed, as well as the promises made in the Democratic National Committee's platform, an Obama-Biden victory would be bad news for American fathers.
Biden says one of his main achievements has been "training police and prosecutors to arrest and convict abusive husbands instead of telling them to take a walk around the block." While it is true that in past decades police sometimes didn't take domestic violence seriously enough, under Biden's leadership, arrest and prosecution policies have lurched sharply in the other direction. The modern trilogy of mandatory arrest, the primary aggressor doctrine and "no drop" prosecution policies has trampled the rights of the accused.
Greg Schmidt, who created the Seattle Police Department's domestic violence investigation unit in 1994, says that mandatory/presumptive arrest laws force police officers to make arrests "in petty incidents, often where the abuse is mutual or it is unclear who the aggressor was."
When mandatory arrest laws were first passed, they led to a sharp increase in the number of women arrested. This reflects what domestic violence research has long showed: Women are as likely to initiate and engage in domestic violence against their male partners as vice versa, and women use weapons and the element of surprise to partially balance the scales. In response, the act promoted the primary aggressor doctrine.
Under this doctrine, when police officers respond to a domestic disturbance call, they are instructed not to focus on who attacked whom and who inflicted the injuries. Instead, they are compelled to employ factors such as comparable size and strength, which will almost always weigh against men.
Needless cases
Under "no drop" prosecution policies, many cases of mutual, trivial or nonexistent "violence" are prosecuted as if they are serious crimes — even when the alleged victim recants or asks that the charges be dropped.
The Violence Against Women Act has helped provide an easy avenue for disgruntled women to kick decent, loving fathers out of their homes and exclude them from their children's lives via restraining orders. In the wake of the Violence Against Women Act, there has been an explosion of such orders.
When a restraining order is issued, the man is booted out of his own home and can be jailed if he tries to contact his own children, even though he has never been afforded the opportunity to defend himself in court. The hearings held two weeks later to make the orders permanent are often just a formality for which no more than 15 minutes are generally allotted.
Many prominent family law professionals, including leading members of the State Bar of California Family Law Section, are cautioning that restraining orders are too easy to obtain, are often used as child custody maneuvers, and that there are scant protections for the falsely accused.
Latest bill
Biden's latest domestic violence bill, the National Domestic Violence Volunteer Attorney Network Act, would create an extensive network of attorneys to provide allegedly abused women free lawyers to win child custody. Yet the bill has no mechanism to adjudicate whether the abuse claims made against the fathers are true.
Biden's Web site says his family policies "help women take charge." However, domestic violence policies that have put women "in charge" have led to abuses just as when men were in charge. What the domestic violence system needs is balance, not prerogatives for either gender.
Biden was a single father who successfully raised his two sons after his wife and infant daughter were killed in a car accident in 1972. Yet, paradoxically, Biden says in family policy, "Moms and kids come first." For nearly two decades Biden has put fathers last.
Office on Violence Against Women Awards $114 Million to Support Comprehensive Crime Prevention
PR Newswire (USA)
September 29, 2008
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
The Department of Justice's Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) has released more than $114 million in formula awards to 50 states, the District of Columbia and U.S. territories to support comprehensive strategies addressing violence against women, announced Cindy Dyer, Director of OVW. The STOP (Services, Training, Officers, Prosecutors) Violence Against Women Formula Grant Program (STOP Program) supports a coordinated, multidisciplinary approach to stopping and responding to crimes of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking.
"The STOP formula program, one of OVW's oldest grant programs, provides critical support to each state to enhance services to victims," said Director Dyer. "Central to OVW's mission is the strengthening of local efforts across the country. This funding to communities will improve coordination between law enforcement, prosecution and courts, and strengthen victim services."
STOP formula grants are intended for use by states and territories; state, local and tribal courts (including juvenile courts); Indian tribal governments; local governments; and nonprofit, nongovernment victim services programs. Recipients are required to meet one or more of 14 statutory purpose areas. These areas include, but are not limited to:
-- training law enforcement officers, judges, court personnel and prosecutors;
-- developing, enlarging or strengthening victim services programs;
-- developing, installing or expanding data collection; and
-- developing, enlarging or strengthening programs addressing stalking.
By statute, OVW awards a base amount of $600,000 in STOP funds to each state. Funds remaining after the allocated base amount are distributed among the states based on population. The most accurate and complete data compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau is used to determine the state populations. Indian tribal populations are not included in the population count. Attached is a list of the awards. More information about STOP can be found at www.ovw.usdoj.gov.
The Office on Violence Against Women provides leadership in developing the nation's capacity to reduce violence against women through the implementation of the Violence Against Women Act and subsequent legislation. Created in 1995, OVW administers financial and technical assistance to communities across the country that are developing programs, policies and practices aimed at ending domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking. In addition to overseeing 12 federal grant programs, OVW often undertakes initiatives in response to areas of special need, dedicating resources to develop enhancements in areas requiring particular attention or in communities facing particularly acute challenges.
U.S. Department of Justice
Abused women fear loss of home - But deportation won't follow police report, officials say
Columbus Dispatch, The (OH)
October 18, 2008
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Immigrant women who are beaten by their spouses are sometimes reluctant to report abuse, their advocates say, out of fear that the men will be deported.
And more might suffer in silence, they say, as federal authorities step up deportation efforts. The women want the violence to stop, but they don't want the family breadwinner and father of their children to leave the country. Also, the women fear being deported themselves.
But they shouldn't worry about being arrested for reporting domestic violence, said Corey Price, an assistant field office director for Immigration and Customs Enforcement who is in charge of detention-and-removal operations for Ohio.
"We would never target someone because they are a victim of domestic violence," he said. "We would never ask a local law-enforcement agency to report a domestic violence to our agency."
The Violence Against Women Act provides a path to legal residency for undocumented immigrants who are victims of abuse and married to an abuser who is a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident. An undocumented immigrant who is abused by someone else in the country illegally might be eligible for residency under a special visa.
Undocumented women who do report domestic violence still face challenges, said Gail Heller, executive director of Choices for Victims of Domestic Violence.
"It makes it even harder to figure out where you are going to go, find employment and support yourself," Heller said.
For example, federal rules bar agencies that rely on federal dollars from helping undocumented women.
In those cases, agencies that get their money from other sources should step up and fill the gap, said Jose Luis Mas, a Columbus lawyer who often represents immigrants.
Lack of money forces some immigrant women to stay in abusive relationships because they aren't literate in English, or even their own language, and don't have the skills to support their children, said Jennyffer Hammock-Bushelman, a victims' advocate with the Columbus city prosecutor's office.
"A lot them aren't working, or they are working low-paying jobs," she said, and many are isolated. "They don't have family here. They don't have a support system."
Mas, who is chairman of the Ohio Hispanic Coalition, agreed that recent deportations of illegal immigrants charged with domestic violence could discourage women from reporting abuse.
Three men with Latino surnames who were charged with misdemeanor domestic violence were released to ICE in September, and four were handed over in August, according to Franklin County Municipal Court records.
The deportations reflect the increased effort nationwide to identify and report people who are in the country illegally, Price said. "We are trying to identify individuals who have been convicted of crimes."
If they are in the country illegally and can be removed, "we want to do that instead of releasing them back to society," he said.
Last year, 900 people were deported from Ohio, and more than 3,600 have been deported this year.
Columbus police officers sometimes call immigration authorities when a suspect's residency status is unknown, said Sgt. Lisa Cammelleri, supervisor of the Police Division's domestic-violence unit. Sometimes, the victim tells officers that the suspect is undocumented.
"By them getting deported, that will solve the person's problem in getting away from this person," Cammelleri said. "But others may not want their boyfriend, spouse or father of their children to be taken away."
Even Somali immigrants with refugee status are reluctant to report domestic violence for fear of deportation, said Hawa Siad, executive director of the Somali Women and Children's Alliance.
"They don't want to have anything to do with the system or ruin their stay in the country," Siad said.
Some come from communities that don't recognize domestic violence as a crime; they consider it a family matter to be resolved among male relatives, said Ayan Hassan, a Somali domestic-violence advocate with the city prosecutor's office.
"No one will ask her advice about what she wants and what she wants to happen," Hassan said. "That's how they solve problems at home. Sometimes, people bring their traditions of problem-solving here. But there is no accountability there."
Obama, Biden are leaders in fight vs. domestic violence
They recognize that gender-based violence is public health, human rights issue
Chicago Sun-Times (IL)
Author/Byline: Judy Gold; Special to The Chicago Sun-Times
October 21, 2008
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Here in Illinois, our state law provides one of the most comprehensive remedies in the country for survivors of gender-based violence. That is in no small part due to Sen. Joe Biden, who was the architect of the federal Violence Against Women Act. That law paved the way for the development of the Illinois Gender Violence Act, which then-state Sen.Barack Obama helped pass. Obama also was the lead co-sponsor of legislation to ensure that victims of domestic violence and sexual assault in Illinois could seek treatment and care without losing their jobs.
Obama and Biden understand that every law enforcement system, federal and state, needs instruction and resources to stop this war at home. That phrase is no exaggeration. One in five women will experience domestic violence at some time in her life, and one in four women will be sexually assaulted. When children witness or experience violence in the home, it normalizes violence for the rest of their lives. The terrible truth is: Violence at home makes violence feel like home.
A national interest in ending domestic violence, sexual assault and other gender-based violence was Biden's reason for passing the federal Violence Against Women Act. Because such violence is a crime with national and even international implications -- and because state laws were (and, overwhelmingly, still are) inadequate -- the act made clear that women must have access to the federal courts to obtain remedies for the violence.
Illinois became an exception thanks to the Illinois Commission on the Status of Women, with the original sponsorship of state Sen. Sara Feigenholtz and then-state Sen. Lisa Madigan. The Illinois Gender Violence Act became law in January 2004.
However, our Illinois law became even more critical than we imagined. In 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court, in one of its most tragic decisions, struck down the act's civil remedy provisions, thus depriving women of access to the federal courts. Though this decision explicitly admitted that women were not being adequately protected from violence by state law, it blocked their ability to sue. This idea that violence against women should not rise to federal consideration was an echo of the belief that lynching and other race-based violence should be left to state courts, against all evidence of prejudicial justice in those courts.
Evanston lawyer Kaethe Morris Hoffer has used the Illinois Gender Violence Act to bring numerous lawsuits in Illinois on behalf of survivors of sexual assault. In 2006, she won a $2.4 million judgment against a man who raped a college classmate, but was charged with misdemeanor battery.
Following Illinois leadership, California passed a Gender Violence Act, yet 48 states have still not enacted meaningful civil rights laws for survivors of gender-based violence. In addition, the Supreme Court has become more conservative and is likely to retreat still further under any McCain administration. Rape and domestic violence would not exist at the levels they do unless perpetrators knew that they have very little to fear from the criminal justice systems of their towns and cities. Only with meaningful leadership from men and women at the highest levels of power can we hope to turn the tide against this scourge of violence.
An Obama-Biden administration would not turn a blind eye to the epidemic of violence done to girls and women. They recognize that gender-based violence is a public health and a human rights issue.
Only Obama and Biden have practiced the leadership we need. Only they will make this country one in which being born a girl no longer means a one in four chance of someday being raped or battered.
Judy Gold is chairwoman of the Women's Policy Committee of Obama for America, and former chairwoman of the Illinois Commission on the Status of Women.
MAWAD fighting stereotypes that only women are abused
Princeton Times (WV)
October 31, 2008
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
PRINCETON — Women with battered eyes and bruised souls have become the symbols of domestic violence in America, but one organization is working to change the perception that all domestic abuse manifests itself physically on the outside and that women are the only victims.
Men and Women Against Discrimination (MAWAD) formed in West Virginia to expose the untruths behind the theory that men are always the aggressors, pursue a family court system that recognizes and honors each parent’s role in a child’s upbringing and to seek "truth, justice and equality in family law."
Along the way, organizers say they discovered there are many men out there who are just as abused as any of their female counterparts, that the court system all too often ignores their wounds and that the very systems put in place to stop domestic violence can be manipulated and twisted into another form of abuse during divorce and custody negotiations.
That’s why MAWAD members have long argued that all custody proceedings should begin with a 50-50 shared parenting plan, which may then be crafted around the family’s individual needs and situations; that the domestic violence protective order process needs to be overhauled; and that people of any gender who file false domestic violence allegations should be penalized.
MAWAD’s Region IV Director Ron Foster emphasized this week that the organization never condones physical violence or emotional abuse, but only wants every person, every parent, to face equal rights and responsibilities inside a fair family court.
"Our goal is to get the garbage out of the court so you can deal with true domestic violence cases," Foster said Wednesday.
•••
In Mercer County, there are several organizations, including the Pam Hawkins Foundation and SAFE, that serve battered women and children by providing emergency housing, clothing, advocates and more. But, the services are far fewer for men in similar situations.
Foster said MAWAD is fighting that trend, going so far as legal action involving the state’s Family Protection Services Board, questioning the funding equation that funnels money to women’s services but seems to slight the same programs for men.
Much of the discrepancy centers on the idea that men are nearly always the aggressors.
Familiar statistics, derived from a decades-old FBI study, indicated an American woman is assaulted every 15 seconds by her husband.
But, Foster referred to a National Family Violence Survey that showed, not surprisingly, that 12.1 percent of the women surveyed in a more recent analysis reported some level of physical assault against them by either their husbands or girlfriends, in the case of lesbian couples.
What was unexpected was that 11.6 percent of husbands confidentially reported being abused by their wives or partners.
Foster said those numbers clearly show that men face abuse nearly as often, if not just as often, as women. Many of them simply don’t report it to the authorities out of shame or embarrassment, or they aren’t taken seriously when they do seek help.
In his review of this study, "Violent Touch: Breaking Through the Stereotype," psychologist Dr. David L. Fontes concluded, "If you count all assaultive behavior, which includes minor assaults, 12.1 percent for women and 11.6 percent for men, a woman is assaulted every 6 seconds in this country, but a man is also assaulted every 6 seconds in this country."
•••
While Foster said the members support the idea that both genders are equal aggressors, the same trends don’t appear in Family Court, where MAWAD finds both parents rarely receive equal treatment. There, the group’s members report the process encourages parents to become combative adversaries in a battle for custody and child support dollars.
Steven Burford knows that feeling all too well, and he said the system itself has turned his situation into a form of domestic abuse.
His 2 1/2-year-old daughter was sick this week. As he struggled to track down health insurance information on the child, the single father said the family court system had become more of a burden than a help.
Burford and his ex-girlfriend separated shortly after their baby was born, and the southern West Virginia family court that crafted their custody agreement set forth a parenting plan that split the parents’ time, made the mother the primary custodian and decreed Burford would pay $300 a month in child support to be withheld from his check and forwarded to the child’s mother.
The custody agreement allocated approximately half of the daughter’s time each week with each parent, still giving the mother primary custody, but Burford said the mother never stuck to that agreement.
"When it was my day, I’d show up to get [the daughter], but sometimes she’d drop her off two days early and be two days late," he said.
Burford said he welcomed any additional time with his daughter, but he questioned how he had her most of the time and was responsible for supporting her during that time, as well as paying child support to the mother.
"I never knew what was going to happen with her," he said. "But, the whole time, they’re still holding child support out of my check."
Last year, the baby contracted MRSA, a form of staph infection serious in all ages, but potentially fatal in children. The little girl stayed in the hospital seven days, and Burford said her mom showed up to check on her one time.
Soon after that, the mother disappeared completely. Burford said she hasn’t turned up for a visitation with her daughter for the last nine months, at least.
"I have no idea where she is," he said, adding that he’s tried to explain his situation to a variety of different authorities, including Child Protective Services, Family Court officials and even the West Virginia State Police.
He wants to keep his daughter and fears what will happen if the mother does turn up, but he said it’s simply not fair that she’s still technically the primary custodian of court record.
"If she showed up tomorrow, she could take her from me. That’s what the court says," he said. "I don’t want her mother to get her. She’s not qualified to take care of her."
Still, Burford said the Family Court and custody system is taking money out of his pocket that he could be using to take care of his daughter.
According to his calculations, the state has withheld approximately $2,700 of his money that was supposed to be used as child support for a child he’s maintained custody of the entire time.
Because he’s not the primary custodian at this point, Burford said he feared he might not even be able to secure the necessary medical attention to take care of the illness that hit his daughter this week.
"I’m struggling right now to even get her medical card," he said. "Because I’m not legally the primary custodian, I’m not technically supposed to have that."
While Burford said his former relationship never involved domestic abuse in the traditional sense, he said the system has given the mother all the benefits and turned him into a victim.
After months, he said state authorities put a block on the child support checks to the mother, but the $300 is still being withheld from his check every month. He never expects to see that money again.
"The system’s not fair at all. People go into it in difficult situations anyway, and they make it a little bit, or a lot, harder," he said.
Burford, who said he’s fortunate that his fiancé assists with taking care of his daughter while he’s at work, said he’s still having a hard time making ends meet.
"I could use some of the assistance the state was ready to give her," but because the court still doesn’t recognize him as a primary custodian, he’s not eligible.
•••
When custody negotiations are more complicated than those Burford experienced, MAWAD directors say the atmosphere is prime for one party to "play the domestic violence card," alleging some form of assault to gain the edge in the legal battle.
"We have a system that really creates adversaries of the parents," MAWAD Region V Director Kevin Summers said. "Domestic violence orders become one of the tools they use to get the advantage, and the whole family, especially the children, suffer as a result. To me, wrongly denying a child’s right to either parent is a form of child abuse and domestic violence in itself."
Although supporters of the domestic violence petition and protective order process say the orders allow alleged victims to seek the protection of the law without filing legal charges, MAWAD members said the papers are far from harmless.
In many instances, even the allegation, the mere mention of domestic abuse, is enough to immediately strip a parent’s visitation rights with little or no investigation, and that information stays in the court record and follows the accused parent through the custody proceedings.
What’s more, Foster analyzed a study of Cabell County’s magistrate and family court proceedings last year, and found that the vast majority of DVPs were inappropriate.
The study, conducted by University of Louisville’s Dr. Benjamin Foster, found that even with the additional emphasis on preventing and reporting domestic violence, such offenses remained largely level with other crime statistics in the state between 1980 and 2005. Although the studies encompassed the entire time, researchers paid particular attention to the figures from 1994, when the Violence Against Women Act and the West Virginia Pro-Arrest Law were passed.
Researchers focused on statewide crime and law enforcement statistics, as well as an in-depth analysis of Cabell County Family Court and Magistrate proceedings, to complete the study. Cabell County was selected, Ron Foster explained, because the population there is well-distributed in urban and rural areas, has an ethnic diversity, cooperative county officials and a Family Court system that included both a male and female judge.
According to their findings, West Virginia magistrate courts have handled an average of 15,587 domestic violence proceedings annually in each of the last five years. Meanwhile, Family Courts, only in existence for the last four years, have seen an annual average of 14,624 domestic violence-related cases.
Such cases, in addition to an 8 percent increase in divorces since 2002, have left the new court system already overburdened, leading state lawmakers to create 10 new Family Court judgeships, at a cost of $2.7 million annually, during this year’s term of the Legislature.
However, the MAWAD studies indicated approximately 76 percent of the domestic violence-related proceedings in Cabell County and as many as 80.6 percent statewide were eventually dismissed.
"That leads us to believe that these proceedings were based either on a false claim, or as we like to call them, an unnecessary claim," Ron Foster said.
In situations where a woman filed for a protective order against another woman, the number of orders granted soared to 58 percent.
"In a patriarchal society, the teaching is that men are the only violent parties. This proves that is just not the case," Foster said.
In addition, the study showed the number of alleged female domestic violence offenders rose an estimated 244 percent between 1991 and 2005, but Foster said men are still four times less likely to report domestic violence.
Where did the Reagan votes go in the 2008?
WorldNetDaily (USA)
Author/Byline: Phyllis Schlafly
November 19, 2008
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Where did the super-majority of votes gathered by Ronald Reagan in his presidential campaigns go in 2008? Can they be reclaimed by future Republican candidates?
Reagan’s 1980 and 1984 victories were based on a coalition of three different groups. He attracted the fiscal-integrity/limited-government conservatives who had not given up since Barry Goldwater’s campaign, the social conservatives who newly came into the political process to be active against the Equal Rights Amendment and abortion, and the Reagan Democrats (mostly blue-collar, Catholic and/or Irish) who sought a change from the stagflation of the Jimmy Carter years.
In 2008, the first two groups shrank because of lessened enthusiasm for the Republican candidate. Sarah Palin brought new life to the party, but it wasn’t enough.
The Reagan Democrats were the biggest loss to Republicans when the No. 1 issue turned out to be the economy and the loss of good jobs. A New York Times headline gleefully proclaimed, “Goodbye Reagan Democrats.”
That’s why Barack Obama carried Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Indiana. John McCain got 300,000 fewer votes in Ohio than George W. Bush in 2004.
The marriage amendment in Ohio won big in 2004, carrying Bush to victory in what turned out to be the crucial state. In 2008, there was no overriding social issue, so the Reagan Democrats returned to their comfort zone in the Democratic Party.
Neither Democrats nor Republicans offered any good solution to the challenge of a depressed economy, but John McCain was particularly insensitive. In the presidential TV debates before the Michigan primary, he brushed off economic questions by pontificating that manufacturing jobs are gone forever and workers should go to a community college and get retrained.
He repeatedly reminded voters that he is the “biggest free-trader” they’ll ever meet, a line that may resonate with a few libertarian think tanks but is a poke in the eye to blue-collar guys whose jobs have gone overseas to Chinese working for 30 cents an hour.
McCain could have called for a level playing field for international trade, such as by changing the discriminatory trade agreements that allow foreign countries to replace their tariffs with a value added tax of a comparable percentage, or by repudiating the World Trade Organization, which has ruled against the United States in 40 out of 47 cases. But he didn’t.
McCain did a lot of railing against earmarks (not a big issue with the voters), but he didn’t criticize the political action committee contributions and high-paid lobbyists who promote policies that advantage the multinationals at the expense of manufacturing jobs and small business. Then McCain joined Obama in endorsing the bailout of the big firms at the expense of the taxpayers.
Obama didn’t have any solution to these problems, but the Reagan Democrats needed a reason to vote Republican, and they didn’t get it.
The young people – who voted two-to-one for Obama – were another group that Republicans lost in 2008. They are the generation that has come out of the public schools since they have been teaching political correctness, multiculturalism, diversity, William Ayers-style “social-justice,” self-esteem and other nonsense instead of reading, math and American history.
It’s time for the conservative movement to restore parents’ rights over public-school curriculum and not leave it up to the anti-parent, pro-diversity policies endorsed by the National Education Association.
The third group Republicans lost in 2008 was unmarried women. By a colossal 40-plus point spread, unmarried women voted for Barack Obama by 70 percent to 29 percent.
One explanation is economic: The women who cast off husbands look to Big Brother Government to support them. They vote for the party that promises more benefits from the welfare state.
The other explanation is social: The feminists have carried on a 40-year campaign to destroy marriage and what they deride as the patriarchy. They want to replace it with a matriarchy.
In the 1970s, the feminists achieved unilateral divorce on demand from state legislatures, unilateral abortion on demand from the courts and unilateral control over children in the welfare class by taxpayer handouts to women that made husbands and fathers unnecessary.
The feminists have continued their campaign against marriage through Joe Biden’s favorite legislation, the Violence Against Women Act, which provides a billion dollars a year to feminist centers to promote divorce and oppose reconciliation. The act is based on feminist ideology that women are naturally victims entitled to tax-paid legal and financial assistance, while men are naturally batterers who are not entitled even to due process protections.
The United States today has 24 million children growing up in households without their own father, and 17 million of those are in mother-headed households. Why is anybody surprised that the dissolution of marriage, depriving kids of their own fathers and the widespread acceptance of matriarchy produces eager supporters of Obama’s promise to “spread the wealth around”?
If Republicans want to win future elections, they will have to field candidates who defend U.S. jobs, parents’ rights in public schools and the institution of marriage.
Hillary will be an advocate for women's rights
Daily Breeze (Torrance, CA)
December 5, 2008
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
It was a moment bound to give anyone second thoughts about Hillary Clinton's nomination as secretary of state: Rush Limbaugh called it a "brilliant stroke."
If Rush, who had famously said America wasn't ready to see Clinton age in the Oval Office, was ready to see her age at Foggy Bottom, what was I missing?
Of course, it turned out that Rush was being his old cynical self. He wasn't praising Hillary's talent, but Obama's cunning at keeping his enemy close.
So it went with much of the analysis before and after Clinton was chosen for the premier Cabinet post. The political story line asked if she would be a "teammate" or a "rival" in the "Team of Rivals" metaphor du jour. And was she close enough to the president to be his international right hand?
The psychological story line asked, however, whether we were getting yet another new Hillary. A National Review blogger described her as an "enigma who is best seen in stages; as a series of parts, not a whole."
A series of parts? Not a whole? Hillary, lawyer, wife, mother, first lady, senator, presidential candidate, secretary of state. I was reminded of Mary Catherine Bateson's classic book, "Composing a Life," which describes life as the art of improvisation.
Life is not a straight and narrow march of achievement, but a quilt made of many parts.
Reading the trajectory of many women's lives with their interruptions and conflicts, twists and turns, Bateson saw creativity, not confusion. "These are not lives without commitment, but rather lives in which commitments are continually refocused and redefined."
Hillary Clinton wanted to be president and lost. But one of the lifelong commitments she will bring to her new role is to improve the rights and everyday lives of the world's women. These issues will not be the "women's page" in her portfolio, but integral to the way she views the world and, perhaps, to the way America can exercise its power.
Says Melanne Verveer, who traveled with first lady Hillary Clinton through more than 80 countries as her chief of staff, "she didn't just drop by the palace." She was always engaged in the struggles of women. In 1995, Clinton led the U.S. delegation to a U.N. conference on women's rights in Beijing. There, she electrified the delegates and challenged the hosts, saying "If there is one message that echoes forth from this conference, let it be that human rights are women's rights and women's rights are human rights, once and for all."
Thirteen years later those words are still radical in parts of the world. We have learned from the Taliban and others that the enemies of American values take their first shots at the freedom of women. But the Beijing conference jump-started change. The world understands that rape is not a byproduct of war but a war crime. The United Nations now defines violations of women's rights as an international security issue, and nearly 90 countries have passed laws against domestic violence.
Still, the new secretary of state will be operating in a world in which three-fifths of the world's poorest people are women and girls. Seventy percent of the children not in school are girls. Half a million women die every year in childbirth. One in three women will suffer from the pandemic of violence - rape, honor killings, genital mutilation. But only 16 percent of legislators are women, and less than 3 percent of the people at the table when peace treaties are signed are female.
Obama, whose own mother worked in microcredit loans for Third World women, gets it. Joe Biden, who co-sponsored the International Violence Against Women Act, gets it. But international activists are also looking to be guided by Hillary's star power.
Ellen Goodman is a syndicated columnist who writes for the Boston Globe
Restraining orders abused in many child custody cases
Worcester Telegram & Gazette (MA)
Author/Byline: Rinaldo Del Gallo III
December 10, 2008
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Recently, at an event sponsored by the Worcester Bar Association, Chief Justice Margaret Marshall stated that too often "victims" of domestic violence do not have access to legal representation.
Judge Marshall's choice of the term "victim" is unfortunate because it presupposes the guilt of the accused before trial. Far too many restraining orders are being issued in Massachusetts.
Judges need to be far more educated and realistic in motives for making false allegations. A restraining order is of incalculable value in custody cases, represents a quick and easy vacate order and is an easy way to exact revenge.
Moreover, under the Violence Against Women Act, a restraining order can be a ticket to a visa for a foreign national, even one who is in the country illegally and has been working illegally.
I have seen a Boston judge - quite moronically if you reflect on the matter - express her view that it was absurd to believe that a woman that was illegally in the country would lie about domestic violence in order to obtain a VAWA visa. A woman who is an illegal immigrant might have floated across an ocean in a raft but, according to that judge, lying in court to secure her right to remain in the country was a far-fetched theory.
I have seen in numerous cases seemingly brain-dead judges expressing bewilderment as to the relevance of some serious parental shortcoming of a mother who was on the precipice of losing custody of her children in family court. My clients have stood next to me with dropped-jaw amazement that the judge could not figure out the obvious relevance VAWA regarding motive to fabricate. The judge's tone and voice often express extreme irritation when one broaches the subject of the motive to lie, many times literally yelling to "get on to the substantive issues."
Much more also needs to be made by judges of evidence that the alleged victim is not afraid of the so-called perpetrator. In the Boston case, numerous witnesses testified that a putatively "terrified victim" trapped my client in a car in a driveway, reached in the driver's side window and punched him repeatedly in the testicles. Amazingly, the judge wrote that such nondefensive but extremely violent conduct was common among victims of violence.
On other occasions, this woman that was in "fear of imminent serious physical injury" did not even bother to show up to court after filing a restraining-order complaint.
Judges need to stop handing out restraining orders simply because there has been tension among the parties, or one party has yelled at the other party, or because in the distant past a party was violent.
The law is clear - the act triggering a restraining order is supposed to be something very close to an assault perpetrated by one party against the other, not generalized tension between the parties or an expression of anger.
In one case in North Adams, a woman claimed that my client called her and threatened to kill her. No doubt, the woman did not know that local phone records exist. When I subpoenaed these phone records and proved to a 100 percent certainty that she completely fabricated the incident and clearly committed perjury as well as committed the crime of filing a false police report, the judge still issued the restraining order based upon tension between the parties and my client's previous criminal record. My client suffered a mental collapse as a result.
In another case, a woman claimed my client left threatening messages on her answering machine. She had not allowed my client to see his own son in weeks and my client was understandably distraught.
I asked her to play the messages. My client was angry and loud (short of yelling) - but he never threatened her with violence and, to the contrary, was threatening to contact the authorities. Despite nothing approaching a threat of force being used or implied in his behavior, the restraining order was issued because of "tensions."
By far, the biggest problem is the incessant issuance of restraining orders without sufficient evidence. On a daily basis in courts throughout Massachusetts, a woman will claim to be the victim of a threat without any remotely credible corroborating evidence. The majority of restraining orders are issued in this manner.
Even when the accused has little or no criminal record, the woman is automatically believed, the man is thrown out of his house, his children are taken from him, he is labeled an abuser, and his right to possess a gun (often a professional requirement) is taken from him.
Rinaldo Del Gallo III, a family law attorney, is the spokesman of the Berkshire Fatherhood Coalition
