03042008 - Officer Gary Steele - Detroit PD - Facing Life In Prison For OIDV Assault Against Ex-Girlfriend [Torture; Assault w/intent to commit murder; Assault w/intent to do great bodily harm less than murder; 2 counts felonious assault w/a dangerous weapon; weapons / firearm discharge in or at a building; Felony firearm]
06232009 - Officer Gary Steele - Sentenced - Formerly Facing Possible Life Sentence For Domestic Violence Assault - Sentenced To 1 Year Probation [Misdemeanor reckless use of firearms] AND Then Put Back On Duty - Detroit PD
JANUARY 31, 2019 - OFFICER GARY STEELE - DETROIT PD
Detroit police officer Gary Steele forced an African-American woman to walk home in dangerously frigid temperatures after a traffic stop, and then mocked her on social media
03042008 - Detroit Police Officer Gary Steele facing life in prison for domestic violence assault against his ex-girlfriend
The laws that protected Officer Gary Steele and placed him back on duty with the Detroit PD are the same laws which protect all police officers arrested/charged with domestic violence and fail to protect OIDV victims in the state of Michigan:
A Michigan police officer forced a young black woman to walk home in frigid weather after a traffic stop, and then mocked her on social media. The officer stopped Ariel Moore in Detroit on Tuesday for having expired license plate tags, and then made her leave the car there and walk, reported WXYZ-TV. Temperatures at the time were below freezing. The officer, identified as Gary Steele, then recorded video of Moore walking away from her car and shared it on social media. Steele can be heard making condescending remarks about Moore in the Snapchat video, which was captioned “what black girl magic looks like” and “celebrating Black History Month.” Steele has been restricted to administration duty while the incident is investigated by internal affairs, according to the TV station. The same officer was charged in 2008 with physically attacking his ex-girlfriend and firing a gun next to her head, and Steele accepted a plea agreement on misdemeanor charges that allowed to remain a police officer.
The Detroit Police Department says it is investigating after an officer posted a racist and demeaning Snapchat video of a woman he had pulled over for a traffic stop. Detroit police confirm that Officer Gary Steele is restricted from working in the field after he posted the Snapchat. On Tuesday evening, Steele and another unidentified officer pulled over Ariel Moore for driving with expired license tabs. Moore was ordered to walk to her destination because of the expired tags. As she walked away, the officers recorded Moore with a cell phone camera. The officers referred to Moore as making a "walk of shame in the cold." One of the officers used the phrase "bye Felicia." The video also included a "Celebrate Black History Month" filter that included the caption "what black girl magic looks like." "What they put on there, that's racist. They're demeaning my child for no reason," Monique Mobley, Moore's mother said. The video was uploaded to a Snapchat account with the handle "Cpl Steele." The last name matches that of a public LinkedIn profile for Gary Steele , who lists his job as a police officer in the "special operations section" in the city of Detroit. Detroit Police officials later confirmed that it was Steele who uploaded the video. Steele faced legal issues in 2008, when he was charged with physically attacking his ex-girlfriend and firing a gun near her head in Canton, Michigan. He pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charged, served probation and was able to remain on the police force.
White Officer Demoted for Posting ‘Racist’ Videos Mocking Black Woman Walking Home
Detroit Officer Gary Steele pulled over a young woman in freezing weather. And when she walked home, he taunted her on social media, writing, ‘What black girl magic looks like.’
A young, black woman walked home in the bitter cold on Tuesday night while a white Detroit police officer openly mocked her on social media, with Snapchat videos captioned “walk of shame” and “bye felicia.”
Officer Gary Steele reportedly pulled over Ariel Moore, 24, for having expired license-plate tabs. Her vehicle was towed, and so she walked the rest of the way home in the below-freezing weather.
Steele, meanwhile, drove alongside Moore, posting videos to his Snapchat with racial taunts like “What black girl magic looks like,” and “celebrating Black History Month.”
Local news station WXYZ-TV publicized the Snapchat posts, and Steele, an 18-year veteran of the department and a corporal, was then put on administrative leave and demoted from his rank following. Officials are conducting an internal investigation on the matter.
“What they put on there, that’s racist,” said Moore’s mother, Monique Mobley, in an interview with the station. “They demeaned my child for no reason.”
Her daughter added: “I’ve never had this happen to me in my life. I’m kind of shocked—I don’t really know how to feel right now. I’m still trying to take it in.”
Moore lived roughly a block from where she was detained, said police Chief James Craig during a Thursday afternoon press conference. Craig said he called Mobley to apologize the night after the video, adding that police have waived the towing fees and released the car back to Moore.
“I’m not troubled. I’m not disappointed. I’m angry,” Craig said.
The chief noted that body-camera footage showed Steele and his partner, who is also under investigation, offered Moore a ride home on Tuesday night.
“At some point, the officer made the bad decision to make a Snapchat post,” he continued. “On top of that, she’s walking on a very cold night. It’s dark, and, in my view, she’s in harm’s way.”
“It could’ve been my daughter, my sister,” added Craig. “It doesn’t matter, it could have been anyone.”
Prosecutors reportedly charged Steele in 2008 with physically attacking his ex-girlfriend and firing a gun next to her head, and the officer accepted a misdemeanor plea deal for probation.
“His departmental history predates my appointment,” said Craig. “I will tell you there would have been a different outcome had I been chief during those years. But his history is troubling. There’s a pattern, and I’m concerned about that pattern. So that’s something I’ll be looking at and addressing.”
Craig said he had removed the officer’s rank of corporal and that he will not have contact with the public until the investigation has concluded.
DETROIT (WXYZ) — We're exposing a social media post that has sparked an internal investigation into a Detroit police officer. Comments made in that post are being called racist by a woman pulled over and told to leave her car and walk home in below freezing weather. Detroit police are calling the behavior of one of their own completely inappropriate and problematic. They're now launching an internal affairs investigation over what took place during a traffic stop. Take a close look at this video temporarily posted to social media site Snapchat following a Detroit police traffic stop near Joy Road and Stout Tuesday night. Listen closely as the officer makes a few condescending remarks toward an African-American girl he has instructed to walk home in the cold. We've confirmed she was pulled over for having expired license tabs. Notice in the upper left corner of the screen the officer shared his Snapchat name. Detroit police confirm his real name is Gary Steele. The man seen in this public LinkedIn page. We showed this video to Ariel Moore, the young woman who was videotaped on a cell phone, and her mother, Monique Mobley. They're now sharing their outrage over his words and captions that read "What black girl magic looks like," and "celebrating Black History Month." Also disturbing is officer Steel's prior trouble with the law. Prosecutor charged him with physically attacking his ex-girlfriend and firing a gun next to her head back in 2008. the incident in Canton ended with Steel taking a misdemeanor plea deal for probation and staying on the force. He's declined to speak with 7 Action News since we brought the video to the attention of DPD. We've confirmed that the officer is restricted from working in the field for now. We'll stay on top of this to make sure the officer is held accountable.
Detroit — A Detroit police officer has been reassigned while the department investigates racially-charged comments made during a traffic stop and posted to the officer's social media this week. The alleged incident happened during a traffic stop near Joy Road and Stout Street on the city's west side Tuesday night, police said. Officer Gary Steele pulled over Ariel Moore, 23, for an expired registration on her license plate and seized her vehicle. He told Moore to exit the vehicle and that it would be towed. Moore walked about a block to her home in below freezing weather. Video posted to Steele's Snapchat obtained by WXYZ-TV (Channel 7) shows Moore walking home as he says "priceless" and "bye Felicia" with caption tags that read, "What black girl magic looks like," and "celebrating Black History Month." Detroit Police Chief James Craig said the officer had the lawful right to make the stop and tow her vehicle, but the comments made him angry. “I’m angry because this was a racially insensitive post,” Craig said during a press conference Thursday. “...At that point, the officer makes the bad decision to make a Snapchat post saying 'Bye Felicia' and that’s derogatory and that’s not what we expect of our police officers. On top of that, she’s walking a very cold night, it’s dark and now in my view, she’s in harms way even if she only lived a block away.” During the investigation, Craig said they saw through the officer’s body camera that he offered her a ride home and she declined. Craig said he removed Steele's corporal rank for the incident. Steele, who has been with the department for 18 years and works to train other officers, has a troubling history with the department. In 2008, Steele was charged with physically attacking his ex-girlfriend and firing a gun near her head in Canton. He pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charged, served probation and was able to remain on the police force. "His departmental history predates my appointment," Craig said. "There would have been a different outcome had I been a chief in those years, but I can’t go back and undo what’s already been done. But his history is troubling… There’s a pattern and I’m concerned." His partner from the department's sixth precinct was also in the vehicle recorded saying "walk of shame." Craig said the partner is also being investigated. This isn't the first officer to post insensitive content to social media. In September, former officer Sean Bostwick, 27, was terminated for posting a Snapchat photo of himself in uniform with the caption "another night to Rangel (sic) up these zoo animals." “This incident is absolutely not reflective of this police department,” Craig said. “We had someone else post an inappropriate comment on social media some months back. He was a new officer and is no longer a Detroit police officer." Craig said he has reached out to Moore and her mother to apologize for the incident and the department is paying to get her vehicle out of the tow yard. "...I’m not troubled, not disappointed, I’m angry," Craig said. "And then to make the reference to Black History Month is even more problematic in a city that’s 82 percent African-American…Do know this officer will be held accountable for his actions."
The Detroit Police Department says it is investigating after an officer posted a racist and demeaning Snapchat video of a woman he had pulled over for a traffic stop. Detroit police confirm that Officer Gary Steele is restricted from working in the field after he posted the Snapchat. On Tuesday evening, Steele and another unidentified officer pulled over Ariel Moore for driving with expired license tabs. Moore was ordered to walk to her destination because of the expired tags. As she walked away, the officers recorded Moore with a cell phone camera. The officers referred to Moore as making a "walk of shame in the cold." One of the officers used the phrase "bye Felicia." The video also included a "Celebrate Black History Month" filter that included the caption "what black girl magic looks like." "What they put on there, that's racist. They're demeaning my child for no reason," Monique Mobley, Moore's mother said. The video was uploaded to a Snapchat account with the handle "Cpl Steele." The last name matches that of a public LinkedIn profile for Gary Steele , who lists his job as a police officer in the "special operations section" in the city of Detroit. Detroit Police officials later confirmed that it was Steele who uploaded the video. Steele faced legal issues in 2008, when he was charged with physically attacking his ex-girlfriend and firing a gun near her head in Canton, Michigan. He pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charged, served probation and was able to remain on the police force.
A Detroit police officer is under fire for a racially charged Snapchat video of a black woman he pulled over for a traffic stop. Officer Gary Steele has been reassigned while the Detroit Police Department investigates the video, which department officials confirmed he posted on Tuesday. The incident began after he pulled over 23-year-old Ariel Moore for having an expired registration and seized the vehicle. Steele then told her to exit the vehicle so the vehicle could be towed. She declined a ride home from the officers and had to walk a block home in below-freezing weather, according to Detroit station WXYZ. The video shows her walking away, one of the officers says she is doing the “walk of shame,” and stickers are added that read, “What black girl magic looks like” and “celebrating Black History Month.” It ended with an officer saying, “Bye, Felicia,” according to the Detroit Metro Times. Moore and her mother, Monique Mobley, said they were shocked when WXYZ showed them Steele’s video. “I’ve never had this happen to me in my life. I’m kind of shocked — I don’t really know how to feel right now. I’m still trying to take it in,” Moore said. Mobley didn’t pull punches. “What they put on there, that’s racist. They’re demeaning my child for no reason,” she said. Detroit Police Chief James Craig told reporters on Thursday that he agrees with her assessment. “I am angry. I’m angry because this was a racially insensitive post,” he said, according to the Metro Times. Although he noted that body-camera footage showed that Steele and his partner, who is also under investigation, offered Moore a ride home on Tuesday night, Craig said Steele’s Snapchat post was a very “bad decision.” “On top of that, she’s walking on a very cold night. It’s dark, and, in my view, she’s in harm’s way,” he said, according to the Daily Beast. “It could’ve been my daughter, my sister. It doesn’t matter, it could have been anyone.” Craig said that Steele’s use of “Bye, Felicia” was “derogatory” and that the reference to Black History Month is even more “problematic.” Steele has been placed on restricted duty, pending an internal investigation, according to ClickOnDetroit. This isn’t the first time Steele has been in trouble. In 2008 he was charged with physically attacking his ex-girlfriend and firing a gun next to her head, according to WXYZ. He took a misdemeanor plea deal for probation and stayed on the force. Craig admitted Steele has a “troubling” history, which Craig said “predates my appointment,” according to The Daily Beast. Craig added, “It would have been a different outcome if I had been chief.” Steele did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
DETROIT - Detroit police Chief James Craig said he's not troubled, he's angry about an officer who posted a "racially insensitive" Snapchat after having a woman's car towed because of expired registration. Craig held a news conference at 1 p.m. Thursday to address the incident. 'Racially insensitive post'
He said an 18 1/2-year veteran of the force pulled over a driver because of expired registration and made the call to tow the vehicle.
The officer had a right to make that stop, according to Craig. He said the driver wasn't happy about being stopped and towed on such a cold night.
Afterward, the officer is accused of making a Snapchat post about the woman and including the comment, "Bye, Felicia." Craig said that's a derogatory reference to Black History Month.
"I'm not going to tell you I'm troubled," Craig said. "I'm going to tell you I'm angry. This incident is absolutely not reflective (of the department). This is not acceptable."
Craig said body camera footage shows the woman was offered a ride home, but refused and walked a block in the cold and dark.
Officer reassigned, de-appointed from rank
Craig said the police officer was hired before his tenure and has a troubled past with the department. He said the officer's previous incidents would have been handled differently if he were in charge at the time.
"He has a troubling history," Craig said. "When I look at his background and the seriousness of what he was charged with, my question is, 'What did the department do?' I can't go back in time and address that issue. It's my issue now, but it does raise a lot of questions for me, especially when you look at his prior conduct."
Since the incident, the officer has been reassigned from the Sixth Precinct until the internal investigation is completed. He was also de-appointed from the rank of corporal, Craig said.
"I think after reviewing his history, without going into details of that at this point, there is a pattern, and I'm concerned about that pattern," Craig said. "That's something I'll be looking at and addressing, as well."
Craig said the officer has been with the police force for 18 1/2 years, making him a tenured employee who should know better. He is also involved with training other officers, Craig said.
The chief said his officer's rights will be respected during the investigation, but that he "absolutely" has concerns about the officer's ability to protect the community in a fair and balanced manner, which is what led to him being reassigned.
Craig said the officer will not have any contact with the public until the investigation concludes.
"That's not what we expect of our police officers," Craig said. "This officer will be held accountable for his actions."
The officer's partenr is also part of the investigation, accordin to Craig.
A majority of the Detroit Police Department was troubled by the Snapchat post, and many reached out to Craig to express their concerns, he said.
Punishment could range from a written reprimand to a suspension to termination, Craig said.
Craig called to apologize
Craig said he called the woman's mother and apologized personally for the way her daughter was treated.
"That could have been my daughter," Craig said. "It could have been my sister. It doesn't matter. It could have been anyone's sister. Not acceptable."
Craig said when an officer makes such a poor decision, it reflects poorly on the Detroit Police Department and him as the chief.
He also said the department will be paying for the towing fees. The woman's car is already available for release, according to police.
Relationship between police, community
Craig said the Detroit Police Department has done a good job maintaining trust with the community during a time when many departments across the country struggle to build that relationship.
"I'm not saying we have not had our challenges over that period, but by and large, this department has done an above-average job in fostering trust-based relationships," Craig said.
He said DPD is one of the few departments that doesn't hide from these types of issues and is transparent with the community, even when the topics are difficult.
"Of course, when these kinds of things happen, it does have a tendency to erode the trust," Craig said. "It has an impact on the entire profession."
Craig said the department is going to be very thorough in this investigation, but he wants to make sure it is done as quickly as possible, as the community demands.
"Not acceptable," Craig said. "(I'm) not troubled, not disappointed. I am angry, and I want your viewers, your listeners to know that. This is not what we expect of Detroit police officers."
Former U.S. Attorney Chris Graveline, who has been hired by the Detroit Police Department, shared Craig's thoughts on the incident.
"It's disgusting," Graveline said. "It's clearly racial in overtones. It's not what we expect from officers, and going forward, we're going to do a thorough, impartial investigation, but we intend to move very quickly on it."
Without fanfare or even notice, the Department of Justice’s Office on Violence Against Women made significant changes to its definition of domestic violence in April. The Obama-era definition was expansive, vetted by experts including the National Center for Victims of Crime and the National Domestic Violence Hotline. The Trump administration’s definition is substantially more limited and less informed, effectively denying the experiences of victims of abuse by attempting to cast domestic violence as an exclusively criminal concern.
The previous definition included critical components of the phenomenon that experts recognize as domestic abuse—a pattern of deliberate behavior, the dynamics of power and control, and behaviors that encompass physical or sexual violence as well as forms of emotional, economic, or psychological abuse. But in the Trump Justice Department, only harms that constitute a felony or misdemeanor crime may be called domestic violence. So, for example, a woman whose partner isolates her from her family and friends, monitors her every move, belittles and berates her, or denies her access to money to support herself and her children is not a victim of domestic violence in the eyes of Trump’s Department of Justice. This makes no sense for an office charged with funding and implementing solutions to the problem of domestic violence rather than merely prosecuting individual abusers.
Restoring nonphysical violence to the definition of domestic violence is critical. As the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports, over one-third of U.S. women (43.5 million) have experienced “psychological aggression” at the hands of an intimate partner. Experts have long recognized that the manipulative behaviors identified in the Obama-era definition as restricting a victim’s liberty or freedom can cause greater and more lasting damage than physical harm. I know this from my experiences over a decade working with survivors of domestic violence. In nearly every case, the bruises and broken bones eventually heal, but the psychological scars can last a lifetime.
Trump has attempted to brand his administration as one of “law and order,” so shoehorning domestic violence into a criminal justice framework may seem to him like a sensible way to recast the issue. But it isn’t. The assumption that domestic violence must involve a criminal justice response demonstrates a myopic understanding of abuse. Many survivors—particularly those from minority or marginalized communities—are reluctant to report domestic violence to law enforcement. Race, class, sexual orientation, and immigration status can significantly affect whether a survivor decides to seek outside intervention when suffering violence in the home. A call to the police may make a survivor less safe if, for example, doing so intensifies the abuser’s anger or the arrest of a primary breadwinner renders her homeless. Some survivors do not report because they do not want their abusers to face criminal punishment or because they generally distrust law enforcement. For varied reasons, many survivors therefore make an informed choice to not initiate a criminal case.
A domestic violence relationship rarely begins with physical violence, much less violence that rises to the level of a crime. If you were punched on a first date, odds are there wouldn’t be a second. Intimate partner abuse is insidious: Emotional and psychological abuse escalates to physical violence as an abuser’s need and/or ability to exert power and control increases. In the United States today, more than half of female homicide victims are killed by an intimate partner. If we do not acknowledge the “small” things—yelling or screaming, name-calling, and controlling or monitoring communication and social media—victims may not realize they are in danger until it is too late.
It is too early to assess the full impact of the Trump administration’s definitional change. The Office on Violence Against Women engages in a broad array of activities in its implementation of the Violence Against Women Act. Perhaps grants that support community efforts to combat domestic and sexual abuse will be restricted to agencies serving victims of crime, leaving survivors without critical resources. If OVW’s training, education, and technical assistance curriculum is revised to adhere to the new definition, those experiencing “mere” emotional, economic, or psychological harms may no longer be considered victims. (It is further noteworthy that OVW simultaneously altered the definition of sexual assault, with the new definition containing a similar criminal justice focus.) What is clear is that these seemingly semantic changes, even if not yet embodied in official law or policy, are part of a broader trend toward the devaluation of women by this administration and this president.
Update, Jan. 24, 2019: Following publication of this article, the Department of Justice’s Office on Violence Against Women issued the following statement:
Trump administration quietly changes definition of "domestic violence" and "sexual assault"
Last April, Justice Department office on violence against women began to narrowly redefine its basic concepts
The Justice Department’s Office on Violence Against Women quietly but significantly redefined what it considers “domestic violence” and “sexual assault,” Natalie Nanasi wrote in Slate.
Nanasi, director of the Judge Elmo B. Hunter Legal Center for Victims of Crimes Against Women at Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law, pointed out that the moves were quietly made in back in April but could have significant repercussions for millions of domestic violence and sexual assault victims.
During the Obama administration, the definition was far more expansive and was vetted by domestic violence groups. The new definition seeks to limit forms of domestic violence to the kind of physical harm that warrants prosecution.
“The previous definition included critical components of the phenomenon that experts recognize as domestic abuse — a pattern of deliberate behavior, the dynamics of power and control, and behaviors that encompass physical or sexual violence as well as forms of emotional, economic, or psychological abuse,” Nanasi explained.
But the Trump Justice Department’s definition only considers physical harm that constitutes a felony or misdemeanor to be domestic violence, meaning that other forms of domestic violence like psychological abuse and manipulation no longer fall under the DOJ’s definition.
“This makes no sense for an office charged with funding and implementing solutions to the problem of domestic violence rather than merely prosecuting individual abusers,” Nanasi wrote.
At the same time, the OVW also changed its definition of “sexual assault” to similarly focus on the criminal justice aspects.
The new definition says “the term ‘sexual assault’ means any nonconsensual sexual act proscribed by Federal, tribal, or State law, including when the victim lacks capacity to consent.”
The previous definition was more expansive: “Sexual assault is any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient. Falling under the definition of sexual assault are sexual activities as forced sexual intercourse, forcible sodomy, child molestation, incest, fondling, and attempted rape.”
Nanasi wrote that redefining the terms to limit nonphysical aggression “effectively [denies] the experiences of victims of abuse by attempting to cast domestic violence as an exclusively criminal concern.”
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 43.5 million women have experienced “psychological aggression” from an intimate partner. In many cases, this behavior escalates to abuse and, all too frequently, homicide. In the United States, more than half of women murdered each year are killed by an intimate partner.
The effect that changing the definitions has had on the DOJ’s Office of Violence Against Women is unclear. Nanasi wrote that under the new terms, the OVW may restrict grants for community efforts to combat domestic and sexual abuse to agencies that serve victims of crime, which would leave many survivors without resources when they need them most. OVW may also alter its education and training resources to include the new definition, no longer considering some abuse survivors as victims.
The moves follow the Trump administration’s attempts to ban domestic violence victims from getting asylum and gut Obama-era Title IX rules that make it more difficult for college sexual assault victims to get a fair investigation,
“What is clear,” Nanasi wrote, “is that these seemingly semantic changes, even if not yet embodied in official law or policy, are part of a broader trend toward the devaluation of women by this administration and this president.”
Violence Against Women Act extension could complicate spending bill
The existing act has received bipartisan support, but Democrats want an expansion of the law
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Wednesday that a potential extension of the Violence Against Women Act has emerged as a bit of a complication to passing the spending package.
“The Speaker is objecting to a modest extension of the Violence Against Women Act,” the Kentucky Republican said on the Senate floor.
The protections and programs under VAWA lapsed during the monthlong partial government shutdown, but were reinstated in January’s short-term deal to end the shutdown. Lawmakers from both parties have expressed commitment to maintaining the protections and programs under VAWA, but Democrats have pushed for an expansion of the law.
“We can’t let any unrelated, cynically, partisan plays get in the way of finishing this important process,“ McConnell said.
McConnell said that Republicans want VAWA extended through the end of the current fiscal year as part of the appropriations package.
It would allow the new chairmen of the relevant committees in the House and Senate to work out a new long-term deal, which means that House Democrats most likely want a longer deal included.
“There are new chairmen this Congress of both the Senate and the House Judiciary Committees, and a modest extension of this authority would allow them to work on a longer-term reauthorization of this important law,” he said.
Pelosi suggested earlier Wednesday morning that provisions to extend the act wouldn’t require separate legislation, but she was unclear of the mechanics.
The landmark domestic violence law was set to expire Sept. 30, but was extended through Dec. 7 under the first stopgap spending bill. It was extended again until Dec. 21 in a second short-term bill.
Republicans in both the House and Senate have suggested that reauthorization for a number of months would give lawmakers an opportunity to create a bipartisan reauthorization measure that addresses the shifting needs of communities.
“I believe we can strengthen this act in several ways by addressing changing circumstances since its last reauthorization five years ago by tailoring its language to better fit the needs of our communities. There are provisions we need to change and to work on, but we are not afforded that opportunity,” Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, said on the Senate floor following passage of the short-term extension in that chamber last year.
Last summer, House Democrats introduced legislation to expand the scope of the law, to help victims of domestic violence and stalking stay in stable housing situations and to bar evictions based on the actions of an abuser.
The measure also includes an expansion of gun control laws aimed at prohibiting persons convicted of dating violence and stalking, and those under protective orders from possessing firearms. Some states already have so-called red flag laws in place, with the aim of preventing escalation of violence.
The gun provisions were a nonstarter in the Republican-controlled House, but Democrats have pledged to introduce a full reauthorization of the law in the new Congress.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said Democrats would like to include a broader reauthorization of VAWA in the deal but doesn’t know if it will happen.
“I think there’s still discussion about that,” Hoyer said.
Regarding other outstanding issues, he said, “There are some definitional issues, limitation issues that are still concerning people.”
In bid to avoid shutdown, spending deal drops Violence Against Women Act extension, other contentious provisions
House and Senate conferees were signing the document Wednesday night, votes expected Thursday
As negotiators were finalizing a final fiscal 2019 funding package highlighted by border security spending Wednesday evening, it became clear that an extension of the Violence Against Women Act wouldn’t make the cut.
Several policy riders in the mix earlier Wednesday, including back pay for federal contractors for wages lost during the 35-day partial shutdown and the VAWA extension, didn’t make it in the final bargaining over the fiscal 2019 spending conference report, according to aides in both parties.
A senior Republican aide confirmed that the lack of an agreement on VAWA would lead the current law to lapse after Friday, though a senior Democratic aide said the expiration should have “zero impact.”
VAWA-related grant programs are funded through Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations, which are contained in the spending package.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said earlier in the day that terms of a potential extension was among the final sticking points, with the Kentucky Republican having sought a stopgap extension through the end of September.
House Democrats did not want to agree to a straight extension of VAWA because they felt it would give Senate Republicans permission to ignore the broader reauthorization they plan to pass in the coming months.
Last summer, House Democrats introduced legislation to expand the scope of the law, to help victims of domestic violence and stalking stay in stable housing situations and to bar evictions based on the actions of an abuser.
The measure also includes an expansion of gun control laws aimed at prohibiting persons convicted of dating violence and stalking and those under protective orders from possessing firearms.
Separately, the White House Office of Management and Budget wouldn’t budge on lost pay for contractors, which had never been paid during prior shutdowns, according to a Congressional Research Service report.
Other sought-after provisions will have to hitch a ride on another vehicle or be dealt with as standalone measures. Questions that proved too contentious included whether to attach the annual intelligence authorization bill and other expiring authorizations, including EPA’s ability to collect certain pesticide registration fees.
A further extension of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families funding, in place through June 30, was also dropped. Language that would postpone scheduled automatic cuts, or sequester, of mandatory programs under the 2010 pay-as-you-go law, also didn’t make the cut, aides said.
Because lawmakers had racked up deficits in the previous Congress, nearly $1 billion in cuts will be triggered unless postponed in another bill.
House and Senate negotiators were signing the seven-bill fiscal 2019 omnibus conference report Wednesday evening as they prepped to file the measure for floor consideration.
After he’d signed the conference report, Senate Appropriations Chairman Richard C. Shelby tweeted that he spoke with President Donald Trump, who he reported “was in good spirits.” He wrote that he told Trump the wall money in the package is a “down payment” and that it was “only the beginning of a multiyear effort.”
The Senate is expected to take the first votes Thursday, according to a senior Democratic aide. House votes are not expected until the evening due to member absences for funerals for two of their former colleagues.
Senators, meanwhile, are eager to leave town. A number of them are expected to attend the Munich Security Conference, which starts on Friday.
And while Trump appears likely to sign the legislation when it reaches his desk, as the president himself might say, “We’ll see what happens.”
Mentally-ill father ‘shouldn’t have had a gun’ Debbie Dingell says during House debate
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- It got personal during a House debate on gun control for U.S. Rep. Debbie Dingell, D-Dearborn, who shared her own story of trepidation growing up in a house with guns and a mentally-ill father.
Dingell spoke Thursday as the Democrat-led House passed legislation to allow a review period of up to 10 days for background checks on firearms purchases.
Dingell’s remarks during the debate drew applause as she described growing up in a home where her father owned a gun, threatening to kill her mother at one point.
“I have spent more time thinking about how you keep guns out of the hands of abusers – more, probably than anybody in this chamber,” said Dingell, who recently lost her husband and longtime Congressman John Dingell. “I know better than most, the dangers they pose. It’s not easy for me to talk about it this week.
“I will be honest on this floor – my father was mentally ill," Dingell said. "I had to hide in that closet with my siblings, wondering if we would live or die. One night, I kept my father from killing my mother. He shouldn’t have had a gun. And my mother – this is what I remember as a child – went out and bought a gun. And then all of us were scared to death about her gun and my father’s gun. We had two guns to worry about.”
Democrats led passage, 228-198, with a handful of defections and scant Republican support, according to the Associated Press. The bill stems from the 2015 shooting at Emanuel AME Church in South Carolina, where nine black worshipers died at the hands of a white supremacist. A faulty background check allowed the gunman’s firearm purchase after the required three-day review period expired.
Dingell has spoken out about her difficult home life before. She described her father as a troubled man with mental health issues, possibly bipolar disorder, and that having guns in the house wasn’t a good situation.
“Emotions in volatile and mentally unstable situations are unpredictable and far too often have disastrous outcomes,” Dingell wrote in a letter to Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder in 2015. “I will not forget the nights of shouting. The fear. The dread that my brother, my sisters and my parents would die. I will not forget locking ourselves in closets or hiding places hoping we wouldn’t be found.”
Two days after Dingell sent the governor that letter, Snyder vetoed legislation approved by the Michigan Legislature and backed by the National Rifle Association that Dingell had argued would have allowed concealed-weapons permits to be issued to individuals with a history of violence and abuse.
On Wednesday, the House approved a more ambitious measure - bipartisan legislation requiring federal background checks for all gun sales and transfers, including those sold online and at gun shows. A handful of Republicans crossed over to join Democrats. It's the most substantial gun violence prevention bill in more than a decade, the AP noted.
Not all Democrats helped in passing the bills, and some broke with their party to back a Republican counter-effort Thursday to maintain the three-day review period for victims of domestic violence seeking guns.
House eyes Violence Against Women Act reauthorization and expansion
VAWA extension was not included in last month’s spending package
The Violence Against Women Act is back on the House agenda, with Democrats and at least one Republican leading a fresh effort to reauthorize and expand the domestic violence law.
A bill introduced Thursday would include updates to the landmark legislation, which was first enacted in 1994. The proposal is sponsored by California Democrat Karen Bass and Pennsylvania Republican Brian Fitzpatrick, a former FBI agent.
The protections and programs under VAWA lapsed during the monthlong partial government shutdown, but were reinstated in January’s short-term deal to end the spending impasse. An extension was not included in the longer deal struck last month that runs through the end of the fiscal year.
At an event celebrating the bill’s introduction, freshman Rep. Katie Porter gave emotional testimony about surviving domestic violence, as she described two vastly different experiences she had with law enforcement.
“The first time I called for help, the officer who arrived told me that if I called for protection again, my children would be taken away from me,” the California Democrat said, pausing to breathe as tears streamed down her face.
Porter said she feared that outcome and being blamed for the dangerous situation she was in. She waited weeks before calling the police again for help.
“And when I did, it was a huge difference. The officer who arrived told me I was brave. He told me I could survive. He told me he would help me and protect my kids and husband and help us all get the help that we needed,” she said.
Porter emphasized that training local police and first responders with how to appropriately interact with domestic violence victims is essential, noting that provisions in the bill authorize funding for such programs.
“That is what this legislation is about. It’s about making sure when men and women and children around this country call for help, those that arrive on the scene know what to do and are willing to do it,” she said.
Porter apologized for her tears, and was met with hugs and applause from her colleagues.
This was not the first time she has spoken publicly about her experience. Her divorce and the protective order she obtained against her husband came to light during a bruising Democratic primary last year.
‘Today’s challenges’
Porter’s experience is far from unique. One in three American women are physically abused by an intimate partner in their lifetimes, according to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence.
The latest proposal would include updates to law enforcement grants and health care provisions.
“We must revise and strengthen VAWA so that it meets today’s challenges,” Bass said Thursday morning at a hearing of the House Judiciary Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security Subcommittee, which she chairs.
Fitzpatrick, the lone Republican at the bill introduction event, lauded the measure’s provisions on the fast-changing realm of digital abuse. He said the measure would increase penalties for cyber stalking and require federal law enforcement to regularly evaluate and update practices to combat online harassment and cyber bullying.
“We must also engage men in preventing violence,” he said.
Michigan Democrat Debbie Dingell said bringing together different parts of the legal, mental health and domestic violence systems can make it easier for survivors to get help. The measure also includes gun control provisions focused on known abusers.
“People don’t understand how easy it is for perpetrators of dating violence — and those convicted — to still get a gun. People with a history of domestic violence shouldn’t have access to guns,” Dingell said.
She said closing loopholes that allow stalkers to have access to firearms would save lives, citing statistics that showed 76 percent of women murdered by a current or former intimate partner experienced stalking in the last year of their life.
Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham said Wednesday that his panel will hold a hearing on March 26 on “red flag” laws, which give authorities increased ability to confiscate guns from individuals deemed dangerous by a court. Some states already have such laws in place, with the aim of preventing escalation of violence.
Some resistance
Congress first passed the landmark domestic violence law in 1994 and most recently reauthorized it in 2013, but not without a fight. In 2013, conservatives in the House Republican Caucus opposed the bill after leadership brought the Senate version to the floor without committee consideration in the House.
Pelosi said resistance to the bill was what kept it from getting reauthorized.
“We hope to receive more bipartisan support as the bill moves forward,” the California Democrat said. “The bill preserves the vital progress that was made in the 2013 reauthorize to protect the LGTBQ community, Native American community and immigrant women. That was part of the fight. We couldn’t get the bill to the floor because there was resistance to protect immigrant, LGTBQ and Native women.”
Pelosi said Democrats are taking the same approach as they did in 2013 when the Senate and House did their own bills and “that brought us success.”
At the House Judiciary subcommittee hearing earlier in the day, ranking member John Ratcliffe accused Democrats of using VAWA as a political bargaining chip when an extension through the end of the fiscal year was not included in the spending deal to end the partial government shutdown.
“It is my hope that this committee and this Congress can agree on a bipartisan, noncontroversial reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act,” the Texas Republican said. “It is my fear that this committee’s majority will instead push forward with a partisan bill that is intended to score political points.”
House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler laid out a timeline for chamber action on the reauthorization measure at a press conference Thursday.
“In the coming weeks, the Judiciary Committee will mark up VAWA 2019. We had a hearing on it today. We’ll be marking up probably next week and we will debate it on the floor of the House,” the New York Democrat said.
House Judiciary Committee approves Violence Against Women Act reauthorization
The House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday approved, along party lines, 22-11, a bill to reauthorize and expand programs designed to help victims of sexual and domestic violence.
The protections and programs authorized by the 1994 law lapsed during the partial government shutdown last year, but were reinstated in the January short-term fiscal 2019 spending deal. An extension was not included in last month’s deal that provided for spending through the end of fiscal 2019.
The measure would authorize a majority of the programs through fiscal 2024.
As with previous reauthorizations of the law, the measure also would expand programs and broaden the groups of people who are eligible for assistance. This year’s reauthorization would require the Office of Violence Against Women to track declinations to prosecute sexual assault cases across the country. The measure also would authorize grants for housing available to victims of domestic violence to ensure they can afford to stay in their homes, and would create a position at the Department of Housing and Urban Development to address domestic violence.
In response to the #MeToo movement, the measure also would authorize grants for programs addressing sexual harassment and bullying. New provisions would aim to curtail the purchase and possession of firearms by individuals deemed to be a threat by a court and to increase protections for gender and sexual minorities set forth by the last authorization in 2013.
Republicans, however, claimed that many of the provisions placed in the bill by the Democratic majority made the bill impossible for them to support.
“Today is a missed opportunity,” said the panel’s ranking member, Doug Collins, R-Ga. “Democrats have rushed to mark up a bill that, in our opinion, would endanger women.”
Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Texas, objected strongly to a provision in the bill that would allow victims to voluntarily enter into an “alternative justice response,” a way to seek restitution outside of the court system. Ratcliffe claimed the provision would hinder the abilities of prosecutors and judges to charge abusers.
Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., attempted to amend the bill to exclude language to allow Indian tribes to prosecute nontribal members for crimes committed on reservations, claiming that nontribal members did not give up their constitutional rights by entering the reservation. His amendment was rejected 9-16, along party lines.
‘Every one of us has a responsibility,’ Dingell tells crowd at Ann Arbor Women’s March
ANN ARBOR, MI – The third-annual Women’s March in Ann Arbor was part celebration and part call for justice, with an eye toward making sure Donald Trump isn’t re-elected next year.
Addressing a crowd of about 1,500 women and their supporters on the University of Michigan Diag on Saturday, March 16, U.S. Rep. Debbie Dingell encouraged everyone to push back against hatred and bigotry when they see it on social media and elsewhere.
“Every one of us has a responsibility to stand up against all of it,” she said. “We are all equal. We are all worthy. We all deserve respect and to be able to live with dignity. When is enough enough?”
Some attendees held signs with messages such as “Dump Trump now!” and “My dog would make a better president!” Some waved orange balloons of a cartoon baby Trump in a diaper.
Behind the speakers stage was a large banner reading: “P---- grabs back,” a reference to Trump’s infamous “grab them by the p----” remark in which he bragged about groping women.
Other signs in the crowd carried messages such as “Keep abortion legal” and “Fight like a girl.”
Upholding social, economic, racial, gender, environmental and intergenerational justice was the theme of the event, officially dubbed Women March on for Justice. It included a celebration of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg's 86th birthday and chants of “No Trump! No KKK! No fascist USA!”
Standing alongside state Rep. Donna Lasinski, D-Scio Township, Dingell, D-Dearborn, said it’s been a hard time for her lately with the loss of her husband, former U.S. Rep. John Dingell, and she’s even sadder after Friday’s mass shootings in New Zealand.
Her remarks came just a couple hours before a false-alarm “active shooter” scare on UM’s campus, causing a post-march vigil to end early in a panic as police came through the Diag.
On a positive note, Dingell said she’s excited to see women in high places of power in Michigan, including Gov. Gretchen Whitmer.
“It is fabulous to see a woman running the state of Michigan again,” Dingell said, adding it’s also wonderful to see women serving as attorney general and secretary of state, and more than 120 women in the U.S. House of Representatives.
“Isn’t it great we have more women?” she said. “But you know why it matters? Because we bring a different perspective.”
Calling women problem solvers, Dingell identified issues such as climate change and access to health care as problems to solve, advocating for Medicare for all.
University of Michigan student Arwa Gayar recited a poem she said was inspired by resilient women serving in government.
Community organizer Desirae Simmons, co-director of the Interfaith Council for Peace and Justice, encouraged people to let go of the mindset that supports the status quo.
“Let go of white supremacy,” she said. “Let go of misogyny and patriarchy. Let go of the fear, the hate. Let go of the guilt that holds us back, the culture of miseducation that pits us against one another. Just let it go. It won’t survive in the new system we are building.”
She added, “Adrienne Maree Brown talks about social justice being science fiction. We are striving toward a world we haven’t seen before. The Notorious RBG says that we’ll have enough women on the Supreme Court when there are nine women on the Supreme Court.”
The idea of an all-female court is only shocking if people don’t question a world where having nine men is acceptable, Simmons said. The Supreme Court was all-male before 1981.
“I want to exist in a world that centers peace, justice, collaboration and love, the fiercest kind of love that invites us to be our best selves,” Simmons said. “To get there, it will take most of us.”
The event was organized by Progressives at the University of Michigan, in partnership with Women’s March Ann Arbor and Women March On-Washtenaw.
House to vote on equal pay, VAWA, net neutrality bills, in next 3 weeks
Majority Leader Steny Hoyer announced the upcoming votes in a “Dear Colleague” letter sent Monday
The House will vote over the next three weeks on bills to help reduce the gender pay gap, reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act and codify the Obama-era net neutrality rule.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer announced the votes in a “Dear Colleague” letter Monday outlining plans for the three-week House work period beginning March 25.
“We will also take up and vote on the war powers resolution passed by the Senate that would require U.S. forces to end involvement in hostilities in Yemen,” the Maryland Democrat said. “I look forward to having the House pass these critical bills, and we will urge the Senate to act and send them to the President for his signature.”
First up is the Paycheck Fairness Act, which the House will vote on the week of March 25.
The bill, HR 7, would aim to provide equal pay for men and women doing the same jobs by amending the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 by providing remedies for employees who face gender discrimination.
The bill should pass easily, with 238 Democrats already signed on as co-sponsors. New Jersey Rep. Christopher H. Smith is the only Republican co-sponsor.
Connecticut Rep. Rosa DeLauro has been introducing the Paycheck Fairness Act since 1997. It received a House vote in each of the last two Congresses that Democrats held the majority.
In 2008, it passed 247-178, with 14 Republicans supporting it. And in 2010, it passed 256-163, with 10 Republicans backing it. Of the Republicans who voted “yes” both years, only Smith and Florida Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart are still in Congress.
The House will also vote next week on overriding President Donald Trump’s veto of a resolution to terminate the national emergency declaration for the border. Speaker Nancy Pelosi had already announced after Trump’s veto that the House would consider an override March 26.
The override is expected to fail because there are not enough Republicans who want to terminate the national emergency to reach the required two-thirds threshold.
During the week of April 1, the House will take up the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization, which the Judiciary Committee approved last week. The bill, sponsored by California Democrat Karen Bass and Pennsylvania Republican Brian Fitzpatrick, would reauthorize and expand the landmark domestic violence law first enacted in 1994.
The protections and programs under VAWA lapsed after an extension was not included in the fiscal 2019 spending deal struck last month. Speaker Nancy Pelosi felt agreeing to a short-term extension would reduce the incentive for the Senate to negotiate with the House on a broader reauthorization of VAWA.
The House bill includes updates to law enforcement grants and health care provisions. It would also increase penalties for cyberstalking, and require federal law enforcement to regularly evaluate and update practices to combat online harassment and cyberbullying.
The last week of work before the two-week Easter recess starts April 8, and the House floor schedule that week will feature the Save the Internet Act of 2019.
The bill, sponsored by Pennsylvania Rep. Mike Doyle and cosponsored by 144 Democrats, would codify the Federal Communications Commission’s net neutrality rule that was implemented during the Obama administration and repealed by the Trump administration.
The Senate is unlikely to take up any of these bills as written. But the upper chamber will need to consider some measure to reauthorize the expired VAWA program, if only to enter formal negotiations with the House.
In 2014, I was the 35-year-old Democratic nominee for lieutenant governor in Nevada. The landscape wasn’t looking good for my party that year. There were no high-profile national races to help boost turnout, and after the top candidate bowed out of the governor’s race, “None of the Above” ended up winning the Democratic primary.
So when my campaign heard from Vice-President Joe Biden’s office that he was looking to help me and other Democrats in the state, I was grateful and flattered. His team offered to bring him to a campaign rally in an effort to help boost voter turnout. We set the date for November 1, just three days before election day.
n a state as large but sparsely populated as Nevada, it takes nonstop travel to connect with all its residents. You’re lucky to get properly fed, much less look properly coiffed as female candidates are often required to do. I was exhausted and short on time, so decided to not to wash my hair the morning of the rally. I sprayed some dry shampoo in my hair, raced off to the Reno airport, and flew back to Las Vegas.
The event proceeded as most political events do: coordinated chaos with random problems that no one can predict. I found Eva Longoria, co-founder of the Latino Victory Project, roaming the parking lot trying to figure out how to get inside the union hall. My staff was running around town trying to purchase ferns because according to Biden’s team, no other vegetation was acceptable for the stage.
I found my way to the holding room for the speakers, where everyone was chatting, taking photos, and getting ready to speak to the hundreds of voters in the audience. Just before the speeches, we were ushered to the side of the stage where we were lined up by order of introduction. As I was taking deep breaths and preparing myself to make my case to the crowd, I felt two hands on my shoulders. I froze. “Why is the vice-president of the United States touching me?”
I felt him get closer to me from behind. He leaned further in and inhaled my hair. I was mortified. I thought to myself, “I didn’t wash my hair today and the vice-president of the United States is smelling it. And also, what in the actual fuck? Why is the vice-president of the United States smelling my hair?” He proceeded to plant a big slow kiss on the back of my head. My brain couldn’t process what was happening. I was embarrassed. I was shocked. I was confused. There is a Spanish saying, “tragame tierra,” it means, “earth, swallow me whole.” I couldn’t move and I couldn’t say anything. I wanted nothing more than to get Biden away from me. My name was called and I was never happier to get on stage in front of an audience.
By then, as a young Latina in politics, I had gotten used to feeling like an outsider in rooms dominated by white men. But I had never experienced anything so blatantly inappropriate and unnerving before. Biden was the second-most powerful man in the country and, arguably, one of the most powerful men in the world. He was there to promote me as the right person for the lieutenant governor job. Instead, he made me feel uneasy, gross, and confused. The vice-president of the United States of America had just touched me in an intimate way reserved for close friends, family, or romantic partners — and I felt powerless to do anything about it.
Our strange interaction happened during a pivotal moment in my political career. I’d spent months raising money, talking to voters, and securing endorsements. Biden came to Nevada to speak to my leadership and my potential to be second-in-command — an important role he knew firsthand. But he stopped treating me like a peer the moment he touched me. Even if his behavior wasn’t violent or sexual, it was demeaning and disrespectful. I wasn’t attending the rally as his mentee or even his friend; I was there as the most qualified person for the job.
Imagine you’re at work and a male colleague who you have no personal relationship with approaches you from behind, smells your hair, and kisses you on the head. Now imagine it’s the CEO of the company. If Biden and I worked together in a traditional office, I would have complained to the HR department, but on the campaign trail, there’s no clear path for what to do when a powerful man crosses the line. In politics, you shrug it off, smile for the cameras, and get back to the task of trying to win your race.
After the event, I told a few of my staff what happened. We all talked about the inexplicable weirdness of what he did, but I didn’t plan on telling anyone else. I didn’t have the language or the outlet to talk about what happened. Who do you tell? What do you say? Is it enough of a transgression if a man touches and kisses you without consent, but doesn’t rise to the level of what most people consider sexual assault? I did what most women do, and moved on with my life and my work.
Time passed and pictures started to surface of Vice-President Biden getting uncomfortably close with women and young girls. Biden nuzzling the neck of the Defense secretary’s wife; Biden kissing a senator’s wife on the lips; Biden whispering in women’s ears; Biden snuggling female constituents. I saw obvious discomfort in the women’s faces, and Biden, I’m sure, never thought twice about how it made them feel. I knew I couldn’t say anything publicly about what those pictures surfaced for me; my anger and my resentment grew.
Had I never seen those pictures, I may have been able to give Biden the benefit of the doubt. Had there not been multiple articles written over the years about the exact same thing — calling his creepy behavior an “open secret” — perhaps it would feel less offensive. And yet despite the steady stream of pictures and the occasional article, Biden retained his title of America’s Favorite Uncle. On occasion that title was downgraded to America’s Creepy Uncle but that in and of itself implied a certain level of acceptance. After all, how many families just tolerate or keep their young children away from the creepy uncle without ever acknowledging that there should be zero tolerance for a man who persistently invades others’ personal space and makes people feel uneasy and gross? In this case, it shows a lack of empathy for the women and young girls whose space he is invading, and ignores the power imbalance that exists between Biden and the women he chooses to get cozy with.
For years I feared my experience would be dismissed. Biden will be Biden. Boys will be boys. I worried about the doubts, the threats, the insults, and the minimization. “It’s not that big of a deal. He touched her, so what?” The immediate passing of judgement and the questioning of motives. “Why now? Why so long after? She just wants attention.” Or: “It’s politically motivated.” I would be lying if I said I didn’t carefully consider all of this before deciding to speak. But hearing Biden’s potential candidacy for president discussed without much talk about his troubling past as it relates to women became too much to keep bottled up any longer.
When I spoke to a male friend who is also a political operative in Biden’s orbit — the first man who had heard the story outside of my staff and close friends years ago — he did what no one else had and made me question myself and wonder if I was doing the right thing. He reminded me that Biden has significant resources and argued points that made me question my memory, even though I’ve replayed that scene in my mind a thousand times. He reminded me that my credibility would be attacked and that I should be prepared for the type of “back and forth” that could occur. (When reached by New York Magazine, a representative for Vice-President Joe Biden declined to comment.)
I’m not suggesting that Biden broke any laws, but the transgressions that society deems minor (or doesn’t even see as transgressions) often feel considerable to the person on the receiving end. That imbalance of power and attention is the whole point — and the whole problem.
Former Nevada Candidate Accuses Biden Of Unwanted Touching, Which He Doesn't 'Recall'
A former Nevada Democratic assemblywoman and candidate for lieutenant governor has come forward detailing an unwanted encounter with Vice President Joe Biden when he campaigned for her in 2014.
Lucy Flores writes in New York magazine about her "awkward" experience with Biden, saying he grabbed her shoulders from behind, sniffed her hair and then planted a kiss on the back of her head before a campaign event. On Friday, a spokesman for Biden said that the former vice president and staff who were present do not "recall what she describes."
"I'm not suggesting that Biden broke any laws," Flores writes, "but the transgressions that society deems minor (or doesn't even see as transgressions) often feel considerable to the person on the receiving end. That imbalance of power and attention is the whole point — and the whole problem."
The accusation from Flores brings a troubling issue back into the spotlight for Biden right as he is widely expected to launch a 2020 White House bid. Throughout his political career, the former vice president and Delaware senator has frequently been photographed engaging in close physical contact with women, appearing to touch or even kiss them without their consent at public events — from Obama Defense Secretary Ash Carter's wife Stephanie to Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley's wife Barbara.
Many of those instances at the time were dismissed as simply "Joe being Joe," given the friendly persona he gives off. But in the #MeToo era, encounters such as the one Flores newly describes, face new scrutiny.
Flores, a former state legislator, describes meeting Biden five years ago when he agreed to campaign for her underdog bid for lieutenant governor just before Election Day. As they were readying for a rally alongside actress Eva Longoria, Flores writes that Biden came up behind her and grabbed her shoulders:
I felt him get closer to me from behind. He leaned further in and inhaled my hair. I was mortified. I thought to myself, "I didn't wash my hair today and the vice-president of the United States is smelling it....Why is the vice-president of the United States smelling my hair?" He proceeded to plant a big slow kiss on the back of my head. My brain couldn't process what was happening. I was embarrassed. I was shocked. I was confused. There is a Spanish saying, "tragame tierra," it means, "earth, swallow me whole." I couldn't move and I couldn't say anything. I wanted nothing more than to get Biden away from me. My name was called and I was never happier to get on stage in front of an audience.
Flores wrote that the episode "made me feel uneasy, gross, and confused. The vice-president of the United States of America had just touched me in an intimate way reserved for close friends, family, or romantic partners — and I felt powerless to do anything about it." She writes that "his behavior wasn't violent or sexual, it was demeaning and disrespectful" and he wasn't "treating me like a peer" or "the most qualified person for the job" at that moment.
Flores says she told her staff but didn't plan on telling others — until "[t]ime passed and pictures started to surface of Vice-President Biden getting uncomfortably close with women and young girls," and she could no longer "give Biden the benefit of the doubt." But she writes that dismissing this as simply Biden being like a somewhat "creepy uncle," "shows a lack of empathy for the women and young girls whose space he is invading, and ignores the power imbalance that exists between Biden and the women he chooses to get cozy with."
Flores says she remained quiet for years, "fear[ing] my experience would be dismissed... But hearing Biden's potential candidacy for president discussed without much talk about his troubling past as it relates to women became too much to keep bottled up any longer." During her 2016 Democratic primary campaign for Congress, Flores was endorsed by Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who is again seeking the Democratic nomination for president.
Flores writes that she "spoke to a male friend who is also a political operative in Biden's orbit," and that he made her question her actions and recollection of the event, and reminded her about Biden's "significant resources," suggesting that her credibility would be attacked if she came forward.
Biden spokesman Bill Russo said in a statement that the former vice president "was pleased" to support Flores and hold the event for her. "Neither then, nor in the years since, did he or the staff with him at the time have an inkling that Ms. Flores had been at any time uncomfortable, nor do they recall what she describes," Russo said.
"But Vice President Biden believes that Ms. Flores has every right to share her own recollection and reflections, and that it is a change for better in our society that she has the opportunity to do so," Russo continued. "He respects Ms. Flores as a strong and independent voice in our politics and wishes her only the best."
Just this week, Biden spoke at the "Biden Courage Awards," an event for It's On Us, an organization started under the Obama White House to combat campus sexual assault.
Lucy Flores speaks out on her accusation on Joe Biden
CNN's Jake Tapper speaks to a former Nevada state assemblywoman who says that former Vice President Joe Biden made her feel "uneasy" in 2014 when, at a campaign rally in Nevada, she said he kissed her on the back of the head.
Why 'Biden being Biden' doesn't hold up in the #MeToo era
With former vice president Joe Biden facing misconduct allegations and some 2020 Democratic contenders accused of mishandling accusations against others in their offices, Democrats face a complicated reckoning with #MeToo in the Trump era.
Lucy Flores: Joe Biden accuser speaks on CBSN, live stream
Flores, a Democrat who served on the Nevada State Assembly, wrote a piece for New York magazine's The Cut on Friday alleging that Biden "inhaled" her hair and then kissed her before a campaign rally in 2014, when she was running for Nevada's lieutenant governor.
In his first statement since a Nevada political candidate accused him of inappropriate touching, former Vice President Joe Biden on Sunday said he did not believe he ever "acted inappropriately," but would listen to suggestions saying otherwise. Lucy Flores has said that Biden kissed the back of her head during a 2014 campaign event.
Lucy Flores On Joe Biden Accusation: 'This Is About Context'
Former Nevada Assemblywoman Lucy Flores, who is claiming sexual misconduct against former Vice President Joe Biden, explains why her situation is different from other woman who have been pictured in close contact with the former vice president, including Stephanie Carter, wife of former Defense Secretary Ash Carter.
Opinion: Joe Biden needs to cut it out. So does the mob.
Joe Biden needs to cut it out. And so does the mob that is after him.
The former vice president — and presumed front-runner-to-be in the 2020 Democratic primary — has a long history of putting his hands all over pretty much anyone who comes within reach. Women. Men. Children. Longtime friends. Perfect strangers.
He calls it the trait of a “tactile politician.” Longtime aides say it is simply “Biden being Biden.” But a quick Google search of “creepy Uncle Joe” finds an avalanche of video proof that his space-invading overtures are not always received with delight.
All of this is rightly being looked at in a different light amid the #MeToo movement. Over the weekend, in an essay for New York magazine’s The Cut, former Nevada state legislator Lucy Flores claimed that Biden put his hands on her shoulders, sniffed her hair and kissed her on the back of the head at a 2014 rally for her lieutenant gubernatorial campaign. She wrote that the episode left her feeling shocked, confused and humiliated.
In the ensuing uproar, Biden’s rivals for the nomination expressed support for Flores, and there was speculation that all of this might disqualify him from running. White House counselor Kellyanne Conway pronounced on Fox News Sunday that Biden has a “big problem,” which was more than a little ironic coming from someone whose boss was elected president amid multiple accusations of sexual assault and after declaring he liked to grab women by their genitals.
On Monday, another woman, former congressional aide Amy Lappos, told the Hartford Courant that Biden rubbed noses with her at a 2009 fundraiser in Connecticut.
What we all are learning, we should hope, is that we should respect women who have the courage to come forward about their experiences with unwanted physical contact. They deserve the benefit of the doubt both about their versions of events and about how they were made to feel.
But it is also important — and a sign that a social movement is maturing into a social norm — to recognize that not every offense is of equal severity.
Also worth factoring in is whether an alleged perpetrator was acting with malevolence or just cluelessness. Flores indicated that she believed Biden’s actions were demeaning and disrespectful, but not violent or sexual. Nor does it sound like a power move on Biden’s part.
To lose that sense of proportion is to dishonor the victims of the worst kinds of sexual abuse, and to abandon any hope that there can be a path to redemption for those who commit lesser ones and grow to understand the hurt they have caused.
For politicians, these issues can be particularly fraught. “Pressing the flesh” is a vital part of the campaign ritual. Nearly every public appearance by a candidate ends with eager supporters lining up for handshakes and hugs and faux intimate photos wrapping arms with someone who just might be making history.
Indeed, Flores’s essay brought a rebuttal from Stephanie Carter, the wife of former defense secretary Ashton B. Carter. A photo of Biden with his hands cradling her shoulders became a viral sensation four years ago, striking many as overly familiar or downright weird. The truth, she wrote, was that the vice president was offering her a bit of badly needed emotional support at her husband’s swearing-in.
In a statement, Biden promised to “listen respectfully” to those who say he acted inappropriately. Part of that process should be recognizing that others might have life experiences or cultural backgrounds that do not predispose them to unsolicited physical contact with people they do not know well. Flores, for instance, suggested that Biden’s touch evoked familiar feelings of being discounted as a young Latina in a field dominated by white men.
Biden also cited his record as a champion of women’s rights. But that may in fact turn out to be a far bigger vulnerability, starting with his inept excuses for how shabbily the Senate Judiciary Committee treated Anita Hill during the 1991 confirmation hearings of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.
“To this day, I regret I couldn’t come up with a way to get her the kind of hearing she deserved,” Biden said — a jaw-dropping dodge, given that as chairman of the committee, he decided not to call additional witnesses who could have supported Hill’s claim that she had been sexually harassed by Thomas.
Americans deserve a far better explanation, not only of why he failed back then, but whether and how he is different because of it. If Biden does indeed run for president, the question will not be whether his hands are in the right place, but whether his heart is.
Second woman accuses Joe Biden of inappropriate behavior: 'I thought he was going to kiss me'
WASHINGTON – A second woman is accusing former Vice President Joe Biden of unwanted, inappropriate behavior, the Hartford Courant reported Monday.
Amy Lappos of Connecticut said Biden, a potential 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, touched her and rubbed his nose on hers during a 2009 political fundraiser in Greenwich, the Courant reported.
"It wasn't sexual, but he did grab me by the head," Lappos told the newspaper. "He put his hand around my neck and pulled me in to rub noses with me. When he was pulling me in, I thought he was going to kiss me on the mouth."
The accusation comes days after Lucy Flores, a former member of the Nevada Legislature, accused Biden of "demeaning and disrespectful" behavior when he allegedly kissed the back of her head.
A spokeswoman for Biden declined to respond to the allegations by Lappos, referring instead to the statement Biden issued Sunday about the Flores accusation, according to the newspaper.
In that statement, Biden denied any wrongdoing regarding Flores but promised to "listen respectfully" to such claims.
"In my many years on the campaign trail and in public life, I have offered countless handshakes, hugs, expressions of affection, support and comfort," Biden said. "And not once – never – did I believe I acted inappropriately. If it is suggested I did so, I will listen respectfully. But it was never my intention."
Biden said he might not recall moments in the same way that the accuser does.
"But we have arrived at an important time when women feel they can and should relate their experiences, and men should pay attention," he said in the statement. "And I will."
The allegations against Biden come amid #MeToo, a movement started nearly a decade ago that went viral in 2017 as women in Hollywood and across the country began sharing stories of sexual harassment and assault. It’s led to the resignation or downfall of more than 100 entertainers, executives and politicians, including Harvey Weinstein, Matt Lauer and Kevin Spacey. Former Minnesota Democrat Sen. Al Franken announced his resignation in 2017 following accusations of sexual misconduct. Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., also stepped down, along with Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., who resigned amid reports he discussed with female staffers the possibility they could be surrogates for his and his wife's baby.
More than a dozen women have accused Trump of sexual misconduct over the years, including eight women who have accused him of forcibly kissing them. Trump has denied the allegations. In an “Access Hollywood” tape that surfaced during the final weeks of the presidential campaign in 2016, Trump was heard making lewd comments and bragging about groping women. The president has said that was "locker-room banter."
Wife of ex-Defense secretary defends Biden, says viral photo of them used 'misleadingly'
A woman whose photograph with Joe Biden has been used by critics as evidence that the former vice president has a history of inappropriately affectionate behavior came to the potential 2020 presidential candidate's defense on Sunday.
When Stephanie Carter attended her husband Ash Carter's swearing-in as secretary of Defense at the Pentagon in February 2015, photographers captured an image of Biden leaning toward her with his hands on her shoulders and his face pressed close behind her right ear.
That image, and several others captured over the years, have been used by Biden's detractors to depict the former vice president as "creepy Uncle Joe" on social media and in mocking memes.
That depiction became more problematic for Biden last week after Lucy Flores, a former Nevada assemblywoman, described an incident in an article for New York magazine where she said Biden made her uncomfortable when he put his hands on her shoulders, smelled her hair and gave her a "big slow kiss" on the back of her head at a political rally in 2014.
"In my many years on the campaign trail and in public life, I have offered countless handshakes, hugs, expressions of affection," Biden said in a statement on Sunday. He said he didn't recall the incident but doesn't think that he ever "acted inappropriately."
Carter said Flores' story had rekindled interest in the photo of her and Biden.
"Last night, I received a text from a friend letting me know that picture was once again all over Twitter in connection to Lucy Flores’ personal account of a 2014 encounter with Joe Biden," Carter said Sunday in a post on Medium titled "The #MeToo Story That Wasn’t Me."
"Let me state upfront that I don’t know her, but I absolutely support her right to speak her truth and she should be, like all women, believed. But her story is not mine," Carter said of Flores. "The Joe Biden in my picture is a close friend helping someone get through a big day, for which I will always be grateful. So, as the sole owner of my story, it is high time that I reclaim it – from strangers, Twitter, the pundits and the late-night hosts."
Carter recalled the day in detail, saying she was "uncharacteristically nervous" and that she slipped and fell on ice when they arrived at the Pentagon. She said Biden leaned toward her as her husband spoke "to tell me 'thank you for letting him do this' and kept his hands on my shoulders as a means of offering his support."
She recalled her horror as the photo, "misleadingly extracted from what was a longer moment between close friends," became "the lasting image of that day." She said she "felt awful" that Biden's kindness was being used as "supposed proof positive that he didn’t understand how to respect women."
"I thought it would all blow over if I didn’t dignify it with a response. But clearly that was wishful thinking," Carter wrote. "I won’t pretend that this will be the last of that picture, but it will be the last of other people speaking for me."
Carter is likely correct that the picture, particularly in light of Flores' allegation, will continue to haunt Biden as he decides whether or not to enter the race for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination. Several of his potential primary opponents have said they believe Flores and that Biden's behavior will ultimately be judged by the voters.
On Sunday, White House adviser Kellyanne Conway said Flores, a Democrat, was "very bold to come forward" with her story and "go up against the highest levels of her own political party."
"I think Joe Biden has a big problem here," Conway said on "Fox News Sunday." While he may dismiss it as "affection and handshakes," in the #MeToo era Democrats find such behavior "completely inappropriate," she said.
Conway pointed to the allegations against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, whose nomination was almost "derailed" by "folks who had no evidence of what had allegedly happened 34 years ago." By contrast, "If anybody just types in 'Creepy Uncle Joe videos' you come up with a treasure trove" of "evidentiary information," she said.
Fox News host Chris Wallace pointed out that "there are women who have said much worse about your boss, President Trump, in terms of touching them inappropriately."
Conway said those allegations were covered "ad infinitum during the campaign" before turning the conversation back to Biden and the Democrats who "have to really grapple with what's going on in their own party with a man who was vice president of the United States until two years ago."
Even if Biden was only being friendly, his "intent is only partly or maybe not at all, relevant here. It's really how that woman felt. She feels that it was unwelcome," Conway said. She also slammed Biden for not apologizing to Flores.
"Why didn’t he do that? They never apologize to the individual," Conway said.
The allegations against Biden come amid #MeToo, a movement started nearly a decade ago that went viral in 2017 as women in Hollywood and across the country began sharing stories of sexual harassment and assault. It’s led to the resignation or downfall of more than 100 entertainers, executives and politicians, including Harvey Weinstein, Matt Lauer and Kevin Spacey. Former Minnesota Democrat Sen. Al Franken announced his resignation in 2017 following accusations of sexual misconduct. Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., also stepped down, along with Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., who resigned amid reports he discussed with female staffers the possibility they could be surrogates for his and his wife's baby.
More than a dozen women have accused Trump of sexual misconduct over the years, including eight women who have accused him of forcibly kissing them. Trump has denied the allegations. In an “Access Hollywood” tape that surfaced during the final weeks of the presidential campaign in 2016, Trump was heard making lewd comments and bragging about groping women. The president has said that was "locker-room banter."
Road ahead: Changing Senate rules, reupping Violence Against Women Act
McConnell heads into cloture clash with nothing much to lose
Senators are gearing up for a much-anticipated standoff over the debate time for confirming President Donald Trump’s nominees, as the House turns its attention to reviving and updating the Violence Against Women Act.
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg will address a joint meeting on Wednesday, following an invitation extended by the bipartisan congressional leadership to highlight the importance of the alliance.
And the House will seek to force another presidential veto, this time of a resolution to pull the U.S. out of the war in Yemen.
First up, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky has set a Monday evening test vote on a disaster relief supplemental spending package by Appropriations Chairman Richard C. Shelby of Alabama, but Democrats want to see additional aid for Puerto Rico and votes on other priorities.
That includes an effort by Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer to block the use of funds by the Justice Department to argue in court that the 2010 health care law is unconstitutional.
But the Senate’s real battle for the week will once again be over the process of confirming presidential nominees. Last week, McConnell moved to limit the debate on a resolution that would reduce to up to two hours (from 30 hours) the post-cloture debate time for an assortment of lower-level executive branch posts, as well as district judges.
“Some of our colleagues who are leading this systematic obstruction are actually running for president themselves. Well, these tactics will virtually guarantee that any future Democrat administration is subjected to this same paralysis. Everybody will be doing it,” McConnell said on the floor.
While McConnell set up a vote on adopting the new standing order under the regular process, it is all but assured that effort will fall short of the 60 votes necessary to cut off debate. Then he is expected to move forward using the “nuclear option” — shorthand for pursuing a rules change from the presiding officer that requires only majority support. It’s a move used by McConnell and former Majority Leader Harry Reid before him to cut off the regular order of procedural roadblocks available to senators in favor of a simple majority vote.
“Senator McConnell’s approach has always been to manipulate Senate rules when it helps him and then change Senate rules when the tables turn; this is just another step in his effort to limit the rights of the minority and cede authority to the administration,” Schumer said in a statement in response.
Meanwhile, the House is set to take up the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization this week, which the Judiciary Committee approved in March.
The bill, sponsored by California Democrat Karen Bass and Pennsylvania Republican Brian Fitzpatrick, would reauthorize and expand the landmark domestic violence law first enacted in 1994.
The protections and programs authorized by the 1994 law lapsed during the partial government shutdown last year, but were reinstated in the January short-term fiscal 2019 spending deal. An extension was not included in the eventual deal that provided for spending through the end of fiscal 2019. Speaker Nancy Pelosi felt agreeing to a short-term extension would reduce the incentive for the Senate to negotiate with the House on a broader reauthorization of VAWA.
The House bill on the floor this week includes new provisions that aim to curtail the purchase and possession of firearms by individuals deemed to be a threat by a court.
Some Republicans have claimed that many of the provisions placed in the bill by the Democratic majority make the bill impossible for them to support. The National Rifle Association has come out against the reauthorization, citing the firearms provisions. Pelosi still sees a smooth path for the measure.
“Stalkers having guns. There’s very discrete provisions that relate to protecting women’s safety. And they’re against it. I don’t see that it has much impact on the passage of the bill in the House of Representatives,” the California Democrat said last week.
The bill would also increase protections for gender and sexual minorities set forth by the last authorization in 2013 and update law enforcement grants and health care provisions and increase penalties for cyberstalking, as well as require federal law enforcement to regularly evaluate and update practices to combat online harassment and cyberbullying.
The House will also revote on a resolution that would remove U.S. armed forces assisting the Saudi-led coalition fighting in Yemen.
The House passed the measure in February, but the last-minute addition of an amendment, adopted through a Republican motion to recommit, adding language about combating anti-Semitism caused the resolution to lose its privileged status, making a revote necessary.
The Senate-passed Yemen resolution should easily pass the House on a similar margin to the 248-177 vote the chamber took in February. But Trump has plans to veto it — the second veto of his presidency — and the two-thirds support needed to override that does not exist in either chamber.
The House will also continue its streak of voting on nonbinding resolutions, taking up a measure to condemn the Trump administration’s decision to get involved in Texas’ legal challenge to the 2010 health care law by siding with the state in its argument that the entire law should be struck down.
In committee action, the Budget panel is expected to announce Monday whether it will mark up a full fiscal 2020 budget resolution or legislation just to raise the statutory budget caps implemented under the 2011 Budget Control Act’s sequestration levels.
Budget Chairman John Yarmuth of Kentucky has signaled it will likely be the latter, which will provide a larger increase for nondefense spending than for defense over the next two fiscal years.
Ultimately, the House will have to negotiate those topline spending numbers with the Senate, and the two chambers’ leaders will have to convince the president to sign legislation raising the caps even though his administration has said they don’t want to do so.
While the budget cap battle wages on, appropriators are still preparing to write their fiscal 2020 bills by holding hearings on various agencies’ spending requests.
Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross will testify before the House Appropriations subcommittee that oversees his agency’s funding. Ross declined to appear before the equivalent subcommittee in the Senate.
Other administration officials testifying this week before the House subcommittees that oversee their agencies’ funding include EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler, Housing and Urban Development Secretary Benjamin S. Carson, outgoing FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb and Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai.
The House’s Select Committee on Climate Change will hold its first hearing on “Generation Climate,” the coalition of young leaders urging immediate action to combat the climate crisis.
Hearings in other committees include a Financial Services review of the Fair Housing Act, testimony on the Equality Act in the Judiciary Committee and discussions in the Foreign Affairs and Intelligence Committees on climate change threats to national security.
There’s also a House hearing scheduled on the FBI budget, featuring Director Christopher Wray. It seems likely that hearing could devolve into a discussion about special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s report on Russian interference in the 2016 election.
Six House committee chairmen wrote to Attorney General William P. Barr last week asking that he turn over the full report to Congress by April 2, but Barr has already informed House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler of New York that he won’t meet that deadline.
2 More Women Accuse Joe Biden Of 'Uncomfortable' Touching
One woman, who was a college-aged sexual assault survivor, told the New York Times that the former vice president had rested his hand on her thigh.
Two more women have come forward with stories of former Vice President Joe Biden touching them in ways that made them uncomfortable, making it four total allegations against the potential 2020 presidential candidate in the last week.
Caitlyn Caruso, a 22-year-old sexual assault survivor, told The New York Times on Tuesday that when she was a 19-year-old college student, she met Biden at an event on sexual assault at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.
Biden, she said, rested his hand on her thigh, even though she squirmed to indicate her discomfort. He also hugged her “just a little bit too long.” At the time, she said, she didn’t say anything publicly about it, but it felt uncomfortable because she had just shared her story of sexual assault.
“It doesn’t even really cross your mind that such a person would dare perpetuate harm like that,” Caruso told the Times.
She noted Biden was behind the 1994 Violence Against Women Act. “These are supposed to be people you can trust.”
D.J. Hill, a 59-year-old writer, said she met Biden in 2012 with her husband at a Minneapolis fundraising event. When she stepped up to take a photo with Biden, she said, he dropped his hand from her shoulder down her back, making her “very uncomfortable,” she told the Times. Her husband then put his hand on Biden’s shoulder and said a joke to interrupt. Hill didn’t say anything at the time, she said.
“Only he knows his intent,” Hill told the Times, noting she didn’t know whether Biden knew she was uncomfortable. “If something makes you feel uncomfortable, you have to feel able to say it.”
The two women are the latest to come forward with accounts of Biden touching them in ways that felt inappropriate or uncomfortable.
Amy Lappos, a former congressional aide, told The Hartford Courant on Monday that Biden grabbed her by the head and rubbed noses with her during a 2009 political fundraiser in Greenwich, Connecticut.
And on Friday, former Nevada Assemblywoman Lucy Flores published an op-ed in New York Magazine’s The Cut, alleging that Biden touched and kissed her without her consent in 2014. During a Las Vegas campaign rally, she alleges, Biden approached her from behind, put his hands on her shoulders, smelled her hair and kissed the back of her head.
After Flores’ allegation, Biden responded by saying that in his years as a public figure, “not once ― never ― did I believe I acted inappropriately.”
“If it is suggested I did so, I will listen respectfully. But it was never my intention,” Biden, 76, said in a statement Sunday.
In response to HuffPost’s request for comment Tuesday, Biden’s spokesperson referred back to his Sunday statement.
Throughout Biden’s decades-long public career, there have been photos and videos that appear to show questionable contact with women, including Biden kissing a senator’s wife on the lips and whispering into a girl’s ear and then kissing her cheek as she appears to pull away.
As Biden considers launching a presidential campaign for 2020, these accusations of awkward or inappropriate contact are adding up, complicating his legacy of championing women’s rights and support for sexual assault survivors.
Amid the Me Too movement, there has also been renewed criticism of Biden’s handling of law professor Anita Hill’s testimony during the 1991 Supreme Court confirmation hearing for Clarence Thomas. Biden has previously expressed regret for the treatment Hill received at the time, although Hill has called this insufficient because he did not directly address his own role in the matter.
Late last month, Biden again offered up a non-apology on Hill, saying at an event in New York that he wished he “could have done something” to prevent attacks she faced after her sexual harassment allegations against Thomas, who was confirmed. Biden, who was a Democratic senator from Delaware and chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee at the time, did not allow testimony from other women who had similar allegations or could corroborate Hill’s allegations against Thomas.
Joe Biden says he never 'acted inappropriately.' What are people saying about him?
Former Vice President Joe Biden has now been accused by two women of making them uncomfortable with unwanted behavior, potentially creating a challenge for his 2020 campaign if he does make his widely anticipated entry into the presidential race.
Biden addressed the allegations in an interview on Sunday, saying that in his four decades as a politician he has "offered countless handshakes, hugs, expressions of affection, support and comfort" but that he doesn't think he ever "acted inappropriately."
None of Biden's potential 2020 Democratic primary opponents have said the allegations should keep him out of the race but none of them have rushed to his defense either. White House adviser Kellyanne Conway has already attacked him as "Creepy Uncle Joe" despite President Donald Trump's own history of alleged sexual misconduct.
Here is a look at the allegations against Biden and the responses so far:
A kiss on the back of the head
In a first-person account for New York Magazine, former Democratic Nevada state representative Lucy Flores, 39, said that Biden placed his hands on her shoulders at a 2014 rally during her unsuccessful run for lieutenant governor.
"I froze. 'Why is the vice-president of the United States touching me?'" she wrote.
"I felt him get closer to me from behind. He leaned further in and inhaled my hair. I was mortified," she continued. "He proceeded to plant a big slow kiss on the back of my head. My brain couldn’t process what was happening. I was embarrassed. I was shocked. I was confused."
Rubbing noses
Connecticut woman Amy Lappos, 43, said Biden grabbed the back of her neck, pulled her close and rubbed noses with her at an October 2009 Democratic fundraiser, the Hartford Courant reported Monday.
"It wasn't sexual, but he did grab me by the head," Lappos, who does freelance work for non-profit agencies, told the Courant. "He put his hand around my neck and pulled me in to rub noses with me. When he was pulling me in, I thought he was going to kiss me on the mouth."
"There's absolutely a line of decency. There's a line of respect. Crossing that line is not grandfatherly. It's not cultural. It's not affection. It's sexism or misogyny," Lappos told the paper.
Biden's response
"In my many years on the campaign trail and in public life, I have offered countless handshakes, hugs, expressions of affection, support and comfort," Biden said in a statement Sunday in response to Flores' allegation. "And not once – never – did I believe I acted inappropriately. If it is suggested I did so, I will listen respectfully. But it was never my intention."
"We have arrived at an important time when women feel they can and should relate their experiences, and men should pay attention. And I will.”
After Lappos' allegation surfaced, Biden spokesman referred reporters to Biden's previous statement. But in a statement on Monday, Russo also addressed the "smears and forgeries" that "right wing trolls" use "for their own gain."
Kellyanne Conway pounces
During a Fox News interview on Sunday, Conway invoked the online memes referenced by Russo that have long accused Biden of "creepy" interactions with women and girls.
"If anybody just types in 'Creepy Uncle Joe videos' you come up with a treasure trove" of "evidentiary information," she said.
"Joe Biden has a big problem here," Conway said.
Fox News host Chris Wallace pointed out that "there are women who have said much worse about your boss, President Trump, in terms of touching them inappropriately."
Conway said those allegations were covered "ad infinitum during the campaign" before turning the conversation back to Biden and the Democrats.
Women come to Biden's defense
A number of women who have known Biden through the years have stepped forward to defend him since the allegations surfaced.
Stephanie Carter, the wife of former Defense Secretary Ash Carter, said in a post on Medium that a 2015 photo of Biden touching her shoulders that has been used as an example of him being inappropriate was actually a picture of "a close friend helping someone get through a big day."
Other women who have come forward to share their positive experiences with Biden since the allegations surfaced include former staffer Elizabeth Alexander, former national security adviser Susan Rice, actress and #MeToo activist Alyssa Milano and "The View" co-host Meghan McCain.
How the 2020 candidates responded
None of the 2020 Democratic presidential contenders have said the allegations should disqualify Biden from running, but they have all said they believe Flores and that the former vice president will have to address the allegations.
"Lucy Flores felt demeaned, and that is never okay. If Vice President Biden becomes a candidate, this is a topic he’ll have to engage on further," said New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand.
The allegations against Biden come amid #MeToo, a movement started nearly a decade ago that went viral in 2017 as women in Hollywood and across the country began sharing stories of sexual harassment and assault. It’s led to the resignation or downfall of more than 100 entertainers, executives and politicians, including Harvey Weinstein, Matt Lauer and Kevin Spacey. Former Minnesota Democrat Sen. Al Franken announced his resignation in 2017 following accusations of sexual misconduct. Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., also stepped down, along with Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., who resigned amid reports he discussed with female staffers the possibility they could be surrogates for his and his wife's baby.
More than a dozen women have accused Trump of sexual misconduct over the years, including eight women who have accused him of forcibly kissing them. Trump has denied the allegations. In an “Access Hollywood” tape that surfaced during the final weeks of the presidential campaign in 2016, Trump was heard making lewd comments and bragging about groping women. The president has said that was "locker-room banter."
Joe Biden - Social norms are changing. I understand that, and I’ve heard what these women are saying. Politics to me has always been about making connections, but I will be more mindful about respecting personal space in the future. That’s my responsibility and I will meet it.
D.J. Hill recounts unwanted touching by former Vice President Joe Biden
D.J. Hill is among several women who have stepped forward in accusing former Vice President Joe Biden of inappropriate conduct, citing a time his hands dropped from around her shoulders to down to her waist, making her uncomfortable during a photo opp at a fundraiser in 2012. Hill joins CBSN's Tanya Rivero to describe the encounter.
Sexual Assault Survivor Who Accused Joe Biden Of 'Uncomfortable' Touching Speaks Out
Caitlyn Caruso said the potential 2020 candidate’s alleged inappropriate behavior isn’t what should disqualify him from running, but his record on Anita Hill and other issues.
Caitlyn Caruso, one of four women who in the last week have accused former Vice President Joe Biden of touching them inappropriately, said she doesn’t think those accusations are what should disqualify him from running for president in 2020.
“I don’t think that these experiences should be what disqualifies him,” Caruso said in a TV interview with Univision Wednesday. She added that other parts of Biden’s record, including his mishandling of Anita Hill’s testimony in 1991 and his stance on the Iraq War “should be what are actually drawn into scrutiny.”
In a New York Times story published on Tuesday, Caruso, 22, said that she had met the then-vice president at an event on sexual assault at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, when she was 19. She had shared her own story of sexual assault there, and says that afterward, Biden had rested his hand on her thigh even though she squirmed to indicate discomfort. He also hugged her “just a little bit too long,” she said.
Caruso told Univision that during their meeting, Biden “was a little uncomfortably physically affectionate.”
“He left his hand on my thigh, maybe in an attempt to console me, but regardless, it crossed my boundaries and made me feel uncomfortable,” she said. She added that it was important to have “even more nuanced conversations around consent.”
“If Biden is truly the advocate and the ally that he says he is, he would know that after a survivor speaks about their sexual assault, it might be too much to touch them; to ask before intruding on someone’s personal space,” she added.
Biden is an architect of the landmark Violence Against Women Act and has built a legacy of championing women’s rights and supporting sexual assault survivors.
Earlier on Wednesday, Biden released a video statement in response to the recent accusations, saying he would be “more mindful and respectful of people’s personal space.” He stopped short of apologizing to accusers.
Three other women recently recounted uncomfortable encounters with Biden: D.J. Hill, a 59-year-old writer, told the Times on Tuesday that during a photo-op at a fundraising event in 2012, Biden dropped his hand from her shoulder down her back, making her “very uncomfortable.”
Amy Lappos, a former congressional aide, told The Hartford Courant on Monday that Biden grabbed her by the head and rubbed noses with her during a 2009 political fundraiser.
And last Friday, former Nevada Assemblywoman Lucy Flores published an op-ed in New York Magazine’s The Cut, alleging that Biden approached from behind, touched her shoulders and kissed the back of her head without her consent in 2014.
After Flores’ allegation, Biden, 76, responded in a statement Sunday by saying that in his years as a public figure, “not once ― never ― did I believe I acted inappropriately.”
As Biden considers launching a presidential campaign for 2020, Caruso said his “mistreatment of Anita Hill” is what people should consider when it comes to determining whether he’s qualified to run.
Amid the Me Too movement, there has been renewed criticism of Biden’s handling of law professor Hill’s testimony during the 1991 Supreme Court confirmation hearing for Clarence Thomas. Biden has expressed regret for the treatment Hill received at the time, although Hill has called this insufficient because he did not directly address his own role in the matter.
“If we’re really centering sexual assault survivors, we have to make sure we recognize why he made this whole movement of ‘It’s On Us,’” Caruso said, referring to Biden’s initiative aiming to end sexual assault. “What is he making up for? And that is his mistreatment of Anita Hill in ’91.”
2 More Women Describe 'Uncomfortable' Physical Contact From Joe Biden
Two more women have said they felt uncomfortable due to unwanted physical contact from Joe Biden, fueling a debate about the former Vice President’s affectionate interactions with women as he considers a 2020 presidential run in the #MeToo era.
Caitlyn Caruso, 22, told the New York Times on Tuesday that she felt uncomfortable when Biden rested his hand on her thigh and hugged her “just a little bit too long” at an event about combatting sexual assault at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas when she was 19.
D. J. Hill, 59, told the Times that, while taking a photo with Biden at a fundraising event in 2012, he put his hand on shoulder and then moved it down her back, making her “very uncomfortable.”
They join other women who have recently shared accounts of uncomfortable, inappropriate physical contact from Biden. On Friday, former Nevada state assemblywoman Lucy Flores published an essay describing an incident in which Biden came up behind her at a 2014 campaign rally in Las Vegas and kissed her on the back of the head, making her “feel uneasy, gross, and confused.”
“Even if his behavior wasn’t violent or sexual, it was demeaning and disrespectful,” Flores wrote.
Another woman, Amy Lappos, told the Hartford Courant that Biden touched her face with both hands and rubbed noses with her at a fundraiser in 2009, when she was an aide to Connecticut Rep. Jim Hines.
Biden has denied that he acted inappropriately with women and said it was not his intention to make anyone uncomfortable. “In my many years on the campaign trail and in public life, I have offered countless handshakes, hugs, expressions of affection, support and comfort. And not once — never — did I believe I acted inappropriately,” he said in a statement on Sunday. “If it is suggested I did so, I will listen respectfully. But it was never my intention.”
In a video on Wednesday, Biden said he has “always tried to make a human connection” with people he meets, but he vowed to be more respectful of their personal space in the future.
“The boundaries of protecting personal space have been reset, and I get it. I get it,” he said in the video. “I hear what they’re saying. I understand it, and I’ll be much more mindful. That’s my responsibility.”
Other women, including celebrities and feminist leaders, have spoken out in defense of Biden, praising him as a champion for women who fought for the 1994 Violence Against Women Act as Senator and led efforts to combat campus sexual assault as Vice President.
But as Biden mulls a run for President, he is facing scrutiny about how his treatment of women over a four-decade political career holds up in the #MeToo era — from the way he handled Anita Hill’s testimony during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings to the way he touches and interacts with women.
President Donald Trump — who has been accused of sexual misconduct and harassment by at least 18 women and infamously boasted about grabbing women without their consent — mocked Biden at a rally on Tuesday night. “Welcome to the world, Joe,” he said.
Trump also joked about Biden when describing a meeting with a military general. “I said, ‘General, come here and give me a kiss.’ I felt like Joe Biden,” Trump said.
Leading Democrats have not condemned Biden over the complaints, though some have said he will have to address the accusations and adjust his behavior.
“I don’t think it’s disqualifying,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in an interview with Politico Playbook on Tuesday.
“I think it’s important for the Vice President and others to understand is that it isn’t what you intended, it’s how it was received,” she said.
Nevada County woman says Joe Biden inappropriately touched her while working in his U.S. Senate office
A Nevada County woman has added her voice to a recent spate of allegations that former vice president and possible presidential candidate Joe Biden touched her when she worked in his U.S. Senate office.
Alexandra Tara Reade said that in 1993 she was in her mid-20s when Biden, then a senator from Delaware, touched her several times making her feel uncomfortable. Reade said her responsibilities in the senator’s office were reduced after she refused to serve drinks at an event — what she called a desire of Biden’s because he liked her legs. Reade said she felt pushed out and left Biden’s employ in August 1993 after some nine months.
A spokesman for Biden couldn’t be reached for comment.
“He used to put his hand on my shoulder and run his finger up my neck,” Reade said. “I would just kind of freeze and wait for him to stop doing that.”
A confidant of Reade’s at the time, granted anonymity by The Union, confirmed that Reade relayed the story shortly after the events occurred.
“Back then, back there, things just happened,” the friend said.
Reade is the most recent woman to publicly share her story about uncomfortable encounters with Biden. Time.com states former Nevada State Assemblywoman Lucy Flores told her story last week. Flores said Biden approached her at a 2014 campaign rally and kissed the back of her head. A second woman, Amy Lappos, said Biden touched her face and rubbed noses with her at a 2009 fundraiser.
Caitlyn Caruso said Biden put his hand on her thigh and hugged her at a university event. D.J. Hill said Biden in 2012 touched her shoulder before moving his hand down her back.
Other women have defended Biden in the wake of recent allegations against him. Stephanie Carter, wife of former Defense Secretary Ash Carter, appeared in a photo used in a misinformation campaign against Biden. She called the former vice president a close friend in a USA Today story.
Biden in a Wednesday tweet said he understands social norms are changing.
“And I’ve heard what these women are saying,” Biden’s tweet states. “Politics to me has always been about making connections, but I will be more mindful about respecting personal space in the future. That’s my responsibility and I will meet it.”
ALLEGATIONS
Employment documents provided by Reade show that she worked in Biden’s office from December 1992 to August 1993.
Reade recalled a handful of times Biden touched her. On one occasion they were before a group of interns when he put his finger on her neck. She doesn’t remember how many times Biden touched her in that manner, she said.
“I was trying to be seen as a professional,” Reade added.
Reade said her expulsion from Biden’s office stemmed from an early 1993 staff argument over the suggestion she serve drinks at an event. According to Reade, Biden wanted her to serve because he liked her legs. Reade didn’t hear Biden make that suggestion, instead learning of it through his staff’s argument. Reade opted against serving drinks, a move she believes sidelined her career.
The friend in whom Reade confided at the time said they discussed Biden. Reade asked her friend if she should take any action. Being young and relatively new to D.C., she wondered if anything was wrong with Biden’s behavior.
The confidant said she asked if Reade would let her younger sister work in the office. When Reade said “no” to the hypothetical question, her friend said Biden’s actions weren’t appropriate.
Reade said she spoke to U.S. Senate personnel about her concerns. Word got back to Biden’s office.
“My life was hell,” Reade said. “This was about power and control.”
“I couldn’t get a job on the Hill,” she added.
In June 1993 Reade found herself in an office without windows. Two months later she left Biden’s office, she said.
Reade said Biden’s senior staff protected the senator. She was considered a distraction. Reade said she didn’t consider the acts toward her sexualization. She instead compared her experience to being a lamp.
“It’s pretty. Set it over there,” she said. “Then when it’s too bright, you throw it away.”
Reade said she tried to share her story when she worked for Biden, but was told to say nothing. Then Biden ran on Barack Obama’s ticket. Reade thought he may have changed.
Reade said she rethought her years-long role as a foot solider for the Democratic Party when she learned of Flores’ disclosure.
She wants more than “Sorry” from Biden.
“‘I changed the trajectory of your life,’” she wants to hear him say. “‘I’m sorry.’”
Dingell touts legislation to keep guns out of hands of abusers, stalkers during Ann Arbor visit
U.S. Rep. Debbie Dingell, D-Dearborn, speaks openly about her childhood experiences with domestic violence.
The congresswoman recalls many ugly fights between her parents, including one particular night when her father almost shot her mother. She remembers stepping between them and trying to grab the gun.
She said her father was a troubled man with mental health issues, possibly bipolar disorder, and having guns in the house wasn't a good situation.
"Emotions in volatile and mentally unstable situations are unpredictable and far too often have disastrous outcomes," Dingell wrote in a letter to Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder earlier this year. "I will not forget the nights of shouting. The fear. The dread that my brother, my sisters and my parents would die. I will not forget locking ourselves in closets or hiding places hoping we wouldn't be found."
Two days after Dingell sent the governor that letter, Snyder vetoed legislation approved by the Michigan Legislature and backed by the National Rifle Association that Dingell had argued would have allowed concealed-weapons permits to be issued to individuals with a history of violence and abuse.
Dingell is now fighting the issue in Congress.
During a Thursday afternoon visit to the Ann Arbor area, Dingell met with the staff of the SafeHouse Center for survivors of sexual and domestic abuse.
"I've lived some of what you all are helping people through," Dingell told the center's staff. "My father tried to kill us. I called the police; they didn't come."
Dingell also recalled how her now-deceased sister was in a physically abusive relationship.
"I want you to know that I'm an advocate for you," she told the SafeHouse staff, asking what she can do to help.
Dingell has introduced legislation, the Zero Tolerance for Domestic Abusers Act, that she says would close loopholes that allow abusers and stalkers to access guns.
The legislation has remained in committee for months, but Dingell is hoping to see Congress take action on it at some point.
While federal law prohibits someone from owning a gun if they are convicted of abusing a spouse, or abusing someone with whom they live or with whom they have a child, it does not include people who have abused a dating partner.
Dingell said her legislation would close that loophole and ensure people who have abused dating partners are prohibited from buying or owning guns.
She said it also would make sure that convicted stalkers cannot legally purchase a gun. She said stalking is sadly an accurate predictor of future violence.
With an annual budget of nearly $2 million, SafeHouse serves survivors of sexual assault and domestic violence, and their children.
The agency served more than 5,000 survivors last year, providing counseling, shelter, support groups, and personal protection order assistance.
"And we know we're not meeting everybody's needs," said Barbara Neiss-May, SafeHouse's executive director of the last 13 years. "We know there are thousands more out there who need our support."
Neiss-May said the agency has roughly 30 staff members and 150 volunteers who work around the clock to serve the people who come to them.
"If you do the math, it's a pretty darn good deal for increasing safety in our community," she said.
The agency is primarily intended to serve Washtenaw County, though it also helps survivors of abuse from surrounding counties. Neiss-May said the shelter, which includes 50 beds in 23 rooms, is pretty much always full.
A large share of the agency's funding comes from private contributions, while $751,455 came from government grants last year.
Neiss-May said the agency receives federal funding, but it doesn't receive any state funding. It also received $54,168 from the city of Ann Arbor this year.
"Funding is needed to be able to support the survivors that we serve," Neiss-May said. "The needs that they have have not gone away. The numbers continue to increase, and it's not getting any cheaper to provide the services we need to provide."
She added, "So, the business case is we need funding to have the very best people we can have in front of people who are in crisis, so their lives, their children's lives, can go on in a much better way."
During a roundtable discussion on Thursday, the SafeHouse staff shared stories and accounts of the challenges they face in trying to help survivors of abuse.
Dingell said she left the meeting with some practical ideas for how she can take action at the federal level, including pushing for more funding.
She said it also seems apparent that more needs to be done in terms of training in schools to sensitize teachers and counselors to the presence of abuse in families, and to make sure teenagers know they should never accept abuse.
The SafeHouse staff also spoke of the need for an expansion of community mental health services, and the need to get rid of the stigma around mental illness.
A shortage of affordable housing in the area was identified as another issue, as the ability to have a place to live is essential for escaping domestic violence.
"For many, the reality is that they're low-income women, and the only place they have to live is affordable housing," Dingell said.
Dingell said the SafeHouse staff's perspective was helpful and she plans to talk more with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
"We sometimes get such tough federal regulations that we forget the human aspect and how things don't fit into cozy little boxes," she said.
"I'm going to go talk to HUD next week when I'm back about how can we address situations that need to have compassion, a heart and a soul."
The SafeHouse staff thanked Dingell for her work on the issue and for being a voice on behalf of survivors of abuse.
"Thank you for what you do," Dingell said, returning the praise. "You are the heroes. You are the ones on the front lines."
NRA fights Dingell measure to stop domestic abusers from getting guns
Washington — The National Rifle Association is opposing reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act this week over a gun-reform provision by Michigan Rep. Debbie Dingell that the NRA says "politicized" an otherwise noncontroversial bill.
Dingell’s measure aims to close the so-called "boyfriend" loophole by amending federal law to include convicted abusers of current or former dating partners among those prohibited from purchasing or owning firearms.
Those convicted of domestic abuse currently can lose their weapons only if their victim is their current or former spouse, or they have a child with the victim.
Dingell's provision also would prohibit firearm ownership by people convicted of misdemeanor stalking.
"What we're trying to do it close a loophole. Keep women safe," said Dingell, a Dearborn Democrat.
"It's not naming anybody who is innocent. If somebody can't get access to a gun, it's because they were convicted of stalking or abuse."
The NRA is urging lawmakers to oppose the bill, which is set for a Thursday vote in the Democratic-controlled U.S. House of Representatives.
It argues there are no “loopholes” for domestic violence or stalking, and that the legal system has sufficient tools to prohibit dangerous individuals from possessing firearms.
The group says it had not previously gotten involved in the debate over the Violence Against Women Act, first passed in 1994, because it didn't contain firearm provisions.
The NRA says "former dating partners" is a subjective term that could be abused. Some misdemeanor stalking offenses don't include violent or threatening behavior or even personal contact, it says.
"Anti-gun" politicians and the gun-control lobby added the firearm provisions to intentionally politicize the bill “as a smokescreen to push their gun-control agenda,” NRA spokeswoman Jennifer Baker said.
"The NRA opposes domestic violence and all violent crime, and spends millions of dollars teaching countless Americans how not to be a victim and how to safely use firearms for self-defense," Baker said in a statement.
"It’s appalling that the gun control lobby and anti-gun politicians are trivializing the serious issue of domestic violence."
The NRA contends that the gun-control lobby added the provision as a “poison pill," so Democrats can use the issue in campaigns to portray those who vote against it as favoring domestic violence.
Dingell, who last year co-founded the bipartisan Working Group to End Domestic Violence, said she doesn't view the measure as "poisoning" the vote.
"Why is it a poison pill? When you're in a domestic violence situation, the presence of the gun makes it five times more likely — 500 percent more likely — that someone will be killed," Dingell said, referring to data from the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
"If we are doing a Violence Against Women Act and we are trying to save lives, why would you not close a simple loophole?"
She first introduced her bill as a freshman lawmaker in 2015 and pushed to incorporate it into the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, which expired earlier this year and helps victims of domestic, dating and sexual violence.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minnesota, has sponsored a companion to Dingell's Zero Tolerance for Domestic Abusers Act in the Senate in recent sessions of Congress.
Asked about the bill's prospects in the Republican-controlled Senate, Klobuchar said she's had GOP senators tell her in the past that they would not put their names on her bill but would vote for it.
"That's who we're going to be focusing on," said Klobuchar, who is now running for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Supporters highlighted crime data to make their case.
More than half of all female homicide victims are killed by a current or former "intimate partner," according to a 2017 study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that defined "intimate partner" as a current or former spouse or boyfriend.
"Women are as likely to be killed by dating partners than by spouses," said Debbie Weir of the group Every Town for Gun Safety.
Also, 76 percent of women killed by an intimate partner experienced stalking in the year prior to the murder, according to a 1999 study.
"We're not trying to take the guns away," Dingell said of herself and Klobuchar. "We both believe and respect the Second Amendment."
Gun reform is among the few issues on which she disagreed with her late husband, Rep. John Dingell Jr., who died in February at age 92. John Dingell, whose seat Debbie won in 2014, used to sit on the NRA board.
She has pushed for stricter firearm restrictions for domestic abusers in part because the issue is personal.
She tells the story of living with her father, who was mentally ill, and a terrifying night as an eighth grader when he wielded a gun and threatened to shoot her mother.
Dingell has said she intervened and tried to grab the weapon, then locked herself and her siblings in a bedroom to try to hide.
"I was sure I was going to die that night," she said. "I know that fear. I know that terror, and I just want to save another family from going through that."
NRA opposes Democrats expansion of Violence Against Women Act
April 3 (UPI) — Democrats are seeking to expand the Violence Against Women Act to close the so-called boyfriend loophole amid opposition from the National Rifle Association.
As Congress prepares to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, Rep. Debbie Dingell, D-Mich., drafted a provision to be added to the 1994 law that would strip stalkers, current or former boyfriends or dating partners convicted of domestic abuse of their firearms.
“Domestic abusers are prohibited from buying or owning a firearm if they’ve ever been married to the victim, lived together or had a child together, but a dangerous ex-boyfriend or a dating partner, there’s nothing to stop them,” Dingell said.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., said women are just as likely to be killed by dating partners as by spouses.
“Dangerous boyfriends can be just as dangerous as dangerous husbands. They hit just as hard and they fire their guns with the same deadly force,” she said.
The NRA has said it will “score” the vote to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, tracking and publishing how lawmakers vote.
NRA spokeswoman Jennifer Baker told the New York Times that the offenses that could qualify as domestic abuse are “too broad and ripe for abuse” to extend the provision to stalkers, boyfriends and dating partners.
“Like if you were sending harassing messages to somebody on Facebook, to somebody you never met or somebody you dated five years ago… how it’s written right now, you could be convicted for a misdemeanor stalking offense for a tweet that causes someone emotional distress and then you would be prohibited from owning a firearm,” she said.
The NRA said it supports the Violence Against Women Act without the proposed changes.
Rep. Steven Horsford, D-Nevada, believes the NRA’s stance ignores the victims of domestic violence.
“They’re more interested with protecting the profits of gun manufacturers than they are with protecting the safety of women,” he said.
House Democrats launch push on VAWA expansion
The effort does more than extend the law — it adds a contentious gun control provision
House Democrats take their first step this week to expand the Violence Against Women Act in an effort to prompt the Senate to do more than simply extend the lapsed domestic violence law — and they’ve included a contentious gun control provision.
The House is expected to pass the bill to reauthorize the 1994 law and add language to expand housing protections for victims, give more help to Native American women and enhance law enforcement tools through grants.
It would also expand the category of who could lose the right to possess guns under the law, adding those convicted of dating violence or misdemeanor stalking to close the so-called “boyfriend loophole.”
That gun provision could become a focus of the debate, since the National Rifle Association reportedly will score the votes on the bill, and it is among the changes that make it unlikely the Republican-controlled Senate would go along with the House version.
But several Democrats argued that passing their version, which they touted as a life-saving measure, would solidify their preferences ahead of any conference committee if the Senate decides to pass its own version.
So far, the Senate has made efforts to reauthorize the law through the end of the fiscal year, most recently as part of a disaster aid bill that fell short of the votes needed Monday on a procedural motion. Iowa Republican Sen. Joni Ernst is working with California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein on a Senate proposal, but said last week that the text is still being negotiated.
“Our calculation was that we’re in charge now, we can pass a bill that we think is a comprehensive bill to protect all women,” House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland told reporters Tuesday. “I’m hopeful that the Senate will take it up … or ask to go to conference on it. But we need to reauthorize it.”
Speaker Nancy Pelosi set the stage for this week’s debate and floor vote in February, when she did not agree to a short-term extension of VAWA in a fiscal 2019 spending bill. A leadership aide said agreeing to a short-term extension would reduce the incentive for the Senate to negotiate with the House on a broader reauthorization.
Pelosi said Thursday that opposition from the NRA would not jeopardize the bill in the House.
“There’s very discrete provisions that relate to protecting women’s safety. And they’re against it,” Pelosi said. “I don’t see that it has much impact on the passage of the bill in the House of Representatives.”
When the VAWA extension was excluded from the final fiscal 2019 spending package, a senior Democratic aide said it would have “zero impact” because the grant programs related to the law were funded in the Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill contained in the package.
Rep. Tom Cole said Tuesday that there are some changes that Republicans would accept, such as the Native American tribal provisions, and he would vote for it. But he said the gun measure is something Republicans generally wouldn’t support and Democrats need to be willing “to sit down with the Senate and the president.”
“You’re taking something that should be an easy bipartisan reauthorization of existing law and complicating it to make a political point,” the Oklahoma Republican said. “You’re certainly free to do that, but in the meantime, you should have at least extended it through the fiscal year so that you can make whatever point and then sit down and negotiate.”
Rep. Debbie Dingell, when asked about legislative strategy and the gun provision, said that “sometimes things are as simple as they should be.”
“If we’re truly trying to protect women, then how can you not put that in there?” the Michigan Democrat said.
A rule approved Tuesday provides for debate on 40 amendments to the bill, which would reauthorize the law through fiscal 2024. A vote on final passage is expected Thursday.
Colorado Sheriff Steve Reams Opposes 'Red Flag' Gun Law
Former vice president Joe Biden promised on Wednesday to adjust his physical behavior toward women, an effort to quell controversy over whether his intimate style is appropriate in the era of the #MeToo movement.
Biden addressed critics in a video posted to Twitter as three additional women told The Washington Post on Wednesday about encounters with him that made them feel uncomfortable. Their stories bring the total number of people who have expressed concerns about alleged interactions with Biden to seven. Other women defended Biden, who has been seen by many women as an advocate for them.
The new accounts, emerging just weeks before Biden, 76, is expected to announce his decision about a White House bid, reflected a feeling among some women that Biden was struggling to understand why his behavior might at times be inappropriate or unwelcome. In a party energized by millennials, women and people of color, Biden has faced criticism over a host of positions and decisions from his nearly five decades in public life, including his handling of Anita Hill’s testimony during Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’s confirmation hearing.
Even on Wednesday, as Biden acknowledged shifting social norms and promised to be “more respectful of people’s personal space,” he defended his style of interacting and did not offer an apology.
“I’ll be much more mindful. That is my responsibility, my responsibility, and I’ll meet it. But I’ll always believe governing, quite frankly, and life, for that matter, is about connecting, about connecting with people. That won’t change,” Biden said in the video.
Three women told The Post that Biden’s behavior toward them made them feel uncomfortable and said Biden’s comments Wednesday didn’t fully address their concerns.
Vail Kohnert-Yount said she was a White House intern in the spring of 2013 and one day tried to exit the basement of the West Wing when she was asked to step aside so Biden could enter. After she moved out of the way, she said, Biden approached her to introduce himself and shake her hand.
“He then put his hand on the back of my head and pressed his forehead to my forehead while he talked to me. I was so shocked that it was hard to focus on what he was saying. I remember he told me I was a ‘pretty girl,’ ” Kohnert-Yount said in a statement to The Post.
She described feeling uncomfortable and embarrassed that Biden had commented on her appearance in a professional setting, “even though it was intended as a compliment.”
“I do not consider my experience to have been sexual assault or harassment,” she stated, adding that she believes Biden’s intentions were good. “But it was the kind of inappropriate behavior that makes many women feel uncomfortable and unequal in the workplace.”
In response to Biden’s video, Kohnert-Yount emailed: “I appreciate his attempt to do better in the future, but to me this is not mainly about whether Joe Biden has adequate respect for personal space. It’s about women deserving equal respect in the workplace.”
The allegations have dominated coverage of Biden since last week. President Trump, who has denied multiple allegations of sexual misconduct, on Wednesday said Biden should not apologize for his behavior, even as a pro-Trump super PAC circulated an online ad casting Biden’s interactions with women and girls in a negative light.
Biden’s video comes as he and his advisers have been laying the groundwork for a presidential campaign. He has been expected to make an announcement by late April, and in recent days his advisers have been calling allies to assure them that the latest controversy would not knock him out of a run. Advisers said that they viewed Biden’s video as a strong and forceful response and that it has not derailed his decision.
The reexamination of Biden’s behavior toward women began last week after a former Nevada legislator, Lucy Flores, wrote that she felt uncomfortable after Biden allegedly held her shoulders, smelled her hair and kissed her head in 2014.
In the wake of the allegations, multiple women came forward to defend Biden, including former staffers, MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski and actress and #MeToo advocate Alyssa Milano. Several noted Biden’s record on issues concerning women; as a senator from Delaware, he led efforts to pass the Violence Against Women Act, and as vice president, he was the Obama administration’s point person on efforts to end sexual assaults against women on college campuses.
The Democratic mayor of Atlanta, Keisha Lance Bottoms, on Wednesday evening tweeted a photo of herself and Biden standing forehead to forehead.
“Everyone’s experience is their own. As for mine, I found my introduction and interaction with @JoeBiden to be genuine and endearing,” she wrote.
Six other women have shared stories similar to Flores’s. D.J. Hill and Caitlyn Caruso told the New York Times on Tuesday that Biden had made them feel uncomfortable during encounters with him.
Hill, 59, a writer who said she became uncomfortable when Biden placed his hand on her shoulder and then began dropping it down her back at a 2012 fundraising event in Minneapolis, appeared Wednesday on “Fox News @ Night.” She told host Shannon Bream that she hoped this was a moment of “realization and self-awareness” for the former vice president.
“It’s one thing to say it,” she said, referring to Biden’s statement Wednesday on Twitter. “It’s another thing to show actions that you’re moving toward what you say this self-realization is about.”
Calling for a zero-tolerance policy on invading personal space, she also defended herself and other women who have come forward to detail unpleasant experiences with Biden.
“Anyone that calls into question these women’s behavior doesn’t understand that there is no upside for them,” she said, noting that she hadn’t slept in 24 hours. “We do it because we’re patriots and we believe in our country, but we also want to see a cultural change.”
A spokesman for Biden declined to comment on any specific allegations and referred The Post to the video posted to Twitter earlier in the day.
The most recent encounter described to The Post took place in 2016.
Sofie Karasek was part of a group of 51 sexual assault victims who appeared onstage at the Oscars with Lady Gaga that year; Biden had introduced the singer’s performance.
Karasek said as she met Biden after the ceremony, she was thinking about a college student who had been sexually assaulted and recently died by suicide. She decided to share the story with the then-vice president, and Biden responded by clasping her hands and leaning down to place his forehead against hers, a moment captured in a widely circulated photograph.
Karasek said she appreciated Biden’s support but also felt awkward and uncomfortable that his gesture had left their faces suddenly inches apart. She said she did not know how to respond to, as she described it, Biden crossing the boundary into her personal space at a sensitive moment.
Someone printed her the photo of that moment, which Karasek framed and put on a shelf, but later took it down as the #MeToo movement began drawing more attention to cases of sexual harassment, assault and unwanted touching.
She said Biden, in the video, “still didn’t take ownership in the way that he needs to.”
“He emphasized that he wants to connect with people and, of course, that’s important. But again, all of our interactions and friendships are a two-way street. . . . Too often it doesn’t matter how the woman feels about it or they just assume that they’re fine with it,” she said.
The third woman to speak with The Post recalled meeting Biden for the first time during the 2008 election cycle.
Ally Coll said she was a young Democratic staffer helping run a reception of about 50 people when Biden entered the room. She said she was then introduced to Biden, who she said leaned in, squeezed her shoulders and delivered a compliment about her smile, holding her “for a beat too long.”
Coll, who runs the Purple Campaign, a nonprofit group that fights sexual harassment, said she felt nervous and excited about meeting Biden at the time and shrugged off feelings of discomfort. She says now that she felt his alleged behavior was out of place and inappropriate in the context of a work situation.
“There’s been a lack of understanding about the way that power can turn something that might seem innocuous into something that can make somebody feel uncomfortable,” said Coll, who consults with companies about their workplace policies.
Coll said Biden’s video demonstrated “a continued lack of understanding about why these stories are being told and their relevance in the #MeToo era.”
People who have observed or interacted with Biden said pulling people toward him to touch foreheads is a common gesture he employs with men and women.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), the country’s highest ranking Democrat and female political leader, said this week that the allegations against Biden are not disqualifying but that he should learn to avoid such intimate physical behavior in political settings.
“I think that it’s important for the vice president and others to understand that it isn’t what you intended; it’s how it was received,” Pelosi said at Tuesday morning at an event in Washington.
The speaker also challenged Biden’s response to the controversy on Sunday, when he stated that he never intended to act inappropriately but “if it is suggested I did so, I will listen respectfully.”
“To say, ‘I’m sorry that you were offended’ is not an apology,” Pelosi said. “That’s not accepting the fact that people think differently about communication, whether it’s a handshake, a hug. . . . He has to understand in the world that we’re in now that people’s space is important to them, and what’s important is how they receive it, not necessarily how you intended it.”
Aaron Ruper Tweet, RE: Congresswoman Deb Dingell - VAWA Gun Bill
RepDebDingell -- speaking on behalf of Violence Against Women Act reauthorization -- urges members to not let the NRA bully you, Republicans shout her down. You know what? You can't shout down a woman! she says.
Dingell shouted down, but House passes domestic violence bill
Washington — In an unusual display, several Republican lawmakers shouted down Michigan Rep. Debbie Dingell on Thursday as she spoke on the House floor about reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act.
The National Rifle Association had urged lawmakers to vote against the bill over a gun-reform provision by Dingell to include convicted stalkers and convicted abusers of current or former dating partners among those prohibited from purchasing or owning firearms.
"Do not let the NRA bully you!" Dingell said, directing her remarks to the GOP side of the chamber and raising the memory of her husband, former Rep. John Dingell Jr., who died in February.
"Don't forget who I was married to. John Dingell was on the NRA board. Hell, he helped start it.
"All this does — we are not taking away due process. All we are saying is if someone has been convicted (of abusing) an intimate partner, then they would not have access to a gun. If someone has been convicted of stalking. I would say to all of you —"
As the Dearborn Democrat spoke, a rising chorus of male members on the GOP side shouted that Dingell's time to speak was up, interrupting the remainder of her remarks.
Her allotted time had expired, but Dingell kept trying to speak over the warnings of the chair.
"You know what? You can't shout down a woman," Dingell retorted.
She was speaking against a Republican procedural motion to substitute the underlying legislation with an extension of the current Violence Against Women Act, excluding Dingell's provision and other updates.
Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-New York, contended that only a "clean" extension of the law would pass muster in the Republican-controlled Senate.
"This extension gives Republicans and Democrats time to work together to pass a truly bipartisan, long-term reauthorization of VAWA just like Congress has done many times before," Stefanik said.
The Democrats' legislation "politicizes" VAWA and "could put women, girls and children at potential risk in the future," she said.
"Voting no on this motion to recommit means you are voting to end the Violence Against Women Act, and instead knowingly voting for a partisan bill that will never see the light of day in the Senate," Stefanik said to her colleagues' applause.
"It will collect dust in the Senate," she added.
But Dingell argued the GOP extension was too short, "incomplete" and threatened to undermine the statute, noting it left out rape-testing funds and anti-child abuse training.
The House ultimately rejected the Republican motion and voted 263-158 to pass the reauthorization including Dingell's measure, with 33 Republicans joining Democrats in support.
Before she was shouted down, Dingell delivered an emotional speech on the House floor referring to her own experience with domestic violence growing up.
"I remember what it was like when you called the police and they didn't come because your father was an important man in town. I remember what it was like when someone on our college campus was raped, and the police came to them and said, 'It's your fault,' and would do nothing," Dingell said.
"And I don't want anyone in this House to forget that Michigan State University was only brought to the forefront last year when hundreds of victims tried to tell people something was happening, and nobody would listen. We cannot go back to those days."
Dingell said after the vote that she would fight to pass the legislation in the Senate.
"I was in the moment. And in case you couldn't tell, I spoke from my heart," she said.
Rep. Jack Bergman, R-Watersmeet, agreed with Stefanik, saying Democrats had "sabotaged" the reauthorization.
"Preventing domestic violence and sexual assault against women should never be politicized," Bergman said in a statement.
"I’m disappointed that instead of a clean authorization bill, Democratic leadership chose to add provisions to this bill that would deny due process and fail to offer necessary protections to victims of domestic violence."
Rep. Fred Upton of St. Joseph was the only Michigan Republican to vote for the bill.
"The big change here is that folks that are convicted or plead guilty to stalking, domestic assault, you know, a number of different things are viewed is not law abiding and, therefore, they lose that right" to firearms. I don't have a problem with that," said Upton, who also supports universal background checks.
"There are a lot of crimes committed against the most vulnerable women by stalkers and others, and it just breaks your heart. We've got to make sure to, legally, give them protections that they need."
Violence Against Women Act clears House
Measure includes firearms restrictions and expansion of transgender rights
The House voted Thursday to renew the lapsed Violence Against Women Act, but the proposal stoked contention over provisions restricting gun rights and expanding rights for transgender individuals.
Lawmakers voted 263-158 to pass the measure, which highlighted divisions within the Republican caucus. While the bill does have one Republican co-sponsor, Pennsylvania’s Brian Fitzpatrick, other House Republicans objected to new provisions included in the VAWA reauthorization measure. In all, 33 Republicans voted for the measure, and one, Jeff Fortenberry of Nebraska, voted present.
The most contentious provision would lower the criminal threshold to bar someone from buying a gun to include misdemeanor convictions of domestic abuse of stalking. The law currently applies to felony convictions.
“It is not the time to hold the safety of women as a bargaining chip against infringements on religious liberty or weakening of the Second Amendment,” said Rep. Carol Miller, R-W.Va. on the floor Wednesday.
The bill would also close the so-called “boyfriend loophole” to expand gun prohibitions to include dating partners convicted of abuse or stalking charges.
“Why would you not close a simple loophole that says if someone has been convicted — convicted, not accused! — convicted of domestic violence, that they not have access to a gun,” said Rep. Debbie Dingell, D-Mich. She has shared her experiences of growing up with an abusive father who owned a gun.
“I know that fear, I know that terror — and I just want to save another family from that terror,” Rep. Dingell said.
The firearms provisions led the National Rifle Association to weigh in on the measure and “score” how lawmakers voted on the bill, which will impact NRA ratings that are often touted during elections.
“Do not let the NRA bully you,” Dingell told her House colleagues Thursday ahead of the vote on VAWA, referencing her late husband. “John Dingell was on the NRA board — hell — he helped start it,” she said.
House Republicans shouted Dingell down on the floor as her time expired.
Fitzpatrick, despite his colleagues and the NRA’s opposition to the measure, was not swayed.
“From domestic violence and sexual assault to cyberstalking, we must do more to prevent violence and, when it does happen, to support victims and bring perpetrators to justice,” the former FBI agent said.
The bill included text from a separate measure he previously introduced that would increase penalties for cyberstalking, specifically of children. Fitzpatrick’s yea vote was not alone on the Republican side of the aisle.
Oklahoma’s Tom Cole also voted in favor of the measure, in part due to provisions focused on Native American tribal justice jurisdiction. Four out of five Native American women experience violence in their lives, according to a report by the National Congress of American Indians.
Lawmakers adopted two amendments from freshman Democrat Deb Haaland of New Mexico related to Native American populations, including one to facilitate information sharing of criminal database information between federal, state and tribal authorities. Haaland made history as the first Native American woman elected to the House, and she teamed up with Republicans Don Young of Alaska and Paul Cook of California to propose the criminal database change.
Transgender rights issues also emerged during debate over VAWA in committee and in the House chamber this week.
In committee, Rep. Debbie Lesko, R-Ariz., an abuse survivor herself, tried to strip provisions in the measure that would allow transgender women to serve in prisons that align with their gender identity and access womens’ shelters.
Lesko and other Republicans want those access and sentencing guidelines to continue to correspond with biological sex assigned at birth. Lesko voted against the final bill Thursday.
Rep. Tom Reed, R-N.Y., said he opposed the gun provisions specifically, but said he wanted to “be part of the effort to get this to the Senate and get it back and get this over with once and for all.”
He noted he was not opposed to the transgender rights proposals included on the bill.
“As I’ve voted on the LGBT issues consistently, and did last week, one of the five of us on our side, I’m very comfortable with those provisions. Discrimination is discrimination. So I’m not concerned about it. I know other members are,” he said.
Reed was among the five Republicans to buck the party line last week and vote in favor of a non-binding resolution opposing the president’s ban on transgender service members in the military.
Fortenberry was the only lawmaker to vote ‘present’ and told Roll Call that he would have preferred more bipartisan cooperation on the measure.
“I voted present because I reject the premise that Congressional dynamics prevented us from partnering on such an essential issue as The Violence Against Women Act. I refused to support a bad no vote; I refused to support a bad yes vote,” Fortenberry said in a statement.
The VAWA proposal includes additional expansions, including making it a federal crime for a federal law enforcement officer to have sex while in the course of their official duties, regardless of whether it is consensual or not. Lawmakers adopted an amendment that would expand the National Domestic Violence Hotline to include texting features.
Rep. Karen Bass, the bill’s primary sponsor, said changes were needed to the 2013 reauthorization of the law and that a simple reauthorization without expansion wasn’t the answer.
“Movements like #MeToo across this country demand Congress’ attention to better deal with the gaping holes left unfilled in current law around the issues of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, harassment, and stalking,” she said.
The 1994 law to protect victims of domestic and sexual violence lapsed during the partial government shutdown last year, but was reinstated in the January short-term fiscal 2019 spending deal.
An extension was not included in the deal that provided for spending through the end of fiscal 2019. While the law is expired, Congress will continue to fund the bill’s programs through the annual appropriations process. According to a Congressional Budget Office report released tis week, the updated VAWA authorized approximately $1 billion annually over a renewal period through 2024.
The Senate will is not expected to take up the House-passed VAWA measure. Sens. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., are working on a Senate proposal.
“We are still working on the text,” Ernst said in a brief interview. She said that the Senate version will probably diverge from the House on the gun provisions.
Reed said he’d like to see a Senate VAWA without the gun issues come to the House floor.
“I dare [Speaker Nancy Pelosi] not to put up the Violence Against Women Act when it comes out of the Senate without this gun issue. Then it will show the real colors,” he said Wednesday.
House passes reauthorization of Violence Against Women Act
The House voted Thursday to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, but the bill faces an unlikely future in the Senate where negotiators are working on their own version.
The vote was 263-158, with 33 Republicans joining Democrats to pass it.
The law lapsed earlier this year after Democrats declined to extend it, wanting to pass their own reauthorization for another five years instead. VAWA programs, though, are technically still being funded.
Republicans objected to the bill Thursday for several reasons, including the inclusion of protections for transgender people and a provision that would prohibit those convicted of certain misdemeanor charges from purchasing firearms.
While the existing law already has protections for transgender individuals in shelters and housing, the new bill would add protections in prisons, allowing transgender individuals to stay in facilities for the gender with which they identify.
Republicans spent time on the House floor objecting to both the existing and new protections, pointing repeatedly to a case last year in California where women alleged a transgender resident sexually harassed them at a women’s shelter. Democrats disputed facts in the case and argued there was by and large no evidence that transgender residents cause problems at women’s shelters.
Republicans also took issue with the bill’s lifetime ban on individuals convicted of misdemeanor charges of stalking or domestic abuse on purchasing firearms – language that has strong pushback from the National Rifle Association, which views it as an attempt by Democrats to advance their gun control agenda.
In response, Democrats argue they’re trying to close a loophole in current gun laws.
“If you are against taking guns away from perpetrators, if you are for stripping the provisions that protect the most vulnerable women within our communities, then you have joined that group of people who want to silence … victims,” Rep. Gwen Moore, a Wisconsin Democrat, said at a news conference after the bill passed.
GOP lawmakers also argue the bill limits law enforcement tools to investigate and prosecute domestic violence, and that it promotes a type of mediation that could put the victim and abuser in close proximity.
Both sides accused each other of playing politics with the bill and the sensitive issue of domestic abuse. Shortly before it was passed, Republicans made a last-minute motion to pass another clean extension of VAWA, but their motion was defeated.
“Ending violence against women and protecting women and children should not be a partisan issue. But unfortunately, Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats have made it a partisan issue. They have refused to work with Republicans in a meaningful way,” said Republican Rep. Elise Stefanik of New York, who added the House bill will do nothing but “collect dust” in the GOP-controlled Senate.
On the Senate side, Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Republican Sen. Joni Ernst are working on a Senate version that aims to be more bipartisan.
House votes to reauthorize Violence Against Women Act, close boyfriend loophole
April 4 (UPI) — The House on Thursday voted to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act with added measures to close the so-called “boyfriend loophole.”
The chamber voted 263-158 in favor of the reauthorization, with 33 Republicans joining Democrats in support. One Democrat voted against it and one Republican voted present.
The 1994 law protects women from violent crimes, particularly domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking. It expired on Feb. 15 after the end of a short-term spending bill passed Jan. 25.
Democrats added new measures to the legislation seeking to provide stronger protections, notably closing what some called the “boyfriend loophole.” Rep. Debbie Dingell, D-Mich., drafted a provision that would strip stalkers, current or former boyfriends or dating partners convicted of domestic abuse of their firearms.
“Domestic abusers are prohibited from buying or owning a firearm if they’ve ever been married to the victim, lived together or had a child together, but a dangerous ex-boyfriend or a dating partner, there’s nothing to stop them,” Dingell said Wednesday.
Republicans opposed another new provision in the law, which bans people from buying a gun if they have a misdemeanor conviction of domestic abuse or stalking. The previous version of the act included only felony convictions.
The National Rifle Association opposed the expansion of the act, saying that the offenses that could qualify as domestic abuse are “too broad and ripe for abuse” to extend the provision to stalkers, boyfriends and dating partners.
The NRA said it supported the Violence Against Women Act without the proposed changes.
The Senate has not voted on a reauthorization of the act.
Joe Biden makes joking reference to controversy over touching women
Former vice president Joe Biden on Friday morning twice made jokes about the recent criticisms of his physical behavior toward women, prompting fresh upset among two who had previously complained about him, and yet another attempt by him to insist that he was taking the matter seriously.
Biden began his remarks before a ballroom of union workers in Washington by making light of the statements by at least seven women that he had made them uncomfortable with his close contact.
After entering the stage to a Bruce Springsteen song — “We Take Care of Our Own” — and an introduction from International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers President Lonnie Stephenson, Biden looked out at the audience and smiled about their interaction.
“I just want you to know,” he said. “I had permission to hug Lonnie.”
The crowd of mostly white men inside the Washington Hilton laughed and applauded.
Later, partway through his speech, Biden spotted a quartet of children walking through the middle of the ballroom and invited them onto the stage. He shook each of their hands; then he put his arm around one of the young boys.
“By the way, he gave me permission to touch him,” he joked again. It did not appear that Biden and the boy exchanged words beforehand.
The labor event marked Biden’s first public appearance since the seven women went public, in various forums, about their uneasiness with Biden’s conduct. Biden recorded a video on Wednesday saying that he would work on his demeanor.
Throughout his nearly five decades in public life, Biden has indulged a personal style in which he regularly dispenses hugs, holds hands, and presses his forehead against someone else’s. But in the era of #MeToo, those interactions have been cast in a new light.
A former Nevada state legislator, Lucy Flores, wrote last Friday that she felt uncomfortable during an encounter with Biden in 2014 in which he held her shoulders, smelled her hair, and kissed her head. At least six other women later came forward with similar accounts, as others have written about their own more positive experiences with Biden.
On Friday afternoon, after Biden’s joking remarks, Flores responded to Biden on Twitter.
“It’s clear @JoeBiden hasn’t reflected at all on how his inappropriate and unsolicited touching made women feel uncomfortable,” she wrote. “To make light of something as serious as consent degrades the conversation women everywhere are courageously trying to have.”
Amy Lappos, a woman from Connecticut who recounted earlier in the week an instance in which Biden rubbed noses with her, also found his response troubling.
“Biden’s consent joke is a clear indication Biden doesn’t get it and doesn’t take the voice of the women who have come forward seriously,” she told The Washington Post. “A man who jokes about consent isn’t on the right side of women’s issues. This was also a joke about consent from a child, which adds a new level of creepy and gross.”
Minutes after his labor speech ended, Biden addressed reporters outside the hotel.
“It was not my intent to make light of anyone’s discomfort,” he said. “I realize my responsibility is to not invade the space of anyone who is uncomfortable in that regard. And I hope it wasn’t taken that way.
“I literally think it is incumbent upon me, I think everybody else, to make sure that if you embrace someone, if you touch someone, it’s with their consent — regardless of your intentions, if you’re trying to bring solace, if you’re trying to welcome them. And it’s my responsibility to do that.”
He said he wouldn’t be surprised if more women came forward. But asked whether he owed the women an apology, he avoided a direct answer.
“Well, look, I — the fact of the matter is I made it clear that if I made anyone feel comfortable, I feel badly about that. That was never my intention. Ever. Ever. Ever.”
When reporters said that some of the women had said they just want to hear that he is sorry and acknowledges his fault, he declined to do so.
“I’m sorry I didn’t understand more,” he said. “I’m not sorry for any of my intentions. I’m not sorry for anything that I have ever done. I have never been disrespectful intentionally to a man or a woman. You know, that’s not the reputation I had since I was in high school for God’s sake.”
Biden is widely expected to enter the presidential race, with some aides forecasting an announcement by the end of this month. He was captured Thursday in a photo outside his childhood home in Scranton, Pa., one indication that he could be preparing a video to announce his campaign.
Biden all but announced he would be running while speaking with reporters.
“I’m told by the lawyers that I’ve got to be careful what I say so that I don’t start a clock ticking and change my status,” he said. “But it is — I am very close to making a decision to stand before you all relatively soon.”
Asked about the delay, he said, “What’s the holdup? Putting everything together, man. Putting everything together.”
He also said that, strategically, he always wanted to be the last person to get into the race.
“Give everybody else their day; then I get a shot, and then we’re off to the races,” he said.
Asked whether the party had moved too left for him, Biden said, “We’ll find out whether I can win in a primary.”
President Trump has relished Biden’s struggles. Despite being accused by more than a dozen women of sexual misconduct, Trump taunted Biden on Thursday by tweeting a doctored video of the former vice president.
“I see that you are on the job and presidential, as always,” Biden responded on Twitter.
Trump has repeatedly denied charges of misconduct that stretches back decades. In a 2005 tape from “Access Hollywood,” which The Post obtained in October 2016, Trump was captured saying that he could “grab” women by their genitals. “When you’re a star, they let you do it,” he said. “You can do anything.”
“I think I’m a very good messenger, and people got a kick out of it,” Trump said of Biden to reporters on Friday. “He’s going through a situation; let’s see what happens. But people got a kick . . . we gotta sort of smile a little bit, right?”
The scrutiny of Biden’s past behavior in a new light is only one of the challenges he may face if he enters the presidential race. Since Biden last ran for president on his own in 2008, the Democratic Party has shifted dramatically in recent years, with much of the energy being guided by millennials, women and people of color.
Biden has tried to answer for some of those past positions — including his handling of Anita Hill’s testimony during Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’s confirmation hearing — but many activists believe he has not gone far enough.
Latest 'Creepy Uncle Joe' accuser says viral forehead-to-forehead moment at the Oscars was 'unwelcome, uncomfortable and strange'
⦁Vail Kohnert-Yount, Sofie Karasek and Ally Coll came forward Wednesday claiming Joe Biden touched them inappropriately
⦁It brings the total number of women who have spoken out publicly in recent days to seven
⦁Karasek wrote in an op-ed that a viral photographed forehead-to-forehead moment was unwelcome
⦁Just hours before the latest allegations surfaced, Biden promised to be 'much more mindful' of respecting personal space
⦁He acknowledged in a video that his tendency toward physical displays of affection and encouragement has made some women uncomfortable
A woman who accused Joe Biden of inappropriately touching her in 2016 says the former vice president's handsy moment was 'unwelcome, uncomfortable and strange.'
In a Washington Post op-ed published Thursday night, Sofie Karasek recalls the encounter backstage at the Oscars as she stood with dozens of other sexual assault survivors in the wake of a rape victim's suicide.
Biden, who now appears to be preparing a presidential campaign launch at age 76, introduced a performance that night dedicated to the Alabama college student, Megan Rondini. After the broadcast, Karasek recalls, she told him Rondini's story while they stood in the theatre.
'In response, he leaned down, took my hands and put his forehead to mine,' she writes, describing a snapshot in time memorialized in a real snapshot that webt viral.
'I was taken aback. I averted my eyes, hoping my body language could shorten the interaction. I didn’t think he was going to kiss me, but it felt like if I met his eyes, it wasn’t out of the question, either,' she writes. 'It was unwelcome, uncomfortable and strange.'
Three more women, including Sofie Karasek, came forward Wednesday saying Joe Biden had made them uncomfortable with inappropriate touching. Karasek said Biden pressed his forehead against hers at the 2016 Oscars (pictured above in a moment that has been widely shared) after she took to the stage as a sexual assault survivor.
Ally Coll (left) claims Biden squeezed her shoulders and held her for 'for a beat too long' at a 2008 election event where she was working as a Democratic staffer. Vail Kohnert-Yount (right) claimed Biden pushed their foreheads together when she was White House intern in 2013
A series of frank reports in recent weeks have upended Biden's image as a folksy, straight-shooting public servant. He promised in a video message this week that he would be 'much more mindful' of respecting women's personal space.
Karasek is one of three women who came forward just hours later to say Biden's unwelcome touch made them uncomfortable. Along with Vail Kohnert-Yount and Ally Coll, her story brings the number who have spoken publicy to seven.
Kohnert-Yount, said she met Biden when she was a White House intern back in 2013.
She said they shook hands before Biden allegedly put his hand on the back of her head and pressed their foreheads together as they spoke.
'I was so shocked that it was hard to focus on what he was saying. I remember he told me I was a 'pretty girl',' Kohnert-Yount said.
She went on to say that believed Biden's intentions were good 'but it was the kind of inappropriate behavior that makes many women feel uncomfortable and unequal in the workplace'.
Coll, the third woman, said she met Biden at a 2008 election event when she was working as a Democratic staffer.
She said Biden squeezed her shoulders and held her for 'for a beat too long'.
Coll, who now works for a non-profit that fights sexual harassment, said she brushed off feelings of discomfort at the time because she was nervous and excited to meet him.
'There's been a lack of understanding about the way that power can turn something that might seem innocuous into something that can make somebody feel uncomfortable,' she said.
None of the women who have come forward have accused Biden of sexual harassment. Rather, they've described behavior that made them feel uncomfortable because it invaded their personal space, regardless of his intentions.
Their stories were made public soon after Biden released a two-minute video addressing the claims of inappropriate touching years ago.
'I want to talk about gestures of support and encouragement that I've made to some women and some men and I've made them uncomfortable,' he said in the video.
'I always try to be in my career, always tried to make a human connection. That's my responsibility, I think. I shake hands, I hug people. I grab men and women by the shoulders and say you can do this, whether they're women, men, young, old.
'It's the way I've always been and tried to show that I care about them and I'm listening.
In his video, Biden referred to his wife Neilia and daughter Naomi being killed in a car crash in December 1972 shortly after he was first elected to the Senate. His sons Beau and Hunter survived, but Beau died in May 2015 of brain cancer.
'Over the years knowing I've been through the things that I've faced, I found that scores, if not hundreds, of people have come up to me and reached out for solace and comfort. Something, anything that may help them get through the tragedy they're going through. So it's just who I am,' Biden said.
The longtime Democratic senator from Delaware said he has 'never thought of politics as cold and antiseptic'.
'Now, it is all about taking selfies together. Social norms begin to change and they've shifted and the boundaries of protecting personal space have been re-set and I get it. I get it. I hear what they're saying,' he said.
Biden promised to be more 'mindful and respectful' going forward.
'I understand it. And I'll be much more mindful. That is my responsibility. My responsibility and I'll meet it. But I'll always believe governing, quite frankly, and life for that matter is about connecting, about connecting with people. That won't change. I will be more mindful and respectful of people's personal space and that is a good thing. That is a good thing,' he said.
He concluded by addressing his history as an advocate for women.
'I worked my life empower women. I worked my whole life to prevent abuse. So the idea that I can't adjust to the fact the personal space is important – more important than it's ever been, is just not true. I will. I will,' he said.
His defense comes five days after his first accuser, former Nevada politician Lucy Flores, said she was 'mortified' when Biden planted a 'big, slow kiss' on the back of her head as she waited to take the stage at a campaign rally five years ago.
Amy Lappos told Connecticut's Hartford Courant newspaper about an incident at a 2009 political fundraiser which, she said, 'wasn't sexual, but he did grab me by the head.'
Caitlyn Caruso, 22, said she met Biden at an event devoted to sexual assault at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas, where she studied as an undergrad.
Caruso, who was 19 years old at the time, said that Biden placed his hand on her thigh while she squirmed in her seat to show how uncomfortable she was, according to The New York Times. She said Biden then gave her a hug and held it 'just a little bit too long'.
D.J. Hill, 59, met Biden at a fundraiser in Minneapolis in 2012 with her husband. The couple were posing for a photo with Biden when she claims he put his hand on her shoulder and began to run it down her back.
Biden came under criticism in 2015 for massaging the shoulders of Ash Carter's wife as her husband was sworn in as secretary of defense.
Photographs of that incident have circulated online so frequently that Stephanie Carter posted a column on Sunday saying Biden was merely 'a close friend helping someone get through a big day, for which I will always be grateful'.
President Donald Trump, who has been accused by multiple women of sexual misconduct (which he denies), was asked Wednesday whether Biden should apologize for the ways he has interacted with women. The president replied, 'No, he's going to make his own decisions. He's very capable of making a decision, I assume.'
A day earlier, Trump taunted Biden at a National Republican Congressional Committee fundraiser, saying, 'Our former vice president, I was going to call him. I don't know him well. I was gonna say, 'Welcome to the world, Joe. You having a good time, Joe?''
JOE BIDEN'S FULL STATEMENT:
In the coming month I expect to be talking to you about a whole lot of issues and I’ll always be direct with you but today I want to talk about gestures of support and encouragement that I have made to women and some men, and I've made them uncomfortable.
And I’m always trying to be, in my career, I have always tried to make a human connection. That’s my responsibility I think. I shake hands, I hug people, I grab men and women by the shoulders to say “You can do this.”
Whether they’re women, men, young, old, it’s the way I’ve always been and the way I’ve tried to show I care about them and I’m listening.
Over the years, knowing the things that I’ve been through and the things that I’ve faced I’ve found that scores, if not hundreds of people, come up to me, and reached out for solace and comfort, something, anything that may help them get through the tragedy they’re going through.
So, it’s just who I am.
And I’ve never thought of politics as a cold and antiseptic. I’ve always thought of it as about connecting people – as I’ve said, shaking hands, hands on the shoulder, a hug, encouragement.
And now, now, it’s all about taking selfies together.
You know social norms have begun to change, they’ve shifted, and the boundaries of protecting personal space have been reset.
I get it. I get it. I hear what they’re saying.
I understand it and I’ll be much more mindful. That’s my responsibility – my responsibility and I’ll meet it.
But I always believe, governing, quite frankly, life for that matter is about connecting, connecting with people.
That won’t change but I will be more mindful and respectful of people’s personal space and that’s a good thing – a good thing.
I’ve worked my whole life to empower women. I’ve worked my whole life to prevent abuse. I’ve written, err, err, and so the idea that I can’t adjust to the fact that personal space is important, more important than it’s ever been is just not there.
I will. I will.
House Democrats Pass Gun Ban for Former Boyfriends, Dating Partners
House Democrats passed a gun ban for former boyfriends, dating partners convicted of abuse and/or stalking.
The gun ban for boyfriends, dating partners is an expansion of the Violence Against Women Act. TIME magazine quoted Nancy Pelosi describing the new gun controls as “common-sense reforms that will save lives and that no one should object to.”
She added, “There should be nothing partisan or political about ending the scourge of domestic violence and sexual assault, which one in three women faces today.”
But Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) intimates that the addition of the gun ban was purely partisan. He noted that there was bipartisan support for renewing the Violence Against Women Act before it expired in February, renewing it in what was then its current form. However, he says, “Nancy Pelosi forced it to expire so she could use women as part of some political leverage.”
The end result was expanding gun bans for spouses and co-parents to cover former boyfriends and dating partners as well.
The Democrats couched the controls as an attempt to end the “boyfriend loophole.” This new loophole is addition to the “gun show loophole,” the “Charleston loophole,” and other loopholes the Democrats’ feverishly present as needed legislative attention.
“As flies to wanton boys, are we to the Gods; they kill us for their sport.” William Shakespeare
I am not a “snowflake.” I like to be touched, a lot. I am an affectionate person. However, I like to decide who touches me and when. I did not understand or have the words back then to describe how I felt, but only sensed power moves and body language that I did not like. There was not yet the framework as there is now.
I did not like Joe Biden’s hand on me not for the reasons you think, it is because I am the alpha in the room too. Again, I like to be the one who chooses who enters my space and in what way.
We are sexual beings and we are all trying to figure out how to express this aspect of ourselves at work and home lives, it is a journey our society is on right now. But this is not only a story about sexual misconduct; it is a story about abuse of power. It is a story about when a member of Congress allows staff to threaten or belittle or bully on their behalf unchecked to maintain power rather than modify the behavior.
I had been approached in college by a political science professor to apply for an internship in a Congressional Office. After working as an intern in Washington D.C., I caught the political operative bug and worked on campaigns. I applied at then, Senator Joseph Biden’s Office and I was interviewed on the phone, flew back to DC, and hired at the in-person interview, on the spot. Senator Biden walked past as I was being interviewed and prepared for orientation, he asked me a question then as he breezed out, said, “Hire her,” with a smile.
I was beyond excited, I packed up my Nissan and cats, told my boyfriend goodbye and headed alone on the cross country drive to Washington D.C. I arrived at a place affectionately referred to by locals as “the nunnery.” It was an all women’s boarding dorm across from the Congress. It was considered a safe place for parents to send their young women who were interning and working as staff on the hill. We ate in a common dining hall, had gym locker type bathroom/showers and no men were allowed upstairs after 8 pm. It was secure and safe. Little did the parents know who unwittingly sent their young college grads here that the real predators were some of the Members of the House and Senate. Remember, this is before Chandra Levy and Monica Lewinsky were part of our collective lexicon. This was a time in the 1990’s when discretion was still on the side of the young princes who held office and allowed them to pillage as they saw fit without the nasty consequences.
I met one of my best friends there who worked for Senator Ted Kennedy. We had snowball fights on snow days, concerts and dressy formals to attend, heartbreaks and work challenges. We had secrets and were privy to sensitive information. Our conversations revolved around current events, love interests and what bill had a chance of passing that congressional session.
One day, I got called into the office by my supervisor for reasons unknown. My stomach flipped over wondering what I had done wrong as I walked into the room. There were raised voices among the staff present.
I was told that Senator Biden wanted me to “serve drinks at an event with some donors ( all men) because he “liked my legs” and thought I was “pretty.” These “events” were often all older, wealthy males.
I was a former model and actress, so at the time such comments were of no consequence to me. I was asked to do many things based on my looks and I did not know what value my intellect even held at the time if any.
However, to a senior female legislative aide, it was not ok and she voiced her objection. She said, “Tara, you do not have to be treated like an object, you do not have to serve cocktails at a function for men because the Senator asked you to do this!”
The staff argued, I stayed silent and knew inwardly this was a huge problem, a trap, no matter what I did or said. I said nothing. I was later told to “keep my head down and fly under the radar if I wanted to last.” I was told by my supervisor to wear lower skirts and button up my blouse more. “Try not to look “sexy,” she said. I was bewildered as I did not think I looked like any of that. It was a thing, an issue and somehow I was the problem, somehow, it was all my fault. I felt ashamed as if I had asked for it.
My troubles had just started. Senator Biden would touch me on the shoulder or hold his hand on my shoulder running his index finger up my neck during a meeting. Again, I did nothing. It was uncomfortable. Again, because it was a kind of dominant gesture, and I do NOT like to be dominated. But he did this often to me, others, he was demonstrative. I believe these gestures were not so much about “connection” but establishing dominance in the room and power over others. I kept silent when he did this. I respected him but I feared him.
Things at the office got hard for me and it was obvious I was going to be forced out with legitimate or not so legitimate reasons. I was told by my female supervisor not to make waves and that the Chief of Staff would just think we were “all on our periods and complaining for no reason.”
I went to another Senator’s office for help and met discreetly with the staffer I knew. At the time, I was volunteering for the 25th anniversary of the Robert F Kennedy Memorial at the VIP tent and a staffer for Senator Kennedy tried to step in on my behalf. Then, I went to Senate Personnel for help. No one helped me. I was moved into a solitary, windowless office and told to leave. I was fired, or should I say, I was forced to resign. No one would interview me on the Hill for any position.
In the aftermath, I did not feel competent or worthy of anything. My self -esteem plummeted and my career nose-dived. What started with promise and possibility, ended because some prominent Senator decided that he liked my legs and objectified me. I was sad and lost and moved on. My career on the Hill was over.
I wish I could say there was a happy ending, that Senator Biden apologized or that he helped make amends, he did not. I do not even know if he realized why I left. Biden was protected by his Chief of Staff from unpleasant events, like a young King.
In the words of the Sade song, I was “left for the lions.” We staffers all knew the dire consequences if you spoke out against one of the powerful, one of the beloveds. So yes, I spoke up then, and then again now and people are trying hard to shut me down. But I get back up, I channel my inner Boudicca for strength.
After my story was published in the Union, the internet trolls started and within 24 hours there was a conspiracy blaming the Russians, again. A distant cousin called me and said stuttering, “I just finished watching “The Americans”, the tweets say you're an illegal, a Russian agent??”
Head slams on keyboard.
”Ummm, what is that show?” I ask. “ And I am related to you!”
She is laughing now and said “I know but your writing… those blogs?”
“ I am in a creative writing group and in writing a novel, the poetry is part of the novel and the blogs because I watch and read a lot of Noam Chomsky. I dislike xenophobia. I will not be told by the power elite what country to like. I love many cultures; Russian, Italian and the food. I mean I speak some Spanish, Italian too and l like to explore, to learn about other people. Since when did exploring our world and views become so wrong?” I am upset now and feel defensive. Again, somehow me talking about what happened, what Joe Biden did to me, is my fault. And I did not even tell the whole story…The small portion that did come out of what Joe Biden did to me resulted in me being bullied and threatened to silence.
She ponders and replies, ”Hmmm, well this Norm Chomsky is a dissident right?”
I sigh, “It’s Noam.”
“Yea, right. ”
I am a loyal American and in the words of Lucy Flores, I was a Democratic foot soldier. I voted despite all my troubles for the Obama/Biden ticket…twice. I heard Assemblywoman Flores speak up and then she was ripped apart in some of the media. This is why women do not speak up, in case anyone is wondering. The late-night hosts lined up with their snide humor, but hey, we still need to laugh at ourselves.
All of the trolls? The outrage and circling the wagons to protect Joe Biden? It comes from a real place. A place of fear and hope for a better future than the one we have now. I get it. But a friend called who knew me back then and heard a pundit say, “Yes, well none of his former employees have come out.”
My friend said gently, “Tara, did you hear that?”
I sighed, “yea.” And the gauntlet had been thrown. So I responded to the reporter who called me.
There is a song by Sara Bareilles, “She Used to be Mine” that sums up these experiences. Like the lyrics say, I am imperfect but kind and hard on myself. To the millennials, as you look at our geopolitical landscape and the major candidates, remember, “Mockingjay.”
To my trolls, I am sorry you were baffled and scared that I was a foreign agent or some political scheme to end Joe Biden. I am not. Even after all that happened, Joe Biden’s legislative agenda, especially on social issues was aligned with my own.
We all suffer from fear and grief. If we could just see each other with some compassion. All of us face the death of loved ones. Right before I came to Biden’s office, my brother died.
Watching my beautiful brother slowly die young and in tremendous pain was awful. Joe Biden has faced the loss of not one but two children and others close to him. He has had unimaginable grief. Many of us have known that dark corridor of pain. Some never get out. If we can reach out to each other with empathy and the knowledge we are all trying our best with the information we have at the time, maybe there will be healing. Maybe as women, we can speak up at the time and not lose our jobs or reputations if our boundaries are violated. Maybe these men can modify their behavior or at least let them be held accountable. There needs to be restorative justice for victims who lose their jobs due to sexual harassment and assault. Maybe we can start from there.
Opinion: I Started The Conversation On Joe Biden — Stop Twisting My Words And Start Talking About Consent
Many have tried to excuse and explain away Biden’s inappropriate behavior. It’s time for a real conversation on consent.
When I decided to come forward with what it felt like to be on the receiving end of Joe Biden’s inappropriate behavior, I knew I would face criticism. I didn’t anticipate that my truth would be so easily manipulated and distorted.
I intended to describe what it was like to be inappropriately touched by a powerful man who would likely declare his presidential candidacy. Instead, I watched as the conversation about my essay, published in the Cut, morphed into a simplistic — and misguided — discussion of hugging in America. I had made it explicitly clear that I didn’t consider Biden’s unwanted intimate touching to be sexual in nature and his behavior to be harassment or assault. Nonetheless, one of the first headlines out of my home state of Nevada inaccurately stated, “Nevada Politician Has Accused Joe Biden of Sexual Harassment.” Other commentators and defenders took it to the other extreme, describing Joe Biden as nothing more than a serial hugger. What everyone missed was that what I was describing — the ease with which Biden physically, and often inappropriately, engages with some of the women around him — is part of the gray area that is being left out of the national conversation launched with the #MeToo movement.
I have repeatedly said that I suspect part of the reason Biden’s inappropriate behavior is not taken seriously is because this kind of behavior, while considered wrong by most people for a very long time, hasn’t been exposed or debated in a public way before. It’s long been public knowledge that Biden has a penchant for getting too up close and personal with women he doesn’t know, but it’s either been treated as a joke by fellow politicos and the media or brushed off as just “Biden being Biden.” In the wake of my essay, Biden said, "Social norms have begun to change.” But the only thing that’s changed is that women are now feeling empowered to call this behavior what it’s always been: wrong and unwanted.
In the days following my essay, character witnesses came forward with their personal versions of “not the Biden I know” stories to underscore just what kind of a well-meaning person Joe Biden really is: Biden is a jovial fellow, a grandfatherly person, an empath, a man who endured much trauma; he didn’t mean anything by it.
These positive character reviews are probably all very true, but entirely irrelevant to the women on the receiving end of his unwanted expressions of well-meaning affection. These actions weren’t just hugs. I agree that next to “hugger” in the dictionary, Joe Biden flashing his million-dollar smile should be entered next to it. But in my case, Biden’s version of a friendly hug was his hands on my shoulders, his body close to mine, from behind, smelling my hair and planting a slow kiss on my head when we had no personal relationship whatsoever and just minutes before a stressful, high-profile public event.
For the other women who also had no previous personal relationship with Biden, it was his hand on the thigh of a sexual assault victim just minutes after disclosing her trauma at an It’s On Us event. It was Biden pulling in close to the face of a young sexual assault survivor while holding her hands. Biden pulling a woman’s face by the back of her neck to his own, so suddenly that she was horrified that he was about to kiss her. Characterizing this behavior as everyday, run-of-the-mill friendliness is grossly inaccurate, and whether they knew it or not, every last public commentator who referred to Biden as just being a “hugger” participated in the classic strategy of discrediting women who speak out against powerful men by minimizing the behavior.
I listened and watched as debates began to rage over hugging. To hug or not to hug. Pictures of me casually touching colleagues, friends, and family in social settings such as selfies began to circulate the dark corners of social media. Even conservative commentator Tucker Carlson came to Biden’s defense for what he described as “hugging people wrong.” It was clear that the minimization strategy was at least partially effective. Biden himself said he’d never “thought of politics as cold or antiseptic,” implying that those of us who didn’t give him permission to behave as if we’ve been intimately acquainted for years must be frigid robots.
While at times it seemed like the conversation I started had gone entirely off the rails, I also knew that in the short and long term, we would get back on track. I knew this because every day I heard from women who recalled the instances when bosses, colleagues, or strangers subjected them to the same type of unwanted, inappropriate behavior. And I also heard from men who immediately knew that they would never violate a woman’s space and bodily autonomy in that way, and if it were easy for them to refrain from acting that way, then Joe Biden and other powerful men could refrain from doing it too.
What became very clear to me then was that this wasn’t only about minimizing serious behavior for the purpose of defending a very well-liked political figure. It was also very clear that a long overdue conversation about basic consent was necessary.
The conversation further devolved from offensive “hugging” to totally disconnected emphatic proclamations that Biden’s behavior wasn’t sexual assault — no one who spoke about their own experiences had ever said it was. In listening to these puzzling statements, it struck me that the commentators were casually dismissing the core #MeToo tenet of consent. By saying that the conversation about bodily autonomy and less serious transgressions were “cheapening the #MeToo movement” or diminishing the trauma of “real victims,” the commentators were both lacking in understanding of the power dynamics between powerful men and less powerful women, and lacking in empathy for the very real burdens women are forced to carry due to less offensive but still unwanted behavior.
Imagine my relief when the original founder of the #MeToo movement Tarana Burke in a series of tweets stated, “People have been asking me all week if what Lucy Flores experienced was worth coming forward about. My answer is YES. I support her wholeheartedly.” She also noted, “It’s not that people become more ‘sensitive’ over time as Biden suggested. And it’s not just about personal space or intention - it’s about bodily autonomy, it’s about power and leadership, and it’s about living into who we say we are and who we want to be.”
Several other commentators began to weigh in to describe the kind of tax that accumulates over time when women are subjected to behavior like Biden’s. Nelini Stamp, the national organizing director of the Working Families Party, wrote, “But understand too that women already spend our entire lives fully conscious of our bodies, how we move through space and how we interact with others. We are constantly questioning our movements, recalibrating our posture, shifting our size and our presence based on who we are around and how they might feel. We are hyperaware of our physicality and the space around us. Men, now it’s your turn.”
Yet I watched as other Biden defenders selectively applied their #MeToo distress — like Alyssa Milano, who tweeted, “Joe Biden’s response that he never meant to make anyone uncomfortable and that he'll listen and learn from anyone who says otherwise is exactly the leadership we need to build a culture where women are heard and are equal.” Speaking at a public event in the wake of the allegations, Biden proceeded to make fun of the whole situation in a union hall full of mostly white older men, joking that he had “gotten permission” to hug some people there. Hearing him joke about a serious situation and then hearing hundreds of men laugh about it was exactly the type of humiliation that women face in these situations. And Biden did it just a day after he swore that he would listen and that he would learn. Milano didn’t utter a word asking for accountability.
These varied responses to how Biden handled the situation have made it clear that the #MeToo movement has reached another pivotal moment — one where we are now forced to react to men who behave poorly but whom we also happen to really like, and to what degree we hold the men we like accountable. It was so much easier when #MeToo was limited to men who committed atrocious acts of sexual assault, or to political foes who deserve to be villainized for their clearly vile and illegal behavior. It appears it is much more complicated when it comes to demanding basic respect — and consent — from all the men around us.
I have been asked often if Biden’s inappropriate behavior with women disqualified him for office. I have repeated over and over again that this behavior, plus my other critiques of Biden’s record, including his recent comments about the way he handled the Anita Hill hearings (saying “I wish I could have done something” as if he’d forgotten that, as chair of the committee, he was free to do anything he wanted) demonstrated to me that despite all of the good things Biden has done for women, he was still unwilling to take responsibility for the bad things he’s done. Add his on-again, off-again relationship with a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion, his role in passing a crime bill that led to millions of mostly black and brown incarcerated bodies, and his vote to gut welfare mercilessly kicking mothers with low incomes off assistance, among a lengthy list of additional issues, and for me, the answer is yes, this is disqualifying and I don’t think he should run. I have also emphatically stated that ultimately it was up to individuals to assess if the totality of his history made him worthy of their vote.
If Biden decides to run, his entire history will be vetted by voters just like any other candidate. And the #MeToo movement will have to decide two things: to what degree we’re willing to have a discussion about basic respect and consent; and whether we hold everyone accountable, no matter how little or how much we personally like them. As a society we gain nothing by calling out the disgusting behavior of someone like Donald Trump while allowing far less vulgar but still harmful behavior like Biden’s get a pass.
I’m all for being fair arbiters of bad behavior. We all make mistakes. We should all be given the opportunity to learn and grow from those mistakes. I probably wouldn’t be writing this article if Biden had just taken the leadership opportunity that was presented to him by taking responsibility, apologizing, then urging all other men to reflect on their own potentially offensive and inappropriate behavior. The most ironic thing about this whole situation is that the It’s On Us campaign that Biden has recently championed has tools that include messages like “It’s on us to stop victim blaming” and “Consent. If you don’t get it, you don’t get it.”
Consent doesn’t just apply when sex is involved. Consent also applies when you’re invading a woman’s space and touching the body of a woman you don’t know. Biden has never apologized to Anita Hill, and it appears he will never apologize to me or the other six women who came forward with their own stories. Another useful message from the It’s on Us campaign feels appropriate: “It’s on us to always do the right thing.”
One of the driving forces throughout Joe Biden’s career has been fighting back against abuses of power – whether economic or physical power. That force motivated him to write and champion the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, establish the first-ever White House Advisor on Violence Against Women during the Obama-Biden Administration, and launch a national campaign to change the culture surrounding campus rape and sexual assault.
In 2019, a bipartisan coalition in the House of Representatives passed the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2019 (VAWA 2019), which includes significant, forward-looking improvements and innovations proposed by advocates, survivors, lawyers, experts, prosecutors, and law enforcement who are in the trenches protecting and supporting survivors. Last year, every single Senate Democrat signed on to the Senate version of the House-passed bill. But, Leader McConnell is refusing to bring the bill to the floor in the Senate. There’s no reason the Senate shouldn’t pass this reauthorization now and enact it long before President Biden’s first day in office. But if they don’t, Joe Biden will make enacting the VAWA reauthorization one of his top first 100 day priorities.
In addition, President Joe Biden will build on his strong track record of getting things done by:
⦁Expanding the safety net for survivors,
⦁Empowering and protecting our young people,
⦁Confronting online harassment, abuse and stalking,
⦁Ensuring justice for survivors,
⦁Ending the rape kit backlog,
⦁Addressing the deadly combination of guns and domestic violence,
⦁Changing the culture that enables sexual violence,
⦁Supporting the diverse needs of survivors of violence against women,
⦁Protecting and empowering immigrant women, and
⦁Leading the global effort to end gender-based violence.
Building on the Landmark Violence Against Women Act
The Violence Against Women Act has two goals: make women safer, and protect women’s civil rights.
Joe Biden first introduced the law in 1990, when domestic violence was considered a family matter and few in Congress wanted to work on the issue. Over the next three years, then-Senator Biden used his role on the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee to hear directly from survivors, during hours of testimony, about their experiences with domestic violence and sexual assault and from experts armed with reports and data.
In 1993, then-Senator Biden wrote, “Through this process, I have become convinced that violence against women reflects as much a failure of our nation’s collective moral imagination as it does the failure of our nation’s laws and regulations.” That moral outrage fueled Biden’s relentless drive to pass a bill even in the face of opposition from the Bush Administration, the then-Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and conservatives in Congress. After four years of work, the Act passed in September 1994 with significant bipartisan support.
But Biden didn’t stop at final passage of the Act. For nearly three decades, Joe Biden has worked so that the ambition of the Violence Against Women Act didn’t get lost in bureaucracy or bogged down by partisanship. Instead, his legislation has become a cornerstone for the movement to end violence against women. Since 1994, Biden has led efforts to ensure Congress passed legislation renewing and strengthening the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) three times: in 2000, 2005, and 2013. Each time, the VAWA reauthorization has upped the ante and ensured that especially vulnerable communities – from Native women to LGBTQ individuals – are included in the Act.
The Violence Against Women Act has worked. Between the Violence Against Women Act’s implementation in 1994 and 2011, serious victimization by an intimate partner declined by 72%. But, there is still more work to do. Now is no time to turn back, or even to simply sit still. Today, as many as 1 in 3 women are subjected to physical violence, rape and/or stalking by a partner at some point in their lives. The rate is even higher for women of color, lesbian and bisexual women, and transgender people.
EXPAND THE SAFETY NET FOR SURVIVORS
As president, Biden will strengthen social supports for survivors of domestic and sexual violence, helping victims secure housing, gain economic stability, and recover from the trauma of abuse. The U.S. Conference of Mayors has identified domestic violence as a top driver of family homelessness, and research points to domestic violence as a key cause of homelessness for many women. And, domestic violence survivors and their children often live in unstable housing conditions, such as with relatives or friends in crowded and potentially exploitative conditions or returning to abusive partners. Research demonstrates that providing flexibility in eligibility, services, and support helps survivors feel safer and rebuild their lives after violence.
The Biden plan will cut through the red tape that can slow down assistance and limit options for survivors. Specifically, Biden will:
⦁Establish a new coordinated housing initiative. Current federal housing programs are insufficient for meeting the needs of domestic and sexual violence survivors. Biden will bring federal agencies together to create a comprehensive housing grant program tailored to survivors of domestic and sexual violence. This grant program will include flexible funding to support the practical needs of survivors; advocacy with landlords and housing agencies to keep victims in housing; supportive services including legal assistance, child care, and employment training; new permanent housing vouchers; increased funding for the VAWA transitional housing program; and homeownership opportunities.
⦁Expand access to housing assistance. Biden will strengthen the VAWA housing provisions, for example by making it easier for victims to retain their federal housing subsidy when needed for safety reasons.
⦁Protect survivors from housing discrimination. The Fair Housing Act protects women from gender discrimination in public and private housing, including survivors who may be unfairly evicted from housing because of domestic violence. The Trump Administration proposed rolling back Fair Housing protections by making it harder to prove disparate impact claims and allowing landlords and banks to use discriminatory practices. The Biden Administration will vigorously enforce the Fair Housing Act. VAWA also protects survivors from discrimination in subsidized housing and allows survivors to transfer to new units if necessary for safety. But red tape makes these provisions challenging to implement. The Biden plan will make it easier for survivors to transfer their housing assistance and move to a new home so that they can be safe.
⦁Provide cash assistance to survivors to help build safety and security. Survivors of sexual violence and domestic violence often depend on cash assistance to help build a safe and secure livelihood. For example, a recent survey of domestic violence and sexual assault advocates found that nearly 85% thought survivors relied critically on the Temporary Aid for Needy Families program for support. Unfortunately, these programs are insufficient to meet the needs of many survivors. As president, Biden will allocate $5 billion to community organizations to provide cash grants to survivors in need, whether the need is to help pay for daycare, transportation to work, or to buy a laptop for a new job.
⦁Allow survivors to access their retirement savings as they rebuild their lives. The tax code currently allows some employers to offer hardship withdrawals to retirement savers with a pressing need – such as medical expenses or to pay for a funeral. Recovering from domestic violence or sexual assault currently does not qualify as a condition for hardship withdrawals, but Biden would amend the tax code to ensure it does. In addition, Biden will amend the tax code to allow survivors to take a distribution from their retirement savings without the standard penalty – allowing survivors with retirement savings tax-free access to funds to help achieve a safer and more secure life.
⦁Guarantee paid domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking safe leave. Biden will work with Congress to reform the Family and Medical Leave Act to provide paid leave for survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking who need time to seek physical or mental care, seek counsel, find new housing, or take other action related to the violence they experienced.
EMPOWER AND PROTECT OUR YOUNG PEOPLE
The Biden Administration will help educate and empower young people with the knowledge and tools they need to prevent sexual violence and dating violence, with a focus on online harassment and enforcing Title IX protections. Biden will:
⦁Expand requirements for comprehensive sexual assault, stalking, and dating violence prevention education on college campuses. Biden will pursue legislation that will require schools to offer and fund peer-facilitated and student-led prevention education (in addition to comprehensive, data-informed, and ongoing prevention education), and mandate schools conduct campus climate surveys on sexual violence and dating violence and then develop a plan to address survey findings.
⦁Expand survivors’ reporting rights and options on college campuses. The Biden Administration will push for legislation that will require schools to improve reporting practices, including adopting amnesty policies for survivors who were in violation of minor campus policies at the time of their assault (e.g., underage drinking) implementing online, anonymous sexual assault and harassment reporting systems, and establishing agreements with local rape crisis and/or domestic violence centers to provide new reporting options for survivors.
⦁Strengthen Title IX and Clery Act enforcement. The Trump Administration has rolled back important protections for student survivors by rescinding the Obama-Biden Administration’s 2011 Title IX guidance. Any backstepping on Title IX is unacceptable. The Biden Administration will restore the Title IX guidance for colleges, including the 2011 Dear Colleague Letter, which outlined for schools how to fairly conduct Title IX proceedings. Biden will also increase fines imposed on colleges for Clery Act violations, or failing to report statistics about campus safety, as well as develop stronger enforcement protocols to oversee reporting under the U.S. Department of Education.
⦁Train college administrators and staff how to support victims of sexual assault or other gender-based violence. Through regulatory guidance, Biden will require all administrators and staff who participate in a Title IX investigative process or may interact with a survivor at any point in the reporting process to participate in training on victim-centered, trauma-informed interview techniques. He will also require staff who develop prevention education programs or may interact with a survivor at any point in the reporting process to undergo training on the role of technology in sexual violence, dating violence, stalking, and harassment, an emerging challenge that is too often insufficiently understood.
⦁Expand prevention and services to public K-12 schools. Sexual assault, harassment, and dating violence don’t only affect college students. Biden will push for legislation, regulatory action, and appropriations so that K-12 public schools provide annual, age-appropriate education on healthy relationships and affirmative consent beginning in elementary school through graduation, and create funding opportunities for after-school programs and youth-serving groups to implement prevention education programs. Biden will also work to create new funding for public K-12 schools to implement Title IX trainings for administrators and staff. And, Biden will make it easier for teens experiencing dating violence and sexual assault to access accommodations, services, and protective measures.
CONFRONT ONLINE HARASSMENT, ABUSE AND STALKING
Technology brings with it new obligations and policy challenges. Nearly half of all Internet users report experiences of harassment or abuse. The Biden Administration will shine a light on the online harassment, stalking, and abuse that now is a too-frequent reality for Americans, particularly for young people and women. Joe Biden recognizes that culture change must extend to our online lives, whether clamping down on “cyber exploitation,” online stalking, or intimate partner digital abuse.
⦁Convene a National Task Force on Online Harassment and Abuse. As President, Joe Biden will convene a national task force with federal agencies, state leaders, advocates, law enforcement, and technology experts to study rampant online sexual harassment, stalking, and threats, including revenge porn, deepfakes, and the connection between this harassment, mass shootings, extremism and violence against women. The Task Force will be charged with developing cutting-edge strategies and recommendations for how federal and state governments, social media companies, schools, and other public and private entities can tackle this unique challenge. The Task Force will consider platform accountability, transparent reporting requirements for incidents of harassment and response, and best practices.
⦁Allocate new funding for law enforcement training to tackle online abuse. The Biden Administration will dedicate new funding to federal, state, and local law enforcement officials for investigating and prosecuting online sexual harassment, stalking, and threats while also supporting victims.
⦁Support federal and state legislation creating a civil and criminal cause of action for unauthorized disclosure of intimate images. Biden supports the Stopping Harmful Image Exploitation and Limiting Distribution (SHIELD) Act, introduced by Senator Harris, which makes the use of “cyber exploitation” a criminal act. He will also support the enactment of federal and state legislation giving victims of “cyber exploitation” a civil cause of action.
ENSURE JUSTICE FOR SURVIVORS
For too many survivors, justice is out of reach. Many are denied the power to sue wrongdoers on their own. An abuser facing criminal charges has an undeniable right to an attorney, but if the victim needs to get a restraining order or battle for custody, they either have to pay for one or find one pro bono, or they are entirely on their own. In addition, workplace contracts often bar workers who experience sexual harassment or assault in the workplace from their day in court.
As president, Biden will:
⦁Restore and strengthen VAWA’s civil cause of action for survivors. The original Violence Against Women Act included a revolutionary civil rights remedy that gave victims the power on their own to take their abusers to federal court, call them to account, and win monetary, injunctive, or declaratory relief. State criminal-justice systems often fail survivors. The federal civil rights remedy was designed to supplement state remedies, not displace them. The Supreme Court got it wrong when they overturned the original civil rights remedy. Congress can and must pass an improved and expanded civil rights remedy that fills the gaps the Court found fatal last time, including a demonstrated connection between sexual assault and women’s economic opportunity.
⦁Support ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment. The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly protect equal rights for women. The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) would change this, enshrining in our Constitution the principle that all individuals, regardless of sex, are equally protected under the law. This amendment would expand protections for survivors of violence against women who participate in or require access to government programs, and potentially encompass the aims of the expanded civil rights remedy described above. Biden co-sponsored the Equal Rights Amendment nine times and, as president, he will work with advocates across the country to enshrine the ERA in our Constitution.
⦁Expand access to lawyers. Biden will significantly expand the Legal Assistance for Victims Grant Program in the Violence Against Women Act, and support expanded funding for the Legal Services Corporation to ensure lawyers are available to help domestic violence survivors in civil and criminal proceedings.
⦁Ensure advocates for every victim. Biden will create a $50 million grant program from the Crime Victims Fund to hire victim advocates so that every survivor of domestic or sexual violence is offered the services of a highly-trained advocate if they want one. Victim advocates based in community organizations or in local law enforcement systems play an invaluable role by giving individualized attention to victims and helping them navigate the process, explore options and access services.
⦁Ensure workers can have their day in court by ending mandatory arbitration clauses imposed by employers on workers, including for claims of workplace sexual harassment. 60 million American workers have been forced to sign contracts waiving their right to sue their employer and nearly 25 million are forced to waive their right to bring class action lawsuits and joint arbitration. An estimated 57.6% of female workers are forced to sign forced arbitration clauses. These contracts require employees to use individual, private arbitrations when their employer violates federal and state laws – including workplace discrimination and harassment. Forced arbitration proceedings are conducted in private, often by arbitrators selected by the employer. Even worse, forced individual arbitration clauses bar employees with similar grievances from joining together, which would strengthen their claims and sometimes enable them to find lawyers who will represent them. Biden will spearhead legislation to completely eliminate mandatory individual arbitration, including for claims of workplace sexual harassment. By getting rid of mandatory individual arbitration, he will also support employees’ ability to band together in the courts to address their collective issues through class action lawsuits and to bring class claims through arbitration.
END THE RAPE KIT BACKLOG
Joe Biden has been on the forefront of the fight to harness the power of DNA testing and bring justice and security to victims of sexual violence. In 2002, then-Senator Biden invited a brave survivor, Debbie Smith, to testify in front of the United States Judiciary Committee about her harrowing experience and the cruel and inexcusable rape kit backlog that left her without accountability and closure until several years after her attack. In 2004, he championed the first bill addressing the rape kit backlog at crime labs that was signed into law. In 2015, as Vice President, Biden led the charge to secure the first $41 million in the federal Sexual Assault Kit Initiative to begin addressing the estimated 400,000 untested rape kits that were sitting on shelves in police property rooms across the country.
Over the years, we have learned much more about how these backlogs accrue and what needs to happen to change that. But there are still far too many untested kits. Survivors need to feel confident that when they report a sexual assault, they will be believed, taken seriously, and that the crime will be investigated thoroughly. Joe Biden will invest the resources needed to end this problem through a multidisciplinary approach that improves the law enforcement response, supports survivors, and engages policy makers at every level. Specifically, President Biden will:
⦁Create Regional Sexual Assault Investigative Training Academies. There is still a striking lack of investigative training for law enforcement and prosecutors in units dedicated to sex crimes despite the extreme complexities of sexual assault investigations. Biden will invest $20 million per year in creating Regional Sexual Assault Investigative Training Academies which will provide cutting-edge, evidence-based and trauma-informed training on investigating and prosecuting sexual assault crimes and offer incentive grants for teams of law enforcement, victim advocates, and prosecutors all over the United States to attend.
⦁Increase funding for the Sexual Assault Kit Initiative (SAKI) to $100 million annually and ensure that law enforcement training addresses attitudes that lead to the neglect of testing for rape kits. In addition, Biden will require that local law enforcement ensures that SAKI prioritizes the needs of survivors and their recovery when seeking to test old rape kits in order to be eligible for funding. This includes funding for rape crisis centers and advocates to ensure accountability to the survivor-centered model.
ADDRESSING THE DEADLY COMBINATION OF GUNS AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
The statistics tell a devastating and overwhelming story. The likelihood that a woman in a domestic violence situation will be killed increases by a factor of five if a gun is nearby. Half of mass shootings involve an individual shooting a family member or former intimate partner. This deadly connection tragically impacts children as well: 86% of children killed in shootings with four or more victims were involved in domestic or family violence.
Biden recognizes that the gun violence and domestic violence epidemics are linked and cannot be solved in isolation. Addressing the interconnectedness of these challenges will be a core focus of Biden’s anti-violence work as president.
The House-passed Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2019, which Leader McConnell refuses to bring to the floor for a vote, includes a number of reforms to keep firearms out of the hands of abusers. Senator McConnell should ensure this legislation gets passed long before President Biden would take the oath of office.
But if McConnell refuses to act, Biden will enact legislation to close the so-called “boyfriend loophole” and “stalking loophole” by prohibiting all individuals convicted of assault, battery, or stalking from purchasing or possessing firearms, regardless of their connection to the victim. This proposal is modeled after existing laws in California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Nevada, New York, and Pennsylvania. Biden also supports enacting the proposal to prohibit anyone under a temporary restraining order from purchasing or possessing a firearm before their hearing.
In addition, President Biden will:
⦁Establish a new Task Force on Online Harassment and Abuse to focus on the connection between mass shootings, online harassment, extremism, and violence against women. As highlighted above, Biden will convene a national Task Force with federal agencies, state leaders, advocates, law enforcement, and technology experts to study rampant online sexual harassment, stalking, and threats, including revenge porn and deep-fakes — and the connection between this harassment, mass shootings, extremism and violence against women. The Task Force will be charged with developing cutting-edge strategies and recommendations for how federal and state governments, social media companies, schools, and other public and private entities can tackle this unique challenge. The Task Force will consider platform accountability, transparent reporting requirements for incidents of harassment and response, and best practices.
⦁Expand the use of evidence-based lethality assessments by law enforcement in cases of domestic violence. Lethality assessments, sometimes called “risk” or “danger” assessments, are a proven strategy to help law enforcement officers identify domestic violence survivors who are at high risk of being killed by their abusers. These survivors are then connected with social service programs that can offer services and safety planning. An evaluation of the Lethality Assessment Program (LEP) created by the Maryland Network Against Domestic Violence showed promising results. Increased federal funding will incentivize jurisdictions to take advantage of implementing these programs more widely.
In 1990, when Biden began working on VAWA, domestic violence was considered a family affair. In recent years, the #MeToo movement has forced a national reckoning on the depth and breadth of sexual harassment and violence in our workplaces, our campuses, and our communities. Biden has long believed that lasting change starts with addressing the culture and engaging everyone to stand up and speak out against harassment and assault. Building on the success of campaigns targeted at young people, the Biden Administration will launch tools like innovative social awareness campaigns to expand the national movement to end rape culture. It’s on all of us to end the violence.
⦁Launch a new friends and family public awareness campaign: Public education about responding to domestic and sexual violence is essential to the well-being of survivors. Research indicates that many survivors disclose abuse to informal sources, namely family members and friends, and positive responses from these disclosures are associated with fewer symptoms of anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress. Biden will launch a new public awareness campaign focusing on what to say and do when someone discloses abuse and how to get that person help. The campaign will also highlight information about evidence-based bystander intervention, including what to do if you witness or become aware of abuse taking place, how to safely intervene, and when to get help.
SUPPORT THE DIVERSE NEEDS OF SURVIVORS OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Each reauthorization of VAWA that Vice President Biden has championed has included an expansion of efforts to support the diverse needs of survivors who are disproportionately affected by violence against women and also often face structural and systemic barriers to accessing justice, safety, and well-being. But, we must do more to meet the needs of women of color, lesbian and bisexual women, transgender individuals, American Indian and Alaska Native women, older women, women with disabilities, and low-income women and survivors impacted at the intersections of underserved populations.
⦁According to the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, nationally, 44% of Black women experienced rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetime.
⦁More than 1 in 3 Hispanic women have experienced rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner at one point in their lives, and 1 in 12 Hispanic women experienced this violence in the last 12 months.
⦁Approximately 56% of Native women are subject to sexual violence in their lives, with more than 1 in 7 experiencing it in the past year. Nearly 1 in 2 reports being stalked.
⦁According to the National Center for Transgender Equality, 54% of transgender adults have been subject to intimate partner violence in their lives; 47% of transgender adults report experiencing sexual assault at some point in their lifetime, with Black transgender adults sexually assaulted at a higher lifetime rate of 53%.
The Biden Administration will push forward work to strengthen and expand VAWA’s reach to women in marginalized communities by:
⦁Expanding grants to enhance culturally-specific services for victims of sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking programs. Since 2005, VAWA has funded a grant program to support targeted, community-driven strategies that include trauma-informed and culturally-specific programs that focus on the development of holistic prevention and intervention services for survivors from racial and ethnic minority communities. The Biden Administration will expand the resources available to scale up these initiatives and integrate a broader array of community-based organizations to address complex community needs in order to expand pathways to safety for survivors and continue to build community leadership to prevent and address domestic violence and sexual assault.
⦁Making existing federal programs for victims more responsive to the unique needs of different communities. For example, the Biden Administration will recognize that while domestic violence and sexual violence disproportionately impact women and girls, efforts must include improving access to services and support for all survivors, regardless of gender or gender identity. Biden will work to include sexual orientation and gender identity nondiscrimination protections and permanent funding for the National LGBTQ Institute on IPV in the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA) reauthorization. And, his administration will ensure that existing and new housing initiatives for survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault take into account the disproportionate number of women of color survivors impacted by housing insecurity. Finally, Biden will secure an additional $20 million in annual funding to VAWA’s college campus grant for Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic Serving Institutions, Tribal Colleges, and community colleges to enable them to implement culturally and environmentally-specific prevention and survivor support initiatives.
⦁Reaffirming Tribal sovereignty to support victims and hold offenders accountable, and expanding federal resources for Alaska Native and American Indian women and girls impacted by violence and abuse. First and foremost, the Biden Administration will prioritize the extension of tribal authority against non-Native abusers for sexual assault, stalking, child violence, and trafficking, as called for in VAWA 2019. The Biden Administration will also make more federal resources available for Tribal domestic violence and sexual assault programs by increasing funding set aside for tribes under the Victims of Crime Fund (VOCA). To complement these efforts, the Biden Administration will commit to expanding enrollment for all tribal law enforcement agencies to participate in the Tribal Access Program, a Department of Justice initiative to provide American Indian and Alaska Native police with access to national crime information databases. Currently, the vast majority of federally recognized Tribes participate in the program, which severely hinders a nationally accurate count of violent crimes against Native women and girls. To this end, Biden’s plan supports the proposals to tackle the data gaps fueling the epidemic of missing and murdered Native women and girls outlined under Savanna’s Act.
⦁Investing in the well-being of adolescent girls of color to reverse the upward trend of young women impacted by trauma becoming caught in the juvenile justice system — and offering pathways for their justice and healing to reduce their likelihood of experiencing incarceration as adults. The Biden Administration will take action to recognize the disproportionate rates of harsh school discipline practices and juvenile justice responses to adolescent girls of color who are often struggling to cope with trauma, including trauma from sexual abuse, dating violence, or trafficking. These survivors may run away from home to escape an abusive caregiver, or repeatedly miss school due to violence, and rather than being provided trauma-informed counseling, victim advocacy, or other supports, they are punished and thrust into a cycle of justice-system involvement – most of the time for non-violent behavior. As president, Biden will reinvest in the National Girls Initiative of the Department of Justice Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention to support communities and schools to develop gender-specific and trauma-informed prevention and treatment programs and services as alternatives to girls being placed in juvenile detention. To complement the revival of the National Girls Initiative, the Biden plan also expands funding for the VAWA Consolidated Youth Program.
⦁Strengthen investment in alternative justice approaches. VAWA 2019 allows local jurisdictions to invest in strategies that move beyond a criminal justice approach to reinforce community accountability in response to domestic and sexual violence. The Biden Administration will continue to research and expand the community-based work on alternative pathways for justice.
⦁Combat the epidemic of violence against transgender women of color. As a direct response to the high rates of homicides of transgender people – particularly transgender women of color – the Biden Administration will push to provide federal funding for local efforts to meet the needs of transgender communities, including employment assistance, housing assistance, leadership development, and other priorities identified by local communities. Specifically, Biden will work to pass the Equality Act, to reduce economic barriers and social stigma, and the LGBTQ Essential Data Act, which would help collect a wide variety of critical data about anti-trans violence and the factors that drive it. He will also direct his Administration to update the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports Supplementary Homicide Reports (UCR-SHR) to include sexual orientation and gender identity. Currently, these reports do not include categories for sexual orientation and gender identity, hampering our ability to fully diagnose and measure the extent of violent crimes against transgender, gay, lesbian, and bisexual victims.
In addition, the Biden Administration will pursue the following proposals to support older women, transgender individuals, and women and girls with disabilities who are too often left out of current VAWA programs.
⦁Commission the Centers for Disease Control to conduct the first-ever national prevalence study on intimate partner and sexual violence on women and men ages 50 and older. This study will include a special focus on the ways older adults are uniquely at risk for abuse as a result of vulnerabilities exacerbated or created by aging.
⦁Expand the Elder Justice AmeriCorps program to include a dedicated focus on legal advocacy for domestic violence and sexual assault victims, including the sexual abuse of older adults in nursing homes. This partnership between the U.S. Department of Justice and the Corporation for National and Community Service, established by the Obama-Biden Administration, funded a national network of legal aid fellows to prevent and address the abuse of older adults. As president, Biden will continue this important program and emphasize the disproportionate impact of abuse on older women, including sexual assault and late life intimate partner violence.
⦁Increase funding for communities to build multidisciplinary teams to prevent and address violence against older women, with a focus on investing in rural communities with aging populations. Since 2000, VAWA has funded the Enhanced Training and Services to End Abuse in Later Life Program, which trains criminal justice professionals and non-profit organizations to improve their ability to serve older victims of interpersonal violence. This program also works with states, tribes, and local governments to establish a coordinated community response to violence against victims who are 50 years of age or older. Biden will expand funding for this important program by increasing grant dollars available to communities at a scale that better reflects the increasingly aging population.
⦁Teach youth with disabilities accessible, developmentally-appropriate lessons on the right to bodily autonomy, consent, and the dynamics of healthy relationships. Experts agree that these core elements are critical for the reduction of risk for abuse of people with disabilities. Unfortunately, most youth with disabilities are never offered the opportunity to learn them. Biden will establish special initiatives through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Dating Matters and Rape Prevention Education grant programs to support states, territories, tribes, and educational institutions to promote a public health approach to teaching young people these important lessons.
⦁Help domestic violence and sexual assault programs build their capacity to serve victims with disabilities. Since 2000, VAWA has funded the Training and Services to End Violence Against Women with Disabilities Grant Program, which helps victim services organizations and states, tribes, territories, and local governments modify advocacy programs to be accessible and inclusive of people with disabilities. Biden will expand funding for this vital program in order to better reflect the reality that women with disabilities are victimized by intimate partner and sexual violence at a rate higher than women without disabilities.
PROTECT AND EMPOWER IMMIGRANT WOMEN
Fleeing abuse should never mean risking deportation. In 1994, the Violence Against Women Act created important safeguards to assist immigrants married to abusive spouses who are U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents by allowing them to self-petition, rather than allowing abusers to maintain control over the victims’ immigration status as a way to keep them trapped in an abusive relationship. Since then, each subsequent reauthorization of VAWA has strengthened protections and support for immigrant victims. VAWA 2000, in conjunction with the passage of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act, created two new classes of nonimmigrant visas to protect non-citizens who are the victims of crimes and who agree to cooperate with U.S. law enforcement to investigate and prosecute those crimes. The T-visa permits human trafficking victims to stay in the U.S. and the U-visa ensures that non-citizen victims of multiple categories of crimes (including domestic violence, trafficking, and sexual assault) are able to report violations to authorities without fearing for their legal status.
While Biden continually sought to remove barriers for immigrant women, the Trump Administration continues to place these survivors in jeopardy. Biden will reverse these setbacks and then go further to protect and empower immigrant women who are survivors of domestic violence and abuse.
⦁Restore asylum eligibility for domestic violence survivors. Under the Biden Administration, the U.S. Department of Justice will reinstate explicit asylum protections —rescinded by the Trump Administration —for domestic violence and sexual violence survivors whose home governments cannot or will not protect them.
⦁Increase visas for domestic violence survivors. Under the Trump Administration, there are unacceptable processing delays for adjudicating applications for VAWA self-petitions, U-visas, and T-visas. As president, Biden will end these delays and give victims the security and certainty they need. And, Biden will triple the current cap of 10,000 on U-visas; this cap is insufficient to meet the dire needs of victims and hinders our public safety.
⦁Push to repeal extreme, anti-immigrant state laws that have a chilling effect on the ability of immigrant domestic violence and sexual assault survivors to seek safety and justice. Some state laws drive victims and witnesses into the shadows and threaten public safety. As documented in a recent national survey, immigrant victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and trafficking are increasingly afraid to contact police, pursue civil or criminal cases, or go to court to seek safety. This traps victims who either ask for help and risk deportation, retaliation by an abuser, and separation from one’s children, or stay with a violent partner and risk one’s life. As president, Biden will work in partnership with cities, states, nonprofits, and law enforcement to build trust and push for states to repeal the laws that chill the reporting of domestic violence incidents and threaten public safety.
LEAD THE GLOBAL EFFORT TO END GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE
Violence against women and girls of all ages is a global epidemic: from harassment on public transportation in Southeast Asia; to trafficking of women in Eastern Europe; to “honor” killings in the Middle East, South Asia, and elsewhere; to the use of rape as a weapon of war in Darfur and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. One in three women worldwide will experience gender-based violence in her lifetime, and in some countries, that’s true for 70% of women.
Throughout his career, Joe Biden has helped lead U.S. efforts to end this violence regardless of where it occurs. In 2007, then-Senator Biden expanded on his legacy addressing violence against women and girls, with the introduction of the International Violence Against Women Act (IVAWA). IVAWA provided a framework for the United States to address gender-based violence around the world through a comprehensive approach that promoted legal reform, changes in social norms, health and safety, and access to educational and economic opportunities. While IVAWA was never enacted, the Obama-Biden administration used executive action to implement much of the bill and its comprehensive approach to gender-based violence. With a series of State Department strategies and plans on women, peace, and security; adolescent girls; women’s economic empowerment; and gender-based violence, the Administration focused its diplomatic, development, and even military efforts on promoting the health, safety, and empowerment of women and girls around the world.
As powerful as the Obama-Biden Administration’s programs and policies were, one of the best tools the Administration had in persuading other countries to focus on this issue was its own legacy with the Violence Against Women Act, which has given the United States credibility to address gender-based violence on the international stage.
As president, Biden will restore respected U.S. leadership in foreign affairs, leading not just by the example of our power, but by the power of our example. The Biden Administration will return to a government-wide focus on uplifting the rights of women and girls at home and around the world, championing the fundamental human right of all women and girls to live free from violence – a future made more possible in the United States through the Violence Against Women Act.
⦁Restore American leadership and support multilateral efforts to address sexual violence in conflict. The United States has been a leader in focusing on the need to address sexual violence in conflict, but we have lost our voice under the Trump presidency. President Biden will restore that leadership by engaging with partners around the world at the highest levels working to address this issue. He will bolster women’s ability to participate in and drive peace processes to better prevent sexual violence and to hold accountable those that commit acts of sexual violence in conflict. While President Trump has watered down and threatened to veto UN Security Council resolutions that address sexual violence in conflict, the Biden administration will champion such issues in the Security Council, and offer increased support to the work of the Special Representative to the UN Secretary General for Sexual Violence in Conflict.
⦁Hold accountable those who perpetrate sexual violence in conflict, starting with ISIS. In 2014, the world watched in horror as ISIS systematically employed sexual violence throughout the territories it seized, including by forcing Yazidi women and girls into sexual slavery. The Obama-Biden Administration forged a global coalition to defeat ISIS, which has been routed from the territory it controlled, but not defeated. ISIS soldiers who committed acts of sexual violence must be held accountable for their crimes. As president, Biden will provide financial assistance and training for local and international efforts to document cases of ISIS-perpetrated sexual violence; urge the Government of Iraq at the highest levels to prosecute ISIS prisoners for crimes of rape, trafficking-in-persons, and sexual assault and enslavement, as well as crimes of terrorism; and support peacebuilding and development efforts in Iraq to promote women’s inclusion and long-term stability in the country. The Biden Administration will also direct resources toward local groups supporting survivors of sexual violence, including those working to address the social stigma survivors often face and to facilitate their reintegration back into their communities. It will support countries to help create national laws on sexual violence that align with international norms to bring perpetrators of sexual violence to account.
⦁Address the specific challenges of displaced and migrant women and girls. There are currently more than 70 million people around the world who have been forced from their homes because of conflict. Refugees and displaced women and girls face particular challenges, including decreased opportunities for education, limited access to healthcare (particularly sexual and reproductive healthcare), and increased risk of sexual and gender-based violence, trafficking, and exploitation. President Biden will support diplomatic and development programs to address and prevent conflict around the world, and will require that such programs include a gender-based violence component. He will also ensure that women and girls seeking asylum in the United States because of gender-based violence are given the opportunity to make their case, and that the threat of sexual violence and assault are treated with the seriousness they deserve in adjudication.
⦁Launch a multi-sectoral effort to confront gender-based violence in Central America. Many of the people seeking asylum on our southern border are women and children fleeing horrific forms of gender-based violence in Central America. They have reason to be afraid; Central America confronts some of the highest rates of femicide (the murder of women because of their gender) in the world. Most of these cases are never investigated. Central American women also face rape and sexual assault by gangs that use sexual violence as a mechanism of control and domestic violence perpetrated by intimate partners. Indigenous women are particularly affected. Progress in the United States since Joe Biden first sponsored the Violence Against Women Act has taught us that any efforts to address this scourge must include many sectors. Biden will spearhead a comprehensive effort in Central America that will include diplomatic pressure on governments to do more to hold perpetrators accountable, training for law enforcement to root out the corruption that enables gender-based violence and teaches the police to effectively investigate these crimes and justice sectors to prosecute them, funding for comprehensive healthcare programs to support survivors of gender-based violence, and support to organizations on the ground who are working to address this issue comprehensively.
⦁Amplify and elevate the voices of authentic, local women leaders globally. Many of the most powerful efforts to prevent, combat and respond to gender-based violence around the world are local women leaders. For example, earlier this year, some five million Indian women mobilized across Kerala with the support of over 175 organizations to advance gender equality. President Biden will focus on ensuring these powerful local voices lead efforts to combat gender-based violence and advance women’s and girls’ well-being by creating a comprehensive initiative to support and strengthen the influence of women-led civil society organizations that focus on addressing gender-based violence.
⦁Ensure peacekeepers are trained to prevent conflict-related sexual violence. Peacekeepers have a major role in protecting civilians, after conflict and in countries still at risk of conflict. Tens of thousands of UN peacekeepers (military and police) are deployed globally. Yet, these troops are often ill-prepared to prevent sexual violence and, too often, they have been the perpetrators of crimes against the civilians they are charged to protect, particularly women and girls. President Biden will work with the UN to continue to strengthen peacekeeper performance and accountability. He will work to ensure that peace operations training undertaken by the United States and by other nations includes strong and comprehensive training on protecting against gender-based violence and sexual exploitation and abuse.
⦁Restore U.S. support for women’s health. Just as the Obama-Biden Administration did, President Biden will rescind the Mexico City Policy (also referred to as the global gag rule) that President Trump reinstated and expanded. This rule currently bars the U.S. federal government from supporting important global health efforts – including those that prevent and respond to gender-based violence – in developing countries simply because the organizations providing that aid also offer information on abortion services. The Trump Administration has also suspended U.S. funding to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) for three consecutive years and allegedly propagated false claims about its work. President Biden will also restore U.S. funding to UNFPA and support its important work in preventing gender-based violence globally, including efforts to end female genital mutilation and cutting, early and forced marriage, and other practices detrimental to the health of women and girls.
Joe Biden knows that gun violence is a public health epidemic. Almost 40,000 people die as a result of firearm injuries every year in the United States, and many more are wounded. Some of these deaths and injuries are the result of mass shootings that make national headlines. Others are the result of daily acts of gun violence or suicides that may not make national headlines, but are just as devastating to the families and communities left behind.
Joe Biden has taken on the National Rifle Association (NRA) on the national stage and won – twice. In 1993, he shepherded through Congress the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, which established the background check system that has since kept more than 3 million firearms out of dangerous hands. In 1994, Biden – along with Senator Dianne Feinstein – secured the passage of 10-year bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. As president, Joe Biden will defeat the NRA again.
Joe Biden also knows how to make progress on reducing gun violence using executive action. After the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012, President Obama tasked Vice President Biden with developing both legislative proposals and executive actions to make our communities safer. As a result of this effort, the Obama-Biden Administration took more than two dozen actions, including narrowing the so-called “gun show loophole,” increasing the number of records in the background check system, and expanding funding for mental health services.
It’s within our grasp to end our gun violence epidemic and respect the Second Amendment, which is limited. As president, Biden will pursue constitutional, common-sense gun safety policies. Biden will:
⦁Hold gun manufacturers accountable. In 2005, then-Senator Biden voted against the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, but gun manufacturers successfully lobbied Congress to secure its passage. This law protects these manufacturers from being held civilly liable for their products – a protection granted to no other industry. Biden will prioritize repealing this protection.
⦁Get weapons of war off our streets. The bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines that Biden, along with Senator Feinstein, secured in 1994 reduced the lethality of mass shootings. But, in order to secure the passage of the bans, they had to agree to a 10-year sunset provision and when the time came, the Bush Administration failed to extend them. As president, Biden will:
⦁Ban the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Federal law prevents hunters from hunting migratory game birds with more than three shells in their shotgun. That means our federal law does more to protect ducks than children. It’s wrong. Joe Biden will enact legislation to once again ban assault weapons. This time, the bans will be designed based on lessons learned from the 1994 bans. For example, the ban on assault weapons will be designed to prevent manufacturers from circumventing the law by making minor changes that don’t limit the weapon’s lethality. While working to pass this legislation, Biden will also use his executive authority to ban the importation of assault weapons.
⦁Regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act. Currently, the National Firearms Act requires individuals possessing machine-guns, silencers, and short-barreled rifles to undergo a background check and register those weapons with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Due to these requirements, such weapons are rarely used in crimes. As president, Biden will pursue legislation to regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act.
⦁Buy back the assault weapons and high-capacity magazines already in our communities. Biden will also institute a program to buy back weapons of war currently on our streets. This will give individuals who now possess assault weapons or high-capacity magazines two options: sell the weapons to the government, or register them under the National Firearms Act.
⦁Reduce stockpiling of weapons. In order to reduce the stockpiling of firearms, Biden supports legislation restricting the number of firearms an individual may purchase per month to one.
Keep guns out of dangerous hands. The federal background check system (the National Instant Criminal Background Check System) is one of the best tools we have to prevent gun violence, but it’s only effective when it’s used. Biden will enact universal background check legislation and close other loopholes that allow people who should be prohibited from purchasing firearms from making those purchases. Specifically, he will:
Require background checks for all gun sales. Today, an estimated 1 in 5 firearms are sold or transferred without a background check. Biden will enact universal background check legislation, requiring a background check for all gun sales with very limited exceptions, such as gifts between close family members. This will close the so-called “gun show and online sales loophole” that the Obama-Biden Administration narrowed, but which cannot be fully closed by executive action alone.
Close other loopholes in the federal background check system. In addition to closing the “boyfriend loophole” highlighted below, Biden will:
⦁Reinstate the Obama-Biden policy to keep guns out of the hands of certain people unable to manage their affairs for mental reasons, which President Trump reversed. In 2016, the Obama-Biden Administration finalized a rule to make sure the Social Security Administration (SSA) sends to the background check system records that it holds of individuals who are prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms because they have been adjudicated by the SSA as unable to manage their affairs for mental reasons. But one of the first actions Donald Trump took as president was to reverse this rule. President Biden will enact legislation to codify this policy.
⦁Close the “hate crime loophole.” Biden will enact legislation prohibiting an individual “who has been convicted of a misdemeanor hate crime, or received an enhanced sentence for a misdemeanor because of hate or bias in its commission” from purchasing or possessing a firearm.
⦁Close the “Charleston loophole.” The Charleston loophole allows people to complete a firearms purchase if their background check is not completed within three business days. Biden supports the proposal in the Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2019, which extends the timeline from three to 10 business days. Biden will also direct the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to put on his desk within his first 100 days as president a report detailing the cases in which background checks are not completed within 10 business days and steps the federal government can take to reduce or eliminate this occurrence.
⦁Close the “fugitive from justice” loophole created by the Trump Administration. Because of actions by the Trump Administration, records of almost 500,000 fugitives from justice who are prohibited from purchasing firearms were deleted from the background check system. The Biden Administration will restore these records, and enact legislation to make clear that people facing arrest warrants are prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms.
⦁End the online sale of firearms and ammunitions. Biden will enact legislation to prohibit all online sales of firearms, ammunition, kits, and gun parts.
⦁Create an effective program to ensure individuals who become prohibited from possessing firearms relinquish their weapons. Federal law defines categories of individuals who are prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms, and the federal background check system is an effective tool for ensuring prohibited persons cannot purchase firearms. But we lack any serious tool to ensure that when someone becomes newly prohibited – for example, because they commit a violent crime – they relinquish possession of their firearms. There are some promising models for how this could be enforced. For example, California has a mandatory process for ensuring relinquishment by any individual newly subject to a domestic violence restraining order. As president, Biden will direct the FBI and ATF to outline a model relinquishment process, enact any necessary legislation to ensure relinquishment when individuals newly fall under one of the federal prohibitions, and then provide technical and financial assistance to state and local governments to establish effective relinquishment processes on their own.
⦁Incentivize state “extreme risk” laws. Extreme risk laws, also called “red flag” laws, enable family members or law enforcement officials to temporarily remove an individual’s access to firearms when that individual is in crisis and poses a danger to themselves or others. Biden will incentivize the adoption of these laws by giving states funds to implement them. And, he’ll direct the U.S. Department of Justice to issue best practices and offer technical assistance to states interested in enacting an extreme risk law.
⦁Give states incentives to set up gun licensing programs. Biden will enact legislation to give states and local governments grants to require individuals to obtain a license prior to purchasing a gun.
⦁Adequately fund the background check system. President Obama and Vice President Biden expanded incentives for states to submit records of prohibited persons into the background checks system. As president, Biden will continue to prioritize that funding and ensure that the FBI is adequately funded to accurately and efficiently handle the NICS system.
ADDRESSING THE DEADLY COMBINATION OF GUNS AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
The statistics tell a devastating and overwhelming story. The likelihood that a woman in a domestic violence situation will be killed increases by a factor of five if a gun is nearby. Half of mass shootings involve an individual shooting a family member or former intimate partner. This deadly connection tragically impacts children as well: 86% of children killed in shootings with four or more victims were involved in domestic or family violence.
Biden recognizes that the gun violence and domestic violence epidemics are linked and cannot be solved in isolation. Addressing the interconnectedness of these challenges will be a core focus of Biden’s anti-violence work as president.
The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2019, which Leader McConnell refuses to bring to the floor for a vote, includes a number of reforms to keep firearms out of the hands of abusers. Senator McConnell should ensure this legislation gets passed long before President Biden would take the oath of office. But if McConnell refuses to act, Biden will enact legislation to close the so-called “boyfriend loophole” and “stalking loophole” by prohibiting all individuals convicted of assault, battery, or stalking from purchasing or possessing firearms, regardless of their connection to the victim. This proposal is modeled after existing laws in California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Nevada, New York, and Pennsylvania. Biden also supports enacting the proposal to prohibit anyone under a temporary restraining order from purchasing or possessing a firearm before their hearing.
In addition, President Biden will:
⦁Establish a new Task Force on Online Harassment and Abuse to focus on the connection between mass shootings, online harassment, extremism, and violence against women. As President, Joe Biden will convene a national Task Force with federal agencies, state leaders, advocates, law enforcement, and technology experts to study rampant online sexual harassment, stalking, and threats, including revenge porn and deep-fakes — and the connection between this harassment, mass shootings, extremism and violence against women. The Task Force will be charged with developing cutting-edge strategies and recommendations for how federal and state governments, social media companies, schools, and other public and private entities can tackle this unique challenge. The Task Force will consider platform accountability, transparent reporting requirements for incidents of harassment and response, and best practices.
⦁Expand the use of evidence-based lethality assessments by law enforcement in cases of domestic violence. Lethality assessments, sometimes called “risk” or “danger” assessments, are a proven strategy to help law enforcement officers identify domestic violence survivors who are at high risk of being killed by their abusers. These survivors are then connected with social service programs that can offer services and safety planning. An evaluation of the Lethality Assessment Program (LEP) created by the Maryland Network Against Domestic Violence showed promising results. Increased federal funding will incentivize jurisdictions to take advantage of implementing these programs more widely.
Make sure firearm owners take on the responsibility of ensuring their weapons are used safely.
⦁Put America on the path to ensuring that 100% of firearms sold in America are smart guns. Today, we have the technology to allow only authorized users to fire a gun. For example, existing smart gun technology requires a fingerprint match before use. Biden believes we should work to eventually require that 100% of firearms sold in the U.S. are smart guns. But, right now the NRA and gun manufacturers are bullying firearms dealers who try to sell these guns. Biden will stand up against these bullying tactics and issue a call to action for gun manufacturers, dealers, and other public and private entities to take steps to accelerate our transition to smart guns.
⦁Hold adults accountable for giving minors access to firearms. Biden supports legislation holding adults criminally and civilly liable for directly or negligently giving a minor access to a firearm, regardless of whether the minor actually gains possession of the firearm.
⦁Require gun owners to safely store their weapons. Biden will pass legislation requiring firearm owners to store weapons safely in their homes.
Empower law enforcement to effectively enforce our gun laws.
⦁Prioritize prosecution of straw purchasers. “Straw purchasers” buy a firearm on behalf of an individual who cannot pass a background check. Biden will end those loopholes by enacting a law to make all straw purchases a serious federal crime and ensure the U.S. Justice Department has sufficient resources to prioritize their prosecution.
⦁Notify law enforcement when a potential firearms purchaser fails a background check. Too often, when prohibited persons attempting to buy a firearm fail a background check, state and local law enforcement is never informed of the attempt. As president, Biden will direct the FBI to set up a process to ensure timely notification of denials to state and local law enforcement, and he’ll support legislation to codify this process. This empowers law enforcement to follow up and ensure prohibited persons do not attempt to acquire firearms through other means.
⦁Require firearms owners to report if their weapon is lost or stolen. Responsible gun owners have a responsibility to inform law enforcement if their weapon is lost or stolen. Biden will enact legislation to make this the law of the land.
⦁Stop “ghost guns.” One way people who cannot legally obtain a gun may gain access to a weapon is by assembling a one on their own, either by buying a kit of disassembled gun parts or 3D printing a working firearm. Biden will stop the proliferation of these so-called “ghost guns” by passing legislation requiring that purchasers of gun kits or 3D printing code pass a federal background check. Additionally, Biden will ensure that the authority for firearms exports stays with the State Department, and if needed, reverse a proposed rule by President Trump. This will ensure the State Department continues to block the code used to 3D print firearms from being made available on the Internet.
⦁Reform, fund, and empower the U.S. Justice Department to enforce our gun laws. Biden will direct his Attorney General to deliver to him within his first 100 days a set of recommendations for restructuring the ATF and related Justice Department agencies to most effectively enforce our gun laws. Biden will then work to secure sufficient funds for the Justice Department to effectively enforce our existing gun laws, increase the frequency of inspections of firearms dealers, and repeal riders that get in the way of that work.
⦁Direct the ATF to issue an annual report on firearms trafficking. This report will provide officials with critical information to better identify strategies for curbing firearms trafficking.
TACKLE URBAN GUN VIOLENCE WITH TARGETED, EVIDENCE-BASED COMMUNITY INTERVENTIONS
Daily acts of gun violence in our communities may not make national headlines, but are just as devastating to survivors and victims’ families as gun violence that does make the front page. And, these daily acts of gun violence disproportionately impact communities of color. But there is reason to be optimistic. There are proven strategies for reducing gun violence in urban communities without turning to incarceration. For example, Group Violence Intervention organizes community leaders to work with individuals most likely to commit acts of gun violence, express the community’s demand that the gun violence stop, and connect individuals who may be likely perpetrators with social and economic support services that may deter violent behavior. These types of interventions have reduced homicides by as much as 60%. Hospital-Based Violence Intervention engages young people who have been injured by gun violence while they are still in the hospital, connecting them to social and economic services that may decrease the likelihood they engage in or are victims of gun violence in the future. Biden will create a $900 million, eight-year initiative to fund these and other types of evidence-based interventions in 40 cities across the country – the 20 cities with the highest number of homicides, and 20 cities with the highest number of homicides per capita. This proposal is estimated to save more than 12,000 lives over the eight-year program.
Dedicate the brightest scientific minds to solving the gun violence public health epidemic. In 2013, President Obama issued a memorandum clarifying that a longstanding appropriations rider that prohibited the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and other federal scientific agencies from using federal dollars to “advocate or promote gun control” does not prohibit those agencies from researching the causes and prevention of gun violence. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) subsequently embarked on funding some of this research, though Republican leadership in Congress refused to appropriate any funds to the CDC for this work. Biden will call for Congress to appropriate $50 million to accelerate this research at the CDC and NIH.
Prohibit the use of federal funds to arm or train educators to discharge firearms. We should be passing rational gun laws, not requiring educators who already have too much on their plates to also protect the safety of their students. Biden supports barring states from using federal dollars to arm or train educators to discharge firearms.
Address the epidemic of suicides by firearms. Biden believes any plan to address the gun violence epidemic must address suicides by firearms, which account for 6 in 10 gun-related deaths but are often left out of the conversation. Many of the policies noted above – including safe storage requirements and extreme risk protection orders – will have a serious impact on efforts to reduce gun violence. But there’s so much more we need to do to support people experiencing suicidal ideation. In the months ahead, Biden will put forward a comprehensive plan to improve access to mental health services.
SUPPORTING SURVIVORS OF VIOLENCE AND THEIR COMMUNITIES
Violence causes ripples of trauma throughout our communities, impacting not just the victims of violence but also their communities and first responders. Fear of school shootings is having a noticeable impact on the mental health of Gen Z. Intimate partner violence is linked to depression, post-traumatic stress, and other mental health challenges among survivors. And, this trauma can be intergenerational. Science now shows that young children who witness violence – including in their home – literally alters the parts of their brains that affect “reasoning, planning, and behavioral control.”
We need to reduce violence to prevent trauma from happening in the first place. But we also must treat the resulting trauma as a serious crisis in its own right.
As president, Biden will:
⦁Make federal programs more trauma-informed. During his first 100 days, Biden will direct his Cabinet to conduct a review of all federal programs that directly serve communities likely to experience violence and identify reforms to make sure those programs effectively address resulting trauma. Biden will then invest significant federal funds in expanding and improving the federal government’s support for trauma-informed and culturally responsive care.
⦁Create a network of trauma care centers. Biden will bring together offices within the federal government to establish specialized trauma care centers for survivors of violence, with a special focus on survivors of domestic and sexual violence. Domestic violence services are focused on meeting the emergency needs of survivors, including safety planning and crisis intervention. As a result, frontline providers lack the resources they need to offer therapeutic services to help survivors heal from trauma. These trauma care centers will be flexible in meeting the needs of communities, and could be housed at rape crisis centers, domestic violence programs, universities, and existing mental health centers.
⦁Train health care and other service providers in trauma-centered care. To prevent revictimization and secondary trauma, Biden will align training efforts throughout relevant federal programs to include a focus on understanding the traumatic effects of violence, providing appropriate care to avoid furthering the trauma, linking survivors with evidence-based trauma therapies, and reducing myths about domestic and sexual violence. This will be accomplished through agency directives, policy guidance, and special conditions for grantees and contractors.
Alyssa Milano Maiden Podcast Episode: #MeToo Founder Tarana Burke and Creepy Joe Biden
Actress-turned-political activist Alyssa Milano appears to be running cover for former vice president and 2020 Democratic candidate Joe Biden, releasing a podcast interview with him about women’s issues and appearing on MSNBC Monday to defend him.
“I am proud to call Joe Biden a friend,” Alyssa Milano said on her podcast “Sorry Not Sorry.”
“He has been a leader and a champion on fighting violence against women for many years.”
Milano notes that her interview with Biden was recorded before numerous women came forward to say that he had made them uncomfortable with inappropriate touching. She played his statement regarding the allegations against him and segued into her recorded interview, first asking Biden, “Why was the issue of sexual assault important to you?”
Biden answered that his father taught him that “the greatest sin of all is the abuse of power, and a cardinal sin was for a man to raise his hand against a woman.”
The former senator then bizarrely claimed that Anita Hill’s testimony re-ignited his passion for protecting women from “sexual harassment and assault.” Of course, Biden was a part of the Anita Hill hearings and reportedly said at the time he thought she was lying.
Milano also asked Biden what he thought about people who say that the #MeToo movement has gone too far.
“You know, when I hear that the pendulum has swung too far, I think, how absurd that is. This kind of backlash occurs when you start to make real progress. We have hundreds of years to make up for. We have to change the culture of the United States and this is our moment. This is our moment.” Biden said. “#MeToo has been a powerful tribute to truth telling.”
Alyssa Milano was also joined on the podcast by Tarana Burke, an activist that is largely credited with founding the #MeToo movement.
“I’ve said this a hundred times–sexual violence, assault, harassment–those things don’t discriminate. There’s no one community that’s more depraved than another. But I think that the response to it differs. And so, it’s not that, you know, communities of color have more sexual violence, it’s that communities of color have less attention to what the kind of violence is happening in our communities,” Burke said.
She also blamed higher rates of sexual assault among “indigenous communities” on “white supremacy.”
Finally, Milano appeared on MSNBC Monday to further defend Biden, saying, “I also want to talk about Anita Hill and really just say that I know this is an issue that has come up for Democrats how the vice president had maybe handled that situation.”
She continued:
I can also tell you from my conversations with him, he deeply regrets what happened. He has dedicated much of his career, and I think we can’t look at his past myopically. We have to look at the big picture with co-authoring the Violence Against Women Act, always being a supporter of the women’s right to choose and fighting for women to be on the Judiciary Committee after Anita Hill. These are all things that are incredibly important to Vice President Biden. And I think it’s important that we discuss it and get it out on the table. But none of this I think if the country chooses that Joe Biden should be the Democratic nominee should stop Joe Biden from being that nominee.
Milano also said that the Democratic primary needs to be about “beating Trump,” who she described as a “horrible, horrible president.”
Steve Moore, Donald Trump’s pick to fill one of the open slots on the Federal Reserve’s board of governors, has withdrawn from consideration.
“I was honored and grateful that you asked me to serve on the Federal Reserve Board,” Moore said in a statement Thursday. “I am respectfully asking that you withdraw my name from consideration. The unrelenting attacks on my character have become untenable for me and my family and 3 more months of this would be too hard on us.”
The news was broken by President Trump on twitter.
….and deregulation which have produced non-inflationary prosperity for all Americans. I’ve asked Steve to work with me toward future economic growth in our Country.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 2, 2019
The withdrawal was sudden and unexpected. On Thursday morning, Moore told the Wall Street Journal that he wouldn’t withdraw.
“I’m not pulling out,” Moore said.
Moore has been hounded in recent weeks by mainstream media attacks that focused on a handful of articles and speeches he wrote, some more than decades old, that alleged Moore had “belittled women.” Questioned by journalists about Moore’s writings, several Senate Republicans expressed doubts about the prospects of confirming him.
A recent piece in the Wall Street Journal included excerpts from several of the articles. Its top example was a column from 1994 opposing the Violence Against Women Act sponsored by Joe Biden and others.
“Probably the most objectionable pork in the entire legislation is the $1.8 billion earmarked for Sen. Joe Biden’s ‘Violence Against Women Act.’ That act sets up gender sensitivity programs for judges and police; classifies assaults against women as ‘hate crimes’ or civil rights offenses, and passes out millions of dollars to women’s groups for ‘rape education’ and a smorgasbord of other programs. The act would be more efficient if Congress cut out the federal middleman and simply required every American household to write a $20 check to the radical feminist group of its choice.”
While voting against a bill called the “Violence Against Women Act” may seem shocking in the current “me too” era, thirty-eight Senators voted against the law in 1994, including two Democrats. It was opposed by moderate and conservative GOP Republicans, including Bob Dole, Orin Hatch, John McCain, Charles Grassley, Trent Lott, Dick Lugar, Jesse Helms, Kay Hutchinson, Richard Shelby, and Mark Warner. In the House, 195 Reps voted no.
Other things cited by journalists included a call for banning women refs from men’s college basketball, a 1990s column criticizing co-ed soccer for children, a 2000 column for National Review lamenting his wife’s decision to vote for a Democrat, and comment to a GOP group last year in which Moore said that Republican women were more attractive than Democrat women. Many of the columns were intended to be humorous or sarcastic.
“His writings contain language that sometimes echoes Mr. Trump’s past comments about women on shock radio and on the infamous ‘Access Hollywood’ tape,” the New York Times claimed.
None of the disputed columns touched on issues that would be directly relevant to a job on the board of governors of the Federal Reserve, which neither supervises college athletic refereeing nor evaluates claims of female attractiveness variability by political affiliation. But critics said “they contain controversial statements that could raise questions about Mr. Moore’s actual views toward women,” as the New York Times put it.
Moore has been a severe critic of the Fed and last year called on Fed chair Jerome Powell to resign, a comment he later said he regretted. He has also questioned whether a central bank is necessary.
“I think we should have a discussion in this country about whether we need a Fed,” Moore said in a Journal interview. “Why not just have a rule? A very simple price rule, and just make sure the Fed carries it out, and take as much discretion away from the Fed as possible.”
Those comments, however, were well known when the nomination was first floated months ago and were not responsible for moving GOP Senators against him, according to people familiar with the matter. Instead, it was the allegations about his writings mentioning women that pushed some Republicans into saying they would not support his nomination, those people said.
Opinion: O.J. case helped bring spousal abuse out of shadows
In a letter that surfaced after her 1994 murder, Nicole Brown Simpson detailed the fear and violence that framed her marriage to O.J. Simpson, the charismatic football star who became a TV pitchman.
Simpson gave her “disgusted” looks with each pound she gained in her first pregnancy in 1988 and “beat the holy hell” out of her a year later, when the couple told an X-ray lab she fell off a bike, she wrote. Three years later, on June 12, 1994, she and friend Ron Goldman were fatally stabbed outside her Los Angeles condominium as her two young children with Simpson slept inside.
Simpson’s murder trial the following year transfixed the nation and raised troubling questions about the intersection of race, celebrity and criminal justice. What’s sometimes forgotten, a quarter-century later, is how the case also shifted the country’s view of domestic violence from a largely private matter to a public health concern.
As the trial unfolded, calls to hotlines, shelters and police exploded.
“Her murder hurled into the forefront a conversation that advocates had been having for years – that it could happen anywhere, to anyone,” American University professor Rachel Louise Snyder wrote in a new book titled “No Visible Bruises: What We Don’t Know About Domestic Violence Can Kill Us.”
In the years that followed, with funding from the 1994 Violence Against Women Act, policy-makers began seeking new ways to address domestic violence beyond sending battered women to shelters and giving them restraining orders that often did little to protect them.
Advocates now see the need for comprehensive services to help victims start over. And more prosecutors are pursuing cases that rely on forensics, medical records and other hard evidence, rather than a victim’s testimony, to bring suspects to court. They try to assess the risk of homicide by weighing risk factors, including substance abuse, gun ownership, forced sex, children by other fathers, violence during pregnancy and stalking. Perhaps the biggest red flag of all is any instance in which an abuser tries to choke off a person’s airway.
“Statistically, we know that once the hands are on the neck, the very next step is homicide,” San Diego Detective Sylvia Vella tells Snyder in the book. “They don’t go backward.”
Efforts are also underway, often court-ordered, to try to counsel and rehabilitate batterers, who were once written off as incorrigible.
Nationwide, more than 1,100 women are killed each year by intimate partners, most often by gunfire, according to a 2018 report by the Violence Policy Center that used 2016 FBI data.
One in 4 women and 1 in 9 men are the victims of non-lethal domestic violence, which is defined as serious physical abuse, sexual abuse or stalking, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Domestic violence hotlines receive 20,000 calls every day in the United States, according to the National Network to End Domestic Violence.
Simpson was acquitted of the double murders at his 1995 trial but found liable for the deaths at his civil trial, when Nicole Brown Simpson’s undated letter to him was introduced. He said he had never seen it before her death.
Anyone reading it might wonder why she stayed with Simpson for so long and reconciled for a time after their 1992 divorce. It’s a common question to ask, but the wrong one, Snyder believes. Many victims work on their exit for years.
“We do not recognize what leaving looks like, and how dangerous it is and how long it takes,” Snyder said in an interview.
In her book, Snyder explores long-held myths about domestic violence through the lens of several women killed in the years after Nicole Brown Simpson. They were neither rich nor famous, but their experiences mirrored hers in many areas – their abusers were older and controlling and fathered children with them, and the women were often reluctant to seek criminal charges after reporting abuse to police.
The deaths of Michelle Monson Mosure in Billings, Montana, in 2001, and Dorothy Giunta-Cotter in Amesbury, Massachusetts, in 2002, led local agencies to conduct lengthy reviews.
Giunta-Cotter had hopscotched across New England seeking safety in shelters before deciding that she and her children couldn’t hide from her husband forever. She moved back home to Amesbury, hoping that her children would at least escape if he came for her.
That exact scenario soon came to pass. Days after holding her hostage at the house, and being released on $500 bail, William Cotter killed his wife and then himself with a sawed-off shotgun, after blowing past their 11-year-old daughter at the door. Another daughter was at a friend’s house.
Mosure was impregnated at 14 by her 24-year-old boyfriend and had a second child with him before finishing high school. When the youngest started school, she enrolled in nursing school, although she learned she had to marry Rocky Mosure to get financial aid not tied to her parents’ income.
“For Michelle, it was the biggest irony of her life, a system that forced her to marry a man she was working so hard to leave,” Snyder writes.
Not long after, Mosure shattered the window of the bolted back door at her mother’s house, where she had dropped off their children. When his parents bailed him out of jail, an alarmed Michelle Mosure recanted her affidavit and moved back in with Mosure. Two months later, he killed her and the children in their basement before turning the gun on himself.
Authorities in both communities realized that shelters alone were not a solution, that danger peaked after an arrest and that abusers need to be jailed or monitored until victims can make a safety plan. They also concluded that guns increase the risk exponentially.
For many people in volatile relationships, child custody issues can be especially treacherous.
“You are tied to that person you have a child with for 18 years, even longer, honestly. For a lot of our clients, that is a very terrifying thing,” said Stacy Dougherty, community outreach director at Laurel House, a domestic violence shelter in the Philadelphia suburbs, where two women were killed in recent months during custody exchanges at convenience stores.
After spending 10 years researching domestic violence for her book, the issue hit close to home for Snyder last week, when a couple she knew from her daughter’s school community in Washington, D.C., died in a murder-suicide during a contentious divorce. Snyder, a friend of the extended family, said Jason Rieff was set to lose custody of their children while Lola Gulomova took them overseas on her next State Department assignment.
According to a police report cited by The Washington Post, Rieff shot himself in the head after police arrived Friday morning. They found Gulomova’s body in another room.
Snyder, faced with the difficult task of telling her daughter about the deaths, has not had time to fully analyze it yet.
“All I know is that this underscores the importance of my book and my work, and that people get desperate when they feel there is no way out,” she said Tuesday. “We’ve made progress in that we know more” about domestic violence. “But we’ve lost ground in that this is still happening in such numbers.”
‘Squad’ Undercuts Pelosi, Demands House Reconvene to Address White Supremacy
House Democrats – including three members of the far-left “Squad” – are calling on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) to reconvene the House to address white supremacy and gun violence, despite Pelosi’s calls for the pressure to stay on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY).
Democrat Reps. Tom Malinowski (D-NJ) and Veronica Escobar (D-TX) are pushing a letter, calling on both chambers – not just McConnell’s Senate – to cut their recess short to address white supremacy and gun violence. The letter follows the two deadly attacks that ravaged communities in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, over the weekend, leaving more than 30 killed and several dozen injured.
The letter, obtained by VICE News, reads in part:
We are writing to request that urgent attention be given to legislation to address the threats posed by white supremacist terrorism. First, we call on the Senate to reconvene to consider legislation already passed by the House to strengthen the background check system and enhance gun safety. Second, we believe that the relevant House and Senate Committees of jurisdiction should meet during the August recess, and that all other Members and Senators should be prepared to return to Washington as soon as a substantive, meaningful package to combat white supremacist terrorism is ready for consideration. We the undersigned stand ready to return to the Capitol before September 9 to take up this important work.
The letter states that there is legislation pending in both chambers that would “strengthen our government’s ability to confront domestic terrorism while making it harder for terrorists to purchase guns.” It cites the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act, No HATE Act, the Disarm Hate Act, and the Domestic Terrorism Data Act:
Pending legislation includes the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act, which would beef up the Justice and Homeland Security Department units responsible for addressing this threat, while improving collection of data. The No HATE Act, the Disarm Hate Act, and the Domestic Terrorism Data Act also seek to address some of the threats posed by violent extremism in the United States. Congress should further consider appropriating supplemental funds to both Departments so that they can meet the threat without reducing other essential counter-terrorism efforts. And we should consider passing a domestic terrorism statute, and new measures to combat the spread of hateful ideologies online.
“We should not wait until the district work period ends on September 9 to take action that will protect the American people,” the letter adds.
The letter’s proponents hope to garner as many signatures as possible before sending it to Pelosi and McConnell. According to VICE News, it has earned the support of 48 lawmakers, including three members of the infamous “Squad”: Reps. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), Ilhan Omar (D-MN), and Ayanna Pressley (D-MA).
Nonetheless, the letter is likely to fall on deaf ears, with Pelosi urging her colleagues to focus on putting pressure on McConnell instead.
“The focus now has to be on Mitch McConnell,” Pelosi told a group of activists Monday, dismissing calls for immediate House action. “Bring the Senate back.”
It is the same sentiment she expressed to House Democrats during a private call Monday, in which she urged them to focus on McConnell and the Senate.
According to Politico:
Pelosi told Democrats on the call that they should keep their focus on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and his blanket refusal to consider two gun control bills that passed the House earlier this year.
“The president and Mitch McConnell have to feel the public sentiment on this. We have a golden opportunity to save lives,” Pelosi said on the call, according to an aide.
“The grim reaper said he is not going to bring them up,” she added, using McConnell’s self-given nickname. “This is where we have to go.”
Senate Democrats have been calling on McConnell to cut the chamber’s August recess short to vote on the House-passed Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019, although the measure – which would require a background check for every gun sale, even among private individuals with few exceptions – would not have stopped the deadly shootings in El Paso or Dayton. Even CNN admitted such:
There is no indication that the shooting in Dayton, Ohio, would have been prevented by proposed universal background checks or legislation to bolster the federal background check system. The alleged El Paso, Texas, shooter purchased his firearm legally and there is no evidence that he had a criminal history that a background check would’ve caught.
Despite that, the far-left “Squad’s” call could be viewed as another slap in the face to Pelosi, who has made it abundantly clear that Democrats should focus on the Senate and Senate alone.
As VICE News reported:
Pelosi strongly suggested on the call that the House wouldn’t come back and that lawmakers should instead focus on blaming the Senate for inaction. In a letter she sent to colleagues later that day, she left open the possibility that the relevant House committees — Judiciary and Homeland Security — would return to work on the issues. A Pelosi spokesman referred VICE News back to that letter when asked about Malinowski’s concerns.
Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) was asked a thoughtful question about the status of the federal female genital mutilation (FGM) statute, since a federal judge had found the law unconstitutional last year. This innocuous and benign question seemingly triggered Omar into a huffy harangue.
Omar seethingly lit into the questioner, calling it an “appalling” question. Ironically, global human rights advocates would view not the question, but the practice of female genital mutilation as appalling. One would have thought that the media-savvy and influential legislator from Somalia, where 97% of the little girls’ genitals are mutilated, would jump at any chance to advocate against such a barbaric practice.
Instead, Omar was seemingly “insulted” and “disgusted” by the question and proceeded to haughtily lecture the questioner:
‘How often? Should I make a schedule? Does this need to be on repeat every five minutes? Should I be, like, so today I forgot to condemn al-Qaeda, so here’s the al-Qaeda one. Today I forgot to condemn FGM, so here we go. Today I forgot to condemn Hamas … You know, I mean, it is a very frustrating question that comes up.’
Why is Omar so testy? Is she somehow conflicted over this brutal practice? After all, despite global condemnation and insidious health complications, Somalia continues to practice FGM and, in fact, is the highest FGM-practicing country in the world.
Listening to Omar’s defensive and haughty tirade to a question about the status of the female genital mutilation law is nothing short of bizarre. One would have thought that the questioner had accused her of immigration fraud by marrying her brother!
The world health community recognizes FGM as a heinous form of female child abuse that has targeted over 200 million women and girls around the world. Yet, the imperious Omar is tired of answering this question, feeling put upon that she must constantly address this issue.
Her defensive and strong pushback belies the fact that she should welcome any opportunity to decry this barbaric procedure that has been imported into the U.S. One would think that she would welcome the opportunity to speak in a public forum about the pain, suffering, and lifelong consequences from FGM.
Her vitriolic response is both curious and very revealing. Omar ended her rant by stating, “If you want us to speak as American politicians, you should treat us as such.”
Well, two of her fellow “American politicians” decided to carry out their legislative duties and act to address the absence of a federal FGM law. Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) and Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA) have introduced companion bills that would criminalize female genital mutilation nationwide.
H.R. 3583 and S. 2017 were both introduced in late June with the goal of overturning the 2018 ruling by a federal judge declaring that Congress was unable to pass a 1996 law which banned FGM. The newly proposed legislation would again ban FGM on girls under 18 and specifies on laws governing interstate commerce, which Congress has jurisdiction over.
This legislation is critically important because only 35 states have criminal laws banning FGM. Congress needs to pass this federal legislation to protect the more than 513,000 girls and women at risk of FGM in the U.S. according to the Centers for Disease Control. FGM is often seen in the United States as a problem that doesn’t happen here. But this practice occurs all over the world and is happening right here on American soil as well.
The World Health Organization and the United Nations both have declared that FGM is a human rights violation. It is a practice that leaves victims with lifelong consequences and causes multiple physical complications. Initially, a victim can suffer from shock, infection, blood loss, and sometimes death. Most survivors suffer from frequent urinary tract infections, difficulty in childbirth, infertility, chronic pain, painful menstruation, painful intercourse, and genital sores—many physical complications the survivor must suffer with in silence.
Women and girls are not just impacted in a physical way; many also suffer from the emotional impact this trauma can cause. Because FGM is regularly done in a non-sterile environment without any form of pain control, it is often one of the most traumatic events they will ever experience. Women and girls are left to deal with anxiety, depression, frequent nightmares, flashbacks, and post-traumatic stress disorder.
All these complications are worsened by the fact that communities are unaware of what FGM is and are not educated on how to help someone who has endured FGM, which also forces survivors to suffer in silence. Survivors need advocates, such as U.S. legislators, to speak out against this barbarism.
The urgency of passing federal FGM legislation cannot be overstated. Answering to the American people is the sworn duty of our public servants—our legislators—who work for the people. Sen. Blackburn and Congressman Perry understand the importance of criminalizing this appalling practice. Unlike Omar, they welcome the opportunity to answer repeated questions about FGM legislation.
By the way, Rep. Omar has yet to sign on as a co-sponsor for H. Res. 960, Empower Our Girls Act, which adds FGM to seven Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) grant programs, allowing FGM victims to receive assistance. Nor has she signed onto H.R. 3583, Federal Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation Act of 2019, which would once again ban the practice for girls under age 18 and includes six specific provisions recommended by the Justice Department.
Now, that’s “appalling.”
Elizabeth Yore is an international child rights attorney who served as Oprah Winfrey’s Special Counsel. She heads the national initiative EndFGMToday.com.
Immigration Benefits: Additional Actions Needed to Address Fraud Risks in Program for Foreign National Victims of Domestic Abuse - GAO-19-676
The Violence Against Women Act self-petition program is intended to protect foreign nationals who suffered domestic abuse at the hands of a family member who is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. Successful petitioners can obtain work authorization and permanent resident status independent of their abuser.
The number of petitions filed grew by over 70% over the past 5 fiscal years. However, the number of petitions referred for potential fraud also increased by about 305%.
We made 3 recommendations to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, including that the agency improve its ability to use data to better detect potential fraud.
HIGHLIGHTS
What GAO Found
Within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has responsibility for the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) self-petition program for foreign national victims of battery or extreme cruelty committed by their U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident (LPR) spouse or parent, or their adult U.S. citizen son or daughter. According to USCIS officials, the self-petition program is vulnerable to fraud, such as self-petitioners' use of false or forged documents. USCIS has adopted some, but not all, of the leading practices in GAO's Fraud Risk Framework. While USCIS has established a culture and a dedicated entity to manage fraud risks for the program, it has not fully assessed fraud risks and determined a fraud risk profile to document its analysis of the types of fraud risks the program could be vulnerable to. Further, the number of self-petitions filed has grown by more than 70 percent over the past 5 fiscal years. At the end of fiscal year 2018, USCIS had received 12,801 self-petitions and had over 19,000 self-petitions pending adjudication. Planning and conducting regular fraud risk assessments would better position USCIS to identify fraud risks when reviewing self-petitions. USCIS has instituted some fraud controls, such as developing antifraud training for self-petition adjudicators, but has not developed and implemented a risk-based antifraud strategy based on a fraud risk assessment. Developing and implementing an antifraud strategy would help USCIS better ensure its controls are addressing potential fraud risks in the program.
DHS provides assistance to victims of immigration-related crimes and refers suspected self-petition fraud for review and investigation. Within DHS, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement provides professional services and assistance to potential victims of immigration-related crimes, including self-petition fraud. As shown in the figure below, USCIS also has a referral process for suspected fraud in self-petitions, which may result in a referral for criminal investigation. According to agency data, from fiscal year 2014 to March 2019, USCIS created 2,208 fraud referral leads and cases that involved a VAWA self-petition. Total leads and cases increased from 198 in fiscal year 2014 to 801 in fiscal year 2019 as of March 2019, an increase of about 305 percent.
Why GAO Did This Study
In fiscal year 2018, foreign nationals filed nearly 13,000 VAWA self-petitions alleging domestic abuse by a U.S. citizen or LPR family member. The Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended by VAWA, provides for immigration relief for self-petitioning foreign nationals who are victims of battery or extreme cruelty committed by their U.S. citizen or LPR family member. The self-petition process allows such victims to obtain classification as an immigrant and ultimately apply for LPR status.
GAO was asked to review fraud risks in the self-petition process and how, if at all, DHS assists U.S. citizens or LPRs who may have been falsely identified as domestic abusers. This report examines the extent to which (1) USCIS has adopted relevant leading practices in GAO's Fraud Risk Framework for the self-petition program; and (2) DHS provides assistance to U.S. citizens or LPRs who may have been falsely identified as domestic abusers in the self-petition process, and steps DHS takes when suspected fraud is identified. GAO reviewed documents, interviewed officials, analyzed program data, and assessed the agency's approach to managing fraud risks against GAO's Fraud Risk Framework.
Recommendations
GAO is making three recommendations, including that USCIS conduct regular fraud risk assessments to determine a fraud risk profile for the program and develop an antifraud strategy with specific control activities. DHS concurred.
Agency Affected: United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
Recommendation: The Director of USCIS should plan and conduct regular fraud risk assessments of the self-petition program to determine a fraud risk profile, as provided in GAO's Fraud Risk Framework. (Recommendation 1)
Status: USCIS agreed with the recommendation and stated it planned to capture self-petition data digitally and to conduct analysis of the data to develop a fraud risk profile and conduct regular fraud risk assessments. In March 2020, USCIS stated the Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate (FDNS)--an office within USCIS--was developing two annual fraud risk assessments for the self-petition program. The first assessment would compare self-petitions submitted between fiscal years 2015 and 2019 to identify emergent trends or large-scale fraud schemes. The second assessment would compare self-petitions that were subject to an adverse action in fiscal year 2019 to a sample of self-petitions believed to be vulnerable to fraud. Once complete, USCIS planned to use the results of the two annual fraud risk assessments to develop a fraud risk profile. In December 2020, USCIS completed its inaugural fraud risk assessment of the self-petition program and identified information leading the agency to initiate an investigation of suspected fraud. USCIS plans to continue to conduct the fraud risk assessments on an annual basis to identify trends or large-scale fraud schemes.
Agency Affected: United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
Recommendation: The Director of USCIS should develop and implement an antifraud strategy with specific control activities, based upon the results of fraud risk assessments and a corresponding fraud risk profile, as provided in GAO's Fraud Risk Framework. (Recommendation 2)
Status: USCIS agreed with the recommendation and stated it planned to create an antifraud strategy that included adjudicators and officials from the Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate (FDNS)-an office within USCIS-to emphasize fraud detection prior to the adjudication of self-petitions. In March 2020, USCIS officials told us FDNS would use the fraud risk profile it generates from its two annual fraud risk assessments to create and implement an antifraud strategy. According to USCIS, this strategy would expand upon existing agency fraud awareness initiatives and reporting mechanisms, and would emphasize fraud detection prior to the adjudication of a self-petition. In July 2021, USCIS created a fraud risk assessment that is being used to develop a fraud risk profile and further inform the USCIS anti-fraud strategy. The assessment will use data analytics and other investigative tools to identify fraud trends and examine vulnerabilities in the self-petition program.
Agency Affected: United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
Recommendation: The Director of USCIS should develop and implement data analytics capabilities for the self-petition program, as a means to prevent and detect fraud, as provided in GAO's Fraud Risk Framework. (Recommendation 3)
Status: USCIS agreed with the recommendation and stated it planned to develop analytic tools to verify information provided by self-petitioners and to identify indicators or potential fraud. Further, USCIS stated it planned to use the results of the data analytics to inform antifraud training. In March 2020, USCIS officials told us the Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate (FDNS)--an office within USCIS--would use the fraud risk profile it generates from its two annual fraud risk assessments to develop data matching and other data analytics capabilities for the self-petition program as a means to prevent and detect fraud. According to USCIS, the capabilities could range from simple reports and notifications for stakeholders to quantitative modeling. In December 2020, USCIS officials provided us documentation of their analysis of self-petition application data to identify populations of self-petitions vulnerable to fraud. USCIS officials told us they plan to build upon and improve their data analysis tools as a part of their ongoing annual fraud risk assessments.
Additional Actions Needed to Address Fraud Risks in Program for Foreign National Victims of Domestic Abuse
Within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has responsibility for the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) self-petition program for foreign national victims of battery or extreme cruelty committed by their U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident (LPR) spouse or parent, or their adult U.S. citizen son or daughter. According to USCIS officials, the self-petition program is vulnerable to fraud, such as selfpetitioners’ use of false or forged documents. USCIS has adopted some, but not all, of the leading practices in GAO’s Fraud Risk Framework. While USCIS has established a culture and a dedicated entity to manage fraud risks for the program, it has not fully assessed fraud risks and determined a fraud risk profile to document its analysis of the types of fraud risks the program could be vulnerable to. Further, the number of self-petitions filed has grown by more than 70 percent over the past 5 fiscal years. At the end of fiscal year 2018, USCIS had received 12,801 self-petitions and had over 19,000 self-petitions pending adjudication. Planning and conducting regular fraud risk assessments would better position USCIS to identify fraud risks when reviewing self-petitions. USCIS has instituted some fraud controls, such as developing antifraud training for self-petition adjudicators, but has not developed and implemented a risk-based antifraud strategy based on a fraud risk assessment. Developing and implementing an antifraud strategy would help USCIS better ensure its controls are addressing potential fraud risks in the program.
DHS provides assistance to victims of immigration-related crimes and refers suspected self-petition fraud for review and investigation. Within DHS, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement provides professional services and assistance to potential victims of immigration-related crimes, including selfpetition fraud. As shown in the figure below, USCIS also has a referral process for suspected fraud in self-petitions, which may result in a referral for criminal investigation. According to agency data, from fiscal year 2014 to March 2019, USCIS created 2,208 fraud referral leads and cases that involved a VAWA selfpetition. Total leads and cases increased from 198 in fiscal year 2014 to 801 in fiscal year 2019 as of March 2019, an increase of about 305 percent.
Why GAO Did This Study
In fiscal year 2018, foreign nationals filed nearly 13,000 VAWA self-petitions alleging domestic abuse by a U.S. citizen or LPR family member. The Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended by VAWA, provides for immigration relief for self-petitioning foreign nationals who are victims of battery or extreme cruelty committed by their U.S. citizen or LPR family member. The self-petition process allows such victims to obtain classification as an immigrant and ultimately apply for LPR status. GAO was asked to review fraud risks in the self-petition process and how, if at all, DHS assists U.S. citizens or LPRs who may have been falsely identified as domestic abusers. This report examines the extent to which (1) USCIS has adopted relevant leading practices in GAO’s Fraud Risk Framework for the self-petition program; and (2) DHS provides assistance to U.S. citizens or LPRs who may have been falsely identified as domestic abusers in the self-petition process, and steps DHS takes when suspected fraud is identified. GAO reviewed documents, interviewed officials, analyzed program data, and assessed the agency’s approach to managing fraud risks against GAO’s Fraud Risk Framework.
The Self-Petition Fraud Referral Process
What GAO Recommends
GAO is making three recommendations, including that USCIS conduct regular fraud risk assessments to determine a fraud risk profile for the program and develop an antifraud strategy with specific control activities. DHS concurred.
View GAO-19-676. For more information, contact Rebecca Gambler at (202) 512-8777
or GamblerR@gao.gov or Rebecca Shea at (202) 512-6722 or SheaR@gao.gov.
Feds: Potentially 2.2K Foreigners Posing as Abuse Victims to Obtain Visas
Potentially thousands of foreign nationals living in the United States have posed as domestic abuse victims since 2014 in order to obtain a green card to permanently remain in the country, a federal report states.
A new report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) details potential widespread fraud spurred by a provision in the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), which allows foreign nationals living in the U.S. to self-petition for a green card so long as they prove that they are the victim of domestic violence by their U.S. citizen or green card holder spouse or parent, or their adult U.S. citizen son or daughter.
“According to [United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)] officials, the self-petition program is vulnerable to fraud, such as self petitioners’ use of false or forged documents,” the GAO report states.
Since October 1, 2013, USCIS has detected more than 2,200 cases of potential fraud by foreign nationals seeking a green card under the VAWA program. In Fiscal Year 2014, there were less than 200 cases of potential fraud. By Fiscal Year 2019, the number of potential fraud cases had increased to more than 800 — a 305 percent jump in six years.
Similar to the increase in potential fraud, the number of foreign nationals who are petitioning for green cards by claiming to be domestic violence victims has grown by more than 70 percent since October 1, 2013.
By the end of Fiscal Year 2018, USCIS received nearly 13,000 petitions for green cards from foreign nationals claiming to be victims of domestic violence. That same year, there were already more than 19,000 cases pending adjudication.
GAO investigators are urging federal immigration officials to regularly conduct fraud risk assessments of the VAWA program in order to determine a fraud risk profile, implement an anti-fraud plan, and develop an analytics plan to detect fraud.
Every year, the U.S. admits about 1.2 million legal immigrants with the overwhelming majority, nearly 70 percent, coming through the process known as “chain migration,” whereby newly naturalized citizens are allowed to bring an unlimited number of foreign nationals to the country. The mass inflow of legal immigrants is in addition to the hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens who are added to the U.S. population annually.
Senate talks on crafting bipartisan Violence Against Women Act break down
Iowa's Ernst to push her own bill, calls House version ‘nonstarter’
Bipartisan Senate talks over a reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act fell apart this week, Iowa Republican Sen. Joni Ernst said in a floor speech Thursday.
Ernst said she’ll introduce her own version of the bill that can pass the Republican-controlled Senate and gain the support of President Donald Trump. The House, controlled by Democrats, passed a version of the bill in April.
“Just this week, after months of work and mountains of effort toward a bipartisan bill, it all came to a screeching halt,” Ernst said. “Once again Democrats are putting politics ahead of people.”
A representative for Ernst’s counterpart in the negotiations, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., could not be immediately reached for comment Thursday.
Ernst said the bill had been swept up in “election year politics” that drove the negotiations off the rails. Earlier this year Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina, said he would defer to Feinstein and Ernst to negotiate a bill. Unlike nominations, Senate rules effectively require bipartisan support to pass legislation, so majority Republicans would need at least some Democrats to be on board.
Ernst said a bill that passed the House in April — with 33 Republicans joining nearly all the Democrats, despite some complaining it included “poison pill” provisions — was a “nonstarter” in the Senate. She said that during negotiations, however, that was the measure Senate Democrats wanted brought up.
Gun rights at issue
The most contentious provision in the House-passed bill would lower the criminal threshold to bar someone from buying a gun to include misdemeanor convictions of stalking and a broader swath of domestic abuse crimes. The law currently applies to felony convictions.
The authorization for the law ran out last year, although appropriations bills passed since then have continued funding for the programs.
The Violence Against Women Act has been a hot-button political issue for years, and the negotiations’ failure does not bode well for its future this Congress. Originally passed in 1994 to address the prevalence of domestic and sexual violence, the law has been reauthorized several times. It created programs to enhance investigation and prosecution of violent crime against women and authorized grants to state and local law enforcement.
Congress only passed the 2013 law after a several-year struggle over reauthorization, as changes like expanding Native American jurisdiction over nontribal defendants slowed passage.
A quarter of women experience severe intimate-partner physical violence, and 1 in 7 have been stalked by an intimate partner to the point where she felt very fearful, or believed that she or someone close to her would be harmed or killed, according to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence.
Senate Democrats pick fight over gun provisions in VAWA
Bipartisan talks broke down over renewing law aimed at curbing domestic violence
Senate Democrats on Wednesday introduced the same Violence Against Women Act reauthorization bill passed by the House, days after they say talks with Republicans about a compromise broke down over controversial gun provisions.
The entire Democratic caucus has backed the bill, which has provisions restricting gun rights of certain convicts that helped spur the split with Senate Republicans. While promoting the measure during a news conference Wednesday, Democrats blamed the National Rifle Association’s sway in the chamber for the Republicans’ reluctance to back the bill.
“We call on our Republican colleagues to not hide in the shadows here … to at least stand up to the NRA on this very focused provision,” Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, a presidential candidate, said at the event.
Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst, who has taken the GOP lead in the chamber, has called the House bill a “nonstarter” in the Senate. In a floor speech last week after negotiations broke down, Ernst said that “once again Democrats are putting politics ahead of people.”
She repeated the belief in a statement released just before an event held by her Democratic colleagues.
“I hope Senate Democrats don’t decide to completely turn their backs on our progress and the survivors this bill is intended to support,” Ernst said. “I still stand ready to work in a bipartisan way.”
Ernst has said she plans on introducing her own version of the legislation that may get backing from Senate leadership and President Donald Trump. Without some bipartisanship, neither bill has much chance of passing the Senate, where rules require at least 60 votes to advance legislation.
Ernst’s Democratic counterpart in the negotiations, California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, cited the long delay in negotiations over three key provisions in the bill since the House passed its legislation in April. The two sides have tried to hash out an agreement over the gun provision, as well as further expansions of tribal jurisdiction and LGBTQ protections.
“It was obvious that we weren’t going to come to an agreement at that time,” Feinstein said of her work with Ernst. “So I indicated to her that I was going to introduce it, and happy to continue, meeting with her on the three points, that I think are the points of issue.”
Appropriations have been made for programs normally authorized by the Violence Against Women Act after the law lapsed.
‘Not a good sign’
While Senate Democrats have held to the gun provisions that proved the most controversial in negotiations, Sen. Mazie K. Hirono, D-Hawaii, acknowledged “it’s certainly not a good sign” for the bill’s future that the two parties have split on the issue.
The House bill would lower the criminal threshold to bar someone from buying a gun to include misdemeanor convictions of stalking and a broader swath of domestic abuse crimes. The law currently applies to felony convictions and a subset of misdemeanors.
Reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act has remained controversial since its original passage in 1994. The law started with a focus on abuse between married partners and has slowly expanded in subsequent reauthorizations.
A 2013 reauthorization law passed after several years of negotiations over provisions like expanding tribal jurisdiction to nontribal defendants in domestic abuse cases.
According to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, a quarter of women experience intimate partner violence and 1 in 7 has been stalked by an intimate partner.
Blame game in standoff over Violence Against Women Act
Ernst says Democrats motivated by her 2020 race; Schumer calls her ‘afraid of NRA’
Iowa Republican Sen. Joni Ernst said Tuesday that Democrats trying to undermine her 2020 reelection contributed to stalled talks to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act.
Ernst had been working with Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California for months on a bipartisan reauthorization bill before both sides said the negotiations fell apart earlier this month.
Democrats argued they had reached an impasse on gun rights provisions that the House, over the objection of most GOP members, added to the bill earlier this year.
Ernst laid the blame partially at the feet of Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer, a Democrat from New York.
“Basically anybody that’s up in 2020, Schumer doesn’t want to move on legislation sponsored by them,” Ernst said.
Democrats said Republicans were doing the work of the National Rifle Association.
“The House passed it more than 200 days ago,” Schumer told reporters on Tuesday. “Sen. Ernst is simply afraid of the NRA.”
Gun purchases banned
Last week, Feinstein introduced the House version of the reauthorization, and every member in the Democratic caucus was a cosponsor.
Existing law bars gun purchases by people convicted of felonies and some misdemeanors. The House renewal of VAWA would add convictions for misdemeanor stalking and more domestic abuse crimes to that list.
Feinstein told CQ Roll Call that she felt no pressure from Democratic leadership over working with Ernst.
She said talks “haven’t broken down, they just weren’t going anywhere,” after eight months, so Feinstein introduced the House-passed measure. She said she’s still open to a compromise with Ernst.
Ernst argued the House-passed bill was a “nonstarter” in the Senate, saying it is “full of political talking points.”
She said she was preparing to introduce a bill that would not include an expanded ban on gun purchases and provisions to increase support for LGBTQ victims at shelters. The measure also would change House-approved language that expanded Native American jurisdiction over non-tribal defendants on reservations.
Ernst said she plans to introduce her own version of the bill later this week, but is still approaching colleagues to add cosponsors. Two she mentioned to reporters — Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and John Cornyn of Texas — will also be on the ballot next year.
Ernst and Cornyn ranked Nos. 7 and 10 on CQ Roll Call’s list of the most vulnerable senators on the ballot next year. Inside Elections with Nathan L. Gonzales rates Ernst’s race Lean Republican, and Cornyn’s Likely Republican. President Donald Trump carried both of their states by 9 percentage points in 2016.
It’s not clear how either bill could move without bipartisan support, because Senate rules require bipartisan support for current legislation.
Eden Prairie woman accused of faking crimes to obtain visas
An Eden Prairie woman is accused of masterminding fake assaults in a scam aimed at obtaining visas issued to crime victims who cooperate with police.
Using a box cutter or sharp object, the woman cut four participants who then filed police reports claiming they had been injured during attempted robberies, according to court documents.
Yuridia Hernandez Linares, 36, told the participants they could obtain a U visa afterward, the documents said. Such visas are “set aside for victims of certain crimes who have suffered mental or physical abuse and are helpful to law enforcement,” according to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services website.
She had obtained a U visa in 2016 after falsely reporting that she was a crime victim, according to court documents.
Hernandez Linares was charged last week in Hennepin County District Court with one count of felony theft by swindle, which accuses her of taking money from victims.
She is charged with crimes committed this year, but authorities say she helped perpetrate a similar scam in 2015 where she and a friend reported they had been attacked.
“[The victims] told police officers they were afraid of Defendant and immigration,” said the charges. “Defendant had told them that if they told anyone, they would all go to jail.”
Eden Prairie police issued a news release Tuesday noting that armed robberies reported along Anderson Lakes Parkway, where Hernandez Linares lives, on Oct. 25, 2015; Aug. 20, 2019; and Aug. 30, 2019 were not real. Two victims were reported for each day.
Four victims from 2019 told police they paid Hernandez Linares a total of $5,000 and admitted that they worked with her to file false police reports.
According to the complaint: A man and a woman reported to police that on Aug. 20 they were on a trail near Bay Point Lake Apartments when two men approached them from behind and brandished a knife. The woman reported being grabbed by the neck and robbed of her purse, and the man reported that his wallet was stolen. Both reported being cut with a knife.
On Aug. 30, two women reported to police that they were going to visit Hernandez Linares, but she was not home, so they walked to a nearby McDonald’s. They reported that two men approached them from behind, grabbed their purses and that they were both cut in the process, the charges said.
Eden Prairie officers investigating the cases discovered that the circumstances were similar to an October 2015 case in which Hernandez Linares and her friend reported being robbed and cut by two men armed with knives.
“All the wounds were clean superficial cuts of approximately same length and each victim sustained only one injury,” the charges said. “None of the wounds were puncture wounds.”
Hernandez Linares sent a letter to the police department in March 2016 requesting a U visa, which was signed by the police chief, according to the complaint.
Police obtained phone records showing that the participants in the Aug. 20 incident communicated with her several times in the days leading up to and after the attack.
Hernandez Linares was arrested last week and is in custody at the Hennepin County jail.
Immigrant Allegedly Ran Scam to Secure Visas for Fake Crime Victims
An immigrant has been arrested and charged for allegedly operating a business scam that promised visas to foreign nationals who fraudulently claimed to be crime victims.
Yuridia Hernandez Linares, a 36-years-old foreign national, is accused of attempting to secure foreign nationals U visas by faking violent crimes and reporting them to the Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office, according to the Star Tribune.
The U visa is a nonimmigrant visa that provides foreign crime victims and their family members a visa to remain in the United States.
According to local authorities, Linares obtained a U visa in 2016 after fraudulently claiming to federal immigration officials that she had been the victim of violent crime. Linares and her friend, police said, faked a violent crime in October 2015 where they claimed they had been robbed and cut by two men with knives.
After the fake attack, police said Linares sent a letter to the local police department requesting a U visa which was signed off on by authorities.
Linares’ business, police said, involved using box cutters and knives to cut foreign nationals who would then report to police that they had been the victims of robberies. Afterward, Linares promised her customers that she would help them secure a U visa.
Four customers of Linares’ told police they paid the woman $5,000 each to help them fraudulently obtain U visas by filing false police reports of violent crimes this year that never occurred.
Linares is currently in Hennepin County custody.
Last month, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) detailed potential widespread abuse of the U visa program spurred by a provision in the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) in which more than 2,200 cases of potential fraud by foreign nationals have been detected since 2013, Breitbart News reported.
In Fiscal Year 2014, there were less than 200 cases of potential fraud in the U visa program. By Fiscal Year 2019, the number of potential fraud cases had increased to more than 800 — a 305 percent jump in six years.
Every year, the U.S. admits about 1.2 million legal immigrants with the overwhelming majority, nearly 70 percent, coming through the process known as “chain migration,” whereby newly naturalized citizens are allowed to bring an unlimited number of foreign nationals to the country. The mass inflow of legal immigrants is in addition to the hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens who are added to the U.S. population annually.
Biden Repeatedly Says ‘Punching at It’ While Touting Domestic Violence Plan
Former Vice President Joe Biden repeatedly used the term “punching at it” while touting his plan to combat violence against women on Wednesday.
Biden, who earlier this year was accused of unwanted touching by multiple women, was asked about the #MeToo movement and his plan to further female equality at the Democrat debate in Atlanta, Georgia. The former vice president began by discussing his work in the Obama administration to help prevent sexual assaults on college campuses, before moving on towards discussing his support for tackling domestic violence.
“No man has a right to raise a hand to a woman in anger, other than in self defense and that’s rarely ever occurred,” the 77-year-old Biden said. “So we have to just change the culture, period. And keep punching at it, and punching at it, and punching at it.”
When members began to laugh and mumble at the statement, Biden responded that he “really” did “mean it” and it was “gigantic issue.”
“We have to make it clear, from the top, from the president on down that we will not tolerate it,” the former vice president said. “We will not tolerate this culture.”
The comments come shortly after the former vice president engendered criticism for the timing of his proposal to end violence against women. The plan, which is an updated version of the Violence Against Women Act that Biden wrote while serving in the Senate during the 1990s, did not draw criticism itself, but rather the fact that it’s release came days after the former vice president attended a fundraiser with two long time allies accused of abusing women.
Fact Check: Joe Biden Claims Men ‘Rarely’ Need to Defend Themselves Against Women
Former Vice President Joe Biden claimed during the fifth Democrat presidential debate in Atlanta that a situation where a man needs to defend himself against a woman “rarely ever occurs.”
Biden was speaking in the context of domestic violence and his track record of addressing the issue via legislation like the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), which he cosponsored and passed in 1994.
His gaffe, that the problem of gendered violence must be solved by “punching at it and punching at it,” has drawn a lot of attention on social media.
But the factual inaccuracy of his claim that men “rarely” need to defend themselves against women also deserves attention.
In the context of domestic violence, which is what the VAWA sought to address, the claim is not accurate. Both late and recent studies of domestic violence show high rates of victimhood among men.
Centers for Disease Control (CDC) statistics released in 2013 show 29 percent of heterosexual men reporting domestic abuse at the hands of a partner, compared to 35 percent for heterosexual women.
A six-point percentage gap is not sufficient to declare the former “rare.”
An earlier meta-analysis of domestic violence studies in the United States, conducted in 2000, found that women were slightly more likely to commit acts of domestic violence but that men were more likely to cause injury. Nevertheless, the analysis still found that a “substantial minority of men were injured by a [female] partner.
“It is therefore not the case … that women’s violence toward men severe enough to cause physical injury is negligible or nonexistent,” concluded the analysis.
Another, more recent meta-analysis of 1,700 peer-reviewed studies on domestic violence encompassing cases from the U.S, Canada, and the U.K. found comparable rates of domestic violence victimhood for men and women (19.3 percent for men and 23 percent for women), as well as higher rates of female-perpetrated violence (28.3 percent female vs 21.6 percent male).
All of the studies on domestic violence show varying rates of female-on-male violence vs male-on-female violence. But none of them support Joe Biden’s contention that situations where men must defend themselves against women only “rarely” occur.
Houston police chief criticizes McConnell and Senate Republicans over guns: ‘Whose side are you on?’
Washington CNN — Houston Police Chief Art Acevedo criticized Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and other Republican lawmakers for not reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act and taking action against gun violence, asking them in emotional remarks to choose between the nation’s foremost gun lobby and “the children that are getting gunned down in this country every single day.”
Acevedo made his remarks to reporters Monday as the Houston Police Department prepared to escort the body of Sgt. Chris Brewster, an officer who died in the line of duty, to a funeral home. The 32-year-old was shot and killed while responding to a call with a team on Saturday.
“I don’t want to hear about how much they support law enforcement,” Acevedo said. “I don’t want to hear about how much they care about lives and the sanctity of lives yet, we all know in law enforcement that one of the biggest reasons that the Senate and Mitch McConnell and (Texas Sens.) John Cornyn and Ted Cruz and others are not getting into a room and having a conference committee with the House and getting the Violence Against Women’s Act (passed) is because the NRA doesn’t like the fact that we want to take firearms out of the hands of boyfriends that abuse their girlfriends. And who killed our sergeant? A boyfriend abusing his girlfriend. So you’re either here for women and children and our daughters and our sisters and our aunts, or you’re here for the (National Rifle Association).”
He continued: “So I don’t want to see their little smug faces talking about how much they care about law enforcement when I’m burying a sergeant because they don’t want to piss off the NRA. Make up your minds, whose side are you on? Gun manufacturers, the gun lobby, or the children that are getting gunned down in this country every single day.”
Reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, which was enacted in 1994, has stalled in Congress. The bill provides grants and support to various groups that work on issues relating to sexual assault and domestic violence and prevention, among other things.
In April, the House voted to reauthorize the act after it lapsed earlier this year. Democrats declined to extend it, wanting to pass their own reauthorization for another five years instead.
Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California and Republican Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa had worked on a Senate version that aimed to be more bipartisan, but discussions fell apart. Last month, Ernst introduced her own version of the VAWA that extends the act by 10 years and Feinstein introduced a Senate version of the House bill.
CNN has reached out McConnell for comment.
A spokesman for Cruz said the congressman “is currently reviewing Violence Against Women Act legislation in the Senate.”
“For many years, Senator Cruz has worked in law enforcement, helping lead the fight to ensure that violent criminals – and especially sexual predators who target women and children – face the very strictest punishment,” the spokesman also said in the email to CNN.
Cornyn’s office on Monday blamed Democrats for delayed action on the VAWA.
“The Violence Against Women Act is still fully funded despite what the Chief implied. And he’s got it backwards – Democrats in DC walked away from negotiations and that’s when it fell apart,” Cornyn’s office said in an email. They also pointed to Cornyn’s remarks last month in which he said Democrats “took the easy way out and simply walked away and introduced their own partisan reauthorization, one that they know has no chance of passing.”
“Despite the games being played here, my Republican colleagues and I are working to put in the hard work that it takes to actually accomplish something and legislate,” he said at the time.
VAWA programs, though, are technically still being funded.
Cornyn’s office also said the suspect, Arturo Solis, 25, should not have been in possession of a gun due to a 2015 conviction in which he pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor for assaulting a family member.
Texas law prohibits a person convicted of a misdemeanor for family violence from possessing or transferring firearms and ammunition.
Solis was arrested at a school near the scene of the shooting and was armed with a semi-automatic pistol, according to Acevedo. Solis has been charged with capital murder of a police officer. CNN has reached out to his court appointed attorney for comment.
Congress has also struggled to pass gun control legislation, even in the aftermath of mass shootings. Democrats have expressed frustration with McConnell for not pushing for gun control legislation and have called for immediate action.
Houston police chief says criticism of GOP lawmakers over guns is ‘not political’
Washington CNN — Houston Police Chief Art Acevedo on Wednesday stood by his criticism of Senate Republicans for not reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act and taking action against gun violence, saying “death is not political.”
“To the people who say this is political – this is not political. Death is not political – you see, death is final,” Acevedo told CNN during an interview in Houston. “So the question is simple: Do you, Senator (Ted) Cruz support closing the boyfriend loophole that’s in that (Violence Against Women Act) law, yes or no? Because if you look at the response from the elected officials in the Senate, not one of them addressed the loophole. You know why? Because you’re on the wrong side of history. That’s why.”
While federal law bars spouses, ex-spouses, live-in partners and people who have children together from possessing a firearm if they have a domestic violence conviction, it does not apply similar constraints to dating partners in what’s known as the “boyfriend loophole.”
An outspoken advocate on the issue of domestic violence, Acevedo on Monday slammed Texas Republican Sens. Ted Cruz and John Cornyn along with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, for not pushing to close the loophole, as the Houston Police Department mourned the death of Sgt. Chris Brewster. He was shot and killed while responding to a call from a woman who said her boyfriend was armed and assaulting her.
“I don’t want to hear about how much they support law enforcement,” the police chief said on Monday. “I don’t want to hear about how much they care about lives and the sanctity of lives yet, we all know in law enforcement that one of the biggest reasons that the Senate and Mitch McConnell and John Cornyn and Ted Cruz and others are not getting into a room and having a conference committee with the House and getting the Violence Against Women’s Act (passed) is because the NRA doesn’t like the fact that we want to take firearms out of the hands of boyfriends that abuse their girlfriends. And who killed our sergeant? A boyfriend abusing his girlfriend. So you’re either here for women and children and our daughters and our sisters and our aunts, or you’re here for the (National Rifle Association).”
He continued: “I don’t want to see their little smug faces talking about how much they care about law enforcement when I’m burying a sergeant because they don’t want to piss off the NRA,” he said. “Make up your minds, whose side are you on? Gun manufacturers, the gun lobby, or the children that are getting gunned down in this country every single day.”
On Capitol Hill, Cornyn told CNN on Wednesday that Acevedo was “mistaken” by invoking the Violence Against Women Act, arguing that laws are already in place to prevent those with domestic abuse convictions in Texas from owning firearms. Texas law prohibits a person convicted of a misdemeanor for family violence from possessing or transferring firearms and ammunition for five years. And federal law says a person who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence is prohibited from possessing any firearm or ammunition.
Congressional response
In a statement, Cruz argued Acevedo was playing politics.
“It’s unfortunate the chief of police in Houston seems more focused on trying to advance his own political ambitions than on supporting the brave men and women of HPD (Houston Police Department),” he said. “The fact is that this killer was a criminal whom federal law already prohibited from having a gun.”
The suspect in Brewster’s killing has a 2015 conviction of assaulting a family member, according to public records.
“Under current law the shooter would’ve been legally disqualified from purchasing a firearm,” Cornyn said. “So I regret (Acevedo) took the occasion, the sad occasion, of the officer’s murder to try to make a political statement that was factually wrong.”
Reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, which was enacted in 1994, has stalled in Congress. The bill provides grants and support to various groups that work on issues relating to sexual assault and domestic violence and prevention, among other things.
In April, the Democratic-led House voted to reauthorize the act after it lapsed earlier this year – and added language to apply many provisions to dating partners. Some Republicans at the time objected to the bill for several reasons, including the inclusion of a provision that would close the “boyfriend loophole,” prohibiting dating partners convicted of assault or stalking from purchasing firearms.
The future of the Violence Against Women Act
Discussions in the Senate for a bipartisan version of the bill have fallen apart. Last month, Republican Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa introduced her own version of the Violence Against Women Act that extends the law by 10 years while Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California introduced a Senate version of the House bill.
Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina told CNN on Capitol Hill he hopes there can be a bipartisan compromise and hopes it could be reauthorized permanently.
“I mean we seem to be stuck here,” he said on Wednesday when asked if a negotiation could be reached by the end of the year. “I was hoping that Sen(s). Ernst and Feinstein could get there from here, but we’ll keep trying.”
Democrats and gun advocates have criticized Senate Republicans for prolonging action on gun violence.
When asked about criticism that Senate Republicans are delaying action on the Violence Against Women Act to avoid angering the NRA, Graham said: “I don’t believe that.”
“I think what’s going on here is you’re having a lot of concepts, social policy changes that are really not at the heart of the Violence Against Women (Act) so there’s probably blame to go around to all sides,” Graham told CNN.
The Houston Police Officers’ Union Board on Monday issued a memo to union members criticizing Acevedo for making “political statements” in the wake of Brewster’s death and called for Acevedo to apologize to the Houston Police Department for “hijacking this somber moment.”
“The fact that Chief Acevedo chose that moment to make a political statement on guns, is nothing short of offensive and inappropriate. There is a time and place for every discussion and this was neither the time nor the place,” according to a copy of the memo obtained by CNN. “We are all grieving for Chris and the focus should be on him and his family and not on the Chief’s agenda.”
