VAWA Posts:
In 2010, legislators and domestic violence agencies pushed for the IVAWA/International Violence Against Women Act. The cost to US tax payers? $500,000,000.00
"Half-a-billion dollars sounds like a lot, but it’s so tiny in the context of the U.S. budget, it’s like a rounding error."
(Rita Sharma - Co-founder of Women Thrive Worldwide - on funding for IVAWA). [NEWSMAKERS - A Bill to Help Curb Violence. Idaho Press-Tribune -Nampa, ID. May 2, 2010.]
Senate Judiciary Committee Reviews Violence Against Women Act
US Fed News (USA)
January 2, 2010
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
WASHINGTON, June 11 -- The Senate Judiciary Committee conducted a hearing "to examine the Violence Against Women Act," according to a committee notice published in the Congressional Record.
The committee received testimony at the hearing, which was conducted on June 10, from Catherine Pierce, acting director of Office of Violence Against Women at the Department of Justice; Karen Tronsgard-Scott, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, Montpelier; Ann Burke, Lindsay Ann Burke Memorial Fund, Saunderstown, Rhode Island; Collene Campbell, former mayor of San Juan Capistrano, California, on behalf of Force 100; Sally Wolfgang Wells, Office of the Maricopa County Attorney, Phoenix, Arizona; and Gabrielle Union, Beverly Hills, California.
PARTISAN STALLING, OR VALID QUESTIONS?
Tampa Bay Times (FL)
January 3, 2010
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
This past week our state's Republican attorney general, Bill McCollum, joined those of several other states in asking whether the big health care bill in Congress is constitutional.
McCollum naturally was booed by the Democrats. They said as a Republican running for governor, he is just trying to make political points.
And yet the questions he raises are interesting.
It is a little-understood aspect of our Constitution that Congress can't just pass any durn-tootin' law that it wants. To use a silly example, Congress cannot require all Americans to wear blue pajamas, or to eat ice cream on Sundays - unless it has a valid reason.
And what are those valid reasons? A list of Congress' authorized powers occurs in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. These powers include authority over national defense, federal taxation, coining money, incurring debt and establishing a post office, to name a few.
Admittedly, the list is broad. One of the biggest is the power of Congress to regulate interstate "commerce." That is the basis for many of our most important federal laws.
So, what authority does Congress have to require every American either to buy health insurance, or to pay a fee or tax for not buying it?
"It would be levied," McCollum notes, "on a person who does nothing, a person who simply wishes not to be forced to buy health insurance coverage."
I read a bunch of legal opinions by learned experts - who flatly contradict each other. Some say any idiot can see that health care is a matter of "interstate commerce," while others argue just as firmly that a private decision not to buy health insurance is not commerce.
Now and then, the U.S. Supreme Court will clip Congress' wings. In 1995 and 2000, the court struck down acts of Congress at least partly on the grounds they did not really regulate interstate commerce. One was a law against guns in schools; the other, a portion of the Violence against Women Act.
In the other direction, in 2005, the court upheld the power of Congress to ban marijuana - even in states that allowed it for medicinal purposes - as a valid regulation of "commerce." So how will the court settle this one?
If the Commerce Clause is not enough for you, here's something even more obscure. The House bill taxes the adjusted gross income of people who don't buy health insurance.
And yet, Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution puts a limit on the power of Congress to levy a "direct" tax on Americans. It says that any such tax has to be imposed on the states according to their population. So look for a court case on that issue, too.
Wait! There's one other thing. Is it constitutional for Congress to cut a sweetheart deal in this bill with Nebraska, to win one senator's vote? The bill says the feds will keep paying for certain Medicaid costs there even after cutting them off for other states.
Such a deal! Defenders say that laws affect states differently all the time. And yet every law is supposed to promote the "general welfare." How does this deal do that?
In today's climate, I suppose every Democrat is required to denounce such questions as idiotic. But as an independent, I am thinking that if a number of state attorneys general ask them, they are worth answering, even if the askers are, you know, Republicans.
Commentary: Decade a whirlwind for women
Daily Record of Rochester (NY)
Author/Byline: Amy Schwartz
January 14, 2010
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Last week we raised our glasses and toasted the end of 2009.
We also launched the start of a new decade; the second decade in the second millennium. (Anyone remember stockpiling batteries and potable water in preparation for Y2K?)
As I began to ponder this month's column, I thought about women's advancements over the last decade. Doubtless, there were many important women who changed the face of our country and began meaningful national conversations about critical women's issues. That said, coming up with a definitive list of advances was challenging. Important strides were made over the last 10 years for sure, but not as many as some would have liked to have witnessed.
My reflections are by no means an exhaustive socio-political study of the decade but, in recounting the details, I hope it will serve as both a reminder of the good work done and a call to action.
The first federal Violence Against Women Act was passed in 1994, landmark federal legislation that generally provided for protection, legal relief and dedicated funding for victims of sexual assault, stalking, elder abuse, trafficking, and domestic and dating violence. In 2000 and in 2005, the law not only was reauthorized, but enhanced. The 1994 version of VAWA created a federal civil cause of action for victims of gender-motivated violence, such as sexual violence and intimate partner abuse. In 2000, however, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt a blow to anti-violence advocates and victims by holding that provision unconstitutional and striking it down in U.S. v. Morrison (529 U.S. 598). Despite the setback, VAWA is widely considered one of the most effective pieces of legislation ever enacted to help end abuse, sexual, offenses and stalking. It has dramatically improved law enforcement's, and the criminal and civil justice system's response to violence against women and provided critical services necessary to support families as they contend with these crimes. VAWA is set to be reauthorized again in 2011 with the drafters closely examining the pitfalls and progress over the last decade.
In 2000, New York enacted the Sexual Assault Reform Act, which created comprehensive changes in the state's laws regarding rape, sexual assault and child sexual abuse. In addition to creating new crimes, the law also heightened protections for victims of sex offenses; including child victims; and increased and strengthened consequences for offenders. The law also enshrined statutorily a statewide sexual assault forensic examiner program and a rape crisis intervention and prevention program.
New York also passed the Hate Crimes Act in 2000, landmark legislation that makes the commission of certain specified crimes punishable as hate crimes; when committed in whole or substantial part because of a belief or perception regarding the victim's gender, sexual orientation, race, color, national origin and other factors.
In 2001, Hillary Clinton not only became the first female U.S. Senator to represent New York, but she also became the first First Lady to run for and, ultimately, achieve such a status in public office.
The year also witnessed passage of New York's own Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. Among other important provisions relating to interstate jurisdiction in child custody matters, the law also provided an expedited procedure for enforcement and specific protection for domestic violence victims in those cases.
New York's class-action lawsuit of Nicholson v. Scopetta is credited with affecting national policy regarding child protective services practice of removing children from battered mothers. The case was litigated heavily throughout the first half of the decade. The federal district court case enjoining the practice as unconstitutional and illegal was decided in 2002 as Nicholson v. Williams, 203 FSupp2d 153 (EDNY 2002).
The Second Circuit affirmed the district court (344 F3d 154) in 2003, but prior to determining whether the child welfare practices violated state law, they sought further interpretation from the New York Court of Appeals by certifying three questions of law. That court issued its decision in October 2004 and, in a strongly-worded, unanimous decision (3 NY3d 357), held, among other rulings, that victims of domestic violence who are beaten in the presence of their children are not neglectful parents per se. The case has changed the legal landscape as well as the national conversation regarding the charging of domestic violence victims with failure to protect; their children when they themselves are subjected to violence and abuse.
In 2006, Katie Couric left NBC's Today Show to become the first female anchor of the nightly news on CBS. I heard recently that the venerable Dianne Sawyer soon will follow suit on ABC. Having female anchors finally moved into such prominent positions was long overdue.
New York passed the most comprehensive and toughest sex and labor trafficking law in the country in 2007. Human trafficking is a violation of human rights, a widespread form of modern day slavery that sees human beings bought and sold like commodities so their owners can profit through their labor or sexual exploitation. Although anyone can be victimized by the crime, regardless of age or gender, women in particular face sexual exploitation and labor trafficking as domestics, hotel housekeeping and sweatshop workers at high rates. Sadly, New York is acknowledged to be a leading entry, transit and destination point for trafficking victims. The law holds traffickers accountable and helps victims to rebuild their lives.
In 2007, Nancy Pelosi became the first woman Speaker of the U.S. House and is second in the line of presidential succession, following Vice President Joseph Biden. That also makes Pelosi the highest-ranking female politician in U.S. history.
In a retreat from decades of precedent, the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions in Gonzales v. Carhart and Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America (127 S.Ct. 1610), upheld the first-ever federal ban on an abortion procedure. The ban outlaws certain second-trimester abortions and has no exception for cases in which a woman's health is in danger.
In the later part of the decade, and for the first time in our nation’s history, the world watched two very different women running robust presidential and vice-presidential campaigns on both the Democratic and Republican tickets. Regardless of one's political views or opinions of the respective candidates and their platforms, it undeniably was thrilling to see women finally competing squarely with other male politicians. Despite such advancements, both Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin were subjected to sexist treatment both in the mainstream media and from constituents.
After New York lost Hillary Clinton to President Obama's diverse cabinet in 2009, another woman, Kirsten Gillibrand, was plucked from the U.S. House and appointed to serve out the term as our Senator. The second woman to serve New York as Senator, Gillibrand will seek formal election to the seat this year.
Also in 2009, Second Circuit judge Sonia Sotomayor became the first Latina to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court, and the third woman to serve as a justice. Alternatively, when New York's Commission on Judicial Nomination advanced its 2008 list of nominees to replace first female Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye, all seven nominees were men, and most were white. The shocking omission drew fierce criticism of the fairness of the judicial selection process for women and minorities from Gov. Paterson, members of the state Senate and many others.
Nine days after assuming office in 2009, the first bill President Obama signed into law was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by clarifying that the 180-day statute of limitations for filing an equal-pay lawsuit regarding pay discrimination resets with each new discriminatory paycheck. The law was a direct federal legislative response to the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (550 U.S. 618), which held that the statute of limitations for presenting an equal-pay lawsuit began at the date the pay was negotiated and agreed upon, not at the date of the most recent paycheck. The decision in Ledbetter had been criticized both a setback for women and for civil rights.
As Congress debated health care reform in 2009, the issue of women's meaningful access to comprehensive reproductive health care and abortion services was hotly debated. The debate will continue well into 2010.
From 2000 through the close of 2009, the state Legislature passed more than 120 laws addressing numerous aspects of sexual abuse, intimate partner violence, as well as child and elder abuse. The aggregate of those legal reforms has continued to shape our state's legal response to violence against women. In 2009, New York watched unhappily as Sen. Hiram Monserrate was convicted of misdemeanor-level assault of his girlfriend. He presently retains his legislative seat while a Senate committee contemplates a response to his criminal domestic violence conviction.
Women's participation in the workforce today is at historically high rates. The Shriver Report states that women presently comprise half of all U.S. workers and mothers now are the primary breadwinners and co-breadwinners in two-thirds of American homes. That good news is tempered by other studies regarding women in the legal profession, however. According to the ABA Commission on Women in the Profession's 2008 report, women comprise only 31.6 percent in the legal profession. The study also determined that, of women in private practice, a mere 18.3 percent become partners while 45.1 percent work as associates. Female general counsel in Fortune 500 corporations comprise only 18.4 percent and, of those, more than 90 percent are Caucasians. Statistics from the U.S. Bureau of Labor indicate that women lawyers; weekly salaries in 2006 averaged only 77.5 percent of male lawyers. The National Survey from the National Association of Women Lawyers published in October 2009 confirms those findings, and underscores that women are significantly under-represented in the upper levels of law firms. The large majority of women who start as associates in firms do not advance to equity partnership, and even fewer become law firm leaders. The survey also found, alarmingly, that women lawyers working part-time were disproportionately terminated during our current economic downturn.
As the 2000s close, we were witness to some major ups and downs in women's advancement. Much remains to be done in the years to come.
Amy Schwartz is the 27th president of the Greater Rochester Association for Women Attorneys and a senior staff attorney with Empire Justice Center, where she directs the organization's Domestic Violence Legal Project.
SUNDAY CONVERSATION
Rep. Poe leads global fight for women's rights
Houston Chronicle (TX)
January 31, 2010
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Congressman Ted Poe, R-Humble, is sponsoring the International Violence Against Women Act, legislation that aims to make the fight against violence against women a priority in U.S. foreign policy. The measure delivers various assistance programs and services to women who are physically, sexually or psychologically abused in countries that have severe levels of violence against women and girls. The legislation, co-sponsored by U.S. Rep. Bill Delahunt, D-Mass., will be introduced in the House and Senate on Feb. 4. Poe, founder of the Congressional Victims' Rights Caucus who also sits on the house committee on foreign affairs, is a former district court judge and prosecutor in Harris County. He discussed the bill recently with Chronicle reporter Paige Hewitt.
Q: Why do we need this legislation?
A: It's about human rights. It is a basic human right to be treated with dignity. We have to teach women that it is not culturally acceptable for men to abuse them, and that it is not acceptable to resolve conflict with violence. In some countries, women - in some cases very young girls - are kidnapped and sold into slavery, and they disappear. I've been to Eastern Europe and seen these crimes against women. ... The women are so beat down culturally, they assume they are property.
Q: What does the legislation do?
A: The bill creates structural mechanisms in the U.S. State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development and requires the creation of a comprehensive strategy to combat violence abroad. Humanitarian funding is also increased, along with updated mechanisms for responding to emergency outbreaks of violence against women and girls abroad.
Q: Why is it important for the United States to take the lead on the issue of violence against women?
A: It is in the best interest of our foreign policy to promote strong democracy around the world. A country whose women are oppressed and intimidated by violence will usually not be a full-functioning democracy. Oppressed women cannot fully participate politically. It is no surprise that some of the most undemocratic and totalitarian governments around the world are also the most oppressive toward women. The Taliban and Iran come to mind.
Q: How much does it cost?
A: It's $270 million, annually, from 2011 to 2015.
Q: Given your 30 years as a criminal judge and prosecutor here in Harris County, what domestic violence cases have stuck with you?
A: After 22 years on the bench, I've seen it all. I remember I had a Middle Eastern man in my courtroom who actually said, "In my culture, it's OK to beat her up." That's exactly what he said. He said it was OK in his culture. He needed someone to teach him that it is not acceptable in anyone's culture to abuse a woman.
Q: And did you teach him?
A: Oh, yeah (laughing). My grandmother said, "You don't hurt somebody you claim you love."
Q: We had a story in Friday's paper about a man who confessed to beating his ex-girlfriend to death with a crowbar - in front of their children. What is your reaction to what he did and how do you connect these kinds of cases here in Houston to your foreign policy legislation?
A: I say get a rope. He obviously has no conscience. When it comes to violence, we find people who are in a relationship who actually feel justified in doing what they do. It's abhorrent conduct of any man. Violence against women is more rampant in some countries, because it is socially acceptable. This conduct is not acceptable in our country, nor should it be anywhere else. ... And as the leader in human rights advocacy around the world, we must extend that philosophy to other cultures.
A twisted turn on the Texas textbook crisis:
Bigots, batterers and the beaten woman
Davenport Examiner (IA)
Author/Byline: Carrie Chesney
February 2, 2010
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
So the battle of American “values” batters on – this time, in an interesting twist, it involves bigots, batterers and beaten women.
Don McLeroy, a dentist and member of Texas State Board of Education, recently proposed adding Phyllis Schlafly, founder of the Eagle Forum and an anti-feminism activist renowned for her disdain for the Equal Rights Amendment and the Violence Against Women Act, into history textbooks.
When I asked Mr. McLeroy how Phyllis Schlafly has influenced American women, he said, “She has played a major role in articulating a viewpoint that is shared, most likely, by a majority of women.”
Is that so?
Schlafly is renowned for her speech at Bates College for saying “By getting married, the woman has consented to sex, and I don't think you can call it rape." I am interested, dear readers, if you believe the majority of women really share this forceful-phallus philosophy.
I am also truly begging to know if the majority of American women are against the Violence Against Women Act – you know, that terribly intrusive law that protects women from domestic and dating violence, as well as sexual assault and stalking? Schlafly insists the act prevents fathers from seeing their children by the “abuse” of restraining orders.
Her contempt for the seriousness of domestic violence is even more startling when she states “…it is a shocker to discover that acts don't have to be violent to be punished under the definition of domestic violence.”
Don't fret yet, ladies, there may be hope ahead.
McLeroy contends that the portrayal of Schlafly in historical context is “up to the publishers and teachers.” One can only cross their fingers publishers and teachers don’t cling to Schlafly and McLeroy’s grossly sexist sentiments.
Do the “majority of women” want to turn back the clock 60 years? McLeroy wrote to me stating that America straying from “traditional, conservative” values “has hurt women.”
While biding our time, let us turn our backs on our cake-baking skills and superb suppers for now, and say “make your own damn dinner,” a la Anne Taintor.
If Schlafly and McLeroy want to put us women in our proper place, they do mean the kitchen, right?
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICIALS, ACTRESS MARISKA HARGITAY URGE TEAM RESPONSE TO END VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Government Press Releases (USA)
February 2, 2010
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
WASHINGTON - Deputy Associate Attorney General Karol V. Mason, Acting Director for the Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) Catherine Pierce, and actress and advocate Mariska Hargitay addressed nearly 300 attendees today at the Services-Training-Officers-Prosecutors (STOP) Conference in San Francisco. The four-day conference, which began Sunday, brings together STOP grant administrators representing the offices of the governor, attorney general, or other state criminal justice agency from every state government and territory in the nation. Also in attendance are domestic violence and sexual assault coalition representatives from every state and territory.
"The Justice Department is committed to working with federal, state, local and tribal partners to ensure that all communities - particularly those that have been chronically neglected - are given the resources and support they need," said Deputy Associate Attorney General Mason. "We need your help to not only raise awareness, but to truly make change. Each community must take an active role in defining their response to violence against women."
"In the past 15 years since the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) was signed into law, countless lives have been saved, the voices of survivors have been heard, and families have been protected. But there is still much more to be done. We have federal resources and we have a strong commitment from this administration, but that is not enough. We need to work together to bring about a significant shift in our culture," said Acting Director Pierce.
"I have seen survivors find their way back to lives of possibility, hope and joy, and I am so proud to be part of a movement that will change the way we talk about and behave around these epidemics," said Hargitay, best known for her role on NBC's Law and Order: Special Victim's Unit, and president and founder of the Joyful Heart Foundation. "Through your work, you strengthen the possibility of healing for a survivor because you are acknowledging, responding to, and giving your all to do something about the violence and injustice they have suffered. That is why I am so moved by your collective commitment: because it has the power to heal."
The Justice Department announced Monday that President Obama's FY2011 budget request provides $461 million for OVW to provide communities with resources to combat sexual assault and violence against women. This includes $30 million for the Sexual Assault Services Program and $50 million for the Legal Assistance for Victims Program. An additional $100 million is also allocated within the Crime Victims Fund, which is administered through the Department's Office for Victims of Crime, to specifically aid victims of violence against women.
STOP grant administrators serve as the liaison between OVW and the states, oversee the administration of STOP funding and provide statewide leadership on violence against women intervention efforts. The STOP formula grant program, the largest single funding stream administered by OVW, promotes a coordinated, multidisciplinary approach to enhancing advocacy and improving the criminal justice system's response to violent crimes against women. It encourages the development and improvement of effective law enforcement and prosecution strategies to address violent crimes against women and of advocacy and services in cases involving violent crimes against women.
The Justice Department has launched a year-long commemoration of the 15th anniversary of VAWA, working to raise public awareness on issues around violence against women, to build and renew coalitions among federal, state, local and tribal law enforcement and victim services communities, and to end stalking, sexual assault, domestic and dating violence for men, women and children across the country. As part of this effort, the department has encouraged the more than 100 celebrity allies, including Hargitay, who have lent their names in support of the department's "Join the List" initiative to raise awareness with their fans, through Web and fan sites, and social networking profiles.
CARE is Working to Prevent Sexual Violence in the Aftermath of Haiti Earthquake
CARE focuses on gender-based violence as U.S. Congress introduces The International Violence Against Women Act
PR Newswire (USA)
February 3, 2010
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
PORT-AU-PRINCE, Haiti, Feb. 3 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- CARE is working to prevent sexual and gender-based violence in the aftermath of Haiti's devastating earthquake.
It is well documented that the risk of sexual violence and exploitation rises in crisis situations -- like the one happening in Haiti now -- when people are displaced from their homes and communities. And women and girls are the most vulnerable in these settings. In fact, a 2008 report by the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs found that after multiple tropical storms in Haiti, there were reports of "sexual violence in shelters, 'sex for food' and other forms of exploitation."
"CARE is working to protect women, girls and other vulnerable populations in order to prevent sexual and gender-based violence and to ensure that survivors of this violence get the help they need to recover from the trauma," said Janet Meyers, CARE's Senior Advisor for Sexual and Reproductive Health in Emergencies, who is on the ground in Haiti.
Darkened streets due to lack of electricity, crowded makeshift camps with no walls of any sort, and unprotected bathing and toilet areas leave women and girls particularly vulnerable to harassment and sexual violence.
"Women and girls are very much at risk of violence and of being forced into prostitution in exchange for money, food or shelter," said Sophie Perez, CARE's Country Director in Haiti. "CARE's activities work to keep that from happening. In the long term, it is important to help women become economically independent because this puts them in a stronger position in the community and makes it less likely that they will be taken advantage of."
CARE is consulting with both men and women about the location of gender-specific latrines and showers so they are placed in safe, well-lit areas close to where displaced persons are clustered, but are clearly segregated.
The damage to police and city services as a result of the earthquake means reporting lines have been destroyed, and some traditional community support systems have been disrupted, making it all the more important to set up a system to ensure protection and support for women and girls. "It is critical to ensure that confidential, quality services, including clinical management of rape, emergency contraception and psychosocial support, are available to treat survivors of rape and sexual violence," said Meyers.
Tomorrow, (Feb. 4), members of the House and Senate are introducing legislation in the U.S. Congress that -- if passed -- will help prevent and respond to violence against women and girls in crisis situations like the Haiti earthquake. The International Violence Against Women Act (IVAWA) contains a section dealing with emergency situations where the U.S. government is carrying out programming. The bill requires that the U.S. government:
* provide funding to international organizations and NGOs to prevent and respond to violence against women and girls in humanitarian relief, conflict and post-conflict settings;
* include gender experts on the Disaster Assistance Response Teams that are deployed in emergencies to help build in gender-based violence prevention and response activities in all USG emergency programs and
* help build capacity of USG employees and NGO's carrying out emergency relief to respond to the special protection needs of women and girls in crisis or conflict affected settings. Women who suffer sexual abuse or ongoing psychological and physical violence also have more unplanned and/or unwanted pregnancies than other women, more sexually transmitted infections, and higher rates of HIV.
About CARE: CARE has been working in Haiti since 1954. Many of CARE's more than 130-person staff in Haiti includes emergency personnel who were part of the response to the devastating Hurricane Hanna in 2008. In Haiti, CARE's programs focus on governance, HIV/AIDS, reproductive health, maternal and child health, education, food security, and water and sanitation. To learn more about CARE's work, visit www.care.org.
Introduction of the International Violence Against Women Act
eNewsChannels (USA)
Author/Byline: Tabitha Berg
February 4, 2010
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Washington, DC /eNewsChannels/ — US State Dept: International violence against women is a global problem of enormous proportions. This violence cannot be explained as simply cultural; it is criminal. It is every nation’s problem, and it is the cause of widespread destruction and lost potential across the globe. We need a response that is commensurate with the seriousness of the crimes.
We support the goals of the proposed International Violence Against Women Act. Increasing legal and judicial protection and health sector capacity to respond to violence against women are necessary steps needed to address sexual and gender-based violence. Similarly, we must pursue policies that increase women’s economic opportunity, advance educational opportunities, and build public awareness, among both men and women.
Fifteen years ago, the UN Fourth World Conference on Women placed this global challenge before the world. Despite the gains we have made, we have much more to do. If we are to effectively address the growing problem of sexual and gender-based violence, we need a comprehensive plan that involves interagency and multilateral partners and addresses all aspects of violence against women, from prevention to protection and prosecution of these cases.
We look forward to continuing our work with Congress and the international community to chart a new era of international cooperation to address violence against women, to create partnerships among governments, multilateral institutions, the private sector, civil society, and individuals.
John Edwards physically abused terminally ill wife, says newspaper
News & Politics Examiner (USA)
February 4, 2010
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
"[John] Edwards will also aggressively support political and economic rights for women where they do not exist and supports efforts to reduce violence against women and children around the world." - Sen. John Edwards talking points (2004).
The newspaper that broke the story of former Presidential candidate John Edward’s lovechild and affair is now reporting that the progressive paragon angrily struck his wife during a heated argument.
According to the National Enquirer, Edwards struck his wife, Elizabeth, around the Christmas holidays, in what the National Enquirer on Wednesday called "a horrific marriage-ending fight."
This introduction of physical violence into the already “tawdry unraveling of their 32-year marriage” is newsworthy on so many levels, according to observers.
The Enquirer quotes a source -- and Elizabeth Edwards friend” -- as saying that Elizabeth Edwards amended her divorce papers with the charge of domestic violence.
On January 21, after months of denying the allegations, Edwards finally confessed that he fathered a child with his 2008 presidential campaign videographer and mistress, Rielle Hunter, during a long-term affair.
Their daughter, Frances Quinn Hunter, will be 2-years old on February 27. Elizabeth Edwards, who suffers from terminal cancer, met her husband's lover and love child late last year, according to news sources.
Elizabeth announced their separation after her husband finally admitted paternity. The Enquirer claims that the source for their story passed a lie detector test after revealing that "Elizabeth privately disclosed all the shocking details of the alleged attack." The friend also said Elizabeth told her that "when he [John] made the decision to hit me, it was over."
During the 2004 presidential campaign, when Edwards ran for Vice President, his campaign's swarthy talking points included: "Achieving full equal rights for women includes the right to be free of violence everywhere. Edwards supports efforts to fully fund the Violence Against Women Act, which provides resources for crisis centers, domestic violence shelters and continuing education to law enforcement and the courts. Edwards will also aggressively support political and economic rights for women where they do not exist and supports efforts to reduce violence against women and children around the world."
Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he's a columnist for The Examiner (examiner.com) and New Media Alliance (thenma.org). In addition, he's a blogger for the Cheyenne, Wyoming Fox News Radio affiliate KGAB (www.kgab.com). Kouri also serves as political advisor for Emmy and Golden Globe winning actor Michael Moriarty.
He's former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed "Crack City" by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations. He's also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country. Kouri writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others. He's a news writer and columnist for AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he's syndicated by AXcessNews.Com. Kouri appears regularly as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Fox News Channel, Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, etc.
ATTORNEY GENERAL HOLDER WELCOMES JUDGE SUSAN B. CARBON AS DIRECTOR OF OFFICE ON VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Government Press Releases (USA)
February 16, 2010
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
WASHINGTON--Attorney General Eric Holder today welcomed the confirmation of Judge Susan B. Carbon of Concord, N.H., as the new Director for the Justice Department's Office on Violence Against Women. Judge Carbon was confirmed by the U.S. Senate last week
"I am pleased to welcome Judge Carbon to the Justice Department and to the Office on Violence Against Women," said Attorney General Holder. "Bringing greater public awareness and strengthening programs to fight sexual and domestic violence, dating violence and stalking is a top priority for the Department. Judge Carbon will bring strong leadership to this important office and to the Department's mission to end violence against women."
The Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) provides national leadership in developing the nation's capacity to reduce violence against women through the implementation of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). Created in 1995, OVW administers financial and technical assistance to communities across the country that are developing programs, policies, and practices aimed at ending sexual and domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking. Currently, OVW administers two formula grant programs and 17 discretionary grant programs, which were established under VAWA and subsequent legislation. Since its inception, OVW has awarded nearly $4 billion in grants and cooperative agreements to communities throughout the nation.
In September 2009, the Department of Justice launched a year long commemoration of the 15th anniversary of the signing of the VAWA to raise public awareness of violence against women, and to build and strengthen relationships between and among federal, state, local and Tribal law enforcement, advocacy, courts and victim services communities.
Judge Susan Carbon was first appointed to the bench in 1991, and has served as Supervisory Judge of the New Hampshire Judicial Branch Family Division from 1996 until 2010. She is a member of the Governor's Commission on Domestic and Sexual Violence and chaired New Hampshire's Domestic Violence Fatality Review Committee. Judge Carbon also served as President of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) from 2007 to 2008.
Abusegate: Groups Call for Congressional Investigation of Domestic Violence Programs
PR Newswire (USA)
February 16, 2010
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Twenty-two groups are calling for Congress to investigate allegations of widespread violations of federal law and constitutional protections by domestic violence programs, according to Men's News Daily.
Two federal laws -- the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 -- prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex. But an authoritative report documents widespread bias against male victims of domestic violence.
Last October a West Virginia judge ruled the gender-biased practices of the state's Family Protection Services Board, which funds 14 abuse shelters throughout the state, to be "null and void".
The civil rights of persons accused of domestic violence are often ignored, as well. The Fourth Amendment requires evidence of probable cause before an arrest can be made, a requirement that is compromised by state-level mandatory arrest laws.
The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees due process and equal protection under the law, a promise that is curtailed by legal assistance programs funded by the Violence Against Women Act that provide free services to domestic violence plaintiffs but not defendants.
To highlight the widespread civil rights abuses, a new Abusegate, Investigate! webpage recently has been established.
"Addressing domestic violence has turned from an important social cause into a well-heeled industry that is crippled with inefficacy and corruption. The new Abusegate, Investigate! webpage provides a valuable service by educating the public about these problems and offering viable solutions," notes Paul Elam, editor-in-chief of mensnewsdaily.com.
These civil rights abuses have the effect of harming father-child relationships and breaking down the family structure, forcing children into single-parent households. This places kids at greater risk of a broad range of social pathologies, including school drop-out, delinquency, and teenage pregnancy.
The groups calling for the Congressional investigation are asking that the reauthorizations of the Violence Against Women Act and Family Violence Prevention and Services Act impose strong penalties for continued sex-discriminatory practices and civil rights violations.
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN DEMANDS ACTION
Sun, The (Baltimore, MD)
Author/Byline: Benjamin L. Cardin
February 19, 2010
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Violence against women is a global epidemic, threatening the lives and safety of women and girls around the world. Today, one out of every three women worldwide will be physically or sexually abused during her lifetime, with rates reaching 70 percent in some countries.
These are horrifying statistics. As chairman of the U.S. Helsinki Commission and a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I recently joined efforts to tackle this egregious problem by co-sponsoring the International Violence Against Women Act.
Violence against women ranges from gang rape to domestic violence and from acid burnings to so-called honor killings. It also includes sexual violence as a tool of war, such as what is now occurring on a vast scale in the Democratic Republic of Congo. It has become a serious public health epidemic and a barrier to solving global problems such as poverty and HIV/AIDS. It devastates the lives of millions of women and girls, and it knows no national or cultural barriers.
Women who are abused frequently die or face serious injury and are at much greater risk of dying in pregnancy, having children who die in childhood, and of contracting HIV/AIDS.
What most people don't realize is that violence against women is also a major cause of poverty. Typically, women are much more likely to be among the world's poorest, living on a dollar a day or less. Violence reduces their standard of living by preventing them from accessing education or earning the income they need to lift their families out of poverty. In turn, poverty often prevents them from fleeing, perpetuating a vicious cycle that keeps millions of women from making better lives for themselves and their families.
In Nicaragua, for example, a study found that children of female victims of violence left school an average of four years earlier than other children. In India, it has been found that women who experienced even a single incident of violence lost an average of seven working days.
Encouraging greater economic opportunity and earning capacity not only makes it possible for women to escape violent situations, but it also reduces the likelihood of abuse by improving the woman's status within the household. Ensuring that women around the world are treated equitably and fairly would go a long way to reduce poverty. It is worth noting that women often use the money we provide in foreign assistance to invest in education or to grow food.
The International Violence Against Women Act, S. 2982, has the support of approximately 200 nongovernmental organizations, including Amnesty International USA, Women Thrive Worldwide, Jewish Women International, Family Violence Prevention Fund, CARE, United Methodist Church, Global AIDS Alliance and Refugees International.
This bill would direct the State Department to create a comprehensive, five-year strategy to reduce violence against women and girls in up to 20 countries and provide $265 million a year for five years to foster programs that address violence in a coordinated, comprehensive way. It would do this by reforming legal and health sectors, by changing social norms and attitudes that condone rape and abuse, and by improving education and economic opportunities for women and girls.
Violence has a profound effect on the lives of women and girls, and on all communities around the world. I am committed to greatly reducing violence against women worldwide and that means we need to provide the assistance and resources that are necessary to achieve this goal.
U.S. Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin of Maryland is a member of five Senate committees and is chairman of the U.S. Helsinki Commission, which monitors compliance with the Helsinki Accords and promotes human rights, democracy and economic, environmental and military cooperation in 56 countries. His e-mail is cardin@senate.gov.
Violence against women has become a global epidemic
Star Democrat, The (Easton, MD)
Author/Byline: SEN. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN Guest Comment
February 26, 2010
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Violence against women is an epidemic of global proportions. It ranges from domestic violence to rape, from acid burnings to so-called honor killings, and it threatens one out of every three women worldwide, with rates reaching up to 70 percent in some countries.
As chairman of the U.S. Helsinki Commission and a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I recently joined efforts to tackle this egregious problem by co-sponsoring the International Violence Against Women Act, S.2982.
Violence against women is often used as a tool of war, such as what is now occurring in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Additionally, women who are abused frequently die or face serious injury because of abuse and are at much greater risk of dying in pregnancy, having children who die in childhood and of contracting HIV/AIDS.
Violence against women also is a major cause of poverty. Typically, women are much more likely to be among the world's poorest, often living on less than a dollar a day. Violence reduces their standard of living by preventing them from accessing education or earning the income they need to lift their families out of poverty.
In Nicaragua, for example, a study found that children of female victims of violence left school an average of four years earlier than other children. In India, it has been found that women who experienced even a single incident of violence lost an average of seven working days.
Encouraging greater economic opportunity and earning capacity not only makes it possible for women to escape violent situations, but it also reduces the likelihood of abuse by improving the woman's status within the household. At the same time, greater economic opportunity would go a long way to reducing poverty because women often use the money we provide in foreign assistance to invest in education or to grow food.
S. 2982 has the support of approximately 200 Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs). The bill directs the State Department to create a comprehensive five-year strategy to reduce violence against women and girls in up to 20 countries and to provide vital funds to foster programs that address violence in a coordinated way. It would do this by reforming legal and health sectors, by changing social norms and attitudes that condone rape and abuse, and by improving education and economic opportunities for women and girls.
Violence has a profound effect on the lives of women and girls, and on all communities around the world. I am committed to putting an end to violence against women worldwide and that means we need to provide the assistance and resources that are necessary to achieve this goal.
Senator Cardin is a member of five Senate committees: Foreign Relations, Judiciary, Environment and Public Works, Budget, and Small Business and Entrepreneurship, and he chairs the U.S. Helsinki Commission.
Disputation on domestic abuse
Washington Times, The (DC)
Author/Byline: Deborah Simmons
February 26, 2010
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Unless the parties involved held celebrity status, domestic abuse used to be one of those secrets, like abortions and unwed pregnancies, that families tried to keep hush-hush. To be sure, there were cracker-barrel discussions and busybodies spreading hometown dirt. If progressives and Malthusians have their way, shotgun weddings will be classified as domestic violence, too.
That is the stage being set for reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, whose comments earlier this week made victims of abusers, may be right, statistically speaking. Maybe domestic violence at the hands of men does rise during economically depressing times such as these - when double-digit jobless rates make such cultural TV icons as Chester A. Riley, Ward Cleaver and Bill Cosby unimaginable.
But the way Mr. Reid talks, husbands who beat their wives ought to be forgiven if they are down during economically hard times. (Hmm. Does Whitney Houston's former husband pass muster?)
During the debate on the jobs bill on Monday, Mr. Reid, who is down in the polls in his home state of Nevada, proclaimed on the Senate floor that men are more abusive when they are jobless. Here's what The Hill first reported:
"I met with some people, while I was home, dealing with domestic abuse. It has gotten out of hand," Mr. Reid said. "Why? Men don't have jobs."
Women, he surmised, not so much.
"Women don't have jobs, either, but women aren't abusive, most of the time," he said.
"Men, when they're out of work, tend to become abusive," the senior senator from Nevada said.
Empirical evidence rests with the 1997 study "Assaults by Women On Their Spouses Or Male Partners," which said that "211 empirical studies and 60 reviews and/or analyses .. demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 365,000."
No one in her right frame of mind would support violence against men.
What's afoot here is the Violence Against Women Act and its international counterpart, nicknamed I-VAWA, which was introduced this week in the Senate by members of both sexes and both parties.
Thanks to Suzanne Venker of David Horowitz's newsrealblog.com for exposing the truth in her Feb. 9 post.
"Under the VAWA, domestic acts don't have to be violent to be punished under the definition of domestic violence. Name-calling, put-downs, shouting, negative looks or gestures, ignoring opinions, or constant criticizing can all be legally labeled domestic violence. .. VAWA also asserts that domestic violence is a crime, yet family courts often adjudicate domestic violence as a civil, rather than a criminal, matter This means the accused is not innocent until proven guilty, but is presumed guilty. Due process rights, such as trial by jury and the right of free counsel to poor defendants, are regularly denied, and false accusations are not covered by perjury law. VAWA provides funding for legal representation for accusers but not for defendants. Evidence is irrelevant; hearsay is admissible; defendants have no right to confront their accusers; and forced confessions are a common feature."
VAWA is a pet project of Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., who drafted the initial legislation that President Clinton signed into law in 1994. Last reauthorized in 2005, it is set for reauthorization in 2011.
Gender-conscious groups are gazing into their crystal balls. There's Mr. Biden, who said last year, "My proudest legislative achievement in the Senate was passing the Violence Against Women Act." There's scaredy-cat Mr. Reid, who excuses men behaving badly. And there's the neutered version of abuse called "intimate partner violence."
Look at it this way. Miss Houston's ex, Bobby Brown, was a wealthy singer-songwriter when he married the pop songbird in July 1992. Eight months after her father escorted her down the aisle (sans shotgun), Miss Houston gave birth to the couple's only child. Since then, Mr. Brown has been imprisoned, faced arrest warrants and charges of battery and failure to pay child support. Mr. Brown's financial slide led to another warrant issued last year, before the economy showed signs of better days.
Should Mr. Reid cut him some slack?
Repeal VAWA
Long Island Examiner (NY)
Author/Byline: Michael Schmitt
March 13, 2010
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
VAWA, the "Violence Against Women's Act", is one of the most disturbing laws ever passed and is an abomination of every concept in the United States Constitution.
VAWA "is a United States federal law. It was passed as Title IV, sec. 40001-40703 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 HR 3355 and signed as Public Law 103-322 by President Bill Clinton on September 13, 1994. It provided $1.6 billion to enhance investigation and prosecution of the violent crime perpetrated against women, increased pre-trial detention of the accused, imposed automatic and mandatory restitution on those convicted, and allowed civil redress in cases prosecutors chose to leave unprosecuted.
VAWA was drafted by then-U.S. Senator Joseph Biden's office with support from a number of advocacy organizations including Legal Momentum and The National Organization for Women, which described the bill as "the greatest breakthrough in civil rights for women in nearly two decades." VAWA was reauthorized by Congress in 2000, and again in December 2005. The bill was signed into law by President George W. Bush on January 5, 2006. VAWA will be up for reauthorization in 2011." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_Against_Women_Act
VAWA allows the government to arrest and hold men without a trial. A mere accusation of abuse or rape, without anything else, is sufficient for a man to be held indefinitely without a trial. This goes against all legal precedent.
Since the passage of VAWA, countless men have been falsely arrested or have had unwarranted restraining orders placed against them. VAWA has led to a rash of innumerable false accusations of rape such as the Duke and Hofstra University false rape arrests. In these cases, men were arrested, without any evidence, and had their lives destroyed. The women who later recanted their stories or had them disproved conclusively with video tape, became celebrated in the Femi-Nazi movement. No charges were filed against the women who attempted to send innocent men to jail for the rest of their lives. Rape convictions are routinely granted on no more than questionable testimony of a single "victim". Race is often a factor. The Duke accuser was black accusing white men, and the Hofstra woman was mixed race accusing black men. Rather than being put in jail, these women were rewarded by being giving special counseling and status.
VAWA is routinely used in countless other areas for women to have an advantage over men in divorce, child custody, immigration, marriage fraud, domestic disputes, and any civil litigation where a woman is a party against a man. For example, a woman who defrauds a man into marriage for a green card gets automatic residency with the mere allegation of abuse in the marriage. A woman who claims abuse gets automatic possession of the marital home in a divorce and custody of the children. The man is automatically incarcerated without a trial and can remain in jail for years.
This is not the way America should be. Men should not be treated as second-class citizens. ALL people, men and women, black and white, should be equal in the eyes of the law.
Biden promotes domestic violence programs, IL
Associated Press News Service, The
March 31, 2010
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
PEORIA, Ill. (AP) - Vice President Joe Biden promoted programs that prevent domestic violence and sexual assault during a visit to central Illinois.
Biden, along with Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood and Sen. Dick Durbin, was in Peoria on Wednesday for a fundraiser for The Center for Prevention of Abuse.
During his speech, Biden recounted his work in passing the Violence Against Women Act in 1994. The vice president noted the legislation is considered a landmark bill that protects victims of domestic abuse and rape. But he said cultural attitudes still must be addressed to eradicate violence against women.
To applause, he told about 1,100 people that no man has the right to raise his had to woman under any condition other than self defense. Biden also reminded the men in the room they too are potential victims of rape and encouraged them to report it if it happens.
Editorial: Biden needed no shine
Author/Byline: Washington Times-Reporter
Washington Times-Reporter (IL)
April 7, 2010
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
When Vice President Joe Biden walked into George Manias shoe-shine stand last week, he may have needed a shine on his shoes.
Biden's speech, delivered earlier that morning to the guests at the annual Partners in Peace Celebration by The Center for Prevention of Abuse, did not.
Biden delivered an impassioned speech that kept his audience rapt.
Biden said if he could wave a magic wand and bring an end to just one thing, it would be domestic violence.
And, he made his audience believe it.
Biden, author of the 1994 Crime Bill and Violence Against Women Act, said the commitment he showed to this issue in 1994 has only intensified.
To illustrate that commitment, he spoke of a proposal to increase federal funding to fight violence against women by $130.5 million in the fiscal 2011 budget.
"Notwithstanding the budget deficit, we believe there is nothing that is more important," Biden said.
That must have been like music to the ears of the administrators, staff and volunteers at The Center for Prevention of Abuse, which has seen its federal and state funding take a serious hit in recent years.
Biden said while progress has been made in the fight against domestic violence, more work still needs to be done.
"This is about educating the whole society. There's been progress. But I have always said that once we got to the White House, we would step it up even more," he said. "The problem is still with us today."
Biden said that is exactly why the federal government must do more to fight this problem through the work of people like those at The Center for Prevention of Abuse.
That is like music to the ears of taxpayers weary of sending money to Washington to see it wasted on studies and re-creating the wheel to tackle problems.
The Center for Prevention of Abuse is an example of an agency doing its work efficiently and effectively.
To hear the vice president recognize that is encouraging from an administration that seems hell-bent on taking over everything.
"We need to nourish and support more programs like yours," Biden said as he looked at Martha Herm, who heads up The Center for Prevention of Abuse.
The Journal Star reported with the proposed $130 million increase in funding, the proposed federal budget would provide $730 million to tackle violence against women, bolster current funding and respond to the emerging needs of communities.
That is certainly a step in the right direction.
The Obama administration deserves no abuse for this proposal.
Women's groups seek Voinovich's vote for aid
Bill to help fight gender-based violence abroad
Columbus Dispatch, The (OH)
April 11, 2010
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
It's a tough time to seek a billion-dollar-plus increase in foreign aid over five years, even money for combating violence against women in strife-ridden countries where rape often is wielded as a weapon of war.
But women's advocacy groups say one key to gaining congressional approval for the International Violence Against Women Act is winning the vote of Sen. George V. Voinovich -- a prominent fiscal hawk leaving the Senate after this year.
When the Ohio Republican returns to Capitol Hill after the congressional spring break, advocates say his phones will be ringing, asking him to support spending up to $265 million a year for five years on programs such as tackling violence against girls in school. Although the bill would authorize that level of spending, Congress would have to decide each year how much to allocate.
The bill builds off a similar domestic law that has aided the development of battered women's shelters and other local efforts, advocates say. And because gender-based violence often increases in war-torn countries such as Afghanistan or places hit with natural disasters, such as Haiti, advocates say the international version also has a stabilizing, national security component.
"Instead of swooping in like a knight riding a white horse as a savior, this legislation has to do with supporting community groups in those countries working on these issues," said Phyllis Carlson-Riehm, executive director of the Action Ohio Coalition for Battered Women in Columbus.
Heather Herron Murphy, manager of the nonprofit Sexual Assault Response Network of Central Ohio affiliated with OhioHealth, said Ohio advocates want to show Voinovich that this is an issue his constituents care about.
"We have done some great work here, and I would love it if the United States could be a leader in that effort (internationally)," Herron Murphy said.
Twenty-eight senators are co-sponsors, including Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio. But only two are Republicans: Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, both of Maine.
Voinovich has shown a willingness to spend federal dollars on families and children, advocates say. He is a former member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a current member of the appropriations subcommittee that handles foreign aid.
That's why Washington-based Women Thrive Worldwide, one of the national groups lobbying for the bill, is targeting Voinovich as a crucial GOP vote.
The senator will study the issue, his spokeswoman Garrette Silverman said.
"He's always happy to listen to what his constituents have to say and welcomes their input, especially on issues as important as this one," she said.
But proponents have lost one important Republican, Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana. The top Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee was a co-author of the bill when it was introduced in 2007, along with then-Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del.
But Lugar now has concerns about the bill's cost -- as much as $1.33 billion under the Senate bill and $1.35 billion under a similar House version.
The White House claims health care reform will help victims of domestic violence?
Los Angeles Examiner (CA)
Author - Alexis A Moore - Survivors In Action/SIA
April 19, 2010
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Lynn Rosenthal states, "For all women, the advent of health care reform is a victory, really! For domestic violence victims, it is a lifeline." In what way is this a lifeline?
Domestic violence causes 2 million injuries and more than 1,200 deaths every year . These women are not strangers - they are our daughters, our mothers, our sisters, our co-workers, and our neighbors. For victims of domestic violence, access to health care is critical.
Health care is critical? How is health care critical? I work with victims of domestic violence and health care is never the topic of worry, its finding a safe place to relocate to where these women can bring their children and not worry about the potential child abuse that takes place in DV shelters. Victims of violence worry about how they will survive being stalked or even murdered. when their abusers violate restraining orders. Domestic violence victims worry about how the Governor of Arizona will allow everyone (including criminals, parolees and perpetrators of violence) to carry a concealed weapon and use it.
Rosenthal continues with, "they need treatment for immediate injuries and ongoing care for related health problems. They need to be able to talk to their health care provider about the cause of their injuries without fear of losing their health insurance. Most importantly, they need our compassion and support." Compassion? Really? Compassion is rare when a victim of violence reaches out for help. Victims find themselves in a whirlwind of bureaucratic red tape and are left to fend for themselves. I am not sure where Ms. Rosenthal gathered her information, I find her thoughts less than favorable as I have personally reached out to her to bring forth awareness of how domestic violence victims are treated, Alexis A. Moore, founder of Survivors In Action, spent a good hour with Rosenthal on the phone, I guess she wasn't listening.
There are insurance companies in eight states and the District of Columbia that will continue to discriminate against victims by declaring domestic violence a pre-existing condition. This is true, health care professionals, i.e. Doctors and insurance case workers will state that women are hysterical and that we must be doing something to warrant being beaten on a daily basis. I am not sure if Domestic Violence is in the DSM-V, a book of codes used by insurance case workers who approve the benefit for care.
Domestic violence victims in those states are faced with the risk of being denied health care at the very time when they needed it the most. Rosenthal boasts that with the passing of health care reform, victims of violence will no longer be discriminated and finally be taken seriously. All across the country, this bill will help domestic violence victims get the health care they need. They will not face gender discrimination or lifetime caps on benefits." Benefits? What benefits, women of violence don't see benefits. The leaders in coalition offices see the benefits, they drive their cars, wear their suits, get their nails done. Women of violence struggle to put food on the table so their children don't starve and lay awake all night on guard praying the perp won't break in and kill them.
What happened to the Violence Against Women Act? The VAWA was to protect women of domestic violence and to provide assistance, so now, they are blaming health care for rejecting victims of violence. So women have been murdered because of the lack of health care? Wow! It was my understanding that the coalitions across the country that were formed and funded by the VAWA failed and that is why these women are murdered. Health care reform has nothing to do with helping victims of violence. Rosenthal is a smoke screen, a poster child to support the passing of reform and to wow women into thinking they will be taken care of.
Nice try, don't insult our intelligence. Health care reform can help, however, Ms. Rosenthal, Domestic Violence Reform will change the way victims of violence will stay alive.
Rosenthal is the White House Advisor on Violence Against Women
Stop violence against women
Santa Ana Examiner (CA)
Author/Byline: Laura Ferejohn
April 29, 2010
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
1 in 3 women will be raped or abused in her lifetime. In the midst of war and disaster, she is also fighting against hunger, inequality, poverty and disease. But with protection, education, and greater opportunity, we can make women safe and able to support their families. You have the power to make it a fair fight.
The Desired Outcome of this Petition:
Urge leaders of Congress to support the International Violence Against Women Act. The United States must lead the way to ensure a safer, more secure future for women and girls. This legislation is a critical step toward helping survivors of sexual violence, protecting those still at risk and preventing future violence. Show your commitment to stopping violence against women around the world by signing this petition.
NEWSMAKERS - A Bill to Help Curb Violence
Idaho Press-Tribune (Nampa, ID)
Author: Ritu Sharma - co-founder of Women Thrive Worldwide, a nonprofit that seeks to give women tools to escape poverty
May 2, 2010
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
You helped write the International Violence Against Women Act now pending in Congress.
What would it do?
The bill would mobilize half-a-billion dollars over five years to combat violence against women and girls in target countries that have good programs in place. The money would help those programs grow.
For example?
In Honduras, local organizations help survivors of violence develop skills so they can become economically self-sufficient and leave abusive situations. In Morocco, groups promote women’s rights within the context of their religion. Many programs do outreach to help change the mind-sets of men and boys. The best approach for us is to support local grassroots organizations that are creating change from within.
Can we really afford to spend this money right now?
Half-a-billion dollars sounds like a lot, but it’s so tiny in the context of the U.S. budget, it’s like a rounding error. The bill has bipartisan support because this is a place where we can make a big difference without much money. No one is for violence against women, yet one in three women will be a victim of violence in her lifetime.
Senate Judiciary Committee Reviews Violence Against Women Act
US Fed News (USA)
May 7, 2010
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
WASHINGTON, May 6 -- The Senate Judiciary Committee conducted a hearing "to examine the increased importance of the Violence Against Women Act in a time of economic crisis," according to a committee notice published in the Congressional Record.
The committee received testimony at the hearing, which was conducted on May 5, from Susan B. Carbon, director of Office on Violence Against Women at the Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; Auburn L. Watersong, economic justice specialist at the Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, Montpelier, VT; Lolita Ulloa, managing attorney of Victim Services Division at the Hennepin County Attorney's Office, Minneapolis, MN; and Richard Gelles, dean of School of Social Policy & Practice at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, the committee website said.
Violence against women action day
Indianapolis Examiner (IN)
May 10, 2010
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Tomorrow, May 11, is Advocacy Day for the the International Violence Against Women Act (HR 4594 /S. 2982). The day is sponsored by Interfaith Domestic Violence Coalition, and the activities, which center on Washington, D.C., will include many faith groups.
For far too long, religious organizations have sat on the sidelines of domestic violence—or even encouraged it, whether openly or subtly. This writer has heard stories of (and from) Christian pastors telling women to endure such violence, because it is their "calling" and because they should not leave or dishonor their husbands. Worldwide, between 33% and 70% of women will suffer from domestic violence during their lifetimes. This act would make violence prevention part of our foreign policy. Between 33% and 70% of women are abused in some way.
What can you do in Indy?
- show your support on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=116586565039165&ref=nf
- Senator Lugar has been a co-sponsor of the bill in the past. Encourage him to continue that support. No Indiana representative is a co-sponsor: encourage your House members to support this bill.
- Support local shelters, such as the Julian Center, so women who are the objects of this violence can have a safe place to go.
Ex-judge backs moving domestic violence focus to prevention
New Hampshire Union Leader / New Hampshire Sunday News
May 21, 2010
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
MANCHESTER -- Major strides have been made in helping domestic violence victims since the federal Violence Against Women Act became law in 1994, but the focus needs to advance toward prevention if the abuse is going to end, President Obama's point person on violence against women's issues said yesterday.
"Unless we change our focus and front-load it around prevention, we are going to continue to see victims in hospital rooms and in morgues if we don't start to see them in wellness centers first," the federal Justice Department's Office on Violence Against Women director Susan Carbon told nearly 500 advocates, law enforcers, judges and legislators.
Carbon, who served nearly 20 years as a New Hampshire judge prior to being sworn in to her new post seven weeks ago, said any strategy to prevent domestic-related murders and assaults, child and elder abuse, teen violence and bullying will truly succeed once the country addresses why violence in general has become such an acceptable and deeply-ingrained part of the national psyche.
"We have, in my view, a cultural schizophrenia around violence. We have so much violence in everything we do -- in our music, in our sports, in road rage on our streets, bullying in our schools," Carbon, 56, said in an interview after her keynote address to the 16th statewide Conference on Domestic and Sexual Violence and Stalking.
"We accept violence in all of these other areas as just a part of life, and yet we are saying it's not right when it happens to individuals," she explained.
Carbon said one of her goals as the nation's lead policy-maker on domestic and sexual violence issues is to help shape a national discussion that would reconcile these points of view.
"If each one of us doesn't do something, then we are complicit in perpetuating the violence," she said.
Carbon received a standing ovation as she took the podium to give the keynote speech to the conference, held at the Radisson Hotel. Many in the hall either worked closely with her or are familiar with the retired judge's work in the state. Many were elated to see her make her second visit back to New Hampshire since she officially was sworn as director April 6.
"It's the top advocacy position in the country. To have a New Hampshire person in that position ... we're all so thrilled," said Sandra Matheson, director of the state Attorney General's Office of Victim/Witness Assistance.
The Violence Against Women Act goes before Congress in 2011 for reauthorization. Carbon said she appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this month and outlined violence prevention, combatting sexual assault and directing resources to previously underserved communities, such as native Americans and Alaskans, are major initiatives her office intends to pursue.
"Much of the Violence Against Women Act is focused on intervention -- the services for the victims. I think we've done a really good job there. The prevention pieces are being recognized now as perhaps even more important," she said.
Preventing childhood exposure to violence, helping youth learn how to form healthy relationships, combating bullying, and addressing child custody issues need attention to reduce the number of domestic-related murders and assaults, she said.
"When victims want to separate from the abusive person, the risk increases exponentially. ... We know that victims are killed when they try to leave. We know that children are killed as a way to punish the spouse for divorcing them or leaving them," she said.
Carbon brings to her national post a 20-year history of working on domestic violence and family issues in New Hampshire. She was appointed judge in 1991, served as supervisory judge of the state's judicial branch family division from 1996 to 2010, belonged to the Governor's Commission on Domestic and Sexual Violence and founded and chaired the New Hampshire Domestic Violence Fatality Review Committee.
Carbon said she was "just blown away" when she learned Obama nominated her to the post last Oct. 1.
"It just is the most significant honor," said Carbon, who still maintains the Chichester home she and her husband, Larry Berkson, share. She said she hopes she will be able to return home twice a month once she is more familiar with the job.
"This is a one chance in a gazillion to have this opportunity," Carbon said, adding she expects to draw heavily on the experiences of victims while serving in her post.
"When all is said and done, it's about their lives and how we can make a better place for them," she said.
Opinion: Sarah Palin is no feminist
Mercury News, The: Web Edition Articles (San Jose, CA)
Author/Byline: Jessica Valenti - founder of Feministing.com
June 3, 2010
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Sarah Palin sure is dropping the f-bomb a lot lately.
In a widely noted speech this month to the Susan B. Anthony List, an anti-abortion-rights group, Palin invoked the words "feminism" and "feminist" no less than a dozen times. She called for a "pro-woman sisterhood" and addressed the "sisters" in the audience. If it weren't for the regular references to gun rights, you might have thought you were listening to Gloria Steinem.
If this rhetoric seems uncharacteristic of the former governor of Alaska, that's because it is. When running for vice president in 2008, Palin flip-flopped on the feminist question, telling CBS's Katie Couric that she is one, but later telling NBC's Brian Williams, "I'm not going to label myself anything."
Today, however, Palin is happily adopting the feminist label. She's throwing support behind "mama grizzly" candidates, describing the large number of women in the "tea party" as evidence of a "mom awakening" and preaching girl power on her Facebook page.
It's not a realization of the importance of women's rights that's inspired the change. It's strategy. Palin's sisterly speechifying is part of a larger conservative move to woo women by appropriating feminist language. Just as consumer culture tries to sell "Girls Gone Wild"-style sexism as "empowerment," conservatives are trying to sell anti-women policies shrouded in pro-women rhetoric.
Several years ago, when anti-abortion protesters realized that screaming "Murderer!" at women wasn't winning hearts and minds, they launched more palatable campaigns claiming that abortion hurts women — their new protest signs read "Women Deserve Better."
When members of the conservative Independent Women's Forum argue against efforts to address pay inequity, they say the salary gap is a result of women's informed choices — motherhood, for example — and that claims of discrimination turn women into victims. Conservatives have realized that women respond to seemingly feminist arguments.
But, of course, Palin isn't a feminist — not in the slightest. What she calls "the emerging conservative feminist identity" isn't the product of a political movement or a fight for social justice. It's an empty rallying call to women who are disdainful of or apathetic to women's rights, who want to make abortion and emergency contraception illegal, who would cut funding to the Violence Against Women Act and who fight same-sex marriage rights. Given that so-called conservative feminists don't support women's rights, how can they paint their movement as pro-woman?
Easy: They pre-empt criticism of their lack of bona fides by aligning themselves with a history that most women are proud of — the fight for suffrage. They claim they're the real feminists, as Palin did in her speech lauding the Susan B. Anthony List for "returning the women's movement back to its original roots." (She wasn't talking about voting rights; she was referring to the debated notion that first-wave feminists were anti-abortion.)
Of course, by dismissing the past 40 years of feminism, women such as Palin disparage the very movement that made it possible for them to be public figures.
Palin's "feminism" isn't just co-opting the language of the feminist movement, it's deliberately misrepresenting real feminism to distract from the fact that she supports policies that limit women's rights.
Is it possible to exclude women such as Palin from feminism if we don't have a conclusive definition? Absolutely. If anyone — even someone who actively fights against women's rights — can call herself a feminist, the word and the movement lose all meaning. Feminism is a social justice movement with values and goals that benefit women.
What Palin is peddling isn't feminism — it's a manipulated buzzword being used to garner support for a party that time and time again votes against women's rights.
Jessica Valenti is the author of "The Purity Myth: How America"s Obsession With Virginity Is Hurting Young Women" and the founder of Feministing.com. She wrote this article for the Washington Post.
Men and Gender Neutral Domestic Violence versus Domestic Violence Policy
New York Examiner (NY)
Author/Byline: Edward Nelson
June 3, 2010
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Sometimes a situation isn’t as clear as some would like you to believe.
Since the male perspective on domestic violence is rarely told and often suppressed, this article will examine anecdotal evidence to place the contemporary use and abuse of domestic violence in perspective. To paraphrase an African proverb: “The hunter will always be the hero until the lion gets his paws on the pen.”
When the incident between Chris Brown and Rihanna was made public, domestic violence advocates scurried to sign her up as their sensational star spokeswoman on domestic violence.
Commercial venues like Oprah Winfrey and Donald Trump assembled their star power to publicly renounce Chris Brown before allowing the legal process to take its course. Can you imagine being charged with a crime and turning on the television only to find that America’s most popular stars are discussing your case and implying that you are guilty?
Oprah Winfrey and Donald Trump are not attorneys and neither has fared well in the relationship department. When was the last time you heard Oprah or Trump discuss the intimate details of their personal lives? They don’t. If they did, you may not like them anymore. However, they have no problem exploiting the lives of others.
Today, the domestic violence stigma is so powerful that once a person has been labeled an “abuser” he will suffer socially, economically, and enrage the ire of citizens in the public domain. The backlash from the “abuser” label is parallel to a form of per se violence. However, the longstanding application of domestic violence policy has been directed primarily toward men.
Chris Brown provided America with a sobering word of wisdom and an implication that Rihanna was violent as well when he told Vibe Magazine: “It’s never okay for a man to hit a woman but it’s [also] never okay for a woman to hit a man[.]” Don’t be fooled into thinking that a man cannot be involved in a controlling relationship with a dominant woman who uses domestic violence policy to control the course of the relationship.
Unfortunately, domestic violence policy has historically been utilized to unfairly structure a one sided biased conversation against men. One must understand that when VAWA was enacted, men were not in the equation. They were merely an afterthought.
If anyone has noticed, Jerry Springer makes millions of dollars based mostly on female violence. However, those violent behaviors are being passed off as entertainment, not crimes of domestic violence or assault. Has anyone ever heard of a single domestic violence advocate protesting the Jerry Springer show? What’s happening on the Jerry Springer show isn’t funny or entertaining! However, female violence seems to be the primary focus of the Jerry Springer show.
Every state in the Union has domestic violence laws. In fact, New York’s domestic violence laws are federally funded by grants awarded and distributed according to the provisions set out in the Violence Against Women Act (hereinafter “VAWA”).
Unfortunately, the funding that is meant to provide services to domestic violence victims aren’t being distributed fairly. It’s a noted fact that men very rarely report incidents of domestic violence because they truly believe that no one will give credence to their accusation, or, they’ll be mocked for coming forward with criminal charges against a female who is presumed to be of the weaker sex. That doesn’t mean there isn’t a very small population of men making legitimate requests for services under VAWA either.
Sometime during the year of 2008, I had the privilege of interviewing a well spoken and very knowledgeable attorney from California on the subject of VAWA. Mr. Marc Angelucci is a nationally renowned attorney on issues involving the rights of men. In a case of first impression, Mr. Angelucci had proven that VAWA discriminates against men in the way it unfairly excludes VAWA funding and services to men in a case titled Woods v. Horton (which was initially titled Woods v. Shewry).
Mr. Woods had an abusive wife and left the residence with his daughter and went to a shelter for safe keeping. Unfortunately, the shelter refused to allow him entry simply because of his male gender. This means that VAWA partially applies in the heterosexual relationship; however, it completely excludes males in gay relationships.
The California Court of Appeal held that VAWA discriminates against men and ordered that victims of domestic violence, regardless of gender, must be provided with funding and services. In response to the Woods v. Horton decision, the California legislature later moved to amend its State law to make its domestic violence policies gender neutral.
New York can learn from this model because there are no shelters for male victims of domestic violence in the State of New York either. More importantly, a gender neutral domestic violence policy makes more sense than the exclusive domestic violence policy currently in effect in most
States. Dr. Molly Dragiewicz has compiled an interesting list of lawsuits with links to cases involving VAWA discrimination against men. If interested, Dr. Dragiewicz's compilation of cases make great reading material.
Truth be told, there are two competing movements that have organized as a result of VAWA. One involves the teaching of misandry which is the hatred of males. And two, involves the teaching of misogyny which is the hatred of females. Both groups are suspect because domestic violence mostly involves intimate partner violence. It would be an oxymoron and a great non-sequitur to suggest, that for the most part, domestic violence involves intimate partners who hate each other. The variables “love” and “hate” just don’t relate, no pun intended.
Over the years feminists have jealously maintained a stronghold on VAWA funding. Making VAWA gender neutral removes a portion of the funding allocated to these feminist groups and properly transfers a portion of the funding to male groups. However, government funding has created some really strange bed fellows.
Ms. Phyllis Schlafly summarizes domestic violence beautifully in her work titled “Laughing At Restraining Orders.” She discusses the arbitrary and capricious conduct of judges in signing orders of protection and more. To show the inattentiveness that judges display when signing an order of protection, Ms. Colleen Nestler provides the best example.
Ms. Nestler filed an order of protection claiming that a man was sending her “code messages over the airway expressing his desire to marry her.” The order of protection was validated and signed by Santa Fe District Court Judge Daniel Sanchez restraining CBS talk show host David Letterman from harassing Ms. Nestler. It made no difference that David Letterman didn’t know Ms. Nestler. In a time of economic crisis, your tax dollars are being squandered to correct mistakes like David Letterman’s every day. We need competent judges to deal with these issues.
Broadening the scope of domestic violence changes the image of the domestic violence suspect. A gender neutral domestic violence policy would allow VAWA funding to portray women as abusers as well as men. Which reverts back to what Chris Brown had said in his interview with Vibe Magazine. More importantly, it allows anyone involved in a gay male relationship to receive the needed services and funding that comes with being a victim. After all, VAWA funding is need based, not gender based. Domestic violence in the absence of gender neutrality is an antiquated law that must be revisited.
The everlasting words of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. written while confined in the Birmingham Jail ring true on this subject: “An injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”
If domestic violence advocates are correct, Cinderella wound up abusing the young prince; therefore, it would not be reasonable to think that they lived happily ever after. Had the prince left the Castle he would have been denied entry into a shelter because he was not a female.
Finally, it would be fair to conclude, that once you are involved in a domestic violence incident it is impossible to live happily ever after. At least that’s how domestic violence advocates are spinning it. America needs to stop the nonsense with “domestic violence” and promote a "gender neutral domestic violence" policy. VAWA funding should be spent advertising the male side of gender neutral domestic violence as well as it does for females. Otherwise, it wouldn't be reasonable for men to wholeheartedly support a policy that discriminates against them by exclusion.
Wake up New York!
Program combats domestic violence through 'unlearning'
Hays Daily News, The (KS)
June 13, 2010
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
John Trembley points to a blank wall in the newly remodeled batterer intervention conference center in the basement of Northwest Kansas Community Corrections.
"I'm thinking about putting a big sign in red letters there that reads 'stop the violence.'"
"So they'd always be looking at it," he said.
Trembley, director of NWKCC, said he was motivated to implement a batterer intervention program because of the domestic violence-related murders of two Ellis County women in the last few years.
In an effort to combat the violence, he began writing grant proposals to receive program funding. Thanks to grants from the Violence Against Women Act, Byrne program and United Way of Ellis County, NWKCC has added a batterer intervention program to its list of services.
Sessions have been taking place for several weeks in the basement conference room, remodeled by individuals on community service.
Gov. Mark Parkinson signed new legislation in April requiring courts to evaluate individuals with a history of domestic violence incidents in the state's criminal justice system, tagging those individuals' files, improving tracking efforts, assessing them and recommending intervention treatment programs.
Certified batterer intervention programs in Kansas are rare, with only six in the state. Once certification is complete for NWKCC's program, it will become the only Kansas Department of Corrections, community corrections or any probation program with the attorney general's certification.
Community corrections agencies generally refer batterers to outside agencies for treatment.
However, funding cuts to mental health agencies statewide have curtailed development of these programs, which vary greatly and range from only six hours to eight months of counseling.
The development of NWKCC's program has been based closely on the policies and procedures laid out by the attorney general's office.
Tom Runge, facilitator of the local program, has served on the attorney general's batterer intervention advisory board, and was instrumental in creating criteria for the certification process.
"I was able to bring back what the attorney general was working on and design our program," Runge said. "It essentially mirrors what the attorney general wants verbatim."
Runge, a licensed clinical therapist who worked as a forensic psychologist for the state of Kansas and mental health evaluator for High Plains Mental Health Center, has been trained in counseling batterers through the Emerge program in Boston.
He pointed out the domestic violence tag bill dictates an individual convicted or sentenced to a crime, with a history of domestic violence, needs to be treated or assessed through a certified program if available.
"They can't make that mandatory right now, because there just aren't enough programs," Runge said.
He has assessed many offenders, but said single, isolated episodes of domestic violence do not constitute battering syndrome. Accurate assessment of offenders is critical to the process.
Runge's experience in evaluating offenders helps him know who should or shouldn't be in the program.
"We're looking at individuals who have engaged in or displayed a pattern of behaviors," he said. "Not only the physical side, but the emotional and financial side. It's a pattern of behavior that's existed over time."
Offenders pay a minimal fee to participate, thus investing financially in their future outcomes. Weekly updates on participants' status is shared with NWKCC.
Runge's program, called Strategies for Change, works in two stages. The first eight-week sessions focus on education, "getting everybody on the same wavelength to know what we're talking about," Runge said.
Participants learn domestic violence is not just a matter of name-calling or slapping another person, he said, but the underlying psychological effect and interpersonal interactions that constitute abuse.
Sessions then move into the area of practical application, shaping the way participants interact with others.
"We try to change the way they think and the way they view life. Our premise is, there's not a genetic factor here. People aren't born abusers. You learn it... If you can learn a behavior, you can unlearn it," Runge said.
Although "unlearning" the behavior is not as easy as learning it, Runge conceded, it is critical for participants to recognize how their behavior effects others.
Four participants currently attend weekly meetings. Runge said the sessions can sometimes be "very confrontational" and that "the guys are learning to hold each other to the fire - to be accountable.
"It's a group process," he said. "It's a change process for everybody."
Runge is joined in sessions by his wife, who co-facilitates and also received Emerge training. She assists in communicating with victims, which is a central element of the batterer intervention program.
"We're heavily weighted on making sure the victim's needs are met and protected, and that they are safe," Runge said.
Victims are informed of safety plans, services available and receive status updates on the offender.
Trembley pointed out many advantages to the community in having treatment programs such as the batterer intervention program housed within the corrections department. Other NWKCC programs include anger management, methamphetimine treatment and sex offender programs.
"We know immediately if an offender hasn't made his appointment," Trembley said. "That's a very high risk. Then we know something's going on. I don't have to wait two months to get a report."
Following meetings, Trembley receives a report and is notified if any risks or threats might be possible with each offender.
"We know immediately if there's anything we should be aware of," Trembley said, "If you're sitting on this side of the desk, you can't imagine how much you appreciate that."
NWKCC has been recognized in the National Council Magazine for its work in being proactive in reducing the incidence of repeat offenses and is the only corrections department in Kansas with a licensed mental health professional on staff or on contract.
The unique relationship between Trembley and Runge in supervising, assessing and offering a variety of programs for offenders gives northwest Kansas residents a high level of community corrections service.
"Tom is in the business of change," Trembley said. "I'm in the business of change also ... But first of all, I'm in the business of public safety.
"Public safety overrides change. There will be no threats of violence in this program without consequences. When you're dealing with victims and the community, that's first with me."
Runge pointed out the average prison stay for offenders in Kansas is 13 months, so corrections departments must be prepared to help offenders make the transition back into their communities.
"Now they're out," Trembley said. "Sure you want to see total behavioral change. That's the idea - but not at the expense of harming somebody else. It just won't be allowed."
Landlords Fear Domestic Violence Bill May Be Abused
Law's Vague Eviction Regulations ‘A Huge Problem’
Banker & Tradesman (Boston, MA)
June 14, 2010
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
A housing bill in the state Senate intended to help victims of domestic violence is causing controversy with property owners, who say the law is poorly conceived and could leave them caught between a rock and a hard place when trying to deal with problem tenants.
But supporters say the bill will provide needful protections for victims, who may otherwise hesitate to leave their abuser for fear of ending up homeless or because they lack sufficient funds to break a lease.
“It’s one of the reasons a lot of people stay in a relationship,” said Blair Cushing, a victim’s safety and support advocate at Boston Medical Center. “For a lot of people shelter doesn’t feel like a real option.”
Since the passage of the 2005 Violence against Women Act, residents of federally subsidized housing have had protections and procedures in place to deal with domestic violence.
But similar state regulations don’t exist in Massachusetts for state-owned housing and private residences, and by fleeing a domestic violence situation, victims may in some cases be considered to have broken a lease.
Entirely Unclear
The pending bill would allow victims to break a lease without penalty, request that locks be changed and, most controversially, offer a defense against eviction. It is currently before the Senate Ways and Means committee. Supporters say it’s likely to be voted on before the legislative session ends in July.
“Landlords are in a predicament,” said Skip Schloming, executive director of the Cambridge-based Small Property Owners Association. “How do you know whether something having to do with domestic violence is going on? You’re going to evict because of something you see or you hear about, and you’re concerned about that, and its relationship with domestic violence could be unclear entirely.”
Landlords worry that the eviction prevention language in the law will stymie their ability to deal with problematic tenants. Loud arguments and violent behavior common in domestic violence cases can scare and disturb other tenants in a building. According to state law, if a landlord fails to provide an atmosphere of “quiet enjoyment,” tenants can break their lease without penalty. That could leave landlords squeezed – unable to remove a tenant whose presence is causing other tenants to depart.
“Exactly the same behavior can be evictable if it’s not related to domestic violence, and un-evicatable if it is related to domestic violence,” said Schloming.
Such determinations may be difficult for a property owner to make.
“We do not condone domestic violence, and it’s a huge problem for landlords,” said Greg Vasil, chief executive officer of the Greater Boston Real Estate Board. But “there are people who would use this to scam the system. That’s our biggest concern.”
The group wants to be sure that tenants citing domestic violence have to present formal documentation in order to avail themselves of the law’s anti-eviction provision, Vasil said.
In the case of a victim wishing to break a lease, the proposed law requires a victim to present proof to the landlord in the form of a protection order, a police report or a letter from a certified counselor.
Summary Judgment
But when domestic violence is offered as a defense against eviction, determining whether abuse occurred and is the underlying reason for eviction is left to the discretion of a judge.
Under current state housing law landlords must move to evict an entire household, not just one individual. The new law doesn’t change that. In cases where a landlord wants to evict an abuser, while allowing a domestic violence victim to remain in place, such situations would have to be handled by a court order handed down by the judge reviewing the case. Advocates say the procedure would be similar to what happens when a household member is involved in criminal activity.
“We see this in housing court a lot, where the judge will say, “Mrs. X, you can stay, but you have to get rid of Child Y,” said Barbara Zimbel, senior attorney in the housing unit at Greater Boston Legal Services. “The only difference is that [under this bill the victim] would be able to bring up the domestic violence. It’d be something the judge would have to deal with.”
But by leaving so many details to be worked out on a case-by-case basis in court or between the parties could leave landlords confused about their rights and responsibilities.
“There are a lot of details in this bill that haven’t been worked out,” said Schloming. He pointed to another gray area – the division of rent if a victim breaks a lease because of to domestic violence. The law, as written, requires landlords to return any rent paid in advance, but does not outline what to do if one of the tenants remains in residence.
“The language of the bill could be interpreted to mean that the landlord should return all of the money to the victim,” said Schloming. “If someone’s still staying on the lease, that means the landlord is left with a tenant where perhaps there’s not enough money to pay the rent, and there’s no security deposit, no last month’s rent, and the tenants are in occupancy.”
Zimbel said these kinds of concerns were overblown.
“The reality is a good majority of tenants are tenants at will. This really doesn’t change that much,” in terms of eviction proceedings, she said. “But when it’s needed, it will really help.”
Rewriting the bill to indicate that a victim would be due their proportion of the pre-paid rent would fix this issue, said Schloming. But he cited it as indicative of the problems property owners have with the bill.
“It’s something they ought to be dealing with, but they just haven’t thought of it,” he said.
Lawsuit: SB 1070 endangers abuse victims
Sun, The (Yuma, AZ)
June 16, 2010
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
PHOENIX - Saying domestic violence victims will be endangered, dozens of national organization want a federal judge to block Arizona from enforcing its new law aimed at illegal immigrants.
Legal papers filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court say federal law gives special protection to immigrant women to encourage them to report crimes and help prosecute them without fear of being deported. Attorneys also said other federal statutes guarantee access to certain services, including emergency shelter, without regard to immigration status.
All that, they argued, is undermined by SB 1070 which requires police to ask those they have stopped about whether they are in this country legally if there is reasonable suspicion they are not. The law, set to take effect July 29, also allows police to arrest illegal immigrants for violating state trespass laws.
"Arizona police could be stationed outside a battered women's shelter precisely because immigrant women are likely to use federally guaranteed life-saving services,'' wrote attorneys Joanna McCallum and Christopher DuPont. They represent Legal Momentum, the lead group seeking to block enforcement of the law.
The lawyers also singled out another new provision of the law which makes it a crime to "harbor'' or "shield'' illegal immigrants.
"SB 1070 ... undermines the ability of domestic violence shelters, rape crisis centers, and other victim-service providers to bring crime victims to court, to meetings with prosecutors, and to the hospital for treatment of critical injuries, causing irreparable harm,'' the attorneys wrote.
Whether they will get to make that argument to the court, though, has not been resolved.
The attorneys are seeking permission to file a "friend of the court'' brief in support of the original lawsuit, filed last month, seeking to at least temporarily bar enforcement of the law while its constitutionality is considered by the court. It is up to the judge whether to permit the action.
Sen. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, who sponsored the legislation, did not immediately return phone calls seeking comment.
Pearce, however, has previously pointed out that SB 1070 gives police discretion not to ask legal status if that would "hinder or obstruct an investigation.'' He said that provides protections to crime victims and witnesses.
But the legislation provides no legal protection for those who operate domestic violence shelters or similar facilities. The only exceptions from prosecution for harboring or shielding an illegal immigrant are for child protective service workers and "first responders'' like ambulance attendants.
In its filing, the attorneys describe Legal Momentum as a 39-year-old legal defense and education fund "dedicated to advancing the rights of all women and girls.'' The organization also has a separate Immigrant Woman Program.
But the lawyers said the legal position also is backed by dozens of other groups across the nation which are involved in helping victims of domestic violence.
According to the attorneys, Legal Momentum helped craft the 1994 Violence Against Women Act, the law that protects immigrants who report crimes — and the law, they said, would be undermined by SB 1070.
They pointed out that Congress, in amendments enacted in 2000, showed a specific interest in broadening the law to ensure that those women in the country illegally also are protected. Those changes enacted two new visas, one for victims of human trafficking and the other for victims of domestic violence, rape and other crimes.
Both programs, the attorney said, require the cooperation of and coordination with police,.
The lawyers said Congress further showed its interest in protecting undocumented women in 1996 by adding battered immigrant women and children entitled to welfare, benefits that had previously been taken away.
The Plight of Women in Northern Iraq
Daily Beast, The
June 17, 2010
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
A new report highlights the widespread—and brutal—practice of female genital mutilation in northern Iraq, even as the country stabilizes. How the U.S. can help now.
Violence in Iraq may have abated. But in the northern region of Kurdistan, women continue to suffer. A new report by Human Rights Watch, out this week, calls for a ban on the widespread practice of female circumcision in Kurdistan.
Instead of quietly tolerating this practice that blights the lives of so many girls and women, the government needs to move swiftly to adopt a law to ban female genital mutilation.
Known locally as “xatana” and described as a “harmful traditional practice” by the United Nations, the procedure is brutal and sometimes enforced on girls as young as 3. Typically, the child is taken to the midwife’s house and, while several women hold the girl down, the midwife cuts her clitoris with a sharp razor that is sometimes unclean or used to cut several girls in succession. Girls who hear the screams and try to run away are dragged back for their turn. Most women recall the intense pain for many years.
Marietou Diarra tells a powerful story about what her Senagalese community calls "the tradition" at the first Women in the World summit, March 2010.
The new report from HRW, "They Took Me and Told Me Nothing: Female Genital Mutilation in Iraqi Kurdistan," examines the complex reasons—cultural, social, and religious—as to why women subject their daughters and other female relatives to this practice.
Many women in Kurdistan refer to FGM as "sunnah," an action to strengthen one’s religion. The girls and women told us that when they were young, their relatives would tell them that they must undergo xatana, or the food and water from their hands would be haram—forbidden. A striking number of older women firmly believe that Islam demands this practice.
However, the Quran does not mention FGM, nor is it practiced in many countries with a Muslim majority. And many clerics in Iraqi Kurdistan have acknowledged that FGM is not a religious requirement.
Sadly, only a few have been courageous enough to take this message public. In 2004, a group of leading Islamic scholars meeting in Egypt to discuss the subject concluded that FGM is not a religious requirement and called on Muslims everywhere to stop the practice.
The clerics aren’t the only ones with an important role in halting this practice. The Kurdistan Regional Government needs to take a clear stand. Although the government has vowed to make eliminating violence against women a priority and has taken significant steps, including abolishing a penal code article that reduced penalties for so-called honor crimes, lawmakers have failed to pass a draft law prohibiting FGM. It also has inexplicably delayed a public awareness campaign on FGM and its health consequences.
Instead of quietly tolerating this practice that blights the lives of so many girls and women, the government needs to move swiftly to adopt a law to ban FGM, and to begin an awareness campaign that targets men, women and families, clerics, health-care providers, and traditional midwives. The government should also ensure that health-care services, including mental-health services, are available for women who suffer pain and emotional distress as a result of FGM.
This is a huge challenge, but the regional government should know that it has an important ally in the United States. Vice President Joe Biden is a strong proponent of combating violence against women, both at home and abroad, and he has longstanding friendships with key players in the Kurdistan Region.
And there are other ways the U.S. can help: by passing the International Violence Against Women Act, which is currently before Congress. This bill would offer American assistance to governments to help curb domestic violence and other forms of gender-based violence, including female genital mutilation.
When I was growing up in Kurdistan, a shroud of secrecy concealed the widespread nature of female genital mutilation. I was spared because my mother realized its negative consequences, but after my father married again, all my sisters by his second wife were cut, and some in my family still believe in the practice.
Six years ago, I joined a mobile health team funded by the Association for Crisis Assistance and Development Co-operation, a German nongovernmental organization working in Iraqi Kurdistan. We would travel to remote areas of Kurdistan to visit women in their homes and speak directly to them about health issues.
At first, we didn’t talk about FGM directly because the subject was still taboo and it was difficult to start these types of conversations in these socially and religiously conservative places. Instead, we talked to them about general health problems, and in the course of these conversations, the women began to open up. It soon became clear that FGM was the source of many of their physical, emotional, and sexual problems.
When I speak to women in the villages about the physical and psychological consequences of FGM, they assure me that they won’t cut their daughters. But, after I leave, I wonder whether they will one day bow to community pressure.
Every day, we hear that young girls are still being cut.
Suad Abdulrahman is a project coordinator with the Association for Crisis Assistance and Development Co-operation (WADI) in Iraqi Kurdistan.
SEN. SPECTER OUTLINES QUESTIONS FOR KAGAN IN SECOND LETTER
US Fed News (USA)
June 17, 2010
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
WASHINGTON, June 16 -- Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Republican Member Arlen Specter, R-Pa., issued the following news release:
In a letter to Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan made public today, Senator Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) lays out four topics that he intends to cover at her upcoming confirmation hearing.
The four lines of inquiry include:
1. Senator Specter notes the steady decline in the Court's caseload over the years. As a result, Specter says, the Court "continues to leave important issues unresolved," including the constitutionality of the Bush administration's Terrorist Surveillance Program. Citing the numerous constitutional questions left dangling by the Court's practice of ducking cases, Senator Specter informs Solicitor General Kagan that his questions will include whether she favors hearing more cases and whether she would consider reducing the number of Justices required to grant petitions for certiorari in cases involving circuit court splits.
2. Senator Specter writers: "In too many cases during the last decade . . . the Court has disregarded Congressional findings of fact to an unprecedented degree. The most recent example was Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010), where in striking down the federal ban on independent campaign expenditures by corporations, the Court disregarded what Justice Stevens called in dissent a 'virtual mountain of evidence' assembled by Congress establishing the corrupting influence of such contributions on the political process." Consequently, Senator Specter intends to ask Solicitor General Kagan whether she thinks the Court has been sufficiently deferential to Congressional fact-finding, particularly in cases involving legislative efforts to remediate civil rights violations.
3. Senator Specter has long advocated for the televising of Supreme Court proceedings; he will press Solicitor General Kagan on whether she favors opening the Court to cameras and whether she would work to persuade any reluctant colleagues.
4. Senator Specter, a proponent of campaign finance reform, will question Solicitor General Kagan on Buckley v. Valeo and the First Amendment's bearing on a distinction between a corporation and a person.
Senator Specter first wrote Solicitor General Kagan on May 25th. In that letter he discussed several important cases that were dismissed by the federal courts on jurisdictional or related grounds, and that raised important questions about the rights of Americans to seek redress in the federal courts.
The full text of the second letter follows.
.
.
.
The Honorable Elena Kagan Solicitor General of the United States Washington, D.C.
Dear Solicitor General Kagan:
By letter dated May 25, 2010, I identified three subjects that I intend to cover at your confirmation hearing. I write to identify four additional subjects that I intend to cover.
The Supreme Court's Workload
The Supreme Court's workload has steadily declined. In 1870, the Court decided 280 of the 636 cases on its docket; in 1880, 365 of the 1,202 cases on its docket; and in 1886, 451 of the 1,396 cases on its docket. In 1926, the year Congress gave the Court nearly complete control of its docket by passing the Judiciary Act of 1925, the Court issued 223 signed opinions. The Court's output has declined significantly ever since. In the first year of the Rehnquist Court, the Court issued 146 opinions; in its last year, it issued only 74.
Chief Justice Rehnquist's successor, John Roberts, testified during his confirmation hearing that the Court could and should take additional cases. But the Court has not done so. During the 2005 Term, it heard argument in 87 cases and issued 69 signed opinions; during the 2006 Term, it heard argument in 78 cases and issued 68 signed opinions; during the 2007 Term, it heard argument in 75 cases and issued 67 signed opinions; and during 2008 Term, the Court heard argument in 78 cases and issued 75 signed opinions. The figures for the pending 2009 term will likely be in accord.
The Court continues to leave important issues unresolved. They include, as noted in my May 25 letter, the constitutionality of the Bush administration Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP) and the contours of the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act's domestic tort exception as applied to acts of terrorism.
Equally significant are unresolved circuit splits. Two prominent academic commentators note that the Roberts Court "is unable to address even half" of the circuit splits "identified by litigants." Tracey E. George & Christopher Guthrie, Remaking the United States Supreme Court in the Courts' of Appeals Image, 58 Duke L.J. 1439, 1449 (2009). Questions on which the circuits have split include: May jurors consult the Bible during their deliberations in a criminal case and, if so, under what circumstances? Must a civil lawsuit predicated on a "state secret" be dismissed? When may a federal agency withhold information in response to a FOIA request or subpoena on the ground that it would disclose the agency's "internal deliberations"? Do federal district courts have jurisdiction over petitions to expunge criminal records?
I intend to ask you, among other questions:
(1) Whether you agree with the Chief Justice Roberts's statement at his confirmation hearing that the "Court could contribute more to clarity and uniformity of the law by taking more cases;"
(2) Whether the Court has the capacity to hear substantially more cases than it has in recent years;
(3) Whether you favor reducing the number of Justices required to grant petitions for certiorari in cases involving circuit splits or otherwise; and
(4) Whether, if you are confirmed, you will join the Court's cert. pool or follow the practice of Justice Stevens (and the Justice for whom you clerked, Justice Thurgood Marshall) in reviewing petitions for certiorari yourself with the assistance of your law clerks?
Deference to Congressional Factfinding in Reviewing the Constitutionality of Federal Legislation
The constitutionality of federal legislation often turns on how much deference the Supreme Court gives to justificatory factual findings made by Congress. Recent nominees to the Court have emphasized that such findings are entitled to substantial deference. Chief Justice Roberts was especially emphatic on the point. He even testified that when a judge finds himself "in a position of re-evaluating legislative findings," he or she "may be beginning to transgress into an area of making law . . . ."
In too many cases during the last decade, however, the Court has disregarded Congressional findings of fact to an unprecedented degree. The most recent example was Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010), where in striking down the federal ban on independent campaign expenditures by corporations, the Court disregarded what Justice Stevens called in dissent a "virtual mountain of evidence" assembled by Congress establishing the corrupting influence of such contributions on the political process. And the Court did so, again in Justice Stevens' words, "without a shred of evidence" as to how the challenged provision "have been affecting any entity" other than the petitioner in the case.
The Court's disregard of Congressional fact-finding has been especially pronounced in cases striking down laws enacted to remediate civil rights violations (whether under the commerce clause or the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution). These included two cases about which I have questioned prior nominees to the Court: (1) United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000), which struck the provision of the Violence Against Women Act providing a federal civil remedy for victims of sex-based violence, despite Congress's well-documented findings of relevant constitutional violations nationwide; and (2) Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (2001), which struck the provision of the Americans With Disabilities Act prohibiting disability-based discrimination in employment by states, despite Congress's compilation (in the dissenter's words) of "a vast legislative record," based on task force hearings attended by more than 30,000 people, "documenting 'massive, society-wide discrimination' against persons with disabilities." As I noted in pre-confirmation-hearing letters to Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Sotomayor, the Court in Morrison even went out of its way to disparage Congress's fact-finding competency. Justice Souter noted in a dissent joined by three other Justices that the Court had departed from its longstanding practice of assessing no more than the "rationality of the congressional [factual] conclusion[s]."
Chief Justice Roberts's statements during oral argument in Northwest Austin Municipal District v. Holder, 129 S. Ct. 2504 (2009), may portend even worse things to come. The case concerned the constitutionality of a key section of the Voting Rights Act that Congress extended (by a Senate vote of 98 to 0) for another 25 years during my chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee. Ultimately the Court avoided the constitutional question in Northwest Austin by deciding the case on narrow statutory grounds. But during oral argument, Chief Justice Roberts called into question the validity of Congress's legislative findings as to the need for the reauthorization. He said that, in extending the Act, "Congress was "sweeping far more broadly than they need to."
I intend to ask you, among other questions, whether you think that the Court has been sufficiently deferential to Congressional fact-finding and whether you would go about analyzing the sufficiency of the record underlying the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act.
Television Coverage of the Supreme Court
Although the public has the undisputed right to observe the Court's proceedings, few Americans have any meaningful opportunity to do so. Even those who are able to visit the Court are not likely to see an argument in full. There are not nearly enough seats. Most will be given just three minutes to watch before they are shuffled out to make room for others. In high-profile cases, most visitors will be denied even a three-minute seating. As Justice Stevens observed during an interview, "literally thousands of people have stood in line for hours in order to attend an oral argument, only to be denied admission because the courtroom was filled." Those who wish to follow the Court's proceedings must content themselves with reading the voluminous transcripts or listening to audiotapes released at the end of the Court's term. (The Court regularly denies, without explanation, requests to release the audiotapes of oral argument on a same-day basis.) It should come as no surprise that, according to a recent poll taken by C-SPAN, nearly two-thirds of Americans favor television coverage of the Supreme Court's proceedings.
In April 2010, the Senate Committee favorably reported both my resolution (S. Res. 339) expressing the sense of the Senate that the Court should permit television coverage and my legislation (S. 446) requiring it to allow coverage. In the last two Congresses, the Committee favorably reported nearly identical legislation (S. 1768 in the 109th Congress and S. 344 in the 110th Congress) that I introduced.
Statements made by the current Justices indicate that a majority of them-Chief Justice Roberts, Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, and Sotomayor-are favorably disposed toward allowing coverage or at least have an open mind on the matter. Justice Stevens, whom you would replace, has said that allowing cameras in the Supreme Court is "worth a try."
Your past statements suggest that you are proponent of coverage. Soon after becoming Solicitor General, you told the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference that "if cameras were in the courtroom, the American public would see an extraordinary event. . . . When C-SPAN first came on, they put cameras in legislative chambers. And it was clear that nobody was there. I think if you put cameras in the courtroom, people would say, 'wow.' They would see their government working at a really high level - at a really high level. That is one argument for doing so."
I intend to ask you whether, if confirmed, you will support television coverage and, if you will, whether you will try to persuade your reluctant colleagues to do likewise.
Constitutionality of Regulation of Campaign Finance
In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010), the Supreme Court held unconstitutional provisions of federal law prohibiting corporations and unions from making certain independent campaign expenditures in support of candidates for federal office, thereby putting corporations on the same footing as individuals (including citizens). Some organizations opposed to campaign-finance reform have heralded Citizens United as the beginning of the end of campaign finance regulation. The next step, according to the policy briefs of these organizations, is to challenge the prohibition on corporate campaign contributions and, in doing, attempt to eliminate the remaining case-law distinctions between the speech rights of individual natural persons and of corporations. Under existing federal law, corporations may not make campaign contributions. (They may do so only through tightly regulated PACs.) The Supreme Court has upheld this restriction against First Amendment challenge.
Some organizations have even advocated an end to limits on campaign contributions-as distinct from campaign-related expenditures-by individuals. In Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), the Supreme Court upheld limits on contributions by individuals, even as it struck down a provision of federal law prohibiting independent expenditures in support of candidates for office. The Court accepted Congress's finding that allowing "large individual financial contributions" threatens to corrupt the political process and undermine public confidence in it. Buckley's holding on this point has been well-settled law for nearly 35 years.
I intend to ask you, among other questions:
(1) Whether, under First Amendment law, there remains anything left of the distinction between contributions from a corporation and those from natural persons.
(2) What considerations would you bring to bear in deciding whether to overrule the portion of Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), upholding limits on campaign contributions by individuals?
Sincerely,
Arlen Specter
cc: Chairman Patrick J. Leahy, Senate Judiciary Committee
Ranking Member Jeff Sessions, Senate Judiciary Committee
All Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee
Specter Calls on Senators to Use Kagan Hearings as Opportunity to Assert Congress's Power
"Let's sharpen our lines of questioning, colleagues."
Government Press Releases (USA)
June 22, 2010
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Washington, D.C. - Senator Arlen Specter (D-Pa.), a 30-year veteran of the Senate Judiciary Committee, took to the Senate floor yesterday to expose the imbalance of power between the three coequal branches of government. In advance of Monday's confirmation hearings of Solicitor General Elena Kagan, Senator Specter laid out how the Supreme Court has strictly curtailed or dismissed Congressional power.
"The Supreme Court of the United States is materially changing the traditional separation of powers and, as a result, the Congress of the United States continues to lose very substantial power in the Federal scheme under the Constitution of the United States," Specter said.
Senator Specter stated that recent Supreme Court decisions have "abrogated the traditional deference given by the judicial branch" to Congressional fact-finding, resulting in a Supreme Court that makes law rather than interprets law. In Citizens United, a decision which gave corporations and other special interests unprecedented new power to influence elections, the Supreme Court dismissed over 100 years of precedent and over 100,000 pages of Congressional findings.
Senator Specter raised concerns that the Supreme Court has exhibited a disrespect for Congress as a coequal branch of government in Citizens United and other cases. Chief Justice William Rehnquist, for example, in his opinion striking down legislation protecting women against violence, said the Court disagreed with Congress's "method of reasoning."
Calling the Supreme Court confirmation hearings "the only opportunity we have to influence the process," Senator Specter called on his fellow Senators to focus on next week's hearing:
"Well, my colleagues, the Congress has an opportunity to assert itself, to demand the appropriate respect which the Constitution calls for and has been implemented under the doctrine of separation of powers. We can find ways to make sure that commitments about respected congressional fact-finding will be observed, or that the rule of stare decisis will be respected; that when there are major decisions coming before the Supreme Court of the United States which involve the power of Congress vis-a-vis the executive branch, that those decisions will be made."
To date, Senator Specter has released three letters he has written to Solicitor General Kagan outlining his intended line of questioning during the hearing.
The full text of Specter's floor remarks follow. His third letter to Solicitor General Kagan is attached:
Mr. President, I have sought recognition to again alert my colleagues to what I consider to be a very important matter, and that is that the Supreme Court of the United States is materially changing the traditional separation of powers and that, as a result, the Congress of the United States continues to lose very substantial power in the Federal scheme under the Constitution of the United States. This is a theme I have submitted over the course of the last 30 years, since 1981, with the confirmation proceedings of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. And in now the 12th proceeding that I will personally have participated in, I raise this issue again to urge my colleagues to take a stand.
The only opportunity we have to influence the process is through the confirmation of Supreme Court Justices. But we have witnessed a series of cases where instead of the traditional doctrine of separation of power, there has been a very material concentration of power which has gone principally through the Court and secondarily to the executive branch.
The Framers put the Congress under Article I. It was thought at the time the Constitution was adopted that Congress would be the foremost branch representing the people. The executive branch is Article II, and the judiciary branch is Article III. Were the Constitution to be written today, I think we would find the course inverted. But what we have seen here is that recent decisions of the Supreme Court have abrogated the traditional deference given by the judicial branch to findings of fact and the determination of public policy arising from what Congress finds in its extensive legislative hearings, with the Court substituting its judgment with a variety of judicial doctrines. During the confirmation process where we examine the nominees, we continue to receive lip service about congressional authority but, once confirmed, we find that the nominees have a very different attitude and engage in very substantial jolts to the constitutional law in effect.
The generalized standard for what would be the basis for upholding an act of Congress was articulated by Justice Harlan in Maryland v. Wirtz in 1968 interpreting the commerce clause, saying:
"Where we find that the legislation as a rational basis for finding a chosen regulatory scheme necessary to the protection of commerce, our investigation is at an end."
That is the general legislative standard which had been adopted by the Court in reviewing acts of Congress until the case of City of Boerne v. Flores in 1997. There, the Supreme Court adopted a new standard. They articulated it as congruence and proportionality, with the Supreme Court of the United States reviewing the act of Congress to decide whether it was congruent and proportional to what the Congress sought to achieve, and that entailed an analysis of the record, giving very little deference to what Congress had found.
On its face, the standard of congruence and proportionality suggests that the Court can come out anywhere it chooses. That was the view of a very strong dissent by Justice Scalia in a subsequent case, where he said:
"The congruence and proportionality standard, like all such flabby tests, is a standing invitation to judicial arbitrariness and policy-driven decision-making."
So that when you take a standard of that sort and undercut the traditional deference to congressional fact-finding, you end up with the Court making law instead of interpreting law. Under that decision, we have seen a whole torrent of Supreme Court decisions declaring acts of Congress unconstitutional. Illustrative are the Morrison case, involving the Violence Against Women Act, the Garrett case under the Americans With Disabilities Act, and repeatedly the issue was undercut.
As a result, in the confirmation hearings, many of us--this Senator included--sought to establish an understanding of a nominee's approach to giving the deference to congressional findings. Illustratively--and I have spoken on this subject before--Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito used all the right language, but when we find the application of the language, they have done a reverse course. Justice Roberts spoke eloquently about the need for modesty and for the Court not to jolt the system, but to follow stare decisis. With respect to fact-finding, this is what Chief Justice Roberts had to say in his confirmation hearing:
"I appreciate very much the differences in institutional competence between the judiciary and the Congress when it comes to basic questions of fact finding, development of a record, and also the authority to make the policy decisions about how to act on the basis of a particular record. It's not just disagreement over a record. It's a question of whose job it is to make a determination based on the record...... [A]s a judge, you may be beginning to transgress into the area of making a law..... when you are in a position of re-evaluating legislative findings, because that doesn't look like a judicial function."
So there you have a very flat statement by the nominee saying that it is not the Court's role to transgress into the area of lawmaking, which is what does happen in reevaluating legislative findings.
Justice Alito said about the same thing. This is his testimony in his confirmation hearing:
"I think that the judiciary should have great respect for findings of fact that are made by Congress. The judiciary is not equipped at all to make findings about what is going on in the real world--not these sort of legislative findings. And Congress, of course, is in the best position to do that. Congress can have hearings and examine complex social issues, receive statistical data, hear testimony from experts, analyze that and synthesize that, and reduce that to findings. And when Congress makes findings on questions that have a bearing on the constitutionality of legislation, I think they are entitled to great respect."
The decision in Citizens United found the Court reversing recent decisions in the Austin and McConnell cases. Instead of giving the deference to the congressional findings, which was articulated by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, they did an about-face.
In raising this consideration, I do not challenge the good faith of Chief Justice Roberts or Justice Alito. I recognize and acknowledge the difference between testifying in a confirmation hearing and what happens during the course of a decision when deciding a specific case in controversy. But when we take a look at what happened in Citizens United--and again, this is a matter of the illustration--we have the enormous record that was created by the Congress in enacting McCain-Feingold and the findings of fact there to support what the Congress did, which was invalidated by the Supreme Court of the United States in Citizens United, which upset 100 years of precedent in allowing corporations to engage in political advertising.
The scope and detail of the congressional findings were outlined by Justice Stevens in his dissenting opinion in Citizens United. The statement of facts by Justice Stevens on commenting on the record is not a matter of disagreeing on opinions. People are entitled to their own opinions but not to their own facts, as has been reiterated so frequently. This is what Justice Stevens noted on the congressional fact-finding:
"Congress crafted in the McCain-Feingold legislation `in response to a virtual mountain of research on the corruption that previous legislation failed to avert.' The Court now negates Congress's efforts without a shred of evidence on how section 203 or its State law counterparts have been affecting any entity other than Citizens United."
Justice Stevens said this to emphasize not only that the Court's holding ran counter to outstanding congressional judgment but also ``the common sense of the American people,'' who have recognized a need to prevent corruption from undermining self governing since the founding and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corrupt electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt.
Justice Stevens went on to point out that the record compiled in the context of the congressional legislation was more than 100,000 pages long. He noted that judicial deference is particularly warranted, whereas here we deal with the congressional judgment that has remained essentially unchanged throughout a century of legislative adjustment.
Now, as a result of what happened in Citizens United, we found that, illustratively, Chief Justice Roberts did substantially differently when on the Court in contrast with what he did in his confirmation hearing. In the confirmation hearing, Chief Justice Roberts did acknowledge that the act was a product of an ``extraordinarily extensive legislative record.''
``My reading of the Court's opinion,'' Chief Justice Roberts went on, ``is that was the case where the Court's decision was driven in large part by the record that had been compiled by Congress. The determination there was based on the extensive record carrying a lot of weight with the justices.''
The matter was particularly problemsome. As Justice Stevens noted:
"The Congress relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the Austin case."
Stevens noted that overruling Austin was especially significant because Congress had specifically relied on that decision in drafting the McCain-Feingold Act.
So essentially what you have here is relatively recent decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States in Austin and McConnell. You have a very extensive congressional record, which sets forth the factors about the need to avoid corrupt practices and electioneering brought about by money and, beyond the actual corrupt practices, the appearance of corruption, and the legislative effort to set this kind of a factual basis. And you have Justices in confirmation hearings committing to respecting and being deferential to congressional findings. But when the decision comes, 100 years of precedent is overturned. You don't have a modest decision; you have a decision which jolts the system.
It is a difficult matter where we proceed candidly as to where we go beyond getting the most positive assurances we can from the nominees. I suggest to my colleagues that when we begin the confirmation process with Solicitor General Kagan next week, this should be a focus of attention because what is happening is that the power of Congress is being diluted. If you have legislative findings that go for 100,000 pages and then you have Justices who have under oath said that they will give deference to congressional findings; you have Congress enacting the McCain-Feingold law based upon the standards set by the Supreme Court of the United States in the Austin case; you have the relatively recent precedents of Austin and McConnell, for instance, the Federal Election Commission; and then you have a case like Citizens United coming down, that ought to be a sharp focus of attention.
My sense is that the reality is that this body and our counterpart across the Rotunda pay relatively little attention to what the Supreme Court of the United States does. They have the final say. It is often noted that they are right only because they are final. When we have an opportunity, through the confirmation process, to focus on these issues, I suggest to my colleagues that it is high time we do so.
There is a second area where the authority of Congress has been very materially undermined. It has been where the Supreme Court of the United States declines to decide cases. We have a situation where the Court hears and decides relatively few cases. This is against the backdrop where, historically, the Supreme Court of the United States decided many more cases. Going back to 1886, the Supreme Court of the United States had on its docket 1,396 cases and decided 451 cases. In 1987, the Supreme Court issued 146 majority opinions. In 2006, less than 20 years later, the Supreme Court heard arguments in only 78 cases and handed down opinions in only 68 cases. A year later, 2007, the Supreme Court heard arguments in 75 cases and handed down opinions in only 67 cases. In 2008, arguments in 78 cases, decisions in 65 cases. This is in a context where Chief Justice Roberts testified in his confirmation hearing that he thought the Court ought to hear more cases.
In a letter I will submit for the Record, there is a detailing of the tremendous number of important circuit splits where the Supreme Court of the United States does not decide which circuit is correct or you have one circuit deciding a case one way or another circuit deciding a case another way, and then the situation arises in yet a third circuit, and there is no guiding precedent. There is confusion, and I suggest that the Court really has the duty to take up these circuit splits and make a definitive decision so that the law is clarified, so that litigants and lawyers can know where the law stands on a specific case. Stated simply and directly, the Court is not too busy to take up these circuit splits.
There are other major cases where the Court declines to hear cases, which I respectfully submit that the Court ought to hear. Illustrative of one of the major constitutional conflicts in the history of the United States has been the controversy over warrantless wiretaps. You have the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, which in very emphatic terms says the exclusive way a wiretap may be obtained would be through a warrant, where the Federal investigative authorities filed an affidavit of probable cause with a Federal judge or a Federal magistrate, and only after that permission is granted may the wiretap be activated.
That is to protect the very basis of privacy and the very strong interdiction of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable search and seizure.
It has been 5 years since it was disclosed that the executive branch, under the so-called Terrorist Surveillance Program, was undertaking warrantless wiretapping. The activity was being undertaken under the contention that the President had power as Commander-in-Chief, executive authority under Article II to disregard the act of Congress.
It is standard hornbook law. The Congress cannot legislate in violation of the Constitution. But if, in fact, the President of the United States, under certain circumstances, has the authority as Commander-in-Chief to engage in conduct, Congress may not proscribe it, may not eliminate it, may not limit the power of the President that the President has under constitutional authority.
But 5 years have passed and there has been no decision in the case. A Federal district court judge in Detroit declared the act unconstitutional. The case was appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, and in a 2-to-1 decision the court decided that there was no standing, which is a popular doctrine for declining to hear a case and ducking the issue.
I believe any fair analysis of the opinion of the court of the dissenting opinion gave much additional weight to the dissenters or, in any event, a very close question, one of paramount importance that ought to have been decided by the Sixth Circuit.
The case was then taken to the Supreme Court of the United States, which denied certiorari. Those issues are still very much in play.
In a case in the U.S. district court in San Francisco, Judge Vaughn Walker has declared the act unconstitutional. It is questionable whether that is a final ruling in the case. But the Supreme Court of the United States, with as many law clerks as they have--four and five each; many more than they have had in earlier days--and with the very light docket they have, there is no reason that a case such as the Terrorist Surveillance Program should not be adjudicated by the Supreme Court so we would know what the law was on that subject.
Another case which I have spoken about on the floor of the Senate involves the litigation brought by survivors of the September 11 attacks on the United States where some 3,000 people were killed. A lawsuit was begun to get damages from the Government of Saudi Arabia, from five Saudi princes, from a Saudi charitable organization which was an instrumentality of the government, and other defendants.
The Congress of the United States in the sovereign immunity law specifically decided that the sovereign should not have immunity in any case where there was a domestic tort involved, such as the conduct involved in 9/11.
The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decided the legislation did not apply because it applied only in situations where a nation had been declared a terrorist state. That exception is nowhere in the statute. It had no place in the decision.
When application was made for certiorari to have the case considered by the Supreme Court, the Solicitor General's Office, headed by Solicitor General Kagan, took the position that the Second Circuit was wrong but urged the Court not to take the case on the ground that there were important foreign policy questions involved. Solicitor General Kagan took the position that where no acts occurred within the United States, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act did not apply.
Again, this reading was pulled literally out of thin air. Nothing in legislative history or background would suggest that the victims of 9/11 ought not have a case against the Government of Saudi Arabia and the princes and the charitable organization, an instrumentality of the state. Under those circumstances, no distinction between the acts occurred, but there was plenty of repercussion and plenty of consequence from that tortious conduct when America was attacked. Here the Supreme Court of the United States has denied to hear the case, which leaves the Congress subservient to the executive branch.
The business about being deferential to foreign powers, in my judgment, is not an adequate basis for disregarding the legitimate claims of the people who were killed on 9/11, not sufficient to disregard the congressional enactment which held that there ought not to be sovereign immunity where there is tortious conduct involved; that the doctrine of sovereign immunity ought to apply to commercial transactions but not to conduct such as was evidenced on 9/11.
Again, we have as an adjunct of what happens when the Court disregards congressional findings. You have the action of the Court in declining to hear cases such as the Terrorist Surveillance Program, such as the litigation brought by the survivors of the victims of 9/11 where the authority of Congress is materially undercut.
There has been other action taken by the Supreme Court of the United States. It is hard to pick the description which is sufficiently forceful, whether it is surprising or whether it is astounding. But litigation was brought in a case captioned McComish v. Bennett where the district court in Arizona held that Arizona's Citizens Clean Elections Act was unconstitutional.
In that case, the State of Arizona had decided to provide for matching funds in order to deal with the problems of campaign financing, trying to deal with the issues of corrupting influence of money, both the fact of corruption and the appearance of corruption.
I am not going to take the time now to go through the long list of cases where Members of Congress have been convicted of illegal campaign contributions which rose to the level of being a quid pro quo and a bribe. But the Federal district court in Arizona said the Arizona legislation, captioned the Citizens Clean Elections Act, was not supported by a compelling State interest, not narrowly tailored, and not the least restrictive alternative and, therefore, was unconstitutional under the First Amendment.
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed saying there was an ample record to support the legislative enactment.
On June 1 of this year, 20 days ago, the Supreme Court of the United States denied an application to vacate the stay. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit had stayed the decision of the district court so that the Arizona elections could go forward pursuant to the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Act.
When the Ninth Circuit heard the case, the Ninth Circuit issued a stay that stopped the carrying out of the district court decision on unconstitutionality so that the elections in Arizona this year could proceed under that act. The losing parties in the Ninth Circuit decision then applied to the Supreme Court to eliminate the stay so the district court opinion would remain in effect.
The Supreme Court, on June 1, denied the application to vacate the stay ``without prejudice to a renewed application if the parties represent that they intend to file a timely petition for a writ of certiorari.''
A week later, the Court reversed course and granted the application to vacate the stay on the district court's injunction ``pending filing and disposition of a petition for writ of certiorari.''
This is complex legalese, but what it does is reinstate the conclusion of the Federal district court in Arizona that the Arizona law is unconstitutional and may not be enforced.
It is a little hard to fathom how the Court can do that without even the filing of a petition for a writ of certiorari.
What we essentially have is the Supreme Court was deciding the Arizona case without the submission of a petition for a writ of certiorari, without following the rules of the Supreme Court for the filing of briefs, or without an argument before a decision was made. It has all the earmarks of a flagrant denial of due process of law.
It is true technically that the Supreme Court may reverse and remand and enter judgment as they choose. But in a contest where the procedures are established, in case after case the practice of the Court--you want to have the Supreme Court of the United States review a case" File a petition for writ of certiorari. Then you have to prepare a brief, then you appear before the Court for argument, and then the Court makes a determination, after hearing the case, what ought to be done.
Here we have the Arizona elections disrupted by a conclusion of the Supreme Court of the United States. It is not even a judgment. It is a vacating of a stay.
We have the Supreme Court of the United States today on issues of enormous importance--the election of Federal, State, and local officials, an Arizona law trying to deal in a sensible way with the problems of having candidates spend so much of their time on electioneering. A recent study showed those of us in Congress spent about 25 percent of our time on raising money. I think that is a fairly realistic estimate. I think I saw an affirmative nod from the Presiding Officer, the Senator from Virginia.
I would say that is not much off the mark from my own experiences. My first campaign cost less than $2 million, and the last campaign cost some $23 million. We all have offices away from our office so we comply with the law which prohibits us from making telephone calls to raise money or undertaking any of it on Federal property. It takes a lot of time.
We have a number of former Members of Congress who are in jail today across this land, and we have a lot of public skepticism about the influence of money on congressional decisions. We had eight Members of the House of Representatives in one of the Hill newspapers last week about an investigation of a House Ethics Committee where there was an appearance of some issue where votes were changed in the wake of campaign contributions.
Here we have the Supreme Court eliminating the Arizona law without even having a hearing in the case but vacating the stay. That is a subject I intend to ask Nominee Kagan about next week.
I have submitted a series of letters to Solicitor General Kagan, one dated May 25, one dated June 15, and I am sending another one today, and I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the full text of these letters.
Mr. President, a good bit of the substance of the questions which I have been directing toward Solicitor General Kagan involves the question as to whether she would have voted to grant cert. I believe that is an appropriate question, whether she would agree that a case ought to be heard. There is a view that questions ought not to be asked as to what a nominee would do once a case is pending before the Court. I think even that doctrine has some limitations. I think cases such as Brown v. Board of Education, cases such as McCulloch v. Maryland, cases which are well established in the law of the land, ought to be the subject for commitment. But I think there is no doubt--in my opinion, there is no doubt--we should ask her whether she would take a case such as the Terrorist Surveillance Program, or a case such as the litigation involving the claims brought by the survivors of victims of 9/11.
The hearings next week on Solicitor General Kagan will give us an opportunity to move deeply into a great many of these important subjects. While it is true that in many instances we do not get a great deal of information from the nominees, I think the hearings are very important to inform the public as to what goes on with the Court. This is in line with the efforts which I have made to provide for legislation which would call for televising the Supreme Court. The Judiciary Committee has twice passed out of committee, by significant votes--once 12 to 6 and once 13 to 6--legislation which would call for the Supreme Court to be televised.
The Congress of the United States has the authority to make directives on administrative matters--things such as how many Justices constitute a quorum, when they begin their term, how many members there are of the Supreme Court. Congress has the authority to mandate what cases the Supreme Court will hear, and--in the cases which I intend to ask Solicitor General Kagan, such as the terrorist surveillance program--whether she would have granted cert.
There are underlying concerns, which I have raised today, of a certain disrespect which characterizes a good many of the Supreme Court opinions. For example, the opinion by Chief Justice Rehnquist in striking down the legislation protecting women against violence, notwithstanding a very voluminous record--a radical change in the interpretation of the Commerce Clause--where the Court, through Chief Justice Rehnquist, said that the Court disagreed with Congress's ``method of reasoning.''
It is a little hard to understand how the method of reasoning is so much improved when you move across the green from the Judiciary Committee hearing room past confirmation; or where you have the language used by Justice Scalia--and I have quoted some of it earlier--in the case of Tennessee v. Lane, where Justice Scalia had objected to the congruence and proportionality standard, which he said was a flabby test and a standing invitation to traditional arbitrariness and policy decision-making.
Then he went on to criticize his colleagues for, as Justice Scalia said, inappropriate criticism of an equal branch. This is what he had to say about the proportionality and congruent standard.
"Worse still, it casts this court in the role of Congress's taskmaster. Under it, the courts--and ultimately this Court--must regularly check Congress's homework to make sure that it has identified sufficient constitutional violations to make its remedy congruent and proportional. As a general matter, we are ill-advised to adopt or adhere to constitutional rules that bring us into constant conflict with the coequal branch of government. And when such conflict is unavoidable, we should not come to do battle with the United States Congress armed only with a test of congruence and proportionality that has no demonstrable basis in the text of the Constitution and cannot objectively be shown to have been met or failed."
So that is fairly strong language in disagreeing with what the Court has done in establishing the test. And Justice Stevens minced no words in his criticism of Citizens United in saying that the decision by the Supreme Court showed a disrespect for Congress. There the Court, in Citizens United, overruled both McConnell v. Federal Elections Commission and the Austin case. Overruling Austin was very significant, Justice Stevens noted, because Congress specifically relied on that decision in drafting McCain-Feingold. Justice Stevens then said that pulling out the rug beneath Congress in this matter ``shows great disrespect for a coequal branch.''
Well, my colleagues, the Congress has an opportunity to assert itself, to demand the appropriate respect which the Constitution calls for and has been implemented under the doctrine of separation of powers. We can find ways to make sure that commitments about respected congressional fact-finding will be observed, or that the rule of stare decisis will be respected; that when there are major decisions coming before the Supreme Court of the United States which involve the power of Congress vis-a-vis the executive branch, that those decisions will be made.
So let's sharpen our lines of questioning, colleagues, as we move forward to the hearings on Solicitor General Kagan a week from today.
Court set to review discrimination case
July 5, 2010
Herald-Dispatch, The (Huntington, WV)
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
HUNTINGTON -- Samuel May is a licensed pharmacist and prior victim of domestic violence.
The Huntington resident now worries the state Supreme Court could make West Virginia "the laughing stock of the nation," if it overturns a October 2009 decision of Kanawha Circuit Judge James C. Stucky ordering certain rules set forth by the state Family Protection Services Board null and void because they are gender biased against men.
The board, which is part of the state Department of Health and Human Services, petitioned to appeal Stucky's decision in January and the state Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in May. It could be argued before the justices later this year.
May regards the high court's decision as crucial.
"We feel this could be a make-or-break decision," said May, who is among the plaintiffs in the Men and Women Against Discrimination case. "Male victims could be second-class citizens."
In the board's petition to the Supreme Court, it argues it treats men and women equally. It provides examples from Morgantown and Parkersburg, where shelters have plans in place to accommodate male victims, although the overwhelming number of domestic violence victims are women.
The board asks the state Supreme Court to reverse Stucky's decision and remand it with directions to dismiss the case.
Elizabeth Crawford, who is May's girlfriend and a domestic violence counselor in South Charleston, worries that type of decision would hurt West Virginia and a movement in other states that attempt to level the playing field between male and female victims.
"I hate anyone being treated differently for any reason," Crawford said.
The board's petition argues it has found "no evidence in the record -- none -- of any male victim ever being denied shelter by any Board-licensed program in the entire State."
The state Supreme Court unanimously agreed to hear the board's appeal.
U visas can help illegal immigrant crime victims go to the cops
Sacramento Bee, The: Web Edition Articles (CA)
July 5, 2010
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
It happened so fast, Guillermo Hernandez said, that he just heard "Boom!"
"I kind of half dropped to the ground," Hernandez said.
A bullet lodged in his skull, from a gun fired by one of the robbers who came into the Fair Oaks cigar store where Hernandez rented space in 2007 for a check-cashing business. Hernandez, who came to the United States illegally from Mexico when he was 9, endured surgery and months of recovery.
But out of this traumatic experience emerged an opportunity for Hernandez, now 28. He became eligible for a visa that allows him to remain in this country legally.
Hernandez qualified for a U visa, a relatively new program that rewards foreigners who are victims or witnesses of certain crimes – mostly violent ones – and who help in the investigation and prosecution of those crimes.
"It helps victims cooperate with law enforcement without fear of deportation so that criminals can be brought to justice," said Sharon Rummery, a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services spokeswoman.
Police and immigration advocates say the U visa program remains relatively unknown in the United States, and they worry that Arizona's highly publicized new immigration law will work against the effort to bring victims and potential witnesses out of hiding.
"A law like that puts a chill on anyone wanting to cooperate with police," said Douglas Lehrman, a Sacramento immigration attorney.
Arizona's law, which takes effect July 29, requires police officers to check the residency status of anyone they stop and suspect to be in the country illegally.
Sgt. Fabian Pacheco of the Tucson, Ariz., Police Department said the U visa has been part of his department's efforts to build trust with the Latino community and has led to breaks in homicide cases.
Pacheco said he fears that, at this point, the public is more aware of Arizona's new immigration law than it is of the U visa.
UC Davis law professor Kevin R. Johnson, who specializes in immigration law, agreed. With the Arizona law, he said, those who are here illegally "are going to try to avoid dealing with police at all cost."
He added: "They are not even going to hear about the U visa."
Congress created the U visa in October 2000 when it passed the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act. Drafting the regulations delayed implementation for another seven years.
Law enforcement agencies support a victim's application by certifying that the foreigner has suffered substantial physical and mental abuse and "has been, is being, or is likely to be helpful" to a case. Then it's up to U.S. immigration authority to approve the visa, which grants temporary legal status for four years.
After three years, a U visa holder can apply for permanent residency.
In December 2008, the federal government started issuing the visas en masse. Since then, more than 10,000 U visas for primary applicants have been approved. Another 7,300 have gone to family members. Nearly 12,400 more applications are pending.
Attorneys and law enforcement officials say the majority of U visa cases involve victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. Illegal immigrants who fear deportation often are unwilling to seek help from authorities, making them easy prey for their abusers, said Oakland police Lt. Kevin Wiley.
"Those two areas have the lowest rate of disclosure," said Wiley. "The fact that people are coming out with the most private of crimes shows that the U visa is working."
Nilda Valmores, executive director for My Sister's House, a Sacramento shelter that caters to battered Asian and Pacific Islander women and children, called the U visa "a lifeline … for women to grab if they qualify."
Her group has helped about a dozen women in the past five years gain legal residency through the U visa program and Violence Against Women Act. Women qualify for VAWA status if their abusive spouse is a U.S. citizen or permanent resident.
Agencies differ in how they handle U visa applications. Lawyers say the regulations do not require that an investigation be completed for an applicant to be eligible, but some agencies are less willing to sign the forms if the perpetrator is never caught or no charges are filed.
In Sacramento, the police and sheriff's departments refer most U visa cases to the District Attorney's Office for certification. "We do a few a year," said Cindy Besemer, Sacramento County's Chief Deputy District Attorney.
What about someone lying about a crime to obtain a U visa?
Besemer said by the time U visa cases come to her office, they have been thoroughly investigated. "We'd know whether a case involves false allegations," she said.
Johnson, the law professor, said he hasn't come across fraudulent U visa cases. He said most agencies' requirements – which some immigration experts say are too stringent – for signing the forms provide ample safeguards.
Hernandez was alerted to the U visa program by a family member a few months after being shot.
His suspected assailants and two accomplices were arrested. Two made plea deals, one was convicted and another awaits a retrial. The District Attorney's Office noted on Hernandez's U visa application that "his testimony is necessary to prove what happened and to prove the identity of the suspects."
His visa was approved last October. "Now I'm somebody here," he said.
Vawa Follow the money
Delaware State News (Dover, DE)
Letters
Author: Gordon Smith - Executive Director, Family Law Advocates Initiating Reform (FLAIR)
July 6, 2010
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
With the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act set for January, 2011, June 24 25, I coordinated with members of an organization called SAVE (Stop Abusive and Violent Environments). We met with 118 members of both the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, providing them with little-known facts regarding the Mandatory Arrest Policy Grant, as well as others contained in the pre-2005 version of VAWA.
In 2009, through VAWA, the state of Delaware received almost $900,000 in specific Domestic Violence Grants.
A big part of that grant money went toward an "Encourage to Arrest Grant."
For 10 years, VAWA supported the "Mandatory Arrest Policy." But in the 2005 reauthorization, it was removed and replaced with a "Pro-Arrest Policy" recommendation.
Why?
It proved to do more harm than good.
According to Harvard Professor Dr. Radha Iyengar in her Aug. 7, 2007, The New York Times article, it increased homicide risk by 60 percent; it actually discouraged victims from calling for help.
Why does the Delaware Domestic Violence Coordinating Council ignore federal legislative intent? According to their 2008 report they (DVCC) recommend that all law enforcement agencies in Delaware, as a matter of policy, require mandatory arrest - this even in the face of VAWA, itself pulling the plug on mandatory arrest for the mere allegation of domestic abuse.
This statewide Domestic Violence Advocate in Family Court Grant of $118,698 goes toward funding for a full-time domestic violence advocate in each Family Court.
At the Family Law Commission meeting this past May, an individual stood and shared with the visiting dignitaries of Chief Family Court Judge Kuhn and Chief Court Administrator Guy Sapp how the domestic violence advocates had encouraged her to exaggerate, distort and essentially lie in regard to allegations of domestic abuse in order to get a good Protection From Abuse Order. Still, no one has contacted this individual to explore the validity of her assertions.
"Unfortunately" - This was the word used by Chief Family Court Judge Kuhn in regard to false allegations when she described the way the domestic violence advocates are "reluctant to give up or make any changes."
Every day, in the state of Delaware (first state to sign the Constitution), the Constitution is being trampled on. It is our duty to speak out and make the necessary changes!
Gordon Smith - Executive Director, Family Law Advocates Initiating Reform (FLAIR)
Food fight over the Commerce Clause
Fort Worth Star-Telegram (TX)
Author/Byline: LINDA P. CAMPBELL
July 8, 2010
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma wanted to know whether Congress could pass a law requiring Americans to eat three fruits and veggies every day.
You know, that federal nanny dictating what we eat.
And Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan bit: "Sounds like a dumb law," she quipped.
She actually continued with a discussion of how the Supreme Court has decided which federal laws fall within congressional powers under the Constitution's Commerce Clause and which go too far.
But the exchange has been portrayed online as proof that Kagan wouldn't stop rampant big government.
Well, that's a distortion. But it also distracts from what ought to be serious discussion about how much government is too much.
When Coburn and Texas Sen. John Cornyn, both Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee, questioned Kagan last week, their complaint about "out of control" government reflected their disgruntlement with the new law requiring Americans to buy health insurance but also broader unhappiness with how the Democrats are running things.
Republicans have long preferred a narrower interpretation of Congress' ability to regulate interstate commerce. They aren't fans of New Deal-era Supreme Court rulings interpreting that power.
The late Chief Justice William Rehnquist engineered a shift of authority back to the states, and Republicans would just as soon see Chief Justice John Roberts continue the trend. It's not "activism," they say, but a return to the founders' "original intent" for the Commerce Clause.
Cornyn would have us believe that court rulings "have largely eliminated the important role of the Supreme Court in checking the size and scope of the federal government."
But Rehnquist wrote two key decisions that limited Commerce Clause power: U.S. v. Lopez in 2005 struck down a federal law barring guns from school zones because there wasn't a close enough connection to interstate commerce; and U.S. vs. Morrison in 2000 struck down the federal Violence Against Women Act because states usually police gender-related violence.
Kagan pointed out as much and spoke favorably about courts deferring to the political process, to which Coburn groused, "You missed my whole point." The courts, he said, "didn't do their job in limiting our ability to go outside of original intent on what the Commerce Clause was supposed to be."
The courts didn't stop Congress from doing what he, as a member of Congress, couldn't stop? Curious position.
Cornyn in one breath complained that the Supreme Court "is not going to constrain the power grabs of the federal government" then later said it would be "a strange system indeed" if litigants could undo rulings simply by installing new justices.
Does he want a muscular or modest court?
It was a contradiction between wanting judges to defer to people's will as expressed through their elected representatives -- except when judges are saving us from the other side's bad judgments.
They aren't alone in wanting to have it both ways. But not everyone will acknowledge they want it all.
We want the federal government acting for our collective good -- but not big-footing into our lives.
And it's an extraordinarily difficult balance to strike.
The Constitution is designed to pull Congress and the president back, not from imposing reasonable rules in the national interest but from running roughshod over individual rights and liberties.
For better or worse, we accept all sorts of government intrusion into our lives. An example: vaccinating our children against certain diseases. Opting out poses risks to individuals but also to public health, so most of us believe the benefits are worth the imposition.
Most of us want to make our own reproductive choices, whatever those might be. We want privacy, safe healthcare and an ethical society, so we struggle over accommodating sometimes-competing interests.
But the flip side of government telling us what we can't choose is government telling us what we must choose.
Government telling us to eat our fruits and veggies might sound preposterous. But we want the government to ensure food safety. We let the government promote public health by requiring food manufacturers to disclose what we're eating.
If the eating habits of a large percentage of Americans cost the rest of us money and limit our healthcare access, would we defend their liberty -- or want the government to do something ? What, if anything, might be acceptable?
It's easier to complain about big government than to define appropriate boundaries after thoughtful, informed debate.
Linda P. Campbell is a Star-Telegram editorial writer.
President Obama Names Victoria F. Nourse to U.S. Court of Appeals
Government Press Releases (USA)
Office of the Press Secretary
July 15, 2010
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
WASHINGTON - Today, President Obama nominated Victoria F. Nourse to serve on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
"Throughout her career Victoria Nourse has shown a commitment to justice," said President Obama. "I am proud to nominate her to serve on the United States Court of Appeals,"
Victoria F. Nourse: Nominee for the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Professor Victoria F. Nourse is the Burrus-Bascom Professor of Law at the University of Wisconsin School of Law, where she joined the faculty in 1993. A prolific scholar with wide-ranging interests, Professor Nourse has written extensively on criminal law, legislation, constitutional history and the separation of powers. She is also well-known for her role assisting then-Senator Joseph Biden in drafting the landmark Violence Against Women Act, part of the Biden-Hatch Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.
Professor Nourse began her career as a law clerk to Judge Edward Weinfeld of the Southern District of New York. From 1985 to 1987, she worked at the New York office of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison as a litigation associate. In 1987, she was asked to serve as an assistant counsel to the Senate Committee to Investigate the Iran-Contra Affair. When the investigation concluded in 1988, she joined the Civil Appellate Staff of the U.S. Department of Justice, where she represented federal agencies in the U.S. Courts of Appeal. In 1990, she became Special Counsel to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, where she was chief lawyer advising on crime and drug laws ultimately enacted as the Biden-Hatch Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. In the fall of 1993, Professor Nourse accepted a position as Assistant Professor at University of Wisconsin Law School in Madison and has remained on the Wisconsin faculty since that time. In 2008, she became the LQC Lamar Professor of Law at Emory University Law School, a position she held concurrently with her Wisconsin chair until earlier this year. She also has held visiting professorships at University of Maryland School of Law, Yale Law School, New York University School of Law, and Georgetown University Law Center.
Professor Nourse received her B.A. in 1980 from Stanford University, where she graduated Phi Beta Kappa, and her J.D. in 1984 from the University of California, Boalt Hall School of Law, where she graduated Order of the Coif.
SEN. MIKULSKI CHAMPIONS FEDERAL VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN PROGRAMS
US Fed News (USA)
July 23, 2010
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
WASHINGTON, July 22 -- The office of Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski, D-Md., issued the following press release:
Commerce, Justice, Science (CJS) Appropriations Subcommittee Chairwoman Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.) today announced full Senate Appropriations Committee approval of the fiscal year 2011 CJS Appropriations bill, which includes a record $468 million in funding for the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Office on Violence Against Women. This funding will support programs authorized through the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), which Senator Mikulski helped pass into law. The bill provides a total of $29.9 billion to fight crime and terrorism, and protect communities and families.
"The historic level of funding that I have provided in the federal checkbook to combat domestic abuse, dating violence and sexual assault will protect women, families and our communities, and help rebuild lives," said Chairwoman Mikulski. "No woman in this country should live in fear that her husband or boyfriend will hurt or kill her or her kids. I have absolutely no tolerance for domestic violence. That's why I strongly support legislation and grant programs that help protect women and their families from continued violence and abuse, particularly during economically distressed times, during which we know that abuse is more common."
Domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking are crimes of epidemic proportions, exacting terrible costs on individual lives and our communities. Twenty-five percent of U.S. women report that they have been physically assaulted by an intimate partner during their lifetimes, one in six have been the victims of attempted or completed rape, and the cost of domestic violence exceeds $5.8 billion each year.
The CJS bill supports multiple competitive grant programs that support training for police officers and prosecutors; state domestic violence and sexual assault coalitions; rape prevention programs; national domestic violence hotlines; battered women's shelters and transitional housing support services; help for teens and young adults caught in abusive relationships; victims of child abuse; and funding for counselors of rape victims during trials.
The bill passed the full Appropriations Committee this afternoon. In the next step of the appropriations process, the bill will move to the Senate floor for a vote, which has not yet been scheduled.
Anti-stalking bill proposed in Congress
Brighton-Pittsford Post (NY)
July 27, 2010
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
ESPN's Erin Andrews says she was angry when this stalker posted nude videos of her on the Internet last year.
He pleaded guilty and got 30 months behind bars.
"I won't get this down in 30 months", said Andrews. "I won't get it down in 30 years."
Andrews remains a victim of technology, as cyber crime can never be erased online.
Today, with lawmakers, she'll push for an update that makes cyber stalking a federal crime.
"Our laws are not as sophisticated as the crooks who are breaking them", said Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN).
When the Violence Against Women Act was passed in 1994, only one in seven Americans used the internet. Today, three in four do and a quarter of all stalking cases happen online.
"I would love to have a national policy established", reiterated Andrews.
The new law would:
- Make cyber-stalking (like stalking on social networks) a crime
- Up the penalties for stalking kids
- Create a database of cases
- Make it easier to prosecute
"This will allow a person to be prosecuted even if the person who's being stalked is not aware of it", declared Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC).
It's one area where Democrats and Republicans agree: if criminals are in cyberspace--the law should be there, too.
Every year, over 3.5 million adults become the victim of a stalker, usually somebody they know.
Accountability and oversight of federally funded domestic violence programs
Stop Abusive And Violent Environments /Stop
August 01, 2010
International Violence Against Women Act
Brownsville Herald, The (TX)
August 5, 2010
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Every day around the world a war is waged against women and girls, taking millions of lives and causing terrible suffering. Violence against women includes abuse by spouses or partners in the home, rape as a weapon during wartime, dowry related deaths and forced prostitution. Approximately one out of every three women globally has been beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused in her lifetime. The distress and injuries caused affects families, communities and wider societies, preventing women from taking full advantage of economic and educational opportunities and threatening security by increasing social tensions. Violence against women is a global health crisis, a human rights violation, a cause of world poverty, and a moral outrage.
Now the United States is poised to make a difference to stop the violence. Members of Congress from both parties have introduced legislation that will enhance our ability to address violence against women and girls overseas. The International Violence Against Women Act (I-VAWA) will support innovative programs which have been shown to effectively reduce acts of violence. These include programs which create economic and educational opportunities for women, challenge public attitudes that permit violence, improve health services for survivors and bring perpetrators of violence to justice. Our Members of Congress now have the opportunity to stop the violence by co-sponsoring this important bill. I hope that your readers will join me in demanding an end to the atrocities by contacting their Members of Congress and asking them to support I-VAWA today.
Together we can end violence, one community at a time.
Daisy Lopez - Batterer's Intervention & Prevention Program Coordinator Friendship of Women, Inc.
Please support Maria DiBari's resolutions for domestic violence issues in Dutchess County and in NYS
Sacramento Examiner (CA)
Author/Byline: Alexis A Moore - Survivors In Action/SIA
August 16, 2010
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Asking all Dutchess County Legislators to support Maria DiBari's DV resolutions that will help ensure no victim is left behind. All you have to do is cut and paste and email this support letter below!
Dutchess County Legislators,
Please support Maria DiBari's resolutions for domestic violence issues in Dutchess County and in NYS. Following another domestic violence killing in the Hudson Valley (Linda Riccardulli), she is proposing the following solutions to the various problems/barriers she has seen in the last two years. I am confident that these solutions will save the lives of innocent women affected by violence.
1. Lack of Domestic Violence divorce lawyers for DV victims.
2.Improper Domestic Violence screening at hospitals in NYS (primary screening is not mandatory in hospitals, and is poorly executed. Improper documentation of abuse will set a victim up for failure in the future, especially when seeking compensation for medical bills from state victim compensation services).
I've put together a non-verbal/written secondary screening tool that should be mandatory in all ERs/hospitals/Dr offices in NYS. This short, written screening tool could save lives and help women affected by abuse get help the help they need in situations where they can't verbalize the abuse due to fear of retaliation etc.. I would like to see this tool first implemented in the hospital that didn't screen me three years ago: St. Lukes in Newburgh NY.
3. Extensive barriers prevent DV victims from collecting compensation for medical bills with the NYS Crime Victims Board. Before the changes that recently took place at the NYS CVB, I proposed that the CVB have staff that only dealt with complex crimes such as DV and stalking cases, as these cases usually tend to be more complicated and detailed and lack usual evidence and documentation. I also suggest that the NYS CVB revise their application for domestic abuse victims in the coming year to include a more detailed outline of the "crime description" section in the application. This will eliminate confusion on both the victims'end and the CVB's end.
4. Lack of V.I.N.E. knowledge from all institutions, including the NYS police departments (Orange, Rockland, Ulster Counties), shelters in every county, and most importantly VICTIMS who are unaware of this notification system.
5. Inadequate training in police departments, no SOP for DV calls (creating a DV training program, or a standard operating procedure for an officer when dealing with a domestic incidence call). Separating two parties at a crime scene and collecting data from both parties separately in order to obtain an accurate police report will save lives and promote accurate police reports for abuse victims; most women do not report
abuse and/or lie on police reports out of fear of future retaliation.
6. Domestic Violence organizations endlessly referring victims in a circle as a primary response to DV/ DV organizations keeping donation funds for themselves and not helping victims. I propose the implementation of a DV Oversight Committee to ensure that victims aren't being abused by the very institutions that are set up to aid them.
7. Implementing high bail/no bail for abusers that re-offend/violate restraining orders/ Domestic Violence screening tools used before an offender is released from jail.
8. Automatic V.I.N.E. registration for victims following a DIR/911 call. (Police training on V.I.N.E. is needed and officers should be verbally communicating the V.I.N.E. option with victims after an arrest.) This will save lives, especially for women that are lulled into a false sense of security after an arrest.
More frustration for stalking victims
National stalking resource center does not help victims?
Sacramento Examiner (CA)
Author/Byline: Alexis A Moore
August 18, 2010
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Frustrated victims of stalking and cyberstalking are continually asking the same questions why doesn't the National Stalking Resource Center help stalking victims? Why be called a stalking resource center when you are not a resource?
Randi Rosen, LA Examiner and CEO of Women's Legal Resource asked this very question in her piece on the topic that we worked on together and still victims are being left behind.
More confusion about organizations receiving government tax dollars that claim to help victims, and fail. Below, Michelle Garcia (Executive Director of the National Stalking Resource Center), insists that Survivors in Action stop referring victims to her, as her organization is NOT for victims, but for law enforcement and professionals. Why is there a hotline number on the website? On the top of this website it actually reads “For Victim Assistance please call 1-800-FYI-CALL”.
The feminist gestapo goes global
WorldNetDaily (USA)
Author/Byline: Phyllis Schlafly
August 18, 2010
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Just when we thought President Obama had reached the ultimate in seizing extravagant power by appointing a health-care czar (Donald Berwick) to exercise life-and-death surveillance over Medicare and Medicaid, Congress is now trying to give him a czar with global powers. It would be a czar over worldwide women’s issues.
Based in the State Department, her statutory title will be “Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women’s Issues.” Her task will be to assure a “gender integration” perspective in all State Department policies and programs.
The breathtaking reach of her powers is openly stated in the bill’s first section: “The Ambassador shall coordinate and advise, and where relevant lead – (1) State Department activities and policies, including as they affect programs and funding relating to prevention and response, including gender integration and women’s development internationally as relates to prevention and response.”
And if that’s not enough, the feminist ambassador will also be responsible for the “allocation of State Department resources” to carry out the mischief.
What has been the impact of feminism on the nation? Don’t miss “The War on Fathers: How the ‘feminization of America’ destroys boys, men – and women”
Reinforcing her ukases will be a “Women’s Development Adviser” with a desk in the U.S. Agency for International Development. This is the same federal agency that sent millions to a radical feminist group in India called Women Power Connect, which used U.S. taxpayers’ money to lobby for a 33 percent female quota in the Indian Parliament.
The vehicle for this latest pandering to the feminist left is the International Violence Against Women Act, called I-VAWA (S.2982 and H.R.4594). The lead sponsors are Sens. John Kerry and Barbara Boxer.
The bill broadly defines violence against women to include nonviolent “psychological harm,” “intimidation at work” and “psychological violence perpetrated or condoned by the government of the country in which the victim is a resident.” Naturally, lots of taxpayers’ money will be needed for so awesome a task, so the bill authorizes $1 billion over five years.
The global reach of this new czar’s activities opens the door for Obama’s feminist constituency to dictate to other countries. The bill calls for a “comprehensive, five-year international strategy to prevent and respond to violence against women and girls internationally” and to set up “gender-integrated, comprehensive and holistic” plans in 20 countries.
This new feminist gestapo will support the “development and enforcement of civil and criminal legal and judicial sanctions, protections, trainings and capacity.” And there’s more: The bill authorizes U.S. money to be spent to develop “programs affecting social norms, community attitudes, and male and female participation in violence and response to victims.”
The feminist movement in the United States has never been only about changing laws alleged to be discriminatory. Feminists yearn to dictate norms and attitudes, too.
I-VAWA will provide “legal services for women,” but not for men. According to the practice of our domestic Violence Against Women Act, which has been functioning in the United States since 1994, “legal services” are not just legal defense but also aggressive legal troublemaking, such as getting a restraining order to kick the husband out of the house.
One important section of I-VAWA assures that the feminist left controls the flow of taxpayer money. Section 112 provides for grants to “Women’s Nongovernmental Organizations and Community-Based Organizations.”
It’s a no-brainer to predict what kinds of “organizations” will be eligible for those grants. You can be sure that non-feminist organizations will not be on any approved list of grantees.
I-VAWA requires the State Department to “prepare a public report on best practices for preventing and addressing violence against women and girls internationally.” The feminist left has always been skillful and experienced in preventing grant money ever to go to any group or individual who might unearth scientific or statistical evidence contrary to feminist ideology.
Feminist orthodoxy teaches that there are no innate differences between males and females, with one exception. Men are naturally batterers and women are naturally victims.
Does anyone dare to think that the State Department report will call for stopping the violence against women committed by mandatory abortions to carry out a government’s one-child policy? Or report on sex-selective abortions to kill unborn girl babies because parents prefer a boy baby?
If our State Department wants to help women in other countries, how about reporting to the American people about the atrocities against women committed by Muslim countries that use Shariah law. That includes forced marriages, child marriages, so-called “honor” murders, polygamy and death by stoning as punishment for women who commit adultery.
The State Department could do something very useful by refusing to grant visas or immigrant status to anyone who supports Shariah punishments or genital mutilation of women. That would be an inexpensive way to stop a lot of violence against women.
Project Rose, helping one of Survivors In Action's own get back on the road
Sacramento Examiner (CA)
Author/Byline: Alexis A Moore - Survivors In Action/SIA
August 19, 2010
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Survivors In Action has many volunteers and the majority are domestic violence victims who were given a second chance at life. Now they want to give back. They know the struggles victims face because in their time of need they reached out to domestic violence shelters, coalitions, partnerships and traditional “DV Institutions” and received no help. I am continually inspired by their willingness to lend a hand to victims who are crying out for help. When one of our own is suffering, it is always more difficult. However, as the old saying goes, “When the going gets tough the tough get going.” We want to help SIA’s own Rose get going again.
One of SIA's own, a volunteer many of you know, "ROSE," and her daughter were recently relocated through the California Crime Victims Compensation emergency relocation program out of state. This was after her batterer was convicted of stalking and domestic violence and sentenced only to probation--free to harm Rose and her daughter again if given the opportunity.
Fearing for her life and the safety of her young daughter, the prosecutors and law enforcement agencies signed off and approved emergency relocation through CA Crime Victims Compensation Program and the victim is now almost homeless and has lost her car and her life savings.
inding a job and housing in these tough economic times is bad enough, but for Rose, it was one hundred times worse. She was relocated to an unfamiliar place without the ability to use her own personal credit out of fear that she would be located by the convicted batterer.
Rose was not familiar with the place where she was relocated and had no time to plan or to prepare for relocation. She literally had to move in twenty-four hours and rely upon only a handful of people she never met in person--an apartment manager she corresponded with by phone and email. She had only first month’s rent and deposit paid by Crime Victims Compensation. But she had no choice…she fled knowing that it was a matter of life or death.
Rose has been there for many victims even now! Without a car and even after receiving a notice to pay rent or quit, she still continues to answer victims pleas for help while walking to and from work and caring for her young daughter looking over her own shoulder constantly in fear for her life.
SIA knows that there is an economic crisis and that most are struggling themselves to pay their mortgage. However, we are hoping to be able to raise funds to help ensure Rose and her daughter have a car before winter.
She has not asked me or anyone else for donations. Survivors In Action is doing this because we know that Rose has gone above and beyond for others in their time of crisis and that we can count on Rose to return this gift ten times over.
With a car, not only will she to drive her daughter to school knowing that she made it without the worry of her taking public transportation, but Rose will also be able travel to and from work without having to walk or use public transportation.
Rose gave rides to other women just like her as well as their children in similar situations until her vehicle was repossessed.
If you know of someone who can help Rose or you have the means to assist, please contact SIA immediately.
Rose has given back more than you can imagine and it’s time that we bestow our thanks upon her and give her a chance at enriching her quality of life to ensure her safety and the safety of her daughter so that she can continue to work on our mission of no victim is left behind.
Open letter to Bergen County Prosecutor John L. Molinelli Hackensack, NJ People v. George Hartwig
Sacramento Examiner (CA)
Author/Byline: Alexis A Moore - Survivors In Action/SIA
September 7, 2010
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Louisa Rodas has lost half of her brain, all of her memory, and half of her face. She no longer knows even her own children and yet the man who committed these acts the George Hartwig may be offered a plea bargain or worse -go free.
Bettyjean Kling founder of The Majority United and Louisa Roda's mother can explain why women need to unite and mobilize to stop the insanity perpetrated against women and children by those entrusted to serve and protect. Betty Jean's two daughters were brutalized by the same man. The court set him free on his own without a place to live - a job or any money after he smashed his wife Denise's head open with a hammer.
Louisa was caring for her dying sister Denise when he returned with a shotgun and shot Louisa in the face and head. Now they are talking about letting him out on a plea deal in about 15 years.
Denise passed 3 months later but Louisa, for the next 40 years or so will lay in a nursing home unable to speak, eat, sit, stand, or know her own children. She can't even scratch her foot if it itches. She is on life support and her beautiful face is unrecognizable. He blew away half her head, her eye, her ear and her face and with it her right brain which controls her left side which is also paralyzed. Her two sons have lost their mother for life and yet there her body is.
Join Survivors In Action, NOW, The Majority United, The Weaker Vessel, Women's Legal Resource and others in support of victim Louisa Rodas.
Send in your letters, make phone calls and demand justice for the victim Louisa Rodas.
####
September 6, 2010
National Organization for Women-New York State, Inc.
1500 Central Avenue, Albany, NY 12205
Phone: 518-452-3944 Fax: 518-452-3861
www.nownys.org * Info@nownys.org
To: John L. Molinelli
10 Main Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Re: The case of George Hartwig
Re: Louisa Rodas
Dear Prosecutor Molinelli:
My name is Marcia Pappas, and I am the President of the National Organization for Women-New York State. I represent over 40,000 supporters from around New York State. One of our main goals is to “end violence against women” in our society, and we look closely to professionals like you to make sure that our goal is met.
I have been following the case of Louise Rodas who was brutally attacked by George Hartwig. I am sure I do not have to remind you that Louise desperately clings to life due to the injuries that she incurred.
It has come to my attention that a plea bargain is being discussed. I stand in protest of the proposed plea bargain in regards to the shooting of Louisa Rodas and ask that the case be taken to trial and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Too many times in our country, perpetrators have been allowed to cop plea only to return to the streets to harm others. When will this stop! Let me say here and now, you have the power to stop this ridiculous plea and must.
This case is of great interest to all women and to women’s advocacy groups. How can it be otherwise when consideration is given to the idea that a jury trial may dispensed with when a woman’s life has been destroyed in a violent crime of this magnitude. In my office, we receive numerous calls every year from women who are facing the idea that their perpetrator will return to inflict more serious injuries. The words “ending violence against women” are not only words to be thrown around at election time, when politicians want to be elected or re-elected. It is a real problem, and real women are affected by this violence every day. Millions of women are affected by sexual assault, domestic violence, and other sorts of violence and many of them die because prosecutors do not take this crime seriously enough. Orders of protection are not taken seriously and women hide in fear of their lives. What more will it take?
Louisa Rodas has lost half of her brain, all of her memory, and half of her face. She no longer knows even her own children. It is not just Louisa Rodas and her family who will be adversely affected if this crime does not go to trial (although that should be enough), but the lives and safety of many women will be compromised as a direct result of the clear message that violent crime against women is unimportant in the eyes of the law. I implore you to do the right thing. Not just for Louisa, but for all of the women who are so greatly affected by this heinous crime.
George Hartwig should never go free. He is a menace to society. If you are unable to see this, then one must wonder why and how you continue in your position. I hope that you will take my comments seriously and now allow this perpetrator to go free to receive any lesser of a sentence that is allowed by law.
Sincerely,
Marcia A. Pappas - President NOW-NYS
Dutchess County NY Committee Chair Rob Roblison has made sure Domestic Violence stays off the agenda
Sacramento Examiner (CA)
Author/Byline: Alexis A Moore - Survivors In Action/SIA
September 8, 2010
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
In Dutchess County New York women are losing their lives to domestic violence like Linda Riccardulli yet Dutchess County Committee Chair Rob Roblison doesn't think the topic is worth putting on the agenda?
It is the hope of many including Survivors In Action that Committee Chair Rob Rolison in Dutchess County has a change of heart and realizes that the loss of life in Dutchess County should not be ignored and domestic violence is indeed worthy of putting on the agenda.
The Office for the Prevention of Domestic Violence in the state of New York produced a report entitled, “The New York State - Domestic Violence Dashboard Project 2007”, which stated that 43% of all women... murdered were killed by intimate partners."
After interviewing Myra Spearman, founder of The Weaker Vessel the nation's first domestic violence offender registry it was clear that victim advocacy groups are not taking this lying down.
According to Spearman, "What this boils down to is clear. Basically half of all women murdered in New York were killed by their partners. That was in 2007, I can’t imagine what the numbers are like now! The Dutchess County New York Chairman Robert Rolison has become immune to the domestic violence devastation that is going on in his state."
"Women made up 51.4% of the population, if 43% of all women murdered were attributed to domestic violence then he certainly is not representing the people/victims of Dutchess County well at all. WOMEN OF NEW YORK, if this doesn’t affect you now, it may in the future, you are the majority in the state, VOTE!!!!!"
I wrote this letter today and emailed it to Mr. Rolison.
If you agree that loss of life should not be taken for granted in Dutchess County and that it is good cause for bringing domestic violence related issues to the committee for review in Dutchess County New York email Mr. Rolison. He represents the interests of the people which include constituents like Maria DiBari and the family and friends of Linda Riccardulli.
###
Dear Mr. Rolison,
As President and founder of Survivors In Action national advocacy group I have been made aware by Maria DiBari your constituent in NYS and SIA advisory board member, that your office doesn’t support domestic violence resolutions presented by Maria DiBari and I am personally hoping you will consider since domestic violence is a matter of life or death for so many.
Maria DiBari’s legislative proposals will prevent the tragic deaths such as that of Linda Riccardulli’s and are long overdue!
Domestic violence incidents are at an all high time in New York. SIA’s calls for service from your constituents continues to grow while the resources continue to fall short.
Now is the perfect time to utilize tragic deaths like Ms. Riccardullis and others this past year as a catalyst for legislative change. The antiquated laws and resources in NYS need to be brought up to speed to meet the needs of the victims in the 21st century.
Maria DiBari is offering your office the opportunity to improve resources for victims at little to no cost which will in turn save lives.
If you wish to discuss this matter further with me and Ms. DiBari I welcome the opportunity.
Ms. DiBari has the support of many advocacy groups, law enforcement, prosecutors as well as the support of victims who are also your constituents.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Alexis A. Moore, founder & Presiden - Survivors In Action
"no victim left behind"
####
Post below courtesy of Maria DiBari, domestic violence survivor from Dutchess County, NY
Though many in Dutchess County NY have sent letters of support to get my Domestic Violence Resolutions and Proposals for NYS on the agenda in Dutchess County NY, Chairman Robert Rolison has made sure Domestic Violence stays off the agenda. Instead, Mr. Rolison, who I have never spoken with regarding these issues, handed my proposals over to Leah Feldman, Chairwoman of the Domestic Violence Committee in Dutchess County, who I have also not had the pleasure of communicating with regarding these serious issues that plague the lives of many women in this very County and in NYS.
I have made several attempts to discuss the issues with Ms. Feldman and anyone else in Dutchess County on my free time, which is after 5pm. I am mentioning the exact time here because I do work as well, and after work I dedicate my time to the cause. Although many Democratic officials found the time to communicate with me after 5pm over the weeks, every Republican member refused to speak with me after 5pm.
Ms. Feldman responded to my letter today, one that stated my disappointment of the GOP turning down my Resolutions for the County and NYS: " I can assure you that the information you have sent me from your website has been passed around at our meetings. Your resolutions along with those of many others are being considered within our report. As far as finding a time to discuss your issues on the phone, between the hours of 9 to 5 works for me, but unfortunately not for you. Please be assured that we are all dedicating our time to make our community safe for victims of domestic violence on the daily basis. Any other information you would like distributed at our meeting please send along. Thank you for your dedication."
I am grateful that the Committee is passing around information from my website, but I am afraid it isn't enough at this time. Domestic Violence Victims need stricter laws and it's only a matter of time before we see Domestic Violence in the papers again. As a community we seem to forget tragedies that happen in our own backyard very quickly. A woman is slain in Dutchess County and our Republican Party makes certain Domestic Violence resolutions are NOT on the agenda. I'm afraid this isn't a Democratic or Republican issue, it's a human issue- one that runs deep in our society and can only be solved if everyone is on board.
The good news is that Alyssa Kogon, who is running against Joel Miller (R) for the NYS Assembly, has reached out to me this evening (after 5pm) to discuss the issues and take action. She has expressed some of her own ideas regarding Domestic Violence solutions for the state and we plan on holding a press conference in the up and coming weeks. I am truly grateful to those who make this issue a priority, unfortunately, it's not the Majority.
Petition for Domestic Violence Reform reaches its 10,000-signature goal in less than a year
Sacramento Examiner (CA)
Author: Alexis A Moore - Survivors In Action/SIA
September 12, 2010
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
A petition calling for Domestic Violence Reform, which addresses resources across the United States to consistently serve crime victims, reached its goal of 10,000 signatures on April 23, 2010. The total is still rising. The petition was created by Survivors in Action, a non-profit advocacy group created to support crime victims and their families.
"Victims of abuse who reach out to centers designated to help often find there are few direct services available to them. It's time to ensure that victim resources directly and specifically serve victims and their families," says Alexis A. Moore, founder of the organization.
"Stalking is also a way perpetrators of domestic violence monitor and control their victims, and the behavior and threats often escalate. Sadly, it also appears resources available for this are also failing victims of stalking and domestic abuse," continues Moore, whose organization receives numerous calls and emails about these problems from victims across the country.
The petition calls for the federal government to audit federal grants and other funds that domestic violence organizations receive to determine how these funds are being used and to ensure accountability. It also calls for a creation of a Federal Domestic Violence Oversight Committee to oversee state and federally funded domestic violence organizations and provide victims a place to document their experiences and file complaints. Lastly, the petition calls for substantial portions of funding to be allocated to lawyers and advocates for working with victims one on one. Survivors in Action believes these three initiatives are needed to ensure resources are used to the fullest, so that victims can become survivors.
Survivors in Action will use the petition to plead for the support of these initiatives from the Federal government, criminal and judicial systems and advocacy groups, and to send the message that victims and families across the nation are falling through the cracks. "We have opened the flood gates over the past 15 years since the passage of VAWA, the Violence Against Women Act. Domestic violence is now a household name. Now we need the resources to meet the needs of all victims in the 21st century regardless of race, batterer's occupation, gender of victims or their children, and immigration status."
Survivors in Action (SIA) is a non-profit group for victims and the families of victims of any crime, including domestic violence, identity theft, elder abuse, stalking, child abuse, rape and sexual assault.
Typically, organizations help victims at specific points in their victimization cycle, such as when they first report the crime or in writing parole opposition letters, leaving gaps in needed services. SIA is the only organization that fills the gaps and provides support through all stages of the journey from victim to survivor, with no time limitations, cut-off dates, or conditions. Our mission is to ensure that no victim anywhere in the nation is left behind.
Domestic violence victims abandoned by the system and re-victimized when reaching out for help
Sacramento Examiner (CA)
Author: Alexis A Moore - Survivors In Action/SIA
September 14, 2010
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
You expect to be protected when you cry out for help. But what if the system itself turns you away?
On the job as a Ventura County, Calif., Sheriff's Deputy, Claudia Valenciana dealt with domestic violence on a weekly basis. She acquired the skills to investigate abuse cases, detect red flags and make arrests. But she missed the biggest warning signs in her own life. Clouded by shame and denial, Valenciana couldn't see that she too had become a battered mom. "I wasn't in the right state of mind," she says. "I didn't see myself as a victim."
When Valenciana finally reached out for help, she had nowhere to go. The local family violence shelter turned her away, assuming that, because of her profession, she could defend herself from an attacker. It's a predicament facing countless women and men who are in an abusive relationship and either work in law enforcement or have a partner employed in civil service: Domestic violence is estimated to occur four times more frequently in police families than in those of the general public, yet help is often denied.
According to victims' advocates, federally funded "safe houses" nationwide -- which receive funds from the Department of Justice -- regularly refuse services to battered women in need.
Valenciana began her tumultuous 18-month relationship with Robert "J.R." Perez back in September 2007. The two had been friends for ten years, and Valenciana knew that Perez -- who was also a cop -- had a history of domestic violence. "I thought I could help him get better," she says. "I thought I could handle this." But it wasn't long before verbal and physical abuse tainted the couple's love.
Valenciana's coworkers reported seeing bruises on her arms, wrists and biceps. Members of her own department responded to the 911 calls from the home Valenciana shared with her fiance. Her bosses knew about the violence, but instead of trying to intervene, they threatened to fire her. "By telling me I could not work and ordering other officers not to speak to me, my employer (effectively) helped my abuser segregate me from some of my closest friends," she states.
Fearing for her life, Valenciana attempted to end the relationship in March 2009. It ended dramatically: According to media reports, she fatally stabbed Perez in her kitchen after he tried to choke her. "All I could think of was that I wanted to live; that I needed to do everything I could to see my son again," a sobbing Valenciana said at a press conference.
The District Attorney determined that Valenciana had acted in self-defense and cleared her of all criminal charges. Despite the ruling, however, Valenciana lost her job and became blacklisted from working in law enforcement.
It appears that the Oxnard family shelter abandoned Valenciana in her time of need because of politics. She believes that the county-run program didn't want to take sides and alienate its relationship with the Sheriff's Department. "Political pressure is there," says Maria Lusia O'Neill, the program services coordinator for the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence in Colorado. "Some people don't want to rattle the cages." O'Neill argues that the fear of losing state or city funds for not cooperating is always a concern, but not everyone caves to the pressure.
While working at other safe houses, O'Neill says that the police tried to intimidate her by demanding confidential information about the occupants. But she refused to give in to their demands. "Unless I get a warrant, we're not going to open the door and tell them who's there," she says.
Housing the battered partners of police officers is a huge safety hazard that's not taken lightly. "They have weapons," says O'Neill. "It's not safe for anybody -- staff or the other residents. And there are children there." As a general rule, anyone associated with law enforcement is sent to a shelter in another county or out of state, where the batterer has no known connections.
"They're more worried about what will happen to the shelter than to abuse victims," says Alexis A. Moore, the founder of the crime victims' advocacy group Survivors in Action. "We don't need false hope or revictimization."
Moore is also a domestic-violence survivor who was denied shelter in her time of need. In November 2004, she found the courage to leave her batterer and sought solace at a local shelter. She says that when she arrived at the facility's doorstep, bloodied and bruised, she "was tossed back like a piece of trash." The staff told Moore that her boyfriend's work as a private investigator made her too much of a risk to protect. Moore returned home to her batterer -- who punished her for trying to leave him by nearly beating her to death.
It took years for Moore to rebuild her life and realize that she was not alone in her struggle. Thousands of victims are denied shelter or services from publicly funded organizations that are supposed to assist them. Moore's work in the Domestic Violence Reform Movement has revealed that these victims' desperate cries for help from D.V. advocacy organizations are often ignored -- while the government continues to funnel billions of dollars into these programs.
Moore says that victims are routinely turned away from shelters with visible injuries, and that their phone calls and e-mails are never returned. She calls it the "domestic violence runaround." "They just pass the buck, ignore and refer," she says.
The national domestic-violence outreach campaign sparked by the passage of the Violence Against Women Act may be a victim of its own success. All the brochures, billboards and TV ads that were intended to raise awareness actually opened the floodgates to millions of victims. "There's a lot of need that's not being met," says O'Neill. "We're not swimming in money, by any means."
Critics argue that there's not enough emphasis on professional counseling to help domestic violence victims one-on-one. O'Neill says that the needs are huge and the resources are slim. "Legal services are needed, and we don't have the money to provide for that," she says, pointing out that, in some parts of the country, there are only two referral attorneys available for the entire state.
O'Neill works for a nonprofit organization that relies on foundations and local funding for support. "We don't deny services," she insists. But she concedes that budget cuts are impacting many programs that are designed to help battered women.
Activists feeling disillusioned by the process are starting to mobilize in an effort to change the system. "This is a marathon," says Moore, whose organization helps victims of crimes including abuse, stalking and cyberstalking. "I'm here for the long run." She's focusing her efforts on trying to change legislation.
Claudia Valenciana is still fighting to get her old job back through legal channels. Her hope is to continue reaching out to domestic-violence victims within the law-enforcement community. Valenciana says that she feels betrayed by the shelter that closed its doors when she was most vulnerable. "I donated money to this organization," she says. "[Yet] when I finally got the courage to ask for help, they turned me away."
Special thank you to Gina Fernandes, Former Ventura County Deputy Claudia Valenciana for making this story possible.
"No victim left behind"
Open letter to Dr. Phil domestic violence victims need your help!
Sacramento Examiner (CA)
Author/Byline: Alexis A Moore - Survivors In Action
September 15, 2010
Open letter to Dr. Phil regarding domestic violence awareness and partnership with NNEDV
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month and since Dr. Phil has taken a proactive stance joining forces with the NNEDV to stop violence against women Survivors In Action believes that it is important for Dr. Phil to know about DV REFORM, (domestic violence reform) a movement started in 2009 after the appointment of Sarah Lynn Rosenthal as White House Advisor for violence against women.
In a 1995 to 1996 study of over 16,000 male and female participants throughout the United States and D.C., nearly 25% of women and 7.6% of men had been raped and/or physically assaulted by a current or former spouse, cohabiting partner, or dating partner/acquaintance at some time in their lifetime.
If you consider the statistic that 25% of the estimated 150 million women in the United States equals approximately 37,500,000, the number of victims is overwhelming and the statistics are staggering. Yet, victims who are reaching out for help are finding none! Therefore, a change is needed.
As you know, October is domestic violence awareness month. A segment on DV REFORM and the need for resource reform would be fabulous! A unique perspective highlighting the realities faced by victims who reach out for help in the 21st century is very much needed.
Angle: “Domestic violence awareness month - Some say there are more awareness resources needed now that the flood gates have been opened”
SIA is spearheading the movement known worldwide as “DV REFORM” or “domestic violence reform.” The movement is garnering support and attention from across the globe. Volunteers from all walks of life are stepping forward to help including advocates, victims, and loved ones of victims who have been lost to domestic violence--all without formal marketing or any funding.
The movement was started last year when I spoke with Lynn Rosenthal, the newly appointed White House Advisor for violence against women. In that brief call, I learned quickly that she and others do not understand the dire straits that victims face on a daily basis.
SIA collected over 10K signatures on a DV REFORM petition in less than six months and we continue to draw in new supporters every day.
SIA put forth an “Open Letter To Lynn Rosenthal,” which garnered the interest of the White House who reads our blogs and Web sites frequently (I use a web counter which monitors the activity by their IP address).
These are other pieces that lay the groundwork for a DV REFORM segment. The victims captured on these videos are available for interview and there are plenty of others who welcome the opportunity as well.
Alexis A. Moore, President & Founder - Survivors In Action
Fighting the Violence Against Women Act
New York Examiner (NY)
Author/Byline: Roy Den Hollander
September 19, 2010
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
The federal Violence Against Women Act (“VAWA”) pays the legal fees for most, of the foreigners who trick New Yorkers and other American citizens into marriage. Sometimes it’s a foreign man deceiving a lady, but usually it’s a foreign femme fatal conniving for a green card.
Some ladies from the former Soviet Union go so far as to secretly feed drugs to their prospective husbands. Ingenious, since the man thinks the euphoria of the drugs actually comes from his girlfriend’s affections.
After marriage, the citizen husband often realizes his marriage is a fraud, so he demands a divorce. If the divorce comes within two years of the wedding, it will likely end the wife’s dream of a green card because Homeland Security’s Immigration division will start deportation proceedings. However, she can avoid deportation by simply accusing her husband of domestic violence.
It doesn’t matter whether she’s lying or not. Just on her say-so, Immigration will hold a secret proceeding to determine whether the husband did what she accused him of doing. The husband will not receive any notice of the proceeding. If he somehow learns about it, Immigration will not let him participate, and it will throw in the garbage any evidence from him of his innocence. No wonder Immigration usually finds the husband committed abuse.
Immigration’s so-called fact-findings of domestic violence are forever kept secret from the husband but not feminist organizations that provide the wife benefits, law enforcement, and some state agencies.
VAWA pays for the wife’s lawyer to not only represent her before Immigration but in divorce court and just about any state action in which she accuses him of abuse, such as false police and court complaints that result in the arrest, criminal prosecution and orders of protection against the husband. VAWA also pays the feminist organization that the wife uses to advise her on how to acquire a green card. Of course, the husband has to pay his own legal expenses.
This leaves the husband in the untenable position of using his resources to legally battle his wife’s attorney and feminist advisor. Since they are paid by the federal government, they’ll have the wife file any number of complaints and actions. They don’t care; they’re being paid.
But there’s a way to actually make them pay, and that will deter the fraudulent state proceedings they bring against a husband. He can file a federal Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization lawsuit against the wife, her attorney, her feminist advisor and the federal government.
VAWA does not pay the legal costs for RICO defendants. As defendants, the wife, her lawyer, and her feminist advisor will have to pay their own legal fees while the federal government will have to divert resources to its defense.
RICO may not stop the fraudulent efforts of foreign females to gain a green card, lawyers to profit by violating the rights of others or feminists from bankrupting another man—but they’ll never forget the price they paid in dollars to defend against a RICO lawsuit.
Crime victim compensation programs can be best described as nothing short of a nightmare for victims
Sacramento Examiner (CA)
Author/Byline: Alexis A Moore - Survivors In Action/SIA
September 20, 2010
https://infoweb.newsbank.com
Crime victim compensation programs can be best described as nothing short of a nightmare for victims and their families in California and across the nation.
"Victims reach out for help and provide endless amounts of information and are subsequently put through nothing short of a nightmare", says Alexis A. Moore, founder of Survivors In Action national victim advocacy organization based in El Dorado Hills, California.
Tragically the response provided to El Dorado County California's local paper The Mountain Democrat by California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board is nothing new.
Survivors In Action is all too familiar with the nation's crime victim compensation boards denying claims and making it close to impossible for victims to be approved for assistance. The majority of victims never make it beyond their first rejection letter feeling worn down and re-vitimized by the entire process.
Now is the time to reform the crime victim compensation bureaus and boards in every state so that they do not re-victimize innocent victims who are in dire need.
Just ask Maria DiBari a crime victim in New York State who has publicized her ongoing battle with NY Crime Victims Compensation and others like Rose one of Survivors In Action's own who was told to relocate for her own safety through CA Crime Victims Compensation yet she was put through nothing short of a nightmare in order to get the job done even with prosecutors and law enforcement support and recommendation.
##
No money for Dugard's mom
Democrat staff writer
By Jim Ratajczak
September 19, 2010
A government claim for compensation filed by kidnapping victim Jaycee Lee Dugard's mother was rejected last week by the state's claims board.
The California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board denied Terry Probyn's claim Thursday, nearly eight months after it was initially filed against the state's Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
Probyn sought compensation for psychological and emotional injuries stemming from "various lapses by the Corrections Department contributing to daughter Jaycee Lee Dugard's continued captivity, ongoing sexual assault and mental and/or physical abuse," according to the government claims form.
The exact dollar amount sought by Probyn is not listed on the document, but she indicated her "non-limited civil case" claim was for more than $25,000.
"Corrections Department has a responsibility to follow its own procedures (regarding) supervision, classification, and investigation of California parolees and failed to do so," the form states.
Janice Mackey, the board's public information officer, said the claim's rejection was a formality.
"When a claim is rejected, it has nothing to do with the validity of the claim," she said.
Mackey said the rejection opened the door for Probyn to seek litigation against the state.
"Anyone who believes the state has caused them harm must first file a claim to the board," she said. "The board rejects claims that raise complex issues, allowing parties to proceed to court to seek judicial remedies."
Earlier this year, lawmakers approved a $20 million settlement with Dugard and her two daughters, both minors, for failing to properly supervise her suspected kidnapper and convicted sex offender Phillip Garrido.
Terms of the settlement prohibit Dugard and her children from filing further claims against the state or state agencies.
Garrido and his wife, Nancy, are charged with kidnapping the then 11-year-old Dugard in 1991 near her South Lake Tahoe home and holding her prisoner for 18 years.
During that time, Dugard gave birth to two girls reportedly fathered by Phillip.
The Garridos face 28 felony charges, including kidnapping, rape and false imprisonment. They have pleaded not guilty. If convicted, they could face life in prison.
The duo is due back in court Oct. 1 for a pre-preliminary hearing. In August, doubt was raised over Phillip's mental capacity, which could jeopardize his ability to stand trial.
Abuse shelters, domestic violence advocates noticeably absent during domestic violence press event
Sacramento Examiner (CA)
Author/Byline: Alexis A Moore - Survivors In Action
September 21, 2010
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Abuse shelters, domestic violence advocates and public officials noticeably absent during domestic violence legislative rally in Poughkeepsie NY to bring about legislative changes to domestic violence laws.
After the tragic slaying of Linda Riccardulli, her family and abuse survivor, Maria DiBari, gathered the courage to speakyesterday in a live press conference in support of DV REFORM along with district 102 Assembly candidate, Alyssa Kogon.
Noticeably absent were the domestic violence shelters, coalitions, partnerships and public officials who are on the ticket in November.
"After the tragic slaying of Linda Riccardulli in Hyde Park, NY, public officials, domestic violence shelters, state and national coalitions and partnerships failed to show up in support of DV REFORM legislation in New York State and to support domestic violence victims in New York state who they are supposed to serve. There is definitely something wrong with this picture", says Alexis A. Moore.
"She tried, using the tools available to make this change, and protect her family. Her efforts were in vain,” said Jackie Axt, Linda Riccardulli’s sister.
"Abuse victims reaching out for help deserve better than to be ignored by those that are supposed to be there to support them", says Alexis A. Moore founder of Survivors In Action victim advocacy organization in California.
“All the gates are open for the offenders, and they are closed for the victims,” DiBari said. “They system is extremely complex, it’s not as easy as just reaching out.”
SEN. LEAHY TO INTRODUCE REAUTHORIZATION OF LANDMARK JUSTICE FOR ALL ACT
US Fed News (USA)
September 28, 2010
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
WASHINGTON, Sept. 27 -- The office of Sen. Patrick S. Leahy, D-Vt., issued the following news release:
Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) will introduce legislation today to reauthorize the historic Justice for All Act, which was first enacted in 2004. Leahy was the leading Democratic Senate sponsor of the law, which resulted from more than four years of bipartisan negotiations.
The Justice for All Act made modest but rare reforms in the way the death penalty is used in the criminal justice system. It also improved support services for crime victims, and provided important tools and assistance to help state and local governments use DNA evidence to convict guilty offenders and exonerate the innocent. The Justice for All Reauthorization Act will extend, strengthen and improve many of the 2004 reforms.
"Today, we rededicate ourselves to building a criminal justice system in which the innocent remain free, the guilty are punished, and all sides have the tools, resources, and knowledge they need to advance the cause of justice," said Leahy. "Americans need and deserve a criminal justice system that keeps us safe, ensures fairness and accuracy, and fulfills the promise of our constitution. This bill will take important steps to bring us closer to that goal. I hope there will be strong bipartisan support for these efforts moving forward."
The Justice for All Reauthorization Act will strengthen rights for crime victims and reauthorize several successful grant programs, including the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program and the Kirk Bloodsworth Post-Conviction DNA Testing Grant Program. These and other programs authorized under the Justice for All Act help state and local governments collect and process DNA evidence.
One key provision in the Leahy-authored reauthorization bill is a requirement that the National Institute of Justice develop practices and protocols for the collection and processing of DNA evidence, including sexual assault evidence, and to make technical assistance available to support state and local governments wishing to adopt and implement the practices. The reauthorization bill also improves the Debbie Smith grant program to allow funding to go towards reducing backlogs in the collection and processing of DNA evidence by law enforcement, prosecutors and laboratories to help stop DNA evidence backlogs at every stage in the process.
The reauthorization bill also extends important parts of the Innocence Protection Act (IPA). Leahy championed the IPA for more than four years before it was incorporated in the 2004 Justice for All Act. As a former prosecutor, Leahy saw both sides of the crisis that DNA testing has illuminated in clearing those wrongfully convicted. The IPA includes key grant programs to help state and local law enforcement to ensure they have the tools necessary to convict criminals and exonerate the innocent, and today's legislation includes new initiatives to improve those programs and to help prevent wrongful convictions from happening in the first place.
"The Innocence Protection Act became a key component of the Justice for All Act, along with important provisions to ensure that crime victims would have the rights and protections they need and deserve," said Leahy. "These and other important criminal justice provisions made the Justice for All Act a groundbreaking achievement in criminal justice reform."
Leahy continued, "The programs created by the Justice For All Act have had an enormous impact, and it is crucial that we reauthorize them. Unfortunately, the Committee's hearings and recent headlines have made clear that simply reauthorizing the existing law is not enough. Significant problems remain, and we must work together to address them."
Provisions included in the Justice for All Reauthorization Act will also:
* Strengthen crime victims' rights;
* Reauthorize several DNA evidence-related grant programs, including the Paul Coverdell Forensic Sciences Improvement Grant program and the Kirk Bloodsworth Post-Conviction DNA Testing Grant program;
* Eliminate the requirement that individuals who waive their rights in a plea agreement also waive their rights to post-conviction DNA testing at the federal level, and adjust the evidence preservation requirements states must meet to obtain grants through the Bloodsworth Program to help more states comply, while still requiring meaningful preservation of key evidence;
* Direct the National Institute of Justice to promulgate best practices for evidence retention and to assist state, local and tribal governments wishing to adopt the best practices;
* Require the states to develop and update annually a strategic plan detailing how grants received under the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program will improve the administration of justice;
* Require the Attorney General to provide technical assistance to state and local governments requesting support to meet their Sixth Amendment obligations, and make it unlawful for any governmental authority to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives persons of their rights to assistance of counsel as protected by the Sixth Amendment.
The Senate Judiciary Committee has held hearings this Congress examining how to best ensure the effective use of DNA evidence in prosecuting crime, particularly through the Debbie Smith Act and the Innocence Protection Act. The text of the Justice For All Reauthorization Act of 2010 is available upon request.
# # # # #
Statement Of Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee, On Introduction Of The "Justice For All Reauthorization Act Of 2010" September 27, 2010
Today, I am proud to introduce the Justice for All Reauthorization Act of 2010, together with Senator Franken. The Justice for All Act, passed in 2004, was an unprecedented bipartisan piece of criminal justice legislation and the most significant step Congress had taken in many years to improve the quality of justice in this country, and to restore public confidence in the integrity of the American justice system. After several hearings and much work, today we begin in earnest the process of building on that foundation to go still further to ensure our criminal justice system works fairly and effectively for all Americans.
In 2000, I introduced the Innocence Protection Act , which aimed to improve the administration of justice by ensuring that defendants in the most serious cases receive competent representation and, where appropriate, access to post-conviction DNA testing necessary to prove their innocence in those cases where the system got it grievously wrong.
The Innocence Protection Act became a key component of the Justice for All Act, along with important provisions to ensure that crime victims would have the rights and protections they need and deserve, and that states and communities would take major steps to reduce the backlog of untested rape kits and give prompt justice for victims of sexual assault. These and other important criminal justice provisions made the Justice for All Act a groundbreaking achievement in criminal justice reform.
The programs created by the Justice For All Act have had an enormous impact, and it is crucial that we reauthorize them. Unfortunately, the Committee's hearings and recent headlines have made clear that simply reauthorizing the existing law is not enough. Significant problems remain, and we must work together to address them.
In too many communities around the country, large numbers of untested rape kids have come to light, many of which have not even made their way to crime labs. It is unacceptable that rape victims must still live in fear and wait for justice. We must act to fix this continuing problem.
We have also seen too many cases of people found to be innocent after spending years in jail, and we have faced the harrowing possibility that the unthinkable may have happened: the state of Texas may have executed an innocent man. We must act to ensure that our criminal justice system works as it should so that relevant evidence is tested and considered and all defendants receive quality representation.
I thank Senators Klobuchar and Franken for working with me on these important issues and helping to craft this important bill. I also appreciate the Republican Senators, including Senators Sessions and Grassley, who have provided input for this bill and participated in the process. I am confident that this legislation will be enacted in a bipartisan fashion, just as the original Justice for All Act did, and I look forward to working with Democrats and Republicans to reach that goal.
The original Justice for All Act included the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Reduction Program, which authorized significant funding to reduce the backlog of untested rape kits so that victims need not live in fear while kits languish in storage. That program is named after Debbie Smith, who lived in fear for years after being attacked before her rape kit was tested and the perpetrator was caught. She and her husband Rob have worked tirelessly to ensure that others need not experience the ordeal she went through. I thank Debbie and Rob for their continuing help on this extremely important cause.
Since we passed this important law in 2004, the Debbie Smith Act has resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars going to states for the testing of DNA samples to reduce backlogs. I have worked with Senators of both parties to ensure full funding for the Debbie Smith Act each year.
As I have researched the problem of untested rape kits, there is one thing that I have heard again and again: the Debbie Smith program has been working and is making a major difference. I have heard from the Justice Department, the states, including Vermont, law enforcement, and victims' advocates, that Debbie Smith grants have led to significant and meaningful backlog reductions and to justice for victims in jurisdictions across the country.
Unfortunately, despite the good strides we have made and the significant Federal funding for these efforts, we have seen alarming reports of continuing backlogs. A 2008 study found 12,500 untested rape kits in the Los Angeles area alone. While Los Angeles has since made progress in addressing the problem, other cities have now reported backlogs almost as severe. The Justice Department released a report last year finding that in 18 percent of open, unsolved rape cases, evidence had not even been submitted to a crime lab.
That Justice Department study gets to a key component of this problem that has not yet been addressed. No matter how much money we send to crime labs for testing, if samples that could help close cases instead sit on the shelf in police evidence rooms and never make it to the lab, that money will do no good. Police officers must understand the importance of testing this vital evidence and must learn when testing is appropriate and necessary. In too many jurisdictions, rape kits taken from victims who put themselves through further hardship to take these samples - rape kits that could help law enforcement to get criminals off the street - are sitting untested.
The bill we introduce today will finally address this part of the problem by mandating that the Department of Justice develop practices and protocols for the processing of DNA evidence and provide technical assistance to state and local governments to implement those protocols. The bill authorizes funding to states and communities to reduce their rape kit backlogs at the law enforcement stage by training officers, improving practices, developing evidence tracking systems, and taking other key steps to make sure that this crucial evidence gets to the labs to be tested.
The bill will also help us get to the bottom of this problem by calling for the development of a standardized definition of "backlog," covering both the law enforcement and lab stages, and by implementing public reporting requirements to help us to identify where the backlogs are. It also takes steps to ensure that labs test DNA samples in the best order so that those samples which can help secure justice for rape victims are tested most quickly. It will also put into place new accountability requirements to make sure that Debbie Smith Act money is being spent effectively and appropriately.
The bill makes important changes to existing law to ensure that no rape victims are ever required to pay for testing of their rape kits, and that these costs are covered with no strings attached. Senator Franken has been a strong advocate of this important provision, and I thank him for his help.
We have also taken important new steps to ensure that defendants in serious cases receive adequate representation and, where appropriate, testing of relevant DNA samples. As a former prosecutor, I have great faith in the men and women in law enforcement, and I know that in the vast majority of cases, our criminal justice system does work fairly and effectively. I also know, however, that the system only works as it should when each side is well represented by competent and well-trained counsel, and when all relevant evidence is retained and tested. Sadly, we learn regularly of defendants released after new evidence exonerates them. We must do better. It is an outrage when an innocent person is punished, and it is doubly an outrage that, in those cases, the guilty person remains on the streets, able to commit more crimes, which makes all of us less safe.
This legislation takes important new steps to ensure that all criminal defendants, including those who cannot afford a lawyer, receive constitutionally adequate representation. It requires the Department of Justice to assist states that want help developing an effective and efficient system of indigent defense, and it establishes a cause of action for the Federal Government to step in when states are systematically failing to provide the representation called for in the constitution.
This is a reasonable measure that gives the states assistance and time needed to make necessary changes and seeks to provide an incentive for states to do so. Prosecutors and defense attorneys recognize the importance of quality defense counsel. Houston District Attorney Patricia Lykos testified, quite persuasively, before the Judiciary Committee about how competent defense attorneys help her do her job as a prosecutor even better. I have also learned through this process that the most effective systems of indigent defense are not always the most expensive. In some cases, making the necessary changes may also save states money.
This legislation will also help ensure that the innocent are not punished while the guilty remain free by strengthening Kirk Bloodsworth Post Conviction DNA Testing Grant Program, one of the key programs created in the Innocence Protection Act. Kirk Bloodsworth was a young man just out of the Marines when he was arrested, convicted, and sentenced to death for a heinous crime that he did not commit. He was the first person in the United States to be exonerated from a death row crime through the use of DNA evidence.
This program provides grants to states for testing in cases like Kirk's where someone has been convicted, but where significant DNA evidence was not tested. The last administration resisted implementing the program for several years, but we worked hard to see the program put into place. Now, money has gone out to a number of states, and the Committee has heard strong testimony that the program is making an impact. The legislation we introduce today expands the very modest authorization of funds to this important program and clarifies the conditions set for this program so that participating states are required to preserve key evidence, which is crucial, but are required to do so in a way that is attainable and will allow more states to participate.
The bill also asks states to produce comprehensive plans for their criminal justice systems, which will help to ensure that criminal justice systems operate effectively as a whole and that all parts of the system work together and receive the resources they need. The bill reauthorizes and improves key grant programs in a variety of areas throughout the criminal justice system. Importantly, it increases authorized funding for the Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grant program, which is a vital program to assist forensic laboratories in performing the many forensic tests that are essential to solving crimes and prosecuting perpetrators. I appreciate Senator Sessions' longstanding support for this important program.
Finally, the legislation strengthens rights for victims of crime. It gives crime victims an affirmative right to be informed of all of their rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act and other key laws, and it takes several steps to make it easier for crime victims to assert their legal rights in court. I thank Senators Feinstein and Kyl for their leadership in this area and their assistance in developing these provisions.
In these times of tight budgets, it is important to note that this bill would make all of these improvements without increasing total authorized funding under the Justice For All Act and that many of these changes will help states, communities, and the Federal Government save money in the long term.
Today, we rededicate ourselves to building a criminal justice system in which the innocent remain free, the guilty are punished, and all sides have the tools, resources, and knowledge they need to advance the cause of justice. Americans need and deserve a criminal justice system which keeps us safe, ensures fairness and accuracy, and fulfills the promise of our constitution. This bill will take important steps to bring us closer to that goal. I hope there will be strong bipartisan support for these efforts moving forward.
The Justice for All Reauthorization Act of 2010
Section-By-Section Summary - For Guidance Purposes Only
The Justice for All Act
Enacted in 2004, the Justice for All Act (JFAA) enhanced protections for victims of Federal crimes, provided Federal resources to improve the use of DNA technology to combat crimes, and established safeguards to prevent and reverse wrongful convictions. The legislation reauthorizes and improves many of the programs created by the original law but does not increase authorized funding beyond the levels established in 2004. It includes the Crime Victims' Rights Act, the Debbie Smith Act, the Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grant Program, and the Innocence Protection Act.
Section 2 - Extension of Crime Victims Rights
This section gives crime victims the right to be informed of their rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act and the Victims' Rights and Restitution Act of 1990. Under current law, judges have 72 hours to review writs of mandamus filed by crime victims pursuant to the Crime Victims Rights Act. This section gives judges, with the consent of the relevant litigants, more time to consider victims' claims. This section also clears an ambiguity regarding the applicability of the Crime Victims' Rights Act to victims located in the District of Columbia by clarifying that crime victims in the District may exercise their rights in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia and its corresponding court of appeals.
Section 3 - Reauthorization of Appropriations for Grants for Crime Victims
This section reauthorizes the Crime Victims Legal Assistance Grants and Crime Victims Notification Grants at current levels.
Section 4 - The Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program
This section makes several important changes to the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program to ensure efficient collection and processing of DNA evidence by law enforcement and prosecutors and the efficient processing and analysis of that evidence by crime laboratories. The bill adds several new accountability measures and reauthorizes the program at its current level of $151,000,000 per year.
The Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program is designed to reduce backlogs in the testing of DNA evidence; however, there is no current legal definition of "backlog." A definition is necessary to measure accountability under the program. This section requires the National Institutes of Justice (NIJ) to define "backlog" for the purposes of DNA evidence collection, processing, and testing. The definition must take into consideration the different stages at which a backlog may develop, including when evidence is in the possession of law enforcement as well as laboratories.
This section also requires NIJ to develop practices and protocols for the collection and processing of DNA evidence, including sexual assault evidence, and to provide technical assistance to States and units of local government to implement those practices and protocols.
Under current law, the Debbie Smith Program authorizes grants for DNA testing and analysis by laboratories. This section adds a new purpose to the program, which would allow funding to go toward reducing backlogs in the collection and processing of DNA evidence, including sexual assault evidence, by law enforcement and prosecutors. The collection and processing of DNA evidence may include programs to improve evidence tracking and communication between law enforcement, prosecutors, laboratories, courts, defense counsel, and victims within a jurisdiction. Evidence shows that backlogs in the testing of DNA evidence can often be traced to backlogs in the collection and processing of that evidence by law enforcement before it reaches the crime lab. This new purpose area will help reduce DNA evidence backlogs at every stage in the process.
Accountability measures for the Debbie Smith Program are strengthened under this section. Grant recipients will be required to report, and the Department of Justice to publish, statistical information about the size and extent of their DNA backlog, including the backlog as it relates to sexual assault cases. Recipients must also report the specific percentage of the grant funds they allocated to reducing the backlog in sexual assault cases. Additionally, the Attorney General will collect and publish a list of grant recipients who fail to comply with the reporting provisions required by the grant program and to reduce by fifty percent their grant award for the following year.
This section also requires the FBI to evaluate its policies related to the use of private labs in the analysis of DNA evidence, including the existing mandatory technical review of all outsourced DNA. The FBI must complete this evaluation within 90 days of the Act's passage and report the results to Congress no less than 30 days later.
Section 5 - Rape Exam Payments
This section strengthens provisions in the Violence Against Women Act STOP grants that preclude sexual assault victims from paying for the cost of forensic medical exams. It also clarifies existing language that prohibits states or local governments from covering the cost of forensic exams contingent on victim cooperation with law enforcement.
Section 6 - Additional Reauthorizations
This section reauthorizes the DNA Research and Development Grants, FBI DNA Programs, and DNA Identification of Missing Persons Grants at current levels.
Section 7 - Paul Coverdell Forensic Sciences Improvement Grants
This section reauthorizes the Paul Coverdell Forensic Sciences Improvement Grants and increases the annual authorization by $15,000,000 per year to a level of $35,000,000 per year.
Section 8 - Kirk Bloodsworth Post-Conviction DNA Testing Grant Program
This section reauthorizes the Kirk Bloodsworth Post-Conviction DNA Testing Grant Program and increases the annual authorization by $5,000,000 per year to a level of $10,000,000 per year.
Section 9 - Improving the Quality of Representation in State Capital Cases
This section reauthorizes the Capital Representation Improvement Grants and the Capital Prosecution Improvement Grants and reduces the authorization from $75,000,000 to $50,000,000 per year. It also allows the Attorney General to award grants to units of local government and non-profits, rather than exclusively to States. Additionally, this section allows the Attorney General, upon a showing of good cause, to determine a fair allocation of the funding across the two grant programs.
Section 9 - Post-Conviction DNA Testing
There have been 258 post-conviction DNA exonerations in the United States. Seventy of those exonerees pleaded guilty to or confessed to the crime they did not commit. This section eliminates the prohibition on a court granting an individual's petition for post-conviction DNA testing if that individual had waived his or her right to post-conviction DNA testing as part of a plea agreement.
Under current law, in order for a federal defendant to be granted a new trial based on exculpatory DNA evidence, he or she must establish by compelling evidence that a new trial would result in acquittal or a lower sentence. For a defendant to be granted a new sentencing based on exculpatory DNA evidence, he or she must prove, by compelling evidence that the evidence would result in the defendant obtaining a lower sentence, and even within those parameters, the defendant can only be granted a resentencing in a case involving the death sentence. This section requires courts to instead evaluate exculpatory evidence by a 'preponderance of the evidence' standard, and eliminates the requirement that, for re-sentencing purposes, this evidence can only be utilized in a capital case.
This section also relaxes the requirement that states must preserve all biological evidence to obtain grants through the Kirk Bloodsworth Post Conviction DNA Testing Grant Program. Instead, states and local governments receiving funding through the program must preserve all biological evidence in cases involving certain crimes of violence.
Section 10 - Incentive Grants to States to Ensure Consideration of Claims of Actual Innocence
The section relaxes the certification requirements regarding biological evidence preservation required of the chief legal officers of states receiving Bloodsworth grants. The new requirements reflect the reality that there are limits to the extent to which chief legal officers can be held accountable for preservation efforts in jurisdictions beyond their control.
Section 11 - Establishment of National Standards Promulgated by NIJ
The section directs NIJ to promulgate best practices for evidence retention within eighteen months of the bill's enactment. It also requires NIJ to assist state, local and tribal governments wishing to adopt the best practices.
Section 9 - Effective Administration of Criminal Justice
This section reinstates a previous requirement of the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program that states develop, and update annually, a strategic plan detailing how grants received under the program will be used to improve the administration of the criminal justice system. This requirement was removed from the Byrne JAG grant application several years ago, but groups representing states and victims have requested that it be reinstated in order to improve the efficient and effective use of criminal justice resources. Under this section, the strategic plan must be formulated in consultation with local governments and all segments of the criminal justice system. The Attorney General will also be required to make technical assistance available to help states formulate their strategic plans.
The section also requires the Attorney General to provide technical assistance to states and local governments requesting support to meet their Sixth Amendment obligations. It also makes it unlawful for any governmental authority to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives people of their rights to assistance of counsel as protected by the Sixth Amendment. The provision providing a federal cause of action to enforce this right does not take effect until two years after passage of the bill, though the technical assistance is available immediately.
The bill authorizes $5,000,000 for the Attorney General to carry out the technical assistance required under this section.
If I'm going to die at the hands of a violent man I'm going to die fighting
Sacramento Examiner (CA)
Author/Byline: Alexis A Moore - Survivors In Action/SIA
September 30, 2010
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
"If I'm going to die at the hands of a violent man, I'm going to die fighting."
By Karen Rae Elkins - Professional Angler - Victim of domestic violence and stalking
I'm a fisherman, not a policeman. Yet in this rapid river of increasing violence, I've learned that sometimes the police are not necessarily there to uphold the laws when taking another report of intimate partner violence. I'm not saying there are not good cops out there. Policemen are like fish, Some are predators in pursuit of right over wrong. They hunt to feed justice. Some are like the trout or perch. They bring a taste of color and hues of deep thought in an upstream battle. And then... well some are just plain bottom feeders, sucker fish. When I fish, I'm after the predator called a bass. When I pull up a bottom feeder, I get this girlie yuck feeling in the pit of my stomach. I will often just cut the line on a bottom feeder.
I'm going to talk about the bottom feeders of our men in blue. Bottom feeders have their place. If for no other reason, it's to teach you the serious lesson of forgetting what others may think of your situation. There's more to life than what a bottom feeder thinks. I just want you to go into a Police Station with your eyes wide open. Pulling into the parking lot of a police station takes courage. Some will look at you with total disgust or their eyes will look anywhere but directly into your eyes. While others rarely listen to what you have to say. Often times you must repeat the same sentence three maybe four times, or worse they question the event as if it really didn't happen. I've heard stories of Investigators suggesting that a woman actually beat herself up to claim violence. Any woman who would beat them self up has crushing psychological issues beyond those of violence, and sadly it does happen. However, it is rare. Most women, like me, avoid pain. Think about it like this, most would prefer to focus on anything but a mixture of pain stirred in with humiliation, trauma, and disbelief. Please don't for any reason, avoid documentation because the police officer could be a bottom feeder.
Bottom feeders are there to clean up after the violence and do as little as possible. It's their nature. You know, when the woman has lost her life because the police didn't follow up or follow through because to them, "it's just another day at work". Bottom feeders abuse their position. A therapist once told me, "Never date a policeman, they are deceptive." I guess that bleeds into trusting them with your life.
When you leave the station pay no attention to the thoughts that they are talking about you. Without a shadow of a doubt they are using colorful words to describe you. Tell yourself, who cares? You've done what you set out to do. Report an incident. It's your paper trail. Just whatever you do, make sure the documentation is correct. If the officer didn't get the report correct, ask for another report. What else does he have to do but breathe air and eat donuts. Bottom feeders.
I'm a writer, but some words are not worth the paper they are written on. Three words come to mind.: Protection From Abuse. The worst thing you can do is to isolate yourself from the facts. If you find yourself reporting acts of violence, you my friend, are in danger. In the film, Enough, J Lo is at the police station to help "a friend" with violent husband. In reality it is her that is in the violent marriage. The officer instructs her to tell the "friend" to file for a protection order against her husband. She responds, "And what is she suppose to do with the paper when he shows up? Throw it at him? Do Protection Orders perpetuate more violence? As best I can tell, it's a flip of the coin. Heads it does, tails it doesn't. There is one silver lining, but it alone won't keep you safe. There is a Federal law, an act that bans shipment, transport, ownership and use of guns or ammunition by individuals convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, or who are under a restraining (protection) order for domestic abuse in all 50 states. Don't make it easy for him to turn a gun on you. Have his gun rights taken away.
Other papers are worth their weight in gold. Start a journal and an on-line journal of your journey back to you. I always say when you come to a fork in the river, take it. This blog is as much for me as it is for the woman who wonders what life is like after the escape from violence. It seems that everyone wants you, the victim, to prove or answer to his actions. Should you ever end up in court, or apply for a new Social Security number, or faced with filing an Evidentuary Will and Abuse Affidavit, your documentation can be used to help your memory. Trauma and violence can blend memories or worse, there are some things you'd rather forget. The journal will help keep the facts in somewhat order. The Coalition Against Domestic Violence suggested that I keep a journal of my travels so that if I went missing, the police, hopefully not the bottom feeder kind, could use it to help locate me. Each morning when I have my first cup of coffee, I jot down my daily activities, well sometimes.
I'm an artist, I should not have to draw a gun. I'd rather draw flowers or butterflies. I'd rather capture a sunrise on the lake with my camera. Artist are known for their "non-violent" beliefs. We would rather live life on the edge of creativity, not the verge of destruction. However, non-violence, doesn't mean I have to give up my right to protect myself. I made the decision to exercise my Second Amendment Right, the Rights to pursue FREEDOM. I urge you to do the same. I'm reminded of a quote from my first blog with Time's Up. There is no freedom without the truth. The truth is, "If I'm going to die at the hands of a violent man, I'm going to die fighting." I'm free from the spell of defenselessness.
I had a wake up call. I was followed into my neighborhood late one night. I had stopped the pattern of no pattern home. I let my guard down. I had become comfortable just driving the same route. There were no cars on the road in the small town. Most people were sleeping. I pulled into the right lane to merge onto the two lane highway. There wasn't a car in sight. I drove maybe six-tenths of a mile and turned my blinker on. All of a sudden, out of no where, the inside of my SUV lit up. The car behind me almost rear ended me. I turned to escape a crash and the car turned behind me. There was maybe 12 inches between our bumpers as I drove through the neighborhood. My mind went blank and my body numb with fear. All I could think is, "Is this the end of me"? I grabbed my cell phone and flipped it open to dial 911 and realized they couldn't save me. At this point they all became bottom feeders. I avoided a near miss that night. I realized then that I should have been reaching for a gun not a phone.
If you put him in jail, he's going to eventually get out of jail. Then what? I've searched out every law of protection and found the laws to be faulty. Except for the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution, all of the laws have loopholes designed to protect the guilty. Protection comes in the form of a gun for women who want to live. Don't believe the lie that you will become the victim of your own gun. The reports are false. Honestly, if I had not searched out every option, every avenue available to me, I would not be writing this blog. It's time to take back the power that has been stolen by our courts, judges, and the offenders. It's a right for a reason.
Take a gun safety class. Enroll in a local gun club or shooting range. Listen to your instructors. A 22 caliber handgun isn't the ideal gun for protection. Go ahead and spend your money on a gun that will defend you. Apply for a concealed carry permit. Obey the laws and know the laws. Size matters when it comes to guns. Get a handgun that fits your hand. Learn to clean it the same day every week while you watch Nancy Grace report on other women who didn't have the chance to defend themselves. Buy a second gun. Your life depends on your ability to fight back. Do you really want to go into battle with just one gun? Buy a shotgun for your home. The spray will cover a large area. Make up your mind before he ever shows up at your home to do the right thing. He has no business at your home. His past abuses carry the weight of his intentions. And just like a target, aim for the center mass. "There are no dangerous weapons. There are only dangerous men."
If he finds me now he will find me standing behind cold metal. Why? Because I can. Though defensive violence will always be 'a sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if a wrongdoer should prevail over the just. In 1998 one study reported the use of a gun by women in 12 cases of defense against intimate partner violence. In all 12 cases the man died. TWELVE. Yet, one in four women have been at the wrong end of a fist. We as women often send the wrong message. It's our nature to nurture, not pick up a gun. The day has come to redefine that mindset. Because, we can nurture ourselves, we will survive by all legal means. Redemption can come at the end of a gun.
Remember, "A woman who demands further gun control legislation is like a chicken who roots for Colonel Sanders." I'm not a chicken, I'm a fisherman, a writer, an artist and a gun toter.
Just one question. Is toter really a word?
Fish Steady in all you do. Karen
The Courage Companion How to Live Life with True Power By Nina Lesowitz and Mary Beth Sammons
Sacramento Examiner (CA)
Author/Byline: Alexis A Moore
October 11, 2010
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
I am honored to contribute to such an inspirational book that is both timely and timeless. Thank you to Nina Lesowitz and Mary Beth Sammons for putting this wonderful literary project together which is sure to make a long lasting positive impact upon many.
These intrepid authors have gone to the frontlines of adversity and fear to surface those brave hearts who have taken action, confronting and overcoming their trials and trepidations in ways that encourage us all. From world-class athletes, to spiritual teachers, to cancer patients, to ordinary people who in extraordinary ways have transformed their lives, these stories help lead us to our best lives. Enhanced with motivational quotes, expert advice, and exercises, this courage guidebook will help you turn apprehension into action to reap the many benefits of living your life with guts and gusto.
The Courage Companion features courageous people from all walks of life and across the globe, including:
• Romel Joseph, the blind Haitian violinist who survived the earthquake by playing music in his mind and who returned to rebuild the music school he built with his pregnant wife
• Lucille Jackson, an African-American grandmother who is waging war against gangs and extreme violence to provide hope for her grandson in Chicago's most dangerous neighborhood
• Alexis A. Moore, who founded Survivors in Action and is spearheading a movement known as DV Reform, which exposes the harsh realities faced by victims of domestic violence
• Peg Farrell, a 60-year-old former publisher for Family Circle, who traveled to Italy alone, leaving behind family and friends to train as a novice chef with pros who did not speak English
• B.J. Caldwell, the youngest person to circumnavigate the globe solo;
• Eli Rosmarin, a man who survived the Nazi death camps as a teen
• and Lt. Commander, and mom, Heidi Kraft, the wounded healer who became a guardian angel to physically and emotionally injured soldiers.
Courage means different things in different circumstances—from having the courage to make a difference, right a wrong, to begin again, or just to face the next day—but, as Nina Lesowitz and Mary Beth Sammons show in The Courage Companion, facing up to adversity not only determines our destiny but our identity.
The difference that separates those who took action in the face of their fears and those who stay frozen: courageous people feel their fear but take action anyway. Nina Lesowitz and Mary Beth Sammons have seen this manifest in their own lives, and in The Courage Companion, they assemble a team of people “brimming with bravery, and teeming with verve.”
Nina Lesowitz is an award-winning marketing professional who runs Spinergy Group, which represents authors, corporate clients, and nonprofits. She lives in Northern California with her husband and two daughters, and she does volunteer work for local literary organizations and schools. She is co-author of the bestselling book, Living Life as a Thank You.
Mary Beth Sammons, a 20-year veteran reporter, specializes in community journalism and her work has appeared in the Chicago Tribune and Crain’s Chicago Business. At the national level Sammons work regularly appears in AOL Health, Family Circle, and Beliefnet.com. She has written 10 books about wellness, health, ordinary people doing extraordinary things, and other lifestyle issues, including: Second Acts That Change Lives: Making a Difference in the World and We Carry Each Other: Getting Through Life’s Toughest Times. She lives with her three children and she still finds the time to train and compete in triathlons and half-marathons.
The Courage Companion: How to Live Life with True Power - By Nina Lesowitz and Mary Beth Sammons
Women who abuse domestic violence law
Indianapolis Examiner (IN)
Author/Byline: Glenn Hatmaker
October 11, 2010
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
The sound of the handcuffs ratcheting closed on me was a sound I will never forget. I’d heard that sound before, but this wasn’t a kinky game – I was being arrested in my own home. Even now, nearly a year later, it still seems surreal: after months of brinkmanship and provocations by my wife and in order to further her divorce intentions, my wife had forced eviction from our apartment, physically attacked me, called 911, and blatantly lied to police – and I was arrested and charged with felony domestic battery. Domestic violence is a tragedy that happens far too frequently in America, but now there are an increasing number of a new kind of domestic violence arrests: women who make false accusations in order to further their divorce proceedings and child custody aims. As I would learn over the next several months, I was guilty until proven innocent while paying child support and spousal maintenance even as I suffered under no-contact and restraining orders. My wife had set a noose for me, and I found myself caught in a meat-grinder steel trap from which there was no escape.
Being held in the Indianapolis detention processing center for about 22 hours was an eye-opening experience, to say the least. It became distressingly clear to me, surrounded as I was by the dredges of the city, our society is disintegrating around us. There were about 50 of us packed into the fairly small facility and I found myself surrounded by gold-toothed ghetto thugs, drunken borrachos and scraggly rednecks. Arrest charges ranged from public intoxication to weapons charges to drug possession and the civil court system is so overwhelmed some of the guys had been there for nearly two days. I was genuinely scared and hadn’t felt so intimidated since my days in the ghettos of Washington DC. And this was on a Tuesday morning! I can’t imagine what a Friday or Saturday night is like. I slept on the concrete floor for no more than half an hour at a time because the bigger, meaner guys ruled the roost.
I did make the most of my time in the processing center by surveying my fellow inmates on the legal system. All of them regarded domestic violence as small potatoes which they’d dealt with years ago and moved on. The relentless breakdown of the black family was also painfully evident as I noted that about three-quarters of the detainees were African American. Most telling was that there was only one other clean-cut whitey there in his wingtips, slacks and pressed shirt, who was in a similar situation to mine: his fiancée wanted out of their engagement and falsely accused him to get him locked up and kicked out of their condo. Since then I’ve learned how women can be aided by both public and private organizations in making false charges – in my case, including a judge accepting hearsay and brusquely rejecting my attorney’s objections; a prosecutor counseling my wife during her deposition; one charge against me being dropped only because my wife was caught in a lie; a prosecutor falsely accusing me of having a ‘previous criminal history,’ when in fact my record is spotless; and multiple counts of perjury from my wife.
As my seventh wedding anniversary passed recently, I mourned my wife’s filing for divorce two days before Valentine’s Day this year, and the passing of my daughter’s fifth birthday without my seeing either of them for nearly ten months now. She has ensnared me in legal quicksand in which women have an array of private and public resources at their disposal and men are guilty until proven innocent. I’ve learned the hard way that there are powerful monetary and political interests aligned against me, especially due to financial incentives for prosecutors to obtain federal resources for prosecutions under Bill Clinton’s Violence Against Women Act [WAVA] and others. In my case I suffer under overzealous prosecutors, even having admitted early on that I was overcharged in this case (not to mention an unusually high surety bond posting), who are an embarrassment to an already scandal-tainted prosecutor’s office. As a college-educated father with a young child, I’ll be an unwilling contributor to the child support bureaucracy for many years. Some women have learned that no-fault divorce paired with domestic violence laws in which men are guilty until proven innocent are potent weapons in their divorce proceedings. In my case, I have helplessly become just a male with a checkbook attached – mercilessly enforced by our misguided system of American injustice.
The Family Violence Protection Services Act is due to be reauthorized
Portland Examiner (OR)
October 26, 2010
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Congresswoman Gwen Moore is a strong advocate for measures that focus on improving the economic and employment conditions of communities, and for government forming a strong coalition against domestic abuse. The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) successfully integrated the court systems, law enforcement, prosecutors, and victim services in providing assistance to women and children needing protection from domestic violence. Previously, this type of multi-leveled community network did not exist on state or local levels in the United States. Gwen Moore spent 16 years in Wisconsin Legislature, before being elected to Congress, and during her first term, she legislated the SHIELD Act, which reauthorized the VAWA. She then authored bipartisan legislation with The Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA), a bill which authorizes funding for essential services that help keep shelters open. FVPSA is the only federal legislation that provides funding for the administrative and operational needs of shelters across the country.
The FVPSA was last reauthorized in 2003, and it is currently underfunded and in need of critical updates. As financial pressures due to a down economy cause family stress to climb, domestic violence shelters across the country have been called upon to open their doors to more and more victims who are attempting to flee life-threatening situations. At one shelter in Madison, WI, emergency calls requesting shelter increased by 144 percent between 2008 and 2009.
Congresswoman Moore recently appeared on the Dr. Phil show to discuss the need for her legislation. You can print and sign this letter drafted by Congresswoman Moore and send it to your Representative in support of the reauthorization of the Family Violence and Protection Services Act (FVPSA). This legislation provides critically needed resources to territories like the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and Guam, and will allow territories to receive outreach grants so that they can better serve their diverse communities.
FACT SHEET: Obama Administration Highlights Unprecedented Coordination across Federal Government to Combat Violence Against Women
Government Press Releases (USA)
October 27, 2010
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
As part of ongoing Administration efforts to reduce domestic and sexual abuse, HHS, HUD, DOJ, Treasury, Labor and FDIC announce new initiatives to protect victims of abuse, provide resources to prevent abuse
Today, the Obama Administration is highlighting unprecedented coordination and cooperation across the entire government to protect victims of domestic and sexual violence and enable survivors to break the cycle of abuse. As part of this ongoing government-wide effort, HHS, HUD, DOJ, Treasury, Labor and FDIC today announced new initiatives to protect victims of abuse and provide resources for families and communities to prevent abuse. Violence is still a significant barrier in many women's lives, and this Administration is committed to taking concrete action to reduce domestic violence in this country. One-in-every-four women experiences domestic violence during their lifetimes and more than 20 million women in the U.S. have been victims of rape. Approximately 15.5 million children are exposed to domestic violence every year. The impact of abuse lingers for years, both for victims and their children.
In response, the President has called on every agency in the Federal government to be part of the solution to ending violence against women. Domestic violence and sexual assault are not just criminal justice issues - the scope and far-reaching effects of violence require a coordinated response across the Federal government.
The initiatives announced and highlighted today demonstrate a broad, comprehensive response to reducing violence against women. Specifically, these concrete actions include steps to:
* Protect Children and Break the Cycle of Violence
* Improve Legal Protections for Victims of Domestic Violence
* Increase Sexual Assault Arrests and Successful Prosecutions
* Help Victims Regain Housing and Financial Independence
Protect Children and Break the Cycle of Violence
Intervening early to reach children and young families experiencing domestic and sexual violence is a crucial element of our strategy to end violence against women. Without intervention, children who witness violence are at greater risk of developing behavioral problems, psychiatric disorders, school failure, and violence against others.
* Through the Affordable Care Act's new Pregnancy Assistance Fund, 5 states (NC, NM, OR, VA, and WA) will start this month providing help for pregnant women who are victims of domestic and sexual violence. High schools, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) offices, health clinics, and child welfare agencies will have tools to reach vulnerable women and connect them with services. One in twelve adult women are abused during pregnancy and 25-50% of adolescent mothers experience domestic violence before, during, or just after pregnancy. Children born to abused mothers are 30% more likely to require intensive care upon birth.
* The Affordable Care Act's new Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program provides $1.5 billion over five years to States for evidence-based home visitation services. The law requires every state to consider domestic violence as one of six benchmarks in improving the health and safety of families in at-risk communities. Nurses, social workers, educators, child development specialists or other well-trained staff will promote the health and well-being of children and their families in these communities, intervening early to reduce rates of domestic violence and child abuse.
* The HHS Head Start program is reaching out to pregnant women and parents of young children to prevent and respond to domestic violence. Head Start centers in 6 states (AL, FL, MI, MT, NM, and SC) are launching a community-based Safe Families, Safe Homes early education curriculum. This effort will help Head Start staff and community partners identify and respond to young children exposed to violence. This week, HHS is also sending guidance to thousands of Head Start and other early childhood programs across the country and urging them to address domestic violence by providing these programs with information about the Safe Families, Safe Homes curriculum and other available resources.
* The Attorney General has launched the Defending Childhood Initiative to protect children from the harmful consequences of witnessing violence. The initiative will work to prevent exposure to all types of violence and build children's resiliency to recover and thrive when violence does occur.
* The new HHS Enhancing Services for Children and Youth Exposed to Domestic Violence program supports innovative, evidence-informed services for children exposed to domestic violence. Starting this month, projects in four states (AK, NJ, ID, and WI) and a national clearinghouse will help children heal from the trauma of abuse and build stronger community services.
Improve Legal Protections for Victims of Domestic Violence
Providing victims with greater access to legal assistance and civil protection orders are essential strategies in reducing abuse. Studies show that access to legal services helps victims escape from abusive relationships, and that access to counsel has reduced domestic violence by as much as 21%. Protective orders are effective in reducing the level of violence and fear of harm for many victims, but they must be properly enforced.
* Today, the Department of Justice Office on Violence Against Women, in partnership with the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, is releasing new tools for communities to improve enforcement of protective orders. Civil Protection Orders: A Guide for Improving Practice will keep victims and their children safe by providing guidance to advocates, attorneys, judges, law enforcement officers, and prosecutors to ensure that protective orders are issued, served and enforced throughout the United Sates.
* Today, the Department of Justice, with assistance from the White House, is launching Access to Justice for Domestic Violence Victims, a pilot project to encourage more commitment from the private bar to provide pro bono legal services to victims of domestic violence. Beginning in New Orleans and Baltimore, private law firms will hire law students who have participated in law school clinics and defer their start dates while they work at domestic violence service providers. The lawyers will help victims secure protective orders, navigate the family courts, and access safe housing. Access to Justice will encourage ongoing pro bono partnerships between private law firms, domestic violence service providers and law school clinics.
Increase Sexual Assault Arrests and Successful Prosecutions
One in six women and one in thirty-three men will be sexually assaulted in their lifetimes, but fewer than 1 in 6 rapes are reported to the police. Women who have been raped have high rates of PTSD, depression, anxiety, and suicide attempts.
* The Department of Justice Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) is launching a new national campaign to reduce sexual violence in the United States by improving the criminal justice system response, increasing services for victims, and changing attitudes. Today, the White House Council on Women and Girls and the Department of Justice held the first ever national roundtable on sexual violence at the White House. Over the next six months, OVW will hold regional forums around the country to engage the public in their sexual assault reduction campaign. In the 2011 budget, President Obama has proposed doubling funding for VAWA programs serving victims of sexual assault.
* Reducing the backlog of rape kits can be a powerful way to get rapists off the streets. Today, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) is launching a new effort to identify long term solutions to the DNA backlog of sexual assault cases. In up to 5 jurisdictions, the project will team researchers with law enforcement agencies, crime labs, prosecutors, and victim advocates. The teams will identify underlying causes of the backlog, create new systems for tracking, screening and testing DNA evidence, and apply strategies to prevent backlogs from developing in the future. As a result of this project, NIJ aims to eliminate backlogs and develop innovative practices that can be adapted nationwide.
Help Victims Regain Housing and Financial Independence
Perpetrators of domestic violence often create serious obstacles that prevent victims from achieving economic independence and self-sufficiency. Without financial independence and a stable place to live, victims and their children are trapped with nowhere else to go. As a result, victims of domestic violence are often forced to choose between staying in an abusive relationship or facing economic hardship, poverty, and homelessness. But when victims improve their economic stability, they increase their likelihood of living separately from their abusers.
* Today, Secretary Donovan is releasing much-anticipated rules that provide guidance to housing authorities and landlords to evict perpetrators of abuse, keep their properties safe, and make sure victims do not lose their housing due to crimes committed against them. Prior to the passage of the Violence Against Women Act of 2005, victims of domestic violence were afraid to call the police or seek help because their landlords might find out about the assault and evict them. VAWA created new protections for victims in publicly assisted housing, but rules governing these provisions were never finalized.
* Last month, the Department of the Treasury and the White House convened domestic violence organizations, asset-building experts, credit union organizations, and other financial educators to determine ways to help victims build credit, access safe financial products, and save for the future. Treasury is working with the Financial Literacy and Education Commission, its MyMoney.gov website, the President's Advisory Council on Financial Capability, and its private sector and government partners to connect domestic violence organizations with existing financial education and access resources.
* The FDIC is also helping victims recover from financial abuse by updating their popular Money Smart financial literacy curriculum to include information for victims of domestic violence. The new Money Smart curriculum will be available Friday, October 29th.
* Two weeks ago, HHS launched a new coordinated effort to ensure that more victims of domestic violence file for Federal refundable tax credits like the Earned Income Tax Credit, use low-cost tax preparation services, and use tax time as an opportunity to access tools like savings bonds that help them save for the future.
* Access to non-traditional job training can be an important tool for victims of domestic violence to rebuild financial stability. In the coming weeks, the Department of Labor Women's Bureau is releasing A Woman's Guide to Green Jobs and coordinating with Wider Opportunities for Women and the National Network to End Domestic Violence to make sure that survivors have access to new green jobs.
* Today, in partnership with the Family Violence Prevention Fund, the Office on Violence Against Women is launching a new virtual resource for employers to address the impacts of domestic violence in the workplace. www.workplacesrespond.org provides new tools for employers, including interactive training and customized model policies to keep victims safely employed.
Respond to Urgent Needs with the President's 2011 Budget Request
* In response to the need to strengthen services to victims, the President's 2011 budget proposed an additional $130 million to help victims find shelter, counseling, legal assistance, transitional housing and other direct services. $100 million of the increase is from the Crime Victims' Fund, which does not consist of taxpayer dollars; it is self-sustaining and supported by criminal fines, forfeited bail bonds, and penalties for federal offenders.
Thanks to Maria DiBari nation's first DV REFORM legislation introduced
Sacramento Examiner (CA)
Author/Byline: Alexis A Moore - Survivors In Action
October 28, 2010
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Is nothing more amazing than to be part of a movement known as DV REFORM. As domestic violence awareness month closes there is no better way to honor 2010 than by thanking Maria DiBari in New York State for her efforts to bring about DV REFORM legislation in 2010 the first of its kind in the U.S.
Maria an abuse survivor was left behind by the traditional domestic violence resources of today. She could have chosen to forget her struggles and ignore the problems faced by abuse victims of today but she didn't.
By publishing her personal journey she has inspired victims from across the United States desperate for help to find renewed hope and inspiration through her efforts exposing the realities faced by abuse victims of today.
It is easy to talk and very difficult to take action and actually do and that is why Survivors In Action is honoring Maria DiBari in Dutchess County New York for taking action to help ensure "no victim left behind".
"Words cannot ever be enough to thank Maria DiBari in NYS. Her efforts have been instrumental to 1st DV REFORM legislation in our nation's history. BRAVO to Maria and a reminder to all of us abuse survivors input in reform is vital. We need more to participate and to engage to help ensure no victim is left behind".
-Alexis A. Moore, founder - Survivors In Action
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY ISSUES FINAL RULE ABOUT VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT CONFORMING AMENDMENTS
US Fed News (USA)
October 28, 2010
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
WASHINGTON, Oct. 28 -- Office of the Secretary has issued a final rule called: HUD Programs: Violence Against Women Act Conforming Amendments.
The final rule, published in the Federal Register on Oct. 27 by Shaun Donovan, Secretary, states: "This final rule follows a November 28, 2008, interim rule that conformed HUD's regulations to those provisions of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), as enacted in January 2006, and subsequently amended in August 2006, that were determined to be self-implementing. VAWA provides statutory protections for victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. Such protections apply to families receiving rental assistance under HUD's public housing and tenant-based and project-based Section 8 programs. This rule adopts as final the regulations in the November 28, 2008, interim rule, along with certain clarifying changes made in response to public comment, and with some restructuring of the regulations to improve organization within the Code of Federal Regulations."
BettyJean Kling on behalf of the TMU coalition of Defeating Violence Against Women Groups
Sacramento Examiner (CA)
Author/Byline: Alexis A Moore - Survivors In Action/SIA
November 3, 2010
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Women's Web bashes renowned civil rights attorney Dawn V. Martin for sending a press release advising them of the push for legislative reform to include women stalked in the workplace.
After learning of the response of Women's Web an organization that states on their web site to be "an online community by women for women" one has to think twice when learning of their negative response to an attorney like Dawn V. Martin who has been on the front lines battling for the rights of women for over 11 years via the case "Martin v. Howard University".
The negative response received from Women's Web and lack of support from many domestic violence, stalking and women's advocacy groups makes it more important for the majority to become united now more than ever before. Ending violence against women starts with the women themselves uniting together regardless of politics or other differences.
BettyJean Kling the founder of The Majority United a bi-partisan organization whose mission is to unite women knows first hand the importance of supporting advocates like Attorney Martin and uniting together because sadly without this united front victims will continue to be left behind.
BettyJean surviving abuse and suffering with the devastating loss of her two beautiful daughters to horrific acts of domestic violence makes this cause even more personal for her and for the many others who unite together under the TMU umbrella wanting to unite women to mobilize to end violence against women and promote 21st century gender equality under the law.
BettyJean Kling founder of The Majority United wrote this heart felt email hoping to encourage Women's Web and any other organization who has not been supportive to take a second take and learn how important it is to unite and mobilize.
Dear Women's Web,
My name is BettyJean Kling, I am the founder of The Majority United. My board consists of 16 formidable women from both sides of the aisle, from coast to coast and range from quite liberal to quite conservative and everywhere in between.
Most, if not each of us, has founded our own organization individually and are also members of each others advisory boards as well as belong to a national coalition of women's groups TheMajorityUnitedDefeatingViolenceAgainstWomen.com site coming soon, under the umbrella of The Majority United.
Our sole purpose is to do what other women's groups have failed to do and that is unite women to mobilize them as a empowered unit. Women united hold up more than half the sky and make up almost 53% of the world's population and citizenry and yet we are not treated equally or fairly represented and it is because we do not work as a united group. The Majority United consists of groups of women whose main goal is to achieve parity for women rather than a name for any particular group, we urge you to consider your responsibility to women when purporting to be a women's group.
Far too many groups advertise themselves to benefit women when in reality they turn away and discourage women from uniting. Your action against Attorney Martin and her Press Release was outrageous and without merit. The Majority United will no longer stand for groups who pit women against women! We have called out and will continue to call out any women's group who conducts themselves in the following manner and let women decide if this behavior is in the best interest of ALL women.
Yesterday I sent a copy of a Press Release and blogged regarding a Proposed Amendment to Title VII The Danger of "Working while Female" regarding anti stalking.
Today I sent my 5000 outlet who in turn disseminate to their readers the following newsletter and blogged and have scheduled a 90 minute radio show which will air on Wednesday Nov. 11, 2010 all over the united States the following.
BettyJean Kling M.S, M. Ed
Founder: The Majority United - TheMajorityUnitedDefeatingViolenceAgainstWomen.com
Crime Victims Organization Network
Democratic Committee
For Survivors
Free Christian Women's Coalition
Free Us now
National Domestic Violence Database
National Equal Rights Alliance
Pass ERA
Protective Mother's Alliance International
Ray Of Hope Organization
Survivors in Action
The Weaker Vessel
We hope you will re-consider your position and response to Attorney Martin's press release and encourage you and all organizations to take a second look at the push to reform stalking laws so "working while female" does not include having to choose between ones livelihood and personal safety.
Durbin Chairs Hearing on Ratification of Women's Rights Treaty
U.S. One of Only Seven Nations Which Has Failed to Ratify the Thirty Year-Old Treaty
November 19, 2010
eNews Park Forest (IL)
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
WASHINGTON, D.C.—(ENEWSPF)—November 18, 2010 - Assistant Senate Majority Leader Dick Durbin (D-IL) chaired a hearing today on U.S. ratification of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). CEDAW is the only international treaty to focus solely on the rights of women and it addresses issues such as violence against women, sex trafficking, the right to vote and equal access to education. Today's hearing was the first ever Judiciary Committee hearing on whether to ratify a human rights treaty.
"CEDAW is about giving women all over the world the chance to enjoy the same freedoms and opportunities that American women have struggled long and hard to achieve," Durbin said. "These are fundamentally American freedoms – the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness – and CEDAW is a fundamentally American treaty. Women have been waiting for 30 years. It's long past time for the U.S. to ratify this treaty and we should do so without further delay."
CEDAW was sent to Senate in 1980 for ratification. Yet 30 years after its signing, the U.S. is one of only seven nations in the world – joining Iran, Sudan, Somalia and three small Pacific island nations – which has failed to ratify the treaty. On bipartisan majority votes, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has sent CEDAW to the full Senate for ratification twice – once in 1994 and in 2002 – but the treaty has never received a vote. The Obama Administration has called ratification of CEDAW a priority.
With violence against women and girls alarmingly prevalent around the world, CEDAW plays an important role in protecting and improving the lives of woman. CEDAW has led to the passage of laws prohibiting violence against woman in Afghanistan, Ghana, Mexico and Sierra Leone. It led to women being granted the right to vote in Kuwait and helped give women the right to inherit property in Kenya, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan.
The U.S. does not need to ratify CEDAW to protect the rights of American women and girls. While more progress is needed, women have fought long and hard for equal rights in the United States and have won many victories along the way. From the 19th Amendment, giving women the right to vote; to Title IX, prohibiting discrimination in education; to the Violence Against Women Act and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, American women have rights and freedoms that far exceed those required under CEDAW – and ratifying the treaty would not change current U.S. law in any way. The United States ought to ratify the treaty to ensure our dedication to the protection of human rights around the world isn't questioned.
In a letter to Senator Durbin, retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote:
"The Senate's failure to ratify CEDAW gives other countries a retort when U.S. officials raise issues about the treatment of women, and thus our non-ratification may hamper the effectiveness of the United States in achieving increased protection for women worldwide."
"When I travel around the world, one of the first things I look at when visiting a new place is how that country treats its women," Durbin said. "It gives me insight into how that country views the world and what its priorities are, because treating women with dignity and respect, and giving them rights and a role in society is the only way nations will grow and prosper. CEDAW has done more to protect the rights of woman and girls that any other treaty in history and I've seen its results firsthand," Durbin said.
Testifying at today's hearing were Ambassador Melanne Verveer, Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women's Issues, U.S. Department of State; Samuel R. Bagenstos, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice; Geena Davis, Academy Award Winning Actor, Founder, The Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media; Wazhma Frogh, Policy and Advocacy Specialist, Afghan Women's Network, Recipient of U.S. Department of State's International Women of Courage Award; Marcia D. Greenberger, Co-President, National Women's Law Center; and Steven Grove, Bernard and Barbara Lomas Fellow, The Heritage Foundation.
Death threatened
Targeted Women need IVAWA protection
News & Politics Examiner (USA)
Author/Byline: Deborah Dupré
November 28, 2010
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
The International Violence Against Women Act (I-VAWA) is the first comprehensive piece of legislation in the United States aimed at ending violence against women and girls around the world. It would improve our government’s response when women are victims of sex trafficking and rape during war and would provide aid to women’s groups on the ground working to help survivors of domestic and sexual violence. It would focus resources on prevention and ensure that dollars are used in the most effective ways possible. In some countries, it truly could mean the difference between life and death for a woman or girl. We are asking that Members of Congress cosponsor this important piece of legislation. - Amnesty International
_______________________________________________________________________________
Tell Congress 'Pass IVAWA'
Violence against women targets is a worldwide human rights scandal that the U.S. has not taken simple steps to combat. Congress needs to hear voices of all women telling it to pass the International Violence Against Women Act – and to stop stalling.
Approximately one out of every three women globally will be beaten, raped, or otherwise abused in her lifetime according to Amnesty International.
Targeted Individuals have called on Amnesty International to help them. Now, Amnesty International is calling on women globally to help it pressure the U.S. Congress to pass the International Violence Against Women Act .
In Guatemala, Norma Cruz works tirelessly documenting and securing justice for violence against women and girls cases.
In May 2009, however, Cruz became a Targeted Individual. Like other TIs, Cruz began receiving death threats. Now, she has had dozens of death threats due to her organization's legal assistance for a raped girl. Extremist stalkers typically leave many such threats, in various forms, for their target before physical injury or a final blow. It is a dangerous myth that threats will not be acted upon.
American woman, Ms. Miles experiences targeting that mobbed her out of her hand some position at work. Her shattered front door with a bullet pictured below was either attempted murder or a death threat. (See: Shattered glass and dreams: Shot at targeted woman wants Quaids heard. Dupré, Examiner, November 5, 2010) Miles, like other women targets globally, has no legal protection.
Wilma Subra, grandmother and noted Gulf environmental scientist collecting data to advocate for over 600 injured resident cases and against the petrochemical-military-industrial-complex had a bullet come through her front door in recent months. Advice given to Subra? Move your home office to the back of your house. (See: Too sick and scared of Obama's thugs: Australian SBS reports Gulf truth (video), Dupré, D., Examiner, September 15, 2010)
These above mentioned targeting experiences and similar threats and injuries are shared by countless American human rights defenders and other innocent female targets worldwide. They are shared by many women who are not "activists," but women just living "ordinary" lives – none presently protected by law. Many women have reported that they noticed being targeted after severing ties in an unhealthy relationship.
All of these women globally could be legally protected by the IVAWA - if the U.S. Congress will pass it.
The critical women's rights legislation that could help combat dangerous community and home environments in which targeted women suffer, has been put on hold.
Two months ago, Congress could have moved forward with the International Violence Against Women Act (I-VAWA) (H.R. 4594/S. 2982). Instead, it stalled.
In the meantime, countless women are struggling to survive abusive situations in the U.S., in Guatemala, in the UK, in Denmark, Australia and countries all over the world according to emails Dupré receives daily, all asking for means of protection.
Perpetrators of violence against these women roam free with immunity and impunity, many profiting from their criminal acts.
Advocacy Director of Women's Human Rights for Amnesty International USA, Daphne Jayasinghe urged Saturday, “Tell your member of Congress to stop the delay – pass IVAWA now!”
Amnesty International advises that the IVAWA “represents the closest opportunity the U.S. has ever come to combating violence against women and girls on a global level.”
Congress will not prioritize IVAWA unless they hear from the public “in a big way,” says Jayasinghe.
“And, with only a few weeks of 2010 remaining, time to pass IVAWA is running out.”
Jayasinghe is asking everyone: Please send an urgent message to your elected officials asking them to pass IVAWA now.
"When implemented, this important piece of legislation will help put an end to the fear, pain and suffering experienced by hundreds of millions of women and girls all around the world."
Write for Norma to stop the death threats
“And there's one more important action I'd like to ask you to take to specifically help Norma Cruz in Guatemala,” states Jayasinghe.
Norma is one of Amnesty International’s featured cases in the 2010 Write for Rights campaign.
“If haven't done so yet, please pledge to Write for Rights – write a letter on behalf of Norma Cruz.”
Do campaigns such as this make a difference?
In 2009, Amnesty International featured the case of another women's rights worker receiving death threats, Rita Mahato, in Nepal.
Letters had a tremendous effect on the outcome – her safety has been drastically improved according to Jayasinghe.
AI is committed to eliminating violence against women worldwide.
“With your help, we'll continue fighting this injustice, both case-by-case and by working to pass legislation that supports long-term solutions.”
Copyright Deborah Dupré Examiner 2010. All rights reserved.
Deborah Dupré, B.Sci, MA. Sci, DipContEd, QMHP from U.S. and Australian universities, human and environmental rights advocate for over 25 years in the U.S., Vanuatu and Australia. Support her work by subscribing to her articles and forwarding the link of this article to friends and colleagues or reposting only title and first paragraph linked to this Examiner page. Emails info@DeborahDupre.com. Send targeting and Gulf illness news tips to her with your name or anonymously. See her Vaccine Liberty or Death book plus Compassion Film Project DVDs.
SEN. CARDIN HAILS COMMITTEE PASSAGE OF INTERNATIONAL VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT
US Fed News (USA)
December 14, 2010
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
WASHINGTON, Dec. 14 -- The office of Sen. Benjamin Cardin, D-Md., has issued the following news release:
U.S. Senator Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD) released the following statement after the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved the International Violence Against Women Act (IVAWA).
"I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the International Violence Against Women Act (IVAWA), a bill specifically designed to stop the brutal violence against girls and women that afflicts communities and countries across the globe. Violence against women and girls, whether in the form of domestic violence, rape, acid burnings, or so-called honor killings, is a major human rights violation and a major impediment to economic growth and development around the world. Nations who have the worst track record in preventing violence against women are also the most unstable and ending violence against women is also a major issue in peace and security. Free from violence, women and girls would be safe to access the poverty reduction, education and health programs that contribute to the economic prosperity of their communities. This bill clearly proclaims U.S. support for such programs and is an important step forward for the safety of women everywhere.
"This bill allows us to prioritize how we use existing foreign aid funds to prevent violence against women and girls. The Joint Chiefs of Staff stated that one of the most effective forces for defeating extremism is female safety and education. Violence against women undermines the effectiveness of existing U.S. investments in global development and stability, whether fighting HIV/AIDS, increasing basic education, or creating stability in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The legislation invests in the most efficient, effective women's organizations that are helping to stop violence on the ground in the communities where it is worst."
Preaching Feminist religion in Women's Studies
New York Examiner (NY)
Author/Byline: Roy Den Hollander
December 25, 2010
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
The only problem with Women’s Studies is that it preaches Feminism: a belief system that advocates an accident of nature, born a girl, makes females superior to men in all matters under the sun. Men are deemed guilty until they prove themselves innocent, females are innocent until proven guilty, and even then, it’s still a guy’s fault.
Women’s Studies programs preach females are oppressed by a patriarchal society. Oppressed compared to whom—princesses in fairy tales? If you want to know who the real oppressors are just look at who lives longer, who controls a greater percentage of the wealth, on whom more money is spent for health, who receives less jail time for the same crimes, and who’s proportionally fatter. It’s not guys.
If anything, America is a de facto matriarchy. Females can murder incipient human beings (abortion), newborns, young kids, boyfriends, and husbands with little or no punishment. The Voodoo science of Women’s Studies is largely responsible for all those lunatic female syndromes that excuse ladies for killing others. If men were really running the show, that wouldn’t happen.
Yet Feminists argue America is a patriarchy because men hold most of the jobs above the glass-ceiling. That’s true, but real power is not in who holds a position but in what they believe. Women’s Studies programs have successfully created in universities and society a Feminist Establishment, a unitary belief system held by enough influential persons so as to dominate over other beliefs, including those on which the Constitution is based. Over the past 40 years, Feminists have so scared males that they no longer believe in nor will they fight for their rights. As a result, there few men left, but a lot of androgynies.
That may make the ladies feel powerful, but who’s going to defend them against a real threat. Don’t forget that if it weren’t for men, many females would now be Nazi broodmares, Japanese comfort-girls, or Commie secretutes.
Women’s Studies programs claim to want equality, but in reality their aim and achievements are preferential treatment. In New York State, 57% of undergrads are females while 63% of master’s degrees and over a majority of doctorates go to females. Throughout the country, girls earn more per unit of time worked and unit of risk incurred. Females can commit perjury in court with no punishment, receive custody of children and hidden alimony 80% of the time, and they don’t have to register for the draft. Women’s Studies programs aren’t out for a meritocracy, not even a quota-ocracy but a “hypocracy.”
Women’s Studies programs feed on demonizing, denigrating, and discrediting men—blaming them for all the World’s evils while exalting females as innocent, virtuous victims. For example, the programs claim men cause the wars. Tell that to the guys pushing up daises in the Falkland Islands. And don’t forget the influence of Condoleezza Rice on the current wars, April Glassbie on the first Iraq war, the 1.8 million more females than men who voted for Lyndon Johnson, Woodrow Wilson’s wife refusing to compromise with Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge so America could join the League of Nations, Queen Victoria’s Boar Wars in which the brutality of concentration camps was perfected, Catherine the Great of Russia, and others. No, when females are in a position of power they are just as likely to abuse it and perhaps more so, since they feel compelled to look tough.
My lawsuit against Columbia’s Women Studies program was just one of three that tried, unsuccessfully, to win back the rights of guys trampled by Feminism. That case made two basic accusations: violation of equal protection and the government aiding a religion. On equal protection, think of Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972. Title IX requires universities to offer girls equivalent athletic opportunities as those offered to guys. The same requirement applies to all educational programs—not just athletics—whenever a university receives financial assistance from the federal government.
Columbia received such assistance, so it was violating Title IX by not having an equivalent program for guys or not eliminating its Women’s Studies. Sure guys could take Women’s Studies courses, but they were of no benefit to them; just like a girl taking a male sport—she’ll spend her time on the bench. In Women’s Studies the guy will spend his time being walked over by girls in their stiletto heels—hmmm that might not be so bad.
On the religion issue, New York and the Feds provided Columbia assistance that benefited the Women’s Studies program. Since the gospel of the Women’s Studies program is the belief system Feminism, the State and Feds were aiding a religion. A religion need not have gods or goddesses, but does include irrationality, a trait not unknown to Feminists and females, and acting in accordance with a belief that is against one’s interest, that is doing something stupid, another trait not unknown to Feminists and females.
Had the federal court concluded that Feminism was a religion, then every Women’s Studies program across the land that pushes Feminism would have ended, the hundreds of millions of dollars a year that the federal government gives to Feminist organizations under the Violence Against Women Act would have ended, and every bit of state or local help given to programs with a Feminist slant would have stopped. Feminists would finally have been on their own to prove whether they were really the strong and independent persons they proclaim to be.
Male victims get lost in domestic-abuse data
Studies find women are violent, too But victims' groups focus help on females
Seattle Times, The (WA)
December 26, 2010
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
WASHINGTON — When Adele Freeman fired five .38-caliber bullets into her boyfriend in 2000, she contributed to an often-overlooked statistic within the sometimes-deadly world of partner abuse: namely, that more than one-third of all homicides each year connected to domestic violence are perpetrated by women.
"Men can be victimized in the same way women can," said Laura Martin, the Calvert County, Md., state's attorney who helped secure Freeman's first-degree murder conviction in 2002. "And it's not just the violence. It's about control, dominion, power," she said.
The fact of female abusers and male victims is often lost in the discussion of domestic violence. In fact, women's advocates have used selective statistics — the same federally funded survey that found women are equally as abusive to men — to bolster their plea for funding and services.
That absence of attention to the men's side of the coin has contributed to an imbalance of services for men who are victimized in abusive relationships.
"This is the best-kept secret on family violence," said Murray Straus, a sociologist who led the commissioned survey in 1975, and again in 1985 with the same results. "There is a tremendous effort to suppress and deny these results."
No one disputes that when physical violence occurs, women are prone to more serious injury than men; however, Straus and others caution that this should not obscure the fact that about a third of men sustain injuries, or are killed, from partner violence.
Bill Hall, of Adam's House, a health and wellness center in Suitland, Md., agreed. He called domestic violence an "equal opportunity" issue that often gets overlooked by the 24 or so women's advocacy centers throughout the state.
"It's kind of hard to find programs that cater to men and boys," he said. "Most of the agencies I know of refer men to us ... as abusers."
Each Monday night, he and his wife, Stacie, counsel two groups of some 30 women and 65 men. Within each group, about 70 percent have been court-ordered to attend the 90-minute-long counseling sessions, aimed at curtailing future violent behavior.
In dealing with those who've punched out girlfriends and choked wives, socked boyfriends, stabbed exes and even shot at spouses, both Halls agree that domestic violence is anything but a one-way street of male-on-female violence.
"Most women who abuse in the relationship [do so] because they feel pressured and don't feel that they can communicate any other way," Stacie Hall said. "Because he's just not listening, and [men] are much bigger than we are."
But other advocacy groups ignore female-on-male violence.
Take one particular bullet point from a brochure sponsored by Maryland Network Against Domestic Violence, a state advocacy coalition backed largely by federal funds: "Every 15 seconds a woman is battered in the United States by her husband, boyfriend or live-in partner."
To Michaele Cohen, the nonprofit's executive director, that statistic sounds about right. "There are male victims, of course, but the majority of victims who come forward are female," she said.
Cohen said other data suggesting that men suffer from equal rates of violence are unreliable.
"That methodology is very controversial because, you know, you're saying that every hit is equal and you're not taking into account context," she said. "I think you have to look critically at those studies."
Yet both sides of the debate are actually looking at the same studies: that 1975 survey, updated 10 years later, that revealed nearly identical rates of abuse by men and by women.
Cohen did not know of the connection to the statistics in her group's brochure, but said anecdotal evidence supports their contention.
"I don't really want to quibble about the particular stats," she said. Instead, Cohen pointed to the "huge number" of female victims she sees in need of assistance each and every day.
"I'm not relying on statistics. I'm relying on 30 years of experience."
That reliance on nonscientific data is no shock to Richard Gelles, who co-authored the 1975 and 1985 surveys with Straus.
"People cherry-pick their numbers for advocacy studies," he said. "This is what advocates do, and that's not sad. What's sad is policymakers don't create evidence-based policy."
Gelles, dean of the School of Social Policy and Practice at the University of Pennsylvania, offered up the Violence Against Women Act as an example.
Since 1994, the federal law has doled out some $4 billion to states — dollars aimed at eliminating domestic abuse, stalking and sexual assault through increased financial, legal and housing support to women. The act has also upped the penalties against offenders and more closely knits prosecutors, judges, police and victims advocates to the effort.
Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee last May, Gelles said the law, which is set for reauthorization in 2011, mostly ignores services and resources for male victims of abuse.
"No other federal legislation dealing with an aspect of family violence, including child maltreatment, sexual abuse and elder abuse, singularly focuses on one sex," he testified.
So what of services available to men?
Laura Dugan, a public-policy expert and associate professor at the University of Maryland, said you might not know of a need for men based on the services available to them.
"All of these service providers, they do not let men on their premises," she said, recounting a case she was familiar with in which an alcoholic wife was abusing her husband. "She really abused him. And he had nowhere to go."
In Maryland, the House of Ruth, one of Maryland's largest domestic-violence service providers, will assist men, but active outreach efforts seem in short supply.
"We also work with men," said program development director Cheri Parlaman, referring to an abuser intervention program.
