VAWA Posts:
Advocates struggle to stem number of women killed by men
Herald, The (Rock Hill, SC)
January 1, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
COLUMBIA - From a downtown office in Columbia, Cynthia Longworth keeps a running tally of the number of women who were murdered by someone they knew and loved.
It's a grim job for a mild winter day, where at noon five bells sing from the tower of a Lutheran church nearby. Back on her computer screen, search engines churn, and Longworth's count climbs to 39.
That's at least 39 news reports of a woman, wife or mother killed in South Carolina in 2011, a state that ranked No. 7 in the nation for the rate of women killed by men, according to the latest Violence Policy Center study. The center monitors gun crimes in all 50 states.
"There's not any one report that is more heinous than any other to me," said Longworth, domestic violence coordinator at the South Carolina Coalition Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault.
Their names are a litany for domestic violence advocates who say a complex number of factors from lax gun control laws, a lagging court system and dramatic cutbacks on services contribute to the state's decade-long streak of being one of the most violent in America for women.
Women's rights groups were calling domestic violence an epidemic. The American Medical Association declared it a public health crisis. Spurred by mounting evidence, Congress passed the 1994 Violence Against Women Act to improve the justice system's response to domestic violence, stalking and sexual assault.
The legislation set up the National Domestic Violence Hotline. It led to grants that supported battered women's shelters and amended the Gun Control Act, which barred convicted domestic violence offenders from owning firearms.
In South Carolina, 58 percent of female victims were shot and killed with guns in 2009, and guns were fired at 26 of the 44 men and women who died as a result of domestic violence in 2010. The Attorney General's Office reported that at least five of those cases involved batterers with a history of abuse. Despite the federal law, their guns weren't taken away.
With no authority to confiscate weapons, local police would have to call federal agents in to enforce the law for every domestic violence incident reported, said Laura Hudson, executive director of the South Carolina Crime Victims' Council.
"Forty percent of all the calls that local law enforcement gets are domestic violence related, so you can see the enormity of the problem," Hudson said. "It's not just one or two. We've got 30,000 to 35,000 of these incident reports a year."
Advocacy groups such as Hudson's want lawmakers to add a state law that mirrors the federal one. It's a thorny matter in South Carolina, where the right to bear arms runs deep, and some believe it could lead to deadly confrontations.
"Going to an individual's home with a warrant to take their weapons probably in some cases will end in violence, and we just don't want to place our personnel directly in the line of fire," said Jeff Moore, executive director of the state's Sheriff's Association.
Even if a law was in place that required guns to be surrendered, it would be a hard one to enforce, Moore said. Offenders could simply give them away to a friend or refuse to tell police where their guns are.
"If you're going to reduce the number of domestic violence cases anywhere, it's through education and treatment. It isn't by simply taking guns out of people's homes after the fact," he said.
Awards from tobacco and civil lawsuits are paying Kelly Hall's salary after federal funding for the Violence Against Women Act took a nosedive.
Hall, an assistant attorney general, is part of the state's S.T.O.P. Violence Against Women program, which trains law enforcement, judges and prosecutors on domestic violence while also handling cases where there are conflicts of interest.
"We're being asked to prosecute statewide conflicts, big high-profile cases, and train people across the state, and we don't have the funding to do it," Hall said.
While strides have been made and good laws put into place, the numbers still speak for themselves.
Thirty-nine women killed by men, according to Cynthia Longworth's count, and they were all preventable, she said.
"We all have the voice and the ability to stop it."
Definition of rape expanded to help assess its full impact
St. Paul Pioneer Press: Web Edition Articles (MN)
January 5, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
WASHINGTON – The Obama administration on Friday announced a significant expansion of the FBI's definition of rape, which will now cover several forms of sexual assault and include male rape.
Justice Department officials said that the revision would make reporting of the crime more accurate and provide a better understanding of its effects on victims.
Since 1929, rape has been defined as "the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will." That definition, which included only men having sex with women without their consent, excluded other forms of sexual assault, such as oral penetration and rape of men.
The new wording, announced by Attorney General Eric Holder, covers those and several other forms of sexual assault. It will be used in the FBI's annual Uniform Crime Report, which draws on data submitted by local police departments, and probably will prompt a rise in reported rapes nationwide, law enforcement officials said.
Although most state rape statutes already contain a broader definition of the crime, officials said the federal revision holds deep significance, because the FBI's reports are often synonymous in the public mind with crime rates.
The FBI data also are used by policymakers to analyze crime and propose anti-crime initiatives.
"This send a powerful message that…rape is rape," Susan Carbon, director of the Justice Department's Office on Violence Against Women, said in a conference call with reporters. "And it's rape even if you're a man. It's rape even if you are raped with an object and even if you were too drunk to consent."
Administration officials said that the change, which will take several years to fully implement, was driven primarily by Vice President Joe Biden, author of the Violence Against Women Act when he was in the Senate, and the White House Council on Women and Girls.
Valerie Jarrett, a senior adviser to President Barack Obama and the council's chair, said the revised definition is "a major policy change that will lead to more accurate reporting and a far more complete understanding of this devastating crime."
An FBI police advisory board recently recommended the change, which had been pushed by supporters of women's rights. FBI Director Robert Mueller signed off on it last month.
In 2010, an estimated 84,767 rapes under the FBI's current definition were reported nationwide. Officials could not specify how much they expect the reporting of rapes to increase.
Nearly 1 in 5 women and 1 in 71 men in the U.S. have been raped at some time in their lives, according to a 2010 survey by the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which used a broader definition.
The revised FBI definition says that rape is "the penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object," without the consent of the victim. Also constituting rape under the new definition is "oral penetration by a sex organ of another person" without consent.
The new wording drew immediate praise from Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and from advocates for women.
"This updated, more inclusive, definition will bring added emphasis to sexual assault, which often goes unreported, and, as a result, unprosecuted," Leahy said.
Calling the change "a big win for women," Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority Foundation, said, "With a modern, broader definition, FBI Uniform Crime Report statistics will finally show the true breadth of this violence that affects so many women's lives."
Research varies on frequency of false rape reports
Missoulian (Missoula, MT)
January 7, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
When a University of Montana student went to the Missoula Police Department this fall to report that another student had sexually assaulted her in his off-campus apartment, she said an officer asked whether she had a boyfriend.
Why, she wondered, did he need to know that?
Police Chief Mark Muir discussed the question with her when she complained about the way her case was handled.
"The officer very untactfully, rather than explain it, said, ‘We do it because sometimes women make false reports to protect themselves with respect to their boyfriends,' " Muir said.
Although the police chief characterized that response as "really crappy" (he said the officer later was "counseled"), he said there are legitimate reasons to ask. The response could, for instance, explain the results of DNA tests.
Muir said the department considers each sexual assault report on its individual merits. "We take every report understanding that it's possible the report is being made to law enforcement for reasons that are not clear to us," he said.
When Muir visited in person with that woman and another who'd filed a sexual assault complaint, "we had a discussion here in my office about the fact that there is false reporting that does take place," he said. "There are studies that have shown numbers are closer to 40 to 50 percent."
Later he emailed the woman a 2009 article about those studies, two of which used polygraph tests. One of those examined 1,218 reports of rape on Air Force bases in the 1980s and subjected 546 of those making allegations in "unresolved" cases to polygraphs.
"Twenty seven percent of these complainants admitted they had fabricated their accusations just before taking the polygraph or right after they failed the test," the Forensic Examiner article said. That study combined the finding with other results to come up with a false accusation rate of 45 percent.
That's quite a bit higher than the FBI "unfounded" rate of 8 percent in the 1990s, the article noted.
Last month, the journal Violence Against Women ran a report on the same subject, titled "False Allegations of Sexual Assault: An Analysis in Ten Years of Reported Cases."
That case examined seven studies between 1977 and 2006 that found false reporting rates of 2.1 percent to 10.9 percent.
It also took sharp exception to studies that offered or actually used polygraphs on alleged rape victims, calling it "a procedure that is now widely viewed as an intimidation tactic that frequently persuades already hesitant rape victims to drop out of the criminal justice process."
"This procedure is so frowned upon that the 2005 reauthorization for the Violence Against Women Act stipulates that any state in which agencies use the polygraph on sexual assault victims jeopardizes its eligibility for certain grants, and a number of states have passed laws prohibiting the use of the polygraph to determine whether charges should be filed in a sexual assault case."
The study noted varying and confusing definitions of "false." The International Association of Chiefs of Police warned in 2005 that a "false" designation "should not be confused with an investigation that fails to prove a sexual assault occurred. In that case the investigation would be labeled ‘unsubtantiated.' "
After reviewing previous studies, the report examined 136 sexual assault cases filed over 10 years at a university in the northeastern United States, finding a 5.9 percent false report rate.
"It is notable that in general, the greater the scrutiny applied to police classifications, the lower the rate of false reporting detected," it said. "Cumulatively, these findings contradict the still widely promulgated stereotype that false rape allegations are a common occurrence."
Eilis O'Herlily, director of the Student Assault Resource Center at the University of Montana, said the research she's seen cites a "tiny, tiny fraction of false reports when compared with the number of incidents that go unreported."
That's because there are still many misconceptions about what constitutes rape, she said.
"A lot of people don't come forward because they don't know that what happens to them is rape," she said. "Maybe they knew the person. Maybe they went on a date with the person. They think people won't believe them."
Both SARC and First Step, a program for child and adult sexual assault victims, do not require victims to make police reports - or even to give their names. A state-funded program pays for both agencies to provide rape kits to victims, and then pays for storage for up to a year, which can give a victim time to decide whether to seek prosecution.
Men can be rape victims under new FBI definition
Seattle Times, The (WA)
January 7, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration on Friday expanded the FBI's more than 80-year-old definition of rape to count men as victims for the first time and to drop the requirement that victims must have physically resisted their attackers.
Justice Department officials said the revision would make reporting the crime more accurate and provide a better understanding of its effects on victims.
Since 1929, rape has been defined as "the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will."
That definition, which included only men having sex with women without their consent, excluded other forms of sexual assault, such as oral penetration and rape of men.
The new wording, announced by Attorney General Eric Holder, covers those and several other forms of sexual assault. It will be used in the FBI's annual Uniform Crime Report, which draws on data submitted by local police departments, and probably will prompt a rise in reported rapes nationwide, law-enforcement officials said.
Although most states' rape statutes already contain a broader definition of the crime, officials said the federal revision holds deep significance because the FBI's reports are often synonymous in the public mind with crime rates. The FBI data are also used by policymakers to analyze crime and propose anti-crime initiatives.
"This sends a powerful message," Susan Carbon, director of the Justice Department's Office on Violence Against Women, said in a conference call, adding: "... It's rape even if you're a man. It's rape even if you are raped with an object, and even if you were too drunk to consent."
Administration officials said the change, which will take several years to fully implement, was driven primarily by Vice President Joseph Biden, author of the Violence Against Women Act when he was in the Senate, and the White House Council on Women and Girls.
Valerie Jarrett, who chairs the council and is a senior adviser to President Obama, said the revised definition is "a major policy change that will lead to more accurate reporting and a far more complete understanding of this devastating crime."
An FBI police-advisory board recently recommended the change; FBI Director Robert Mueller signed off on it last month.
The revised FBI definition says rape is "the penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object," without the consent of the victim. Also constituting rape under the new definition is "oral penetration by a sex organ of another person" without consent.
In 2010, an estimated 84,767 rapes under the FBI's current definition were reported nationwide. Officials could not specify how much they expect the reporting of rapes to increase.
Attorney General Kamala D. Harris Calls on Congress to Reauthorize Violence Against Women Act
Salem-News.com (OR)
January 11, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
(SAN FRANCISCO) - Forward by Editor: While it is good news, it breaks my heart once again to see California leading the way in combating violence toward women, while I live in a neighboring state that flies on a totally different frequency. In Polk County, Oregon, a few minutes from the Oregon state capitol, women who report marital rape are threatened with arrest, that's just one small aspect of Coral Theill's story. She's an incredible survivor who lost everything due to Oregon's use of terribly corrupt DA's who the AG's office refuses to sanction or even investigate.
Today she is a Salem-News.com writer and contributor to the Marine's Leatherneck Magazine and a popular author, but in Oregon she was terribly abused by her then-husband, who has relied on his right-wing religious and political connections to ensure he avoided prosecution and responsibility for his crimes, while pinning a lifetime legal battles on Coral, who today among other things, is in trouble over back child support for her eight children that she was separated from against her will.
Oregon doesn't just strip women of their dignity and rights and deny their due process by siding with offenders; in Coral's case Oregon also slows down to apply large doses of salt to the wounds.
Oh sure, Oregon's AG John Kroger's name is on the letter championed by Harris, but in reality this state could care less about women's rights. Thank goodness Oregon has fantastic groups and individuals who try to pick up the slack, however they can't ever do enough. If your curiousity about Coral is piqued, then I suggest reading one or all of the following stories...
* Abuse Under the Watch of Oregon's Justice System - Tim King
* Welcome to Oregon: Land of Domestic Abuse Endorsement - Coral Anika Theill
* Marital Rape and Abuse Victim Seeks Justice From Oregon's Governor - Coral Anika Theill
* What Abuse Survivors Expect from the Portland Crime Victims Conference - Tim King
* Oregon Should Consider Coral Theill this Mother's Day - Tim King
Attorney General Kamala D. Harris, joined by 53 other attorneys general, signed a letter calling on the U.S. Congress to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act and ensure the sustainability of vital programs designed to keep women and families safe from violence and abuse.
"We've made tremendous strides in how we deal with violence against women - from prosecuting violent offenders to breaking the cycles of crime and supporting and empowering victims," said Attorney General Harris. "But our work is not done and the Violence Against Women Act, and ongoing support, is critical to this effort."
In a letter sent to members of Congress, the attorneys general note that progress has been made since the passage of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) in 1994. Domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence and stalking - once considered private matters to be dealt with behind closed doors - have been brought out of the darkness.
But, while annual rates have dropped more than 50 percent, domestic violence remains a serious issue. Every day in the United States, three women are killed by abusive husbands and partners. In California, there were 166,361 domestic violence calls in 2010, including more than 65,000 that involved a weapon.
In urging Congress to reauthorize VAWA for the first time since 2006, the attorneys general cited the need to maintain services for victims and families on the local, state, and federal levels. Reauthorization would allow existing programs to continue uninterrupted, and provide for the development of new initiatives to address key areas of concern. These initiatives include:
-Addressing the high rates of domestic violence, dating violence and sexual assault among women, ages 16-24 by combating tolerant youth attitudes toward violence. -Improving the response to sexual assault with best practices, training, and communication tools for law enforcement, as well as healthcare and legal professionals. -Preventing domestic violence homicides through enhanced training for law enforcement, advocates and others who interact with those at risk. A growing number of experts agree that these homicides are predictable - and therefore preventable - if we know the warning signs.
The letter from the attorneys general concludes: "We know a great deal more about domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking than we did 17 years ago. Reauthorizing VAWA will allow us to build on those lessons and continue to make progress and save lives."
Gender Based Violence: A Violation of Human Rights
Targeted News Service (USA)
January 17, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
PORT LOUIS, Mauritius, Dec. 8 -- The U.S. Embassy issued the following news release:
In 1991, the Center for Women's Global Leadership (CWGL) of Rutgers University, New Jersey (U.S.), along with 23 participants of the first Women's Global Institute on Women, Violence and Human Rights, called for a global campaign of "16 Days of Activism Against Gender Violence" (16 Days Campaign). Participants chose the dates, November 25, International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, and International Human Rights Day on December 10, to bookend the campaign to emphasize that violence against women and girls is a violation of human rights. In the context of these 16 days of activism, the U.S. Embassy organized an event today at the Municipality of Port Louis. Minister of Gender Equality Mireille Martin, Lord Mayor Mamade Khodabaccus and the U.S. Embassy's Charge d'Affaires (CDA) Troy Fitrell attended the event.
In his remarks, CDA Fitrell said: "we must increase accountability and commitment by community and government leaders on this issue, as well as highlight and promote effective programs that are already successfully at work. Prevention, protection and prosecution are essential and we must add a fourth "P" as well: combating gender-based violence must be a priority. Although investing resources in the prevention and prosecution of acts of aggression against women may cost money upfront, it pays enormous dividends in the long run. The U.S. adopted Violence against Women Act which strengthens efforts to stop these crimes, supports protection and prevention efforts and has been estimated to save more than $16 billion since enactment in 1994 in costs that stem from violence against women and girls."
Panel discussions and the presentation of video clips on GBV followed. Panelists included Ibrahim Sheik-Yousouf, President of Men against Violence (MAV), Rada Gungaloo, Barrister and President of SOS Femmes and Jayshree Bunjun, Head of Family Welfare and Protection Unit, Ministry of Gender Equality, Child Development and Family Welfare. The panelists and participants had a lively exchange regarding GBV in Mauritius, addressing issues related to legislature, prevention and awareness against domestic violence and the involvement of government, police, NGOs and other stakeholders to fight this scourge.
VAWA Reauthorization First Legislative Order Of Business In 2012 For SJC
Leahy Lists Bill For Committee Debate Beginning Thursday
Government Press Releases (USA)
January 24, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
WASHINGTON (Monday, Jan. 23, 2012) - The first order of legislative business for the Senate Judiciary Committee this year will be the reauthorization of the landmark Violence Against Women Act, Committee Chairman Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) has announced. Leahy and Senator Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) introduced bipartisan legislation to reauthorize the law in November 2011. Leahy has scheduled the Committee's first mark-up session on the legislation for this Thursday.
First enacted in 1994, the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) authorized key programs to provide assistance and resources to victims of domestic and sexual violence. In past years, Leahy has chaired a number of hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee about the importance of the law, including programs that help provide transitional housing, education, and legal assistance to victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence, and stalking, as well as programs that help police and prosecutors combat violence against women. The Violence Against Women Act expired September 2011.
"The Violence Against Women Act has provided critical assistance to victims of domestic violence for nearly two decades," said Leahy. "During these difficult economic times, its reauthorization is even more critical. That is why I have made the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act the Committee first legislative order of business this year. Democrats and Republicans alike have in the past shown a commitment to eliminating domestic and sexual violence. I hope we can continue that shared commitment through the Committee's debate on this bill."
Leahy worked to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act in 2000 and again in 2005, each time with bipartisan support. The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act is cosponsored by Senators Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), Herb Kohl (D-Wis.), Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Al Franken (D-Minn.), John Kerry (D-Mass.), Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Bob Casey (D-Pa.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), and Jack Reed (D-R.I.).
Re-elect Obama: Vote Newt!
Southern Illinoisan, The (Carbondale, IL)
January 28, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
To talk with Gingrich supporters is to enter a world where words have no meaning. They denounce Mitt Romney as a candidate being pushed on them by "the Establishment« - with "the Establishment« defined as anyone who supports Romney or doesn’t support Newt.
Gingrich may have spent his entire life in Washington and be so much of an insider that, as Jon Stewart says, "when Washington gets its prostate checked, it tickles (Newt),« but he is deemed the rebellious outsider challenging "the Establishment« - because, again, "the Establishment« is anyone who opposes Newt.
This is the sort of circular reasoning one normally associates with Democrats, people whom small-town pharmacists refer to as "drug seekers« and Ron Paul supporters.
Newtons claim Romney is a "moderate,« and Gingrich the true conservative - a feat that can be accomplished only by refusing to believe anything Romney says ... and also refusing to believe anything Gingrich says.
Romney’s one great "flip-flop« is on abortion. (I thought the reason we argued with people about abortion was to try to get them to "flip-flop« on this issue. Sometimes it works!)
Nearly two decades ago, when Romney was trying to defeat champion desecrator of life Sen. Teddy Kennedy, he sought to remove abortion as a campaign issue by declaring that he, too, supported Roe v. Wade.
(Nonetheless, Kennedy ran a campaign commercial against him featuring a Mormon woman complaining that Romney, as a Mormon elder, had pressured her not to have an abortion, but to give the child up for adoption. Are you getting the idea that Massachusetts is different from the rest of America, readers?)
Romney changed his mind on abortion - not when it was politically advantageous, but when it mattered. As governor of liberal, pro-choice Massachusetts, he vetoed an embryonic stem cell bill and "worked closely« with Massachusetts Citizens for Life. The president of MCL recently issued a statement saying that, "since being elected governor, Mitt Romney has had a consistent commitment to the culture of life.«
He didn’t defend his changed position by saying he was a "historian,« or denounce people who raised the switch as "fundamentally« dishonest asking "absurd« questions, or go back and forth and back and forth. He just said he changed his mind.
Meanwhile, Gingrich, who has run for office only in a small, majority Republican, undoubtedly pro-life congressional district, lobbied President Bush to support embryonic stem cell research.
Romney is now the only remaining candidate for president who opposes amnesty for illegals. (Ever since President Bush’s amnesty plan cratered on the shoals of public opposition, no Republican will ever use the word "amnesty,« despite wanting to keep illegals here - just as Democrats refuse to say "abortion,« while supporting every manner of destroying human life.)
Romney supports E-Verify and a fence on the border. As governor he promoted English immersion programs for immigrants, signed an agreement with the federal government allowing state troopers to enforce federal immigration laws, and opposed efforts to give illegal immigrants in-state tuition or driver’s licenses.
At the same time, Romney says he’d like to staple a green card to the diploma of every immigrant here on a student visa who gets a higher degree in math or science.
Gingrich supports importing a slave labor force from Mexico under a "guest worker« program and wants to create government "citizen review boards« to grant amnesty on a case-by-case basis (i.e. all at once) to illegal aliens.
Romney supports entitlement reform along the lines of the Paul Ryan plan, as he has said plainly, but without histrionics, in the debates.
Just last year, Gingrich went on "Meet the Press« and called Ryan’s plan - supported by nearly every House Republican - "right-wing social engineering.«
He apologized for those remarks, then took back his apology, still later doubled down, calling the Ryan plan "suicide,« and now - currently, but it could change any minute - Gingrich supports Ryan’s entitlement reform efforts.
As for crony capitalism, Romney made all his money in the private sector by his own diligence and talent - even giving away all the money he inherited from his parents. He’s never lived in Washington or traded on access to government officials.
Meanwhile, without the federal government, Gingrich would be penniless. He has been in Washington since the ’70s, first as a congressman, then becoming a rich man on the basis of having been a congressman.
Most egregiously, he took $1.6 million to shill for Freddie Mac, one of the two institutions directly responsible for the housing crash that caused the financial collapse. (Or one of three, if you consider Barney Frank an institution.)
If the tea party stands for anything, it stands in absolute opposition to government insiders shoring up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac at the very time those institutions were blowing up the economy.
Romney could not be more forceful in saying he will issue a 50-state waiver to Obamacare his first day in office and then seek its formal repeal. Whether you like a state-wide insurance mandate or not, it’s a world of difference when the federal government does it. Conservatives, having read the Constitution, ought to understand this.
It was on account of the difference between state and federal powers that the Supreme Court overturned the federal Violence Against Women Act. The court was not endorsing rape, but reminding us that states make laws about rape, not Congress.
To act as if Obamacare is the same thing as "Romneycare« is just a word game, on the order of acting like a "gun« has the same properties as a "gunny sack,« or "fire« is the same thing as a "firefly.«
Romney supported the idea of other states doing something along the lines of his health care bill, but always opposed insurance mandates from the federal government (just as I oppose the federal government issuing general laws about rape, but support state laws against rape.)
For those of you who still think Romneycare is the worst possible sin a Republican candidate could commit - even worse than taking money from Freddie Mac as it destroyed the economy - that doesn’t help Gingrich: He supported Romneycare.
(While we’re on the subject, the nation’s leading conservative think tank, The Heritage Foundation, helped draft Romneycare. Indeed, Bob Moffit, Heritage’s senior fellow on health care issues, can be seen in the picture of the bill-signing ceremony, standing proudly behind Romney.)
But Gingrich did more than support Romneycare. As former senator Rick Santorum has pointed out, Gingrich supported a federal individual mandate to purchase health insurance from 1993 until five minutes ago - i.e., at least until a "Meet the Press« appearance just last May.
Asked by Maria Bartiromo in the CNBC debate last November to explain what he would do to fix health care, Newt attacked the question as "absurd« and said he would need a "several-hour period« to answer it.
In a world where words have meaning, Mitt Romney is not the "moderate in this race. He is the most conservative candidate still standing, with the possible exception of Rick Santorum, who is bad on illegal immigration. (Santorum voted in the Senate against even the voluntary use of E-Verify by employers, which means he doesn’t want to do anything about illegal immigration at all.)
Romney is "moderate« only in demeanor - which is just another word game. His positions are more conservative than Gingrich’s, but he doesn’t scare people like Gingrich does. Ronald Reagan and Jesse Helms were moderate in demeanor, too. No one would call them political moderates.
Romney is the most electable candidate not only because it will be nearly impossible for the media to demonize this self-made Mormon square, devoted to his wife and church, but precisely because he is the most conservative candidate.
Conservatism is an electable quality. Hotheaded arrogance is neither conservative nor attractive to voters.
Schumer: Cyber stalking should be federal offense
Daily Star, The (Oneonta, NY)
February 2, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Cyber stalkers who use the Internet to intimidate their spouses, family members or "intimate partners" could be charged with a federal offense under new legislation promoted Wednesday by Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.
"The Internet has become a forum for stalking and violence," Schumer said in a conference call. "If you use the Internet to intimidate, harass or stalk, it would be a crime, just as if you did it in person."
Schumer called for the broadening of federal anti-stalking laws to "capture all forms of electronic communication" and to include intimidation as a prohibited form of conduct.
He cited state crime statistics showing more than 80,000 domestic violence calls being made to upstate police agencies throughout 2009 and 2010.
He said he did not have immediate statistics available for cyber stalking. But he noted his legislation would also require colleges receiving federal funds to start keeping statistics on instances of cyber stalking, dating violence and other forms of domestic abuse.
Otsego County police agencies fielded a total of 346 domestic violence complaints during 2009 and 2010, according to data released by Schumer's office. The total number of domestic abuse calls during that same two-year window for Delaware County was 402, and for Chenango County it was 472. Schoharie County had 168 such complaints in 2009 and 2010. For all four counties, the number of domestic violence calls in 2010 was below the tallies reported in the previous year.
Schumer said police agencies have made big strides in fighting domestic violence since the days when, he recalled, police officers would often tell victims: "Go home, and settle this with your husband."
"Clearly, we have more work to do," he added.
While the Violence Against Women Act -- which expired a year ago -- was intended to encourage women to report abuse and force police to start investigating such reports, Schumer said fear continues to prevent many victims from contacting police after they have been harmed.
"No one should be forced to hide in the shadows," the senator said. He said his legislation would create a reserve of grant money for the Services-Training-Officers-Prosecutors program to help train law enforcement officers in techniques to prevent and deter dating violence, stalking and domestic abuse.
It would also provide funding to sexual-assault response teams in rural areas of the state, he said. In combination with funding for lab testing of forensic examination kits, the program "will help ensure swift justice for thousands of victims of sexual violence," Schumer said.
Schumer noted he was among the original sponsors of the Violence Against Women Act when he served as a member of the House of Representatives, representing Brooklyn. Over the past six years, he said, New York police agencies have received more than $145 million in federal funds as a result of that legislation.
Senate Judiciary Committee Approves Bill to Reauthorize Landmark Violence Against Women Act
Targeted News Service (USA)
February 3, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
WASHINGTON, Feb. 2 -- The office of Sen. Patrick S. Leahy, D-Vt., issued the following news release:
The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy, approved legislation Thursday to extend the landmark Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), the law at the heart of the federal government's efforts to stamp out domestic and sexual violence.
Leahy introduced the bipartisan Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act in November with Idaho Republican Mike Crapo. The bill would further strengthen and improve programs authorized under the landmark law to assist victims and survivors of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. The reauthorization bill adds an increase focus on sexual assault, including the addition of new purpose areas to support the efforts of sexual assault coalitions working in the states.
"No other law has done more to stop domestic and sexual violence in our communities," said Leahy. "As a prosecutor in Vermont, I saw firsthand the destruction caused by domestic and sexual violence. Those were the days before VAWA, when too often people dismissed these serious crimes with a joke, and there were few, if any, services for victims. We have come a long way since then, but there is much more we must do."
The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act includes an important increase in all-state minimum funding formulas for key grant programs. This guaranteed baseline of funding will ensure that small, rural states like Vermont have access to victim services grants authorized under VAWA. The bill also includes important definitions to ensure that Vermont remains an eligible state under the definition of a rural jurisdiction. Leahy has long championed all-state minimum funding formulas for a variety of federal grant assistance programs. For example, the VAWA reauthorization proposal will more than double the funds available to Vermont under the Rape Prevention and Education Grants.
The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) was first enacted in 1994, and has been reauthorized twice since, each time with bipartisan support from the Senate Judiciary Committee. Thursday's vote marks the first occasion in which the Judiciary Committee reported Violence Against Women Act legislation on a party-line vote. Despite weeks of negotiations with the panel's Republican members and the Committee's adoption of a trio of amendments sponsored by Republicans, long-time Republican supporters opposed reporting the reauthorization bill to the full Senate. Critical programs authorized under VAWA include those providing support for victim services, transitional housing, and legal assistance.
"I find one concern with our bill disheartening," said Leahy. "Some are saying we seek to protect too many victims. One thing I know from my time as a prosecutor, and I would hope it is something we can all agree on, is that all victims count. All victims deserve protection. That is a message we have heard loud and clear from our states and something I hope is common ground. The bipartisan reauthorization bill that I introduced with Senator Crapo now has the support of 34 other Senators, including a majority of Senators serving on this Committee. This has always been a bipartisan effort. This should not be a partisan matter."
The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act also emphasizes the need to provide services to all victims of domestic and sexual violence. The bill ensures access to services through a uniform non-discrimination provision that, for the first time in VAWA's history, provides inclusive language to ensure that victims seeking assistance cannot be denied services based on gender identity or sexual orientation, as well as race, color, religion, national origin, sex, or disability.
The reauthorization bill also improves responses to the high rate of violence against women in tribal communities by strengthening concurrent tribal criminal jurisdiction over perpetrators who assault Indian spouses and dating partners in Indian Country.
Importantly, the reauthorization bill includes a number of accountability provisions to ensure that federal dollars are properly spent, including reporting requirements to prevent waste, fraud and abuse. The bill consolidates and streamlines a number of authorized grant programs, and eliminates duplicative grant programs. The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act will provide a five year authorization for VAWA programs, and reduce authorized funding levels by more than $135 million, or 17 percent, from the law's 2005 authorization.
The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act is supported by over 50 national religious organizations, more than 200 national organizations, and 500 state and local organizations, including victim service providers, law enforcement officers, prosecutors and survivors themselves. The bill is cosponsored by 34 Senators, both Democrats and Republicans.
Violence Against Women Act divides John Cornyn, Texas advocacy groups
Houston Chronicle: Blogs (TX)
February 5, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Texas Sen. John Cornyn is taking some heat from Texas advocacy groups after joining Republicans in a party-line vote against the Democratic proposal to renew the federal Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).
The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 10-8 on Thursday to reauthorize the landmark 1994 law. All eight Republicans on the committee, including Cornyn, voted “no.”
“Sen. Cornyn supported an alternative version of VAWA that would have achieved the same important goals — closing loopholes in sex-trafficking laws and alleviating the nationwide rape kit backlog among them — and done so in a more fiscally responsible way,” says Cornyn spokesman Drew Brandewie.
Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, argued that “the programs that VAWA currently funds should be reauthorized” but complained that “the bill, unfortunately, contains many provisions that aren’t connected to current law.”
Even though they came up with an alternative, the Republicans faced a social media backlash after the vote. Among those who asked Cornyn to support the measure: the Houston Area Women’s Center and the executive director of The Family Place. Representatives from The Texas Council on Family Violence (TCFV) had even been to Washington to sit down with the senator’s staff and discuss the issue.
“I think its a fair way to say it that we were surprised (with Cornyn’s vote),” Aaron Setliff, director of policy at the TCFV, told Texas on the Potomac . “At that time we understood them to be in overall support of this act. We understood that there were some details they wanted to work out, and some amendments, but did not receive indication at that time that there was a overall opposition to the reauthorization of VAWA.”
Setliff emphasized that Sen. Cornyn has been an important leader in appropriations for VAWA , and said his group is planning to a circle back and work toward addressing areas in which Cornyn has concerns. VAWA still has to pass the full Senate and the House.
“We appreciate that Cornyn will have a lot of opportunity to compromise throughout this process,” Setliff said. “We also realize that all parties will have to work together, but we think that everyone agrees that this a bipartisan issue that we need to address.”
The Violence Against Women Act was passed by Congress in 1994, and has been reauthorized in 2000, 2005 and is now up for reauthorization again. The act focuses on domestic violence, sexual assaults, dating violence and stalking.
Stop Joe Biden's 'hate men' law
WorldNetDaily (USA)
February 6, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
The reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Feb. 2 on a straight party-line vote. That proves again that the feminists control the Democratic Party, and it’s also a refreshing indication that Republicans are no longer intimidated by feminist demands.
VAWA was originally passed by Congress in 1994, with Bill Clinton pushing the law as a payoff to the feminists for supporting his election as president. Joe Biden claims credit as a major sponsor and likes to say it is the legislation he is most proud of.
In its 17 years of operation, it has done little or no good for real victims of domestic violence, while its funds have been used to fill feminist coffers and to lobby for feminist objectives and laws. Although every spending bill should be subject to rigorous auditing procedures in order to curb waste and fraud, VAWA has somehow ducked accountability for the nearly billion dollars a year it doles out to radical feminist organizations.
Despite rigid feminist dogma that there are no gender differences, VAWA is totally grounded in feminist-created gender stereotypes. Starting with its title, Violence Against Women, its fundamental assumption is that men are naturally batterers and women are naturally victims.
In other words, men are always guilty, and women must always be believed without fear of being punished for perjury. VAWA assumes there is no violence against men, and it doesn’t provide services for men who are victims of domestic violence.
The feminists have so broadened the definition of domestic violence that it doesn’t have to be violent and can usually be whatever a woman alleges. Definitions of domestic violence include vague and over-broad concepts such as emotional distress, harassment, annoyance or merely unpleasant speech.
Feminist recipients of VAWAs handouts use the money to train legislators, judges and prosecutors in feminist ideology and goals. This has resulted in dozens of state laws calling for mandatory arrest (i.e., the police must arrest someone, so guess who) and no-drop prosecution (i.e., the man must be prosecuted even in the large percentage of cases where the woman has withdrawn her accusation or refuses to testify).
Instead of promoting divorce, breakup of marriage and hatred of men, VAWA should be revised to encourage counseling when appropriate and voluntary. Some VAWA money should be used for programs to help couples terminate use of illegal drugs and reduce the use of alcohol.
Any man who is accused of domestic violence effectively loses a long list of constitutional rights accorded to ordinary criminals. These include due process, presumption that he is innocent until proven guilty, equal treatment under the law, right to a fair trial, right to confront his accusers, freedom of speech, right to privacy in family matters, custody or visitation with his own children, and even the right to bear arms.
The woman is provided with legal representation even though she has not presented any evidence of injury or harm. The man gets no such help.
About a fourth of divorces involve an allegation of domestic violence, which in many cases is false or without any evidence. Those allegations usually result in the issuance of restraining orders that the Illinois Bar Association has referred to as “part of the gamesmanship of divorce.”
It’s no surprise that VAWA is often referred to as the hate-men law. The attitude of many judges and prosecutors who have been trained by the feminists with VAWA funds was expressed by one New Jersey judge whose extravagant statement was even reported in the New Jersey Law Journal: “Your job is not to become concerned about all the constitutional rights of the man that you’re violating as you grant a restraining order. Throw him out on the street, give him the clothes on his back, and tell him, ‘See ya’ around.’”
Judges are required to consider allegations of domestic violence in awarding child custody, even though no evidence of abuse is presented. This usually results in the complete severing of the child’s relationship with his or her father.
VAWA should be completely revised to provide meaningful definitions of domestic violence that are specific enough to identify real victims, to stop the over-criminalization of minor partner discord, to emphasize counseling rather than incarceration, to assure that training programs for prosecutors and judges are objective, to assure accountability by tracking the large flow of taxpayers’ money, to respect fathers’ rights, to inspect shelters, to evaluate success and fairness, and to develop programs to address the common problem of mutual partner abuse.
If VAWA is not reformed to respect constitutional rights, it will turn out to be a major embarrassment to all members of Congress who vote for it.
John Cornyn says attacks on him over Violence Against Women Act ‘could not be further from the truth’
Houston Chronicle: Blogs (TX)
February 8, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Texas on the Potomac regularly presents guest commentary from across the political spectrum. Today, we are pleased to offer you a guest blog from Texas Sen. John Cornyn.
Last week the Senate Judiciary Committee considered multiple proposals to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), an important piece of legislation that funds vital programs designed to combat some of the worst crimes imaginable.
During the debate I cosponsored and voted for a proposal that not only reauthorized VAWA, but did so in a fiscally-responsible way and included several provisions tailored to address key problems in Texas. The proposal I supported, at my request, included language to increase grantee accountability, close loopholes in sex-trafficking laws and alleviate the nationwide rape kit backlog. No other proposal to reauthorize VAWA included all these measures.
Because the version of the bill to reauthorize VAWA that I supported was not the one that ultimately passed out of the Committee, the Texas Council on Family Violence and the Texas Association Against Sexual Assault have claimed I opposed reauthorizing the legislation altogether. This could not be further from the truth, and it’s disappointing that these groups are not telling the full story. First as judge, then as Texas Attorney General, and now as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee I have a long and well-documented history of advancing policies that punish those who commit crimes and, more importantly, work to prevent them.
Statement Of Senator Patrick Leahy On The "Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act Of 2011" - As Submitted To The Congressional Record
Government Press Releases (USA)
February 10, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Last Thursday, the Judiciary Committee approved the bipartisan Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act. For almost 18 years, the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) has been the centerpiece of the Federal Government's commitment to combat domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. It has been extraordinarily effective, and the annual incidence of domestic violence has fallen by more than 50 percent since the landmark law was first passed.
As a prosecutor in Vermont, I saw firsthand the destruction caused by domestic and sexual violence. Those were the days before VAWA, when too often people dismissed these serious crimes with a joke, and there were few, if any, services for victims. We must not go back to those days. This law saves lives, and it must be reauthorized.
Senator Crapo and I introduced a moderate bill that incorporates input from survivors of domestic and sexual violence all around the country and the tireless professionals who serve them every day. This legislation builds on the progress that has been made in reducing violence against women, and it makes vital improvements to respond to remaining, unmet needs.
Unfortunately, partisan politics threaten to stop this critical legislation from moving forward. We have seen this same pattern too often. The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act and the Second Chance Act, both laws originally championed by Republican Senators and supported by Republican Presidents, are now suddenly unacceptable. This obstruction must stop. These programs are too important. They save lives. They make our communities safer.
Nowhere is that more true than for the Violence Against Women Act. Certainly, helping survivors of domestic and sexual violence should be above politics. The last two times VAWA was reauthorized, it was unanimously approved by the Senate. Now, this law, which has done more to stop domestic and sexual violence than any other legislation ever passed, faces Republican opposition. That is not right.
To those who suggest that this legislation creates too many new programs, I say that is simply not true. In fact, the bill reduces the scale of VAWA. It consolidates 13 existing programs and reduces authorization levels by nearly 20 percent while providing for only one small, additional program. The improvements in this bill are important but modest when compared to previous reauthorizations, which created many new grant programs and raised authorization levels almost across the board.
I have heard some say that our bill protects too many victims. I find that disheartening. One thing I know from my time as a prosecutor, and I would hope it is something we can all agree on, is that every victim counts. All victims deserve protection. That is a message we have heard loud and clear from our states and something I hope is common ground.
More than 200 national organizations and 500 state and local organizations have expressed their support for this bill. Many of them have written strong letters urging swift passage of this legislation including the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence, the National Association of Attorneys General, the National District Attorneys' Association, the National Sheriffs' Association, and the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association. I ask unanimous consent that a selection of those letters be inserted in the Record following my remarks.
This legislation has the support of five Republican Senators. I thank Senators Crapo, Kirk, Murkowski, Brown, and Collins for their willingness to step forward and support the reauthorization of this landmark legislation.
This is the Violence Against Women Act. It should not be a partisan matter. I hope that all Senators will support this bill and that we can move quickly to reauthorize this critical legislation. It is a law that has saved countless lives, and it is an example of what we can accomplish when we work together.
Republicans retreat on domestic violence bills
Charlotte Observer, The: Web Edition Articles (NC)
February 13, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
From an editorial published in the New York Times on Friday:
Even in the ultra-polarized atmosphere of Capitol Hill, it should be possible to secure broad bipartisan agreement on reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act, the 1994 law at the center of the nation's efforts to combat domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking. The law's renewal has strong backing from law enforcement and groups that work with victims, and earlier reauthorizations of the law, in 2000 and 2005, passed Congress with strong support from both sides of the aisle.
Yet not a single Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee voted in favor last week when the committee approved a well-crafted reauthorization bill introduced by its chairman, Sen. Patrick Leahy, and Sen. Michael Crapo, R-Idaho, who is not on the committee.
The bill includes smart improvements aimed, for example, at encouraging effective enforcement of protective orders and reducing the national backlog of untested rape kits. The Republican opposition seems driven largely by an anti-gay, anti-immigrant agenda. The main sticking points seemed to be language in the bill to ensure that victims are not denied services because they are gay or transgender and a provision that would modestly expand the availability of special visas for undocumented immigrants who are victims of domestic violence - a necessary step to encourage those victims to come forward.
Sen. Charles Grassley, the committee's ranking Republican, offered a substitute bill that not only cut out those improvements but called for a huge reduction in authorized financing, and elimination of the Justice Department office devoted to administering the law and coordinating the nation's response to domestic violence and sexual assaults. His measure was defeated along party lines.
Mustering the 60 votes needed to get the bill through the full Senate will not be easy, even though previous reauthorizations were approved by unanimous consent. Recalcitrant Republicans should be made to explain to voters why they refuse to get behind the federal fight against domestic violence and sexual assaults.
NY Times Anti-Violence Editorial Shortchanges Victims, SAVE Says
GlobeNewswire (USA)
February 13, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
A recent New York Times editorial on the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act offers its readers a superficial and misinformed perspective on a bill currently being considered in the Senate (1). The controversy centers on the lack of effectiveness of many of its provisions, according to Stop Abusive and Violent Environments.
Sen. Leahy's VAWA proposal, S. 1925, recently was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee on a 10-8 party line vote.
Domestic violence is caused by a range of emotional and social factors such as substance abuse, depression, and marital instability, according to the Centers for Disease Control (2). It follows that the key to solving partner violence would consist of alcohol treatment, therapy, and partner counseling.
But Sen. Leahy's VAWA bill ignores the role of these factors. Instead, VAWA funds the use of restraining orders, mandatory arrest, and prosecution of cases. Such law enforcement measures are ineffective, and in the case of mandatory arrest, place victims at greater homicide risk (3).
Angela Moore Parmley, PhD of the Department of Justice has acknowledged, "We have no evidence to date that VAWA has led to a decrease in the overall levels of violence against women." (4) Concerned Women for America notes that VAWA's elastic definitions of abuse "actually squander the resources for victims of actual violence by failing to properly prioritize and assess victims." (5)
To address these shortcomings, Stop Abusive and Violent Environments has developed the Partner Violence Reduction Act, which amends and strengthens the current Violence Against Women Act (6).
"The New York Times editorial calls on Republican lawmakers to 'explain to voters why they refuse to get behind the federal fight against domestic violence and sexual assaults.' But victims of domestic violence are demanding that Times editorialists go beyond partisan posturing, and ask why so many VAWA programs aren't meeting basic expectations of accountability and effectiveness," according to SAVE spokesman Philip W. Cook.
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments is a victim-advocacy organization working for evidence-based solutions to partner abuse: www.saveservices.org. Contact: Teri Stoddard
3. http://www.saveservices.org/downloads/Why-DV-Programs-Fail-to-Stop-Abuse
4. Violence Against Women, Vol. 10, No. 12, 2004, p. 1424.
5. http://www.saveservices.org/wp-content/uploads/CWA-VAWALtr.2.1.2012.pdf
House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security Hearing
"The U.S. Department of Justice Office on Violence Against Women"
Government Press Releases (USA)
February 17, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Thank you, Chairman Sensenbrenner, Ranking Member Scott, and members of the Committee for the opportunity to speak with you today. My name is Susan Carbon, and I am the Director of the Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) in the Department of Justice (DOJ). I am here today to discuss the work of OVW in implementing the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), and the vital role that VAWA has played in our collective efforts to respond to the crimes of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking by enhancing victim safety and autonomy, increasing the availability of victim services, and improving offender accountability.
The mission of OVW is to provide federal leadership in developing the nation's capacity to reduce violence against women and administer justice for and strengthen services to victims. A key role of OVW is to provide financial and technical assistance to communities across the country that are developing programs, policies, and practices aimed at ending domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. The services that OVW funds under VAWA are available to a wide range of individuals. Grants help victims who are women, men, teenagers, children, elderly, living in rural areas, college students, middle or high school students, persons with disabilities, and persons from many different culturally and linguistically specific populations. VAWA programs fund states, territories, local governments, tribal governments, courts, police, prosecutors, non-profit victim services organizations, colleges and universities, state, territorial and tribal sexual assault and domestic violence coalitions, homeless service providers, and community based programs, including faith-based organizations.
Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, and Stalking
Although violent crime has decreased nationwide, the crimes of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking still devastate the lives of too many women, men, youth, and children. Since then-Senator Biden brought national attention to crimes of violence against women in hearings in 1990, we have learned more about their shocking prevalence. One in every four women and one in every seven men have experienced severe physical violence by a current or former spouse, boyfriend, or girlfriend. n1 Stalkers victimize approximately 5.2 million women and 1.4 million men each year in the U.S, with domestic violence-related stalking the most common type of stalking and often the most dangerous. n2 One in ten 9th-12th grade students were physically hurt on purpose by a boyfriend or girlfriend in 2009 alone. n3 One in five women and one in 71 men have been raped in their lifetimes, and nearly 1.3 million women in the U.S. are raped every year. n4 The statistics are sobering - even more so with our understanding that these types of crimes are often the most underreported. Many victims suffer in silence without confiding in family and friends, much less reaching out for help from hospitals, rape crisis centers, shelters, or even the police.
Increasingly, we are learning more about the overwhelming numbers of children exposed to violence and the insidious effects of this exposure. A recent DOJ-funded study concluded that a majority of children in the United States have been exposed to violence, crime, or abuse in their homes, schools, and communities. n5 Approximately 15.5 million children are exposed to domestic violence every year. n6 The consequences of this problem are significant and widespread. Children's exposure to violence, whether as victims or witnesses, is often associated with long-term physical, psychological, and emotional harm. n7 Children exposed to violence are also at a higher risk of engaging in criminal behavior later in life and becoming part of a cycle of violence. n8 I am honored to work for an Attorney General who has been personally and professionally committed to this issue for many years.
The Violence Against Women Act
Given the continued prevalence of the crimes of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking and the serious ongoing consequences to victims, their children and our communities, the grant programs authorized under VAWA are an investment in our nation's future. Congress recognized the severity of these serious crimes and our need for a national strategy with the enactment of VAWA in 1994. This landmark federal legislation's comprehensive approach to violence against women combined tough new penalties to prosecute offenders with programs to provide services for the victims of such violence. Congress authorized both formula grant programs and competitive, discretionary grant programs. This flexibility enables states to formulate their own responses to violence while also supporting the nationwide development and dissemination of evidence-based practices that create solutions for different professionals in the criminal justice and civil legal systems.
As a result of VAWA, we have witnessed a paradigm shift in how the issue of violence against women is addressed in the United States, and countless lives have been positively affected. VAWA has led to significant improvements in the criminal and civil justice systems, encouraging victims to file complaints, improving evidence collection, and increasing access to protection orders. n9 Victims now can reach out for help, call the police, find 24-hour emergency services, and take steps to leave abusive relationships. According to FBI Uniform Crime Report data, between 1993 and 2010, the number of individuals killed by an intimate partner declined 30% for women and 66% for men. n10 The annual incidence of intimate partner violence dropped by 67% during the same time period. n11 Fewer people are being victimized, and when they are, they feel safer reporting the abuse to the police. We have witnessed similar gains in the areas of sexual assault with the percentage of victims of rape and sexual assault who said they reported the assault to the police increasing from 28.8% in 1993 to 50% in 2010. n12
By reducing crimes and the subsequent costs to the criminal justice and health care systems, VAWA has realized cost savings. A 2002 study found that VAWA saved an estimated $12.6 billion in net averted social costs in its first six years alone. n13 A recent study showed that the state of Kentucky averted $85 million in costs by reducing violence and improving victims' quality of life through protection orders. n14 Even small investments in VAWA have been shown to make a difference on the ground. n15
VAWA's most profound outcome may be breaking the cycle of violence by reaching children exposed to violence and intervening early when they have experienced assault or abuse. Without intervention, they are more likely to assault other children, join a gang, commit acts of violent delinquency, enter the juvenile justice system, develop psychiatric disorders, fail at school, be victimized by crime, and commit violent crimes as adults. n16 Researchers have found that "recent exposure to violence at home . . . was one of the most significant predictors of a teen's use of subsequent violence at school or in the community." n17 Childhood abuse and neglect increase the odds of arrest as a juvenile by 59%, arrest as an adult by 28%, and arrest for a violent crime by 30%. n18 One study found that, when exposed to abuse as children, men are almost four times more likely to perpetrate domestic violence as adults, and women are 3.5 times more likely to be victimized. n19 VAWA programs are critically important to break this intergenerational cycle of violence and end sexual and domestic violence for good.
VAWA Grant Programs Fulfill the Congressional Vision for VAWA
A key component of OVW's mission is the administration of VAWA grant programs that support the efforts of state, local, and tribal communities across the country and in our territories to create innovative and necessary programs, policies, and practices that serve victims and hold perpetrators accountable. With VAWA funding, communities are forging effective partnerships among federal, state, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and between the civil and criminal justice systems and victim advocates. For example, in the six-month reporting period from July to December 2010 alone, OVW discretionary program grantees reported:
. Over 126,600 female and male victims were served; n20
. Over 258,100 services were provided to victims; n21
. Grantees conducted 6,935 training events and trained 167,043 people;
. 280,075 protection orders were granted in jurisdictions that receive funding from OVW's Grants to Encourage Arrest Policies and Enforcement of Protection Orders Program (Arrest Program); and
. More than 2,500 arrests were made for violations of protection orders.
Moreover, sub-grantees receiving funding awarded by States through OVW's STOP Violence Against Women Formula Grant Program (STOP Program) reported, in calendar year 2009:
. More than 476,200 female and male victims were served;
. Over 921,200 services were provided to victims; n22
. Subgrantees conducted 13,193 training events and trained 254,860 people; and
. More than 3,200 individuals were arrested for violations of protection orders.
These grant funded activities have an impact that goes well beyond the number of victims served, professionals trained, or arrests made. By requiring and supporting grantees' participation in coordinated community responses to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking, OVW also ensures that these programs can serve as models for other agencies in their jurisdictions. This not only improves the quality of victim services and the criminal and civil justice response, it often changes the attitudes of the community as a whole.
Effective Grant Administration Must Be a Priority
OVW takes very seriously its grant-making responsibilities and is dedicated to managing its grant programs effectively and with transparency. As we continue to move forward as a grant making office, we strive to incorporate guidance we receive from various oversight entities such as the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) and the Government Accountability Office (GAO). We also recognize the inherent challenges that we face in administering millions of precious taxpayer dollars. It is imperative that our grants administration activities inspire public confidence in our ability to carry out our mission. In my tenure with the Office, I have instituted changes to our policies and practices which reflect my commitment to implementing strong financial management of grants.
Grant Administration
One major example of this commitment is the creation of an OVW Grants Financial Management Division (GFMD). Although OVW had been in the planning phases of instituting this division for a number of years, it only came to fruition in time for the processing of our FY 2010 grants. The major services provided by OVW's GFMD include (1) pre- and post-award financial grants administration; (2) technical assistance on financial issues and grants administration to OVW recipients, including via a toll-free customer service line; and (3) financial grants management training to OVW grantees and program staff. The GFMD's knowledge of OVW programs and grantees and familiarity with the challenges faced in the administration of OVW programs has also enabled OVW to more closely scrutinize budgets and identify other issues before they become problems, often before awards are even made. The implementation of the GFMD also represents an area of our stewardship of scarce federal dollars. Before we established our GFMD, we conducted a cost analysis of assuming grants financial management functions. We concluded we could do the work less expensively and more effectively, using the on-site expertise to provide closer oversight and more accountability for OVW grantees.
This division is a crucial part of our response to grants challenges which the OIG has highlighted in the past. Unlike the State and local governments and agencies that receive a large portion of the department's grant dollars, many OVW grantees are small non-governmental community and faith-based organizations, often in rural communities. While these grantees share our commitment to ending violence against women, they are often first-time federal grant recipients without sophisticated financial systems to manage their awards. Having our own grants financial management division, allows us to focus on the unique needs of our grantees. For example, some grantees are unfamiliar with the federal grant requirements and may unknowingly violate federal administrative and cost principles. GFMD has identified some of the issues that grantees are facing and provides one-on-one guidance to ensure they have a better understanding of and are aware of the applicable rules and regulations. Another benefit of the GFMD has been its role in improving our grant close-out process. In FY 2010, OVW de-obligated $8,977,137 in grant funds, which were then incorporated into our FY 2011 program initiatives. Another step we have taken to assist our grantees in proper financial management is to provide annual trainings by both the GFMD and the OIG through our grantee orientations. These trainings are open to all discretionary grantees and required for all new grantees.
This fiscal year, the GFMD will be offering a number of topic-specific audio, in-person, and web-based trainings for OVW grantees. OVW proactively offers a range of trainings throughout the year to support grantees and prevent grant management mistakes before they are made. For example, OIG audits of OVW grantees have revealed that poor timekeeping and insufficient records are common problems. The GFMD is now providing specific training on this issue and working with grantees to improve their practices. In response to a recommendation from the OIG, OVW added a section to its program solicitations that requires applicants to respond to a number of questions regarding their financial accounting practices. OVW uses this information to assess the financial capability of the applicant organizations and to identify those organizations that will require additional training and technical assistance prior to making an award. Based on the responses provided to these questions and feedback from the field and program staff, the GFMD identifies specific subject areas or topics requiring additional clarification or training and provides teleconferences to grantees to address their needs.
We understand that funding decisions impact communities across the country, and therefore these decisions must be made in a fair and transparent manner. A 2010 OIG audit highlighted the need to improve the internal controls of the OVW peer review process. I immediately asked staff to develop recommendations for correcting those issues identified. Recommendations were developed and adopted within short order. To be specific, OVW now requires that all peer reviewers submit their conflict of interest forms before receiving any scoring forms. While this might seem like a small solution, it works. Another issue in the same audit revolved around a handful of instances of inaccurate scoring. While it only affected a few applicants, when communities are competing for limited funds, every miscalculation impacts someone. Therefore we have added a requirement that scores be recalculated and certified when scoring is not automated.
Monitoring
Another inherent challenge in administering grant programs is ensuring the effective monitoring of grant awards for both financial and programmatic compliance and to avoid fraud, waste and abuse. In order to strengthen our monitoring policies and procedures, we developed a new OVW Monitoring Manual for Grants Program Specialists. Program staff have all been trained on the procedures addressed in the manual. Additionally, we have developed a grants management risk assessment tool. The OVW Grant Assessment Tool (GAT) is an automated system through which staff can carefully and impartially assess grant activities. Using this tool, OVW program specialists identify and set monitoring priorities for all grantees based on a standard set of criteria. The GAT also enables OVW to track risk assessments completed by program specialists and better coordinate on-site visits to grantees receiving multiple program awards. All OVW program specialists are required to use this tool to perform initial risk assessments for all new grants and supplemental grant awards. The GAT has made the process of identifying compliance issues with current grantees faster and more efficient by enabling program specialists to have access to a succinct and comprehensive overview of a grantee's performance on each of its current OVW grant awards. This allows for improved intra-office coordination of the review of grant proposals across all 21 n23 grant programs administered by OVW.
The many steps OVW has taken to improve grant management have reduced the likelihood that grantees will violate grant requirements either inadvertently or intentionally. Many violations of grant requirements are minor, accidental, and easily cured. Most OIG audit findings regarding OVW grants are not about waste, fraud, or abuse, but rather concern inadequate accounting and insufficient documentation. Once a finding is identified, the OIG issues a recommendation. These recommendations are remedied when grantees provide appropriate documentation and work with OVW and the OIG to improve their accounting practices. The OIG closes the recommendation when it verifies that the problem has been solved or sufficient documentation demonstrates that no problem existed. Findings that may initially seem significant are often fully addressed or dollar amounts greatly reduced once the appropriate documents are provided. In the overwhelming majority of cases, grantees have spent their funds appropriately and benefit from the lessons learned in the audit process. However, if OVW believes that a grantee has intentionally misspent funds, they are promptly reported to the OIG and may be prosecuted.
Program Consolidation
In addition to assessing our grants management processes, we regularly review the overall administration of our grant programs. Recently this internal review identified the advisability of requesting statutory consolidation of some of our grant programs. VAWA 2005 authorized four new programs that focus on children and youth and expand OVW's programming into the area of prevention. These programs are: Engaging Men and Youth in Preventing Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, and Stalking (Engaging Men and Youth); Grants to Assist Children and Youth Exposed to Violence (Children Exposed to Violence); Services to Advocate for and Respond to Youth (Youth Services; and Grants to Combat Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, and Stalking in Middle and High Schools (STEP). These programs individually have limited focus: Engaging Men and Youth funds prevention activities; Children Exposed to Violence focuses on children who come from families where there is domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking; Youth Services provides services for youth victims of these crimes; the STEP Program focuses on developing responses in the school environment. All of these activities are critically important to developing a comprehensive response to youth victims and to breaking an intergenerational cycle of violence. If a community wanted to pursue several or all of these activities, however, it would have to apply for and receive multiple grant awards. None of these programs had ever received an appropriation for more than $3.5 million, so the reach of each program was extremely limited.
To facilitate our ability to fund more comprehensive youth and prevention projects, OVW proposed to consolidate these four small programs into one larger program as part of the FY 2012 and FY 2013 President's budget request. The consolidation was included in the FY 2012 Congressional Budget with an appropriation of $10 million. The combined program will be able to fund more comprehensive projects in a greater number of communities than OVW is now able to do. Under the consolidated program, OVW will be able to support communities that wish to build comprehensive projects that provide services, promote prevention, and develop other responses that address both exposure and direct victimization.
Department-wide Coordination
In addition to improving our intra-office coordination, OVW has been actively involved in efforts within DOJ to improve coordination among the three major DOJ grant making components - the Office of Justice Programs, the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, and OVW. In January, 2010, the Department of Justice's three grant components began bi-weekly meetings to address the issues raised by the Office of the Inspector General in the 2009 "Top Management and Performance Challenges in the Department" report and to develop Department-wide policies and procedures to improve grant processes. As a result of these meetings, we now have a Department-wide process for dealing with High Risk Grantees. The group, which is known as the Grants Challenges Working Group, developed and launched an on-line financial training for grantees of the three components. The Grants Challenges Working Group continues to meet monthly in order to address and prioritize issues raised in OIG and GAO audits, as well as common areas of concern. In addition, there is now a quarterly meeting between the components and the OIG. OVW has found input from the Grants Challenges Working Group and from the OIG, GAO, and others helpful in our efforts to make significant, positive changes to our grant processes where needed. We welcome the continued suggestions and recommendations from these and other organizations.
Coordination within DOJ and among federal agencies also helps reduce duplicative uses of funding. Due to limited grant resources, DOJ encourages agencies to use multiple grant funding streams in a complementary manner in order to implement a comprehensive local approach to reducing crime. Using funding from multiple grant programs may be necessary to fully implement law enforcement and victim service projects in light of limited local and federal resources. In fact, OVW encourages applicants to maximize the impact of OVW grant funding by applying for other federal grants, leveraging state dollars and by contributing to the costs of their projects through in-kind contributions. Nonprofit, nongovernmental organizations often function by combining a number of small grants from various funding streams to provide victims with services to improve safety for themselves and their children. For instance, at a domestic violence shelter, a VAWA Legal Assistance for Victims grant may fund an attorney to help victims get protective orders, , while a Victims of Crime Act grant funds a crisis counselor, an HHS Family Violence Prevention and Services Act grant funds a children's specialist who helps children in the shelter recover from the violence they have witnessed, a HUD Emergency Solutions Grant keeps the lights and heat on at the shelter , and a VAWA Transitional Housing grant funds short-term rental assistance for victims who are leaving the shelter and rebuilding their lives. OVW considers such a use of various federal funding streams an effective means of developing comprehensive victim services that can help victims escape their batterers permanently. In contrast, if a grantee were to use multiple funding streams to fund the same full-time victim counselor for the same 40 hours a week, this would be impermissible - and could constitute a fraudulent use of funds. To minimize the risk that grantees will engage in such "double-dipping," in FY 2009, OVW developed an award special condition specifically addressing the issue of duplicative funding in conjunction with the administration of Recovery Act Transitional Housing Assistance Program awards. OVW plans to address the issue of possible duplication of funds in all FY 2012 Grant Solicitations and plans to use this special condition on all OVW program awards beginning in FY 2012.
Cost Controls
Training conferences and meetings play a vital role in providing information, education, coordination, and innovative strategies and approaches to criminal and civil justice professionals and victim service agencies. OVW is fully cognizant of the importance of its fiduciary responsibility and that of its grantees to ensure conference spending is accomplished within proper guidelines and with restraint. OVW has provided explicit guidance to our award recipients about reducing conference costs, including that no OVW funding can be used to purchase food or beverages except under limited extenuating circumstances. Additionally, given the nature of a cooperative agreement and the fact that all of OVW's critical training and technical assistance awards are issued through cooperative agreements, all OVW cooperative agreement recipients must receive prior approval from OVW for any conference supported with OVW funds. Travel costs must be minimized by finding the most cost effective locations and venues. OVW is also working with grantees to find alternative ways to provide training, such as webinars, teleconferences, and interactive online training modules. These types of trainings are not accessible to all grantees (such as rural grantees without broadband internet access) and may not provide the type of learning necessary to accomplish the training goal (such as building partnerships between police, courts, and service providers), so OVW works with grantees to determine sensible ways of reaching the target audience for a minimal cost.
Measuring Effectiveness
To aid our understanding of the effectiveness of VAWA grants, OVW has undertaken a significant effort to improve how we measure the work of VAWA grantees by developing and revising computerized progress report forms for grantees to collect relevant information. These progress report forms provide OVW with extraordinarily comprehensive and consistent data regarding grantee activities, including both process and outcome measures. While we use these progress report forms as a tool for monitoring, it is my goal to put to greater use this vast data collection. For example, our Transitional Housing grantees report the destination of their clients upon exit from program housing - and these reports tell that a substantial majority of these victims leave for permanent housing of their choice. Not only does this measure show true success for the grant program as a whole, but we should be using it to identify specific grantees with the most promising practices. The data also can reveal gaps in our services or barriers in our statute, which should guide our policy- and grant-making. Academic and governmental research also contribute greatly to our understanding of VAWA's efficacy. Many of these studies are mentioned in the following sections illustrating VAWA's achievements.
VAWA Programs Yield Successful Prosecutions
VAWA funds have supported significant improvements in the criminal and civil justice systems. One study finds that VAWA has "significantly strengthened victims' involvement with criminal justice authorities such as prosecutors and court officers" n24 while other researchers have concluded that the "STOP program has been critical to law enforcement and prosecution training, and the development of specialized units." n25
Specialized Responses for Law Enforcement and Prosecution
Law enforcement agencies are charged with identifying and arresting perpetrators of sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking. VAWA anticipates that law enforcement professionals will act to safeguard victims. The manner in which officers and agencies carry out these duties profoundly influences their success or failure in responding to violence against women. Specialized law enforcement units with dedicated staff that deal exclusively with sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, or stalking often produce better outcomes for victims, police, and prosecution. From July to December 2010, 89 Arrest Program and Rural Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault and Stalking Assistance Program (Rural Program) grantees reported that they developed or supported a specialized law enforcement unit.
Specialized domestic violence police units collect evidence in a much higher percentage of cases than traditional patrol units. n26 The evidence collected by specialized units is more likely to be useful for prosecution, n27 leading to higher rates of prosecution, conviction, and sentencing. n28 For example, Shelby County, Tennessee used its Arrest program funding to add two new officers to serve protection orders. This led to a 13% increase in the number of protection orders served over the previous reporting period. The City of Cleveland, Ohio used its Arrest program funding to create its first ever domestic violence warrant unit, enabling the police department to serve outstanding domestic violence warrants that otherwise might not have been served due to resource constraints.
Austin, Texas used Arrest Program funds to deliver training on dual arrests and department procedures relating to domestic violence:
A sheriff's office detective, with support from Domestic Violence Unit detectives, held seven domestic violence trainings for 109 sheriff's officers and civilian personnel. There were no dual arrests by sheriff's officers during this report period as a result of the impact of these trainings. Some sample comments from the evaluations: 'Very eye-opening. I was blaming the victim before this.' 'This class gave me a new perspective on domestic violence calls.' 'Instructors have good ideas on how to determine the predominant aggressor.' 'I have handled incidents of domestic violence involving staff and now see clues/symptoms I missed.' Austin Police Department (APD) Domestic Violence Unit detectives trained over 700 APD officers on domestic violence and Family Violence Protection Team procedures including all supervisors and district representatives and a cadet class of 60.
Jurisdictions with specialized domestic violence prosecution programs generally have the highest rates of successful prosecution. n29 From July to December 2010, 81 Arrest Program and Rural Program grantees reported that they developed or supported a specialized prosecution unit. In two years, a specialized domestic violence prosecution unit in Chicago convicted 71% of defendants compared to 50% of domestic violence defendants convicted by the rest of the Cook County office. n30 Four years after Milwaukee implemented a specialized prosecution unit, felony convictions had increased five-fold. n31 Significantly, VAWA Grants to Encourage Arrest Program-funded prosecutors' offices had a 76% conviction rate for sexual assault cases in the second half of 2010.
VAWA funding has supported multi-agency, multi-disciplinary teams to investigate and prosecute sexual assault and abuse cases in the State of Vermont for many years, and the State has now committed to providing all citizens with access to these special investigation units. The most common model for a coordinated community response to sexual violence is a Sexual Assault Response Team, or SART. A SART is a community-based team that coordinates the responses of sexual assault victim advocates, Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners (SANEs), law enforcement, prosecutors, and others who may encounter a victim immediately after an assault. Upon the request of a sexual assault victim, the SANE (or other forensic examiner) conducts a forensic exam and collects evidence in a rape kit while providing the victim with medical care. A victim advocate also provides emotional and practical support before and after the exam, including throughout the law enforcement and criminal justice process.
SART and SANE programs have been found to improve the quality of forensic evidence, improve law enforcement's ability to collect information and to file charges, and increase the likelihood of successful prosecution. n32 An OVW-funded project in West Virginia has found that changes fol1owing the establishment of a SART include greater communication and col1aboration, on-call programs at local hospitals, and intensive training for service providers, nurses, law enforcement, and other professionals. In one county where law enforcement officers previously refused to work with the rape crisis center advocates, the officers now call an advocate when a victim is at the hospital and permit the advocate to be present during the victim interview.
Courts: The Importance of Training and a Dedicated Focus
Domestic violence courts process cases more efficiently, increase offender compliance, impose enhanced penalties, and achieve higher rates of conviction. n33 This helps stem the tide of violence: victims are more inclined to follow through and testify if hearings occur in close proximity to the offense. The longer the lapse in time, the greater the likelihood an offender may persuade the victim to drop the charges, or coerce the victim into declining to testify. National studies have shown that courts need to take a more holistic approach to domestic violence case management in order to fully address the complexities of domestic violence cases and the needs and interests of the victims who seek remedies through the courts. n34 In Wisconsin, the Milwaukee County District Attorney's Office recently reported to OVW that:
[T]he new domestic violence case expedition or domestic violence fast-tracking is still in place in the three Milwaukee Domestic Violence Circuit Courts. On average, cases proceed to disposition within 67 days of their initial circuit court appearance. The [Arrest Program] funding made this possible and continues to enable our office to comply with its mandate with competent and effective prosecutions system-wide . . . Today, dozens of cases that would otherwise be dismissed in court due to the failure of the victim to appear as a result of undetected offender intimidation, are cases where the offender is held totally accountable.
OVW has funded highly interactive, effective education programming to enhance judicial skills and challenge judges' attitudes and values about domestic and sexual violence, victims, and perpetrators. A judge from California who recently attended a training with the National Judicial Institute on Domestic Violence said that:
I became a much better judge - better at understanding the enormous impact my decisions have on the families who come into my courtroom, better at making victims of violence feel safe and secure in court, and better at helping these individuals achieve safety, dignity, and support in their own communities. These interactive trainings give judges the opportunity to explore various approaches to solving problems that arise in the courtroom setting, ways to help eradicate future violence, and ways to make reasoned decisions that may end up saving lives.
VAWA Services Make All the Difference
We know that the provision of services to victims and their families is the primary conduit for creating safety. Over the past several decades, victim service providers and communities have worked diligently to create responsive programs and services to meet the often complex needs of victims and their families. Victims who receive comprehensive advocacy and services are more likely to achieve their goals of safety, autonomy, healing, and economic security than women not receiving such support and services. n35
Victims who are seeking services frequently have children with them and request assistance to help their children heal from the trauma they have witnessed. This is why the Attorney General's Defending Childhood initiative is so important. This coordinated effort with our public and private partners will leverage resources throughout the government. OVW is proud to be an active partner. We have provided technical expertise on domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking and contributed over $4 million in grant funding to date. Collaborative efforts between domestic violence and sexual assault organizations and governmental agencies serving children, such as child welfare systems, maximize community resources and ensure that children and youth in need are identified and referred for assistance.
VAWA funds support essential coordination between law enforcement and victim service providers. A grant-funded law enforcement officer from Dauphin County, Pennsylvania articulates how the addition of a victim advocate enables him to concentrate on domestic violence cases. The officer explains:
I am able to spend more one-on-one time with the victims and am able to ensure all aspects of the case have been met and proper charges have been filed. Many times, after speaking with a victim, it is apparent the initial charges are inadequate and more serious charges related to the case are then brought. I am very fortunate that this grant has allowed me to work side by side with a victim advocate. The advocate is able to provide victim services, such as advocacy, support, referrals, crisis intervention, etc., which allows me the ability to obtain more detailed statements and collect evidence which might have been initially overlooked. Having a female victim advocate along also allows me to get follow-up photographs when our forensics unit is unavailable. This program has been so successful that another department has used it as a model to use in their domestic violence program.
Understanding the Needs of Sexual Assault Victims
Congress recognized the need for specialized services for rape victims during the 2005 reauthorization of VAWA by creating the Sexual Assault Services Program (SASP), the only federal funding stream dedicated to providing services solely and specifically for sexual assault victims. Overall, the purpose of SASP is to provide intervention, advocacy, accompaniment, support services, and related assistance for adult, youth, and child victims of sexual assault, family and household members of victims, and those collaterally affected by sexual assault. In Fiscal Years (FYs) 2009, 2010 and 2011, each state and territory received formula funds through SASP and these states and territories made sub-grant awards to local programs to provide direct services to victims. OVW has also designed a Sexual Assault Demonstration Initiative (SADI) to address the challenges that multi-service agencies face in reaching both sexual violence victims within their communities. SADI Project sites are receiving customized guidance on developing and implementing models of service provision that prioritize the needs of sexual violence victims and provide resources they need to implement those models. The six demonstration sites are located in Sacaton, Arizona, Alpena, Michigan, Gering, Nebraska, New York, New York, Pittsboro, North Carolina, and Olympia, Washington.
Over the last two years, OVW worked with the FBI, law enforcement, and victim advocates to update the definition of rape used for the FBI's nationwide data collection, ensuring that rape will be more accurately reported nationally. The change sends an important message to all victims that what happens to them matters, and to perpetrators that they will be held accountable. Requests from members of Congress helped ensure this important change within the FBI's Uniform Crime Report (UCR) Summary Reporting System (SRS). The UCR is the national "report card" on serious crime; what gets reported through the UCR is how we, collectively, view crime in this country. Police departments submit data on reported crimes and arrests to the UCR SRS. "Forcible rape" had been defined by the UCR SRS as "the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will." This definition, unchanged since 1927, was outdated and narrow, including only forcible male penile penetration of a female vagina. The new definition reads: "The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim." This definition includes any gender of victim or perpetrator. It also includes instances in which the victim is incapable of giving consent because of temporary or permanent mental or physical incapacity (including due to the influence of drugs or alcohol) or because of age. The ability of the victim to give consent must be determined in accordance with state statute. Physical resistance is not required on the part of the victim to demonstrate lack of consent. The definition more closely matches the definitions used in state criminal codes. The change will allow law enforcement and the general public to better grasp the true extent of rape and make more targeted allocations of resources to promote public safety.
Legal Services Are Critical
VAWA also recognizes that access to legal services enhances safety for victims and their dependent children. Often, legal services are essential for victims to obtain comprehensive protection orders that will provide for care and custody of children, financial support and housing. Without this crucial assistance, victims may not be able to overcome legal and economic obstacles to achieving safety for themselves and their children. There is also a body of research indicating that the increased availability of legal services has significantly contributed to a decline in domestic violence in the United States. n36 Obtaining a protection order has been shown in multiple studies to reduce future assault and improve quality of life. n37 Even when orders were violated, there was a significant reduction in subsequent abuse. n38
Victims of domestic violence, however, often need highly trained attorneys willing to take on lengthy and complex litigation beyond the protection order hearing. Resources for this purpose are woefully inadequate. Since 1998, OVW has administered the Legal Assistance for Victims Program (LAV), the primary VAWA-funded vehicle for delivering legal assistance to victims of sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking. LAV is one of OVW's most-requested grant programs. This program has consistently provided services to an average of 35,424 victims during each six-month grantee reporting period. n39
The County of Schuylkill, Pennsylvania reports:
The bench appears to respect the work of the project attorneys, and this has greatly improved the experiences victims have in court. Being able to videoconference judges for protection orders in after hours from the shelter has been a godsend. It has improved accessibility and because the project's paralegal has assisted the victim/survivor in completing the petition, they are well prepared before the judge is called to hear the case - a tremendous improvement for the judges over the prior process. If the courts are happier, some might say the victim (and the service provider) will be, too.
VAWA Enhances the Capacity of Tribal Governments to Address Violence Against Native Women
American Indian and Alaska Native women are battered, raped and stalked at higher rates than other groups of U.S. women and often suffer more severe injuries. n40 OVW engages in ongoing dialogue with tribal leaders and advocacy organizations to determine how to increase the effectiveness of funds supporting efforts to address violence against American Indian and Alaska Native women. During FYs 2010 and 2011, OVW joined with DOJ's two other major grant-making components, the Office of Justice Programs and the Community Orienting Policing Services (COPS) Office, to combine DOJ's tribal-specific grant programs - including OVW's Grants to Indian Tribal Governments and Tribal Sexual Assault Services Programs - into a single Coordinated Tribal Assistance Solicitation (CTAS). Through the FY 2011 CTAS process,
OVW awarded a total $36.6 million to over 61 tribal governments and their designees. Tribal leaders had informed the Department that a single application would significantly improve their ability to apply for, and receive, the critical federal funding on which so many of their communities depend. This coordinated approach allows OVW and its sister grant-making components to consider the totality of a tribal community's overall public safety needs in making award decisions.
A majority (56%) of the tribes receiving funds did not have domestic violence programs prior to the receipt of VAWA funding. n41 This funding has played a significant role in increasing programs and services available to American Indian populations. These programs have both improved and increased the effectiveness of services provided by tribal court systems. n42 Grantees from OVW's Grants to Tribal Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Coalitions Program provide technical assistance to programs to help other professionals and organizations improve their response to American Indian and Alaska Native victims and to improve organizational infrastructure. The Southwest Indigenous Women's Coalition in Arizona reports:
Tribes were so thankful for the opportunity to meet with someone - a resource - who could provide them assistance in developing their communities' response to domestic violence/sexual assault and to help them get connected to outside resources.
Leveraging the Impact of VAWA Funding
Over the past 16 years, we have learned that truly effective coordinated community responses must be informed by the experiences of survivors and must be broad enough to include a diverse group of community partners that affect the safety of survivors and the accountability of perpetrators. Communities now recognize the specialized needs of victims and the training required to effectively respond to these types of crimes. In addition to providing direct services such as crisis intervention, advocacy, counseling, legal support and representation, and shelter, communities across the country engage in a wide variety of educational and preventive services. Unlike other crimes, domestic and sexual violence are often glamorized in the media and minimized by our legal system. Training is the key element not only for improving the way professionals perform their jobs but also for changing deeply held beliefs and biases about domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking.
Years of experience have taught us the importance of quality training in combating domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking. As a result, almost all OVW discretionary and formula grant programs support training of professionals to improve their response to these crimes. Understanding these issues is critical to an effective response to domestic and sexual violence and to preventing further harm and unintended negative consequences to victims. The City of Spartanburg, South Carolina reports that:
We have engaged the local faith community in our work through training programs offered by our minister liaison with the Domestic Violence Coordinating Council. We have offered scholarships for the past two years to our annual conference. This year we had ministers calling for scholarships even before the registration forms went out. To date, we have trained 230 ministers.
In addition, OVW funds technical assistance projects so that national experts can educate and disseminate evidence-based practices to advocates, clinicians, police, prosecutors, judges, health care practitioners, and many other professionals who are on the front lines. In these times of limited resources, OVW has made it a priority to expand the reach of VAWA grant programs by sharing the best practices and knowledge that our grantees have developed.
For example, OVW has worked with national organizations with expertise in training criminal justice professionals to create curricula for law enforcement, prosecutors, and judges focusing on elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation. VAWA's Abuse in Later Life Program funding has enabled the National Clearinghouse on Abuse in Later Life (NCALL) and the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) to help local law enforcement develop multidisciplinary teams that both respond to elder abuse and train other law enforcement officers. The curriculum can be customized for each locality. NCALL also partnered with the National District Attorneys' Association, the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges and Futures Without Violence to educate prosecutors and judges. Victim service providers and adult protective service workers received assistance recognizing the unique needs of older victims and providing victim centered services. This curricula and technical assistance free OVW grantees from the costly, time consuming and redundant work of creating separate curricula for each community and enables them to focus instead on addressing elder abuse, neglect and exploitation in their communities. Many trainings and train-the-trainer development programs are open to non-grantees, spreading the knowledge across the country.
Looking Ahead: Responding to Economic Challenges, Taking the Next Steps to End Violence
The past few years have brought challenges to both victims and the programs that serve them. Financial stress does not generally cause a normal relationship - even an unhealthy one - to become abusive. However, it often exacerbates abuse when both victims and perpetrators have fewer options and resources. Job loss, foreclosure and other stressors may increase violence or trap a victim in a dangerous relationship. Couples who reported extensive financial strain had a rate of violence more than three times that of couples with low levels of financial strain. n43 Women whose male partners experienced two or more periods of unemployment were almost three times as likely to be victims of intimate partner violence as were women whose partners were in stable jobs. n44 More than half of domestic violence shelters report that abuse is more violent now than before the economic downturn. n45
In the best of economic times, a victim worries about finding a job and housing and providing for her children; these problems intensify during a recession. During an economic downturn, a victim of domestic violence faces additional obstacles to leaving her abuser. Victims may not have financial reserves, the ability to easily find a job, friends and family who can put them up, access to credit, or other resources that are available when the economy is stronger. Without such resources, emergency domestic violence shelters and other services become the only place victims can turn. In fact the economic downturn has had a significant effect on demand for domestic violence and sexual assault services.
On just one day in 2011, over 67,399 adults and children found safety through domestic violence services. Yet on that same day, 10,581 requests for services went unmet because of a lack of resources or staffing - an alarming 11% increase from 2010. n46 In 2010, 1,441 (82%) domestic violence programs reported a rise in demand for services, while 1,351 (77%) of programs reported a decrease in funding. n47 The National Domestic Violence Hotline and National Dating Abuse Helpline received 288,227 calls in 2011, but Hotline and Helpline advocates were unable to answer 66,884 (23%) of these calls due to increased call volume. Some states have seen particularly dramatic increases: New Jersey - 43% increase in the number of crisis calls; Rhode Island - 45% increase in hotline calls; Vermont - 40% increase in hotline calls; Missouri - 65% increase in individuals turned away when shelters were full. n48 Challenges maintaining private, state, and local funding have intensified this problem. According to the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence, 70% of rape crisis centers experienced a reduction in funding in 2009 and 57% cut staffing. n49 In 2010, the National Network to End Domestic Violence reported that domestic violence programs laid-off or did not replace 2,000 staff positions including counselors, advocates and children's advocates. n50 Sixteen domestic violence shelters closed in 2009. n51
The principles underlying VAWA have proven to succeed - many more victims now come forward to ask for help, police make more arrests, and prosecutors take more cases. However, if services are not available when victims ask for help, they may be forced to choose between staying in an abusive relationship and becoming homeless. They may never get the courage to ask for help again.
The increased need for services combined with a reduction in available services and cuts to local law enforcement has created a shocking trend. Though homicides and incidents of domestic violence are still down dramatically from where they were in the early 1990s, they have started to increase since the recession first began. Domestic violence homicides of women began increasing in 2007. FBI data show that from 2006 to 2010 there was an 8% total increase in the number of women murdered by spouses, boyfriends, and former spouses. During that time, overall murders declined by 19%. States are reporting even more significant increases in domestic violence homicides: Alabama - 29% increase (2008-2009); Florida - 21.4% increase (2009-2010); Missouri - 35% increase (2007-2009); Wisconsin - 35% increase (2008-2009). n52
This recent trend argues for continued support for OVW's programs and for research on domestic and sexual violence through our sister agency, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ). OVW has had a long collaboration with NIJ as well as with the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the Department of Health and Human Services. These agencies are critical partners in our efforts to understand what works and to plan our future programming. The CDC released results from a new surveillance system, the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey in December 2011. These data have given us valuable new information on the prevalence of violence against women and men. The CDC intends to conduct the survey annually, allowing us to measure trends over time.
Now more than ever, we must invest in innovative ways to efficiently prevent costly acts of violence. OVW is using the latest research to target resources on effective solutions.
Averting Domestic Violence Homicide
Although the overall rate of female homicide has fallen since 1993, female intimate partner homicide remains a persistent and troubling problem. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, an estimated 40% of female homicide victims were killed by an intimate partner in 1993; that percentage increased to 45% in 2007. n53 Some experts estimate that for every woman who is killed, at least nine are nearly killed (gunshot or stab wound to head, neck, or torso; strangulation or immersion in water to the point of unconsciousness; severe head injury with a blunt object weapon). n54 Other victims are also killed as a result of intimate partner violence. These include family members, friends and occasionally law enforcement officers who attempt to intervene, as well as children who become targets of the violence.
The double tragedy of domestic violence homicide is the realization after the fact, in many cases, that the homicide could have been prevented. There is a growing consensus among researchers and practitioners that domestic violence homicides are predictable and therefore often preventable. In the majority of these cases, there was a prior history of domestic violence as well as other indicators of high risk. An 11-city study comparing women who had been killed with a control group of abused women found significant differences in the severity and pattern of abuse. n55 Most of the women who were killed had experienced attempted strangulation, threats with weapons, stalking, sexual assault, and obsessively jealous and controlling behavior by their partners.
By the time abuse escalates to homicide, it is likely that someone in the family, the neighborhood, or the perpetrator's or victim's workplace has been aware that something is terribly wrong. A 2003 NIJ-funded study found that despite certain limitations, a lethality assessment tool can be used to reliably predict women who may be at risk of being killed by their partners. n56 Advocates, law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and the courts must take aggressive steps to plan for a victim's safety when these and other identified risk factors are present. OVW is undertaking a new initiative to screen victims, contain offenders, and provide victims in these cases with more comprehensive services over longer periods of time. The 2013 President's Budget requests $4 million to expand this initiative.
Homicide reduction strategies work. Since implementing its High Risk Case Response Team, Newburyport, Massachusetts has had no domestic violence homicides. When a high risk offender is identified, a team of law enforcement, prosecutors, probation officers and victim advocates use this information to search for open warrants, make arrests, connect victims with services, and use pretrial conditions to keep offenders in custody. Between April 2007 and March 2008, the high risk team provided ongoing risk management to a total of 55 high risk cases. Not only were there no homicides, but 91% reported no reassaults by the offender and 93% did not need to relocate to a domestic violence shelter. n57
The Maryland Lethality Assessment Program (LAP) screens victims at crime scenes, protective order hearings, and in hospital emergency rooms. If a victim screens in as high risk for being seriously injured or killed, the first responder immediately calls the local 24-hour domestic violence hotline and encourages the victim to talk to the hotline worker. Over the past five years, Maryland law enforcement identified 17,604 high-danger victims through the LAP and, of this group, 10,394 (59%) spoke on the phone to a hotline worker. Of those who spoke to a hotline worker, 3,258 (31%) availed themselves of additional program services. At a time when some states are reporting record high spikes in domestic violence murders, Maryland has witnessed a 41% drop in intimate partner homicides over the past three years. n58
In my own state of New Hampshire, we created a Domestic Violence Fatality Review Committee to encourage systemic changes to help decrease the number of domestic homicides through interdisciplinary training and community-based prevention education. It is critical that all partners be involved in identifying high risk factors, gaps in system responses and barriers to safety in domestic violence situations.
These fatality reviews are being implemented around the country. Montana's Domestic Violence Fatality Review Commission consists of 18 individuals representing several regions and disciplines, including: local, state and federal law enforcement; courts; victim services; the legislature; tribal communities; health care and mental health care providers; educators; child protective services; legal services; and clergy. Team members review all available information, including police reports, autopsies, medical and mental health records, school records for children, criminal histories, shelter and/or victim-witness contacts, and court records. As a result, Montana residents have created long-term solutions to reduce the number of domestic violence injuries and homicides.
Stopping Sexual Assault on College Campuses
Research has helped us better understand how rapists target their victims and escape justice. This is particularly significant on our college campuses. College rapists may avoid the justice system by attacking acquaintances, picking women who will not be considered credible due to alcohol use or other factors, and by minimizing injuries by plying their victims with alcohol rather than using physical force. Nineteen percent of undergraduate women reported experiencing completed or attempted sexual assault since entering college. Most of these assaults occurred when the victim was incapacitated by alcohol. Rapes involving alcohol are much more prevalent than rapes involving date-rape drugs. n59 Risk of incapacitated rape increases significantly during college. n60 In one study, over 80% of undetected college rapists reported committing rapes of women who were incapacitated because of drugs or alcohol. n61 Many college rapists create "cases" that victims are least likely to report and that prosecutors are less likely to prosecute. n62 Only 2% of victims of incapacitated rape reported the assault to law enforcement. n63
Campuses often fail to respond to college rapists, n64 who continue to offend. Even the best-intentioned universities' adjudication and other processes often blame the victim and fail to discipline the perpetrator. n65 In one study, 63% of rapists reported committing repeat rapes, averaging six each. n66 More than two-thirds (68%) of the repeat rapists admitted to other forms of interpersonal violence, averaging 14 violent acts. Their level of violence was nearly 10 times that of non-rapists, and nearly 3.5 times that of single-act rapists. n68
n67 This portrait of college rapists is more consistent with the data on recidivism among sex offenders than with the still-prevalent image of a college student who, under the influence of alcohol, mistakenly crosses the line between sexual pressure and rape. n68
Our best chance to reduce this too-common type of sexual assault may be through bystander intervention. Although we tend to think of sexual assault as a crime usually involving only two people, sexual assaults are often witnessed by at least one person in the bystander role, n69 and nearly 60% of alcohol-facilitated rapes occur at parties. n70 Bystander intervention training is an innovative and evidence-based strategy to end violence against women. n71 This prevention model empowers and trains potential bystanders about the causes of sexual violence. It builds on research about community members' expressed willingness to get involved in these issues, and helps to minimize negative long-term consequences for survivors by strengthening informal safety nets in their social and community networks.
The Vice President inspired the nation when he and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan visited the University of New Hampshire and announced unprecedented new guidance requiring schools to prevent and respond appropriately to sexual assault. The Vice President called on young men and women to stop rape on their college campuses. He has also asked all of the federal agencies to follow his lead. OVW is proud to respond to his challenge, and in October hosted a two-day summit for 50 college and university presidents. Participating schools included Historically Black Colleges and Universities, the University of California system, universities serving both urban and rural communities, universities with recent sexual assault cases or recent consent agreements with the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights, universities that have been leaders in addressing sexual assault (including the University of New Hampshire), and universities receiving OVW Campus Program grants. Changing the culture of campuses to hold rapists accountable and bring justice to victims requires leadership from the top. College and university presidents are crucial. We are engaging these presidents as partners in reaching other campuses, talking about how we can work together, and building momentum to reach a broad range of colleges. OVW is working with the Department of Education's Higher Education Center for Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Violence Prevention (HEC) to launch a dedicated website and resources for university presidents and trustees.
The center's online resources currently include an information page on complying with the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (Clery Act), a federal mandate requiring all institutions of higher education (IHEs) that participate in the Federal student financial aid program to disclose information about crime on their campuses and in the surrounding communities. In particular, IHEs are required, among other requirements, to collect, classify, and count crime reports and crime statistics; issue campus alerts; publish an annual security report; and submit crime statistics to the Department of Education.
Keeping Youth Safe through the Latest Technology
Statistics show that teens and young adults experience particularly high rates of violence. According to the latest data from the CDC, one in six women were raped before the age of 25. n72 Forty-two percent of female rape victims were first raped before the age of 18. n73 More than one quarter of male victims were raped before the age of 11. n74 A total of 69.5% of female victims of rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner first experienced dating violence before the age of 25. n75 It is essential to target young victims for prevention and intervention - both because they are at great risk for victimization, and because prevention and intervention could reduce the likelihood of future assaults. n76 According to NISVS data, women who were raped before the age of 18 were twice as likely to be raped as adults: more than one-third of women who were raped as minors were also raped as adults compared to 14% of women without an early rape history. n77
Unfortunately, many do not know where to turn for help. Teens frequently go to their peers, not their parents, for relationship support. A 2008 study found that 67% of students who were abused in a relationship talked to a friend, but only 13% also talked to a parent or other adult. n78 Unfortunately, adolescents are often afraid or do not know how to intervene if a friend is being abusive. n79
Young people need an easy way to ask questions about dating violence, access lifesaving crisis counseling, and learn how to help a friend. This generation is less likely to pick up the phone and call a traditional victim service provider. Using online social networking sites and sending text messages on a mobile phone have become teens' favored ways to interact. n80 DOJ has funded the National Dating Abuse Helpline (www.LoveIsRespect.org), which is staffed by youth advocates and also provides an online chat option. OVW recently funded the expansion of the Helpline to include text messaging and provide all services 24-hours a day. Young people can text "loveis" to 77054 and connect with a trained advocate. Since launching text capacity in September 2011, the Helpline has conducted over 10,000 chat and text conversations with young people in need. OVW is also reaching adolescents directly through www.ThatsNotCool.com, a website where they can learn by interacting with videos, games, and downloads they can share with friends.
Technology can also be a tool of abuse. n81 One in three teens who have dated say they've been text messaged 10 to 30 times an hour by a partner finding out where they are, what they are doing, or who they are with. n82 Research shows that young women ages 18-24 experience the highest rate of stalking n83 and that a quarter of stalking victims report being stalked through the internet or electronic monitoring. n84 Stalkers will sometimes make hundreds of unwanted phone calls, while also sending text messages, instant messages, or emails to the victim. This harassing contact is common in teen dating violence. n85 One in four teens in a relationship has been called names, harassed, or put down by their partner through cell phones and texting. n86 One in ten has been threatened physically via digital communication. n87 Sixteen percent of college students have been the victim of abuse via technology. n88 VAWA has funded the Safety Net Project and the Stalking Resource Center to educate OVW grantees on technology abuse and how to keep victims of all ages safe. In addition, activities funded through OVW's Campus Program seek to strengthen security and investigative strategies to prevent and prosecute stalking on campuses. The Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg Campus, reported that:
The number of stalking cases adjudicated on campus has doubled, which we attribute to increased awareness amongst our students about what constitutes stalking and how to report those behaviors.
Engaging Men in Preventing Violence Against Women
VAWA has been successful at engaging a broad range of partners to work together to intervene after violent crimes against women have occurred. We must shift from a historical paradigm that has focused on intervention, treatment, and accountability and address the entire cycle of violence at every stage. Many experts agree that it is imperative to involve men and boys in these efforts if we expect them to succeed. Men are eager to become partners. In fact, in a recent national poll, 73% of American men said that they think they can help reduce domestic violence and sexual assault. n89
Last spring, OVW launched the VAWA Engaging Men in Preventing Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence program. This is the first time in the history of OVW that a grant program focuses primarily on the prevention of violence against women and girls and acknowledges the critical roles men play in this prevention. The program supports multi-faceted strategies that involve men as allies, active positive bystanders and influencers of other men and boys. Authorized in VAWA 2005, this program uses the latest technology combined with hands-on mentorship to reach young men and change their attitudes about violence. The program aims to develop new male leaders in the field, willing to publicly speak and act to oppose violence against women and girls and create a ripple effect, encouraging men in many more states and communities to get involved.
For example, Maine Boys to Men is developing the Reducing Sexism and Violence Program Bystander Intervention Project. The project creates teams of young men and women between the ages of 15 and 24 at the University of Southern Maine and three area high schools using the Reducing Sexism and Violence Program. Up to 400 student leaders will create campaigns and events in their school communities, develop media outreach, promote evidence-based bystander interventions to stop violence, and model healthy relationships.
Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization
Again, I want to thank you, Chairman Sensenbrenner, Ranking Member Scott, and members of the Committee, for the opportunity to testify before you today about the importance of OVW's work in implementing VAWA. As a Nation, we have made great strides. In the past seventeen years, we have changed the way that our communities respond to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking. But, there is still work to do if we are to reach our collective goal of breaking the cycle of violence that plagues families and communities across our country. The Obama Administration is dedicated to building upon the achievements of VAWA and ending domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. For the first time the White House has a Senior Advisor on Violence Against Women, Lynn Rosenthal, with whom I am privileged to work closely.
I would like to end with a few words about VAWA reauthorization, because as you know, the authorizations for VAWA programs expired last year and VAWA is currently operating under the authority of P.L. 112-55, the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2012. With VAWA reauthorizations in both 2000 and 2005, Congress has shown an ongoing willingness and commitment to support the evolution of this important federal legislation. In past reauthorizations, Congress has identified and responded to challenges in the field, such as gaps in service for youth and elder victims and marginalized populations, and highlighted new strategies such as transitional housing. I cannot stress enough how critical it is for Congress to reauthorize VAWA once again and to use this opportunity to sustain, strengthen, and continue to enhance our nation's commitment to end violence against women. I look forward to working together with you to consider how VAWA reauthorization can help us respond to the challenges ahead.
n1 Black, M.C., Basile, K.C., Breiding, M.J., Smith, S.G., Walters, M.L., Merrick, M.T., Chen, J., & Stevens, M.R. (2011). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 Summary Report. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
n2 Black, Basile, Breiding, Smith, Walters, Merrick, Chen & Stevens, 2011.
n3 Eaton, D. K., Kann, L., Kinchen, S., Shanklin, S., Ross, J., Hawkins, J., Harris, W. A., Lowry, R., McManus, T., Chyen, D., Lim, C., Whittle, L., Brener, N. D., & Wechsler, H. (2010, June 4). Youth risk behavior surveillance - United States, 2009. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report Surveillance Summaries, 59(SS-5), 1-142.
n4 Black, Basile, Breiding, Smith, Walters, Merrick, Chen & Stevens, 2011.
n5 Finkelhor, D., Turner, H., Ormrod, R., Hamby, S., & Kracke, K. (2009). Children's exposure to violence: A comprehensive national survey. Juvenile Justice Bulletin (No. NCJRS 227744). Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
n6 McDonald, R., Jouriles, E. N., Ramisetty-Mikler, S., Caetano, R., & Green, C. E. (2006). Estimating the number of American children living in partner-violence families. Journal of Family Psychology, 20(1), 137-142.
n7 Dube, S., Felitti, V., Dong, M., Giles, W., & Anda, R. (2003). The impact of adverse childhood experiences on health problems: Evidence from four birth cohorts dating back to 1900. Preventive Medicine, 37(3), 268-277.
n8 Gorman-Smith, D., Tolan, P. H., Sheidow, A. J., & Henry, D. B. (2001). Partner violence and street violence among urban adolescents: Do the same family factors relate? Journal of Research on Adolescence, 11(3), 273-95. Foshee, V. A., Benefield, T. S., Ennett, S. T., Bauman, K. E., & Suchindran, C. (2004). Longitudinal predictors of serious physical and sexual dating violence victimization during adolescence. Preventive Medicine, 39(5), 51007- 16. Foshee, V. A., Ennett, S. T., Bauman, K. E., Benefield, T., & Suchindran, C.(2005). The association between family violence and adolescent dating violence onset: Does it vary by race, socioeconomic status, and family structure? Journal of Early Adolescence, 25(3), 317-44. Lavoie, F., Robitaille, L., Hebert, M., Tremblay, F., Vitaro, F., Vezina, L., & McDuff, P. (2002). History of family dysfunction and perpetration of dating violence by adolescent boys: A longitudinal study. Journal of Adolescent Health, 30(5), 375- n83. Cyr, M., McDuff, P, & Wright, J. (2006). Prevalence and predictors of dating violence among adolescent female victims of child sexual abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21(8), 1000-17. Wekerle, C., & Wolfe, D. A. (1999). Dating violence in mid-adolescence: Theory, significance, and emerging prevention initiatives. Clinical Psychology Review, 19(4), 435-56. Wolfe, D. A. (2011). Risk factors for child abuse perpetration. In J. W. White, M. P. Koss, & A. E. Kazdin (Eds.), Violence against women and children: Mapping the terrain. Volume 1 (pp. 31-54). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Knight, R. A., & Sims-Knight, J. (2011). Risk factors for sexual violence. In J. W. White, M. P. Koss, & A. E. Kazdin (Eds.), Violence against women and children: Mapping the terrain. Volume 1 (pp. 125-150). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Aldarondo, E., & Castro-Fernandez, M. (2011). Risk and protective factors for domestic violence perpetration. In J. W. White, M. P. Koss, & A. E. Kazdin (Eds.), Violence against women and children: Mapping the terrain. Volume 1 (pp. 221-242). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
n9 Roe, K. J. (2004). The Violence Against Women Act and its impact on sexual violence public policy: Looking back and looking forward. Retrieved from http://www.vawnet.org/Assoc_Files_VAWnet/VAWA-SVPubPol.pdf
n10 Federal Bureau of Investigation. Uniform Crime Report (UCR) Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR).
n11 Truman, J. L. (2011). Criminal victimization, 2010. Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin (No. NCJRS 235508) Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Bastian, L. (1995). Criminal victimization 1993. Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin (No. NCJRS 151658) Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
n12 Truman, 2011. Bastian, 1995.
n13 Clark, K. A, Biddle, A., & Martin, S. (2002). A cost-benefit analysis of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994. Violence Against Women, 8(4), 417-428.
n14 Logan, T., Walker, R., Hoyt, W., & Faragher, T. (2009). The Kentucky civil protective order study: A rural and urban multiple perspective study of protective order violation consequences, responses, and costs (No. NCJRS 228350). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
n15 Boba, R., & Lilley, D. (2008). Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) funding: A nationwide assessment of effects on rape and assault (No. NCJRS 225748). Violence Against Women, 15(2), 168-185.
n16 Nelson, H. D., Nygren, P., McInerney, Y., & Klein, J. (2004). Screening women and elderly adults for family and intimate partner violence: a review of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Annals of Internal Medicine, 140(5), 387-96. Dube, Felitti, Dong, Giles & Anda, 2003. Margolin, G., & Gordis, E. (2004). Children's exposure to violence in the family and community. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13, 152-155. Widom, C. S, Czaja, S. J., & Dutton, M. A. (2008). Childhood victimization and lifetime revictimization. Child Abuse & Neglect, 32(8), 785-796. Kelley, B., Thornberry, T., & Smith, C. (1997). In the wake of childhood maltreatment. Juvenile Justice Bulletin (No. NCJRS 165257). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Donziger, S. (1996). The real war on crime: The report of the National Criminal Justice Commission. New York, New York: HarperCollins Publishers, Inc. Widom, C. (1989). Does violence beget violence? A critical examination of the literature. Psychological Bulletin, 106(1), 3-28. Rosewater, A. (2003). Promoting prevention, targeting teens: An emerging agenda to prevent domestic violence (No. NCJRS 206959). San Francisco: Family Violence Prevention Fund, pp. 21. Hagedon, J., & Moore, J. (2001, March). Female gangs: A focus on research. Juvenile Justice Bulletin (No. NCJRS 186159). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Hill, K. G., Lui, C., & Hawkins, J. D. (2001, December). Early precursors of gang membership: A study of Seattle youth. Juvenile Justice Bulletin (No. NCJRS 190106). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
n17 Rosewater, 2003.
n18 Widom, C., & Maxfield, M. G. (2001, February). An update on the 'cycle of violence'. National Institute of Justice Research in Brief. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/184894.pdf
n19 Whitfield, C. L., Anda, R. F., Dube, S. R., & Felitti, V. J. (2003). Violent childhood experiences and the risk of intimate partner violence in adults. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18(2), 166-185.
n20 This does not include 2,523 families who were fully and partially served by Safe Haven's Program grantees, 4,672 children and 59 dependents who were fully and partially served by Transitional Housing Program grantees, and 121 families who were fully and partially served by Tribal Government Program grantees.
n21 Because victims were reported only once in each category of service provided, this number represents the minimum number of times services were provided to victims by discretionary grantees from July-December 2010.
n22 Because victims were reported only once in each category of service provided, this number represents the minimum number of times services were provided to victims by STOP subgrantees in 2009.
n23 OVW administers 3 formula grant and 18 discretionary grant programs. However, because 4 youth programs were consolidated in the 2012 Congressional Budget, OVW will be administering 15 discretionary programs in the future.
n24 Cho, H., & Wilke, D. J. (2005). How has the Violence Against Women Act affected the response of the criminal justice system to domestic violence? Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 22, 125-139.
n25 Uekert, B., Miller, N., Dupree, C., Spence, D., & Archer, C. (2001). The evaluation of the STOP Violence Against Women Grant Program, Law enforcement and prosecution components (Publication No. NCJRS 189163). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
n26 Friday, P., Lord, V. B., Exum, M. L., & Hartman, J. L. (2006). Evaluating the impact of a specialized domestic violence police unit (No. NCJRS 215916). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
n27 Townsend, M., Hunt, D., Kuck, S., & Baxter, C. (2006). Law enforcement response to domestic violence calls for service (No. NCJRS 215915). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
n28 Holleran, D., Beichner, D., & Spohn, C. (2010). Examining charging agreement between police and prosecutors in rape cases. Crime & Delinquency, 56(3), 385-413. Jolin, A., Feyerherm, W., Fountain, R., & Friedman, S. (1998). Beyond arrest: The Portland, Oregon domestic violence experiment, final report (No. NCJRS 179968). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
n29 Smith, B., Davis, R., Nickles, L., & Davies, H. (2001). An evaluation of efforts to implement no-drop policies: Two central values in conflict, final report (No. NCJRS 187772). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
n30 Hartley, C. C., & Frohmann, L. (2003). Cook County Target Abuser Call (TAC): An evaluation of a specialized domestic violence court, revised executive summary (No. NCJRS 202944). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
n31 Harrell, A., Schaffer, M., DeStefano, C., & Castro, J. (2006). The evaluation of Milwaukee's judicial oversight demonstration, final research report (No. NCJRS 215349). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
n32 Campbell, R., Patterson, D., & Lichty, L. F. (2005). The effectiveness of Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) programs: A review of psychological, medical, legal, and community outcomes. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 6(4), 313-329. Bulman, P. (2009). Increasing sexual assault prosecution rates. National Institute of Justice Journal, (264), 14-17. Campbell, R., Bybee, D., Ford, J., & Patterson, D. (2008). Systems change analysis of SANE programs: Identifying the mediating mechanisms of criminal justice system impact (No. NCJRS 226497). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Campbell, J. (2005). Assessing dangerousness in domestic violence cases: History, challenges, and opportunities. Criminology & Public Policy, 4(4), 653-672.
n33 Davis, R., Smith, B. E., & Rabbit, C. (2001). Increasing convictions in domestic violence cases: A field test in Milwaukee. Justice System Journal, 22(1), 61-72. Harrell, Schaffer, DeStefano & Castro, 2006. Henning, K., & Klesges, L. (1999). Evaluation of the Shelby County Domestic Violence Court, final report. Shelby County, TN. Newmark, L., Rempel, M., Diffily, K., & Kane, K. M. (2001). Specialized felony domestic violence court: Lessons on implementation and impacts from the Kings County experience (No. NCJRS 167237). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
n34 Keilitz, S. (2004). Specialization of domestic violence case management in the courts: A national survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
n35 Allen, N. E., Bybee, D. I., & Sullivan, C. M. (2004). Battered women's multitude of needs: Evidence supporting the need for comprehensive advocacy. Violence Against Women, 10(9), 1015-1035.
n36 Dugan, L, Nagin, D. S., & Rosenfeld, R. (2003). Do domestic violence services save lives? (No. NCJRS 196548). National Institute of Justice Journal, 250, 20-25. Farmer, A. & Tiefenthaler, J. (2002). Explaining the recent decline in domestic violence. Contemporary Economic Policy, 21(2), 158-172.
n37 Holt, V., Kernic, M., Wolf, M., & Rivara, F. (2003). Do protection orders affect the likelihood of future partner violence and injury? American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 24(1), 16-21. Logan, Walker, Hoyt & Faragher, 2009.
n38 Logan, Walker, Hoyt & Faragher, 2009.
n39 This is based on data that reflect LAV grantee activities from January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2010. Victims were reported once for each category of service received in each reporting period. However, victims may have received multiple services in the same reporting period and the same service(s) in multiple reporting periods.
n40 Black, Basile, Breiding, Smith, Walters, Merrick, Chen & Stevens, 2011. Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2000). Full report on the prevalence, incidence, and consequences of violence against women (No. NCJRS 183781). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, pp. 22. Yuan, N. P., Koss, M., Polacca, M., & Goldman, D. (2006). Risk factors for physical assault and rape among six Native American tribes. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21(12), 1566-1590. Wood, D. S., & Magen, R. H. (2009). Intimate partner violence against Athabaskan women residing in interior Alaska. Violence Against Women, 15(4), 497-507. Evans-Campbell, T., Lindhorst, T., Huang, B., & Walters, K. L. (2006). Interpersonal violence in the lives of urban American Indian and Alaska Native Women: Implications for health, mental health, and help-seeking. American Journal of Public Health, 96(8), 1416-1422. Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2006). Extent, nature, and consequences of rape victimization: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey (No. NCJRS 210346). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice. Luna-Firebaugh, E. M. (2006). Violence against American Indian women and the Services-Training-Officers- Prosecutors Violence Against Indian Women (STOP VAIW) program. Violence Against Women, 12(2), 125-136. Greenfield, L. A., & Smith, S. K. (1999). American Indians and crime (No. NCJRS 173386). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Bohn, D. K. (2003). Lifetime physical and sexual abuse, substance abuse, depression, and suicide attempts among Native American women. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 24(3), 333-352. Jones, L. (2007). The distinctive characteristics and needs of domestic violence victims in a Native American community. Journal of Family Violence, 23(2), 113-118.
n41 Luna-Firebaugh, E. (2006). Violence Against American Indian Women and the Services-Training-Officers-Prosecutors Violence Against Indian Women (STOP VAIW) Program. Violence Against Women, 12, 125-136.
n42 Luna-Firebaugh, 2006.
n43 Benson, M. L., & Fox, G. L. (2004). When violence hits home: How economics and neighborhood play a role, Research in brief (No. NCJRS 205004). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
n44 Benson & Fox, 2004.
n45 Mary Kay Ash Charitable Foundation. (2010). Mary Kay's truth about abuse.
n46 National Network to End Domestic Violence. (2012, February). Domestic Violence Counts 2011: A 24-hour census of domestic violence shelters and services across the United States. Washington, DC: Author.
n47 National Network to End Domestic Violence. (2011, January). Domestic Violence Counts 2010: A 24-hour census of domestic violence shelters and services across the United States. Washington, DC: Author.
n48 All of the state-specific statistics were reported in 2011 by the respective state coalitions against domestic violence.
n49 National Alliance to End Sexual Violence. (2010). 2010 survey of rape crisis centers. Washington, DC: Author.
n50 National Network to End Domestic Violence, 2011.
n51 National Network to End Domestic Violence. (2010). 2010 survey of state domestic violence coalitions. Washington, DC: Author.
n52 All of the state-specific statistics were reported in 2011by the respective state coalitions against domestic violence.
n53 Catalano, S., Smith, E., Snyder, H., & Rand, M. (2009). Selected findings: Female victims of violence (No. NCJRS 228356). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
n54 Campbell, J., Glass, N., Sharps, P., Laughon, K., & Bloom, T. (2007). Intimate partner homicide: Review and implications of research and policy. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 8(3), 246-269.
n55 Campbell, J .C., Webster, D., Kozoil-McLain, J., Block, C. R., Campbell, D., Curry, M. A., Gary, F., McFarlane, J., Sachs, C., Sharps, P., Ulrich, Y, & Wilt, S.A. (2003). Assessing risk factors for intimate partner homicide. National Institute of Justice Journal, 250, 14-19.
n56 Campbell, et. al., 2003.
n57 Jeanne Geiger Crisis Center, Inc. (2009). Greater Newburyport High Risk Response Team, annual safety and accountability report 2006-2009. Newburyport, MA: Author.
n58 Maryland Network Against Domestic Violence. (Summer 2011). Reading the Signs Newsletter, 4(2). Bowie, MD: Author.
n59 Krebs, C. P., Lindquist, C. H., Warner, T. D., Fisher, B. S., & Martin, S. L. (2007). The Campus Sexual Assault (CSA) Study. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice.
n60 Krebs, Lindquist, Warner, Fisher, & Martin, 2007.
n61 Lisak, D., & Miller, P. M. (2002). Repeat rape and multiple offending among undetected rapists. Violence and Victims, 73-84.
n62 Lisak & Miller, 2002; Krebs, Lindquist, Warner, Fisher, & Martin, 2007.
n63 Krebs, Lindquist, Warner, Fisher, & Martin, 2007.
n64 Lombardi, K., Jones, K., Dattaro, L., Jimenez, C., Cheek, L., et al. (2010, February 24). Sexual assault on campus: A frustrating search for justice. Washington, DC: The Center for Public Integrity. Retrieved from http://www.publicintegrity.org/investigations/campus_assault/
n65 Lombardi, et. al., 2010.
n66 Lisak & Miller, 2002.
n67 Lisak & Miller, 2002.
n68 Lisak & Miller, 2002.
n69 Planty, M. (2002). Third-party involvement in violent crime, 1993-1999. Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report. (No. NCJRS 189100). Washington,D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.
n70 Krebs, Lindquist, Warner, Fisher, & Martin, 2007.
n72 Black, Basile, Breiding, Smith, Walters, Merrick, Chen & Stevens, 2011.
n73 Black, Basile, Breiding, Smith, Walters, Merrick, Chen & Stevens, 2011.
n74 Black, Basile, Breiding, Smith, Walters, Merrick, Chen & Stevens, 2011.
n75 Black, Basile, Breiding, Smith, Walters, Merrick, Chen & Stevens, 2011.
n76 Campbell, Jacquelyn C., Alhusen, Jeanne, Draughon, Jessica, Kub, Joan, & Walton-Moss Benita. (2011). Vulnerability and Protective Factors for Intimate Partner Violence. In J.W. White, M.P. Koss & A.E. Kazdin (Eds.), Violence Against Women and Children: Mapping the Terrain Volume 1 (243-264). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association. Ullman, Sarah E., & Najdowski, Cynthia J. (2011). Vulnerability and Protective Factors for Sexual Assault. In J.W. White, M.P. Koss & A.E. Kazdin (Eds.), Violence Against Women and Children: Mapping the Terrain Volume 1 (151-172). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association. Gidycz, Christine A., Orchowski, Lindsay M., and Edwards, Katie M. (2011). Primary Prevention of Sexual Violence. In Mary P.Koss, Jacquelyn W. White, and Alan E. Kazdin (Eds.), Violence Against Women and Children Navigating Solutions (159-179). Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association. Staggs, Susan L., Schewe, Paul A. (2011). Primary Prevention of Domestic Violence. In Mary P.Koss, Jacquelyn W. White, and Alan E. Kazdin (Eds.), Violence Against Women and Children Navigating Solutions (237-257). Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association.
n77 Black, Basile, Breiding, Smith, Walters, Merrick, Chen & Stevens, 2011.
n78 Black, B. M., Tolman, R. M., Callahan, M., Saunders, D. G., & Weisz, A. N. (2008). When will adolescents tell someone about dating violence victimization? Violence Against Women, 14(7), 741-758.
n79 Noonan, R., & Charles, D. (2009). Developing teen dating violence prevention strategies: Formative research with middle school youth. Violence Against Women, 15(9), 1087-1105.
n80 Lenhart, A., Purcell, K., Smith, A., & Zickuhr, K. (2010). Social media & mobile internet use among teens and young adults. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Lenhart, A., Ling, R., Campbell, S., & Purcell, K. (2010). Teens and mobile phones. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
n81 Fraser, C., Olsen, E., Lee, K., Southworth, C., & Tucker, S. (2010). The new age of stalking: Technological implications for stalking. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 61(4), 39-55.
n82 Teenage Research Unlimited. (2007). Tech abuse in teen relationships study. New York: Liz Claiborne, Inc.
n83 Baum, K., Catalano, S., Rand, M., & Rose, K. (2009). Stalking victimization in the United States. Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report (No. NCJRS 224527). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
n84 Baum, Catalano, Rand, & Rose, 2009
n85 Fraser, Olsen, Lee, Southworth, & Tucker, 2010.
n86 Lenhart, Ling, Campbell, & Purcell, 2010.
n87 Teenage Research Unlimited. (2007). Tech abuse in teen relationships study. New York: Liz Claiborne, Inc.
n88 Knowledge Networks, Inc. (2011). 2011 College dating violence and sbuse poll. New York: Liz Claiborne, Inc.
n89 Family Violence Prevention Fund and Verizon Wireless Fathers' Day Poll, May 2007.
Breaking the clear pattern
Morning News, The (Blackfoot, ID)
Author/Byline: U.S. Sen. Mike Crapo
February 24, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
In a survey that was released in December, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that 69 percent of female and 53 percent of male victims of violence at the hands of a significant other experienced some form of this type of violence for the first time when they were young.
Early intervention is critical to stopping violence in youth relationships before it starts and breaking the pattern of violence that can carry on into adult relationships.
Relationships significantly shape teenagers' emotional growth. Healthy relationships influence positive emotional development, while abusive relationships cause long-term negative impacts.
The CDC has found that victims of teen dating violence are more likely to do poorly in school, and report binge drinking, suicide attempts and fighting, and victims may also carry the patterns of violence into future relationships.
Focus on preventing and interrupting teen dating violence is instrumental in stopping this violence when it starts.
On Jan. 31, 2012, by Unanimous Consent the Senate passed S.
Res. 362, which I introduced with Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-Rhode Island), to designate February 2012 as "National Teen Dating Violence Awareness and Prevention Month."
Throughout the month and year, people are coming together to help bring attention to this issue and advance prevention and crisis intervention.
Together, we can continue to make progress.
Increased awareness, education, dedication of necessary resources and training will help ensure that the signs of abuse will not be overlooked and the violence will stop, and stop early.
Otherwise, the lasting effects of this violence will continue to negatively impact lives. In addition to finding a likelihood of being victims in future acts of violence, the CDC found that men and women who experience these forms of violence were more likely to report frequent headaches, chronic pain, difficulty with sleeping, activity limitation, poor physical health and poor mental health than men and women who did not experience these forms of violence.
I have been proud to champion legislation, such as reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, that has helped victims and families in our communities by making substantial progress toward ending domestic and dating violence, sexual assault and stalking.
Enough is enough.
With 1 in 4 women and 1 in 7 men experiencing severe physical violence by an intimate partner, this intolerable level of preventable violence must stop. Increasing victims' access to help lines and other networks and aiding family members and friends with identifying and reporting abuse can stop future abuse and help victims escape their attackers.
All of our involvement is needed to break the pattern of violence before it takes root in our youth and communities.
Mike Crapo is the senior member of Idaho's congressional delegation.
Shank's domestic abuse bill could save a life
Herald-Mail, The (Hagerstown, MD)
February 26, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Perhaps the most important bill in Annapolis this winter has nothing to do with same-sex marriage, land use or gasoline. Instead, it has to do with life and death.
The bill, sponsored by Sen. Chris Shank, R-Washington, would allow battered women to seek a protective order, even if they are not married to, or living with, their abusers.
A protective order itself is an imperfect document, but is superior to a peace order, which treats potentially deadly abusers as an annoyance — more like a barking dog than a predator.
But for a woman who is stalked, or involved in a more casual relationship, a peace order is the best she can do. Men who violate a peace order can be detained only after lengthy proceedings that includes a sworn complaint and an arrest warrant. Needless to say, when a fellow shows up on the doorstep armed, or with fists clenched, there is no time for such formalities.
One of the great implied freedoms in this nation is freedom from fear. Yet there can be no such freedom for those women who pull the curtain back to watch a man drive back and forth in front of her home all evening.
There can be no such freedom for women who must look both ways before walking out their doors in the morning. Or must studiously avoid shrubs and walls where someone might be crouching.
There can be no such freedom for women who must constantly monitor the rearview for signs of her pursuer.
It is difficult for those of us who have no experience in this regard to understand what it is like to get through the day not knowing what’s going to happen next: Where he might show up, where he might be hiding or what he might do. Every day becomes a stroll through a minefield.
And it’s a detriment to the society of this planet that we have allowed abuse, which all too often turns deadly, to endure.
We’ve known and written about the evils of persecution based on religion or race for centuries. In this nation alone, we’ve anguished over the violence done to slaves and Native Americans. Abuse by groups as disparate as police and the Mob, trade unions and robber barons, has been documented and legislated against.
Yet domestic relationship abuse remains in the shadows.
It really wasn’t until 1878 that domestic abuse got any ink at all, that coming with the publication in Britain of Francis Cobb’s "Wife Torture in England." That led to the Wife Beaters Act of 1882, which for a first offense called for an offender to be thrown in prison — for up to four hours.
What happened next is somewhat emblematic of the uphill battle women have faced through the years. To the degree that domestic-abuse reform was pursued in the early 20th century, it took the form of attacking women rather than protecting them. Women were punished for being negligent mothers, or their children were punished for delinquency.
Conveniently, the spotlight was shifted away from the male abuser, which was no serious surprise, since men were writing the laws. A century after Cobb, abuse remained an undiscussed issue.
Domestic abuse experts say two things in the 1990s changed the equation. First, the disparaging of Anita Hill in the Supreme-Court nomination hearings for Clarence Thomas inspired a number of women to run for office. Two years later, Nicole Simpson was murdered. The combination of the two sped passage (three months after Simpson’s death) of the Violence Against Women Act, which might be considered the first meaningful domestic-abuse legislation.
As much as anything, this law helped raise awareness of domestic violence; it was no longer just the business of the man and woman involved. But the results have been spotty, hence the critical need for bills such as Shank’s, which are more applicable to real, day-to-day life than are sweeping federal initiatives.
In some ways, the boyfriend-girlfriend stage might be even more in need of policing than are more formal, live-in relationships. It is here that the two people are getting to know each other, and she might discover his dark side in time to avoid marriage, but not in time to blunt his pursuits.
It is a sad, but almost inevitable fact that before the year is out, one or two more women in the Tri-State area will be dead at the hands of an immature, insecure male who is unable to accept rejection. And while no law will protect every woman in every circumstance, the General Assembly must do all it can to make the job easier for local law enforcement, and to protect all women from living a life of fear.
DOJ audit of Virgin Islands VAWA funds
$372,434 of expenditures had no records to document how the money had been spent
March 01, 2012
DOJ audit of Coeur d'Alene Native American VAWA funds
$240,431 improperly spent, including $171,000 in salary for an unapproved position
March 01, 2012
Rush Limbaugh Parrots Republican Beliefs About Women
Modesto Examiner (CA)
March 2, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
The current war on women being waged by Republicans at the behest of extremist Christians who object to contraception is escalating to a fever pitch with Rush Limbaugh’s entrance. Despite the calls for Republicans to speak out and condemn Limbaugh’s disgusting remarks impugning a college co-ed's character, the conservatives who started the assault are silent. It should not be surprising the Republicans are quiet because Limbaugh is parroting what the vile, bible-inspired Republicans believe in private. They are no doubt reveling that finally, someone is saying what their legislative assault on women really implies.
At the start of the 112th Congress, Republicans began redefining rape and in Republican-controlled legislatures they are legalizing rape-by-instrument to teach women that they have never been in control of their own bodies. Limbaugh is the voice of the Republican Party and when he calls women who use contraception sluts and prostitutes, it may as well be coming from Boehner, Cantor, McConnell and especially Roy Blunt (R-MO) who authored the amendment to allow any employer or insurance provider the right to deny any person coverage for any health issue.
There are movements calling for advertisers to drop Limbaugh, and there has been some success already, but Limbaugh will only stop when he is fired. The man thrives on the attention he is receiving and his statements ring true with most of his audience. When Limbaugh said the college coed testified before Congress and that she needs to be paid to have sex, his audience believes him. Why? They are not intelligent enough to find and listen to the testimony themselves. Limbaugh tells them what they want to hear and believe about women, and particularly college women.
The people who listen to Limbaugh are low-class, low-intelligence, and labor under low moral character or they would turn off the prurient assault on women. Don't think for a second that millions of women don’t listen to Limbaugh because they do. The audience that Limbaugh appeals to depend on him to alert them to the dangers of Liberals and so-called “feminazis” whose goal is earning equal rights and they, like Limbaugh and Republicans, cannot tolerate the concept of equal rights for anyone except good, god-fearing, real Americans (white Christian males). It is true that Limbaugh is a vile human being, but without his audience and Republican support, he would have been off the air ages ago.
Women are under assault and it is not just from Rush Limbaugh. Republicans in Congress vote against gender equality in the workplace, equal pay, Violence Against Women Act, and the right to choose reproductive health as a matter-of-course, and they show no signs of letting up anytime soon. There are myriad reasons to hate Limbaugh and lay blame at his feet, but his supporters in Congress, the RNC, and his bible-clutching audience keep him in business. The assault on women’s rights is just getting started and Limbaugh is an insignificant speck of dust compared to what the GOP will do to women if they get the opportunity. Limbaugh is a vile pig, but he is being fed by evil religious men who are demonstrating to America how theocracy starts.
Women, again, are a force to be dealt with
Let's use that force to renew the Violence Against Women Act
Lexington Herald-Leader (KY)
Author/Byline: Merlene Davis Herald-Leader columnist
March 6, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
There was something about the Rush Limbaugh-Sandra Fluke controversy that surprised me.
In case you haven't heard, last week, the conservative talk-show host described as a "slut" the law-school student invited by House Democrats to testify in support of birth control.
No, it wasn't how crude and uninformed Limbaugh is as evidenced by the way he disparaged the young law student or how limp his unapologetic apology was over the weekend.
What pleasantly surprised me was how women have emerged as a formidable force.
On Facebook and on Twitter, a campaign led mostly by young women boasted of having applied enough pressure to Limbaugh's advertisers to have eight of them, at last count, abandon his radio show.
I hadn't seen women so active so quickly since my younger years, when we fought for the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment. The ERA, which passed Congress in 1972, never became a part of the U.S. Constitution because it was not ratified by enough state legislatures before the 1982 deadline.
We fought for a while, but then we went home.
That's what I thought women would do with Limbaugh, but they didn't.
"We go through waves of awareness," said Darlene Thomas, executive director of the Bluegrass Domestic Violence Program. "Maybe we are finding our voices again."
Will the pressure be enough to shut Limbaugh's mouth forever? Of course not. And it shouldn't be. But it would be nice if that pressure would make him rethink the words he uses and their effect on non-politicians.
That's neither here nor there, however.
With this new sense of empowerment or outrage, women might want to direct those fervent efforts toward another issue that is under attack.
Some politicians want to chip away at the Violence Against Women Act, which is up for re-authorization.
"For young women, (this protection) is all they have ever known," Thomas said. "It is just like civil rights for young people of color. They reap the benefits, but we haven't really told them how hard the fight was."
VAWA was sponsored by then-Sen. Joe Biden in 1994 and was signed into law that year by then-President Bill Clinton. It has become the tool used by states and law-enforcement agencies to respond to domestic and dating violence, stalking and sexual assaults, and to help victims of those crimes.
Every few years, it comes up for re-authorization, as it did in 2000 and 2005. Usually, it breezes through Congress with bipartisan support. Violence doesn't ask for your political affiliation before administering physical harm.
This year, however, attempts are being made to have Congress vote along party lines. When it came up for a vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee last month, the measure, sponsored by committee chair Patrick Leahy, (D-Vt.), and Sen. Mike Crapo, (R-Idaho), barely passed. Ten Democrats were for the measure and eight Republicans against.
Sen. Charles Grassley, (R-Iowa), who is leading the opposition, said in a letter to the New York Times that the bill "fails to recognize the dire fiscal situation, fails to ensure the taxpayer dollars are spent wisely and adds unjustifiable controversial provisions."
Supporters say the "controversial provisions," added by Leahy and Crapo, include raising the number of visas for undocumented immigrants who are battered or sexually abused to 15,000 from the current 10,000; forbidding discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation; and giving tribal jurisdiction in cases of violence between Indian and non-Indian individuals.
"When I was a prosecutor and I saw somebody who is a victim, I didn't ask, are you a Democrat or a Republican, are you gay or are you straight?" Leahy said on radio on The Diane Rehm Show recently. "I saw a victim, and I saw a perpetrator. And I wanted to prosecute who did it. If we started saying in this country, OK, if you fit in this category, you can be beaten up, you can be killed, you can be stabbed, you can be murdered, and we won't do anything about it, that demeans us as Americans."
Grassley offered an alternative bill that would cut the new "controversial" additions and would reduce federal funding by eliminating the Justice Department office coordinating the nation's response to domestic violence and sexual assaults. That alternative also was defeated along party lines.
So as it stands, reauthorization of VAWA is on the Senate calendar, with no certain date for it to come to the floor.
"It is four votes away from being reauthorized," Thomas said. "It is one thing to fight for rights that you have never had, but it is another to have them taken away from you."
We cannot allow politics to take back rights that have been fought for and enjoyed, whether those are reproductive rights or rights to be protected from violence.
The last thing we need is for all those well-traveled roads that older women forged in the past to be closed in the future. And from my viewpoint, it doesn't look as if that will happen.
Restraining Orders Fail Victims
So Why Does the Abuse Industry Push for Them? WAVE Columnist Asks
GlobeNewswire (USA)
March 13, 2012
Restraining orders don't help victims and waste taxpayer resources, claims Crystal Smoot in her recent editorial (1). So why aren't abuse-reduction advocates pushing for criminal justice programs that work? she asks. Smoot's article was recently published at the Women Against VAWA Excess (WAVE) website.
Smoot highlights an early Colorado case in which a restraining order failed to prevent the killing of three young girls.
The case, Gonzales v. Castle Rock, was eventually heard before the U.S. Supreme Court, with Department of Justice officials arguing restraining orders are issued too frequently and often unnecessarily. In 2005 the Court ruled that Gonzales did not have a constitutional due process right to enforce the order.
Prosecutors, researchers, and women's advocates believe restraining orders are ineffective:
1. Prosecutors have concluded, "Many stakeholders do not believe that orders of protection are an effective means of securing the safety of the complainant." (2)
2. One research study found that having an order had no impact on threats of property damage, severe violence, or other forms of physical violence. (3)
3. One report states, "All observers agree that--at least until they are violated--a civil protection order is useless with the 'hard core' batterer." (4)
4. The Independent Women's Forum notes that restraining orders only "lull women into a false sense of security." (5)
Given these experiences, Smoot calls for the development of local resources and better police protections, not more restraining orders that fail to halt the violence.
Women Against VAWA Excess fosters open discussion and debate about the effectiveness and social impact of the federal Violence Against Women Act.
Teri Stoddard
SOURCE: Women Against VAWA Excess
(1) Smoot C. The Gonzales tragedy: Wouldn't it have been better to campaign for more police? March 9, 2012. http://womenagainstvawa.org/the-gonzales-tragedy-wouldnt-it-have-been-better-to-campaign-for-more-police/
(2) Gavin C and Puffett NK. Criminal Domestic Violence Case Processing: A Case Study of the Five Boroughs of New York City. New York: Center for Court Innovation, 2005, p. 30. http://www.courtinnovation.org/_uploads/documents/Citywide%20Final1.pdf
(3) Harrell A and Smith B. Effects of restraining orders on domestic violence victims. In Buzawa C and Buzawa E (eds.): Do Arrests and Restraining Orders Work? Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1996, p. 229.
(4) Finn P. Civil protection orders: A flawed opportunity for intervention. In Steinman M (ed.): Woman Battering: Policy Responses. Cincinnati: Anderson Publishing Co., 1991.
(5) Independent Women's Forum. Domestic Violence: An In-Depth Analysis. Washington, DC, 2005.
Schumer schemes to hit GOP
Politico
March 14, 2012
New York Sen. Chuck Schumer believes he has found a political weapon in the unlikeliest of places: the Violence Against Women Act.
Republicans have several objections to the legislation, but instead of making changes, Schumer wants to fast track the bill to the floor, let the GOP block it, then allow Democrats to accuse Republicans of waging a “war against women.”
It’s fodder for a campaign ad, and it’s not the only potential 30-second spot ready to spring from Senate leadership these days.
From his perch as the Democrats’ chief policy and messaging guru, Schumer wants to raise taxes on people who earn more than $1 million, and many Democrats want to push the vote for April 15, a move designed to amp up the “income inequality” rhetoric just in time for Tax Day.
Schumer has a plan for painting Republicans as anti-immigrant as well. He’s called the author of the Arizona immigration law to testify before his Judiciary subcommittee, bringing Capitol Hill attention to an issue that’s still front and center for Hispanic voters.
None of these campaign-style attacks allow for the policy nuances or reasoning behind the GOP’s opposition, and some of the bills stand no chance of becoming law.
But that’s not really the point.
The real push behind this effort is to give Democrats reasons to portray Republicans as anti-women, anti-Latino and anti-middle class. In the aftermath of a fight over a payroll tax cut for American workers and an Obama contraception policy, Democrats are ready for this next set of wedge issues.
“If a party chooses to alienate the fastest-growing group of people in the country [Latinos] and the majority of people in the country, women, they do so at their peril,” Schumer said Wednesday. “This is an important issue.”
The move carries some risk. The economy is still struggling, with the jobless rate above 8 percent and millions seeking work. Gas prices are skyrocketing. And Schumer himself said last Sunday that Democrats would focus like a “laser” on the economy, a comment Republicans giddily pointed out as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) pushed for judicial confirmations this week.
Schumer and Reid have also shown little interest in bringing forward a budget resolution this spring, saying that overall spending levels have already been agreed upon. That has opened them up to Republican charges they are steadfastly avoiding tough votes on the budget in favor of election-year point scoring.
Republicans see the latest chatter in the Senate as a political ploy by Democratic leaders to steady the ship in the face of a shaky political landscape.
“Sounds like all politics all the time,” said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), a member of his party’s leadership who also serves on the Judiciary Committee. He added that Republicans would point out the “cynical nature of what they’re trying to do that it’s not based on substance.”
Cornyn added: “We’ll be prepared to address their false narrative.”
The political strategy also risks inflaming partisan tensions. Arizona Republican Sens. Jon Kyl and John McCain criticized Schumer for calling for a hearing on their state’s tough law that gives law enforcement new powers to target prospective illegal immigrants, a subject of a Supreme Court challenge.
Both men said they had no idea Schumer was inviting former state Sen. Russell Pearce — the author of the law — to testify at a hearing next month.
“Generally, senatorial courtesy indicates you talk to the member states,” McCain said Wednesday. “I have never seen Sen. Schumer do anything unless it had a political agenda.”
Schumer’s office rejects the contention, saying that the New York Democrat notified Cornyn, the ranking Republican on the subcommittee, weeks before the offer was made public.
“This is a sunlight hearing,” Schumer said Wednesday. “The more the public hears some of these views from the people in Arizona, the more they’ll ask for a more moderate position.”
Still, Schumer said there are moments of bipartisanship in which the two sides can come together, and he rejects the notion that Democrats are skirting efforts to prop up the economy, pointing to the passage of a highway bill Wednesday and expected approval of a House-passed small-business bill. Schumer said on the floor Wednesday that he hoped it was a “moment of greater comity.”
But it may not last longer than a few days.
As soon as next week, the Senate may begin debating a bill to update expired provisions in the 1994 Violence Against Women Act, which provides assistance to victims of domestic abuse and other crimes. The bill, offered by Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), was approved last month in his panel on a party-line vote, a sharp shift from seven years ago when the bill sailed through his committee.
“Not to reauthorize this is a tragedy,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said Wednesday. “This is one more step in the removal of rights for women.”
Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley, the top Republican on the panel, said while he supports a reauthorization of the law, he has concerns with the Democratic bill because it would lead to the issuance of thousands of additional visas under the U-Visa program, which gives illegal immigrants who are victims of crimes a chance to gain legal status if they cooperate with law enforcement.
On top of that, Grassley said it would fail to resolve immigration fraud and said grant money given to victims has not been adequately tracked. At the committee meeting last month, Grassley also raised concerns about language in Leahy’s bill to broaden some of the law’s provisions to those in same-sex relationships.
In response, Grassley introduced his own bill that included stricter criteria for U-Visa eligibility. But Democrats rejected that bill saying it would gut a key Justice Department enforcement office and undermine the protections in the law.
Republicans said Wednesday they might move their own bill once the issue heads to the floor. And they pushed back on Democratic criticisms that they were being insensitive to women.
“It’s a politically popular bill, and if you try to improve it, or change it, and make it more efficient, then the complaint is you don’t care about the issue,” said Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), a member of the committee. “Nothing can be further from the truth.”
But Schumer added, that if the Republicans take positions that turn off voters, it’ll be their own fault.
“When the Democrats let the extreme left run the show, we lose out. We’ve learned that lesson the hard way on many occasions,” he said. “When Republicans let the hard right run the show, they lose out.”
War On Women: Chuck Schumer Says Violence Against Women Act Will Get Senate Vote
Huff Post
March 15, 2012
WASHINGTON -- Senate Democrats are set to try renewing the Violence Against Women Act as early as next week, opening a new and more literal front in what they see as a Republican war on women, The Huffington Post has learned.
The Violence Against Women Act passed overwhelmingly in 1994, and was renewed easily in 2000 and 2005. But it suddenly became a partisan issue last month, when every Republican on the Judiciary Committee opposed it, and it passed in a 10 to 8 vote.
Republicans objected to new language in the bill that would extend protections to undocumented immigrants and LGBT victims of domestic violence, as well as allowing native American authorities to prosecute some non-native offenders.
Democrats said they see that opposition as something that needs to be overcome for the sake of domestic abuse victims and another opportunity to highlight what they see as an increasingly hostile attitude toward women by Republicans.
"We were sort of shocked when every Republican on the Judiciary Committee voted against this," said Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), a member of the Judiciary Committee and the Democrat in charge of his party's policy priorities and message.
He said the act did enormous good, and that the new version would help more. But he argued that Republicans are looking for ways to satisfy the conservative base of their party and seizing on things like contraception, women's health, and now even their safety.
"Their issue has been the economy, the economy, the economy. But it's getting better," Schumer told The Huffington Post Wednesday. "They need something particularly to appease their hard-right wing, and going against women seems to be it."
Schumer cited the recent conservative outburst against contraception, and noted that even though polls find the issue is hurting Republicans, the GOP has not relented, especially in the House.
"It makes no sense politically for any political party to alienate the fastest growing group of voters, Hispanics, and then alienate a large chunk of the majority of voters -- women," Schumer said, referring to numerous anti-immigration stances the GOP has taken in recent years, including objections to helping undocumented immigrants in the Violence Against Women Act. "It makes no sense at all."
The bill has five Republican co-sponsors, but would need at least seven GOP votes to get to the 60 needed to break a filibuster and pass the Senate. Such a level of support seems achievable in the upper chamber. The Republican-controlled House has taken no action on companion legislation.
Schumer argued that if the bill does not pass, it reveals the true extremism of the GOP base.
"They have a bunch of excuses for opposing the bill. None of them are good, and all of them are ideological," he said, referring to objections on immigration and helping tribes.
"Just as they said their anti-contraception bill wasn't about contraception, of course now they're saying their opposition to [the Violence Against Women Act] has nothing to do with violence against women," Schumer said. "But you can't oppose an important act, and say it has nothing to do with violence against women. It's going to be a losing argument if they try to block the measure."
Schumer said he wasn't sure that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell or House Speaker John Boehner would be able to marshal the support for the bill because of problems with the GOP base.
"When either party is held captive by an extreme group at their far right or their far left, respectively, they lose out. You have ideologues, and that's what's happening here," Schumer said.
"Speaker Boehner is in a struggle, and Leader McConnell to a lesser extent," Schumer said. "They're trying to have a foot on each stool and the stools are getting further and further apart."
"The hard-right wants to bring up the Blunt amendment," Shumer said, referring to Missouri Republican Sen. Roy Blunt's failed attempt to exempt employers from having to provide insurance that covers contraception. "I think in his heart Speaker Boehner knows better than to do that. It's a loser for him, substantively and politically, but that's the two stools."
Schumer said he thinks one stool includes most Americans, who want contraception coverage and protections for abused spouses.
"This shows you where the Republican Party is moving," he said. "But we have no problem with highlighting women's issues. Women are a majority constituency. They often get forgotten in a male-dominated culture and political culture around here. And we believe that it's important to focus on problems of women, including violence against women."
The act, estimated to have dramatically reduced domestic violence, funds a broad range of training programs and aid for victims. It expired last year, and Schumer argued that letting it lapse longer will hamper progress that has been made.
"Before it passed and I was the House sponsor in 1994, women would routinely show up at police stations, bloody and beaten, and the police officers, not having any training or any ability to do anything, would say it's a domestic dispute, go home and solve it," Schumer said. "It needs to be renewed. It's been very successful."
If Senate floor action proceeds swiftly, the act could be brought up there next week. Schumer said the goal was to get it done before Congress takes its Easter break.
Schumer Schemes to Hit GOP
Schumer wants to fast track the Violence Against Women Act to the floor, let the GOP block it, then allow Democrats to accuse Republicans of waging a “war against women.”
NBC - New York
March 15, 2012
New York Sen. Chuck Schumer believes he has found a political weapon in the unlikeliest of places: the Violence Against Women Act.
Republicans have several objections to the legislation, but instead of making changes, Schumer wants to fast track the bill to the floor, let the GOP block it, then allow Democrats to accuse Republicans of waging a “war against women.”
It’s fodder for a campaign ad, and it’s not the only potential 30-second spot ready to spring from Senate leadership these days.
From his perch as the Democrats’ chief policy and messaging guru, Schumer wants to raise taxes on people who earn more than $1 million, and many Democrats want to push the vote for April 15, a move designed to amp up the “income inequality” rhetoric just in time for Tax Day.
Schumer has a plan for painting Republicans as anti-immigrant as well. He’s called the author of the Arizona immigration law to testify before his Judiciary subcommittee, bringing Capitol Hill attention to an issue that’s still front and center for Hispanic voters.
None of these campaign-style attacks allow for the policy nuances or reasoning behind the GOP’s opposition, and some of the bills stand no chance of becoming law.
But that’s not really the point.
The real push behind this effort is to give Democrats reasons to portray Republicans as anti-women, anti-Latino and anti-middle class. In the aftermath of a fight over a payroll tax cut for American workers and an Obama contraception policy, Democrats are ready for this next set of wedge issues.
“If a party chooses to alienate the fastest-growing group of people in the country [Latinos] and the majority of people in the country, women, they do so at their peril,” Schumer said Wednesday. “This is an important issue.”
The move carries some risk. The economy is still struggling, with the jobless rate above 8 percent and millions seeking work. Gas prices are skyrocketing. And Schumer himself said last Sunday that Democrats would focus like a “laser” on the economy, a comment Republicans giddily pointed out as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) pushed for judicial confirmations this week.
Schumer and Reid have also shown little interest in bringing forward a budget resolution this spring, saying that overall spending levels have already been agreed upon. That has opened them up to Republican charges they are steadfastly avoiding tough votes on the budget in favor of election-year point scoring.
Republicans see the latest chatter in the Senate as a political ploy by Democratic leaders to steady the ship in the face of a shaky political landscape.
“Sounds like all politics all the time,” said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), a member of his party’s leadership who also serves on the Judiciary Committee. He added that Republicans would point out the “cynical nature of what they’re trying to do that it’s not based on substance.”
Cornyn added: “We’ll be prepared to address their false narrative.”
The political strategy also risks inflaming partisan tensions. Arizona Republican Sens. Jon Kyl and John McCain criticized Schumer for calling for a hearing on their state’s tough law that gives law enforcement new powers to target prospective illegal immigrants, a subject of a Supreme Court challenge.
Both men said they had no idea Schumer was inviting former state Sen. Russell Pearce — the author of the law — to testify at a hearing next month.
“Generally, senatorial courtesy indicates you talk to the member states,” McCain said Wednesday. “I have never seen Sen. Schumer do anything unless it had a political agenda.”
Schumer’s office rejects the contention, saying that the New York Democrat notified Cornyn, the ranking Republican on the subcommittee, weeks before the offer was made public.
“This is a sunlight hearing,” Schumer said Wednesday. “The more the public hears some of these views from the people in Arizona, the more they’ll ask for a more moderate position.”
Still, Schumer said there are moments of bipartisanship in which the two sides can come together, and he rejects the notion that Democrats are skirting efforts to prop up the economy, pointing to the passage of a highway bill Wednesday and expected approval of a House-passed small-business bill. Schumer said on the floor Wednesday that he hoped it was a “moment of greater comity.”
But it may not last longer than a few days.
As soon as next week, the Senate may begin debating a bill to update expired provisions in the 1994 Violence Against Women Act, which provides assistance to victims of domestic abuse and other crimes. The bill, offered by Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), was approved last month in his panel on a party-line vote, a sharp shift from seven years ago when the bill sailed through his committee.
“Not to reauthorize this is a tragedy,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said Wednesday. “This is one more step in the removal of rights for women.”
Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley, the top Republican on the panel, said while he supports a reauthorization of the law, he has concerns with the Democratic bill because it would lead to the issuance of thousands of additional visas under the U-Visa program, which gives illegal immigrants who are victims of crimes a chance to gain legal status if they cooperate with law enforcement.
On top of that, Grassley said it would fail to resolve immigration fraud and said grant money given to victims has not been adequately tracked. At the committee meeting last month, Grassley also raised concerns about language in Leahy’s bill to broaden some of the law’s provisions to those in same-sex relationships.
In response, Grassley introduced his own bill that included stricter criteria for U-Visa eligibility. But Democrats rejected that bill saying it would gut a key Justice Department enforcement office and undermine the protections in the law.
Republicans said Wednesday they might move their own bill once the issue heads to the floor. And they pushed back on Democratic criticisms that they were being insensitive to women.
“It’s a politically popular bill, and if you try to improve it, or change it, and make it more efficient, then the complaint is you don’t care about the issue,” said Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), a member of the committee. “Nothing can be further from the truth.”
But Schumer added, that if the Republicans take positions that turn off voters, it’ll be their own fault.
“When the Democrats let the extreme left run the show, we lose out. We’ve learned that lesson the hard way on many occasions,” he said. “When Republicans let the hard right run the show, they lose out.”
Push On Violence Against Women Act Shows Democrats 'Scheming,' Republicans Say (UPDATE)
Huff Post
March 15, 2012
WASHINGTON -- Senate Democrats began their push to renew the Violence Against Women Act on Thursday, as the Republican leader accused them of perpetuating a scheme to make the GOP look bad.
"I mean, if you're looking for the reason Congress has a 9 percent approval rating, this is it," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), arguing that the attempt to renew the law, which expired in 2011, is part of a broader attempt by Democrats to rig legislation so that the GOP can't back it.
"A day after we read a headline in the Congressional Quarterly about Democrats moving to slow a jobs bill that got 390 votes, we see a story today about how the No. 3 Democrat in the Senate is 'scheming' to spend the rest of the year hitting the other side," McConnell said in a floor speech.
"At a moment of economic crisis, the No. 3 Democrat in Senate, the Democrat in charge of strategy over there, is sitting up at night trying to figure out a way to create an issue where there isn't one -- not to help solve our nation's problems, but to help Democrats get reelected," said McConnell, referring to Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.).
"The American people need to know what's going on in the Democrat-controlled Senate," McConnell said, entering Thursday's Politico story into the record.
But Democrats were not deterred, sending several woman senators to the floor to make the case for renewing the Violence Against Women Act.
"I think what we want to let people know is that we women care," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) shortly after her turn at the mic, noting that one Republican, Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, had joined them.
"The Violence Against Women Act is an important commitment to victims of domestic violence and sexual abuse that they are not alone," said Murkowski. "This is a promise that resources and expertise are available to prosecute those who would torment them and also a reason to believe that one can actually leave an abusive situation."
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) scoffed at McConnell's complaint, noting that his party had delayed the transportation bill over a proposed amendment from Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) that would have let employers cancel coverage of their employees' contraception.
"I have traveled across New York state discussing my vision for how to grow the economy and create jobs by finding common core values to pass what shouldn't be partisan ideas," Gillibrand said. "After stalling the transportation bill for weeks over an ideological fight to roll back women's access to basic health care, this is the kind of hypocritical rhetoric that Americans are tired of seeing in Washington."
Feinstein also suggested that any scheming was not on the Democratic side.
"Let me put it this way: There's been a long litany of attempts to weaken services to women -- and the last one was about a week ago with the Blunt amendment -- and over the past 20 years that I've been here, all over reproductive rights," Feinstein said. "About once a year, there's been something on reproductive rights. It's been a constant battering ram. Equal pay for equal work -- that was difficult to move."
Republicans have argued that they are not opposed to the Violence Against Women Act as it was passed before, but they don't like new provisions that would extend greater protections to undocumented immigrants, gays and transgender individuals and would grant more authority to tribal prosecutors.
"I think it's things that have never been in the Violence Against Women Act, because if we had just a straight reauthorization, it would pass 100 percent," said Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Noting that the cost of the legislation had been cut by more than $100 million, Feinstein said she'll be interested in seeing which parts the GOP tries to strike.
"We'll see if this is part of an effort to essentially reduce services to women, whether it's because the bill adds same-sex people, whether it's because the bill affords the services to people who are here in undocumented status," she said.
Since all Republican members of the judiciary panel voted against the bill in committee last month, Feinstein also worried that proponents will have to overcome a filibuster to pass it.
With 53 Democrats in the Senate plus five Republican co-sponsors of the bill, it is still just shy of the needed 60 votes, although Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) said Thursday that she would vote to at least start debate. She added that Republicans should have a chance to vote on changes to the legislation.
"I think we need to take up the bill, and I think we need to have an open amendment process," Hutchison said. She expressed concern that the tribal provisions could create double jeopardy for accused abusers, who might be charged in tribal and state courts.
Senate Democrats could bring up the bill as soon as next week, but hope to get to it before the Easter break. The House has not taken any action on a companion measure.
UPDATE: 7:45 p.m. -- Sen. Grassley's office later released a statement, insisting that the Republican leadership would not get in the way of reauthorizing the law as long as the GOP alternative was considered as well.
"The Violence Against Women Act program has strong bipartisan support in the Senate," Grassley said. "It's a shame that the majority party is manufacturing another partisan, political crisis, because in actuality, there is no concern that the VAWA will go away. The law is being funded and VAWA programs are running as they have since the reauthorization actually ran out last year."
His office also pointed to Grassley's full statement raising his concerns with the bill at a hearing last month.
Accusations fly in Senate over Violence Against Women Act
CNN Politics
March 15, 2012
Washington CNN — In a series of floor speeches Thursday, a group of mostly Democratic women senators made a high-profile and at times emotional appeal to Republicans to support an expanded Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). In doing so, they suggested Republicans were blocking the bill because it would extend its protections to illegal immigrants as well as gays and lesbians.
Many Republicans were furious at that suggestion and accused Democrats of election-year politics by trying to paint Republicans as anti-women.
“Let me put this on the table,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California. “This bill includes lesbians and gay men. The bill includes undocumented immigrants who are victims of domestic abuse. The bill gives Native American tribes authority to prosecute crimes. In my view these are improvements. Domestic violence is domestic violence.”
Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, the lone Republican to join in the floor speeches, said domestic violence victims in her state are often isolated in rural communities “where there is no law enforcement and there is no shelter and there is nowhere to go,” she said. “The Violence Against Women Act is, I think, a ray of hope for those who service victims of domestic violence and sexual assault within our villages.”
“Nobody opposes the reauthorization of this legislation,” Jon Kyl of Arizona, the second-ranking Senate Republican, told CNN. “If you follow the Judiciary Committee work on it, the questions had to do with the additions that have been made to this bill related to illegal immigrant visas, related to the additional sums of money and grants that would be available and the like.
“So what Republicans are focusing on is how to make a bill that should be reauthorized functional in this day and age of significant budget constraints so we can still accomplish the goals of the legislation,” Kyl continued. “I really resent the implication by some of my Democratic friends that if you’re trying to improve the bill that somehow you are for violence against women. That’s reprehensible.”
Asked whether the provisions about undocumented immigrants and gays and lesbians needed to be pulled from the bill, Kyl said: “I don’t know. Reasonable people ought to be able to sit down and work these things out.”
Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Alabama, accused reporters of “carrying Schumer’s water,” when they asked him whether he opposed the bill because it would include illegal immigrants and gays and lesbians. Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York is the Democrats’ top message strategist in the Senate. Republicans think it was his idea to suddenly put VAWA on the floor, just after high-profile battles over other women’s issues – like abortion and contraception – were in the news.
“I’m always for the Violence Against Women bill,” said Sessions who voted for a GOP alternative bill that was defeated in the Democratic-majority Judiciary Committee. But he said every time VAWA is up for reauthorization, “if you don’t agree with everything that’s in it, they just attack you as being anti-women.”
Sessions added that he was not aware until Thursday the Democrats bill extended to lesbian, gays and illegal immigrants but he acknowledged voters could misread Republicans’ views on the bill.
Democrats raise violence against women act
Associated Press: US Politics & Government Online
March 15, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
WASHINGTON (AP) — Senate Democrats fired the latest political shot in what they're calling the Republican "war against women" Thursday, pushing to renew and expand a law that fights violence against women and pays to help victims. They dared GOP senators to vote against it.
"Protecting women against violence shouldn't be a partisan issue," Sen. Patty Murray, chairwoman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said from the Senate floor, where a group of female senators spoke in favor of the legislation.
Money for the Violence Against Women Act has been widely supported by lawmakers of both parties since the law was first signed in 1994. But the timing of the 2012 Senate debate is unmistakably political. It comes at the height of an election year in which the presidency and the congressional majorities are at stake. And it fits neatly into the Democrats' overarching campaign theme that Republicans aren't standing up for women on contraception, abortion rights, health insurance and now domestic violence.
While grappling for a way to rebut the "war on women" narrative, Republicans said the legislation at issue would add objectionable measures to violence against women law.
Two weeks ago, Republicans narrowly lost a Senate vote on trying to reverse President Barack Obama's directive that health insurers pay for the cost of birth control pills or devices even if they object on moral or religious grounds.
Republicans criticized Democrats for making a scene Thursday on the Senate floor without having so much as scheduled a vote. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell complained that the issue distracted from a small business bill that could create jobs.
"Their plan isn't to work together to make it easier to create jobs but to look for ways to make it easier to keep their own, then use it for campaign ads in the run-up to the November elections," said McConnell, who has voted for the Violence Against Women Act in the past.
The act, which would add government funding and legal muscle to the fight against domestic violence, has been reauthorized several times and this year has 58 co-sponsors — two senators short of the 60 needed to overcome a filibuster. The co-sponsors include five Republicans: Sens. Scott Brown of Massachusetts, Susan Collins of Maine, Mike Crapo of Idaho, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Olympia Snowe of Maine. Also signed onto the bill is Republican Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois, who is on leave recovering from a stroke.
This year's update has run into opposition from Republicans who object to new provisions, such as one that includes gay and transgender victims in the protections. Republicans also object to a provision regarding visas for immigrant victims.
The measure also would give Native American tribes authority to prosecute non-Indians who commit violence against American Indian women, which raises concern among some opponents about giving tribal courts increased power over defendants who are not tribal members. In 1978, the Supreme Court ruled that tribes do not have authority over people who are not American Indian, even when the crime takes place on a reservation and involves a member of a tribe.
Violence Against Women Act: A political opening for Democrats?
Christian Science Monitor, The
March 15, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Abstract: Senate Democrats aim to extend the Violence Against Women Act, adding services for illegal immigrants and same-sex couples, a move Republicans say is out to score political points.
Violence against women – once a bipartisan concern on Capitol Hill – is shaping up as a largely partisan clash, as Democrats push to extend a legislative winning streak on women’s health and rights.
Six female Democratic senators were joined by Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska (R) on the Senate floor Thursday to offer their support for the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act, which expired in September.
The bill expands funding for state and local governments to respond to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and (a new category) stalking.
Two previous iterations of the six-year bill, originally drafted by then-Sen. Joseph Biden in 1993, have been renewed with solid bipartisan support. However, the new bill cleared the Senate Finance Committee on Feb. 2 without a single GOP vote.
Indications are that both sides are playing politics.
Democrats have added provisions, such as expanding aid to same-sex couples and undocumented immigrants, that make the bill a nonstarter for many Republicans. In a presidential election year, Democrats are using the Republicans' opposition to bolster their claims that Republicans are waging a “war against women” – a bid to woo women voters.
Republicans, meanwhile, are trying to force the Democrats to pay a political price for moving the bill. They want an open amendment process that would allow them to take out parts of the bill they say are unpalatable.
Democrats say their additions to the bill are necessary and question the Republican decision to dig in.
“It signals that there well could be a filibuster. Now, why?” says Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D) of California. “The police department responds to a call regardless of who it is. And the service should be there regardless of who it is."
Republicans respond that their amendments to the bill were “summarily dismissed” in the committee, said Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R) of Texas.
“I think we need to take up the bill, and I think we need to have an open amendment process” on the Senate floor, said Senator Hutchison, who supports reauthorizing the law.
An open-amendment process is now rare in the Senate.
Specifically, Republicans are concerned about how the bill addresses domestic violence among Native Americans, as well as potential abuses of the system by illegal immigrants who claim domestic abuse to access temporary visas. The legislation also doesn't do enough to ensure "more money goes to victims rather than bureaucrats," said Sen. Charles Grassley (R) of Iowa, the ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, in a statement.
But Republican opposition could come at a cost.
President Obama now has a “cavernous” electoral advantage with women,” according to a new poll released by Pew Research Center President Andy Kohut at Monitor breakfast for reporters on Wednesday. Mr. Obama leads both Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney by roughly 20 percentage points among women, according to Pew’s polling.
A recent New York Times/CBS poll showed a smaller gap of around 10 percentage points in favor of Mr. Obama.
Democrats feel they have won a series of messaging battles on similar topics in recent weeks. The Senate beat back an amendment to transportation legislation that would have allowed employers to opt out of a new federal health-care mandate for their employees, if they have religious objections. Republicans called the measure a protection for religious freedom. Democrats dubbed it an assault on women’s access to contraception.
Then, Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) backed off his support for legislation requiring Virginia women seeking an abortion to undergo an invasive ultrasound procedure after the issue stirred a national debate.
In addition to today’s discussion on the Senate floor, the Democratic National Committee blasted out a flood of statements from members of Congress on Wednesday knocking GOP presidential front-runner Mr. Romney for comments about Planned Parenthood.
In an interview with a St. Louis television station earlier that day, Romney said he would end federal funding for Planned Parenthood. Democrats panned the interview as a wish to “get rid” of Planned Parenthood altogether – an aim that Romney denies.
“When Mitt Romney says he would, ‘get rid of’ Planned Parenthood, it demonstrates how completely out of touch he is with that the reality that millions of American women depend on these health centers for vital services,” said Rep. Allyson Schwartz (D) of Pennsylvania, in a statement.
Planned Parenthood, a nationwide group that provides health-care services for women, including abortion, has long been a partisan Rorschach test. Democrats see it as a key provider of inexpensive health care, particularly for women, while Republicans have long blasted the group as little more than a backdoor for the federal government to fund abortions.
Now, legislation dealing with violence against women is set to test the strength of the Senate’s recent bipartisanship on transportation and small-business legislation against the lure of scoring political points on both sides.
Still, six Republicans have endorsed the legislation, including Sens. Scott Brown of Massachusetts, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, Mike Crapo of Idaho, Murkowski of Alaska, and Mark Kirk of Illinois, who is on leave.
Calling the Violence Against Women Act “a ray of hope” for rural Alaskan women during a speech from the Senate floor, Senator Murkowski urged that the GOP's concerns be heard “so we can have, we should have, an overwhelmingly bipartisan bill.”
“This is too important an issue for women and men and families,” she added.
Battle brewing in Senate over extension of domestic violence law
Fairbanks Daily News-Miner (AK)
March 15, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
WASHINGTON - With emotions still raw from the fight over President Barack Obama's contraception mandate, Senate Democrats are beginning a push to renew the Violence Against Women Act, the once broadly bipartisan 1994 legislation that now faces fierce opposition from conservatives.
The fight over the law, which would expand financing for and broaden the reach of domestic violence programs, will be joined Thursday when Senate Democratic women plan to march to the Senate floor to demand quick action on its extension. Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, has suggested he will push for a vote by the end of March.
Democrats, confident they have the political upper hand with women, insist that Republican opposition falls into a larger picture of insensitivity toward women that has progressed from abortion fights to contraception to preventive health care coverage - and now to domestic violence.
"I am furious," said Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash. "We're mad, and we're tired of it."
Republicans are bracing for a battle where substantive arguments could be swamped by political optics and the intensity of the clash over women's issues. At a closed-door Senate Republican lunch Tuesday, Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska warned her colleagues that the party is at risk of being successfully painted as anti-woman - with potentially grievous political consequences in the fall, several Republican senators said Wednesday.
Some conservatives are feeling trapped.
"I favor the Violence Against Women Act and have supported it at various points over the years, but there are matters put on that bill that almost seem to invite opposition," said Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., who opposed the latest version last month in the Judiciary Committee. "You think that's possible? You think they might have put things in there we couldn't support that maybe then they could accuse you of not being supportive of fighting violence against women?"
The legislation would continue existing grant programs to local law enforcement and battered women shelters, but it would expand efforts to reach Indian tribes and rural areas. It would increase the availability of free legal assistance to victims of domestic violence, extend the definition of violence against women to include stalking, and provide training for civil and criminal court personnel to deal with families with a history of violence. It would also allow more battered illegal immigrants to claim temporary visas and would include same-sex couples in programs for domestic violence.
Republicans say the measure, under the cloak of battered women, unnecessarily expands immigration avenues by creating new definitions for immigrant victims to claim battery. More important, they say, it fails to put in safeguards to ensure that domestic violence grants are being well spent. It also dilutes the focus on domestic violence by expanding protections to new groups, like same-sex couples.
Critics of the legislation acknowledged that the name alone presents a challenge if they intend to oppose it over some of its specific provisions.
"Obviously, you want to be for the title," Sen. Roy Blunt of Missouri, a member of the Republican leadership, said of the Violence Against Women Act. "If Republicans can't be for it, we need to have a very convincing alternative."
The latest Senate version of the bill has five Republican co-sponsors, including Michael D. Crapo of Idaho, a co-author, but it failed to get a single Republican vote in the Judiciary Committee last month.
As suggested by Sessions, Republicans detect a whiff of politics in the Democrats' timing. The party just went through a bruising fight over efforts to replace the Obama administration's contraception-coverage mandate with legislation allowing employers to opt out of coverage for medical procedures they object to on religious or moral grounds.
Polling appears mixed over which side gained political ground on the fight, but Republican lawmakers are not eager to revisit it. State efforts in Virginia and Ohio to mandate ultrasounds before an abortion or ban abortions once a heartbeat is detected have further inflamed passions. And the Democratic National Committee on Wednesday pounced on a suggestion by Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential candidate, that he would eliminate federal funds for Planned Parenthood.
''There are lots of other issues right now that could be dealt with other than this one," said Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., who is responsible for Republican messaging. "I suspect there's a reason for bringing it up now."
But if Republican lawmakers are not eager to oppose a domestic violence bill, conservative activists are itching for a fight. Janice Shaw Crouse, a senior fellow at the conservative Concerned Women for America, said her group had been pressing senators hard - especially Judiciary Committee members - to oppose any reauthorization of legislation she called "a boondoggle" that vastly expands government and "creates an ideology that all men are guilty and all women are victims."
Last month on the conservative website Townhall.com, conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly called the Violence Against Women Act a slush fund "used to fill feminist coffers" and demanded that Republicans stand up against legislation that promotes "divorce, breakup of marriage and hatred of men."
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calf., one of two women on the judiciary panel, said the partisan op position came as a "real surprise," but she put it into a broader picture.
"This is part of a larger effort, candidly, to cut back on rights and services to women," she said. "We've seen it go from discussions on Roe v. Wade, to partial birth abortion, to contraception, to preventive services for women. This seems to be one more thing."
Republicans say they see that line of attack coming and will try through amendments to make the final version more palatable. But if Democrats dig in, Republicans will stand their ground, Blunt said, pointing to a new New York Times/CBS News poll that showed Americans supporting an exemption to the contraception mandate for religiously-affiliated employers 57 percent to 36 percent. By 51 percent to 40 percent, Americans appeared to back Senate efforts to grant employers an exemption on religious or moral exemption grounds.
"Our friends on the other side are in serious danger of overplaying their hand on this one," Blunt said.
Vice President Biden on the Attack; Interview With Michigan Senator Carl Levin
John King, USA [CNN] (USA)
Author/Byline: Jessica Yellin, Jim Acosta, Casey Wian, Dana Bash, John King,Gloria Borger; Dana Bash; John Vause; CNN contributor and Democratic strategist Maria Cardona; Kate
March 15, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
JOHN KING, CNN ANCHOR: Good evening. I'm John King.
Tonight: Afghanistan's president says relations are damaged, that it's time, he says, for U.S. troops to leave Afghan villages. We will ask the Senate's top man on military matters whether that undermines the mission.
Also, Vice President Biden names names, directly attacking Republican candidates, as team Obama shifts to a much more aggressive reelection strategy.
And President Obama's gas price politics amnesia. As he mocks Republicans for their gas pump photo-ops, we will take you back to a time when he looked more kindly on such stunts.
We begin with an important story just into CNN. The still unidentified U.S. soldier blamed for this week's deadly massacre in Afghanistan now has a high-powered lawyer, the prominent Seattle attorney John Henry Browne, who once represented serial killer Ted Bundy.
Browne spoke with CNN's Casey Wian just a short time ago.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN HENRY BROWNE, ATTORNEY: It's a tragedy all the way around. There's no question about that. I think it's of interest that we have a soldier who has an exemplary record, decorated soldier who was injured in Iraq to his brain and to his body, and then despite that was sent back.
I think that's an issue. I think it's a concern. I think the message for the public in general is that he's one of our boys and we need to treat him fairly.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: Casey Wian joins us now from Pierce County, Washington.
Casey, listening to the attorney there, he didn't say my client didn't do it. He seemed to say his defense would be this soldier never, because of his injuries in Iraq in 2010, should have been sent back to the battlefield.
CASEY WIAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, he did not say that definitively, John, but he certainly indicated that that was one avenue that they would be going to be -- they were going to be exploring.
Of course, there have been many concerns, many reports in recent days about the base out here near Tacoma, Joint Base Lewis-McChord, and allegations that perhaps troops were sent back into the battlefield earlier than they should be. Perhaps concerns about PTSD were not being fully addressed.
So clearly this attorney is planning to address those issues and see if that is one avenue for a possible defense. Other information that we were able to gather from him, he spoke with the soldier this morning, very early this morning. He said the soldier who he would not identify by name for us was very quiet and asked his attorney to send his love to his family, his wife and children.
That brought up another interesting issue, John, because there has been speculation and there have been reports that there were marital issues and that that was maybe one possibility of why this soldier may have done what he did.
And John Henry Browne, his attorney, said that that is absolute hogwash in his words. There were no marital issues here and that he continues have a very close relationship with his family, also says it's one of the reasons that the soldier has not been named and a concern he shares is for the safety of the family. They have been moved onto the base here near Tacoma for their own protection, John.
KING: Very important reporting from our Casey Wian.
Casey, thanks so much. We will stay in touch as this story develops.
In a related development today, Afghan President Hamid Karzai calls for a drastic pullback of U.S. troops. Still angry about Sunday's massacre, 16 civilians killed in that shooting spree, Karzai told Defense Secretary Leon Panetta U.S. forces should leave their outposts in Afghan villages and return to their main bases.
He also wants Afghan forces to take over the country's security in 2013. That's a year earlier than planned right now.
After the meeting, Panetta emphasized there's no change in U.S. strategy.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LEON PANETTA, U.S. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: I think everyone also agreed that we need to stick to the strategy that we have laid out for the future. The campaign, as I have pointed out before, I think has made significant progress. All of the leaders agree.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: Another important related development to this story tonight, new worries tonight anger over the massacre in Afghanistan could spark a terror attack here in the United States.
A new security bulletin says the FBI and Department of Homeland Security are concerned that this event could contribute to the radicalization or mobilization of homegrown violent extremists in the homeland, particularly against U.S.-based military targets.
Important developments in politics today as well. Both Senator Rick Santorum and the former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney are focusing on Puerto Rico, upcoming primary this weekend in Puerto Rico. Today the Romney campaign picked a fight with Senator Santorum by coming out against the former senator's contention that Puerto Ricans will have to make English their official language in order to be granted statehood.
In San Juan today, Santorum defended that position.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RICK SANTORUM (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: What I said was English has to be learned as a language. And this has to be a country where English is widely spoken and used, yes.
JIM ACOSTA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Should it be a requirement for this territory to become a state?
SANTORUM: I think English and Spanish -- obviously Spanish is going to be spoken here in the island, but this needs to be a bilingual country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: CNN national political correspondent Jim Acosta has more from San Juan.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ACOSTA: John, Rick Santorum created this controversy all on his own when he told a Puerto Rican newspaper that he thinks it should be a requirement for Puerto Rico to adopt English as a main language as a condition for statehood.
This is a big issue on the island because Puerto Ricans may be going to the polls this fall to decide whether or not they would like to become a U.S. state. The reaction to Santorum's comments were almost instant. One of his delegates announced that he was withdrawing his support for the former Pennsylvania senator in light of these comments.
But when we had a chance to catch up with Rick Santorum earlier today he did not back down from these comments, although he did say he would like to see English and Spanish be the main languages for this island. But the Romney campaign is already drawing a distinction on this. Mitt Romney released a statement saying that he would not insist on Puerto Rico adopting English as a condition for statehood.
He's going to be here on the island over the next couple of days campaigning for the 20 delegates that are up for grabs on Sunday. It just goes to show you, once again, that not only does every state matter in this race for the GOP nomination, but every territory does as well -- John.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KING: Jim Acosta in San Juan.
Now some more politics back here on the mainland, a sharper, higher-profile campaign mode for both President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden. Tonight, the Obama reelection campaign premieres a new 17-minute video pointing to what his people see, the Obama team, as the big accomplishments of the president's first term.
And today in the vital swing state of Ohio, Vice President Biden went after the top Republican contenders by name.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOSEPH BIDEN, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The economic theories of Gingrich, Santorum and Romney, they are bankrupt.
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
BIDEN: If you give any one of these guys the keys to the White House, they will bankrupt the middle class again.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: Let's check in with our chief White House correspondent, Jessica Yellin.
Jess, why name names now?
JESSICA YELLIN, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: I have talked to multiple senior Democratic sources on this one, John. The answer's pretty simple. They thought that there would be a Republican nominee by now.
The folks I have talked to say that in addition to that, they planned this a few weeks ago. And not only did they think there would be a nominee, but they ultimately decided they just can't wait until May or June to start responding to Republican attacks. And so they decided to start -- quote -- "drawing contrasts."
KING: So, Jess, Ohio today for the vice president. What's next? And I guess the more important question may be when we look at an electoral map, where next? How are they deciding where to go as they escalate the attacks?
YELLIN: So Vice President Biden I'm told by a senior Democratic official will go to Florida next week to a senior center where he will focus on Medicare and attack the so-called Ryan budget. That's what they term the House Republican budget.
And so that will be the message he hits there. The vice president will also focus on -- these are key states for the president in his campaign effort, New Hampshire, Iowa and parts of Virginia possibly as well. He's also going to have a little bit of focus on Pennsylvania.
But the campaign is feeling a little bit more cheery that their chances are looking better there. So, Ohio and Florida, and then those other states are the vice president's focus, John. Finally, as you know, the campaign feels that Vice President Biden is among their best ambassadors to these states because he has the best rapport with basically blue-collar voters as well as Jewish and Catholic voters, John.
KING: You're going to be speaking the words Ohio and Florida quite a bit in the eight months ahead. Our chief White House correspondent, Jessica Yellin, Jess, thanks.
And still ahead here: the return of the gender gap. Some key issues appear to be hurting Republicans in their efforts to appeal to women voters.
But, next, the powerful chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee weighs in on letting Afghan forces take responsibility for their country's security.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. CARL LEVIN (D), MICHIGAN: We have given them the training. They are much larger in terms of numbers. They are better-equipped. They are respected by the Afghan people. And they should take responsibility for their own country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: In the wake of the massacre this past weekend in Afghanistan, the Obama administration is insisting, despite some damages in relationships and despite some outcry back home to bring the troops home, that it will stick to its strategy to bring the troops home and end the combat role in 2014.
A new poll out today shows that could be a tough sell; 50 percent of the American people want U.S. troops out quicker than the president's timetable. So will public pressure change the policy?
A bit earlier, I spoke with the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Carl Levin of Michigan.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KING: Mr. Chairman, President Karzai says he wants NATO troops to leave their outposts and to come back to their bases. If the president of Afghanistan says they should get out of the communities and go back to the bigger bases, should the troops do that?
LEVIN: What I understand President Karzai is saying is that not that all combat troops would out by 2013, but that they'd only be out of certain areas by the end of 2013.
So I don't think this is necessarily a major difference. And we will decide, the president will decide what the pace of the reductions are of our forces after summer of this year, when we're down to about 70,000, whether we're going to continue to reduce troops from the end of this summer to 2014 or whether there's going to be a delay in any further reductions. That's to me the real big issue which is facing the president, not necessarily what President Karzai said today.
KING: But, to what President Karzai said today, the point of a counterinsurgency strategy is to put the troops in the community, to try to rebuild the communities where the Taliban once held them, to try to rebuild trust first with the U.S. troops and then with the Afghan forces who would presumably take over.
If you can't be out in the most troubled communities, what's the point of the mission?
LEVIN: The mission should be, as far as I'm concerned, number- one mission is not that we protect the Afghan people, but that we help train, equip and strengthen the Afghan forces, so that they can protect their own people.
And that is consistent with what President Karzai said, in my judgment.
KING: The point of this mission for 10 years now has been to get Afghanistan to a point that when the troops ultimately leave, al Qaeda does not come back, the Taliban does not come back and allow terrorist camps, the Taliban does not come back and allow its heinous reign in some of these communities.
Are you convinced that that is still necessary? Bin Laden is dead. The president often says al Qaeda is decimated. Many of its top deputies are dead. Do we need to be there at those levels, sir, especially when it's clear a lot of the locals don't want us there, to accomplish that mission?
LEVIN: I don't think we should be there at those levels if you're referring to the 108,000 level. And that's why I very strongly supported the reduction of troops, which we are doing right now. That reduction is under way; 30,000 troops will be removed by the end of this summer, the so-called surge forces.
And then the key issue which the president will have to resolve is whether, after the 30,000 surge force is removed by the end of this summer, whether we will continue to reduce our troops through 2014, when we will be down to no combat troops being there. I hope the president sticks with what he said some months ago, that the reductions will continue at a steady pace after this summer and that he will not feel that he should stop the reductions, as some of our key uniformed military would have him do at the end of this summer.
KING: Well, you get to a point of contention in the debate. You seem in sync with the president, although you have that question for what happens down the road a little bit. I want you to listen to your friend and colleague -- mostly friend and colleague -- Senator John McCain. He was on this program the other night.
He thinks the president has got this one wrong. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: He doesn't have much credibility anymore in the region because initially for a surge, they asked for 40,000. He agreed to only 30,000. They needed the end of another fighting season in order to finish the job in Eastern Afghanistan. The president announced an early withdrawal.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: So the senator is saying, Senator McCain is saying give the commanders what they want.
You're saying the commanders are out of time, don't give them any more troops?
LEVIN: Some of the military leadership here want to stop reductions at the end of this summer. That's what some of our military leaders want. The president has said we're not going to stop reductions at the end of this summer. We're going to continue at a steady pace.
I hope the president sticks to that position and that we continue to reduce our troops at a steady pace, because that is the way to force the Afghan army and the Afghan security forces to take responsibility for their own security. We have given them the training. They are much larger in terms of numbers. They are better- equipped. They are respected by the Afghan people.
And they should take responsibility for their own country.
KING: Mr. Chairman, appreciate your time tonight.
LEVIN: Sure.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KING: Again today, President Obama mocked his Republican rivals for promising -- and for photo-ops in the process at gas pumps -- promising to lower your gas prices, apparently forgetting a bit of his own political history. More on that in a little bit.
But, next, the former governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich, well, he makes the most of his last chance to share the spotlight.
KING: Welcome back.
(NEWS BREAK)
KING: Up next: disturbing allegations that the president of Syria and his wife -- get this -- were shopping online while their country descended into chaos. Thousands of alleged e-mails have been uncovered. We will have that story next.
KING: In this half-hour: new evidence the gender gap is back. And Republicans are making it wider, Democrats say, by pushing issues like birth control.
But President Obama, well, he has a bit of a problem of his own, a case of political amnesia when it comes to complaining about photo- ops and high gas prices.
And while the country burns and thousands die, the wife of Syria's leader apparently e-mailing her friends about among other things "Harry Potter." We will read some of these e-mails in just a bit.
It's the latest round in the battle of what the Democrats call the Republican war on women. It's the Violence Against Women Act now up for reauthorization in the Congress. And last time it passed with plenty of support from both Democrats and Republicans.
But here's why there's trouble this time around.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D), CALIFORNIA: Yet, The bill includes lesbians and gay men. The bill includes undocumented immigrants who are victims of domestic abuse. The bill gives Native American tribes authority to prosecute crimes. In my view, these are improvements.
Domestic violence is domestic violence.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: Our senior congressional correspondent Dana Bash is here.
How big of a fight are we looking at? Is this fight about expanding the bill or would this be a vehicle for another argument?
DANA BASH, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Both, yes.
Look, you just heard Dianne Feinstein lay out pretty well what Democrats are trying to do, expand the Violence Against Women Act to include gays and lesbians, to include illegal immigrants. But Republicans say the Democrats are trying to do with their version is to expand the scope beyond what the Violence Against Women Act was meant to do.
And, for example, Chuck Grassley, he says that what the Democrats' version would do would give visas to immigrants without really having things in there to ferret out fraud. So that's what the Republicans say.
The answer to your important question about politics is absolutely yes, because, as you mentioned, Democrats feel that they really were doing well politically by saying that Republicans are waging a war on women. That is the main reason why we saw all of these Democratic women go to the Senate floor today, because, I mean, what could be worse, more offensive potentially to women out there than saying the Republicans are against the Violence Against Women Act?
And that is why on the Republican side, Jon Kyl, the number two Republican, he told our Ted Barrett that it is -- quote -- "reprehensible" what Democrats are doing, because Republicans are for it. They just want a different version.
KING: They want a different version, so they see politics here. But that's Jon Kyl, male Republican. This isn't all one-sided. Lisa Murkowski, she's on board with this. Listen here.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. LISA MURKOWSKI (R), ALASKA: Our statistics as they relate to domestic violence and sexual assault are horrific. They're as ugly as they come. Overall, nearly six in 10 Alaskan women have been victims of sexual assault or domestic violence.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: Now, is she trying to send a message to her own party there? Is she in a tough spot herself?
BASH: Again, all of the above.
She is -- I think at the end of the day, it is going to be very difficult for Republicans to be in a position where it looks like they're against Violence Against Women, but it also is going to be difficult for Democrats to keep beating this drum.
There's a subplot going on with Lisa Murkowski, because the last issue dealing with women of course was contraception. Lisa Murkowski voted with her fellow Republicans against allowing free contraception for women. And then she later said she regretted that. In fact, she told me in an interview on something else yesterday that she believes that her party is in the wrong place when it comes to women.
So, she was aligning herself there with women because she actually heard about it from women back home.
KING: The conversation on the Senate floor today is going to be a conversation in our politics for the next eight months for the election.
Let's bring in our chief political analyst, Gloria Borger and see how this fight over contraception and other issues are playing into 2012.
And Gloria, let's look at the numbers. If you look at the free birth control issue, women favor getting free access to birth control as part of the health coverage, the 58 percent. But if you look at the government mandating birth control, 40-40 split among women. So depending on what the actual question front and center is, a different debate?
GLORIA BORGER, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: You know, Democrats think -- Dana was saying that they're going to get a free ride on this issue. I think it's much more complicated than that. It really does depend on how you ask the question.
If it's a health issue, a women's health issue, and birth control is seen as a women's health issue, then the Democrats have the advantage. But if it's seen as a religious liberty issue or just a liberty issue, unh-uh. Then the Republicans have the advantage.
The problems the Republicans have is that they turned a good issue into a bad issue, because they turned it from religious liberty into an issue of contraception. And that's where you lose women.
KING: If you look at the race for the White House right now, we're going to watch this play out across the country. Let's look at the race for the White House right now. You look, show the numbers up here. President Obama has a considerable lead, if you do the gender gap question, over both Mitt Romney and Senator Rick Santorum among women.
So at the moment, the Republicans there need to worry.
BORGER: Oh, my gosh, yes. They really need to worry. And that's why you see President Obama out there talking about women's health issues, you know, meeting with nurses. You know, I mean, this has become a huge issue for them.
There's usually a gender gap in favor of the Democrats. What we see now is a gender gulch. And in order to win the election -- women vote; women are independent voters -- the Republicans really need to figure out a way to narrow this to get women on board.
They managed to do it in the 2010 mid-term elections. They did very well with women. They have to do it on the economy, I think, and health care. If they can convince women that health-care reform does not work for their family, that will be very useful to them. So far they haven't done that.
KING: Is there a concern -- Gloria said the Republicans had this one on the issue of religious liberty, then overplayed their hand and ended up in a conversation about contraceptives. Do any Democrats worry that when they see this, they're getting almost too happy to get into these issues, and they could overplay their hand?
DANA BASH, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes. Probably there's no question. For example the Violence against Women Act, this doesn't necessarily have to be re-authorized until the end of the fiscal year. But politically, the time is right for them to strike. That's why they did it.
A lot of Democrats privately say that they're a little worried that they're going to do too much.
KING: This will be an important subject.
BORGER: I've never heard of a politician overplaying his hand.
KING: Never. Never happens. Never. Especially not in an election year. Dana, Gloria thanks for coming in.
Now shifting to important national news, on March 15, 2011, the people of the Syria took to the streets in mostly peaceful protests, pushing for the right to speak for political reforms. One year later, it's a country deep in crisis, possibly on the brink of a civil war.
Watch as it appears here that an army tank targeted for attack.
An activist inside Syria says the death toll is fast approaching 10,000. The United Nations put that number at closer to 8,000.
And as the people of Syria have been fighting and dying for their freedom, their president, Bashar al Assad, apparently has been ordering pop music off iTunes. His playlist includes "Sexy and I Know It" by LMFAO, "Look at Me Now" by Chris Brown, and "Bizarre Love Triangle" by New Order. How do we know that? Well, that's according to thousands of private e-mails now obtained by CNN.
Our senior international correspondent, John Vause, has been leafing through these e-mails. And John, what else horrific are you finding?
JOHN VAUSE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, you know, John, we've had a lot of people going through these e-mails. There's about 3,000 of them in all. We've been looking at them from Dubai to Beirut. Some are in Arabic; some are in English. There is no one breathtaking revelation in all of this.
But what we do see is a president, his wife and their aides who appear to be oblivious to the turmoil around them. We also get to see the influence that Iran has on the regime.
Now, last January before a major speech, an aide said that she was in touch with Iran's embassy and they advised President Assad to use strong and powerful language. In that speech, Assad said he would crush the opposition with an iron fist.
There's another collection of e-mails coming from the Damascus bureau chief for Iran's press TV. This was sent when Arab League observers were on the ground. And he advises the president, "We need to take control of public squares. At the same time, groups affiliated with us will fill those squares."
And then there is the first lady. Now, back in November, just as the violence in Homs was really starting to tick up, Assam al-Assad was e-mailing a friend. And she said, "Are you coming around the 2nd or before? If so can you bring the Harry Potter DVD, 'Deathly Hallows, Part 2'?"
In fact, it seems that the first lady spent a lot of time online shopping for expensive jewelry, art and furniture. She was e-mailing the boutiques in London and Paris. She even sent away for a special fondue set at Harrod's in London.
One thing we get from those e-mails, repeatedly, we see Assad's inner circle, his aides, just fawning all over him. There's a typical message that reads like this: "I never met an amazing person like you. I get so proud when people meet you and go tell the world how amazing you are. Miss you."
Now, there's no 800-pound gorilla in all this. But it is an insight nonetheless, John.
KING: An insight into the disconnect, the oblivious or maybe just the deliberate ignoring of what's happening in the country. John, many viewers are probably asking, how do we know these e-mails are real?
VAUSE: Well, we got about 3,000 of them. We got them from a source in the region. And for the last couple of days we've been going through all the e-mail addresses. We've been cross checking them with e-mail addresses that we know.
We've also been looking at events -- a family vacation that was referenced in one of the e-mails, the speech which Assad gave -- to make sure that they were legit.
What we also know is that this all began about a year ago. A government worker, we're told, smuggled out what appears to be the e- mail addresses and the passwords for Assad and his wife, for their e- mails. And these e-mails have now stopped, because that small group of activists who have been watching the regime in real time for the last 12 months, they were hacked by a bigger group. And then last month all traffic to Assad's e-mail account stopped.
KING: Important reporting. Our senior international correspondent John Vause. John, thanks so much.
Coming up, tonight's "Truth." Why is Vice President Biden naming names and the Obama campaign suddenly getting tougher.
Plus, the president mocks his Republican opponents, saying he's seen this movie before. They go to the gas pump; they promise lower gas price. He has seen this movie. In fact, stay with us. You'll see. He starred in it.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KING: Something important happened on the campaign trail today that didn't involve the Republican race. Team Obama decided it was time to get personal.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE BIDEN, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The economic theories of Gingrich, Santorum and Romney. They are bankrupt. If you give any one of these guys the keys to the White House, they will bankrupt the middle class again.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: It was the first time the vice president has named names. And speaking at an auto factory there in Toledo, Ohio, he gave the frontrunner, Mitt Romney, a bit more attention than the others.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BIDEN: Governor Romney was more direct: "Let Detroit go bankrupt."
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: Here's tonight's "Truth." The vice president and the Obama campaign aren't just getting personal for kicks. They're getting personal and more aggressive because they know how vulnerable they are, just how tough the state-by-state Electoral College map is.
Need more proof? The president is dialing it up a notch, too, though he prefers not to use the names just yet.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Every time prices start to go up, especially in an election year, politicians dust off their three-point plans for $2 gas. They head down to the gas station. They make sure a few cameras are following them. And then they start acting like, "We've got a magic wand, and we will give you cheap gas forever."
(END VIDEO CLIP)
OBAMA: Now, in criticizing Republicans for their gas price attacks, the president says -- you heard it there; it gets worse -- in a mocking tone that he's seen this movie before. Maybe he forgets. He hasn't just seen it. He starred in it.
Look here. Here's then-Senator Obama back in the 2008 election year. Yes, down at the pump with a few cameras following him. I hope we can get those pictures up for you there. Blaming oil companies in the Bush administration and even his Democratic opponents for high gas prices.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OBAMA: So what have we got for all that experience? Gas that's approaching $4 a gallon.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: So sorry, Mr. President. What goes around comes around. But that's beside the point. Truth is, Vice President Biden is naming names and the president himself responding more often and more forcefully because they see what we see. Polling data suggesting that voters in much of the country just aren't feeling much better about the economy. Higher gas prices only add to that anxiety. And economic anxiety is an incumbent politician's dreaded enemy.
Where they're attacking is also telling. The vice president was in Ohio just two days after the president was in Ohio for some March Madness. The next stop for the Biden naming names tour? Florida. You see a lot of national polls, but in election years the presidential contests are settled state by state.
And while most of our attention is on the roller-coaster Republican race, team Obama knows the map this year is much, much, much tougher than 2008.
So today, 236 days -- I know you're counting -- until the big election, the incumbents decided it was time to turn it up a notch and get personal.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BIDEN: Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich, these guys have a fundamentally different economic philosophy than we do.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: Let's talk truth tonight with former congressman and Newt Gingrich supporter J.C. Watts of Oklahoma; CNN contributor and Democratic strategist Maria Cardona; and the "TIME" deputy Washington bureau chief Michael Crowley.
Let's start first, Maria, to you as a Democrat. You know, naming names, going to the key states, counting the days now to the election. Seems pretty obvious they understand. They thought they'd have a nominee by now. They can't wait, because the map's pretty tough.
MARIA CARDONA, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Absolutely. There's no question about that, John. And regardless of whether they thought there was going to be a nominee now or not, I think it's smart politics. Because as a Democrat, Democrats love hearing this president all fired up and the administration all fired up, making sure that not just Democrats but independents understand what the challenges were coming in, what he has done to actually fix the economy. Now the numbers are going in the right direction.
And also because he knows his biggest opponents or his most challenging opponents are not anyone on the Republican side. It's those gas prices you talked about, and it's the economy you talked about.
And the more that they can frame this election right now about the contrast and the differences in the vision, the better it is going to be, come November.
KING: But how hard is it, Michael? I'm always reminded this year about 1992 where a lot of the statistics were getting better, as they are now. They were in 1992. But President George H.W. Bush could not convince much of the country because they didn't feel it. They still felt tired in their legs. They were still having a trouble getting a job or getting health insurance.
How delicate is the balance? You have to attack the Republicans. But how optimistic can team Obama be about the economy where, in many of these key swing states, people are still hurting?
MICHAEL CROWLEY, DEPUTY WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF, "TIME": Well, absolutely. That's precisely the dilemma. And there's been polling by a Democratic polling firm that shows that Americans don't want to hear the message "America is back." They don't think we're back yet. Obama has used that language. I think there's some danger that it will back fire, that people think that he's overstating it, overshooting the good news.
So what you want to do is say, "We're headed in the right direction. There's good news. Things are getting better." Without making it seem like you're taking too much credit or without making it seem like you're out of touch. I will say it's delicate. It was interesting. I think Biden was speaking to the UAW there in Ohio. That bailout issue that he talked about today for Detroit is key.
We think about Detroit, Michigan. But Ohio very dependent on the auto industry there. So you're going to see them hammering that theme, because Romney and Santorum opposed that bailout.
KING: But when you watch the Democrats. I know you're a Republican; you're a Gingrich guy. But you want one of these Republicans to beat him in the end. Smart to come out now? How do you calibrate a message at this point, where you don't have an opponent? And the Republicans, one of the reasons the president's numbers are down a bit is he's getting hammered by three candidates.
J.C. WATTS, FORMER CONGRESSMAN: Well, then, I do think it's good politics on the part of the president to come out and defend himself. If I was the president, I would do the same thing.
But the president -- the American people are being reminded at least twice a week that gas prices are continuing to go up. They've doubled since the president took office. Today we saw the foreclosure numbers going up. People continuing to lose their homes.
So they're saying, is this really getting better? Is this -- are we better off three years down the road, four years down the road than we were in 2009 when the president was sworn in? I don't think so.
So the president still has some serious challenges. And I think, you know, there's an opening for the Republicans to gain some ground, just based on some of the -- the numbers that we see every week in the economy.
KING: Does the president -- forgive my language -- think we're stupid? And all politicians do this. I'm not beating up on President Obama. They all do it.
But "look at them going down to the gas pump. They say there's a magic wand." I just asked this morning, can we go back and look? Lo and behold, there he is. CARDONA: But you know what the difference is, John? I don't think you'll find footage of President Obama promising $2 a gallon. And that's exactly what.
KING: He didn't have a specific number. But I think at that event he blamed President Bush, the oil companies, even Hillary Clinton and John Edwards. They were part of the problem in Washington. If you get these people out of the way and change Washington, prices would go down.
CARDONA: So you're right. What goes around comes around. But I think the difference is, is that you had Michele Bachmann back in the day and Newt Gingrich now promising $2, 2.50 a gallon. I think Americans are a little bit smarter than that, understanding that they know that the president doesn't get all the blame, and he can't fix it all.
KING: Write that down. If you don't use a number, it's not hypocrisy.
CARDONA: It's a big difference, John.
WATTS: But the answer isn't to say, "Well, it will take us ten years to get there." We've been using that lame excuse, Republicans and Democrats, for the last 30 years. When do we start the clock on the ten-year cycle to say, let's become less dependent on foreign oil? We've got enough resources.
CARDONA: That's what this president is talking about. He focuses on that.
WATTS: He said it would take us ten years to get there. We would be four years further down the road, had he just gotten on the team of exploration.
KING: Anybody out there trust the politicians when they get into this debate?
CROWLEY: I think not, John. I think one thing to remember as this election unfolds is that there's still just a pervasive hostility towards Washington and the political establishment in general. That that energy that started the Tea Party and that energy that swept Oklahoma in that beat Hillary Clinton, people are sick of Washington. They don't like politicians.
And I don't see any of the candidates right now really harnessing that sort of outsider energy. And I think that could really be the key to the election as we get ahead into the coming months.
WATTS: John, one thing on oil. If it's worth fighting for in the Middle East, why isn't it worth exploring for here at home?
CARDONA: And we're doing a lot more exploring now than we did during the Bush administration.
WATTS: Not due to this president. CARDONA: Yes. Yes, they have given out more permissions...
WATTS: I've got a buddy -- I've got a buddy in Oklahoma that would say, give me a physical break.
CARDONA: Can I just say one thing to Michael's point? He's right that the president -- and he has actually been more careful in saying we're not -- we are not where we need to be. We need to do a lot more. Because I think they understand that danger and that it's a balancing act.
KING: Everybody stay put. You've got to just stay with us. We'll go to a quick break.
Apple stocks hit the 600 mark today. That means one share would cost you more than one of those brand-new iPads.
And later see how a vacuum cleaner stole the spotlight during David Cameron's White House visit.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KING: Back to politics now with the former Republican congressman, Newt Gingrich supporter, J.C. Watts of Oklahoma; our CNN contributor, Democratic strategist Maria Cardona; and the "TIME" Washington deputy bureau chief, Michael Crowley.
Let's move to the Republican race right now, and Puerto Rico primary, who would have thunk it, right? The Puerto Rico primary is now a big deal in the race, and Senator Santorum caused a bit of a stir when he said if you want statehood, if you vote yourself into statehood, he says you have to make English the official language. Let's listen to Senator Santorum first. We have Senator Santorum. This was Senator Santorum defending this idea.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RICK SANTORUM (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: English has to be a language that is spoken here also. It's spoken universally.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)
SANTORUM: It is already the language of the federal government here on the island. That's the language. I think that will be a tradition. I think it's important.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: Now, Governor Romney campaigning in Puerto Rico. He says this through a spokeswoman. "Governor Romney believes that English is the language of opportunity and supports efforts to expand English proficiency in Puerto Rico and across America. However, he would not, as a prerequisite for statehood, require that the people of Puerto Rico cease using Spanish."
Now that's not -- Senator Santorum did not say cease using Spanish, but he did say it should be the official language. Good or bad politics?
CARDONA: I think terrible for politics for Santorum and, frankly, I think terrible politics for Romney, too. I'll get back to that in a minute.
There are 4.7 million Puerto Ricans on the mainland who actually vote in Florida and Pennsylvania and all these key swing states. You don't mess with the Puerto Rican Spanish. I'm sorry. I grew up in Puerto Rico, and I know just how intense this -- the status issue is and the language issue is and the culture issue is. I think it's tremendously bad politics.
Romney's going to be interesting. What he says tomorrow, because he's going to get cornered by the Puerto Rican press. Because that statement said absolutely nothing. It didn't really state where he is on this, and it's going to be interesting, if he really does back off of the official English as the language. He backed English only here on the mainland, so how is he -- how is he going to jibe those two? Plus, Romney's attacks to Rick Santorum on voting for Sonia Sotomayor, the icon of the island. Unusually bad politics on all of those fronts.
KING: So, Speaker Gingrich, you would think, might have an opportunity here, but he's not going. One of his daughters is going to campaign in Puerto Rico. Where's the comeback plan? Gingrich has not been to Tampa. Show me. Tell me on the map where we're going to have a day where we say, "Oh, there it is."
WATTS: Well, John, I don't know, quite honestly, how any of the candidates get to 1,144 before the convention, and I think Newt can make a plausible argument to stay in the race if the resources are there, simply because you see this -- this little spat...
KING: Can you stay in -- can you stay in, picking up delegates, especially for now -- we still have the proportional states. Can you stay in picking up delegates in second and third or do you at least have to win? We've got half the states still left to go. You have to win five, six, eight to be plausible?
WATTS: I personally think there needs to be some wins and not just places and shows. And I think the speaker probably feels the same thing. But what these -- the proportionality of these delegates, I think, I don't think Newt Gingrich is the issue. I think Mitt Romney is the issue. The fact that he's been running for six years, spent probably 150, $200 million, and they haven't -- they haven't closed the deal. But that's been the narrative all along. Nobody wants to believe that. And I think Newt's still right in the middle of it, and so does he.
KING: I think there's no question Romney's weak. Problem is, This to beat him, somebody has to be stronger. And none of these other guys are stronger at the moment, right?
CROWLEY: That's right. And you know, with all respect to J.C., I think the road is really hard for Newt. You know, he said he has to have the resources to stay in. You know, he does have the super PAC . He does have a benefactor in Las Vegas. But I don't know that he's going to have that much money coming in.
And I think we're -- you know, you're seeing Santorum massively outspent in Illinois right now. I think that, in this long slog, money will continue to be really a defining factor. Romney has such a financial advantage.
By the way, what's happening in Puerto Rico, I think, supports those Republicans who are upset that we have such a long, drawn-out primary process. They're sniping each other. They're alienating a segment of the population. They're taking positions they don't really need to be on the record taking at this point. And they don't help either of the candidates in this fight in the general election. They don't need this thing; probably be better off settling.
WATTS: God help us when Newt Gingrich gets out, because with the Latino vote, the black vote, something I fought for for 25 years, we haven't -- we have no chance.
KING: Republican Party wrote these -- Republican Party wrote these new rules and...
CARDONA: I agree with that.
KING: ... and now they're living...
(CROSSTALK)
KING: Michael, Maria, J.C., thanks for coming in.
Kate Bolduan's back with the latest news you need to know right now.
Hey, Kate.
KATE BOLDUAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hey, there, John.
Hey, there, everyone. Some headlines for you.
We're just getting word of a tornado in the Detroit area. The National Weather Service confirms a tornado touched down near Dexter, Michigan. Just look at some of the images we're bringing in from one of our affiliates there.
Tornado watches and warnings are posted for several counties in southeastern Michigan. Stick close to CNN. We'll bring you any updates as we get them.
In other headlines, a new analysis predicts the health-care reform law may not force many employers to drop insurance coverage after all. Admitting that its finding is a bit of a surprise, the Congressional Budget Office reported there are a number of different scenarios, ranging from 3 million people -- 3 million more people having employer coverage by 2019 to 20 million losing it. A lot more to talk about there.
And in Chicago, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel says Mitt Romney doesn't have the fortitude, strength or character to be president. As proof, he says Romney should have blasted Rush Limbaugh's calling a female college student a slut. Quoting the mayor here, he says, quote, "I thought what Rush Limbaugh said was not only wrong, it was absolutely repulsive. That said, if you can't stand up to Rush, how are you going to stand up to Russia?"
It now costs about $600 to own a slice of Apple. The tech company's stock briefly hit the milestone this morning, one day before its new iPad goes on sale. Apple is the stock market's most valuable company, and the price of a share has more than doubled over the past year and a half.
And a New Jersey construction worker who hit the lotto with pooled money but lied about it, will have to divvy up the $38.5 million jackpot. Sorry, buddy. A jury has ruled that Americo Lopes cheated his co-workers out of the winnings when he failed to tell them that their Mega Millions ticket was a winner, and he tried to collect the money for himself.
John, you would never do that to any of your co-workers, would you?
KING: No, no. Actually, no. If it's in a pool, it's in a pool. Period. If I won on my own, I'd find a way to take care of my co- workers and maybe you, Kate.
BOLDUAN: We will hold you to this.
KING: Stay right there. Tonight's "Moment You Misses." We've got to rush through this. The red carpet rolled out at the White House. You sort of want it to be clean, right? Look at this. The woman in charge of keeping it VIP ready had an accidental cameo on British television.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: That is the formal welcome. Look at this. I love live television. That woman's now famous in the U.K.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: We all love live television. So that woman is now famous in the U.K.
BOLDUAN: And you know what? It's good to know you want your red carpet clean. You really do.
KING: You do. You do. She looks like she knows what she's doing.
Kate, we'll see you tomorrow. That's all for us tonight. "ERIN BURNETT OUTFRONT" starts right now.
Metropolitik: Is GOP 'war on women' just a Fluke?
Metro - Boston (MA)
March 15, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Is the Republican party waging a "War on Women," and if so, are they winning it? The answers to these questions depend on whether you perceive the nasty legislative battle over the Obama administration's health care mandate as one over religious liberty or women's reproductive health.
Leading Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum say the president is trampling religious freedom by forcing employers to comply with a national health care law requiring insurers to provide contraceptive services for women. A Bloomberg poll released Wednesday reports that 62 percent of respondents think otherwise. (The poll also indicated that Democrats aren't actually benefiting from the debate.)
So just what are Republican legislators doing? Following the failure to pass the controversial Blunt Amendment -- which would have allowed employers to opt out of providing contraception coverage if it violated their beliefs, like, for instance, devout mysoginists -- national lawmakers largely abandoned the issue, if not the rhetoric. But at least nine Republican-led states aren't ready to move on, proposing to expand contraception exemptions or moving symbolic condemnations of the law. In Arizona, lawmakers take their support of religious liberty a step further than others, working to legalize firing workers over birth control use.
What began with fallout over the Komen foundation's now-rescinded decision to unfund Planned Parenthood and led to the Virginia invasive ultrasound bill (imposing barriers on a woman's choice to abort) segued effortlessly into the character assassination of Sandra Fluke -- which has now devolved into attacks over the student activist's "rich socialist boyfriend" and a vacation that apparently included some alcohol consumption.
Then on Thursday, the story grew to envelop a Senate fight over the Violence Against Women Act, which provides funding to investigate domestic violence, passed with bipartisan consensus in 1994. Conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly says the law led to "divorce, breakup of marriage and hatred of men." Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski cautioned her party that it was "at risk of being successfully painted as anti-woman," The New York Times reported.
Whichever side you sit on, it's hard not to connect the dots here. Republicans accuse Democrats of political point-scoring; Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said Dems were "manufacturing fights" over the Women Act. (Murkowski doesn't see it that way. "This is too important an issue for women and men and families that we not address it," she said.)
McConnell's argument isn't, of course, unimaginable -- U.S. politics seem to be a no-holds-barred arena. But, in response, why are Republican legislators playing into this narrative? Maybe it's because, despite public outrage, they think they're the ones winning all the points. Ramesh Ponnuru of the National Review certainly thinks so: "The issue is likely to help Republicans in the fall, if they can keep their wits about them," he writes. For the current field of Republican presidential candidates, that's a very big "if."
Violence Against Women Act: Protections For Immigrants Fuel Political Fight
International Business Times
March 16, 2012
As Senate Democrats and Republicans spar over a proposal to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, measures to shield immigrants from domestic violence have become a sticking point.
The proposed legislation would expand existing protections for battered immigrant women, making more visas available to victims of abuse and expanding the situations in which immigrants could seek relief to include stalking and dating violence.
That has contributed to a legislative impasse, with opponents of the bill saying it would present more opportunities for immigrants to exploit the system. Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, presented an alternate bill that would tighten restrictions on abuse victims seeking visas.
Would Revised VAWA Increase Immigration?
VAWA is meant to protect victims of violence, Grassley said in a statement. It shouldn't be an avenue to expand immigration law or to give additional benefits to people here unlawfully.
The Violence Against Women Act allows immigrants who are married to abusive American citizens to petition for legal status on their own behalf, without relying on a violent spouse. But the current dispute largely concerns a special type of visa, created when the bill was reauthorized in 2000, that allows undocumented immigrants to gain legal status if they cooperate with law enforcement officers on an investigation.
While it does not apply exclusively to domestic violence cases, the U visa allows undocumented immigrants to escape abusive relationships if they can help the police prosecute their tormentors. The bill being considered in the Senate would increase the number of U visas available from its current cap of 10,000 a year by recycling U visas that were not claimed in past years.
Unfortunately, there's always room for more of these visas, said David Leopold, immediate past president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association. I think abuse of women is rampant and any time you can make sure there's enough protective visas for as many people as need them, it's a good move.
Backers: U Visa Would Help Victims Of Domestic Abuse
Supporters of the legislation say it makes sense to broaden access to the visas. Undocumented immigrants are often reluctant to go to the authorities for help, fearing legal repercussions. The U visa offers a mutually beneficial situation in which law enforcement officers can bolster a case while shielding women who would otherwise stay in the shadows.
Obviously the abuser's not going to come forward with an affidavit, so a woman is often going to suffer in silence, Leopold said. It becomes amplified when the abuser uses deportation as a bludgeon.
But Senate Republicans warn of the potential for fraud. A spokesperson for Grassley cited a need to make sure the visas go to people who actually deserve them.
I think everybody recognizes the need for careful consideration for the needs of people who are victims of domestic abuse, said Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies for the restrictionist Center for Immigration Studies. But the way that the provisions are written they definitely leave the program vulnerable to fraud and abuse from people who are going to use these opportunities as another way to obtain permanent status here when they wouldn't otherwise qualify.
Immigration advocates counter that there are powerful safeguards against fraud built in. Police officers must certify that an immigrant's claims are legitimate and that the immigrant is cooperating throughout the investigation.
It's very rare if impossible for someone to trump up a domestic violence case that isn't real, said Michael Wildes, an immigration attorney and a former federal prosecutor. The fraud that goes on isn't so much pervasive in this arena as the potential for out turning our backs on the most vulnerable in this country.
The U visas are not the only point of contention. Critics also say that immigrants who are married to U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents can use claims of domestic violence as a swifter avenue to gaining legal status. At a Violence Against Women Act hearing in July, a woman described a lengthy legal battle after her Czech husband lodged false allegations of domestic abuse.
To combat such cases, Grassley's proposal would have required in-person interviews for immigrants claiming domestic abuse. It would also require immigrants seeking U visas to present documentation, signed by a licensed doctor, verifying they had suffered abuse.
Like other Republicans wary of fresh accusations that they are not sensitive to the needs of women, Grassley has emphasized that he supports the overarching goals of the Violence Against Women Act. But women's advocates say strenthening protections for immigrants reflects the bill's original intent.
It was understood from the beginning that if there was a subset of victims like immigrants who were exempted from the protections and assistance available, you would have a subset of criminals that would essentially get off and continue to perpetrate crimes in the community, said Leslye Orloff, president of the National Immigrant Women's Advocacy Project. These extensions are really closing gaps and catching up with the rest of the law.
Senate Dems use Violence Against Women Act to further Republican ‘War on Women’
Daily Caller
March 16, 2012
Senate Republicans are steeling themselves for a potentially dangerous fight over the renewal of the Violence Against Women Act, a bill New York Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer is pushing forward as a political tool.
In an effort to continue the narrative that Republicans are engaged in a “war on women,” Schumer has been executing plans to “fast-track” the bill to the floor in an effort to highlight Republican opposition, which is based on new provisions in the bill not included in the original VAWA.
“If we had just a straight reauthorization, it would pass 100 percent,” explained Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Grassley and many of his Republican colleagues oppose portions of the bill such as eligibility for visas for illegal immigrants who claim to have been victims of domestic violence.
Republicans fear that provision could be an invitation to commit massive amounts of fraud, and are likewise concerned about the apportionment of funds.
However, Republicans are also well aware of the game Senate Democrats are playing and the risk of being seen as obstructionist and antagonistic toward women, minorities, and the middle class.
“This strategy is a cynical attempt to smear Republicans while distracting from the fact that their only solutions for the nation’s biggest problems are ones that Americans wholeheartedly reject,” a Republican congressional aide explained to TheDC.
The Democratic tactics have not been lost on the GOP leadership, either.
“At a moment of economic crisis, the number 3 Democrat in Senate, the Democrat in charge of strategy over there, is sitting up at night trying to figure out a way to create an issue where there isn’t one — not to help solve our nation’s problems, but to help Democrats get reelected,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell in a floor speech Thursday, in reference to Schumer.
Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions also blasted Senate Democrats on the Senate floor Wednesday for avoiding serious issues to play political games. He argued that Democrats are the ones distracting the American people away from the real issues of the day.
“[Senate Democrats] don’t want to talk about the things that are needed for this country, one of them is a budget. It has been over 1,000 days since this Congress passed a budget. Why aren’t we spending time on that?” Sessions said, recalling that Majority Leader Harry Reid said that he would not bring a budget to the floor this year.
“This country has never needed a budget more than it needs it today—never.”
Arizona Republican Sen. Jon Kyl told CNN Thursday that while nobody opposes the reauthorization of VAWA, the add-ons to the legislation have Republicans concerned.
“If you follow the Judiciary Committee work on it, the questions had to do with the additions that have been made to this bill related to illegal immigrant visas, related to the additional sums of money and grants that would be available and the like,” he said, adding that with budget constraints the goal is to pass an operational bill.
Since its initial passage in 1994, VAWA has remained in effect through both Republican and Democratic congresses. Unlike that last reauthorization in 1996, however, this most recent iteration, sponsored by Democratic Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, includes provisions never before contained in VAWA.
Iowa Republican Sen. Charles Grassley introduced his own bill without the controversial mandates. Democrats rejected Grassley’s bill, and Leahy’s passed committee last month in a party-line vote.
Though Republicans may shout they are not anti-woman or obstructionist, Democrats are already using the caricature to fund raise, according to CNN.
Grassley explained in a statement Thursday that Republicans just want their alternative heard.
“No doubt we need to consider the VAWA bill at the appropriate time, but there must be a fair process that includes consideration of our alternative that ensures more money goes to victims rather than bureaucrats and helps root out more of the well-documented fraud in the program,” he said. “The Republican leadership has no intention of blocking fair consideration of this bill.”
But despite Republican shouts, the “war on women” narrative continues moves forward.
“I really resent the implication by some of my Democratic friends that if you’re trying to improve the bill that somehow you are for violence against women,” added Kyl. “That’s reprehensible.”
Political, Partisan Tactics Being Used in Violence Against Women Act Debate
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) News Release
Government Press Releases (USA)
March 16, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Senator Chuck Grassley today released the following statement after claims that Republicans were blocking the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization. Grassley offered a full substitute during Judiciary Committee consideration of the bill.
"The Violence Against Women Act program has strong bipartisan support in the Senate. It's a shame that the majority party is manufacturing another partisan, political crisis, because in actuality, there is no concern that the VAWA will go away. The law is being funded and VAWA programs are running as they have since the reauthorization actually ran out last year.
"No doubt we need to consider the VAWA bill at the appropriate time, but there must be a fair process that includes consideration of our alternative that ensures more money goes to victims rather than bureaucrats and helps root out more of the well-documented fraud in the program. The Republican leadership has no intention of blocking fair consideration of this bill."
Below is a story from Politico this morning outlining the Democrats partisan tactics.
Schumer Schemes to Hit GOP
Schumer wants to fast track the Violence Against Women Act to the floor, let the GOP block it, then allow Democrats to accuse Republicans of waging a "war against women."
By Manu Raju
Mar 15, 2012
New York Sen. Chuck Schumer believes he has found a political weapon in the unlikeliest of places: the Violence Against Women Act.
Republicans have several objections to the legislation, but instead of making changes, Schumer wants to fast track the bill to the floor, let the GOP block it, then allow Democrats to accuse Republicans of waging a "war against women."
It's fodder for a campaign ad, and it's not the only potential 30-second spot ready to spring from Senate leadership these days.
From his perch as the Democrats' chief policy and messaging guru, Schumer wants to raise taxes on people who earn more than $1 million, and many Democrats want to push the vote for April 15, a move designed to amp up the "income inequality" rhetoric just in time for Tax Day.
Schumer has a plan for painting Republicans as anti-immigrant as well. He's called the author of the Arizona immigration law to testify before his Judiciary subcommittee, bringing Capitol Hill attention to an issue that's still front and center for Hispanic voters.
None of these campaign-style attacks allow for the policy nuances or reasoning behind the GOP's opposition, and some of the bills stand no chance of becoming law.
But that's not really the point.
The real push behind this effort is to give Democrats reasons to portray Republicans as anti-women, anti-Latino and anti-middle class. In the aftermath of a fight over a payroll tax cut for American workers and an Obama contraception policy, Democrats are ready for this next set of wedge issues.
"If a party chooses to alienate the fastest-growing group of people in the country [Latinos] and the majority of people in the country, women, they do so at their peril," Schumer said Wednesday. "This is an important issue."
The move carries some risk. The economy is still struggling, with the jobless rate above 8 percent and millions seeking work. Gas prices are skyrocketing. And Schumer himself said last Sunday that Democrats would focus like a "laser" on the economy, a comment Republicans giddily pointed out as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) pushed for judicial confirmations this week.
Schumer and Reid have also shown little interest in bringing forward a budget resolution this spring, saying that overall spending levels have already been agreed upon. That has opened them up to Republican charges they are steadfastly avoiding tough votes on the budget in favor of election-year point scoring.
Republicans see the latest chatter in the Senate as a political ploy by Democratic leaders to steady the ship in the face of a shaky political landscape.
"Sounds like all politics all the time," said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), a member of his party's leadership who also serves on the Judiciary Committee. He added that Republicans would point out the "cynical nature of what they're trying to do that it's not based on substance."
Cornyn added: "We'll be prepared to address their false narrative."
The political strategy also risks inflaming partisan tensions. Arizona Republican Sens. Jon Kyl and John McCain criticized Schumer for calling for a hearing on their state's tough law that gives law enforcement new powers to target prospective illegal immigrants, a subject of a Supreme Court challenge.
Both men said they had no idea Schumer was inviting former state Sen. Russell Pearce -- the author of the law -- to testify at a hearing next month.
"Generally, senatorial courtesy indicates you talk to the member states," McCain said Wednesday. "I have never seen Sen. Schumer do anything unless it had a political agenda."
Schumer's office rejects the contention, saying that the New York Democrat notified Cornyn, the ranking Republican on the subcommittee, weeks before the offer was made public.
"This is a sunlight hearing," Schumer said Wednesday. "The more the public hears some of these views from the people in Arizona, the more they'll ask for a more moderate position."
Still, Schumer said there are moments of bipartisanship in which the two sides can come together, and he rejects the notion that Democrats are skirting efforts to prop up the economy, pointing to the passage of a highway bill Wednesday and expected approval of a House-passed small-business bill. Schumer said on the floor Wednesday that he hoped it was a "moment of greater comity."
But it may not last longer than a few days.
As soon as next week, the Senate may begin debating a bill to update expired provisions in the 1994 Violence Against Women Act, which provides assistance to victims of domestic abuse and other crimes. The bill, offered by Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), was approved last month in his panel on a party-line vote, a sharp shift from seven years ago when the bill sailed through his committee.
"Not to reauthorize this is a tragedy," Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said Wednesday. "This is one more step in the removal of rights for women."
Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley, the top Republican on the panel, said while he supports a reauthorization of the law, he has concerns with the Democratic bill because it would lead to the issuance of thousands of additional visas under the U-Visa program, which gives illegal immigrants who are victims of crimes a chance to gain legal status if they cooperate with law enforcement.
On top of that, Grassley said it would fail to resolve immigration fraud and said grant money given to victims has not been adequately tracked. At the committee meeting last month, Grassley also raised concerns about language in Leahy's bill to broaden some of the law's provisions to those in same-sex relationships.
In response, Grassley introduced his own bill that included stricter criteria for U-Visa eligibility. But Democrats rejected that bill saying it would gut a key Justice Department enforcement office and undermine the protections in the law.
Republicans said Wednesday they might move their own bill once the issue heads to the floor. And they pushed back on Democratic criticisms that they were being insensitive to women.
"It's a politically popular bill, and if you try to improve it, or change it, and make it more efficient, then the complaint is you don't care about the issue," said Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), a member of the committee. "Nothing can be further from the truth."
But Schumer added, that if the Republicans take positions that turn off voters, it'll be their own fault.
"When the Democrats let the extreme left run the show, we lose out. We've learned that lesson the hard way on many occasions," he said. "When Republicans let the hard right run the show, they lose out."
VAWA: Democrats Play Politics Instead of Helping Women
Breitbart
March 17, 2012
With an election coming up in November, rather than re-authorize the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) with bi-partisan support, as has been the case since it was first enacted in 1994, Senate Republican sources claim Democrats laced the bill with controversial new provisions intended to derail the legislation.
The newly revised version of VAWA significantly increases spending in areas prone to fraud and abuse and lacks proper safeguards. It also increases the risk of visa abuse leading to full citizenship through deception by illegal immigrants and gives criminal jurisdiction over non-Indian individuals to Indian Tribes, potentially stripping them of certain Constitutional protections.
With the economy remaining weak and Obama’s poll numbers falling, some Republicans also believe the public battle is meant primarily as a distraction. “That Republicans are somehow unresponsive to women suffering from domestic abuse is ridiculous,” said one Senate aide. It’s claimed the new additions were never agreed to by Republicans beforehand and have little to do with domestic violence.
The Democrats’ new version of VAWA raises the number of U-visas for immigrants who can aid in a criminal investigation from 10k to 15k annually. They are available to immigrants both in and outside the country and there is no requirement that the U-visa recipient actually aid in any investigation – or that one even be underway.
An immigrant may stay in the U.S. for four years under a U-visa; however, the system is open to exploitation. A recipient may apply for an adjustment of status after 3 years and become a legal permanent resident. They’re also available to immigrants awaiting deportation. Democrats refused to support provisions to improve the system by limiting the possibilities for exploitation.
Democrats have also claimed that Republicans oppose their version of the bill because it protects certain groups. But all victims are already protected under VAWA and grants to local governments, and nonprofit organizations are administered without question as to the sexual orientation of victims.
The bill also gives criminal jurisdiction over non-Indian individuals to Indian Tribes in cases of domestic abuse. Republicans are concerned such a precedent would open the door to even broader jurisdiction. A non-Indian subject to tribal jurisdiction would enjoy few meaningful civil-rights protections and tribal governments are not bound by the Constitution’s First, Fifth, or Fourteenth Amendments, based upon court rulings.
It also authorizes over $600K for VAWA grant programs while providing little to no real oversight. Several cases of abuse or fraud have been observed in the past. A July 2010 audit of the Community Legal Aid Society, Inc. in Wilmington, Delaware, resulted in questioning of the use of 93% of the $891,422 Legal Assistance for Victims grant.
In September 2005, an audit of Legal Aid of Nebraska questioned 64.5% of its $1,981,552 grant for the same purpose, and many grantees who have been audited in 2010 were found to have used some grant funds questionably, with 21 out of 22 grantees audited failing to document their use of funds.
The Grassley amendment would have required the Department of Justice/Office of Inspector General (DOJ/OIG) to audit 10% of all grantees annually and discontinue funds for grantees found to be using them for unacceptable purposes. Democrats did not support the provision.
The Violence Against Women Act Should Outrage Decent People
US News
March 19, 2012
At the outset it is important to say, emphatically, that no decent person would stand by while a more powerful, stronger or bigger person physically abuses or batters someone more vulnerable. Everyone should want to end violence against women, but the Violence Against Women Act misses the mark. It ends up creating a climate of suspicion where all men are feared or viewed as violent and abusive and all women are viewed as victims. Decent people should be outraged at the climate of false accusations, rush to judgment and hidden agendas that characterize the situation that has developed during the 18 years of this law.
One of the ways such bills exist is through clever naming of leftist proposals. We have "prochoice" instead of "pro-abortion" and we have this law, which promises to end violence against women. Those who oppose such positive-sounding measures appear to be heartless and are on the defensive at the outset. But there is no escaping the negative aspects of this act. The bill is a boondoggle for feminist groups (follow the money) and the funds go to "re-train" judges and other officials in the details of "women's rights" rather than addressing the major problems of battered women who end up in hospital emergency rooms. We know from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that there are roughly 30 factors that lead to violent, abusive behavior, most notably, anger, drug addiction, and alcohol abuse. Sadly, instead of rehabilitation programs that address those behaviors, the Violence Against Women Act promotes a feminist agenda.
It is also a bureaucratic nightmare with billions of dollars spent to establish a vast expansion of government programs that are riddled with financial irregularities. Feminists like to repeat the mantra that there is a "war against women," but when women can routinely claim nebulous "psychological harm" and keep a man out of his home, away from his children, possibly losing his job and ruining his reputation, there is more of a war against men than against women.
Intimate partner violence is mostly from boyfriends, rather than husbands (about 62 percent) and it is about equal between men and women (6.4 percent vs. 6.3 percent).
The greatest problem, though, with the law, known by its acronym, VAWA, is that it is an ineffective program; it has a long history of failure. A family violence expert said, "There is no evidence that VAWA has led to a decrease in violence against women." Instead, the legislation has morphed into a rigid, inhuman law enforcement tool that relies on restraining orders and mandatory arrests instead of ending intimate partner violence. The law is more about building feminist power structures than about protecting vulnerable women or helping battered women.
What's Wrong With the Violence Against Women Act
The Atlantic
By Wendy Kaminer
MARCH 19, 2012
As Senate Republicans resist renewing the 1994 Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), raising questions about immigration fraud and Indian tribal courts, and Democrats indignantly declare their support of it, civil libertarians should take a hard look at some of the Act's deceptively innocuous provisions. Section 304, which governs the treatment of sexual violence charges on college and university campuses, requires that cases involving allegations of violence or stalking provide for "prompt and equitable investigation and resolution."
What's worrisome about this language? Will Creeley of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) points out that "prompt and equitable" is a term of art under federal anti-discrimination law. It's construed by the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights to require a low standard of proof ("preponderance of the evidence") in sexual misconduct cases.
This standard was explicitly mandated in an earlier version of the VAWA reauthorization bill, and it was adopted by the Department of Education in a controversial April 2011 directive. It is practically a presumption of guilt. As former DOE official Hans Bader has explained, it means that "if school thinks there is as little as a 50.001% chance that the accused is guilty, the accused must be disciplined." And, as I noted here, it means that the students may be suspended -- or expelled -- and exposed to civil and criminal liability on the basis of an inquiry that affords them little due process.
Moreover, if an accused student is not found guilty, even under this very low standard of proof, his or her accuser may be afforded a right to appeal (under section 304) exposing the accused to double jeopardy. Of course, campus disciplinary proceedings are not formal criminal trials governed by the 5th and 6th Amendments. But you'd have to regard the protection against double jeopardy as a mere constitutional technicality to believe that schools should dispense with it. Or you'd have to assume that, as a general rule, fairness requires convictions and provides multiple opportunities to obtain them.
These low standards of proof, together with the appeals provisions, reflect the tendency of victim advocates, including Obama Administration officials, to err on the side of presuming guilt in sexual misconduct cases. Some have unabashed contempt for the rights of the accused: Boston attorney Wendy Murphy writes disdainfully of "lawyers for men accused of rape (who) injected themselves into college disciplinary proceedings demanding 'due process' and arguing that accused students have a constitutional liberty interest at stake." The accused have no constitutional claim to due process, she writes approvingly, but "student victims of sexual assault" do, "because sexual assault is a form of gender discrimination."
Perhaps. But if violence against women is a form of gender discrimination, so is the systematic denial of due process to "men accused of rape." It is also a prescription for false convictions.
Consider the case of University of North Dakota student Caleb Warner, suspended for three years and banned from campus after being convicted of sexual assault under the "preponderance of evidence" standard favored by the administration and arguably required under VAWA. Reviewing the same evidence, FIRE reports, North Dakota law enforcement concluded that the accuser was lying and charged her with with filing a false report (issuing a warrant for her arrest), but the university exonerated Warner only after a spate of bad publicity, including this Wall Street Journal op ed.
Should a few troubling provisions in VAWA governing campus disciplinary proceedings doom the bill in its entirety? Maybe not (though the provisions should surely be amended). VAWA is a lengthy, complex bill providing federal resources for victims of violence and domestic abuse and for anti-violence initiatives.
I can and have argued for and against provisions of VAWA. (I was for the definition of sexual violence as a federal civil rights violation before I was against it.) In U.S. v Morrison, the Supreme Court struck down VAWA's extension of federal civil rights remedies to victims of gender-motivated violence. It ruled that neither the 14th Amendment nor the Commerce Clause empowered Congress to assume federal jurisdiction over sexual violence claims -- providing legal remedies to sexual violence should be the province of the states, and the federal government shouldn't be able to exercise un-enumerated and virtually unlimited power. At the risk of betraying my sex, I had to agree. The defense in a war on women should not be a war on liberty.
Wendy Kaminer is an author, lawyer, and civil libertarian. She is the author of I'm Dysfunctional, You're Dysfunctional.
Senator Brown: With more than 38,000 reported incidences of domestic violence in Ohio last year, we must pass tough legislation to combat abuse
Sherrod Brown US Senator For Ohio Press Release
MARCH 21, 2012
Reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act Would Give Law Enforcement Officials the Tools they Need to Protect the Public, Help Crack Down on Domestic Violence and Sexual Abuse, and Combat Cyberstalking
Brown Releases County-by-County Information on Domestic Abuse Incidences in Ohio as He Urges Renewal of Expired Resources
WASHINGTON, D.C. — With more than 38,000 reported incidences of domestic violence in Ohio last year, U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) today called for passage of tough legislation that would help crack down on domestic violence and abuse, address cyber-stalking, and ensure that law enforcement officials have the tools necessary to safely address incidents of domestic violence. The legislation, which was recently passed by the Senate Judiciary Committee by a vote of 10-8, would reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) and provide essential resources to state and local law enforcement to investigate and prosecute domestic and dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. It would also give support to critical non-profit organizations that supply essential services for victims and survivors. Brown released county-by-county information on the number of domestic abuse incidences in Ohio.
“The Violence Against Women Act has improved the criminal justice system’s ability to keep victims safe and hold perpetrators accountable. It has been a valuable tool for so many women and their children – and it is vital that we ensure that these services remain intact. But last year, the law expired—and critical efforts that help women and their children protect themselves from domestic violence, stalking, and cyber-threats continue only on a short-term basis,” Brown said. “In 2011, there were more than 38,000 reported cases of domestic violence in Ohio. VAWA helps give these victims and survivors a place to turn to escape violent relationships, or the support to seek legal representation. That’s why reauthorizing VAWA is so important.”
The original VAWA bill expired one year ago, and despite the reauthorization having bipartisan support, it has stalled in the Senate. Brown was joined today by Katie Hanna, statewide director of the Ohio Alliance to End Sexual Violence—as well as 2011 Summit County Detective of the Year Vito Sinopoli of the Bath Township Police Department—to detail how VAWA helps state and federal agencies prevent and combat domestic violence, as well as provide support to victims and survivors of abuse. The legislation also includes new programs designed to specifically combat internet stalking and other uses of social media that can lead to domestic violence. According to the Senate Judiciary Committee, since VAWA was originally enacted, reporting of domestic violence has increased as much as 51 percent, as more victims come forward to receive lifesaving services to help them move from crisis to stability.
“With fewer than 40 funded agencies offering rape crisis services throughout Ohio’s 88 counties, it is critical that Congress pass the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization,” Katie Hanna said. “We cannot afford to not fund VAWA. VAWA provides the more than 1 in 6 women and 1 in 71 men who have been raped in their lifetime with access to services that provide survivors with advocates in the hospital after a sexual assault, with support navigating the criminal justice system, and with crisis intervention and advocacy services to empower individuals to move from victim to survivor.”
The Senate Judiciary Committee notes that responding to domestic disturbance calls is particularly dangerous for America’s law enforcement officers: according to the Law Enforcement Officer Deaths Memorial Fund, in 2009, 23 percent of firearms-related deaths involved domestic disturbance calls. In 2010, eight officers were killed responding to domestic violence calls. The FBI reports that of the more than half of a million officers assaulted between 1999 and 2008, 31 percent were on disturbance calls.
“Law enforcement understands the importance of a collaborative effort with regard to the various agencies that work with sexual assault and domestic violence cases. Our objective is to maintain a survivor-centered approach to sexual assault cases, to do what's best for these individuals, understand that they are survivors, and ensure that they have a support network in place to help them through the process,” Officer Sinopoli said. “In law enforcement, we work closely with rape crisis centers and their advocates, as well as domestic violence advocates. These partnerships and collaborative efforts are vital in dealing with these types of cases, and VAWA funding supports the collaborative philosophy. At the state level, VAWA funds have been critical in providing training to over 850 police officers, 30 prosecutors, and hundreds of advocates in Ohio.
“VAWA funds will be more crucial than ever to support sexual assault survivors and to properly train advocates and law enforcement officers who work with them, as well as to continue the provision of programs so important to survivors of these heinous crimes,” Officer Sinopoli continued.
According to the Senate Judiciary Committee, the reauthorization:
⦁ Recognizes the continuing crisis of inadequate reporting, enforcement, and services for victims of sexual assault, by enhancing funding for the Services-Training-Officers-Prosecutors (STOP) program. The STOP program, according to the U.S. Justice Department, is aimed at 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 the development and improvement of advocacy and services in cases involving violent crimes against women.
⦁ The bill also enhances the Grants to Encourage Arrest Policies and Enforcement of Protection Orders program, which encourages state and local governments and courts to treat domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking as serious violations of criminal law requiring coordination with nonprofit, nongovernmental victim advocates and representatives from the criminal justice system.
⦁ Provides tools to prevent domestic violence homicides by training law enforcement, victim service providers, and court personnel on identifying and managing high risk offenders and connecting high risk victims to crisis intervention services.
⦁ Improves responses to the high rate of violence against women in tribal communities by strengthening concurrent tribal criminal jurisdiction over perpetrators who assault Indian spouses and dating partners in Indian country.
⦁ Strengthens housing protections for victims by applying existing housing protections to nine additional federal housing programs.
Republicans against what?
News & Observer, The: Web Edition Articles (Raleigh, NC)
March 24, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
What strategy is this, this peculiar core of Republican opposition to the extension of the Violence Against Women Act, passed with bipartisan support in 1994? Not a politically shrewd one, it would seem, and certainly not a compassionate one.
Republicans in Congress are fresh off a failed effort to limit contraception for women, a profoundly sexist and “big government” position if ever there was one.
Now, amazingly, many of them have lined up against this act to help protect women from domestic violence. The law encourages law enforcement, health officials and community groups to band together for initiatives to discourage and lower incidents of domestic violence, most of them committed against women. It bolsters the effort by having the federal government provide grants to law enforcement to help train officers and to increase staff for dealing with violence against women.
There’s evidence that it’s worked. Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, who battled to save health insurance coverage for contraceptives, is also in this fight and says domestic violence has decreased by more than half since the initial law went into effect.
But a number of Republicans object, apparently because they think the law might protect gay and illegal immigrant women. So by that logic, they’re OK with gays and illegal immigrants getting beaten or killed?
This is just bizarre, that’s all there is to it. It’s as if Republicans, having embarrassed themselves and alienated women with their fight against contraceptive coverage, now want to shoot themselves in the foot again with women constituents.
“Hey, fellows,” they’re saying, “we’ve got a couple of toes left. Let’s take those off and appear to be in favor of domestic violence.”
Nice.
Another View: War on women? Beware the liberal blitzkrieg
Sentinel, The (Hanford, CA)
March 26, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
America is in the midst of a gravely serious debate about religious liberty. It was touched off by news that President Obama’s health-care law will coerce some religious groups to violate conscience by covering certain products and services in their health plans or face steep fines.
Sadly, liberals have conjured up distractions from this critical constitutional issue. They’re charging defenders of the First Amendment with waging a "war on women."
Yes, it’s an absurd stretch. So is the claim that defending employers’ ability to manage their own health plans — free from the dictates of the health-care law — amounts to putting "bosses in bedrooms."
And so is Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s recent comment likening conservatives at home to radicals abroad: "Why extremists always focus on women remains a mystery to me," Clinton said at the Women in the World conference in New York on March 10. "But they all seem to. It doesn’t matter what country they’re in or what religion they claim. They want to control women."
This, according to the liberal spin, is all part of a grand strategy — a "war on women."
Ladies, beware: The nanny state has unleashed a rhetorical blitzkrieg, and you are the target. It’s a distracting barrage of reckless claims that belittle women’s intellectual freedom to make up our own minds on the merits of ideas, not spin.
The "war on women," says Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., "is a scare tactic that isn’t going to work."
Advocates of ever-bigger government, she says, are "trying to distract America from the real issues."
She’s right. This couldn’t be happening at a worse time. We need to talk about how to accelerate job growth, put power for health-care decisions back in the hands of consumers, and restore respect for the boundaries the Constitution puts around government so we can get on with our daily lives.
Take, for example, the recent Health and Human Services mandate under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. It requires all insurance plans to cover abortion-inducing drugs, contraception and sterilization at "no cost" to the insured. That includes plans offered by religious employers, even if the mandate violates their religious beliefs or moral convictions.
The religious exemption is the narrowest ever, covering only houses of worship. Other "good Samaritan" groups who serve the poor, sick, elderly and orphaned face the untenable choice: Violate their conscience or pay steep fines for keeping their faith by not complying with the mandate.
So who is really trying to control whom here?
With requirements like these, no wonder the health-care law is in such legal and moral trouble at the second anniversary of its enactment. The outcry against the HHS mandate’s violation of the First Amendment guarantee of religious freedom became enormous. That’s when proponents began characterizing the opposition as a "war on women."
Women aren’t buying it, though. A recent CBS/New York Times poll found strong support for the freedom of religious employers: 57 percent said religious employers should not have to comply with the mandate, compared to 36 percent who said they should. Among women, the margin was 53 percent to 38 percent in favor of religious liberty.
You already can hear the spin cycle starting on another "women’s issue" in Congress. The Senate is considering a bill to rewrite the Violence Against Women Act. With a name like that, who could be against it? We all condemn mistreatment of women.
But this bill is full of distractions. Of course violence against women must be fully prosecuted. Clarity and consistency in the law help assure that justice is done. Legislation creating new classes of victims — some of whom aren’t women — will make it harder to achieve those objectives.
Mercifully, the rule of law has eradicated in the United States the kind of systemic oppression of women that still exists under what Secretary Clinton might rightly call extremist regimes abroad.
One of the most fundamental freedoms that sets America apart from such oppressive regimes is the freedom to engage in vigorous debate about the direction of our country. Let’s not forfeit that opportunity to engage in real debate by crying wolf about war.
American women can judge what constitutes a real war on women.
Marshall is director of the DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at The Heritage Foundation.
Sanchez: GOP has woman troubles
Athens Banner-Herald (GA)
Author/Byline: Mary Sanchez
March 27, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Women get a lot of lip service about being equal and fully valued members of society, although sometimes we have to wonder.
As we have advanced in the workplace, so have the fortunes of the men in our lives. “Mad Men” may be a popular TV drama, with its alluring evocation of the days when men were men and women were sexually available office underlings (or were at home wearing an apron). However, I doubt many married men would trade their wife’s income for a chance to relive that era. They couldn’t afford it.
Yet the Republican Party seems to live in a different reality. Here we are, smack in the middle of a presidential race, and the right is busy trying to undo everything the women’s movement has accomplished in the last 50 years — most notably reproductive rights, which were crucial in letting us pursue careers in the first place.
Mitt Romney, desperate to prove his conservative bona fides, has declared war on Planned Parenthood, vowing to strip the nation’s largest family planning service of federal funding. Opposition to abortion is the subtext of Romney’s attack, but the organization plays an even greater role in American society by helping to prevent unwanted pregnancies — and that bugs many conservatives, too.
Romney’s comments followed the ugly debate about a federal policy requiring employer health insurance plans to cover contraception without copays from employees. The proceedings in Congress were noteworthy for a certain, shall we say, gender imbalance, in which male politicians (and clerics) pontificated about women’s reproduction as if it was their issue alone to decide.
In this climate, even the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act is stirring GOP pots. The bill passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee without a single Republican vote. It seems Republicans have a problem with new provisions having to do with Native American jurisdiction, and with the fact that the bill extends protection to immigrant women and same-sex couples.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., nicely summed up the GOP’s strange behavior to the New York Times: “This is part of a larger effort, candidly, to cut back on rights and services to women. We’ve seen it go from discussions on Roe v. Wade, to partial birth abortion, to contraception, to preventive services for women. This seems to be one more thing.”
All of this is quite a shock for women of my generation, who were playing hopscotch during the struggles of the 1960s and ‘70s.
The feminists of those heady years didn’t quite succeed in quashing male chauvinism. But they fought the epic battles. They paved my way — and I’m deeply grateful. Now it’s up to new generations of women to defend our ground.
The rebuke of Rush Limbaugh is a start. His vile sexual taunting of a Georgetown law school student who dared to speak up to Congress was so excessive that advertisers abandoned his show in droves.
What truly enraged women about the episode were the craven excuses for Limbaugh’s comments offered by leading Republicans, including three of the four remaining presidential candidates. They couldn’t muster the moral courage to stand up to Limbaugh — because they desperately need his approval.
It would be convenient to write off these affronts to women as the last gasps of male privilege. The forces of patriarchy have lost, and all they have left is their resentment.
But we should remember that resentment is powerful fuel for political movements, and the fires of backlash are still burning on the American right. The challenge for women (and their male allies) is to hold up a mirror to the real America — where the vast majority of women want and, at key points in their lives, use birth control — and to expose the phony arguments and bogus values of the party that would deny them that right.
• Mary Sanchez is an opinion-page columnist for The Kansas City Star.
Poll: Most Don't Want Violence Against Women Act
GlobeNewswire (USA)
March 27, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Washington, DC/March 27, 2012 -- The broader American public opposes reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, according to a U.S. News and World Report poll that shows Americans think the law is ineffectual and unjust. Stop Abusive and Violent Environments (SAVE) notes the recent U.S. News "Debate Club" feature on VAWA has elicited an overwhelmingly negative reaction to the law.
The top vote-getter in the poll was a commentary by Janice Crouse of Concerned Women for America, who argued the Violence Against Women Act should "outrage decent people" because it "victimizes both women and men." Crouse's statement beat opposing votes by a nearly five-to-one margin.
Taking the other side of the debate was Deborah Tucker, Executive Director of the National Center on Domestic and Sexual Violence, who argued the "Violence Against Women Act must be reauthorized because it is working." But U.S. News readers disagreed with that claim by over a two-to-one margin.
While the U.S. News poll is not scientific, the sampling represents the first wide-scale assessment of American voters on the subject of VAWA reauthorization. Responses were in line with concerns about the bill recently raised by commentators across the political spectrum.
Atlantic magazine contributor Wendy Kaminer deplored the myriad abrogations of civil liberties in VAWA, insisting "the defense in a war on women should not be a war on liberty."
Highlighting the problem of false allegations, New York Post columnist Abby W. Schachter ridiculed the proposed VAWA reauthorization, titling the law the "I lied to the police and got him thrown in jail" Act.
Sharp critiques of VAWA have recently appeared other news outlets, as well, some asserting VAWA presents a "totalitarian" path to violence-reduction:
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments (SAVE) has long advocated for victims of domestic violence. Said spokesman Philip W. Cook, "VAWA is weakening the core social institutions, chief among them the family, that can aid us in the fight against domestic violence. For the sake of all victims of domestic violence, VAWA must be reformed."
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments is a victim-advocacy organization working for evidence-based solutions to partner violence: www.saveservices.org .
Contact: Teri Stoddard
Rep. Moore Introduces Bill to Reauthorize Violence Against Women Act of 1994
Targeted News Service (USA)
March 28, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
WASHINGTON, March 28 -- Rep. Gwen Moore, D-Wis., has introduced legislation (H.R. 4271) to "reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act of 1994."
The bill was introduced on March 27 and has 17 co-sponsors. Co-sponsors include Reps. Diana DeGette, D-Colo., Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-D.C., Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., Loretta Sanchez, D-Calif., Betty McCollum, D-Minn., Janice Hahn, D-Calif., Mazie K. Hirono, D-Hawaii, Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., Lois Capps, D-Calif., Louise McIntosh Slaughter, D-N.Y., Donna F. Edwards, D-Md., Chellie Pingree, D-Maine, Nita M. Lowey, D-N.Y., Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., Lynn C. Woolsey, D-Calif., Marcia L. Fudge, D-Ohio, and Doris O. Matsui, D-Calif. The legislation was referred to the House Judiciary, Energy and Commerce, Education and the Workforce, Financial Services, and Natural Resources committees.
Former Grant Administrator and Legal Assistant of American Samoa Non-profit Legal Aid Corporation Sentenced for Stealing Nearly $160,000 in Federal Grant Funds
Funds Intended to Benefit Low-Income Victims of Domestic Violence and Sexual Abuse
Department of Justice
Office of Public Affairs
March 28, 2012
WASHINGTON – Julie Matau, 49, and her daughter, Andrea Matau, 28, each were sentenced yesterday in Oakland, Calif., for their participation in the theft of nearly $160,000 in federal grant funds from a now-defunct nonprofit American Samoa legal services corporation, announced Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division.
U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken for the Northern District of California sentenced Julie Matau to 12 months and one day in prison. Julie Matau also was ordered to serve three years of supervised release, including eight hours a week of community service throughout the three-year term. Judge Wilken sentenced Andrea Matau to serve 12 months of probation, including six months of home detention. Andrea Matau also was ordered to provide eight hours a week of community service for the entire 12 months of probation. Judge Wilken ordered Julie and Andrea Matau to pay $159,763 in restitution, to be paid jointly and severally. In addition, Judge Wilken ordered that $31,292 of the $159,763 be paid jointly and severally with David Wagner, another individual who has pleaded guilty for his role in the scheme, if he is ordered to pay restitution in that amount. Wagner’s sentencing is scheduled for April 2, 2012, in St. Louis before U.S. District Judge Carol E. Jackson for the Eastern District of Missouri.
On Dec. 21, 2011, Julie Matau pleaded guilty to wire fraud and Andrea Matau pleaded guilty to misdemeanor theft of federal funds. A federal grand jury in the Northern District of California returned an indictment against Julie and Andrea Matau on Dec. 16, 2010. Wagner pleaded guilty on March 11, 2010, in the Eastern District of Missouri for his role in the theft of federal funds.
The case arose from allegations of theft and fraud at a now-defunct nonprofit legal services corporation in American Samoa called the U’una’i Legal Services Corporation (ULSC). According to court documents, between 1998 and 2007, ULSC was the only nonprofit organization in American Samoa that was dedicated to providing free legal services to victims of domestic violence, dating violence, stalking and sexual abuse.
Between August 2005 and September 2007, ULSC received more than $1.2 million in federal grant funds from the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Violence Against Women and the Legal Services Corporation.
According to court documents, between May 2005 and September 2007, Wagner served as ULSC’s acting executive director and Julie Matau served as ULSC’s office manager and grant administrator. Julie Matau, together with Wagner, was responsible for submitting applications for federal grant funding, managing ULSC’s federal funds and issuing employee payroll checks. Wagner and Julie Matau exercised joint signatory authority over ULSC’s bank accounts. Andrea Matau worked as one of ULSC’s legal assistants and reported directly to Julie Matau.
According to court documents, between September 2005 and September 2007, Julie Matau and Wagner arranged for themselves, Andrea Matau, and Julie and Andrea Matau’s relatives to receive unlawful payments from the federal grant funds. According to court documents, Julie Matau unlawfully received $65,649 in federal grant funds; Andrea Matau unlawfully received $24,634 in federal grant funds; Wagner unlawfully received $31,292 in federal grant funds; and the Mataus’ relatives received $38,188 in federal grant funds.
In her guilty plea, Julie Matau admitted that she knew that they had no legal entitlement to receive these federal grant funds and that their receipt of the federal funds violated the terms and conditions of the grants. Julie Matau also admitted that she had no intention of repaying the money to ULSC or the federal government, or of requiring others to repay the money. In her guilty plea, Andrea Matau admitted that she participated in the theft by personally receiving $24,634 in unlawful payments and by permitting Julie Matau to deposit additional unlawful payments in Andrea Matau’s personal bank account and in their joint bank account.
In his guilty plea, Wagner admitted that, with Julie Matau’s assistance, he received a number of unlawful “salary advances.” Wagner also admitted that he signed blank ULSC checks for Julie Matau’s use in exchange for the unlawful payments that she provided to him.
The case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorneys Edward J. Loya Jr. and Monique T. Abrishami of the Criminal Division’s Public Integrity Section. Senior Trial Attorney Mary K. Butler and Trial Attorney Maria N. Lerner, also of the Public Integrity Section, participated in the investigation of this matter. The case is being investigated by special agents of the Department of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General and the Legal Services Corporation’s Office of Inspector General, with assistance from special agents of the FBI-Honolulu Division, American Samoa Resident Agency.
Violence Against Women Act: Reauthorization Fundamentally Flawed
Heritage.org
March 29, 2012
Abstract: Despite the fact that each state has statutes that punish domestic violence, the federal government intervened in 1994 with the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). The Senate is now expected to consider the newest reauthorization of the act—S. 1925—which includes radical changes that greatly alter the original purpose of the law, already problematic in its own right. Using federal agencies to fund the routine operations of domestic violence programs that state and local governments could provide is a misuse of federal resources and a distraction from concerns that truly are the province of the federal government. Simply expanding the VAWA framework with extensive new provisions and programs that have been inadequately assessed is sure to facilitate waste, fraud, and abuse and will not better protect women or victims of violence generally.
Certainly, domestic violence, especially against women, is deplorable. Violence against women—or anyone, for that matter—is rightfully a crime punishable by incarceration, depending on the degree of assault, in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
Despite the fact that the fight against domestic violence is waged mainly at the state and local levels, the federal government intervened during the Clinton Administration with the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) of 1994. The Senate is now expected to consider the third reauthorization of the act—S. 1925. Unfortunately, S. 1925 includes radical and sweeping changes that greatly alter the original purpose and scope of the law, already problematic in its own right. For the reasons discussed below, there are very real substantive concerns about the expansion and misdirection of the new bill.
Instead of working to fix the bill’s substantive problems, proponents of S. 1925 are attempting to characterize opponents of the bill as anti-woman and pro-domestic violence—an absurd proposition that stifles genuine debate on the legislation’s many problems. Members of Congress should ignore the blatant mischaracterizations and give prudent consideration to the real effects of the VAWA and the consequences involved in its proposed reauthorization and expansion.
Specifically, Members of Congress should be concerned with the following flaws in S. 1925:
⦁ The bill engages in mission creep by expanding VAWA to men and prisoners, despite the lack of scientifically rigorous evaluations to determine the effectiveness of existing VAWA programs;
⦁ The bill expands upon the already duplicative grant programs authorized by VAWA; and
⦁ Without precedent, the bill surrenders the rights of Americans who are not American Indians to racially exclusive tribal courts.
Background
Under America’s constitutional framework, police power is reserved to the states, and the states have laws to protect all citizens from crimes against them, including violence against women. The battle against domestic violence is thus waged and paid for, primarily, at the state and local levels.
Over the years, states and localities have adapted to the realities of domestic violence and have created specialized domestic violence courts, treatment programs, shelters, retraining programs, public awareness campaigns, prevention programs, and the like. State and local prosecutors, judges, and defense attorneys have taken specialized courses in the investigation, prosecution, treatment, and a constellation of other issues related to domestic violence, including violence against women.
Although there is much work to be done to further reduce the incidence of domestic and family violence—and it most likely will be an ongoing battle—the states and their subdivisions are to be commended for their adaptations and creative programs to address the scourge of domestic violence.
The VAWA initiated an extensive federal role in combating sex-based violence. Because proponents of the law argued that violence against women is a form of social control perpetuated by—according to their arguments—women’s weaker social, political, and financial status, the substance of the VAWA focused largely on redistributing power and resources to female victims. This philosophy of group victimhood undermines equal protection and the rule of law and has been detrimental to the protection of victims generally.
To address the problem of domestic violence appropriately, the federal government should limit itself to handling tasks that have been assigned to it by the Constitution and which state and local governments cannot perform by themselves. The reflexive tendency to search for solutions at the national level is misguided and problematic. The problems faced by victims of domestic violence are serious, but they are almost entirely and inherently local in nature and should be addressed by state and local governments.
Thus, the original VAWA and its subsequent reauthorizations represent the federal government’s overreach into matters more appropriately addressed by state and local governments.
Mission Creep: Watering Down Services by Including Men and Prisoners
Violence against anybody is wrong, period. However, the radical and unnecessary changes proposed in S. 1925 would leave the law only tenuously connected to the VAWA’s original purpose—reducing domestic violence against women.
Despite attempts to frame the debate over reauthorization solely in terms of women’s rights, most modifications have nothing to do with women and have blurred the original intent of the law without necessarily improving its purpose or effectiveness.
For example, previous reauthorizations have expanded the VAWA to include services to young people and the elderly. Continuing VAWA’s mission creep, S. 1925 fundamentally transforms the VAWA from a law originally specially focused on women to a law targeting both men and women.
Modifications in Services, Training, Officers, and Prosecutors Violence Against Women (STOP) grants are one example. S. 1925 alters the purpose areas of STOP grants to allow services to populations that previously have been denied access based on sexual orientation or gender identity.[1]
In addition to this change, S. 1925 also contains a provision mandating that all VAWA grant programs not discriminate on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation. S. 1925 includes an exception that allows sex segregation or sex-specific programming by VAWA grantees when such exclusions are deemed necessary. However, when such exclusions occur, grantees must provide comparable services to excluded individuals.
This requirement can place providers of services to domestic violence victims in difficult situations that run counter to their mission. Consider a program with limited resources that specializes in providing shelter to battered women. If passed, S. 1925 would require the shelter to provide comparable services to male victims of domestic violence. It may be entirely inappropriate for the shelter to have men share living areas, bedrooms, and bathrooms with women. Under this scenario, the shelter would have to find separate yet comparable accommodations. This requirement could create financial hardship for the shelter that exists to provide assistance specifically to female victims.
S. 1925 further widens the purpose areas of STOP grants to provide support services to victims of sexual violence in prison. Yet the overwhelming majority of these victims are male.[2] This expansion is proposed in addition to, and in spite of, the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, which authorizes grants specifically to address sexual violence in prisons.
The Need to Validate Evidence of Effectiveness
The principal reasons for the existence of VAWA programs are to mitigate, reduce, or prevent the effects and occurrence of domestic violence. Despite being created in 1994, grant programs under the VAWA have not undergone large-scale, scientifically rigorous evaluations of effectiveness. The General Accounting Office concluded that previous evaluations of VAWA programs “demonstrated a variety of methodological limitations, raising concerns as to whether the evaluations will produce definitive results.”[3] Further, the evaluations were not representative of the types of programs funded nationally by the VAWA.[4]
Nationally representative, scientifically rigorous impact evaluations should be used to determine whether these national grant programs actually produce their intended effects. Obviously, there is little merit in the continuation of programs that fail to ameliorate the social problems they target.
If Congress is intent on reauthorizing the VAWA, it should authorize funding for large-scale, multi-site experimental evaluations of VAWA grant programs.[5] The Transitional Housing Assistance Grants are an ideal candidate for a large-scale experimental evaluation of effectiveness. Transitional housing programs typically operate at capacity and have a waiting list. When demand for services is greater than the supply of services, this situation is ideal for randomized experimentation. S. 1925 does not require scientifically rigorous evaluations of VAWA programs.
Duplication and Lack of Accountability
By calling for a radical expansion of the VAWA, proponents of S. 1925 continue to expand the responsibilities of the Office of Violence Against Women (OVW), yet those duties are already duplicated by other federal agencies. The proposed legislation creates new programs focused on children and the elderly.
For instance, S. 1925 creates a new grant program, Creating Hope Through Outreach, Options, Services, and Education for Children and Youth (CHOOSE Children and Youth), that provides services to young people up to age 24. The CHOOSE Children and Youth grants duplicate efforts by the Justice Department’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). OJJDP’s Safe Start Initiative provides grants to prevent and diminish the effect of children’s exposure to violence in their homes and communities. One of the primary problem areas on which these grants focus is the effect that domestic violence has on children, teens, and those in their early twenties.
The programs authorized by the VAWA duplicate programs offered by other federal agencies. The Justice Department’s Office for Victims of Crime (OVC), for instance, has long considered domestic violence a priority funding area. OVC allocates a minimum of 10 percent of its grant funding made available under the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) to programs that serve victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and child abuse.[6]
Numerous programs run by the Department of Health and Human Services provide domestic violence services as part of their missions. These programs include:
⦁ Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters discretionary grants;
⦁ Child Abuse and Neglect State Grants;
⦁ The Healthy Start Initiative;
⦁ The Family and Community Violence Prevention Program; and
⦁ Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention Grants.
Surrendering Rights to Tribal Courts
American Indian tribes operate racially exclusive governments on their territories and lands. They have their own sovereign powers and operate separately from federal, state, and local governments under which all other Americans live. Additionally, American Indians operate and run their own tribal courts, which to date have limited jurisdiction. That jurisdiction is limited to members of Indian tribes.
One provision of S. 1925 would, for the first time in the nation’s history, extend the criminal jurisdiction of tribal courts to people who are not members of an Indian tribe and who are accused of domestic violence that allegedly occurred on tribal territory. This surrender by federal or state governments of jurisdiction over Americans who are not members of Indian tribes is unprecedented, unnecessary, and dangerous.
Today, if John and Mary Smith were visiting a casino on an Indian reservation and John assaulted Mary, John would be charged by the federal government with assault and would be prosecuted by the local U.S. Attorney’s Office in federal magistrate court. Under the radical proposal in S. 1925, John would be tried in one of several hundred different tribal courts.
This radical and unorthodox surrender of jurisdiction is particularly alarming because tribal courts do not necessarily adhere to the same constitutional provisions that protect the rights of all defendants in federal and state courts.
While S. 1925 mandates that tribal courts must grant defendants all the protections guaranteed by the United States Constitution, there appears to have been little study by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary of how capable tribal courts are in implementing this mandate. The committee did not even conduct a hearing on this issue while drafting the reauthorization legislation. This lack of legislative investigation is even more alarming since, in 1978, the United States Supreme Court ruled that Indian tribes, unless granted the power by Congress, do not have inherent jurisdiction to prosecute and punish non-Indians.[7]
This proposal raises important issues that are worthy of further legislative investigation through hearings by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary.
Conclusion
Fighting domestic violence is not, and never has been, a partisan issue. Everyone is against domestic violence. The law enforcement battle to combat domestic violence is (for the most part) waged and paid for by the state and local governments. Every state has statutes that punish domestic violence. Many jurisdictions have specialized courts that hold offenders accountable and offer services to victims. Court officers, including prosecutors, judges, and defense counsel, have attended specialized training to enable them to fully understand the unique challenges and dynamics posed by domestic violence and its interrelationship to other crimes, such as child abuse.
Using federal agencies and grant programs to fund the routine operations of domestic violence programs that state and local governments themselves could provide is a misuse of federal resources and a distraction from concerns that truly are the province of the federal government. Simply expanding this framework with extensive new provisions and programs that have been inadequately assessed is likely to facilitate waste, fraud, and abuse and will not better protect women or victims of violence generally.
In addition to federal overreach, the VAWA over the years has strayed from its original intent. The current reauthorization effort, S. 1925, is a gross distortion of the original law and is gravely flawed.
[1]“Gender identity” is defined as one’s actual or perceived sex as codified in 18 U.S.C. 249(c)(4).
[2]Paul Guerino and Allen J. Beck, “Sexual Victimization Reported by Adult Correctional Authorities, 2007–2008,” Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report, January 2011, at https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/svraca0708.pdf (March 27, 2012).
[3]U.S. General Accounting Office, Justice Impact Evaluations: One Byrne Evaluation was Rigorous; All Reviewed Violence Against Women Office Evaluations Were Problematic, GAO-02-309, March 2002, p. 10, at https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-02-309.pdf (March 24, 2012).
[4]Ibid., p. 12.
[5]For more information about the need for more large-scale experimental evaluations of federal social programs, see David B. Muhlhausen, “Evaluating Federal Social Programs: Finding Out What Works and What Does Not,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 2578, July 18, 2011, at https://www.heritage.org/government-regulation/report/evaluating-federal-social-programs-finding-out-what-works-and-what
[6]U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, “Domestic Violence,” OJP Fact Sheet, November 2011, at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/newsroom/factsheets/ojpfs_domesticviolence.html (March 21, 2012).
[7] Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191 (1978).
-David B. Muhlhausen, Ph.D., is Research Fellow in Empirical Policy Analysis in the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation. Christina Villegas is a Visiting Fellow with the Independent Women’s Forum.
Pelosi Opening Remarks at House Democrats Press Conference on Introduction of Violence Against Women Act
Targeted News Service (USA)
March 29, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
WASHINGTON, March 28 -- Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. (8th CD), issued the following news release:
Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats held a press conference today to announce the introduction of legislation to provide for the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. At the press conference, Leader Pelosi highlighted the critical, life-saving support the Violence Against Women Act provides to victims of violence and underscored the law's role in reducing violence against women. Below are the Leader's opening remarks:
"Good afternoon. I'm very pleased to be here with my very distinguished colleagues, Congresswoman Gwen Moore, who is a national leader in the fight against domestic violence and has led the way in reintroducing the Violence Against Women Act. Congressman John Conyers the distinguished once and future Chair of the Judiciary Committee and Congresswoman Louise Slaughter who was one of the original cosponsors of the Violence Against Women Act, when it was introduced in 1994. And a champion on women's rights, Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney of New York.
"Eighteen years ago, Members of Congress came together to make history: ensuring that no victim of domestic violence has to suffer in silence. We did this with passage of the Violence Against Women Act. With this legislation, we took the issue of violence against women and children out of the shadows and shone bright sunlight upon it. That was a watershed moment. And twice, in the intervening years, we have come together in a bipartisan way - and that's what we hope this will be as well, a bipartisan way, to reauthorize and strengthen the law. Today, we call upon our colleagues to do this once again.
"For nearly 20 years, the Violence Against Women Act has strengthened communities and provided critical, life-saving support to victims of violence. This law has helped ensure that more victims report domestic violence to the police, that the rate of non-fatal intimate partner violence against women has been decreased by 53%, in that period of time, [that] rape crisis centers have been able to keep their doors open, [that] law enforcement and victims services providers are working together to better meet the needs of victims. Not only has the Violence Against Women Act saved lives, it has saved money, nearly $12.6 billion in net averted social costs in just the first six years.
"I want to especially acknowledge the leadership of our Vice President, Joe Biden, at that time, and on the ongoing, he has always been a champion of this, and without him, it would not have become the law of the land.
"All Americans are entitled to feel safe in their workplace, in their homes, and walking on our streets. Yet too many women continue to live in fear. And that is why we must reauthorize - and strengthen - and pass - the Violence Against Women Act.
"I'm now pleased to yield to a very courageous sponsor and author of this legislation, she has established herself as a leader in the Congress on many issue. She will speak with personal authority on this subject. Congresswoman Gwen Moore."
Braley Urges Congress to Renew Violence Against Women Act
Unless Congress acts, law strengthening prosecution of violent crimes against women expires at the end of 2012
Government Press Releases (USA)
March 30, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Washington, DC - Rep. Bruce Braley (IA-01) today called on House leaders to immediately consider a renewal of the Violence Against Women Act, and signed on as the first male cosponsor of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2012. Unless Congress acts, the provisions of the Violence Against Women law will expire at the end of the year.
"Renewing the Violence Against Women Act will help break the cycle of violence against women, and provide victims the care they need," Braley said. "I was moved by Representative Gwen Moore's powerful statement on the House floor yesterday about her own struggles with sexual violence. Unfortunately, this type of violence is far too common and transcends politics, race, and religion.
"I am hopeful that we can put aside politics to renew and strengthen the Violence Against Women Act. I urge House leaders to come together now to continue making progress in protecting Iowa women from violence."
First signed into law in 1994, the Violence Against Women Act enhanced the investigation and prosecution of violent crimes perpetrated against women and significantly strengthened penalties for offenders convicted of violent crimes against women. The law also required the federal prosecution of interstate domestic violence and sexual assault crimes, and guaranteed the interstate enforcement of protection orders. The annual incidence of domestic violence has dropped more than 50% since the law was originally enacted.
Finding budget 'offset' for World War II bill still no easy task
USA TODAY (Arlington, VA)
Author/Byline: PAUL C. BARTON
March 30, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
WASHINGTON -- It's called finding an "offset." With a $15 trillion-plus national debt, practically the only way to obtain funding for a new initiative in Congress these days is to find another program to strip it from.
And most of those programs have defenders standing ready to block such attempts.
That's the challenge facing Del. Madeleine Bordallo of Guam as she continues her Sisyphean effort to pass the Guam World War II Loyalty Recognition Act and other bills important to her constituents and Pacific Islanders.
It's one of 10 bills she has introduced in the 112th Congress, along with 291 others she is cosponsoring.
The World War II bill has been an elusive goal for Guam for decades. It would compensate those who survived -- and descendants of those who didn't -- the brutal Japanese occupation of the island in World War II, when many were raped or otherwise injured, imprisoned or subject to forced marches or forced labor.
The estimated price has been put at $100 million for several years, but Bordallo's office said last week the figure is based on outdated Census information, and it has requested a new estimate from the Congressional Budget Office.
Her office declined to comment on how many might qualify for payments if the measure ever passes.
The bill got a hearing last summer in the subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs of the House Natural Resources Committee, but remains stuck there. Republicans, led by Rep. Jeff Landry of Louisiana, raised concerns about approving new spending at a time of record deficits.
In response to those concerns, Bordallo has been searching for money that could be saved from some part of the federal budget in order to pay for it..
At the same time, her office acknowledged "fiscal conservatives in both the House and Senate will make it difficult to move this legislation" despite the "longstanding injustice for the people of Guam."
In an era when fiscal concerns are paramount, finding offsets often requires lawmakers to find "innovative ways of scoring or estimating the cost of legislation so that it does not actually increase the budget deficit," said Wendy Schiller, an expert on Congress at Brown University in Rhode Island.
"So even when an offset seems real, and might threaten another existing program, it may never actually impact that program. The most common example is savings in 'administrative costs' a€| which you might think leads to real cuts but can be avoided by the agency or department that runs a program if they engage in clever accounting."
Meanwhile, Bordallo sent a letter Wednesday to Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash.., chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, asking for a markup, which is a committee meeting in which the bill would receive an up-or-down vote after amendments are considered.
"It's to be determined," Hastings spokesman Crystal Feldman said of whether it will get a markup. "There are a lot of bills he has to consider."
One encouraging sign for Bordallo is Rep. Don Young, an influential Republican from Alaska, is one of the latest of her cosponsors. Young is a 40-year veteran of Congress and is the second-ranking Republican on the Natural Resources Committee.
"Although it's not as widely known, Alaska, like Guam, was subject to Japanese occupation during World War II," said Luke Miller, press aide to the Alaska representative.
He added: "Congressman Young believes that although World War II ended over 65 years ago, this bill will bring about much needed closure for the people of Guam. During the 32 months Guam was under occupation by the Japanese, the people of Guam suffered a great deal and were subject to unspeakable horrors."
Meanwhile, other issues near the top of Del. Madeleine Bordallo's legislative priority list this year include:
-- Military construction, including $101.9 million in projects for the island.
-- Promotion of coral reef restoration.
-- Obtaining Medicaid funding for migrants to Guam from the Freely Associated States, as well as education funding for them under Impact Act, which assists areas that host federal facilities.
Two measures Bordallo has gotten passed, despite not having a vote on the House floor, are modernization of the Sikes Act, which deals with management of fish and wildlife resources on military reservations, and the naming of Barrigada Post Office as the John Pangelinan Gerber Post Office Building.
The nearly 300 bills of others she is cosponsoring include measures to:
-- Protect great apes from invasive medical research.
-- Ban the Food and Drug Administration from imposing new regulations over "traditional cigar manufacturers."
-- Reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act.
-- End automatic pay raises for members of Congress.
-- Secure aircraft cockpits against lasers.
-- Continue to extend compensation to those exposed to Agent Orange in the Vietnam, including those who served offshore in the Navy.
-- Ban the slaughter of horses for human consumption.
-- Rename the Department of the Navy to the Department of the Navy and Marine Corps.
-- Adopt the Equal Rights Amendment to eliminate discrimination based on sex.
-- Promote locally grown food through Department of Agriculture programs.
Restitution sought to care for Mich. kids whose moms used them to make porn
USA TODAY (Arlington, VA)
By TRESA BALDAS - Detroit Free Press
April 2, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
DETROIT -- Steven Demink was labeled a child predator of the worst kind.
He convinced women to do the unthinkable: molest their children and videotape the sex acts for him to watch -- sometimes live via webcam.
Demink, 41, is in prison for life for his crimes. So are the mothers, seven at last count. The victims were spread out across the country -- in Idaho, Indiana, Georgia, Illinois and Florida.
But now, the courts are grappling with, perhaps, a more complicated and emotional issue: Who is left to raise the children and who will pay for their care?
In a case unfolding in federal court in Detroit, prosecutors are seeking restitution from Demink, arguing he should pay to help raise the children whose lives he helped shatter.
They lost their innocence and their mothers.
But the caregivers aren't hopeful they'll see any financial assistance. After all, Demink is in prison for life with little or no assets. But, as prosecutors note, there's no telling when or if he could come into money.
Prosecutors have asked U.S. District Judge Gerald Rosen to order Demink to pay one caregiver $66,000 to help cover therapy bills and basic needs for two children, and more than $100,000 to another caregiver for therapy, housing, food, education and transportation for two children, including one who "feels tremendous guilt for his mother's incarceration," records show.
Rosen has not yet ruled on the restitution request. And other caregivers haven't yet submitted bills to the court.
For Trinity, an Indiana woman who has been raising her sister's two children for the last 17 months, any relief would help. The Free Press is not using her last name to protect the identity of the children.
Trinity, 32, went from a college student and bartender to a soccer mom overnight when her sister's two children landed on her doorstep in 2010. Their mother, she learned, had been molesting them at the behest of Demink, a Michigan man she met on the Internet. Authorities removed the children from their mother's home.
Trinity was blindsided. But turning the children over to foster care wasn't an option.
"There was never a choice. If I let those kids go to strangers, I would never forgive myself," Trinity said. "Someone in my family has to show them some normalcy."
A special kind of evil
At an Idaho bus stop, a 5-year-old boy made a disclosure to his grandmother on Dec. 17, 2009.
He told her, per court records, that his mother had forced him to undress and then performed oral sex on him.
That spurred a federal investigation that led authorities to a basement in Redford Township, Mich., where a mysterious man known as Dalton St. Clair ran a child-pornography scheme for two years by convincing single mothers to send him nude and graphic images of their children.
Dalton St. Clair was really Demink, who claimed to be a single father looking for a serious relationship, records show. He attached photos he stole from a male modeling website and claimed he made up to $200,000 in the biopharmaceutical field, records show.
In reality, Demink was an overweight car salesman.
But the women fell for his story and hurt their children to win him over.
"It's a special kind of evil to do what he did. He convinced a parent to do the unthinkable to their child," said Brian Moskowitz, head of an investigative unit with U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, which investigated and arrested Demink.
At final count, records show, seven mothers sexually assaulted 12 children at Demink's behest. The mothers are serving prison sentences ranging from seven to 30 years.
"Helping victims heal(AT)
Assistant U.S. Attorney Kevin Mulcahy, who prosecuted Demink, is on a mission to help the victims heal.
One way to do that, he said, is to get restitution from Demink, whose attorney could not be reached for comment.
Prosecutors often seek restitution from defendants in a variety of cases, including embezzlement, bank robbery and public corruption. In child pornography cases, prosecutors said, the goal with restitution is to help the victims as they get on with their lives. In Demink's case, some of the caretakers can't afford the therapy the children need.
"They can never be made whole after what's been done to them," Mulcahy said. "But our hope in restitution is to provide them the resources to put them in the best position possible to heal."
Prosecutors and lawyers nationwide have successfully sought restitution orders in child pornography cases under a provision in the 1994 Violence Against Women Act, which allows for such restitution. The law, however, has taken years to catch on.
"For about 20 years, it sat there basically unused, mostly because victims of child pornography only recently became aware that they were victims," said New York attorney James Marsh, founder of the Children's Law Center in Washington.
While the average award in child pornography cases is a few thousand dollars, some courts have awarded significantly more. Last month in California, a youth counselor was ordered to pay $234,000 in restitution to a child pornography victim. Two courts in Florida have ordered restitution of more than $3 million to child pornography victims.
Trinity said her sister's children are now "doing exceptionally well," noting that her 12-year-old nephew got all A's and B's on his last report card, and her 16-year-old niece made the honor roll.
Trinity tries to hold back her anger at her sister, who is now serving a three- to 30-year prison sentence for child molestation.
"I'm pretty angry at him," Trinity said of Demink. "But I'm most angry at her. ... She willingly chose to victimize her innocent children and to put herself before everything, before them."
$1.2 Million in Anti-Violence Funds Embezzled, Missing, or Misused: Fraud is Widespread, SAVE Charges
GlobeNewswire (USA)
April 4, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Following release of three reports by the Department of Justice, Stop Abusive and Violent Environments (SAVE) is charging that many grants made under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) are plagued by fraud and waste. Such malfeasance shortchanges the vulnerable victims of partner abuse.
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued three reports in March highlighting the problem:
1. A March 28 press release announced the sentencing of Julie and Andrea Matau for embezzlement of funds from a VAWA grant. From 2005 to 2007, the mother and daughter pair stole $159,763 in federal money from their American Samoa legal services corporation, which had received $1.2 million in VAWA-related grants.
2. A DOJ audit of the Virgin Islands Law Enforcement Planning Commission reported that $847,553 in funds awarded by the Office of Violence Against Women were found to be questionable. Of this amount, $372,434 of expenditures had no records to document how the money had been spent.
3. An audit of VAWA grants to the Coeur d'Alene Native American tribe's domestic violence program revealed $240,431 had been improperly spent, including $171,000 in salary for an unapproved position.
Each year VAWA awards $500 million in grants to abuse-reduction organizations, but fiscal management practices have been found to be sub-standard. A SAVE report documents long-standing problems of fraud and abuse.
The SAVE report points out that the Office of Violence Against Women has not conducted comprehensive self-evaluations, in disregard of directives from the Government Accountability Office and Office of Management and Budget.
Says SAVE spokesman Philip W. Cook: "Victims of domestic violence are ill-served by fraud and waste, especially on such a broad scale. Congress must assure the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act contains strong accountability measures that deny funding to rogue grantees that misuse taxpayer money."
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments is a victim-advocacy organization working for evidence-based solutions to partner violence: www.saveservices.org. Contact: Teri Stoddard
Virginia AG Cuccinelli refuses to sign renewal of Violence Against Women Act
Richmond Examiner (VA)
April 4, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s war against anything federal started off with a bang in April after he become one of three state attorney generals who refused to sign a letter asking the U.S. Congress to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act.
The federal Violence Against Women Act provides resources for women who are victims of crime and increases penalties for acts of domestic violence. The act has been reauthorized two times without partisan hoopla since its initial passage in 1994. Like everything else that has crossed the path of the last two sessions of Congress, the act has broken down into a partisan slug-fest instead of a means of coming together.
But for a politician like Cuccinelli aiming at higher political office, the move comes off as almost politically suicidal. Already outraged by the mountain of statutes brought out this year assaulting the rights of women in various ways by the Republican Party, women will be looking even less favorably on a political candidate who doesn’t see the necessity of renewing an important piece of domestic violence legislation aimed at helping women.
So while Cuccinelli may get the nod as the most ideologically pure attorney general in the country, this title may work against him when he has to earn the votes of women.
You know the old saying, “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.” Cuccinelli may learn this lesson the hard way come next election.
American Bar Association to Honor State Bar of Michigan
Targeted News Service (USA)
April 10, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
WASHINGTON, April 9 -- The American Bar Association issued the following news release:
The State Bar of Michigan will receive the American Bar Association Grassroots Advocacy Award for its outstanding efforts to increase funding for the Legal Services Corporation, which helps provide legal aid for low-income Americans. The award will be presented on April 18 during a reception at the United States Supreme Court.
With 63 million Americans--including 22 million children--qualifying for assistance, LSC is the nation's single largest provider of civil legal aid to citizens who live on incomes below or near the poverty line. Independent LSC-funded local programs, such as Legal Services of Eastern Michigan, help meet the overwhelming legal needs of struggling families, veterans, disaster victims and the elderly, among others, in every state. In 2010, LSC-funded aid providers in Michigan closed nearly 27,315 cases including child custody matters, foreclosures and veterans claims.
Last year, the State Bar of Michigan played an exemplary role in advancing access to justice by successfully advocating for adequate funding for LSC during the congressional budget allocation for fiscal year 2012. The State Bar of Michigan advocated for LSC funding through an ongoing grassroots legislative advocacy campaign that included urging congressional members on the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction to push for increased LSC funding.
The State Bar of Michigan worked to prevent a potentially devastating $104.2 million (25.7 percent) proposed cut to the LSC budget of $404.2 million in fiscal year 2010. While the House of Representatives proposed funding LSC at $300 million, the Senate favored an allocation of $396 million.
Ultimately, funding was set at $348 million, thanks in large part to efforts such as the State Bar of Michigan's.
"The State Bar of Michigan is honored to be named a 2012 recipient of the ABA Grassroots Advocacy Award. We have a committed staff that works very hard to advance the bar's interests on the legislative front, and we value our relationship with the ABA when opportunities arise to work together on issues of mutual interest," said State Bar of Michigan President Julie Fershtman.
"The State Bar of Michigan has been at the front, leading on a variety of issues, including the effort to preserve funding for legal services. Their immense contributions on behalf of Michigan lawyers have strengthened our system of justice," said ABA President Wm. T. (Bill) Robinson III.
The State Bar of Michigan will receive one of the five ABA Grassroots Advocacy Awards that will be given as part of the ABA's annual effort to connect policymakers with constituents in the legal profession. ABA Day 2012 brings distinguished lawyers from 50 states to Washington, D.C., to discuss issues such as funding for the Legal Services Corporation, the Violence Against Women Act, and the collection of overdue state court-ordered fees.
Other recipients of 2012 ABA Grassroots Advocacy Awards include George Cauthen, Nelson Mullins et al; L. Jonathan Ross, Primmer Piper Eggleston & Cramer PC; the Supreme Court of Texas; and Betty Balli Torres, Texas Access to Justice Foundation.
Battering the Truth: SAVE Report Reveals Many Abuse Statistics are One-Sided or False
GlobeNewswire (USA)
April 11, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
The federal government spends $76 million a year for domestic violence education programs, but 90 percent of the claims made in these programs are one-sided, misleading, or completely untrue, according to a new report from Stop Abusive and Violent Environments (SAVE). The report, "Most DV Educational Programs Lack Accuracy, Balance, and Truthfulness," compares validated scientific research with the claims made by leading abuse-reduction groups
The SAVE report highlights three offenders:
-- The American Bar Association frames its discussion of domestic violence with the broad claim that "2 to 4 million American women are battered every year." But the dean of the University of Pennsylvania's School of Social Work derides that statistic as a "factoid from nowhere."
-- The National Network to End Domestic Violence, an umbrella organization for state domestic violence advocates, has developed a fact sheet on "Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Fact Sheet." Only five of the 30 statements contained in the NNEDV fact sheet are accurate and truthful representations of the social science.
-- Judicial benchbooks, used by judges as summaries of current law and key information on a subject, are similarly skewed. Various states' manuals present the statistic that 95 percent of spouse-abuse victims are women. In fact, men are equally as likely as women to be victims of intimate partner aggression.
The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), which funds many of these educational efforts, has been criticized for having inadequate safeguards against waste and fraud.
SAVE has declared that such false claims are doing harm to victims of domestic violence. By imprinting a false picture of domestic violence on Americans' understanding of the issue, the domestic violence establishment hampers outreach to male, LGBT, and other underserved victims.
Spokesman Philip W. Cook says of the report's findings: "VAWA must not be reauthorized without a remedy for the damage this misinformation is doing to domestic violence victims and to our system of justice. The biases we are talking about are systematic, widespread, and doggedly resistant to correction."
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments is a victim-advocacy organization working for evidence-based solutions to partner violence: www.saveservices.org. Contact: Teri Stoddard
New Book Exposes "Divorce Games" That Can Lead Women to Jail, Custody Loss, and Even Unemployment
PR.com (USA)
Author/Byline: Burning Sage Publishing House
April 11, 2012 |
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Atlanta, GA, April 11, 2012 --(PR.com)-- Ask any divorce attorney, police officer, or bail bondsman: Who's missing the kids' Saturday morning sports games because they're trying to post bail? Surprisingly, the team moms. All across America, suburban moms are falling victim to a vicious-and increasingly common-ploy. Known in the legal community as "the new divorce gamesmanship," it involves calling 9-1-1 on one's spouse to report accidental scratches or "violence" in an effort to get the upper hand in a divorce or child custody battle. And it's just the beginning.
In Hanging On By My Fingernails: Surviving the New Divorce Gamesmanship, and How a Scratch Can Land You in Jail, author Janie McQueen, a longtime journalist and published author-and victim of these ploys herself-blends memoir with incisive reporting to reveal vital information that will keep women from falling prey to tactics that can derail their lives. The book already has received endorsements from some of the nation's top legal talent, including family law expert and high-profile divorce attorney Randy Kessler, who is current Chair of the Family Law Division of the American Bar Association.
"This finely crafted, sometimes shocking book exposes tactics legal professionals have defended against for years," said Kessler, whose exclusive insights appear in the book's special how-to section How to Spot a Set-up and What to do. "It's well written, much needed, and it's going to help legions of women avoid some very nasty traps."
The arrest ploy can have devastating consequences on the victim, leading to probation, criminal trials, heartbreaking child custody battles, lingering records, cruel distortion campaigns, and even unemployment as employers trawl the Internet for background checks. Perhaps the most striking aspect of the tactic is that it manipulates women's own protective laws, such as the federal Violence Against Women Act, against them.
"Holding On By My Fingernails exposes how men manipulate the single thing women thought they had on their side: the criminal justice system," said criminal defense attorney and records expungement expert Tamara Holder, a popular FOX News analyst who signed on to pen the foreword as soon as she learned about the book. She also brings to the book clear insights into complex record-clearing laws, and the effects even a dropped criminal charge can have on employment.
"It is time to expand awareness among prosecutors, police and attorneys, and realize that this type of abuse is becoming more prevalent," she said. "This book also gives women hope and courage, and most of all, real tools to break free."
McQueen is the author of three previous books, including The Magic Bookshelf, a critically acclaimed children's literacy guide and library staple that was featured as a series in the Los Angeles Times Book Review.
She said she decided to delve into the issue and find out what was really going on after experiencing "divorce gamesmanship" firsthand. At first she thought she was alone, but was later stunned to learn how rampant the ploys really are, she said.
"I will bet every fourth person has experienced them, or knows someone who has," McQueen said. "But the shame factor alone has kept women from sharing. The ploys are brutal, and can derail your life unless you're extremely savvy. It's time to bring them to light and offer some defenses."
Hanging On By My Fingernails: Surviving the New Divorce Gamesmanship, and How a Scratch Can Land You in Jail, is due out April 17 from Burning Sage Publishing House of Atlanta. For more information, or to contact McQueen and her sources, email contact@janiemcqueen.com, or call 404-585-6343.
There is no 'war on women'
Republican-American (Waterbury, CT)
April 11, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
America is in the midst of a gravely serious debate about religious liberty. It was touched off by news that President Obama's health-care law will coerce some religious groups to violate conscience by covering certain products and services in their health plans, or face steep fines.
Sadly, liberals have conjured up distractions from this critical constitutional issue. They're charging defenders of the First Amendment with waging a "war on women."
Yes, it's an absurd stretch. So is the claim that defending employers' ability to manage their own health plans - free from the dictates of the health-care law - amounts to putting "bosses in bedrooms."
And so is Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's March 10 comment likening conservatives at home to radicals abroad: "Why extremists always focus on women remains a mystery to me. But they all seem to. It doesn't matter what country they're in or what religion they claim. They want to control women."
This, according to the liberal spin, is all part of a grand strategy - a "war on women."
Ladies, beware: The nanny state has unleashed a rhetorical blitzkrieg, and you are the target. It's a distracting barrage of reckless claims that belittle women's intellectual freedom to make up our own minds on the merits of ideas.
The "war on women," says Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., "is a scare tactic that isn't going to work." Advocates of ever-bigger government, she says, are "trying to distract America from the real issues." She's right. This couldn't be happening at a worse time. We need to talk about how to accelerate job growth, put power for health-care decisions back in the hands of consumers, and restore respect for the boundaries the Constitution puts around government so we can get on with our daily lives.
Take, for example, the recent Health and Human Services mandate under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. It requires all insurance plans to cover abortion-inducing drugs, contraception and sterilization at "no cost" to the insured. That includes plans offered by religious employers, even if the mandate violates their religious beliefs or moral convictions.
The religious exemption is the narrowest ever, covering only houses of worship. Other "good Samaritan" groups that serve the poor, sick, elderly and orphaned face the untenable choice: Violate their conscience or pay steep fines for keeping their faith by not complying with the mandate.
So who is really trying to control whom here?
With requirements like these, no wonder the health-care law is in such legal and moral trouble at the second anniversary of its enactment. The outcry against the HHS mandate's violation of the First Amendment guarantee of religious freedom became enormous. That's when proponents began characterizing the opposition as a "war on women."
Women aren't buying it, though. A recent CBS/New York Times poll found strong support for the freedom of religious employers: 57 percent said religious employers should not have to comply with the mandate, compared to 36 percent who said they should. Among women, the ratio was 53 percent to 38 percent in favor of religious liberty.
You already can hear the spin cycle starting on another "women's issue" in Congress. The Senate is considering a bill to rewrite the Violence Against Women Act. With a name like that, who could be against it? We all condemn mistreatment of women.
But this bill is full of distractions. Of course violence against women must be fully prosecuted. Clarity and consistency in the law help ensure justice is done. Legislation creating new classes of victims - some of whom aren't women - will make it harder to achieve those objectives.
Mercifully, the rule of law has eradicated in the United States the kind of systemic oppression of women that still exists under what Mrs. Clinton might rightly call extremist regimes abroad. Saudi Arabia and Iran, for example, have appalling records of denying women equal standing before the law and seriously restricting their freedom. China has subjected women to forced abortion.
One of the most fundamental freedoms that sets America apart from such oppressive regimes is the freedom to debate the direction of our country. Let's not forfeit that opportunity to engage in real debate by crying wolf about war.
American women can judge what constitutes a real war on women.
Jennifer A. Marshall is director of the DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at The Heritage Foundation.
This Times' attack was particularly unfair
Roanoke Times, The (VA)
April 11, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
In the April 5 editorial "Cuccinelli won't stand against violence," The Roanoke Times editorial board - in its never-ending assault on all things Cuccinelli - once again failed to tell the full story and only chose to include the facts that promoted its ongoing anti-Cuccinelli narrative. Because valuable information was omitted and kept from its readers, domestic violence victims now may not even realize that the Office of the Attorney General is actually an important resource for them.
In the editors' complaint that Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli did not join other states in signing a petition letter asking Congress to reauthorize the federal Violence Against Women Act, they wrote, "Cuccinelli, however, tries to dodge the issue entirely. A spokeswoman for his office told the Washington Times that he rarely signs letters supporting federal legislation."
What the editors conveniently chose to leave out when citing the Washington Times article is the reason why he does not sign onto those letters. From the article: "But she said bills have often been amended after the initial support, sometimes to the point where the attorney general no longer backed them, so Mr.Cuccinelli's office has adopted a policy of rarely signing onto such letters."
Though our office receives regular requests to sign support letters for federal legislation, past experience has shown that when the legislation gets amended to a point where we can no longer support it, this office's original indication of support is still used to advocate for the legislation, even when that may be to the detriment of Virginians. To avoid that situation, we instituted a policy of rarely signing letters of support for bills still subject to amendment.
This is an across-the-board policy, and one that has been applied irrespective of whether we support or oppose the underlying federal bill. For example, we recently declined a request from the National Rifle Association to sign on to a support letter.
The Roanoke Times editors charged that because the attorney general did not sign the VAWA letter, he is against protecting women from violence and against helping victims. That is far from the truth, and they know it. In selectively leaving out key information from the Washington Times story, the editors also neglected to mention information presented in the story about the programs that the attorney general offers for victims of domestic violence. Two programs that were specifically mentioned were the Address Confidentiality Program (a mail-forwarding service for victims that keeps their addresses confidential) and the Verizon Wireless HopeLine Program, where this office assists with the collection of cellphones donated to victims in protective shelters.
Beyond those two programs, the attorney general and his office have been committed allies to domestic violence victims in several other ways, too. He personally has supported state legislation to combat domestic violence and sexual assault while also:
--Providing a statewide facilitator who assists state agencies and other organizations in implementing domestic violence programs and enhancing cooperation among them;
--Producing an Annual Report on Domestic and Sexual Violence in Virginia and reporting on the status of the above programs to the General Assembly each year;
--Providing technical assistance to local and state prosecutors, law enforcement officers, victim/witness personnel and victim advocates;
--Recognizing localities that have created innovative responses to domestic violence, so their best practices can be shared with other communities.
The Attorney General's website also provides resources and information for victims of domestic violence and sexual assault at ag.virginia.gov (click on the "Programs and Resources" tab and click the domestic violence link). Virginians may also contact our office by email at domesticviolence@oag.state.va.us.
Finally, the next time readers open The Roanoke Times, they should be aware that the editorial board often leaves out important facts that may support conclusions that differ from their own. Whether you agree with the attorney general often or you dislike every one of his decisions, liberal, conservative, libertarian or politically agnostic readers should be offended that the editors do not trust them with all the facts, and instead would rather spoon-feed them half-truths.
I rarely write into The Roanoke Times to correct the facts when the editors go after my boss because it would become almost a full-time job for me.
But this time, the record needed to be corrected, if for nothing else than to let victims of domestic violence know they have a resource in the attorney general's office.
Gottstein is the director of communication in the Office of the Attorney General.
Democrats Stump for Violence Against Women Act
Roll Call
April 16, 2012
https://www.rollcall.com/2012/04/16/democrats-stump-for-violence-against-women-act/
Democrats and the White House are intensifying their push to expand the Violence Against Women Act this week, giving them a chance to flip the narrative on women’s issues that went awry for the party last week.
Despite strong poll numbers showing female voters favoring President Barack Obama over presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney by double digits, the White House found itself on defense after Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen said last week that would-be first lady and stay-at-home mom Ann Romney has “never worked a day in her life.”
The looming fight over the Violence Against Women Act gives Democrats a chance to refocus on women’s policy issues, where they believe they have an upper hand against Romney and the GOP that will last through Election Day.
Vice President Joseph Biden, who wrote the original 1994 VAWA, will headline an event pushing for the bill’s reauthorization Wednesday at the White House. Attorney General Eric Holder, top White House adviser Valerie Jarrett and other top administration officials and supporters from around the country will also participate.
“The vice president has often said this is the legislative achievement he is most proud of,” a White House official noted. The official added, “I’ve seen women come up to him and whisper, ‘Thank you’” for helping them get out of an abusive situation.
The White House is hoping that an appeal to the bipartisan nature of the bill — eight Republican Senators have signed on so far — and the issue of public safety will get it across the finish line, despite objections from conservatives.
“Everybody wants to protect people’s safety. Once you put it in that context, these things are easier to work out,” the official said, adding that lawmakers are hearing back home on the issue as well.
Biden noted the Violence Against Women Act last week when he was asked about the Rosen remark on MSNBC’s “The Ed Show.”
“Whether it’s Violence Against Women Act or equal pay, my entire career as a Senator and as vice president is to get to one point, where my daughter is able to make whatever choice she wants and no one question it. … If my daughter wants to be able to say, ‘I’m staying home and raising my kids,’ no one should question it,” Biden said.
President Barack Obama also pointed to the bill in remarks he made April 6 at a conference on women at the White House.
“When something like the Violence Against Women Act — a bill Joe Biden authored, a bill that once passed by wide bipartisan margins — is suddenly called to question, that makes no sense. … That’s not something we should still be arguing about,” Obama said to cheers.
But Senate Republicans opposed the bill in the Judiciary Committee because the new version — which has 61 co-sponsors — expands the bill in several ways, including provisions aimed at protecting gays, lesbians, transgendered people, Native Americans and battered immigrant women.
The GOP is promising an effort on the Senate floor to strip those and other new provisions, with Congressional Quarterly reporting last month that Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) is taking the lead. The Senate could take up the measure sometime next week.
Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) has sought to downplay the partisan tensions, touting his original co-sponsor, Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), and his Republican co-sponsors.
“Domestic and sexual violence knows no political party,” Leahy said March 22. Additionally, White House officials denied a political motive for the bill but said Republicans will have difficulty justifying their opposition.
Ranking member Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) has made it clear that Republicans do not intend to block the bill but want to offer their amendments. Grassley accused Democrats in a statement of “manufacturing another partisan, political crisis.”
If the bill gets through the Senate, as seems likely, there’s no guarantee it will move in the House — at least not without some significant modifications.
House Democrats are keeping up their own offensive on the bill, with Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Wis.) leading the charge last month with an emotional appeal on the chamber floor.
“Violence against women is as American as apple pie. And I know not only as a legislator who — but from my own personal experience, violence — domestic violence — has been a thread throughout my personal life, up to and including being a child repeatedly sexually assaulted, up to and including being an adult who has been raped.”
Democrats staged a protest vote pushing for consideration of the bill on the House floor, and a Democratic aide said today that there will be more to come.
Democrats Stump for Violence Against Women Act
Roll Call
April 16, 2012
Democrats and the White House are intensifying their push to expand the Violence Against Women Act this week, giving them a chance to flip the narrative on women’s issues that went awry for the party last week.
Despite strong poll numbers showing female voters favoring President Barack Obama over presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney by double digits, the White House found itself on defense after Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen said last week that would-be first lady and stay-at-home mom Ann Romney has “never worked a day in her life.”
The looming fight over the Violence Against Women Act gives Democrats a chance to refocus on women’s policy issues, where they believe they have an upper hand against Romney and the GOP that will last through Election Day.
Vice President Joseph Biden, who wrote the original 1994 VAWA, will headline an event pushing for the bill’s reauthorization Wednesday at the White House. Attorney General Eric Holder, top White House adviser Valerie Jarrett and other top administration officials and supporters from around the country will also participate.
“The vice president has often said this is the legislative achievement he is most proud of,” a White House official noted. The official added, “I’ve seen women come up to him and whisper, ‘Thank you’” for helping them get out of an abusive situation.
The White House is hoping that an appeal to the bipartisan nature of the bill — eight Republican Senators have signed on so far — and the issue of public safety will get it across the finish line, despite objections from conservatives.
“Everybody wants to protect people’s safety. Once you put it in that context, these things are easier to work out,” the official said, adding that lawmakers are hearing back home on the issue as well.
Biden noted the Violence Against Women Act last week when he was asked about the Rosen remark on MSNBC’s “The Ed Show.”
“Whether it’s Violence Against Women Act or equal pay, my entire career as a Senator and as vice president is to get to one point, where my daughter is able to make whatever choice she wants and no one question it. … If my daughter wants to be able to say, ‘I’m staying home and raising my kids,’ no one should question it,” Biden said.
President Barack Obama also pointed to the bill in remarks he made April 6 at a conference on women at the White House.
“When something like the Violence Against Women Act — a bill Joe Biden authored, a bill that once passed by wide bipartisan margins — is suddenly called to question, that makes no sense. … That’s not something we should still be arguing about,” Obama said to cheers.
But Senate Republicans opposed the bill in the Judiciary Committee because the new version — which has 61 co-sponsors — expands the bill in several ways, including provisions aimed at protecting gays, lesbians, transgendered people, Native Americans and battered immigrant women.
The GOP is promising an effort on the Senate floor to strip those and other new provisions, with Congressional Quarterly reporting last month that Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) is taking the lead. The Senate could take up the measure sometime next week.
Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) has sought to downplay the partisan tensions, touting his original co-sponsor, Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), and his Republican co-sponsors.
“Domestic and sexual violence knows no political party,” Leahy said March 22. Additionally, White House officials denied a political motive for the bill but said Republicans will have difficulty justifying their opposition.
Ranking member Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) has made it clear that Republicans do not intend to block the bill but want to offer their amendments. Grassley accused Democrats in a statement of “manufacturing another partisan, political crisis.”
If the bill gets through the Senate, as seems likely, there’s no guarantee it will move in the House — at least not without some significant modifications.
House Democrats are keeping up their own offensive on the bill, with Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Wis.) leading the charge last month with an emotional appeal on the chamber floor.
“Violence against women is as American as apple pie. And I know not only as a legislator who — but from my own personal experience, violence — domestic violence — has been a thread throughout my personal life, up to and including being a child repeatedly sexually assaulted, up to and including being an adult who has been raped.”
Democrats staged a protest vote pushing for consideration of the bill on the House floor, and a Democratic aide said today that there will be more to come.
Chuck Grassley: GOP Won’t Filibuster Violence Against Women Act
Roll Call
April 18, 2012
Senate Republicans are irritated at Democrats’ push to exploit the Violence Against Women Act for political gain but signaled today they aren’t planning an effort to block or delay it.
As Senate Democratic women and Vice President Joseph Biden amped up their push to reauthorize the bill at separate events today, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) told reporters that Republicans don’t intend to filibuster it, with the assumption that Democratic leaders will at least allow a Republican alternative to be offered for a vote.
“We’re not going to extend this debate,” Grassley said. “There won’t be a cloture vote necessary, and they’ll surely let us have a vote on our substitute.”
The bill has 61 co-sponsors, presumably making a filibuster attempt fruitless, let alone the opportunity it would give Democrats to rail against GOP obstruction on a popular bill.
Grassley, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, said the bill, sponsored by Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), expands the law too far and costs too much. Grassley pointed to new authorities for American Indian tribes and protections for battered illegal immigrants, gays and lesbians.
Grassley warned that the Democratic push to add all of those items could keep a long-term bill from the president’s desk.
“All these things add up to things that are keeping a bill that could pass on a voice vote from being passed,” Grassley said. “Violence against women except for these additions is noncontroversial. I’m afraid what they’re doing here is they want a political issue — you know, ‘war on women’ — and they are going to end up with another one-year extension.”
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), a co-sponsor of the bill, said that she would work with Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) on an amendment to strip the bill’s new authority for tribes to enforce some domestic violence laws. Collins also said she was “offended by the blatant politics being played on this” by Democrats using the bill to attack the GOP.
She dismissed the charge of a “war on women” as “absurd.”
Senate Democratic women, meanwhile, held a news conference urging Republicans to quickly join with them to pass the bill and not filibuster it, pointing out that in the past it has been a bipartisan one.
“I’m worried that a few Republicans are returning to the playbook of obstruction,” said Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), who chairs the Democrats’ campaign arm. “Women in America cannot afford political theater on this issue, not on this issue. Their lives depend on it.”
“It is very important that it not be made political fodder,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein said. The California Democrat added that the bill is not a new concept and has been expanded several times in the past.
“We all thought it was a no-brainer to extend it to everybody,” she said, adding that it was a “big surprise” to her in the Judiciary Committee when the Republicans voted against it.
Presuming the bill gets through the Senate, it faces a more difficult road in the House.
Biden pleas for law targeting domestic violence
Associated Press Archive
April 18, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Vice President Joe Biden is imploring supporters to help sway lawmakers to renew a major law designed to prevent domestic violence against women.
Lawmakers of both parties have supported money for the Violence Against Women Act since it was first signed in 1994 and have reauthorized it several times. Yet sponsors of the current renewal effort have not been able to get enough votes in the Senate to overcome opposition from Republicans, who object to new provisions.
Biden, an author of the law, said Wednesday that supporters must "appeal to the better angels of our friends up on the Hill."
He said lawmakers must be reminded that "some of them have daughters, they have spouses, they have significant others."
We Can't Wait
President Signs Memorandum Establishing Policies for Addressing Domestic Violence in the Federal Workplace
eNews Park Forest (IL)
April 18, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Today the Obama Administration announced new efforts to help combat and prevent domestic violence in the federal workplace. President Obama today signed a memorandum that will require federal agencies to develop policies to address the effects of domestic violence and provide assistance to employees who are experiencing domestic violence.
"We know that domestic violence doesn't just stay in the home. It can extend into the workplace, with devastating effects on its victims and costs that ripple across the economy. Federal employees aren't immune. The President's Memorandum sends a message about what the federal government—and all employers—can do to end this abuse. Today, President Obama directed the federal government to become a model for all employers in providing a safe workplace and support for any employees who suffer from domestic violence. For the first time, all federal agencies are required to establish policies to respond to the legitimate needs of employees who are being abused and who might need help, " said Vice President Biden.
Domestic violence affects both the safety of the workplace and the productivity of employees. Victims report being harassed at work or distracted from their jobs because of abuse. The steps the Administration is taking today will build on ongoing efforts to improve workplace safety and assist victims of domestic violence.
The memorandum directs the Director of Office of Personnel Management, in consultation with the Attorney General, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and other interested heads of agencies, to issue guidance to agencies addressing the effects of domestic violence on the federal workforce. The guidance will include steps agencies can take to intervene in and prevent domestic violence against or by employees; guidelines for assisting employee victims; leave policies relating to domestic violence situations; general guidelines on when it may be appropriate to take disciplinary action against employees who commit or threaten acts of domestic violence; steps agencies can take to improve workplace safety related to domestic violence; and resources for identifying relevant best practices related to domestic violence.
Since Congress passed the Violence Against Women Act in 1994, annual incidents of domestic violence have dropped by more than 50%. However, domestic violence remains a significant problem facing women, families, and communities. According to the 2010 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, 1 in 3 women in the United States will experience rape, physical violence and/or stalking by an intimate partner at some time in their lives, and more than 12 million individuals experienced violence in the one-year period covered by the survey. While women are disproportionately affected by domestic violence, men can also be victims.
President Obama and Vice President Biden have focused on the important issue of domestic violence since day one, naming the first ever White House Advisor on Violence Against Women during the first months of the Administration.
In October 2010, President Obama and Vice President Biden announced unprecedented coordination across the Federal Government to respond to and prevent domestic violence and sexual assault. In addition, this administration pushed colleges and universities to act to prevent sexual assault on campus, and it modernized the definition of rape so that this appalling crime is more accurately reflected in our national crime statistics.
The Violence Against Women Act expired in 2011, and while we wait for Congress to reauthorize this critically needed legislation, the federal government is doing its part.
Chuck Grassley: GOP Won’t Filibuster Violence Against Women Act
Roll Call
April 18, 2012
Senate Republicans are irritated at Democrats’ push to exploit the Violence Against Women Act for political gain but signaled today they aren’t planning an effort to block or delay it.
As Senate Democratic women and Vice President Joseph Biden amped up their push to reauthorize the bill at separate events today, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) told reporters that Republicans don’t intend to filibuster it, with the assumption that Democratic leaders will at least allow a Republican alternative to be offered for a vote.
“We’re not going to extend this debate,” Grassley said. “There won’t be a cloture vote necessary, and they’ll surely let us have a vote on our substitute.”
The bill has 61 co-sponsors, presumably making a filibuster attempt fruitless, let alone the opportunity it would give Democrats to rail against GOP obstruction on a popular bill.
Grassley, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, said the bill, sponsored by Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), expands the law too far and costs too much. Grassley pointed to new authorities for American Indian tribes and protections for battered illegal immigrants, gays and lesbians.
Grassley warned that the Democratic push to add all of those items could keep a long-term bill from the president’s desk.
“All these things add up to things that are keeping a bill that could pass on a voice vote from being passed,” Grassley said. “Violence against women except for these additions is noncontroversial. I’m afraid what they’re doing here is they want a political issue — you know, ‘war on women’ — and they are going to end up with another one-year extension.”
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), a co-sponsor of the bill, said that she would work with Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) on an amendment to strip the bill’s new authority for tribes to enforce some domestic violence laws. Collins also said she was “offended by the blatant politics being played on this” by Democrats using the bill to attack the GOP.
She dismissed the charge of a “war on women” as “absurd.”
Senate Democratic women, meanwhile, held a news conference urging Republicans to quickly join with them to pass the bill and not filibuster it, pointing out that in the past it has been a bipartisan one.
“I’m worried that a few Republicans are returning to the playbook of obstruction,” said Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), who chairs the Democrats’ campaign arm. “Women in America cannot afford political theater on this issue, not on this issue. Their lives depend on it.”
“It is very important that it not be made political fodder,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein said. The California Democrat added that the bill is not a new concept and has been expanded several times in the past.
“We all thought it was a no-brainer to extend it to everybody,” she said, adding that it was a “big surprise” to her in the Judiciary Committee when the Republicans voted against it.
Presuming the bill gets through the Senate, it faces a more difficult road in the House.
Hutchison asked to be Republican face of Violence Against Women Act
Houston Chronicle: Blogs (TX)
April 19, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Republican leaders have called on Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison to create a Republican alternative to the Violence Against Women Act, which is scheduled to be debated in the Senate next week.
Although the law’s core provisions are not controversial, Senate Democrats have inserted provisions to expand the program for those in Indian reservations, same-sex couples in domestic partnerships and undocumented immigrants. In response Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell approached Hutchison and asked her to work on a Republican version of the bill.
Hutchison told Politico that her bill is similar to the Democrat’s version except while it offer potential legal status for undocumented immigrants who are victims of abuse, it does not expand the program further, as the Democrat’s bill does.
Cal Jillson, a professor of political science at Southern Methodist University said the passing the 18-year-old law would normally be a “no brainer,” but Republicans are stuck between the addition they oppose and the pressure of an election year where women favor Democrats to Republican by 17-points.
“Republicans have not valued the moderate female members,” Jillson said. “They’re now paying a price for it.”
Jillson imagines that Hutchison, who has faced opposition within her own party for the more moderate views she holds, such as those on abortion, drafted the bill with “a taste of ashes in her mouth.”
“[McConnel asking Hutchison] suggests that her views are now needed by the Republican Party to help them win back support among women. Jillson said. “Having taken these positions has cost her dearly.”
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN REAUTHORIZATION, SEN. GRASSLEY RESPONDS TO POLITICIZATION
US Fed News (USA)
April 19, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
WASHINGTON, April 18 --Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member, Chuck Grassley, issued the following news release:
Sen. Chuck Grassley released the following statement regarding the Violence Against Women Act. Grassley is Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Grassley is working with Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, the Ranking Member of the Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations Subcommittee, on an alternative to the Democratic bill that is expected to be considered next week.
The Senate Democratic leadership has allowed VAWA's reauthorization to lapse for six months by failing to bring a bill to the floor (the VAWA office and programs are still being funded through appropriations and running as in previous years). The Hutchison-Grassley alternative bill won't increase the budget deficit, unlike the Judiciary Committee passed bill, which the Congressional Budget Office says will increase direct spending by more than $100 million.
"Reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act isn't partisan. Despite the rhetoric, Republicans are firmly committed to reauthorizing VAWA. Unfortunately, the bill that cleared the Judiciary Committee failed to address some fundamental problems, including significant waste, ineligible expenditures, immigration fraud and possible unconstitutional provisions. That's unacceptable. Our country has limited resources and every possible taxpayer dollar should go to victims.
"Senator Hutchison and I are working on an alternative to the VAWA bill that will both strengthen important provisions and fix weaknesses in the committee-passed bill. It maintains adequate funding authorization, without adding to the budget deficit (unlike the committee-passed bill), and it focuses resources on helping victims."
COLUMN: A Custer moment in 'war on women'
Cecil Whig (Elkton, MD)
Author: Dana Milbank
April 20, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
If Republicans are truly engaged in a "war on women," as the Democrats claim, they are fighting it about as well as Gen. Custer did at Little Bighorn.
First they were routed over their objections to contraception. Then they had to defend Rush Limbaugh's insults of Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke and Ted Nugent's description of two top Democratic leaders as "varmints." On top of that, the Republican National Committee chairman is on record drawing a parallel between women and caterpillars, and Democrats have been ambushing Republicans almost daily with topics as varied as mammograms and membership at Augusta.
On Wednesday, the White House staged an event to demand that Republicans stop blocking a renewal of the Violence Against Women Act -- and Republicans suddenly found themselves on the wrong side of a title that only a fool or a lunatic would oppose.
"The idea that we're still fighting about this in the Congress, that this is even a debatable issue, is truly sad," Vice President Biden said in an emotional performance on the White House grounds. It "should just be over in terms of the debate about it. ... What are we arguing about?"
Their outrage -- Biden alternated between shouts and stage whispers, even giving his rendition of an emergency call from a victim of domestic violence -- was palpable. Which was particularly impressive because the "debate" over renewing the Violence Against Women Act has been pretty much silent.
The legislation was on the Senate floor Wednesday when Dick Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Senate Democrat, rose to speak. "The Postal Reform Act is before us, and it's my understanding that we have an opportunity here."
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., the presiding officer, interrupted. "The Senate is currently considering the motion to proceed on the Violence Against Women Act," she reminded him.
"Oh, sorry," Durbin said. He then requested permission to talk instead about the postal legislation, which he called "timely."
In truth, a veto-proof majority already has been assembled in support of renewing the 1994 act, which means Senate passage is not in doubt. The objections a few Republicans have raised are over provisions that Democrats are trying to link to the law's renewal, including protections they would add for same-sex couples and illegal immigrants who suffered abuse.
Whatever their objections, Republicans are virtually certain to fold. Democrats have been so relentlessly uniform and monotonous in pounding the opposition on women's issues that Congress may need to pass a Violence Against Variety Act.
At the White House on Wednesday, Paula Zahn led a panel discussion in which the participants hailed the success of the Violence Against Women Act. Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett hailed the president and vice president's support for women. Holder hailed Biden and Jarrett's support for women. The mother of slain University of Virginia student Yeardley Love hailed Biden's support for women. And Biden hailed his own support for women. "It's great to be with so many people that I agree with," he said with a laugh.
Although his speech was on teleprompters, Biden roamed as he made his case, using a whisper to describe a woman's call for help ("I'm standing between Gap and -- oh my God, I see him coming") and a shout of "92 percent!" to show how many American women think that reducing domestic violence and sexual assault should be a top priority.
Mostly, though, Biden was confused about why those Republicans don't join "right-minded people" in renewing the law. "These guys don't get it," he said, lowering his voice. "What would it say to our daughters, our wives, our mothers, about whether or not they are entitled to respect and their government believes they're entitled to be free of this violence? ... Just imagine the impact on the moral disapprobation of society if this Congress refuses to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act."
Only at the end did Biden tell the audience that he expected the legislation to be renewed. But that isn't important. In the war against the war on women, the Democrats are taking no prisoners.
GOP opposition to the Violence Against Women Act is insane
Rockford Register Star: Blogs (IL)
Author/Byline: Pat Cunningham
April 20, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
The zeal with which some elements of the Republican Party are waging a war on women raises the question of whether the GOP has a not-so-latent death wish.
This is the 21st century, not the 1950s! American women are no longer the deferential little darlings of yore. A political party that can’t recognize that truism is only asking for trouble.
In one sense, the war on women is nothing new. It’s been raging longer than the war in Afghanistan. You can trace it back to decades of Republican opposition to early childhood education, child care, family and medical leave, equal pay, family planning, and every other government program designed to help women. But the current war on women started with successful Republican efforts, over 10 years, to kill what became known as the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which makes it easier for women to sue for wage discrimination. President Obama finally signed it into law on Jan. 29, 2009.
The war has only escalated in recent weeks. Republicans tried to overturn new rules of the Obama administration making access to contraception, with no co-pay, part of every woman’s basic health insurance. Rush Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke a “slut.” Rick Santorum said states should be able to make birth control illegal. Mitt Romney won’t say whether or not he’d have signed the Lilly Ledbetter Act. Senate Republicans voted for the Blunt Amendment, which would have allowed any employer to refuse to cover any kind of health care service by citing “moral reasons.” They are now blocking reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act and passage of the Paycheck Fairness Act.
Republican opposition to the Violence Against Women Act is especially odious. Written in 1994 by then-Senator Joe Biden to offer legal protection to women who are victims of domestic violence, it was passed, and has been re-authorized several times, with strong bipartisan support. Three provisions were added this year to extend protection to women in same-sex marriages, Native-American women and women immigrants who are here illegally. Because of those three amendments, all eight Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, led by Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, voted against the bill. By their presumed logic, it’s wrong to beat up most women — but lesbians, Native Americans, and undocumented women are fair game.
UPDATE: Political analyst Charlie Cooks SUGGESTS that the GOP’s problem is one of too much testosterone:
For the past year or so, we’ve seen television ads for a prescription drug designed to help men with something called “Low T,” which turns out to mean low testosterone levels (who knew?). As I waded through tons of polling data and focus-group findings this week, it hit me. For the past couple of years, and especially during the presidential debates over recent months, Republicans have shown signs of the opposite problem: “High T.” The GOP has an excess of testosterone that may be hurting the party with some segments of women voters, specifically with those under 50, single women, and independent women.
The messaging and signals emanating from Republican presidential candidates, as well as from elected officials in Washington and in state capitals, seem to be aimed at only conservative, white men. This is a group that once dominated the electorate but is now considerably smaller than a majority.
UPDATE II: HERE‘s Ed Kilgore’s take on the GOP and the Violence Against Women Act:
If you’ve been following the debate in the Senate over the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, you know that Republicans are complaining that they don’t want the act to expire, but object to “poison pills” Democrats have added to the bill, particularly protections against domestic violence for undocumented women and for people in same-sex relationships.
But they are not handling the messaging of their position very well, and have retreated from their original filibuster threats (pretty standard now with respect to every piece of legislation they oppose), and apparently hope the bill is enacted without their votes but also without much publicity.
This GOP exercise in damage control, however, may not be enough to spare their presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, for whom the VAWA issue is becoming another in a long series of examples of his weaselly refusal to take a distinct position. He’s sort of for VAWA reneweal, but doesn’t think it should become a “political football,” and won’t say what version he’d support.
Republicans are waging a war on women
Bismarck Tribune, The (ND)
Author/Byline: BEN TOLLEFSON Minot BRUCE HAGEN Bismarck
April 21, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
President Abraham Lincoln once said, "government of the people, by the people and for the people shall not perish from the Earth."
These words are as significant today as they were in 1863. Senatorial candidate Rep. Rick Berg believes that Lincoln's thoughts created words to live by. How true that is.
Berg has credentials that fully qualify him to serve North Dakota in the U.S. Senate. He is a country boy. He was born and graduated from high school in Hettinger, and graduated from North Dakota State University with a degree in agricultural economics. He is a business man and a family man.
In 1985, Berg was elected to the North Dakota Legislature, where he served well as a committee chairman and later as majority leader for six years. He worked closely with Gov. John Hoeven on budget matters and economic development. Today, he represents us in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Berg is a friend to all, and a dedicated North Dakotan. He has earned our support in his Senate effort.
I'll vote for Rick Berg. I hope you will, too.
I am astounded at what is going on in the Republican Party with regard to women's issues.
First came the attacks on Planned Parenthood, the comment that women should "keep an aspirin between their knees," and bills authorizing unnecessary medical procedures, forcibly applied to women, that meet the legal definition of rape.
Then came the Republican vote against reauthorizing the Violence Against Women's Act, which provides support for victims of domestic violence. Shamefully, our own representative, Rick Berg, voted along with his Republican colleagues and against women who are victims of abuse.
This was quickly followed by the Wisconsin Republican governor rolling back the clock and making it harder for women to receive equal pay for equal work.
The GOP budget pushed by Rep. Paul Ryan (and championed, again, by our own Rick Berg), is absolutely devastating in the way it slashes support for programs that help women.
This legislation against women is outrageous. It is a war on women. It's not even the 1950s they want to take us back to. It's more like the 1350s - where women simply have no role in society other than to take care of men and families inside the confines of their home.
Why did Berg choose to go down such a path against women? It will be interesting to see where this path leads come November.
Both of my grandmothers were not allowed to vote until they were over 30 years old ,when the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was passed guaranteeing all individuals the right to vote.
At some point in all this, certain religious leaders and Rick Santorum came out against all forms of contraception and told women to make lemonade out of lemons if they should be impregnated through the act of rape.
Rush Limbaugh took the attacks to new heights in his ravings aimed at a Georgetown law student. He was subsequently backed up by numerous right-wing media personalities.The evidence is overwhelming.
Women should be guaranteed the protections of the "Violence Against Women Act."
SEN. MIKULSKI PUTS FUNDS IN FEDERAL CHECKBOOK FOR VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN PROGRAMS
US Fed News (USA)
April 21, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
WASHINGTON, April 19 -- The office of Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski issued the following press release:
U.S. Senator Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.), Chairwoman of the Commerce, Justice, Science (CJS) Appropriations Subcommittee, today announced she put $413 million in the federal checkbook through the FY2013 CJS spending bill to support the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Office on Violence Against Women and programs authorized through the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), which she helped pass into law. The funding will help protect women and families from domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking and dating violence.
"Even while efforts to bring the VAWA reauthorization to the Senate floor are stymied, I want to make sure that we continue making strong investments in programs to combat domestic abuse, dating violence and sexual assault; protect women, families and our communities; and help rebuild lives," Chairwoman Mikulski said.
"There is a compelling need. No woman in this country should live in fear that her husband or boyfriend will hurt or kill her or her kids," Chairwoman Mikulski said. "I have zero tolerance for domestic violence. If you are beaten and abused, you should have somewhere to turn for help and a path to recovery. That's why I make sure this bill provides robust support for grant programs that focus on early prevention and intervention to help protect women and their families from continued abuse, particularly during economically distressed times when abuse is more common."
As a cosponsor of the 2011 VAWA Reauthorization Act, Chairwoman Mikulski has continued to fight against domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking, crimes of epidemic proportions that are 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, 1 in 6 have been the victims of rape or attempted rape, and the cost of domestic violence exceeds $5.8 billion each year.
The CJS spending bill funds multiple competitive and formula 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.
In the next step of the appropriations process, the bill will be considered by the full Senate. A date for that action has not yet been set.
Don't let Republicans make women second class
Patriot-News, The: Blogs (Harrisburg, PA)
Letters to the Editor
Author: DOROTHY BAIZA - New Cumberland
April 22, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
What does conservative mean? Against women.
Conservative Republicans fought against the government compromise of having insurance companies pay for contraception when religious businesses objected to including it in their health plans.
Conservative Republicans want to pass the Women’s Right to Know bill. Women already have the right to an ultrasound, a decision made in private consultation with their medical provider.
There is no reason to force this procedure on a woman in such a demeaning, invasive manner.
In Congress, conservative Republicans are fighting to stop funding the Violence Against Women Act.
State funding of health centers is not allowed to be used for abortions, but conservative Republican Rep. Daryl Metcalfe wants to cut off all funding to any health provider that provides abortions, i.e. Planned Parenthood.
Republicans should be wise to remember what happened when hundreds of thousands of women rose up against the Komen for the Cure Foundation when it planned to cut funding to Planned Parenthood. Komen backed down, restored funding and five executives resigned.
Women, wake up.
We have fought long and hard to be considered first-class citizens and now Republicans, again, want to control us and relegate us to second-class status. Don’t let them.
DOROTHY BAIZA - New Cumberland
In the Spotlight: DREAM Act invites consensus, but Congress prefers conflict
Sacramento Bee, The: Web Edition Articles (CA)
April 22, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
A new level of provocation came to the immigration fight last week when Democratic members of Congress paraded a quartet of undocumented immigrants on the Capitol grounds and used them as a backdrop to taunt the Republicans.
Rep. Nydia Velazquez of New York, speaking Spanish to the cameras, counseled Latinos not to vote Republican. "As long as Republican candidates cling to radical anti-immigrant ideology they will lose another generation of Hispanic voters," she said in English.
Rep. Ruben Hinojosa of Texas accused Republicans of "a slap in the face." Rep. Silvestre Reyes, another Texan, accused likely Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney of being a "basher" of immigrants' hopes.
Though they stood just steps from the Capitol, they made no pretense that their appearance was anything but campaigning. Rep. Luis Gutierrez of Illinois, the first speaker, took just 12 seconds to confess that he expects no legislative action this year on the DREAM Act, which would allow the foreign-born children of illegal immigrants (like those standing with the lawmakers) to earn citizenship by going to college or serving in the military.
"The opposition toward immigration and opposition toward immigration reform runs too deep with the Republicans," Gutierrez announced.
The politics for Democrats are irresistible. After a primary season in which Romney tried to outdo his Republican rivals in toughness on illegal immigration, he is shaking his Etch A Sketch with fury. Though he plainly announced his support for Arizona's law cracking down on illegal immigrants, he is now claiming he only supported one benign piece of it. He has also disowned Kris Kobach, the Kansas secretary of state and an immigration hard-liner, after embracing his advice during the primary.
Even within the GOP, pressure is building on Romney to soften his immigration position. As the Democrats were parading outside the Capitol's East Front on Thursday, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., a possible Romney vice presidential pick, announced that he wanted to find a way to allow the foreign-born children of illegal immigrants to remain legally in the United States.
But rather than embrace Rubio's olive branch (he is, after all, taking a position at odds with many in his party), the lawmakers, all from the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, derided him as a "wolf in sheep's clothing."
This refusal to contemplate any sort of compromise will continue to stall the DREAM Act Democrats' cause of immigration reform. It's just one of many issues where consensus would be relatively easy but conflict proves more satisfying.
I was thinking about this because of what Vice President Joe Biden said in a speech Wednesday at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building. "I know from experience," he said, "if you tried to do it all, you don't generate a consensus. And the single most important thing is for us to have a cultural consensus that this is a god-awful problem."
Biden was talking about the Violence Against Women Act, which he authored in the Senate. But if the administration had followed his advice, President Barack Obama might not have a health reform law in jeopardy before the Supreme Court and unified Republican opposition. Even on the renewal of Biden's Violence Against Women Act, Democrats broke the consensus by adding in new provisions regarding same-sex couples and illegal immigrants.
It's the same story on taxes and the debt, but immigration may be the issue most resistant to the obvious consensus: a need for both enforcement and legalization. At their event last week, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus members were so hurried to score points that they tripped over their words.
Gutierrez spoke of an "electrical" map through Latino neighborhoods. Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., also reaching for electoral, spoke of "this electrical season." All the talk of electricity took Rep. Ed Pastor, D-Ariz., back to a time before it was universal: "They have to make sure that this cycle, in 1912, we elect a … Congress that will restore their dream."
The undocumented young people, as it turned out, gave compelling accounts. Lucy Allain spoke about how she confronted Romney on immigration at an event a few months ago. A recent law-school grad, Jose Manuel Godinez, declared: "I'm undocumented, unapologetic and unafraid."
But rather than hear such tales, the lawmakers departed after their own statements, drawing the reporters and cameras with them.
"I think we lost half of our crowd," observed organizer Erika Andiola.
"They had to vote," explained Gutierrez, who promptly disappeared as well.
Andiola, noticing that some lawmakers were instead granting TV interviews, asked a staffer if "they really have to vote."
Yes, they did. But, as usual, not for anything important.
Martin and Weinstein: Don’t Let Inaccuracies Derail VAWA Passage
Roll Call
April 24, 2012
Rates of domestic and sexual violence in the United States have amounted to a crisis that must be urgently addressed. Nearly one in five women has been raped in her lifetime, while one in four women has been the victim of severe physical violence by an intimate partner.
These devastating figures require a strong response — and the immediate reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act is an important first step.
S. 1925 is a strong, bipartisan, filibuster-proof bill that will reauthorize VAWA for another five years and build on effective programs to meet the changing needs of victims. This legislation, introduced by Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), has 61 co-sponsors, including eight Republicans. Senate leadership is bringing VAWA to the floor this week, demonstrating Congress’ commitment to ending violence against women and girls.
But many well-intentioned Members of Congress have heard misstatements about VAWA, and opponents are developing an alternative bill that will undercut the spirit of the law. It is imperative that we address these inaccuracies so every Senator understands what VAWA really does in communities across the country and so every Senator can support S. 1925 without harmful amendments.
VAWA saves lives and money — $12.6 billion in its first six years alone. VAWA-funded programs have improved the national response to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking. The lion’s share of VAWA funding, about $400 million annually, ends up in local communities supporting law enforcement, prosecution, courts and victim services. Since its passage in 1994, all states have strengthened rape laws and the number of individuals killed by an intimate partner has decreased by 34 percent for women and 57 percent for men.
Critics allege that VAWA grantees misspent millions of dollars and S. 1925 lacks strict accounting policies. But a letter from Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich explains that concerns about the grants in question have been successfully resolved.
Advocacy groups and victim service providers support the bill’s audit provisions, which are almost word for word the accountability provisions developed by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) in the Victims of Trafficking Act.
Critics claim the Leahy-Crapo bill gives immigrants a new way to enter the country. However, provisions to protect immigrant victims have been in place since 1994. Any immigrant victim seeking a U visa under VAWA not only must provide evidence of victimization but also must obtain a signed form from a law enforcement officer or prosecutor certifying that the immigrant victim cooperated with officials and assisted in bringing the perpetrator to justice.
Critics claim S. 1925 contains provisions that would force all domestic violence and sexual assault programs to serve lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender victims or be charged with discrimination. In reality, S. 1925 has a provision that tells states they may fund services specifically targeted to LGBT victims. These targeted services are badly needed. Only 1.5 percent of all victim services in this country are LGBT-specific, and a majority of victim service providers working with LGBT clients report that their clients have been denied services because of their sexual orientation and/or gender identity.
The Justice Department reports that one in three Native American women will be raped in her lifetime and that Native American women suffer from violent crime at a rate three and a half times greater than the national average. Yet critics say S. 1925 violates the Constitution by giving tribal courts the authority to punish non-Native Americans for committing domestic violence on tribal lands. In fact, S. 1925 requires that any tribal court exercising jurisdiction over non-Native Americans must show that it offers similar constitutional protections afforded to defendants in state criminal courts.
The passage of S. 1925 sends a strong message to victims throughout the country whose lives have been forever changed: We will never return to the pre-VAWA world where there was no help and no hope. A vote for the Leahy-Crapo reauthorization bill says unequivocally to all victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking, “We will help you wherever you are and whenever you need help.”
Democrats Focus on Immigration
Roll Call
April 24, 2012
Looking to position themselves ahead of the November elections, Senate Democrats on Tuesday took on the issue of immigration — promising to overturn a far-reaching Arizona law and refusing to eliminate a provision in the Violence Against Women Act that includes protection for some illegal immigrants.
In an apparent attempt to piggyback on today’s Supreme Court oral arguments on the Arizona law, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security, held a hearing and promised to introduce legislation to block the state from enforcing the act, known as Arizona S.B. 1070, if the Supreme Court upholds it.
But Republicans accused Schumer and Democrats of pandering to Hispanic voters and boycotted the hearing.
Schumer, who is also head of the Senate Democrats policy and communications operations, is an ardent critic of the law, which requires Arizona law enforcement to check the immigration status of anyone they stop or suspect of being an illegal immigrant.
“Congress has already clearly and repeatedly indicated its intent to pre-empt states from creating their own immigration enforcement regimes, which is why I believe S.B. 1070 and laws like it are unconstitutional,” he said.
Schumer said his bill would “re-emphasize that state officials can only engage in the detection, apprehension and detention of unlawfully present individuals if they are doing so pursuant to an explicit agreement with the federal government and are being supervised and trained by federal officials.”
Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the only other Senator to attend the hearing, said the Arizona law encourages racial profiling and discourages the undocumented community from working with law enforcement.
“The Arizona immigration law will simply deter undocumented immigrants from being part of the community and cooperating with law enforcement when necessary,” Durbin said.
But Republicans said the hearing was a media circus designed to cast the GOP in a negative light.
“I will not participate in today’s hearing because it is strictly political theater,” said Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), a member of the subcommittee.
“The timing of the hearing just one day ahead of the Supreme Court’s review of the law suggests that its purpose is either to influence the court’s decision or to garner publicity,” Kyl continued. “The failure of Senate Democrats to seek input from any members of the Arizona Congressional delegation before scheduling the hearing further demonstrates that it is intended to be more of a spectacle than a forum for learning anything useful for policymaking. The Supreme Court will decide the case on its merits and that is how it should be.”
Republicans, including presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney, have been walking a fine line as they seek to show their base they are tough on illegal immigration but not to the point that it alienates Latino voters in the general election — particularly in swing states such as Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado.
Democrats have struggled to make good on campaign promises to tackle immigration reform and other bills, such as the DREAM Act, which would help the children of illegal immigrants.
Despite criticism from some interest groups, the Arizona law has been praised by most of the GOP presidential candidates, including Romney, who called it a “model” for the nation.
Sen. John Cornyn (Texas), the National Republican Senatorial Committee chairman, said border states have been left little choice except to take on the issue, given that there has been no legislative action to alleviate the problem.
“In my state, when you say ‘mañana,’ that means always tomorrow. That seems to be the president’s attitude, and the Senate Democrats’ attitude when it comes to fixing our broken immigration system,” Cornyn said.
Even as Schumer convened his hearing Tuesday morning, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) announced on the Senate floor that he would not bow to Republican demands to “weaken” the Violence Against Women Act, which is slated for a vote on the floor this week.
The Senate reauthorization of the act includes a provision that would give battered, undocumented women temporary visas to encourage them to come forward.
The current cap for U visas is 10,000, but that could be increased to 15,000 by using visas unclaimed since 2006.
But Republicans have expressed concern about that provision, along with language extending the bill’s protections to gays and lesbians.
Sixty Senators support the bill, including eight Republicans, and it is expected to pass.
Durbin said Democratic leaders had discussed the possibility of dropping the immigrant provision in order to avoid immigration-related amendments that could be offered on the bill.
“Briefly, someone said, ‘If you leave that in, other things can happen,’” Durbin said Tuesday. “But everyone to a person in the [Democratic caucus] room said, ‘It has to stay in.’”
Cornyn said Republicans are concerned about the possible misuse of the additional annual temporary visas.
“I know there is some concern about that,” Cornyn said. But he noted that “there is strong bipartisan support” for the bill.
In a Monday op-ed in the Houston Chronicle, Cornyn called out Democrats for what he argues is an attempt to score political points with the bill.
“This is shameful,” Cornyn wrote. “The law was enacted to protect and serve the interests of crime victims, not to help a political party fire up its base.”
His comments come as Democrats and Republicans square off for the votes of women and Latinos.
Polls show Romney trailing President Barack Obama among female voters by clear margins and that Obama has wide edges with Hispanic voters.
Cornyn said he intends to offer an amendment that would help address the massive backlog of untested rape kits and toughen sentencing for some of the worst sex offenders who commit crimes against women and children.
Senate Judiciary ranking member Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) want to offer a substitute amendment to address the issues, including extending protections to same-sex couples, that Republicans have with the bill.
Violence Against Women Act Termed 'Fundamentally Flawed
SAVE Calls for End to Partisan Rhetoric
GlobeNewswire (USA)
April 24, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
The Heritage Foundation has recently released a report that concludes the proposed Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) reauthorization is "a gross distortion of the original law and is gravely flawed." The think-tank report, Violence Against Women Act: Reauthorization Fundamentally Flawed, highlights how the bill now being debated in the U.S. Senate, S. 1925, would fund abuse-reduction programs that are unproven, duplicative, and wasteful.
At the heart of the proposed bill, the report argues, lies an ideologically rooted attempt at social engineering:
"Because proponents of the law argued that violence against women is a form of social control perpetuated by--according to their arguments--women's weaker social, political, and financial status, the substance of the VAWA focused largely on redistributing power and resources to female victims. This philosophy of group victimhood undermines equal protection and the rule of law and has been detrimental to the protection of victims generally."
The Heritage Foundation report raises further concerns about the bill:
-- There has been no evaluation of VAWA's effectiveness since its 1994 passage, and S. 1925, introduced by Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, does not address this oversight. SAVE has previously reported on the lack of evidence of VAWA-funded programs.
-- The Violence Against Women Act has already funded duplicative programs that serve demographics targeted by other federal programs. The proposed VAWA reauthorization aggravates this problem.
-- Under the proposed law, Native American tribal courts would have full jurisdiction over non-tribe members who are charged with domestic violence on tribal land. This "radical and unorthodox" violation of civil rights stands in violation of Supreme Court precedent, the Heritage document notes.
SAVE spokesman Philip W. Cook said: "The Heritage report represents an independent and incisive analysis of VAWA that punches through the partisan rhetoric surrounding the bill. Victims of domestic violence deserve better than the currently proposed VAWA bill. And Americans deserve a law that respects our Constitution and cherished civil liberties."
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments is a victim-advocacy organization working for evidence-based solutions to partner violence.
House, Senate Clash on Domestic Violence Bill
Roll Call
April 25, 2012
Election year politics threatens to derail the typically bipartisan renewal of the Violence Against Women Act as House Republicans and Senate Democrats chart a collision course over explicitly extending protections to Native Americans, illegal immigrants and others.
House Republicans announced today that they are drafting a bill that is not expected to include provisions in the Senate Democrats’ version that would help Native Americans, illegal immigrants, and lesbian, gay and transgendered individuals.
“We are still in the drafting phase, but I will tell you that we are not going to be looking at the controversial issues that detract from what is actually VAWA,” bill sponsor Rep. Sandy Adams (R-Fla.) said at a news conference. “We need to make sure that we don’t allow this bill to become a political issue. This [has been] a bipartisan bill, and it should stay as such.”
Differences between the two bills will have to be reconciled in a conference, which could delay enactment of a measure complicated by political considerations. Of course, the fact that a conference committee is even being contemplated could bode well for an eventual compromise.
Currently, the parties are staking their ground. The GOP has charged Senate Democrats with using the bill to cast Republicans as unfriendly to women, a key demographic that could help decide the November elections. Recent polls show Republicans trailing Democrats with female voters.
The House bill, which should be fully drafted by the end of the week, could be considered by the House Judiciary Committee the week of May 7 and on the House floor the following week, Adams said.
The Senate could clear its bill as soon as Thursday, but final passage could spill until after the recess.
Republicans argued that there is no need to include the Senate Democrats’ specifications in the bill because “victims’ services are for everyone,” Adams said.
Rep. Kristi Noem, also a co-sponsor, said that Republicans want to ensure that the final version of the measure does not have any unintended consequences with regard to criminal law.
“It’s not meant to exclude anyone; the intention is to truly get the funding and the programs for the victims,” the South Dakota Republican said. “We want to make sure that we are getting the help to victims. We just need to make sure that we are also consistent throughout our criminal law policies.”
Noem comes from a state with a significant Native American population, and she said, “We are checking out and doing some more research on” whether Native Americans would need any additional provisions in the bill.
Her comments came as Senate Democrats argued today that the Native American provisions are needed, as well as the other provisions opposed by Republicans.
“Every time we have reauthorized this bill, we included bipartisan provisions to address those that are not being protected … today,” said Sen. Patty Murray (Wash.), who chairs the Senate Democrats’ campaign arm. “However, for some reason this time some of our colleagues would like to pick and choose who qualifies for this assistance.”
Murray said that Democrats included the provisions because “we have decided in 2012 that we as a country need to be more inclusive when it comes to protecting and providing these services for all women affected by violence.”
She dismissed criticism from Republicans that Democrats were seeking political gain from the proposal.
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who spoke at the news conference with Murray, said that although the measure is not intended to exclude any woman, in practice Native American, illegal immigrant, and lesbian and transgendered women often are.
“What this bill does is it makes it very, very clear” that no one can be excluded, Boxer said.
Under the Senate bill, tribes would be the authority to hold offenders accountable for their crimes against Native American women, regardless of the perpetrator’s race. Currently, tribes cannot punish non-Indian men who batter their wives.
The bill also would give battered undocumented women temporary visas to encourage them to come forward. The current cap for U visas given to crime victims is 10,000, but that could be increased to 15,000 by using visas unclaimed since 2006.
The bill also would update nondiscrimination policies for grantees to add the terms “gender identity” and “sexual orientation.”
With 61 co-sponsors, including eight Republicans, the measure is expected to pass in the Senate. But first the Senate must decide whether to allow Republicans to offer amendments to the proposal.
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) want the opportunity to offer a substitute that would address GOP concerns with the bill.
But given the filibuster-proof number of Senators who have already committed to the bill as written, Democratic leaders may not be inclined to allow any amendments. A Senate Democratic leadership aide said no final decision on the issue has been made.
Boxer said she hopes there is not a long amendment process.
“When you have a bill that has a filibuster-proof number of co-sponsors … I would hope we wouldn’t have to have a series of amendments,” she said.
The traditionally bipartisan bill was first signed into law in 1994 and was reauthorized in 2000 and 2005. VAWA supports specialized law enforcement units to investigate domestic violence crimes. Since the passage of the act, annual incidents of domestic violence have dropped by more than 60 percent, according to supporters.
Lautenberg Calls for Passage of Violence Against Women Act
YouTube
April 26, 2012
On April 26, 2012, U.S. Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) urged his Republican colleagues to vote for reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) to support victims of domestic violence.
Senator Frank Lautenberg:
"Saving the lives of women should be above politics. The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act passed the Senate unanimously in 2000 and 2005. And it's incomprehensible that we would turn our backs on those who are so abused. I asked those who would vote against passing this bill, think about your own families; think about your spouse; think about your daughters; think about your children.
Apparently, some of our colleagues would vote against protecting women if it means that they also have to protect immigrants and people in the gay and lesbian community.
I call on our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Join us. Join us on our families. We know that you care. Show it. Show it in this vote we're about to take. Send a clear message that this country does not tolerate brutality against anyone. And show it, you know with a little bit of courage stand up and say 'no I want to protect my family. I want to protect those who are abused."
Senate GOP Seeks Changes to Domestic Violence Bill
Roll Call
April 26, 2012
Senate Republicans are pressuring Senate Democrats to allow votes on two amendments to a bipartisan bill that aims to reduce violence against women.
“It has been the goal of Senate Republicans to pass the Violence Against Women Act without procedural impediment,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said at a press conference this morning. “We do, however, have a couple of amendments that we think are relevant, that we think are appropriate, and we would like to have votes on those.”
McConnell said the debate on the GOP proposals would be short and the bill could be passed this afternoon.
A Senate Democratic leadership aide said that discussions on an amendment agreement are ongoing. The measure is expected to clear the Senate this afternoon if an agreement is reached.
But with 61 co-sponsors, including eight Republicans, Democrats may not be inclined to allow any amendments.
Given the purpose of the bill — to protect women from violence — neither Republicans nor Democrats want to be accused of blocking the bill’s passage. But with the election just more than six months away, both parties have accused the other of using the bill for political gain with female voters.
“My message is that this should not be a partisan issue,” said Sen. John Cornyn, who is sponsoring one of the amendments Republicans want to offer. “It cheapens this important piece of legislation if it were to digress in to partisanship. That is my hope, that we can not take the low road; we would take the high road in a bipartisan way.”
Cornyn’s amendment would help address the massive backlog of untested rape kits and toughen sentencing for some of the worst sex offenders who commit crimes against women and children. The proposal is endorsed by the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network and the National Association to Protect Children. Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) is also a co-sponsor.
But Democrats said that while the amendment has good intentions, its provision to set up mandatory minimums for crimes against women would chill reporting of domestic violence.
“That is what we have been told by law enforcement,” a Senate Democratic aide said.
The aide also said that Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) has a stand-alone bill that would also strengthen sentencing, which he plans to mark up.
Holding a vote on the amendment “muddies the process,” the aide said.
The other amendment the GOP wants to offer is a substitute from Judiciary ranking member Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) that would address GOP concerns with the bill.
Republicans have issues with provisions in the bill that would specifically extend protections of Native Americans, illegal immigrants and lesbian, gay and transgender individuals.
Republicans argued that there is no need to include the specifications in the bill because the victims’ services provided in the bill are for everyone.
But Democrats contend that while the bill is meant to exclude no one, in practice these groups do get excluded.
The traditionally bipartisan bill was first signed into law in 1994 and was reauthorized in 2000 and 2005. VAWA supports specialized law enforcement units to investigate domestic violence crimes. Since the passage of the act, annual incidents of domestic violence have dropped by more than 60 percent, according to supporters.
Senate Passes Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization
Roll Call
April 26, 2012
The Senate today passed by a wide margin legislation to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, but the measure is expected to differ in crucial ways from a bill the House will consider next month.
“Today’s strong bipartisan vote will give law enforcement agencies the tools they need to prosecute and convict the perpetrators of these heinous crimes, and will help victims get the protection and support they need,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said after the 68-31 vote on the bill.
All the no votes came from Republicans.
“I urge my colleagues in the House to quickly approve the Senate’s bipartisan bill,” Reid said.
The House is working on its own version of the measure that is not expected to include provisions in the Senate version explicitly extending protections to Native Americans, illegal immigrants, and lesbian and transgender women.
The House Judiciary Committee is expected to consider the bill the week of May 7, with floor action likely to come the week after.
Under the Senate bill, tribes would have the authority to prosecute non-Indian suspects. Under current law, tribes cannot punish non-Indian men who batter their Indian wives.
The bill also would authorize temporary visas for illegal immigrant women who are battered, to encourage them to come forward. The current cap for U visas issued to victims of crimes is 10,000, but that could be increased to 15,000 by using visas unclaimed since 2006.
The bill also would amend nondiscrimination policies for grantees to add the terms “gender identity” and “sexual orientation.”
Republican opponents of the provision argued that there is no need to include the specifications in the bill because the victim services authorized by the bill are for everyone.
Democrats contend that although the bill is meant to exclude no one, in practice members of these groups are sometimes excluded.
A substitute offered by Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) that addressed the GOP’s concerns with the bill failed 36-63.
The Violence Against Women Act was first signed into law in 1994 and was reauthorized in 2000 and 2005.
House Republicans Announce VAWA Reauthorization
April 26, 2012
Government Press Releases (USA)
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Washington, D.C. - House Republicans today announced that they will introduce a five-year reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) this week. This reauthorization will ensure that federal resources go directly to helping prevent domestic violence and sexual assault, and helping the victims of these crimes. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) praised Representative Sandy Adams (R-Fla) and the women of the Republican Conference for their leadership in reauthorizing the legislation.
Chairman Smith: "I have been a strong supporter of the Violence Against Women Act since its enactment in 1994. Funding through VAWA has helped women escape abuse and rebuild their lives.
"In Texas, I have seen first-hand the importance of this Act. Under VAWA, a domestic violence hotline was established in 1996 that has since answered nearly 2.5 million calls and saved many lives. It is essential that programs like these are in place to protect victims, not just from the physical bruises, but from the emotional and mental scars as well.
"The Violence Against Women Act is an important tool for preventing domestic violence and sexual assault, and supporting the victims of these crimes. In addition to providing funding, this reauthorization will strengthen penalties for sexual assault and abuse, promote educational awareness to prevent violence, and increase accountability for grant recipients."
Rubio says opposition to Violence Against Women Act due to concern over less $ for domestic violence
April 26, 2012
Tampa Bay Times: Blogs (FL)
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Sen. Marco Rubio today voted against a re-authorization of the Violence Against Women Act, and Florida Democrats pounced, calling it a gross display of partisanship and extremism over sound policy." (Sen. Bill Nelson joined the majority in favor of the bill, which passed 68 to 31.)
But Rubio spokesman Alex Conant said Rubio opposed a provision, tacked on by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, that would divert 30 percent of STOP grants for domestic violence programs to combat sexual assault.
"There’s no evidence that the increased funding will result in enhanced prosecutions or additional cases reported, and folks in Florida opposed it," Conant said. He pointed to the Florida Coalition Against Domestic Violence, whom we're trying to reach.
In a statement, Rubio explained other concerns.
Earlier today, I cast several votes regarding the Violence Against Women Act.
On the Klobuchar amendment, I voted no because I believe the Cornyn amendment, which I voted for, is better policy. I supported the Cornyn amendment because it addresses rape kit backlogs, tightens mandatory federal sentences for crimes against women and children, imposes a 15-year minimum sentence in crimes where domestic violence leads to death and imposes a 10-year minimum sentence in rape convictions. In addition, it creates a database for investigating sex offenders, including DNA databases to assist law enforcement. And finally, it contains a Sense of Congress provision calling on Backpage.com to take down its adult services section, which has become a facilitator for sex trafficking. On the other hand, the Klobuchar amendment does not contain the sentencing provisions or the subpoena authorities found in the Cornyn Amendment, nor does it have the Backpage.com component.
On the Hutchison amendment, I voted no because of strong concerns, particularly by the Florida Coalition Against Domestic Violence, about the new requirement that 30 percent of STOP grant funding be targeted to sexual assault would divert funding away from current domestic violence programs without evidence that the increased funding will result in enhanced prosecutions or additional cases reported.
Finally, on the Leahy Substitute, I voted no because it would also divert funding away from domestic violence programs to sexual assault cases, without any evidence that the increased funding will result in enhanced prosecutions or additional cases reported. Furthermore, it would give the Justice Department greater power in determining how funds are used at the state level, taking decision-making out of the hands of the state-based coalitions on the ground who know best about how to serve their communities. Lastly, this legislation fails to address the duplication and overlap within VAWA programs and with non-VAWA programs operated by both the Department of Justice and Department of Health and Human Services.
I support reauthorizing the current Violence Against Women Act as written and hope we can vote for it once it comes out of the House-Senate conference committee.
Senate Approves Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act
Lautenberg Delivers Remarks on Senate Floor Shortly Before Passage
Government Press Releases (USA)
April 27, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Speaking on the Senate floor today shortly before passage of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) reauthorization bill, U.S. Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) urged his colleagues to vote for the bill and support victims of domestic violence. The reauthorization extends critical programs and updates the law by including non-discrimination protection for all victims, regardless of their race, color, religion, national origin, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability. The reauthorization was approved in the Senate this evening, by a vote of 68-31 and it must now be approved in the House.
In his floor speech before the vote, Lautenberg said, "Saving the lives of women should be above politics. The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act passed the Senate unanimously in 2000 and 2005--and it's incomprehensible that we would turn our backs on those who are abused. I call on my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: join us and our families. Send a clear message that this country does not tolerate brutality against anyone."
The Violence Against Women Act was originally enacted in 1994 in response to the prevalence of domestic and sexual violence and its impact on the lives of women. The law provides federal funding for programs and initiatives designed to help victims. It has been reauthorized twice--in 2000 and 2005--with unanimous Senate approval. The most recent extension expired in 2011. A reauthorization is needed to ensure that local communities and law enforcement agencies get the full resources they need to fight domestic violence.
In New Jersey, more than 74,000 domestic violence offenses were reported by the police in 2010. Since 2006, nearly $30 million in federal funding has been provided to more than 40 domestic violence programs in New Jersey through the Violence Against Women Act.
Senator Lautenberg has a long history of protecting victims of domestic violence. He is the author of the "Domestic Violence Gun Ban," a law that prohibits individuals convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors from buying or possessing firearms. Since it was enacted in 1996, the law has succeeded in keeping guns out of the hands of abusers on approximately 200,000 occasions.
Senate Revives Lawmaking
Members Move Past Gridlock to Work Together to Produce Bipartisan Legislation as Elections Loom
Roll Call
April 27, 2012
Don’t call it a comeback, or even a détente, but a strange thing is happening in the Senate: Democrats and Republicans are working together to pass legislation.
While President Barack Obama has railed on the trail against a “do-nothing” Congress and House Republicans have struggled to unite around major legislation, the Senate has recently passed sweeping bills on a bipartisan basis. From a two-year transportation bill to U.S. Postal Service reform to the Violence Against Women Act, the Senate has flipped convention on its head by becoming the chamber that works.
And it’s not going without notice.
“Don’t act so surprised!” Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (Ill.) teased when asked about the recent legislative momentum in his chamber. “How about that?”
The Congressional humor from the No. 2 Senate Democrat, however, only underscored his more serious point: that after more than a year of gridlock, taking the government to the brink of shutdown and the nation close to default, lawmakers are finding their groove and enjoying doing what they were elected to do.
“These bills have been massive, bipartisan bills,” Durbin said. “I have to tell you: There is a growing appetite on both sides of the aisle to get things done. It has been so frustrating to watch things just grind to a halt, with threats of government shutdown, shutting down the economy over the debt ceiling. A lot of us are just fed up with it and looking for ways to pursue some legislative goals we can reach.”
Of course, Democrats have incentive to prove that they can legislate: They are in an uphill battle to maintain the majority in the Senate. More than two-thirds of the Senate seats being contested in this election cycle are held by Democrats or by Independents who caucus with Democrats.
But Republicans have something to prove, too. The Senate GOP is a more politically seasoned Conference than its House counterpart. And Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) has made no bones about the fact that he’d like to be Majority Leader. After months of Republicans being painted as obstructionists, some suggest it helps the cause for them to show they can be adults. And a class of establishment GOP lawmakers expressed the same concerns Durbin did.
“It is simply a matter of Senators saying, ‘Look, we’re grown-ups. We have serious work to do. We’d like to get some results,’” said Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), who left leadership this year, saying he wanted to pursue more legislative opportunity. “We’re not just going to blame it on the leaders. There’s no excuse blaming it on the leaders. We’re going to take it into our own hands and get to work.”
But Alexander also shed a bit more light on the inside-the-Beltway politics of the Senate’s newfound productivity, an acknowledgement that today’s obstructionist minority can be tomorrow’s slight and pressed majority.
“Republicans are very much aware that there’s a chance that we’ll be in charge next year,” Alexander said. “And we may have 51 votes or the Democrats may have 51 votes, so we’re kind of stuck with each other, and we need to figure out how to make the place work because we have serious issues that need to be resolved.”
Since mid-March, the Senate has passed a two-year $109 billion transportation bill with 74 votes, a postal reform bill with 62 votes and a reauthorization of the expiring Violence Against Women Act with 68 votes. Multiple sources indicated that when the Senate comes back from recess next week, lawmakers will take a serious shot at a student loan bill.
On Friday, Alexander and Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post offering procedural reform that would limit gridlock and create a more open amendment process — often a top lamentation from Senators in the minority.
“If the minority members would allow the majority leader to bring a bill to the floor for a vote without the 60-vote process, the legislation would be open to all relevant amendments but not to non-relevant amendments,” the Senators wrote.
The proposal reflects how the Senate approved the postal bill last week.
It’s unclear, though, how much longer this era of good feelings can last with an intensifying general election.
Though some sources indicated Republicans have had an easier time uniting around recent bills because of the emergence of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney as their presumptive nominee, others pointed to the relatively noncontroversial nature of the bills that passed.
McConnell and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) have committed to a regular-order appropriations process, but even that isn’t without its complications. House Republicans are seeking to further reduce spending.
There is also a host of expiring tax cuts at the end of the year, as well as a looming sequester that will start automatically cutting defense and domestic programs in January.
Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (Ariz.) isn’t convinced the bipartisan trend will continue.
“I hope we can make progress on some of the bipartisan legislation, but I think as the year goes on, you’ll see more and more of these purely political efforts, and that’s too bad,” he said.
Rep. Adams Introduces Bill to Reauthorize Violence Against Women Act of 1994
Targeted News Service (USA)
May 1, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
WASHINGTON, May 1 -- Rep. Sandy Adams, R-Fla., has introduced legislation (H.R. 4970) to "reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act of 1994." The bill was introduced on April 27 and has 35 co-sponsors. Co-sponsors include Reps. Kristi L. Noem, R-S.D., Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., Mary Bono Mack, R-Calif., Cathy McMorris, R-Wash., Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., Ann Marie Buerkle, R-N.Y., Renee L. Ellmers, R-N.C., Lynn Jenkins, R-Kan., Jo Ann Emerson, R-Mo., Diane Black, R-Tenn., Sue Wilkins Myrick, R-N.C., Jean Schmidt, R-Ohio, Kay Granger, R-Texas, Candice S. Miller, R-Mich., Cynthia M. Lummis, R-Wyo., Vicky Hartzler, R-Mo., Martha Roby, R-Ala., Lamar S. Smith, R-Texas, F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., R-Wis., Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., Dennis A. Ross, R-Fla., Tom Latham, R-Iowa, Bill Johnson, R-Ohio, Allen B. West, R-Fla., Jeff Miller, R-Fla., Richard B. Nugent, R-Fla., Mark Amodei, R-Nev., Lou Barletta, R-Pa., Mike Kelly, R-Pa., Daniel Webster, R-Fla., Steve Stivers, R-Ohio, James B. Renacci, R-Ohio, and Daniel E. Lungren, R-Calif. The legislation was referred to the House Judiciary, Energy and Commerce, Education and the Workforce, and Financial Services committees.
War on Women is Very Real
Cheboygan Daily Tribune (MI)
May 2, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
The Republican Party is feverishly trying to dismiss its "war on women" as a mere myth - a ploy concocted by Democrats to win votes from a key demographic.
"Now we are going to have a fight over women's health," House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said Friday. "Give me a break. This is the latest plank in the so-called war on women entirely created - entirely created - by my colleagues across the aisle for political gain. To accuse us of wanting to gut women's health is absolutely not true."
Presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney took it a step further recently, claiming on Fox News that "women, in particular, have been hurt by this president."
Spin aside, however, it is hard to dispute the facts. The reality is that women's rights are under fire, and the attempts to erode more than a century of progress carries real-world consequences that could affect millions of us. And if the "war on women" marches held around the country this past weekend are any indication, women simply aren't buying into conservative claims to the contrary.
In the past two years alone, there have been nearly 2,000 anti-choice provisions introduced in legislation. Among other things, Republican law-makers have attempted to redefine rape, supported a bill that would let hospitals watch a woman die rather than perform a needed abortion and tried to take away all federal funding for Planned Parenthood. South Dakota GOP members even attempted to make it legal to murder doctors who provide abortion care.
Republican senators also nearly derailed the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. Thirty-one of them voted against it because protection was expanded to include gays and American Indians.
And then there is the Blunt Amendment. Introduced as an amendment to a highway spending bill, the proposal by Sen. Roy Blunt, RMo., sought to give employers who provide health insurance and insurance companies the right to deny coverage for contraceptives or procedures they find morally objectionable. While it was defeated, all but one Republican voted in favor of it.
"It's appalling. It's offensive. It's out of touch. And when it comes to what's going on out there, you're not going to close your eyes," President Barack Obama said during a recent campaign event. "Women across America aren't closing their eyes. As long as I'm president, I won't either."
Obama said that being a husband, and a father of two girls, gives him a "vested interest" in ensuring women's rights are advanced, not regressed back "to the '50s or the '40s or the '30s, or maybe further than that."
That type of pledge isn't mere campaign rhetoric, either. The very first bill Obama signed into law after taking office was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Romney's camp recently revealed they couldn't say whether the former Massachusetts governor would have signed that bill, which ensures women can demand equal pay for equal work.
The compensation gap issue again heated up on NBC's "Meet the Press" Sunday, when guests Rachel Maddow and Republican strategist Alex Castellanos clashed over the widely acknowledged fact that women earn just 77 cents for every dollar men make.
Maddow said that if Romney wants to turn attention to women and the economy, he needs to focus on policy - starting with the pay disparity. At that point, Castellanos began a series of interruptions - each increasingly misogynistic in nature, prompting Maddow at one point to retort, "This is not a 'math is hard' conversation," to which Castellanos replied, "Yes, it is actually."
Perhaps the most telling part of the exchange was when Castellanos told Maddow, "I love how passionate you are. I wish you were as right about what you're saying as you are passionate about it. I really do."
Yet while Maddow was easily able to see through Castellanos' patronizing pat on the head, there will sadly be some who bought into the thinly veiled attempt to paint Maddow as the stereotypical "irrational woman led by her emotions."
That type of male chauvinistic mentality is thriving in today's GOP, and it is precisely why so many women's rights advocates - men and women alike - are up in arms. But as protesters of the war on women have been succinctly pointing out in signs and buttons, "Women bring all politicians into the world. In 2012, women can also take them out."
Obama Launches Campaign with Alleged Wife-Abuser Sherrod Brown
Breitbart
May 04, 2012
Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) has put himself at the center of the Democrats’ latest meme: the war on women. Brown recently launched his “Women For Sherrod Brown” subgroup; in doing so, he stated, “There’s a war on women’s rights in Ohio and across the country by some who don’t want women to be in charge of their own health care decisions. I remain committed to ensuring that the voices of Ohio’s women are always heard in the United States Senate.” One of the chief points of Brown’s political agenda has been the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act.
And tomorrow, President Obama is slated to use Brown to launch his formal re-election campaign in Columbus, Ohio.
But perhaps Brown isn’t the best person to lead off the Obama campaign – particularly not if the “war on women” is to remain one of Obama’s key campaign themes. Divorce records from Brown’s first marriage, obtained by Breitbart News, show that during the contentious proceedings, his wife accused him of “extreme cruelty” and “harassment”; she said she was “in fear for the safety … of myself and our children,” and accused Sherrod of “physical violence.” In fact, she said, Brown had “struck and bullied me on several different occasions.” The allegations apparently first became fodder for campaigning during Brown’s race for Congress in 1992.
In May 1986, Larke Brown filed for divorce from her husband, then Ohio Secretary of State Sherrod Brown (who, in court filings, called himself S. Campbell Brown). In her divorce complaint, she alleged that Sherrod had been guilty of “extreme cruelty toward her.”
Larke filed for a motion for a restraining order against Sherrod Brown (below). The motion asked the court to stop Sherrod from “harassing, including telephone harassment, annoying, interfering with or doing bodily harm to this Plaintiff at her residence or elsewhere.” The affidavit to the motion alleged that Larke believed that unless restrained, Sherrod would “harass” or “do bodily harm” to her; she further stated, “I am also intimidated by the Defendant and am in fear for the safety and well-being of myself and our children due to the Defendant’s physical violence and abusive nature.”
The restraining order was granted by the court, and prevented Brown from “harassing, including telephone harassment, annoying, interfering with or doing bodily harm to this Plaintiff at her residence or elsewhere.” In fact, the restraining order enjoined Brown from “coming in or around the Plaintiff’s residence … except for purposes of visitation with the parties’ minor children.”
In October 1986, Larke filed a multi-pronged motion asking for limitation of visitation rights of Sherrod due to “physical and emotional harassment of the Plaintiff” and an order preventing him from coming no closer than the curb of their home during the times he exercises his visitation privileges.
Her affidavit in support of this motion alleged that Sherrod had “embarked on a consistent course of conduct designed to destroy the Plaintiff’s peace of mind as well as to physically and mentally intimidate her.” On several occasions, Larke alleged, her husband had “intimidated, pushed, shoved, and bullied her.”
On October 11, 1986, she alleged, for example, that she was “entertaining out-of-town guests for breakfast” when Sherrod stopped by to pick up the kids for visitation. She aalleges she sked Sherrod to put the kids’ things out to the car while she told them to come out. Instead, “Defendant refused to return to van, pushed me up against the wall with his arms in order to pass and entered the house. He refused to leave when asked and began to say insulting, derogatory things about me, my mothering of my children and my character in front of my friends and children.” Larke alleged that “Defendant has embarked on a course of conduct designed to destroy the children’s peace of mind by making defamatory and slanderous remarks about me to them, as well as insisting that they repeat untruthful things that he had coached them to state.”
She summed up: “I am definitely afraid of my husband, that he has struck and bullied me on several different occasions, he has completely destroyed my peace of mind and that I am extremely intimidated by him.”
Sen. Brown is currently enmeshed in a highly competitive re-election race with challenger Josh Mandel, the State Treasurer. Polls show the two running neck and neck.
House panel approves domestic violence proposal
USA TODAY (Arlington, VA)
May 8, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
WASHINGTON -- Legislation aimed at protecting women from domestic violence won approval in a House committee on Tuesday, but without controversial provisions backed by Democrats that would protect gays and other groups.
The House Judiciary Committee voted 17-15 to approve the Republican version of legislation to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. The measure was introduced by GOP Reps. Sandy Adams of Orlando and Eric Cantor of Virginia.
It is expected to come up for a House vote later this month.
"Real, true victims are going to get the assistance they need under this bill," Adams said during Tuesday's committee markup.
Adams has said she was a victim of domestic violence herself during her first marriage, and she encountered victims of domestic violence in her former job as a deputy sheriff in Orange County.
A Democratic version of the bill, which the Senate approved last month on a bipartisan 68-31 vote, would extend domestic violence protections to gays and lesbians, Native Americans, illegal immigrants, bisexuals and transgendered individuals. The House version does not include those provisions.
Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee introduced amendments Tuesday to include those groups in the House bill, but the proposals failed.
"Different kinds of people have different kinds of needs that aren't being addressed," Democratic Rep. Jerrold Nadler of New York said.
Sponsors of the House bill accused Democrats of politicizing the domestic violence issue.
"People, no matter what their sexual identity or orientation, are already covered in this bill," Republican Rep. Steve King of Iowa said.
Republicans say there's no convincing evidence that lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgendered victims of domestic violence deserve "special group status."
Since 1997, the Violence Against Women Act has set aside $1.6 billion for investigating and prosecuting violent crimes against women.
The House version of the bill would help reduce a backlog of between 180,000 and 400,000 unprocessed rape kits and would toughen the standard of proof in domestic violence cases.
Adams said her bill also would make it harder for illegal immigrants to be awarded a visa by falsely claiming they were victims of domestic violence. Such temporary visas -- which can be a first step to permanent residency under certain circumstances -- are available to illegal immigrants who help law enforcement officials with a prosecution.
But Adams also promised that, "we are going to make sure we do protect these victims, that they're not being brought out into the light and turned away."
Democrats countered that there is no evidence illegal immigrants manufacture claims of domestic violence in order to gain a visa.
NOW Renounces House Judiciary Vote Undermining Spirit and Intent of Violence Against Women Act
eNews Park Forest (IL)
May 9, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Statement of NOW President Terry O'Neill
Washington, DC–(ENEWSPF)–May 8, 2012. The National Organization for Women condemns the vote today in the House Judiciary Committee. In a 17-15 vote, the Republican-controlled committee passed a reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act that completely undermines the spirit of the landmark bill passed 18 years ago. Judge Ted Poe from Texas was the one Republican hero who voted against the bad bill in the end; though he has been a longtime champion of VAWA, it took courage for Poe to buck his party.
The bill imposes cruel new reporting restrictions on immigrant survivors of violence — eliminating confidentiality, putting victims in grave danger and empowering abusers. These provisions would be thrown out if the cases involved legal residents or citizens. Frankly, this second class treatment of women of color smacks of willful ignorance of the problem and hostility toward the victims.
The committee refused to even allow consideration of a substitute bill offered by ranking minority member John Conyers (D-Mich.), which mirrors the "real" VAWA passed by the U.S. Senate on April 26 by a bipartisan vote of 68-31. Fifteen Republicans supported the Senate bill, while zero Republicans supported its House counterpart. This appears to be yet another ploy in the War on Women playbook, and Native American women, communities of color, and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender victims of violence are the targets this time.
Instead of replicating or enhancing the Senate bill, House leaders not only added cruel immigration provisions but also stripped it of important improvements in programs, services and access to justice for un-served and underserved vulnerable communities. The House leadership just doesn't have the will or inclination to help Native victims in Indian Country, immigrant victims desperate for safe harbors, the LGBT survivors of violence who seek services and support, or students on our country's college campuses. NOW is stunned that Republicans voiced concern for "true victims" (their phrase) of sexual assault and domestic and dating violence at the same time they promoted and passed a bill that is heart-wrenchingly exclusionary and ignores the biases and disrespect that certain victims face when seeking help from the criminal justice system and access to life-saving services.
We urge the full House to look carefully at the House Judiciary Committee's cruel and inadequate VAWA and compare it with the Senate-passed VAWA. Representatives must persuade the committee to reconsider its recommendations and report out a true VAWA that protects all victims. A vote for the harmful bill that shuts out victims who don't meet the GOP's idea of a "true victim" will follow House members all the way to the ballot box this November.
NNEDV alarmed over House passage of harmful bill
NNEDV
MAY 09, 2012
"We are shocked that this bill includes provisions that roll back protections for victims and significantly weakens the Violence Against Women Act," said Sue Else, NNEDV's president. “This is an unprecedented departure from this effective law’s original intent. Thousands of victim advocates across the country recommended substantial improvements for the latest reauthorization, and the U.S. Senate accepted those recommendations in a bipartisan way. It is alarming that the House Judiciary Committee has not done the same."
NNEDV applauds its champions in the House, however, including Representatives John Conyers, Zoe Lofgren , Sheila Jackson Lee, Melvin Watt, Jerrold Nadler, Ted Deutch, Maxine Waters, Bobby Scott, Mike Quigley, Howard Berman, Hank Johnson , Pedro Pierluisi, Jared Polis, Linda Sanchez, Steve Cohen, Ted Poe for standing firm for all victims.
"We strongly urge those who voted in favor of this harmful legislation to reconsider and join us in supporting a bill that is more helpful to all victims and holds all perpetrators accountable," said Else. "Representatives Gwen Moore and Judy Biggert have both authored bills that more closely meet the needs of victims and should, with some key improvements, be considered on the House floor. We call on Congress to heed the voices of victims and their advocates and support a bill that makes sense. Lives are on the line, and we need nothing less than the strongest possible reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act.”
Pelosi Statement on Committee Passage of the GOP's Violence Against Women Act
Targeted News Service (USA)
May 9, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
WASHINGTON, May 8 -- House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., issued the following news release:
Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement today after the House Judiciary Committee voted, on a partisan basis, to pass a reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act that rolls back critical protections for America's women:
"Today, House Republicans again decided to pursue a partisan, ideological agenda at the expense of the safety of America's women, children, and families.
"Rather than take up the bipartisan, Senate-passed reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, Republicans voted along party lines to roll back critical protections in the law and limit its provisions to certain classes of individuals. The Republican effort to politicize this issue does a disservice to our nation's women.
"House Democrats have put forward a different path, proposing legislation that mirrors the measure passed by the Senate. Our bill extends defense against domestic abuse, sexual assault, and stalking; includes provisions to expand the classes of victims who would be protected - including Native Americans and the LGBT community; and ensures protections for immigrants affected by domestic violence.
"For 19 years, the Violence Against Women Act has taken violence against women and children out of the shadows and shone bright sunlight upon it. The legislation has strengthened communities, saved lives and money, and advanced the security of all Americans. And we must reauthorize and strengthen it without further delay."
House OKs GOP anti-violence against women bill
St. Paul Pioneer Press: Web Edition Articles (MN)
May 15, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
WASHINGTON — House Republicans set up a showdown Wednesday with the Senate and President Barack Obama over legislation to protect women from domestic violence, a fight that's become as much about female voters this election year as cracking down on abuse.
The House voted 222-205 to reauthorize the 1994 Violence Against Women Act for five years, as the Senate already had done. But big differences remain: Obama, other Democrats and a long list of advocacy groups say the House bill doesn't go far enough to protect abused immigrants, Native Americans or gays. Republicans say their bill does more to protect taxpayers from fraud and maintains the constitutionality of law enforcement procedures on Indian land.
It's unclear whether the differences will be reconciled before the November elections.
But a pair of domestic violence survivors who fell on opposite sides of the debate reminded their House colleagues that for them and other abused women it's about far more than politics.
"The man I married had a penchant for drinking and was very violent when he drank," the bill's sponsor, freshman Rep. Sandy Adams, R-Fla., said during floor debate.
Wisconsin Democrat Gwen Moore recalled what it was like to try to press charges against her rapist in the days before the law's passage.
"I took him to court (but) indeed, I was on trial," Moore said. "I had to prove, as a victim, that I was not being fraudulent in my accusations. They brought up how I was an unwed mother with a baby. Maybe I seduced him. They talked about how I was dressed."
But in Washington this election year, every issue is pressed for political advantage, even the government's main domestic violence-fighting law twice reauthorized with broad bipartisan support.
Women account for the vast majority of domestic violence victims. They also account for the majority of voters in presidential election years and a critical bloc Democrats have tried to maintain in 2012 by accusing Republicans of waging a "war against women."
In a veto message issued late Tuesday before the House voted, the White House said the GOP-written bill takes "direct aim at immigrant victims of domestic violence and sexual assault" and jeopardizes victims by placing them "directly in harm's way."
Majority Democrats in the Senate would expand the law to specifically protect gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender Americans from discrimination and abuse in a move many Republicans saw as a provocation to vote against a bill approved without objection previously.
Six Democrats voted for the House bill Wednesday: Reps. John Barrow of Georgia, Shelley Berkley of Nevada, Dan Boren of Oklahoma, Jim Matheson of Utah, Mike McIntyre of North Carolina and Collin Peterson of Minnesota.
Grayer: Mandatory Minimums in VAWA Reauthorization Are Counterproductive
Roll Call
May 15, 2012
Few issues can claim as much bipartisan support in Congress as the Violence Against Women Act. This year, as in the past, lawmakers from across the political spectrum have joined forces to renew and, in some areas, improve the 1994 law.
This near-uniform support is appreciated by all of us who spend our days trying to help the victims of domestic and sexual violence. We know that the VAWA works and we are confident that the recently approved improvements in the Senate reauthorization bill will extend the VAWA’s promise to even more people.
We are concerned, however, that both the Senate and House bills contain new mandatory minimum sentencing provisions that will do more harm than good for survivors of abuse. The many organizations dedicated to ending domestic violence that have worked long and hard with supporters in Congress did not ask for and do not want these mandatory minimums. They undermine the goals of the VAWA and should be eliminated before a final bill is sent to the president.
The Senate bill includes a new five-year automatic prison term for all individuals who use force while committing aggravated sexual abuse. The House Judiciary Committee-approved bill requires a 10 year mandatory sentence when force is used and five years in all other cases. Both provisions are undoubtedly well-
intentioned and flow from the widely held view that stiffer punishments can deter certain crimes.
Domestic violence, however, is a different kind of crime. And mandatory minimums are very different kinds of sentences. A person mugged on the street will likely have no qualms about reporting the crime to the police. He or she will want the offender punished appropriately. A victim of domestic abuse, however, is often conflicted. She might believe that her abuser needs to be punished (and she protected) by some period of incarceration, but not for the required mandatory sentence. She may be less likely to report abuse knowing that if convicted, her abuser is certain to go to prison for five or 10 years without parole.
A victim may be reluctant to be parted from the batterer for any number of reasons. A mother with children might worry how she is going to provide financially for her children without spousal support. A victim might also genuinely fear that reporting abuse could lead to worse abuse if the spouse pleads guilty to a lesser crime and is released quickly. This can happen when prosecutors use the threat of a mandatory five- or 10-year sentence to pressure defendants to plead guilty and be rewarded by getting out sooner.
Congress must recognize that anything that deters a survivor from reporting abuse is all but certain to cause more abuse. That is why we joined with many of our colleagues in urging the Senate to reject mandatory minimums in the VAWA.
Over the past 18 years, an overwhelming majority of Members of Congress have demonstrated their awareness of this reality. Enactment of new legal protections such as the rape shield law have made victims of abuse more willing to report their abuse. Overall, thousands more victims are reporting domestic and sexual violence to the police and these reports are leading to more arrests. Even better, the changes brought about by the VAWA have led to a declining rate of intimate partner violence.
Members of Congress who support the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization — including those who support mandatory minimum penalties in other contexts — should recognize that new mandatory sentencing requirements for aggravated sexual assault are a step in the wrong direction. We urge House and Senate leaders to remove these mandatory sentencing provisions when crafting a final bill to send to the president.
Tribal Issues Hold Up Domestic Violence Act
Roll Call
May 15, 2012
Democrats and advocacy groups are slamming a House Republican bill to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, saying it could actually cause more harm than good to victims of domestic violence.
“House Republicans have again decided to pursue a partisan, ideological agenda at the expense of the safety of America’s women, children and families,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said on her website Tuesday.
Critics were buoyed Tuesday when the White House threatened to veto the House bill.
But the rhetorical war on the issue has masked a surprisingly complicated legal debate at the center of the groups’ complaints, with Republicans warning that long-standing legal precedent and civil liberties protections are at risk.
The Republicans’ concerns were buoyed by a Congressional Research Service report dated Tuesday that said under a Senate-passed version of the bill the “Constitution will not apply” for prosecutions of U.S. citizens for domestic violence crimes committed on tribal lands.
The tribal issue is the most thorny of three top concerns by the coalition of advocacy groups, which agreed on a Tuesday conference call to lobby fiercely against the House bill, spurning overtures from House Republicans and a managers’ amendment designed to address their concerns.
“This is an extremely dangerous bill” that victims rights advocates “shouldn’t go anywhere near,” said Lisalyn Jacobs, a top official for the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women.
The two other main concerns about the House bill, which was introduced by Rep. Sandy Adams (R-Fla.), are that it changes provisions in current law regarding domestic abuse of illegal immigrants and that it does not include new provisions to protect gay, lesbian and transgender people who were in the Senate bill.
At stake on the tribal issue is a loophole for crimes committed on tribal lands that shields some domestic violence perpetrators from prosecution. Criminals have learned to target the loophole, leading to alarmingly high rates of domestic violence in Indian Country, experts say.
On tribal land, American Indian tribes only have jurisdiction over crimes if the perpetrator is an American Indian. Meanwhile, most states only have jurisdiction when neither the victim nor the perpetrator is American Indian.
“Perpetrators can commit these crimes and know that they won’t be held accountable,” said Terry O’Neill, president of the National Organization for Women.
To close the loophole, the Senate bill would “recognize and affirm” the “inherent” authority of tribal courts to prosecute non-American Indian domestic violence perpetrators.
While seemingly simple, the language — specifically its reference to the “inherent” authority of the tribal courts — would overturn an influential 1978 Supreme Court case, Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, and legally void several constitutional protections for U.S. citizens prosecuted under the new rules, according to the CRS.
The Supreme Court has long ruled that tribes have “inherent” authority to prosecute crimes committed by American Indians but no such authority to prosecute crimes perpetrated by non-American Indians. Because the tribal lands are considered legally sovereign, prosecutions under the “inherent” authority are not bound by the Constitution or Bill of Rights.
Congress could delegate authority to prosecute crimes, requiring it be used pursuant to the Constitution.
But the CRS report says that by affirming the “inherent” tribal authority to prosecute domestic violence crimes, the Senate bill would put those prosecutions in the same category as the sovereign prosecutions of American Indians.
“If Congress is deemed to delegate its own power to the tribes to prosecute crimes, all the protections accorded criminal defendants in the Bill of Rights will apply. If, on the other hand, Congress is permitted to recognize the tribes’ inherent sovereignty, the Constitution will not apply. Instead, criminal defendants must rely on statutory protections under the Indian Civil Rights Act or tribal law,” the report says.
Under the Indian Civil Rights Act or tribal law, “defendants may be subjected to double jeopardy for the same act; may not be able to exercise fully their right to counsel; may have no right to prosecution by a grand jury indictment; may not have access to a representative jury of their peers; and may have limited federal appellate review of their cases,” the report says.
Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and Senate Judiciary ranking member Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) raised issues about the tribal provisions during the Senate debate of the bill. Calling the section “blatantly unconstitutional,” Kyl said the bill “breaks with 200 years of American legal tradition that tribes cannot exercise criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians.”
The House Republicans’ managers’ amendment would allow American Indian victims to petition a federal district court for a “protection order” against the person alleged to have committed the domestic violence. Victims rights advocates unloaded on the change, calling it not nearly enough to stop an epidemic of tribal violence.
O’Neill characterized the GOP objections as an unwillingness to “trust Native Americans to uphold the Constitution,” adding that there’s “no evidence” tribal courts would not.
Violence Against Women Act Debate Gets Political
Roll Call
May 16, 2012
The Violence Against Women Act: It’s a bill whose name alone makes it difficult to oppose. And in the past, Republicans and Democrats came together to pass and reauthorize the bill with little controversy.
In 2005, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) posed for photos as then-President George W. Bush signed the last reauthorization measure into law. The bill had passed the House by a vote of 415-4 and the Senate by unanimous consent.
In contrast, the House television studios Wednesday were a veritable shooting gallery as Democratic lawmakers unloaded on Republicans over differences on the reauthorization bill.
Against the backdrop of the attacks, several House Republicans defected on Wednesday’s 222-205 vote, and the bill faces an uncertain future.
At the center of the rhetorical war was a meta-debate about which party turned the previously feel-good bill into a knock-down, drag-out fight.
“Given that the Senate Democratic leadership has announced the goal of exploiting this issue for partisan gain, not extending the Violence Against Women Act, it’s difficult to see what the next step is,” said Michael Steel, a spokesman for Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio).
But it was mostly Democrats on the attack in a series of press conferences in which they lambasted the House bill.
“I am deeply disappointed that Republicans are trying to politicize this issue,” Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said.
The House GOP’s version of the bill is “as chilling and as callous as anything I have seen come before this Congress in modern times,” Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) said.
“Let’s call this bill what it really is: the ‘open season on violence against women act,’” Rep. Judy Chu (D-Calif.) said.
The attacks were such that Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) felt compelled to declare her opposition to domestic abuse.
“How could they possibly accuse us of not being concerned about violence against women?” Foxx asked. “All Republicans are against violence,” she said, adding that she personally prefers to avoid films with any depictions of violence.
Democrats pointed to three key differences between the House bill and a version passed by the Senate in April.
The Senate bill included provisions offering explicit protection for lesbian, gay and transgender people as well as giving legal authority to American Indian tribes to prosecute domestic violence committed by non-American Indians.
The House bill, meanwhile, put new restrictions on illegal immigrants who report domestic abuse, which Republicans said are designed to prevent immigration fraud but Democrats warn could result in victims failing to report abuse to police.
Standing alongside the Democrats in their attack of the Republican bill were advocacy groups who said the changes in the Senate bill were important reforms to stop an “epidemic” of domestic violence.
The groups spurned Republican overtures and a managers amendment designed to ameliorate their concerns, deciding on a conference call Tuesday to lobby vigorously against the bill.
The Republican sponsor of the House bill, Rep. Sandy Adams (Fla.), was a victim of domestic violence herself and a former deputy sheriff. But at several press conferences, Democrats referred to the “Adams-Cantor” bill, tagging the proposal with the name of Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.).
Asked why she was referring to the bill that way, Rep. Gwen Moore (Wis.), the leading Democratic messenger on the bill who was herself a victim of domestic violence, said it was “introduced that way.” According to Cantor’s office, that is not the case, and Republicans suspect the moniker was a means of distracting from Adams’ personal story.
Also bolstering the Democrats’ case was the 68-31 bipartisan vote in the Senate.
Democrats on Wednesday tirelessly reminded of the “overwhelmingly” bipartisan vote in which “every woman Republican Senator” voted for the bill.
In the House, Republicans watched the fierce attacks of their bill with a sense of disbelief, thinking the tone of the attacks was at odds with the size of the two parties’ policy differences.
They argued that Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) had arranged a political ambush with eyes on November’s elections, where female voters will play a key role in deciding the next president.
“If you want to use this bill to engage in social engineering or to cater to certain constituencies because you have the general election in November — that’s what disappoints me about it,” Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) said Tuesday evening.
Gowdy, a former assistant U.S. attorney, had watched incredulously during a Rules Committee markup in which Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) issued a blistering assault on the House bill. “I don’t recognize it,” Gowdy said, regarding the bill Lofgren was describing.
In March, a story in Politico reported that Schumer was eyeing the bill as a “political weapon” and “wedge issue.” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) placed the entire story in the Congressional Record the next day, and Republicans have since cited it as evidence that Democrats are cynically using the issue for political gain.
But the story included only one relatively innocuous quote, and Democrats have rejected the reporting as off base.
“Republicans are making the contrast for us,” said Drew Hammill, a spokesman for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), arguing that highlighting policy contrasts isn’t politicizing the issue.
Schumer spokesman Brian Fallon pointed to a letter urging passage of the Senate bill that Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) had signed.
“When even Republicans like Sen. Murkowski are calling on the Speaker to just pass the Senate bill, you know the House Republicans have taken the political games on this issue too far,” Fallon said.
NNEDV condemns House vote on harmful bill
NNEDV
MAY 16, 2012
Today, NNEDV issued a statement responding to a U.S. House vote in favor of a harmful version of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). Sue Else, NNEDV's president, said:
“The House took an enormous step backward in passing a Violence Against Women Act that weakens vital protections for victims and fails to address their urgent needs. During a time of great need, we should be expanding cost-effective, proven protections rather than weakening them.
"We applaud those who listened to thousands of victim advocates and voted against this harmful bill, and we look forward to working with lawmakers to make right today’s wrong."
House voting on Violence Against Women bill, draws veto threat from President Barack Obama
Miami Herald, The: Blogs (FL)
May 16, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
WASHINGTON -- House Republicans are pushing ahead with their bill to renew the Violence Against Women Act, despite opposition from President Barack Obama and hundreds of advocacy groups who say the measure doesn't go far enough to protect battered illegal immigrants, Native Americans or gays.
The GOP proposal, which is narrower than a Senate-passed version, takes "direct aim at immigrant victims of domestic violence and sexual assault" and jeopardizes victims by placing them "directly in harm's way," the White House said in a statement.
An armada of groups advocating for women, immigrants, Indians and gays said they were taking names and holding accountable lawmakers who vote for the Republican bill, arguing that such a vote is akin to voting against the Violence Against Women Act.
"If Congress cannot stand up for all victims, we cannot stand up for our representatives," the National Indigenous Women's Resource Center wrote on its Facebook page.
Republicans say they are cracking down on fraud by making the grant process more accountable and maintaining the constitutionality of criminal procedures on Indian land.
House Targets Immigrant Victims of Domestic Violence
Targeted News Service (USA)
May 18, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
WASHINGTON, May 17 -- Service Employees International Union issued the following news release:
In a move that impacts police criminal investigations and endangers immigrant victims of crime and domestic violence, the House of Representatives has removed important protections in the current Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).
The GOP-controlled House rolled back protections designed to prevent abusers from using immigration laws to oppress their victims; provisions that have enjoyed bipartisan support since VAWA converting immigration laws into tools of oppression, and they have enjoyed bipartisan support since VAWA was first enacted in 1994 and which were recently reaffirmed by a strong bipartisan Senate majority.
The House bill compromises the confidentiality of victims who file a self-petition for relief, and it imposes procedural obstacles that would discourage--and in some cases preclude--victim spouses and children from filing immigration petitions on their own behalf rather than being forced to rely on their abusers to file paperwork. It also eliminates the path to citizenship for most U visa holders - victims of serious crimes such as torture, rape, and domestic violence - who are cooperating with law enforcement in the investigation or prosecution of these crimes.
"Once again, House Republican leaders are attacking immigrants and women and children, among the most vulnerable in our society," said Eliseo Medina, SEIU International Secretary-Treasurer. "Shame on the GOP leadership for taking aim at immigrant victims of domestic violence for the sake of political pandering to their anti-immigrant base."
Sexual assault of immigrant housekeepers common in hospitality industry
Wausau Examiner (WI)
May 21, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Two weeks after International Monetary Fund chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn was charged with sexually assaulting a maid in his Manhattan hotel, another foriegn banker was arrested for the sexual assault of yet another hotel housekeeper. Mahmoud Abdel-Salam Omar pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor in 2011, and on May 21, a judge ordered him to pay the victim $350,000 for emotional and physical injuries.
Like the victim in the Srauss-Kahn case, the latest victim is an immigrant. Female immigrants, especially undocumented immigrants, are at high risk for sexual violence, because the perpetrator knows that the crime will likely go unreported because the women fear deportation. The sexual assault of women who are in this country illegally happens at alarming rate and usually, the perpetrators aren't wealthy bankers. This is one of the reasons the sexual assault of female immigrant housekeepers is rarely newsworthy. Had the perpetrators in the two New York cases not been wealthy bankers, no one would have ever heard about the incidents:
* Argelia Rico was terrified after a guest asked her to change his sheets while she was cleaning the bathroom. She did as he asked, and returned to the bathroom to gather her cleaning supplies. When she returned, the man was lying on the bed fondling himself. Her employer didn't take any action when she reported the incident.
* Appolonia Rivera had to clean a room while a guest wearing nothing but a robe repeatedly exposed himself to her. When she reported the incident, her supervisor laughed.
* Irma, an immigrant from Mexico, was working at an upscale hotel that provided a nightly turn down service. When she knocked on a guest's door to offer the turndown, he declined. She offered him the chocolates that come with the turn down service, and when she handed them to him, she noticed his genitals were exposed.
* Cadilia Juste was working as a housekeeper at a Florida Disney resort when she was attacked by a coworker. When she was released from the hosptial three-days later, Disney threatened to fire her if she didn't return to work. Disney claimed there was a misunderstanding due to a language barrier, and they were working diligently to help Juste through the trauma.
Current immigration law allows for illegal immigrants who are victims of domestic abuse to remain in the U.S. while the alleged perpetrator is being prosecuted. But, as so often happens with good-intentioned laws, it is being taken advantage of by those here illegally. Undocumented female wokers are lying about being abused in order to get the special treatment. Congress is trying to stop the fraud with the Violence Against Women Act, but it has come under fire because it eliminates the special residency visa.
As the debate over illegal immigration rages, the only real answer to stopping sexual violence against undocumented workers is to make sure all guest workers are here legally, and to immediately deport those who aren't.
Sheila Jackson Lee condemns China’s one-child policy as ‘violence against women’
Houston Chronicle: Blogs (TX)
May 22, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
For months, both the House and Senate have struggled to agree on the re-authorization of the Violence Against Women Act. In a recent interview with the conservative Internet news outlet CNSNews, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee shifted the conversation to violence against women abroad.
The Democrat from Houston discussed her views on the one-child policy in China, calling it a “misguided policy that has been detrimental to the people of China.”
“When you come up to a family and ask if that child must go…then it is a force against humanity and it is a heinous violation of human rights,” she said.
While there is certainly controversy surrounding abortion in the United States, Jackson Lee said, the conversation is about choice, not force. On the one-child policy, she emphasized, pro-life and pro-choice Americans agree.
Jackson Lee said the United States has never wavered in its position condemning the one child policy. She added that the House Foreign Affairs Committee, of which she used to be a member, has been strong on the issue as well.
“China has to grapple, 21st century, with its horrible record on human rights and that response to childbirth and having one child is a horrible response to human rights,” she added.
Some Good News, but Bad News Outweighs It
Roll Call
May 22, 2012
Here is another good news/bad news column about the 112th Congress.
First, the good news.
It appears that there is a rare consensus in the House and Senate around passage of legislation to reauthorize the Food and Drug Administration’s user fee programs. Sarah Kliff of the Washington Post, a top health policy reporter, rightly says this is the most important health policy bill to pass this Congress — if it does pass.
The Prescription Drug User Fee Act, signed into law in 2007, requires pharmaceutical companies to pay fees that enable the FDA to expedite new drug approvals. This bill would authorize $1.5 billion in user fees over five years and add generic drugs to the expedited approval process.
Thanks to the earlier law, the time for drug approval declined from 27 months on average to 14 months, making U.S. drug approvals faster than Canada and Europe. This is good for drug manufacturers and good for consumers. And, knock on wood, the user fee part of it won’t run afoul of the Grover Norquist tax pledge. (Oops, I probably should not have written that.)
Since this apparent consensus follows Senate approval after long and unconscionable delays of two appointees to the Federal Reserve (to be sure, done only by twinning a Republican and Democrat) and by a bipartisan Senate vote to confirm Paul Watford for a vacancy on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, we can say it has been a constructive couple of weeks in Congress.
The Watford vote may even signal a reasonable movement toward more judicial confirmations at both the district and appeals court levels, which would be a major step forward.
But then we have to turn to the dark side.
There is the continuing gridlock over the transportation bill, far more unconscionable given the deep and immediate need for infrastructure repair and jobs to get the economy back on track.
Here, the refusal of House Republicans to raise the transportation user fee, via the gas tax, to replenish the Highway Trust Fund is the culprit. Then there is the brouhaha over the Violence Against Women Act. There is the breach in the broad bipartisan agreement that arose out of the debt limit debacle last year that resulted in the Budget Control Act. That the House has decided to breach that agreement by cutting discretionary domestic spending well below the BCA’s levels and by protecting every single dime in the defense budget is extraordinary and troubling.
And more than anything else, there is the new threat to America’s credit rating raised by Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), a sign of recklessness that is beyond disturbing.
As I and others have pointed out time and again, the use of the debt limit as leverage — what Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) called “a hostage worth ransoming” — was unprecedented and went way beyond the game-playing and hypocrisy that has usually accompanied debt limit votes. Especially at a time of a weak economy, it threatened the economic well-being of the country, not to mention the full faith and credit of the U.S. government.
Despite the fact that we had a deal at the eleventh hour, Standard & Poor’s downgraded U.S. debt because the outrageous politics gave them little faith that Congress and the White House would get together and stabilize the debt.
Now Boehner has decided to ratify and reinforce that decision by S&P and will undoubtedly make the other ratings agencies go back and rethink their ratings. Boehner has framed his threat in terms of fiscal discipline — demanding that an increase in the debt limit has to be accompanied by comparable cuts in spending.
Of course, increasing the debt limit is simply an acknowledgement that the government is good for debts it has already incurred. But Boehner is demanding that to make that acknowledgement will require immediate and future budget cuts. That demand is farcical. The Speaker has voted for and endorsed a Ryan budget that itself increases the debt by trillions over the coming decade.
By refusing in that budget and in every other action to put any tax increases on the table, despite the fact that Simpson-Bowles, Rivlin-Domenici, the Senate “gang of six” and every other bipartisan group looking at the problem say it cannot be solved or seriously reduced in the short or medium term without sizable new revenues, Boehner is showing that his pleas for fiscal discipline are hollow.
After the Republicans won the House in the 2010 elections, Boehner showed that he was ready to lead as Speaker. He warned his colleagues about the impending need to raise the debt limit. “I’ve made it pretty clear to them that, as we get into next year, it’s pretty clear that Congress is going to have to deal with this. We’re going to have to deal with it as adults. Whether we like it or not, the federal government has obligations, and we have obligations on our part,” he said.
We no longer have an adult Speaker but a petulant one, apparently deciding that the way to lead his forces is to lead them in irresponsibility. The U.S. credit rating, credibility and economic health are going to be held hostage. That kind of negates all those good things I mentioned at the top and doesn’t suggest any reason for optimism when the big showdown hits in December.
Violence Against Women Act stalled as Congress bickers
McClatchy Washington Bureau (DC)
May 23, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
WASHINGTON - The federal reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act has fallen victim to political bickering, with the House of Representatives and the Senate refusing even to consider the versions passed by each other.
Idaho Republican Sen. Mike Crapo, a sponsor of the Senate version, said it was pure gridlock, and he's not sure how the standoff will be resolved. "I think there's a bit of a stare-down going on there with the House leadership and the Senate leadership," Crapo said in an interview.
The gridlock is another sign of Congress' inability to do much of anything but bicker this year. This is the third time the Violence Against Women Act has been up for reauthorization since 2000 and it has never been controversial before. The landmark 18-year-old law includes measures to help victims of sexual assault and domestic violence; among other things it provides short-term housing for abused women and grants for law enforcement staffing and training.
Crapo sponsored this year's reauthorization bill along with Vermont Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy, who put in new provisions that are at the heart of the fight. Those include: an expansion of the law to assure protections for gays, lesbians and transgender people; authority for tribal courts to prosecute non-Indians for domestic violence on reservations; and an increase in the number of visas allowed for illegal immigrants who are victims of abuse and help police prosecute the offenders.
Crapo said he continued to support the bill despite misgivings about the expansion of immigrant visas and constitutional questions over the expanded authority of tribal courts. But many of his fellow Republicans turned against the measure, especially in the GOP-controlled House.
The House passed its own version last week stripping out the new provisions, drawing a veto threat from President Barack Obama, who said it didn't do enough to protect battered immigrants, Native Americans or gays. The White House said in a statement that the House version took "direct aim at immigrant victims of domestic violence and sexual assault" and jeopardized victims by placing them "directly in harm's way."
The House now refuses to negotiate over the Senate version of the bill, saying it includes fees associated with visas for immigrant abuse victims and that a clause in the Constitution requires all bills that raise revenue to originate in the House.
House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said it was up to the Senate to negotiate over the narrower House bill. That would give the House much more say over what the final bill looks like. The Senate doesn't appear willing to do that. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said this week that the Republicans who controlled the House were engaged in "blatant obstruction" of the bill.
"The truth is Republicans are looking for any excuse to stall or kill this worthy legislation," Reid said in a speech on the Senate floor. "And American women aren't fooled."
Boehner said at a news conference last week, just before the House left for a weeklong recess, that it was the Democrats who were using the reauthorization as a weapon against Republicans.
"We're eager to resolve our differences. ... This is an important issue for our country and it needs to be resolved," Boehner said.
The Violence Against Women Act expired last September, and its programs are surviving on temporary funding while Congress squabbles over the five-year reauthorization.
CRAPO: Coalition sings his praises
Coeur d'Alene Press, The (ID)
May 30, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
The Idaho Coalition Against Sexual & Domestic Violence applauds Sen. Mike Crapo for his unwavering national leadership as a co-sponsor of the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act and Representative Mike Simpson for his vote in favor of this important legislation.
Through the Violence Against Women Act, Idaho's 26 domestic and sexual violence programs, law enforcement, prosecutors, courts and more have been able to prevent, intervene and respond to domestic violence, dating violence, stalking and sexual assault. In recent years, Idaho has received $11 million or more annually through the Violence Against Women Act. And this funding is literally saving lives. Last year, in one 24-hour period, 638 victims of domestic violence and their children across Idaho received lifesaving services from local domestic violence organizations - an increase of almost 100 victims from the previous year. Tragically, we still have much work to do as last year Idaho had 22 intimate partner related fatalities.
For nearly 20 years, Congress has recognized the severity of violence against women and the need for a comprehensive approach. Idaho has much to be proud of with both Senator Crapo and Representative Simpson voting in favor of the Violence Against Women.
Amy Rankin: War on women shows we have to be vigilant
Florida Times-Union, The: Web Edition Articles (Jacksonville, FL)
May 30, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
As you can tell by my picture I'm a woman of a certain age. I was born in the 1950s and back then things were different.
Women were offered few career choices: teacher, nurse, secretary or stay-at-home mom. I attended a state university, Rutgers, where women were admitted to a special college, Douglass. The dormitories at Douglass were houses because the trustees felt that a women's college would fail so they needed marketable real estate.
But I had parents who told me I could be whatever I wanted to be if I worked hard. So, I was the first woman to invade the Rutgers Stadium press box where the press passes used to say "no women and children allowed" as the first female intern in the Sports Information Department.
I graduated and went on to a career in sports public relations with the World Football League, North American Soccer League player agent Donald Dell, and the Jacksonville Tea Men soccer team. So I'm somewhat dismayed about returning women to the world of June Cleaver in an apron and pearls.
Women of my age who grew up during the heyday of feminism with such iconic figures as Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem, and Shirley Chisholm believed we had turned a corner. Our female children would not have to face discrimination and our male children would be allowed new freedoms that come when everyone can pursue their dreams.
Many younger women think there is no need for organizations like the Jacksonville Women's Network, which was founded because women here were denied access to power brokers and the clubs that hosted them.
Yet, news headlines today scream about presidential candidates wanting to end access to affordable reproductive health care, entertainers slur women because they admit to using contraception, the governor of Wisconsin has repealed the state's equal pay law protecting women, Congress is debating the worth of the Violence Against Women Act and Gov. Rick Scott has drastically cut funding for state rape crisis centers. Commentators are calling this the "war on women."
I thought the war on women was over when President Bill Clinton signed the Family Medical Leave Act into law. Prior to that, women in Florida could be fired for having a baby. That happened to me in 1989 when I had my second child. Now the law won't allow that type of discrimination.
Perhaps the only positive to emerge from this so-called war is that younger women are now listening to us old-timers about why they should be vigilant about issues that affect their rights, their freedoms and their basic health. Even before the current war there was still much to do.
Women still make less than men for working the same job (77 percent of what men make), the United States is still the only advanced country that does not have paid maternity leave and too often women get judged on how they look and not on what they can do.
I don't own an apron so I'm hoping the current generation joins the cause because a war on women is a war on all of us.
House Votes on Deceptive Anti-Choice Bill on Anniversary of Dr. Tiller's Murder
eNews Park Forest (IL)
Author/Byline: Gary Kopycinski
May 31, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Washington, DC – (ENEWSPF) – May 31, 2012. Three years to the day since the murder of abortion provider and women's health activist Dr. George Tiller, irrational anti-abortion attacks continue. Today it is extremists in Congress seizing on sex-selection abortions overseas to bash U.S. women and their doctors.
The U.S. House of Representatives voted this afternoon on the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act or PRENDA (H.R. 3541), an anti-choice bill sponsored by Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) that would criminalize sex-selection abortions and require health care professionals, including mental health professionals, to report any such abortion to the "appropriate law enforcement authorities."
Although the bill failed, the National Organization for Women is appalled that lawmakers in the House would sponsor such a deceptive bill in yet another attempt to block women's access to necessary health care. While the bill purports to support gender equality and civil rights, PRENDA does nothing to address sex discrimination, and instead simply demonizes women seeking abortions.
This is a continuation of the right wing's War on Women. A majority of the legislators who backed PRENDA also have voted against contraception and to defund family planning clinics. They have voted in support of the House version of the Violence Against Women Act that would eliminate protections for women from underserved communities. And they are backing a GOP budget that would cut safety net programs critical to women and their families.
NOW urges women's rights supporters across the country to take note of those lawmakers (Republican AND Democrat) who attempted today to roll back women's basic rights. We must make clear that we will not let them get away with attacking our right to fundamental health care.
House Republicans to stand down on social issues
Cincinnati Examiner (OH)
June 1, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Republicans being stung by the culture wars that have dominated the nation's political arena this year have decided to stand down on social issues. Also, they are acutely aware that the presidential and congressional elections is within five months and are expected to turn on a thin margin of cash-strapped independent voters and neither party can afford at this time to alienate them.
To a greater extent many feel that the damage is already done. Many voters believes that tactic of the Republicans are extremely racist.
House Speaker John Boehner has continued his vow to reverse President Barack Obama's birth control policy. But there's no sign of any such legislation.
At the same time the Ohio Republican propose to continue reminding people daily that he is focused on jobs now. The voters are extremely tried of noisy tactic. At times he is regarded as sounding brass and tinkling symbols or an empty vessel.
Although they have said that they will be standing down on social issues their comment on President Obama's revelation that he supports gay marriage a social conservatives at the core of the Republican base before they turned back to assailing the president's stewardship of the economy had this to say, “Told ya so!”
Now, the question can be asked; what happened to the Republican’s efforts to curb abortion? House Republican leaders made it go away by offering a vote on a bill to ban gender-based abortions Thursday under special rules that guaranteed it will fail. This was a complete waste of time and taxpayers money. Many voters see the Republican’s efforts on this issue as pure dog’s droppings.
There is a growing sense among Republicans that, with Mitt Romney all but crowned as their presidential nominee, social issues generally are losers for the party at a time when the Republicans are trying to appeal to swing voters.
Through a searing primary season that erupted repeatedly over gender politics to the general election now under way, polls have consistently shown that voters remain most concerned about jobs and the economy.
According to Representative Jason Chaffetz, Republican from Utah, one of Romney's liaisons to Congress who said, "I'm not trying to dismiss the social issues. But they are important to a lot of people. But we must stay focused on the jobs and the economy. That does more to affect people's social (policy) than anything else."
Amidst all of their noise making and blame on the President for the state of the economy they have failed to look at who or what have created this economical downfall or have continuously stand in the way of economical growth for the country. It is not the President.
Also, Polls and the party's recent experience suggest the strategy is smart politics. For one thing, Friday's economic news showed unemployment rose slightly in May, with the jobless rate ticking up from 8.1% to 8.2%. Say what you may.
The Republicans are extremely excited over the news that the economy is growing slower than expected. Actually the could careless if voters are working.
Accordingly, the Republicans took a drubbing over the winter after picking a fight over a provision in the so called Obama's health care law that required employers to provide workers access to contraception, even when religious views prohibit its use.
However, in a coordinated effort, Republicans on both sides of the Capitol denounced the policy as a violation of the Constitution's guarantee of religious liberty and vowed to reverse President Obama's rule.
Consequently, the Democrats has fired back and said, “the Republicans were trying to limit access to contraception as part of a Republican war against women."
Resoundingly, polls has shown that the Democrats won that early round, key to their mission to retain President Obama's wide lead among women, who account for a majority of voters in presidential election years. Republicans were slow to respond, and Romney never engaged in the debate over contraception, convinced then as now that all Americans view the election as referendum on Obama's stewardship of the recovering economy.
Fittingly, for the Republicans a recent voter research offers support for the move away from the sort of "culture war" that conservative Patrick Buchanan called for from the podium of the Republican National Convention in 1992. Many Republicans viewed that approach as one that alienated moderates. Two decades later, as the candidates battle over that same voting bloc, polling suggests that social issues are a motivating factor for female voters but not in the Republicans' favor.
An AP-GfK poll conducted earlier this month has shown President Obama holding a 53% to 32% advantage over Romney as candidate Romney anticipates doing a better job handling social issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage. But he could be mistaken.
Meanwhile a Washington Post/ABC News poll released Wednesday showed Republican women are warming to Romney, other surveys suggest he still faces a broad gap on issues of concern to women. Republican women are warming to Romney is expected.
Also, a Kaiser Family Foundation poll released Wednesday found that 4 in 10 women have taken some political action as a result of things they've heard, read or seen recently about women's reproductive health choices and services. Among liberal women, 51% said they had taken action, compared with 41% among conservative women.
Social issues change minds, notably among independent women, the survey found. Thirteen percent of women who identified themselves as independents said they had changed their mind about who to vote for as a result of news on reproductive issues, compared with 9% of Republican women and 7% of Democratic women.
Social issues have great emotional resonance in political campaigns and are thus risky subjects for emphasis in close elections. That's why House Republican leaders last month struck a deal with Representative Trent Franks, Republican from Arizona., to bring up the gender-based anti-abortion bill for a vote on its own, rather than attach it to the controversial Violence Against Women Act.
On Thursday, Franks' bill got a vote under a rule that required the support of two-thirds of the House. It failed by 30 votes. A leadership aide said there were no plans to bring it up for passage by a simple majority. The aide spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss strategy.
Steering away from social issues doesn't sit easily with some conservatives. For example, Buchanan is still advocating on his blog for a culture war. Republican Representative Jim Jordan, a leader of the House's most conservative members, said he hopes House Republicans leaders will bring back Franks' anti-abortion bill for passage with a simple majority.
The bottom line is, any woman who has continued to warm-up with Republicans on their views regarding women can be classified as a group of people who enjoys pain.
Both Jordan and Boehner are from the swing state of Ohio and had this to say, "I think there's an understanding among everyone about how serious the fiscal situation is, that under President Obama, our economy is not growing the way we want it to grow. But just because we understand that doesn't mean we have abandoned or forgotten the idea that there are certain fundamental principles and values that are worth defending."
Representative Jo Ann Emerson Republican, from the State of Missouri another swing countered and say, "I truly believe that those things will shake out in a more positive way if we can just deal with the issues that we really need to deal with, on the economy and fiscal side. And shame on us if we can't do it.” It is somewhat difficult to really understand what she was trying to say.
Let's start repealing federal laws
Real power lies in deciding which laws are enforced
Charleston Gazette (WV)
June 2, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
TACITUS was the Roman historian whose "Annals," published in 117 AD, covered the years 14 AD to 68 AD — the time from Tiberius to Nero, which included Caligula.
What a juicy assignment. Lust. Greed. Orgies. It was like writing about a never-ending weekend at the Kennedy Compound.
I have "Annals" on my To Read list, but a quote in translation rings true 1,900 years later: "And now bills were passed, not only for national objects but for individual cases, and laws were most numerous when the commonwealth was most corrupt."
Having not learned from the Romans, America has strangled itself with 200 volumes of rules and regulations — and that is just at the federal level. States and local governments have their own sets of rules.
Enforcing billions of words is impossible. The real power is in selecting which laws to enforce against whom and when.
Thus federal prosecutors worked to convict Li'l Kim and Martha Stewart of lying, while President Clinton went unindicted.
We have too many laws. I agree with liberals that the government should stay out of our bedrooms, but I also want the government out of my bathroom.
The federal government has no business telling me how big the tank of my toilet should be or what color my toilet paper is or whether it is scented.
If my complaint seems silly, please consider that the federal government already regulates all three things. Who really is the fool?
This is a bipartisan bathroom monitoring. Republicans in 1994 thwarted an effort to repeal the toilet law. Taking control of both houses of Congress the next year, Republicans kept the law on the books.
Violators will be prosecuted. Or not. It depends on how federal agents feel that day. Prosecutorial discretion is powerful.
Federal laws often are redundant. By duplicating state and local law — which is where criminal law belongs — the federal government can control states' actions.
For example, George Zimmerman looks increasingly innocent of murdering Trayvon Martin, but Attorney General Eric Holder has sent the not-so-subtle warning that if Florida does not convict, he will.
Which leads us to the Violence Against Women Act, which everyone in Congress wants to extend.
The law seeks to increase the penalties on those who commit violence against women.
Sen. Jay Rockefeller and other Democrats want to extend this coverage to gays, lesbians and native tribes. Republicans balk.
The American Civil Liberties Union originally opposed the law in 1994 on the grounds that the increased penalties were harsh, and stricter pre-trial detention violated the Constitution. Conservatives agreed.
The Supreme Court struck down a portion of the law as unconstitutional in 2000.
The court should have rejected the entire law. The Constitution leaves to the states to handle such matters as domestic violence.
In town to work up public sentiment for continuing this redundant, unnecessary and unconstitutional law, Rockefeller cited the tragic case of the lad who bolted from the car and tried to flag down help on the interstate for his mother as her boyfriend beat her.
A car struck and killed the boy.
But the Kanawha County prosecutor's office is quite capable of prosecuting the boyfriend for murder without federal assistance.
What Rockefeller and his 99 fellow senators, the 435 representatives and the president he waited for all his life should do is concentrate on balancing the budget.
More than half a century ago, Sen. Barry Goldwater wrote, "I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size.
"I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden."
He must have read Tacitus. Mitt Romney should, too.
Attorneys General Call on Congress to Reauthorize Violence Against Women Act
Targeted News Service (USA)
June 4, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
BOISE, Idaho, Jan. 11 -- The Idaho Attorney General issued the following news release:
Attorney General Lawrence Wasden joined 52 other state Attorneys General in calling on Congress to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act ("VAWA") and ensure that vital programs working to keep women and families safe from violence and abuse continue uninterrupted.
"It is imperative that we protect victims of domestic violence, and reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act is an important step toward that goal," Attorney General Wasden said. "I urge Congress to act quickly in support of the ongoing battle against domestic violence."
In their letter to Congress, the Attorneys General note that since the initial passage of VAWA in 1994, the national response to domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence and stalking has been transformed. Crimes that used to be considered private, family matters to be dealt with behind closed doors have been brought out of the darkness and the results have been dramatic. But while rates of domestic violence have dropped by over 50% in the past 17 years, the issues addressed by VAWA are still very much at the forefront of the crime fight. Tragically, three women are killed each day in the United States by abusive husbands and partners, and for every victim who loses her life, there are nine more who narrowly escape.
Citing the need to maintain services to victims and families on the local, state, and federal level, the Attorneys General urged Congress to reauthorize VAWA for the first time since 2006. They note that reauthorization would not only allow existing programs to continue uninterrupted, but would also provide for the development of new initiatives aimed at key areas most in need of intervention.
These initiatives include:
--Addressing the high rates of domestic violence, dating violence and sexual assault among women aged 16-24. Programs will work to combat tolerant youth attitudes toward violence and break the cycle in which women who experience abuse as teens are more likely to be victimized again as adults.
--Improving the response to sexual assault across disciplines by implementing best practices training, and communication tools among the healthcare, law enforcement and legal services a victim encounters after an assault.
--Preventing domestic violence homicides by enhancing training for law enforcement, advocates and others who interact with those at risk. A growing number of experts and researchers agree that these homicides are predictable - and therefore preventable - if we know the warning signs.
The Attorneys General closed their letter to Congress by recalling that when VAWA was first passed in 1994, it was recognition that domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking are pervasive issues affecting individuals, families and communities across the nation. They note that the progress that has resulted from strong federal support has been tremendous, but that the fight never ends. Reauthorizing VAWA, the Attorneys General say, will enable that progress to continue, building on the lessons we have learned along the way and saving countless lives.
Leaders playing politics with lives of battered people
Times and Democrat, The (Orangeburg, SC)
OUR OPINION
Author/Byline: T&D Staff The Times and Democrat
June 4, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Passage by the House on May 16 of the bill reauthorizing programs operated under the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 sets the stage for negotiations to begin between the House and the Senate to hammer out a final version. The bill that emerges is likely to become law before elections this fall.
The VAWA bill faced a fierce battle in the House, which voted 222 to 205 for its passage, with 216 Republicans and six Democrats supporting it.
The House bill omits three provisions of the more expansive Senate bill approved 68 to 31 in April. The Senate measure garnered support from 15 Republicans.
The House omitted the Senate provision that would allow Indian tribal courts to try certain non-Indians accused of committing crimes of domestic violence on reservations. Republicans say that would be unconstitutional.
The Senate provision expanding the number of temporary visas for illegal immigrant victims of domestic violence was also stripped by the House. It also scrapped the Senate provision that would extend protections to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender victims of domestic violence.
The Violence Against Women Act has provided lifesaving assistance to hundreds of thousands of women since its initial passage and has previously been renewed with bipartisan support. But not this time.
Since bipartisanship is practically nonexistent in Congress these days, it’s no surprise both parties are fighting over which version of the bill becomes law. And that is a crying shame.
Helping all battered women and men — heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, transgender, Native American, legal and illegal immigrants — should be viewed by our elected leaders as more important than scoring political points with the electorate.
Both parties are to blame for the current inability to compromise in Congress. Democrats are quick to accuse Republicans of waging war on women, but it’s also obvious they’re looking to make political hay by pushing Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney to choose between the House bill and the Senate measure. Republicans, on the other hand, won’t budge on their position either, saying the Democrats are trying to pick a fight and are exploiting the VAWA legislation for political gain.
The leaders of this country’s two main political parties are too busy pushing their own conservative and liberal agendas to do what they were elected to do — govern.
Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, chair of the House Judiciary Committee, defended the House-passed version of the bill, saying it “doesn’t include language to provide special protective status to certain categories of people because they are already covered under the Violence Against Women Act.”
But according to an online article on the Center for American Progress website, “Law enforcement across the nation has firmly supported VAWA and praised its inclusion of marginalized groups. In a letter to Congress, 54 U.S. attorneys general described training and programs aimed at both prevention and intervention that are critical to continue to make progress and save lives. Statistics repeatedly demonstrate these groups experience crime and domestic violence at a higher rate.
“Native American women are more than 2.5 times more likely to be a victim of sexual assault than the average woman in the United States. Likewise, a New York City government study found that 51 percent of intimate partner homicide victims were foreign-born, while 45 percent were born in the Unites States. Law enforcement at all levels realizes that by protecting the most vulnerable victims, violence is significantly reduced in entire communities.”
In South Carolina, domestic violence and domestic violence homicide are in the news every day. State Attorney General Alan Wilson has identified domestic violence as South Carolina’s number one crime issue, noting that more than 36,000 victims annually report a domestic violence incident to law enforcement statewide. Additionally, the Violence Policy Center in Washington identified South Carolina as seventh in the nation for the number of women killed by men.
And still the politicians are playing games with people’s lives?
We believe legislation should protect everyone in America and partisan politics should not be allowed to diminish that protection. Enough of the squabbling and posturing in Washington.
It’s time our leaders work together to build a safer America for all.
DEMOCRATS SEEK TO LEVERAGE ADVANTAGE WITH WOMEN
Daily Press (Newport News, VA)
June 6, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
A generation ago, a mom in tennis shoes made history when her election helped to more than double the ranks of women in the U.S. Senate. This year, she's trying for a similar upset.
Washington Sen. Patty Murray's children have grown up and started families of their own since her election to Congress in 1992, which became known as the Year of the Woman after the number of female senators skyrocketed to six.
Now, as head of the Democratic campaign committee in the Senate, the onetime PTA leader has helped recruit several female candidates as her party seeks to leverage its traditional advantage among female voters this fall.
Women's votes are particularly sought-after this year, and the fight is playing out on the presidential campaign trail and in Congress.
On Tuesday, Senate Democrats tried to advance paycheck equity legislation, which would prohibit private companies from retaliating against workers who share pay and salary information.
Republicans filibustered the bill, which they characterized as a boon to trial lawyers and an invasion of workplace privacy.
"We're not going to stop standing up for women and families," Murray said during the Senate debate.
The outcome of the day's vote produced another entry in the Democratic narrative that Republicans are engaged in a "war on women."
First there was the attack on President Barack Obama's contraceptive rules under the health care law. Then there was the all-male panel that was convened to discuss the issue by House Republicans and the GOP-led vote in the Senate against the contraceptive regulations.
Then, dozens of male GOP senators voted against the Violence Against Women Act, which is now stalled, after objecting to Democratic add-ons in the bill. The version approved in the House, controlled by Republicans, did not explicitly include protections for gay victims of domestic violence and rape from the Senate bill, and rolled back protections for immigrants.
This election is likely to be determined by a small slice of undecided voters, including women, who might loosely identify with one party but are mulling their choices for this fall.
Capturing their attention and support is key for Democrats.
Obama amplified the point during at a commencement speech at Barnard College, a women's school in New York City: "I'm not saying that the only way to achieve success is by climbing to the top of the corporate ladder or running for office, although, let's face it, Congress would get a lot more done if you did."
House Speaker John Boehner has dismissed as "gimmickry" the Democratic strategy. But he has praised a new coalition of Republican women who organized in part to fight back.
"As Republican women, we have some really unique ideas for moving our nation forward," said Rep. Mary Bono Mack, R-Calif., chairwoman of the new Women's Policy Committee.
Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has tried to remain above the fray, declining to take a position on the legislation blocked in the Senate on Tuesday as a new poll shows him gaining among female voters.
Fielding a robust number of female candidates in the Senate comes as the number of women elected to Congress has hit a plateau after decades of steady advancements.
While a record number of GOP women were elected to the House in 2010 on the tea party wave, that year was also the first time since the 1970s that the number of women sent to Congress did not rise.
Rep. Schakowsky, House Democrats Introduce International Violence Against Women Act
eNews Park Forest (IL)
June 7, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
WASHINGTON, DC–(ENEWSPF)–June 7, 2012 – Today, Reps. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Nita Lowey (D-NY), Howard Berman (D-CA) and about 37 House colleagues introduced H.R. 5905, the International Violence Against Women Act, to establish new tools to help the U.S. government prevent violence against women abroad, particularly in conflict situations.
"This bill is not only the right thing to do—but the smart thing to do. Combating violence against women is a critical step toward promoting regional and global stability," said Rep. Schakowsky. "Too many dismiss violence against women as just a women's issue. Violence against women is a global health catastrophe, a social and economic impediment, and a threat to national security. Women's rights are human rights, and all women deserve to live a life free from violence, intimidation, and fear."
It has been estimated that nearly a billion women globally will be beaten, raped, mutilated or otherwise abused during their lifetimes—that is 1 in 3 women. In some countries up to 70% of women and girls are affected by violence. In countries with armed conflict, rape has been used as a weapon of war to intimidate and destabilize entire communities.
The International Violence Against Women Act (IVAWA) would create a comprehensive, 5-year strategy to combat violence against women and girls abroad. It would give the U.S. State Department new tools ranging from health programs and survivor services to legal reforms in order to promote economic opportunities and education for women. IVAWA would also increase humanitarian funding and update mechanisms for responding to emergency outbreaks of violence against women and girls abroad.
IVAWA would ensure that assistance provided for humanitarian relief and conflict mitigation includes preventing and responding to violence against women and girls, building capacity of local partners to address women's special protection needs, and providing support services including education, medical care, trauma counseling, economic opportunity, and legal services. The legislation also incorporates education on preventing and responding to violence against women into ongoing U.S. training of foreign military forces, police forces, and judicial officials. A broad coalition of diverse organizations support its passage, including domestic and international women's NGOs, humanitarian groups, faith-based organizations and U.N. agencies.
"Violence against women knows no borders, nor class, race, ethnicity, or religion," said Rep. Schakowsky. "Women in conflict zones face a particularly desperate situation because of the use of rape and sexual violence against women as a weapon of war. This legislation asks our government to integrate prevention of violence against women into every aspect of our diplomatic and development policy."
Rep. Nita Lowey: "Violence against women happens in every nation, every day, and we are here today to say no more," said Rep. Lowey. "Violence inhibits a woman's chance to live a healthy, safe, and productive life, and the ripple effects of this violence impact all parts of society. We must pass IVAWA to work at individual, family, community, national, and international levels to take real and meaningful steps toward protecting women worldwide, reducing poverty, and promoting economic development and stability."
Rep. Rosa DeLauro: "Violence against women—whether it is mass rape in conflict zones, like the Congo, domestic violence, or honor killings—is an abomination. More than just a moral outrage, it is a human rights violation, a public health epidemic, a barrier to solving global challenges such as hunger, poverty and AIDS, and a threat to national security. This bill will help address these issues by coordinating our international efforts to combat violence against women. It is time we awoke to the paramount moral challenge of our time, and give the State Department the tools to stem violence against women around the world, and increase their empowerment. In terms of fostering development, increasing our national security, and heeding our basic morality, this is an investment we have to make."
US Senators' Leahy and Murkowski's letter to US House Speaker Boehner, urging House voting on Senate's VAWA Reauthorization bill
June 12, 2012
Domestic abuse against men still unrecognized
Express-Times, The (Easton, PA)
June 14, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Have you ever wondered why there are no domestic violence shelters for men? Have you ever wondered it out loud? If you're like me, the answer you got was frightening.
Domestic violence doesn't happen to men. Not in public. Domestic violence shelters simply do not exist. They are "battered women's shelters" now.
"Violence against women" is another fine talking point. It is not more important than violence against men. Anybody with an ounce of common sense can tell you that throughout history more men have been victims of violence than women.
As U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy and the lobbyists at NOW have said, "a vote against VAWA - the Democratic Party's favorite piece of legislation, the Violence Against Women Act - is a vote against women."
Who could say no?
Has anyone ever heard it said that a vote for VAWA is a vote against falsely accused men because it denies them their due process rights? Has this even ever been allowed a vigorous public debate? I have not found any debate at all, really.
No wonder that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. - the namesake and nephew of the most iconic Democrats of the last half-century - did not disclose the beatings he endured until after his abuser was dead.
Speaker Boehner Puts Politics Before Victims of Domestic Violence. Again.
Government Press Releases (USA)
June 14, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
From the House Democratic Leader's Press Office
Last month, House Republicans chose to play politics with victims of domestic violence and pass a weakened, GOP version of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) that limits protections for certain classes of individuals instead of a bipartisan, Senate-passed version. And the drumbeat hasn't stopped for Speaker John Boehner and his colleagues to put the safety and security of American women first.
Yesterday, Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy and Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski sent a letter to the Speaker asking him to support all American women and bring the Senate VAWA to the House floor:
Saving the lives of victims of domestic violence should be above politics. Yet politics seem to have gotten in the way of House passage of the bipartisan Senate Violence Against Women (VAWA) Reauthorization Act...We cannot afford to let another day go by. We urge you to swiftly allow for an up-or-down vote in the House on the Senate's bipartisan VAWA Reauthorization Act.
The response from Speaker Boehner" Absolutely not.
--As far as Boehner is concerned, the bipartisan letter Tuesday changes nothing.
VAWA Reauthorizations have a tradition of being bipartisan and ensuring all victims of domestic and sexual violence are protected. While Speaker Boehner claims this goal, his actions tell women across the country a completely different story.
NOW Renounces House Judiciary Vote Undermining Spirit and Intent of VAWA
Targeted News Service (USA)
June 23, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
WASHINGTON, May 8 -- The National Organization for Women issued the following statement by President Terry O'Neill:
The National Organization for Women condemns the vote today in the House Judiciary Committee. In a 17-15 vote, the Republican-controlled committee passed a reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act that completely undermines the spirit of the landmark bill passed 18 years ago. Judge Ted Poe from Texas was the one Republican hero who voted against the bad bill in the end; though he has been a longtime champion of VAWA, it took courage for Poe to buck his party.
The bill imposes cruel new reporting restrictions on immigrant survivors of violence -- eliminating confidentiality, putting victims in grave danger and empowering abusers. These provisions would be thrown out if the cases involved legal residents or citizens. Frankly, this second class treatment of women of color smacks of willful ignorance of the problem and hostility toward the victims.
The committee refused to even allow consideration of a substitute bill offered by ranking minority member John Conyers (D-Mich.), which mirrors the "real" VAWA passed by the U.S. Senate on April 26 by a bipartisan vote of 68-31. Fifteen Republicans supported the Senate bill, while zero Republicans supported its House counterpart. This appears to be yet another ploy in the War on Women playbook, and Native American women, communities of color, and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender victims of violence are the targets this time.
Instead of replicating or enhancing the Senate bill, House leaders not only added cruel immigration provisions but also stripped it of important improvements in programs, services and access to justice for un-served and underserved vulnerable communities. The House leadership just doesn't have the will or inclination to help Native victims in Indian Country, immigrant victims desperate for safe harbors, the LGBT survivors of violence who seek services and support, or students on our country's college campuses. NOW is stunned that Republicans voiced concern for "true victims" (their phrase) of sexual assault and domestic and dating violence at the same time they promoted and passed a bill that is heart-wrenchingly exclusionary and ignores the biases and disrespect that certain victims face when seeking help from the criminal justice system and access to life-saving services.
We urge the full House to look carefully at the House Judiciary Committee's cruel and inadequate VAWA and compare it with the Senate-passed VAWA. Representatives must persuade the committee to reconsider its recommendations and report out a true VAWA that protects all victims. A vote for the harmful bill that shuts out victims who don't meet the GOP's idea of a "true victim" will follow House members all the way to the ballot box this November.
Deal on VAWA Far From Done
Roll Call
June 26, 2012
Senate Democrats and House Republicans are blaming each other for stalling progress on the Violence Against Women Act, a bill with bipartisan support but poor prospects.
For now, the hang-up is over the bill’s revenue provisions.
Specifically, the Senate bill contains a provision that would give battered undocumented women temporary visas to encourage them to come forward. The current cap for U visas, given to crime victims, is 10,000, but that could be increased to 15,000 by using visas unclaimed since 2006.
The illegal immigration provision, which charges a fee, violates a portion of the Constitution requiring revenue-raising bills to originate in the House. The constitutional provision essentially allows the House to kill the Senate bill and force it to pass it again without the offending proposal.
Senate Democrats argue that the House GOP is just looking for an excuse not to oppose the Senate measure and is using a strategy to force Democrats to drop one of three provisions not included in the House bill before even sitting down and negotiating.
“They are trying to win on one of the three issues before we get around the conference table,” a Senate Democratic aide said. The aide said if GOP leaders wanted a deal, they would move the process forward by naming negotiators and going to a conference committee.
Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) said at a Tuesday briefing she would not compromise on provisions allowing Native American courts to prosecute non-Native American perpetrators of domestic violence. The Senate bill, which passed 68-31 in April, included the provision.
The Senate bill also includes language extending protections to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals and the language protecting undocumented women.
The Republican-run House passed its own version of the bill last month, but its proposal did not include the Senate’s Native American, LGBT or immigrant provisions.
Murray indicated that if she is faced with a choice of no bill or a compromise without those provisions, she would prefer no bill.
“I am not willing to pass a Violence Against Women bill into law by throwing out the provisions and throwing under the bus Native American women, LGBT members and immigrants who have stood up and fought hard” to be included, Murray said.
What happens after the current fiscal year, when the authorization for the current VAWA programs expires, is an open question. It is unclear whether Congress will pass the fiscal 2013 spending bill that funds VAWA programs before the Sept. 30 end of the fiscal year. It’s not unusual for programs to continue to be funded after their authorizations expire, and Murray said that could be the path forward while Democrats continue to fight for their reauthorization.
At the press conference Murray, joined by other Senate Democrats and crooner Michael Bolton, who said he has been advocating for “at risk” women and children for more than 20 years, stressed the importance of the Native American provision.
“The Senate included Native American coverage for the first time ever,” Murray said. “In doing so, we have shed a light on an issue that has remained in the dark for a very long time. That is why I have said today I am not going to vote for a Violence Against Women Act that shuts that door again. We have to leave it open.”
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), who was also at the briefing, said the provision is needed because “there were people falling through the cracks, getting beaten up, that no one was looking out for.”
Under current law, “tribal courts do not have jurisdiction over non-Indian defendants who abuse and attack their Indian spouses on Indian land even though more than 50 percent of Native women are married to non-Indians,” Klobuchar, a former prosecutor, said.
“Prosecution of domestic violence crimes in Indian country often fall through the cracks since federal and state law enforcement and prosecutors have limited resources that may be located hours away from tribal communities,” Klobuchar continued.
Republicans argue they want to pass a bill and lament what they believe is the politicizing of the bipartisan issue of providing aid to victims of domestic violence.
“I don’t know why so many people want to make the reauthorization a political issue, which it should not be,” Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said.
Cornyn is head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, and Murray is head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.
GOP aides said Democrats don’t want a solution, claiming they want to use the issue for campaign trail fodder.
“I agree,” Cornyn said.
Murray dismissed the charge and noted that abuse is not a partisan issue.
“This is a bipartisan bill … out of the Senate with all Democratic and Republican women voting for it.”
A House GOP aide said, “The ball is in the Senate’s court.”
Soft Rockin’ It
Roll Call
June 27, 2012
“When a Man Loves a Woman,” well, it seems as if he heads to Capitol Hill to advocate for the Violence Against Women Act.
Or at least that’s what soft-rock balladeer Michael Bolton — whose legendary cover of “When a Man Loves a Woman” earned him a Grammy in 1991 — did Tuesday.
Bolton made the rounds on the Hill, at a press conference held by Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), who was advocating for VAWA, and then on the East Front of the Capitol at a “Save VAWA National Action Rally” with Sens. Patrick Leahy and Daniel Akaka
(D-Hawaii) and Reps. Judy Biggert (R-Ill.) and Gwen Moore (D-Wis.).
Much like Bolton’s easy-listening tunes that play softly in the background of elevators, the singer stood quietly in the background at Murray’s press conference and wasn’t even acknowledged by the Senator.
But at the rally on the East Front of the Capitol, he voiced his support for VAWA, speaking about his mother, daughters and granddaughters and why Congress needs to pass VAWA to protect women.
“When a man loves a woman … they do the right thing,” Bolton sang in closing his remarks, much to the delight of the crowd, an HOH tipster tells us.
Bolton’s vocal support of VAWA is not totally out of left field. He is the founder of the Michael Bolton Foundation, which seeks to help women and children rise from poverty and recover from physical, emotional and sexual abuse, which VAWA would tackle if passed.
Consulate aids immigrants who are victims of domestic violence
Orlando Sentinel, The (FL)
June 30, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Victims of domestic violence often fear reporting abuse because of possible retribution. But that problem is magnified among immigrants, experts say. Many immigrants face language barriers and may distrust the legal system. And those who are undocumented dread the prospect of deportation.
Victims who are in the U.S. illegally or live with undocumented relatives often won't call law enforcement, said Robin Lewy, director of the Rural Women's Health Project in Gainesville. "Because of their status, they feel more insecure in taking action. They believe they have no rights."
Now the Mexican consulate in Central Florida is stepping up efforts to help immigrants, regardless of their immigration status. This week, the 25 employees of the Orlando consulate were trained to spot signs of domestic abuse as clients come in seeking passports and other consulate services.
The heightened sense of awareness builds on efforts already in place. Vertical banners that demonstrate how abuse can escalate from shoving to mutilation and even murder already hang in a waiting room and the main entrance of the consulate, which serves 54 counties in North and Central Florida. Employees also distribute cards with the number of a domestic-violence hotline and watch out for quarreling couples and people who appear anxious and distraught.
Only the most desperate of victims reach out for help, experts say.
Kat Kennedy, a spokeswoman for Harbor House, the only state-certified domestic violence shelter in Orange County, points to a case from a few years ago, when a Mexican woman living in the U.S. illegally sought refuge at Harbor House after her husband's abuse escalated. He had kidnapped and threatened to kill their children, Kennedy said. Harbor House got the consulate involved because he had taken the kids to Mexico.
"There was a cross-border operation," she said. "We were able to help the children return to the U.S. to their mother."
Mexican Consul Alberto Fierro said his office increased its focus on domestic violence during the past year after President Felipe Calderón made it a top priority for his government. Fierro and his staff have attended workshops and participated in webinars to better understand domestic violence and how best to offer victims support.
Although consulates don't have any real legal power in the U.S., Fierro said they can help victims with reporting abuse and navigating the judicial system, which can be confusing and overwhelming for immigrants. The Mexican consulate also has attorneys on hand to help with paperwork.
"We make sure there's due process," said Fierro, whose office helped about half a dozen domestic-violence victims last year.
In Florida, about 113,000 domestic-violence incidents were reported to law enforcement in 2010, according to the Florida Coalition Against Domestic Violence.
It's unclear how many Florida immigrants -- legal or undocumented -- seek protection against abusive spouses, said Leisa Wiseman, an official with the coalition.
Each year, Harbor House holds a reception for consuls and other international diplomats to raise awareness about services available to victims, regardless of their ethnicity and legal status. Shelter and outreach workers, some of whom speak Spanish and Creole, don't ask victims for identification or Social Security numbers, Kennedy said.
"It's not relevant for protection from domestic violence. They have the same rights as U.S. citizens," she said.
Although some critics argue that immigrants should be deported if they're in the U.S. illegally, Lewy said cases are not always clear-cut. Sometimes in violent relationships, a male partner who is a U.S. citizen, for example, intentionally doesn't file necessary paperwork to immigration officials about the female partner.
The abuser often threatens to have the spouse deported and her kids taken away, she explained. Many undocumented victims don't realize that they could have qualified for special visas under the Violence Against Women Act, which is awaiting reauthorization from Congress, Lewy said.
NOTE: THE OFFICE ON VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN (OVW) IS FUNDED VIA THE VAWA AND DISTRIBUTES VAWA FUNDS:
Acting Director of the Office on Violence Against Women Bea Hanson Speaks at the National Lieutenant Governors Association Annual Meeting
Government Press Releases (USA)
July 20, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Chicago - Friday, July 20, 2012
Thank you for your introduction and thank you for your tireless leadership, Lieutenant Governor Simon. I have been fascinated to learn about the domestic violence legal clinic you started at Southern Illinois University-Carbondale's School of Law and your pilot virtual legal clinic for rural victims of domestic violence. You are a tremendous advocate for women.
I also want to thank Julia Hurst, Executive Director of the National Lieutenant Governors Association (NLGA) for her kind invitation. I am grateful to be here today to talk about the critical role that states play in outreach, prevention and response to domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence and stalking - the four crimes the Office on Violence Against Women is focused on. I would like to extend a warm welcome on behalf of my office and Attorney General Holder at the Department of Justice to lieutenant governors from across the country. I appreciate your interest and focus on these issues.
We have seen a trend of increasing dependability and engagement related to these crimes from lieutenant governors in recent years and I am confident this trend will continue. Lieutenant governors have an opportunity to be involved in communities throughout the state in very substantive ways. Your role in the executive and legislative branches is unique, and you can use that position to engage with your states and encourage innovative, non-traditional partnerships across government and between local units of government and non-governmental organizations. These partnerships can create dynamic solutions to challenges we see across the country every day.
One way to increase the response and prevention capacity of states to address violence against women, and mitigate the impact of children's exposure to violence, is to encourage states and local units of government to apply for funding through OVW's federal grant programs. I would like to highlight three programs and mention several others that I hope you have on your radar.
First, the STOP Violence Against Women Formula Grant Program is provided to states and territories to support communities in their efforts to develop and strengthen victim services and law enforcement and prosecution strategies to combat violent crimes against women. By statute, OVW awards a base amount of $ 600,000 to each state and territory. Remaining funds are distributed among the states and territories according to population. There is a 25% match requirement on grant funds; and each state and territory must allocate 25 percent of the funds for law enforcement, 25 percent for prosecution, 5 percent for courts and 30 percent for victim services.
The second grant program I want to highlight is the Sexual Assault Service Program (SASP). Sexual violence impacts all people, regardless of age, ethnicity, race or economic status. The SASP formula grant program is the first federal funding stream solely dedicated to direct intervention and related assistance for victims of sexual assault. The purpose of SASP is to provide intervention, advocacy, support services and related assistance for adult and child victims of sexual assault, family and household members of victims and those collaterally affected by the sexual assault. This important program aims to help survivors heal from sexual assault trauma through direct intervention and related assistance from social service organizations such as rape crisis centers. The SASP encompasses five different funding streams for states and territories, tribes, state and tribal sexual assault coalitions, and culturally specific organizations. It is administered as one formula program and two independent discretionary programs (Tribal SASP and SASP Cultural).
Third, every state has a sexual assault and domestic violence coalition that provides direct support to community based domestic violence shelters, rape crisis centers and other organizations that address issues of violence against women through funding, training and technical assistance, public awareness and public policy advocacy. These coalitions are an excellent resource to you in developing state action plans and coordinating federal, state and local victim service activities. The role of coalitions is to have their finger on the pulse of violence against women issues in their/your state.
In addition to these three formula programs, OVW has several other discretionary grant programs that allow eligible states to apply for funding to enhance the capacity of local law enforcement units and civil and criminal courts, and to develop improved response systems for underserved and vulnerable populations including victims later in life, victims with disabilities, victims living in rural localities and victims needing transitional housing assistance.
Since its inception, OVW has awarded over $4.7 billion in grants and cooperative agreements, and will award approximately $400 million this year. Even in these tough economic times the Obama Administration is committed to and has prioritized the work of OVW and has been able to minimize reductions in funding streams for grant programs.
As I mentioned before, OVW is charged with addressing domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence and stalking in states and communities nationwide. We support thousands of victim service organizations, police departments, state and local governments, tribes and courts to end these crimes through a community-based approach.
OVW promotes and supports a coordinated response to violence against women that involves the courts, law enforcement, victim service providers, health care providers, faith leaders and other social service organizations. Currently, OVW administers three formula-based and 18 discretionary grant programs, established when VAWA was first passed by Congress in 1994 and in subsequent legislation. A new discretionary program you will hear us talking about soon is our consolidated youth program which will be announced later this summer.
Lieutenant Governor Simon, I thought I would share a few stories from your state of Illinois that highlight the impact OVW grant programs have on the people in your state. Rest assured these stories are not unique to Illinois, and I imagine if I spoke with each lieutenant governor in this room today we would hear similar successes.
Take, for example, the Illinois Department of Human Services who received a grant from OVW's Disability Program. They reported that survivors with disabilities in grant-funded communities, who historically could not access critical services needed to ensure their safety, are now finding their disability providers to be more accessible and more responsive to violence against women issues. To use their words: "The supports available through the grant have been extremely valuable ... We believe that our community level efforts will mirror the same benefits. The time invested in the planning process as well as available supports through the grant will be the key to promoting systems change."
The Illinois Family Violence Coordinating Councils is an example of a well coordinated community response. In a recent evaluation of the Illinois Family Violence Coordinating Councils, one significant outcome was the identification of the Councils as a successful mechanism in the state for coordinating interagency intervention to address domestic violence. The evaluation found that these councils facilitated stronger relationships and enhanced knowledge among stakeholders, and found a positive relationship between the councils' formation and development and the rate of emergency protection orders that became plenary orders of protection.
In Illinois, OVW's Abuse in Later Life Program grantees provide training to law enforcement officers, prosecutors and judges through local, state and national training events. I would like to share a quote from Against DV and SA Services, a grantee who felt the national training events promoted collaboration and systems-level change in their community: "We have sent four prosecutors and three judges to national institutes on elder abuse. All of the judges returned from the trainings wanting to know more about local adult protective service agencies and told me they had not thought we had much elder abuse and were surprised to see cases on their docket when they returned. The trainings are opening eyes. Simply put, elder abuse is now seen as a local concern. In the beginning, law enforcement officers (and even some of our trainers) did not think that ... elder abuse happened here. Some did not think that the training module on financial exploitation was even really needed. This has changed ... This has resulted in an increase in prosecutions for financial exploitation ... The funding has also allowed for greater collaboration in both current cases and systems work. Our adult protective services trainers report an increase of calls to their agency from law enforcement officers. Our local coroner has reached out to our team to start an elder fatality review team to address abuse in the home and in unlicensed board and care homes."
Along the same line, the Illinois State's Attorney Appellate Prosecutor's Office used Arrest Program funding to improve the criminal justice system's response to violent crimes against women. The development of the Violence Against Women Prosecution Unit met a primary goal of the Arrest grant: increasing the number of domestic violence and sexual assault cases that are charged and successfully prosecuted. At the request of a state's attorney, the special unit will assume responsibility for a domestic violence or sexual assault case and handle all aspects of these challenging cases. Additionally, the special unit provided workshops and skills-building training for prosecutors and allied professionals, a resource not available to prosecutors in Illinois before the Arrest grant was implemented.
A final example of the work being done to address violence against women and young adults who reside in Illinois while attending institutions of higher education is the University of Illinois, an OVW Campus Grant Program recipient. Acts of sexual violence are vastly under-reported, yet data shows that our nation's students suffer from sexual violence early and the likelihood that they will be assaulted by the time they graduate from college is significant. By the time girls graduate from high school, more than one in ten will have been physically forced to have sexual intercourse in or out of school. By the time young women finish college, nearly 20% of them will be victims of attempted or actual sexual assault, as will about 6% of undergraduate men. Victims of sexual assault are more likely to have a marked decline in academic performance and to suffer from depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, to abuse alcohol and drugs and to contemplate suicide.
Campus Program grantees provide direct services to students who are victims of sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence and stalking on college campuses. A coordinated network of support services, often in partnership with the community, provides medical, legal, advocacy and counseling services to victims on college campuses. In a report to OVW the University of Illinois stated, "The campus grant has allowed us the human capital and financial resources to establish an infrastructure that effectively and sensitively responds to victims of interpersonal violence. Maintaining and training such a large team is very difficult and requires constant attention ... especially ... having sufficient advocacy coverage and maintaining prevention and education efforts ... A final testament to the effectiveness of this grant lies in the fact that many of the students who seek our services are able to get their lives back together, heal, and graduate from college despite all of the barriers that experiencing interpersonal violence has placed in their lives. Past evaluation research on the effectiveness of our services has shown that students experience a sense of empowerment as a result of advocacy."
OVW has also been working in partnership with the Louisiana Commission on Law Enforcement to develop a Family Justice Center in New Orleans as part of a special post-Katrina initiative. The New Orleans Family Justice Center opened its doors 5 years ago, on the 2nd Anniversary of Katrina. This month, the Family Justice Center has moved to a new location within the City, and we are excited to be participating in the official grand opening event on August 28, 2012. The New Orleans Family Justice Center centralizes the handling of domestic violence and sexual assault cases by co-locating police, prosecutors, victim services and child advocates to maximize service delivery and availability for underserved populations. This project is a huge victory for victims and survivors of domestic and sexual violence and for the City of New Orleans.
As the recipient of an OVW Recovery Act Transitional Housing award, the Michigan Department of Human Services, through the Michigan Domestic Violence Prevention and Treatment Board, exemplifies how a state agency can leverage the resources of federal funding to expand the availability of transitional housing and supportive services for victims of domestic violence while promoting economic recovery in a state experiencing significant economic difficulty. Through this award, the State of Michigan has supported the enhancement of the existing services and provided additional technical assistance and support for 6 domestic violence transitional housing programs serving 10 counties across the state. These programs represent geographically and culturally diverse areas of Michigan, and provide support for several underserved populations within the state, including African American, Latina, and rural victims of domestic violence.
Each of these examples highlight the positive outcomes OVW grant programs can have in a state. Another way states can work to respond to violence against women, and specifically sexual assault, is through full implementation of the new Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) definition of rape. The UCR is the national "report card" on serious crime. Police departments submit their data on reported crimes and arrests to the FBI's Summary Reporting System ( SRS), and what gets reported through the UCR is how we collectively view crime in this country.
"Forcible rape" has historically been defined by the UCR SRS as "the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will." This definition, unchanged since 1927, was outdated and narrow, including only forcible male penile penetration of a female vagina. The new definition reads: "The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim." In a victory for our nation's law enforcement, survivors of rape, and their advocates, FBI Director Robert Mueller approved this new UCR definition of rape within the FBI's Summary Reporting System (SRS) in late December, 2011. The change sent an important message to victims - it signified that what happens to them matters. It also made it clear that perpetrators will be held accountable.
For the first time ever, the new definition includes any gender of victim and perpetrator, not just women being raped by men. It also recognizes that rape with an object can be as traumatic as penile/vaginal rape. This definition also includes instances in which the victim is incapable of giving consent because of temporary or permanent mental or physical incapacity. Furthermore, because many rapes are facilitated by drugs or alcohol, the new definition recognizes that a victim can be incapacitated and thus unable to consent because of ingestion of drugs or alcohol. Similarly, a victim may be legally incapable of consent because of age. The ability of the victim to give consent must be determined in accordance with state statute. Physical resistance is not required on the part of the victim to demonstrate lack of consent.
Even though most states have more expansive definitions of rape in their criminal codes, they had to report the smaller number of crimes falling under the more narrow UCR SRS definition. This meant that the statistics reported nationally, reflecting the totality of rape, were both inaccurate and undercounted.
Because the new definition is more inclusive, reported crimes of rape are likely to increase. This does not mean that rape has increased, but simply that it is more accurately reported. In addition, the UCR program will also collect data based on the historical definition of rape, enabling law enforcement to track consistent data and trends until the statistical differences between the old and new definitions are more fully understood. It is important to note that the new UCR SRS definition of rape does not change Federal or state criminal codes and does not impact charging alleged perpetrators or prosecution on the Federal, State or local level, it simply means that rape will be more accurately reported nationwide.
This definition also sends a powerful message, one best articulated by Vice President Biden, that "rape is rape is rape." It is rape even if you are a man, even if you are raped with an object, and even if you were too drunk to consent. This is an important part of our progress to support victims and help states and law enforcement organizations hold perpetrators accountable. It will require training law enforcement officials, sexual assault nurse examiners, victim advocates and state legislatures about the new definition which, in turn, will spark a conversation about the way victims are served by the law enforcement and justice communities. I am looking forward to working with all of you to support your states and local communities as we make this momentous change.
I have also been asked to provide a little information about the Violence Against Women Act. Many of you are aware that as a direct result of VAWA, we have witnessed a paradigm shift in how the issue of violence against women is addressed in the United States, and there have been countless lives positively affected by VAWA. VAWA has led to significant improvements in the criminal and civil justice systems, encouraging victims to file complaints, improving evidence collection and increasing access to protection orders. Victims now can reach out for help, call the police, find 24-hour emergency services and take steps to leave abusive relationships. According to FBI Uniform Crime Report data, between 1993 and 2010, the number of individuals killed by an intimate partner declined 30% for women and 66% for men. We have witnessed gains in the areas of sexual assault with the percentage of victims of rape and sexual assault who said they reported the assault to the police increasing from 28.8% in 1993 to 50% in 2010.
By reducing crimes and the subsequent costs to the criminal justice and health care systems, VAWA has realized cost savings. A 2002 study found that VAWA saved an estimated $12.6 billion in net averted social costs in its first six years alone. A recent study showed that the state of Kentucky averted $85 million in costs by reducing violence and improving victims' quality of life through protection orders. Even small investments in VAWA have been shown to make a difference on the ground.
VAWA has provided women, men and children with a whole host of services including improved criminal justice response with the development of integrated domestic violence courts, improved police response with specialized DV units in police departments and access to legal assistance, shelters, counseling, health care and advocacy for victims. VAWA makes special provisions for victims who are too often forgotten: the elderly, the disabled, women in rural areas who can't easily access help and others who are underserved because of their race, ethnicity, sexual orientation or gender identity.
VAWA' s initial passage in 1994 focused on law enforcement and basic services. When VAWA was reauthorized in 2000, it included improved protections for battered immigrants, elderly victims, victims with disabilities and victims of dating violence. It also improved the enforcement of protection orders. The 2005 reauthorization included coordinated community response, services for underserved and vulnerable populations and resources for victims of sexual assault and stalking. This landmark legislation expired in 2011 and is currently awaiting reauthorization in Congress. Senate bill 1925 passed in the Senate with strong bi-partisan support. This version addressed the intergenerational cycle of violence, focused on preventing domestic homicides, improved responses to sexual assault, strengthened legal services for victims and addressed the epidemic of violence against Native women. The version passed by the House ( H.R. 4970) did not include a number of the protections in the Senate version.
The Administration supports the Senate bill because it protects more victims. We proposed addressing the criminal jurisdiction gap in Indian country and are pleased that the Senate included this in their bill. Most of all, we are concerned because the timeframe to get this done is rapidly closing. If Congress does not act we lose critical improvements, including opportunities to reduce domestic violence homicide, improve the response to dating violence on campus and improve investigation and prosecution of rape.
OVW is poised to implement possible changes in grant-making and management based on these legislative changes. The fundamental goal of VAWA is to meet the needs of victims by employing tools and resources available through the criminal justice system, civil legal system and community-based advocacy and victim services. In order meet this mandate, we must identify the complete array of needs and develop tailored approaches to ensure the safety of all survivors.
It is critical we keep in mind that - although many lives have been positively impacted by VAWA - one out of every four women will experience domestic violence at sometime in her life and that on average, more than three women die as a result of domestic violence every day. Every 2 minutes, someone in the U.S. is sexually assaulted, and 1 out of 5 women have been victims of rape or attempted rape in their lifetime. This is the sobering reality that needs to drive and motivate us to do more and be leaders and spokespeople in our states and neighborhoods. Each of you has influence and is a recognized national leader. I feel very fortunate that you are part of the fight to end violence against women.
In my tenure at OVW, I have also felt privileged to witness the leadership and strength of the Department of Justice and the Administration on this issue. The Attorney General has committed to making violence against women a priority and highlights its potentially devastating impact on children and youth at every opportunity.
I look forward to working with lieutenant governors to push the boundaries and find innovative ways to end violence against women and protect our nation's children, our future, from violence. As professionals, spouses, parents, aunts and uncles, brothers and sisters, friends and co-workers we can and must build strong and safe communities, and we at the Department of Justice stand ready to support you, as state leaders, in creating neighborhoods and communities that stop violence before it starts, that offer safety and respect for victims and hold offenders accountable. Thank you for being our partners.
CROUSE: Violence Against Women Act needs reform
Pro-woman shouldn’t mean anti-man
Washington Times
July 24, 2012
The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) is up for reauthorization again this year. This newest version of VAWA — loaded up with even more leftist provisions — has hit a snag. First signed into law in 1994 with bipartisan support and reauthorized in 2000 and 2006, the legislation has become both a failure and a boondoggle, lining the pockets of feminist groups, vastly expanding federal, state and local bureaucracies, and becoming riddled with fraud.
This year there are competing bills in the House (H.R. 4970) and Senate (S. 1925). In a climate of debt, deficit and government waste, the legitimate bone of contention is how best to reform the law, which has spawned dozens of failed programs. VAWA created a bureaucratic nightmare that targets the wrong women, those claiming nebulous “psychological harm,” instead of actually helping battered women. In addition to not helping the women it is supposed to serve, VAWA has morphed into a rigid, inhumane law enforcement tool that hurts and denigrates men.
A national survey of registered voters introduced on July 17 by SAVE (Stop Abusive and Violent Environments), a nonprofit victim-advocacy organization, shows that the majority of people surveyed agree it is time to reform VAWA. According to the results, domestic violence victims, younger people, Republicans and women are most likely to support VAWA reform. It found that 69.5 percent of those surveyed support reform to end waste and fraud, 65.9 percent support reform to stop discrimination, and 63.5 percent support reform to stop false allegations.
Victims of domestic violence or those who know a victim support reform even more, with 73 percent supporting reform to end waste and fraud and more than 68 percent supporting reform to stop discrimination and halt false allegations.
The left has made much of the “war on women” Republicans supposedly are waging, in part by introducing and passing a VAWA bill in the GOP-dominated House instead of accepting the Senate version. However, more women surveyed seem to realize VAWA needs reform than men surveyed. More than 73 percent of women support reform to end waste and fraud compared to 70.6 percent of men; 71 percent of women support reform to stop discrimination compared to 66.6 percent of men; and 68.3 percent of women support reform to stop false allegations compared to 67.8 percent of men.
One of the key differences between the House and Senate bills is that the House bill is gender-neutral, protecting all Americans from domestic violence, while the Senate bill contains language that aims to protect specific groups, including homosexual and transgender Americans. The House language takes an important step toward reforming a law that has created a climate of suspicion against men and a situation in which men are arrested on flimsy excuses, while women have their legal fees paid, enabling them to get a divorce and keep a man out of his house and away from his children. An accused man is often fired from his job, alienated from his friends and community, and assumed guilty until somehow he is able to prove he is innocent.
Statistics show there is not much difference between the rates of violence for men against women (6.4 percent ) and women against men (6.3 percent). Robert Franklin, a Texas lawyer who is on the board of Fathers and Families, listed some enlightening statistics in a recent article that point to the need for the law to cover all victims of domestic violence because men are victims, too:
35 percent of victims of severe domestic violence are men but only 1 percent of federal funds goes to assist them.
A study of students at two universities showed that 29 percent of women and 22 percent of men admitted to physically assaulting a date.
A University of New Hampshire study on dating violence in 32 countries showed women were the aggressors more often than men.
The Liz Claiborne Institute found in its Teen Relationship Abuse Survey that 17 percent of boys and 13 percent of girls had been hit, slapped or pushed by a dating partner.
A 2009 Centers for Disease Control study showed that when there was reciprocal violence in a domestic relationship, it was women who hit first 70 percent of the time and then men responded with violence.
The original VAWA was based on good intentions, but as with most things that originate in Washington, the result over the years has been to create an enormous bureaucracy that runs amok with fraud, lacks appropriate oversight, contains no means of accountability and consists of many duplicate programs providing the same assistance to the same groups of people. President Obama has said he would veto H.R. 4970 but supports S. 1925. Unless this law is reformed (and H.R. 4970 takes steps to do so) it will continue to discriminate against men, underserve actual victims of violence and provide millions of taxpayer dollars to build radical feminist power structures instead of ending intimate partner violence.
John Boehner Names Violence Against Women Act Conferees
Roll Call
July 30, 2012
Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) today announced eight conferees to negotiate a final deal on reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act, which both chambers passed in varying forms this spring.
Boehner said in a statement that Reps. Sandy Adams (Fla.), Mary Bono Mack (Calif.), Trey Gowdy (S.C.), Nan Hayworth (N.Y.), Cathy McMorris Rodgers (Wash.), Shelley Moore Capito (W.Va.) and Jim Sensenbrenner (Wis.) and House Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith (Texas) will represent House Republicans in haggling for an agreement. The major differences between the broader, bipartisan bill approved by the Senate in April and the House bill approved in May are added protections for the gay and transgender community and for immigrants and undocumented women.
“Completing work on legislation to renew and strengthen the Violence Against Women Act is critical in our efforts to combat domestic violence and sexual assault,” Boehner said. “The law has broad, bipartisan support in both chambers, and I’m announcing our negotiators today in the hopes that we can begin to resolve the differences between the House and Senate bills. The House is ready and willing to begin those discussions, and I would urge Senate Democrats to come to the table so this critical legislation can be sent to the president for his signature as soon as possible.”
It’s unclear, however, when negotiations will happen, with Congress about to embark on a month-long recess and very few legislative days left before November’s elections. But it’s likely that the GOP wants to take the issue off the table, after weeks of getting attacked by Democrats as being weak on women’s rights. Women’s issues were a key piece of Democratic messaging, particular in the Democratic-controlled Senate, as the House struggled to approve its version of the legislation.
Boehner is the first leader the appoint his representatives to the negotiating panel. Senate Republicans blocked Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) from appointing conferees in May.
Violence Against Women Act’s Future Remains Uncertain
Republicans, Democrats Struggle to Pass Historically Simple Reauthorization
Roll Call
July 30, 2012
Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) may have named conferees Monday to negotiate a final agreement on the Violence Against Women Act, but there was one glaring problem: Senate Republicans and Democrats have yet to agree to a conference.
In one of those only-on-the-Hill–type sagas, both parties are still struggling to find the time and resources to finish a bill that traditionally gets reauthorized easily and passed the Senate on a broad bipartisan vote earlier this year. But the move from Boehner at a minimum sends a strong signal that the GOP would like to have a potent women’s issue off the table as the elections draw nearer because Democrats have used it to pit Republicans against female voters.
“Completing work on legislation to renew and strengthen the Violence Against Women Act is critical in our efforts to combat domestic violence and sexual assault,” Boehner said in a statement. “The law has broad, bipartisan support in both chambers, and I’m announcing our negotiators today in the hopes that we can begin to resolve the differences between the House and Senate bills. The House is ready and willing to begin those discussions, and I would urge Senate Democrats to come to the table so this critical legislation can be sent to the president for his signature as soon as possible.”
It’s not that simple, though. In May, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) tried to attach the Senate-approved language to the shell of a House-approved revenue bill in order to remove procedural obstacles to a conference committee, but Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) blocked that effort.
Even if GOP Senators decide to allow the appointment of conferees, both chambers are scheduled to go into recess next week, and there are few legislative days left to act. Moreover, the legislation has become a political hot potato since dueling bills were passed by both chambers last spring, and both sides are betting that if they stick the other party with the blame, they can win a messaging battle that could be important in November.
The critical difference between the two competing bills is Senate language extending domestic violence protections to the gay and transgender community as well as to immigrants and undocumented women. Beyond GOP opposition to those provisions, extending emergency visas to abused, undocumented immigrants caused the procedural problem for Democrats. The provision would levy fees on new immigration visas. Any bill that generates revenue must originate in the House.
Democrats now face a variety of paths forward, but many of them would require trust in or cooperation from the Republicans, and Senate leaders might just decide that they’re better off waiting until the lame-duck session instead of making further concessions on a bill for which they once had GOP support.
Senate Democrats could agree to move forward to the conference without approving a bill that complies with the “blue-slip” rule, but they automatically would be conceding the provisions regarding undocumented women by doing so. They could try to formally reopen debate on the bill using the same language but attached to a House shell, but that would require Republicans to vote the same way as they did in April. And GOP leaders might not be willing to go along with Democrats for the second time, especially now that they’re three months closer to the elections.
Alternatively, Democrats could continue to leverage the issue against Republicans, hoping that it secures them more independent female voters in November. They scoffed at Boehner’s appointments Monday.
“Republicans blocked a conference when Sen. Reid tried to set one up in May, causing VAWA to languish for months. Appointing conferees at this point is simply another transparent delaying tactic by Republicans,” Reid spokesman Adam Jentleson said. “The main difference between the House and Senate versions is that the Senate version is overwhelmingly bipartisan. If Republicans truly want to resolve this issue, they will pass the Senate’s bipartisan compromise right away.”
Democratic sources suggested that a barrage of press releases and media availabilities have put pressure on the Republicans and that Boehner’s selection Monday of conferees was an indication their tactics have been working.
Boehner announced that Reps. Sandy Adams (Fla.), Mary Bono Mack (Calif.), Trey Gowdy (S.C.), Nan Hayworth (N.Y.), Cathy McMorris Rodgers (Wash.), Shelley Moore Capito (W.Va.) and Jim Sensenbrenner (Wis.) and Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith (Texas) will represent the House in the talks.
All of those Members voted for the House-approved legislation.
It’s unclear exactly how Democrats will proceed or when they’ll make a decision, but when McConnell objected to the conference in May, he said, “This is a problem of the majority’s own making.
“It is not our fault that Senate Democrats waited until well after VAWA expired to start moving a bill,” McConnell said on the floor. “It is not our fault that their bill would add to the debt. And it is not our fault that our friends waited until the last minute to try to fix this problem, and in the course of doing so, they created another problem.”
Perhaps the largest questions are whether either side can score points over procedural squabbles or whether in the broader context of an election focused heavily on jobs and the economy, it will even matter.
Op-ed by Vice President Biden: An Issue Beyond Debate
Congress Should Act Now to Protect Women
eNews Park Forest (IL)
July 31, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Washington, DC–(ENEWSPF)–July 31, 2012.
An Issue Beyond Debate: Congress Should Act Now to Protect Women
By Vice President Joe Biden
I've spent a lot of years in Washington, and in the past, I had always found that even when partisanship was at its worst, there were still certain issues that rose above the normal course of politics. These days, unfortunately, even that precept is being challenged.
Protecting victims of domestic violence, an issue that has always enjoyed bipartisan support and should be well beyond debate, has become the center of one in Congress. And women across the nation are now at risk.
Let me explain what's happening:
In 1994, I wrote the Violence Against Women Act, which established several critical new protections: first, it provides law enforcement with new tools to prosecute domestic violence crimes and put offenders behind bars. Second, it helps victims find safe places to stay so they don't have to choose between living on the streets or living with someone who is hurting them. And third, it gives women a crisis hotline they can call when they need immediate help.
We've made a lot of progress as a nation since the act first became law. Annual rates of domestic violence have dropped by more than 60 percent. The national hotline has answered more than 2 million crisis calls, directing victims to life-saving assistance.
But make no mistake, this violence still happens every day.
We need to continue these programs and we need to add improvements. For example, we now know that new screening tools can help law enforcement and the courts reduce domestic violence homicide rates, helping them to step in before abuse becomes murder. Such tools might have saved Sarah Rosio, a 24-year-old Wisconsin woman who was strangled to death by her boyfriend after having been abused many times before her death. Two weeks before her death, Sarah was denied a protective order against her abuser. Sarah is gone now, tragically, but we can help others avoid her terrible fate.
To do so, Congress must make the protections in the Violence Against Women Act available to every person in this country who may ever need them. This simply cannot be up for debate in a civilized society like ours.
Every few years, the Violence Against Women Act needs to be reauthorized. And in the past, Congress has worked cooperatively to reauthorize, improve, and expand the reach of the law. Up until now.
Earlier this year, the Senate passed the bill, and they did it with both Democratic and Republican support. Unfortunately, the House did not follow this broadly bipartisan path; Republicans there passed a much weaker version of the bill. While the House bill contains some of the important provisions of the Senate bill, it lacks key improvements – like protecting more victims and requiring dating violence and sexual assault prevention programs on campus – and, in some cases, it actually rolls back current protections for victims of domestic violence.
Support for the Violence Against Women Act runs broad and deep. It includes law enforcement, prosecutors, victims' advocates, faith groups, and Democrats and Republicans alike. So this should be easy – and beyond politics. Instead, the clock is now running out for the more than 23,000 women who call our national domestic abuse hotline every month and for all women who may one day be the victims of violence.
Congress should pass the bipartisan version approved by the U.S. Senate.
I know there are fundamental differences between Democrats and Republicans, and I don't expect those to disappear. But on this issue of basic decency, where there remains so much agreement between us, Republicans and Democrats ought to leave politics at the water's edge. Because women everywhere are counting on us, and they can't wait any longer.
Most Women Support Reform of Violence Against Women Act
SAVE Urges Lawmakers to Stop Partisan Wrangling
GlobeNewswire (USA)
July 31, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
A strong majority of women support reforming the Violence Against Women Act, according to a survey commissioned by victim-advocacy group Stop Abusive and Violent Environments (SAVE).
The survey shows that 74 percent of women responding to the survey support reform measures currently being debated in Congress to curb waste and fraud, 71 percent wish to stop discriminatory practices, and 68 percent want to bring an end to false allegations of abuse.
In a recent Washington Times editorial, domestic violence expert Janice Shaw Crouse noted, "The original VAWA was based on good intentions, but like most things that originate in Washington, D.C., the result over the years has been to create an enormous bureaucracy that runs amok with fraud, lacks appropriate oversight, contains no means of accountability, and consists of many duplicate programs."
Christina Villegas of the Independent Women's Forum also echoed calls for reform: "Congress should look past the ideological roots of [VAWA] and should consider alternatives that address the true causes of violence and seek to provide equal protection to all victims." (Women Against VAWA)
"Women have seen the unintentional damage that VAWA has done to them, to their loved ones, and to all victims of abuse -- and they're tired of the demagoguery," SAVE spokesman Philip W. Cook explains. "Congress must reform VAWA before more victims are neglected, more innocent lives ruined, and more families torn apart."
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments is a victim-advocacy organization working for evidence-based solutions to partner violence: www.saveservices.org . Contact: Teri Stoddard
Patty Murray, Chuck Grassley Spar Over Domestic Violence Bill
Roll Call
August 01, 2012
In a departure from the typical floor decorum, Sens. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) exchanged dueling, failed unanimous consent requests on the stalled Violence Against Women Act.
The back-and-forth, marked by passionate rhetoric and punctuated by Grassley walking off the Senate floor before Murray could finish her comments, was emblematic of how frustrating the debate on the bill has become.
Both the House and Senate have passed their own versions of the legislation, but the bill has yet to go to conference because of a procedural snafu from Democrats that has rendered the Senate’s bipartisan offering unconstitutional. Murray was trying to take the Senate-approved language, backed by 68 Members, and attach it to a House shell bill to avoid the “blue slip” rule which requires that all revenue bills begin in the House.
One of the most disputed measures of the Senate’s offering, an extension of emergency visas to abused undocumented women, includes a fee for the visas in question and would therefore be off the table if the current legislation were brought to conference.
“I’m kind of astounded that it took 100 days for the majority to decide the bill they wanted to send to the House would be blue slipped,” Grassley said in a charged speech on the floor this evening.
Grassley said that his offering, which took the same language of the Senate-approved bill minus an extension of the rights guaranteed to gays, lesbians and immigrants, would do what the bill was supposed to. He accused Democrats of politicizing the issue.
“It’s just a question of ‘will it be expanded in a way that was intended to make this bill controversial,’ so presumably it could be made into a political issue in an election,” Grassley said.
Murray objected to his request, but before she could explain herself, Grassley walked out of the chamber, a move that seemed to surprise the Washington Democrat. She continued anyway.
“I have listened carefully to the passion from the Senator from Iowa on behalf of the Republican majority and Speaker [John] Boehner, and frankly, I have to say that it is offensive to say that the issue of violence against women is about politics,” Murray said. “This is about women who are abused, women who are powerless to fight back, women being able to get the protections that they need in this country that has provided protection for a very long time to make sure that women who are immigrants, women who are gay and lesbian, women who are on college campuses get the protections they [need].”
With at most two legislative days remaining before the lengthy August recess, it’s unclear when Congress will be able to approve the bill, which was first approved by the Senate in April and House in May.
Pets Over Persons: SAVE Calls on Abuse Shelters to Re-Examine Priorities
GlobeNewswire (USA)
August 9, 2012
The domestic violence industry is devoting scarce resources to sheltering pets rather than helping victims. In an era when victims are increasingly being turned away, Stop Abusive and Violent Environments (SAVE), a victim-advocacy organization, calls on domestic violence organizations to give first priority to helping actual victims.
As Congress continues to debate renewal of the Violence Against Women Act, cases of the prioritization of pets over humans illustrate the controversial focus of some VAWA-funded service providers.
In Florida, for example, abuse shelters turned away more than 3,000 women last year because of funding cuts. But the Harbor House in Orlando is currently building a 1,500 square-foot state-of-the-art kennel. A similar facility at a Jacksonville shelter has been used by only six animals per year since its opening in 2007.
Victims should be allowed to bring their pets into shelters and housed inside a kennel in an unused area of the shelter. But in time of budget cuts and staff layoffs, spending thousands of dollars on dedicated facilities makes no sense, SAVE says.
SAVE has previously reported on the drift of some abuse shelters away from a focus on healing victims and their families, to a preoccupation with teaching women they are victims of patriarchal oppression.
"It is unacceptable that each day victims are being turned away from abuse shelters because they lack funding, while at the same time money is being spent on facilities for dogs, cats, hamsters, gerbils, and birds," SAVE spokesman Philip W. Cook explains. "Congress must reauthorize VAWA with oversight provisions to ensure that all true victims receive the assistance they are due."
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments is a victim-advocacy organization working for evidence-based solutions to partner violence: www.saveservices.org . Contact: Teri Stoddard
UNFRIENDLY TO WOMEN? NOT MY GOP
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) News Release
Government Press Releases (USA)
August 28, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
In the run-up to the party conventions, new attention has been focused on women's issues in the political sphere. It has been accompanied by claims that the Republican Party is somehow unfriendly to women -- which will be a surprise to the thousands of women attending the convention in Tampa, Florida.
The assertion is baseless. Having served 19 years in the Senate, and as a lifelong Republican, I have some perspective.
Much of the recent debate has focused on a narrow slice of what constitutes women's issues and how gender should direct women's views. But this is overly simplistic.
Women make up half of the most diverse country in the world. We are represented ethnically, socially, racially, economically, religiously and ideologically across the spectrum. To say that there is a set of concerns that can be labeled "women's issues" is absolutely true. To assume that we all feel the same way about them -- or that we must feel the same way about them to represent our gender legitimately -- is inherently sexist.
My experiences as a woman certainly inform my perspective, but they do not wholly define my political views. I am also guided by the values my family instilled and the educational opportunities I had growing up.
That we employ different methods and points of view does not mean that one or the other party is the natural place for women.
Women are, in fact, more than our gender. We are entrepreneurs and executives who are concerned about a faltering economy and business-unfriendly regulation. We are homemakers and heads of households who worry what tax hikes will do to our family budgets. We are parents who want the best education possible for our children. We are recent graduates, entering the bleakest job market in decades. We are retirees, worried about the shaky finances of Medicare and Social Security.
I am a Republican because I believe that the best opportunities for women -- and men, and children -- come from a thriving economy that encourages entrepreneurship and promotes business development to create jobs and financial security. In the dismal fiscal state we're in, I think that is what is most important to women, and I consider the economy to be a women's issue.
But even if we look to the more traditional women's issues, as a Republican, I have worked on them my entire career. None of it could have been achieved without the support of my party.
In 1975, when I was serving in the Texas Legislature, I authored legislation that guaranteed the most far-reaching protections for rape victims in the country, including limiting invasive personal questions that had been part of a "blame the victim" culture and redefining consent. That bill became the model for strengthened victim-protection laws throughout the country.
Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Maryland, and I sponsored the Homemaker IRA, allowing spouses who do not work outside the home -- the vast majority of them women -- to defer taxes in individual retirement accounts.
Mikulski and I worked together again to co-sponsor the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program. More recently, all the female senators -- Democrats and Republicans -- joined together in opposing the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force's recommendation that women under 50 forgo breast cancer screening.
During this year's debate on reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, I offered an amendment to enact harsher penalties for violent sexual offenses and to address the backlog of some 400,000 untested sexual-assault kits. Although the amendment was not approved, the final reauthorization -- again, supported unanimously by the female senators -- included new anti-cyber-stalking legislation that I worked on with Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minnesota. The debate over the Violence Against Women Act was a reminder that, though we may disagree on policy particulars, the female senators find ways to solve problems when it matters most.
But my definition of women's issues extends further. As the ranking member on the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, for instance, I believe the STEM disciplines -- science, technology, engineering and medicine -- must be encouraged for our girls. Getting more women into these professions reflects both my will to advance women and my Republican ethos: These areas are vital to America's economic success, and I believe ignoring 50% of the talent pool is detrimental to that goal.
Americans have thoughts, opinions and ideas spanning the political spectrum, about which reasonable people can respectfully disagree. But it is both unreasonable and disrespectful to demand that half of them hold identical views simply because of their gender.
Kay Bailey Hutchison is the senior senator from Texas and the longest serving female member of the Senate Republican Caucus.
Beau Biden's Speech
Full Text from the Democratic National Convention
National Journal: Web Edition Articles (USA)
September 6, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
The Democratic National Convention released a full transcript of Beau Biden's speech to the 2012 Democratic National Convention (as prepared for delivery). Read the full text below:
Hi, I'm Beau Biden. My dad is Joe Biden.
A few years ago, my father wrote a memoir. For his title, he quoted the line from Robert Frost's famous poem. He called it, "Promises to Keep."
In the last four years, you've seen my father partner with President Obama to keep the promises they made and the sacred promises we made. The promises we make to our elderly, who have earned a dignified retirement. The promises we make to our children, who deserve a chance to succeed. The promises we make that if you play by the rules and work hard, things will work out. One of those promises is to a group of people close to my heart, my brothers and sisters in uniform.
Ladies and gentlemen, the stakes are high for our country. There will be and should be a debate about two very different paths. But there should be no debate about our shared commitment to take care of our veterans.
Four years ago, I told you that my father has always been there for me, my brother, and my sister, and that as vice president, he would be there for you. And he has.
I've seen it. I've watched him use more than three decades of relationships, experience, respect and goodwill to help move vital legislation, just like he did with the Violence Against Women Act. I've watched him strengthen relationships with our allies and stare down our adversaries. I've seen him make quiet visits to veterans' hospitals and private phone calls to the families of first responders killed in the line of duty. I've seen him salute the workers in factories that are only open because of decisions that he and President Obama had the courage to make. I've seen him shake the hand of every single student in a graduating class of 900 because he wants those kids to remember the day they got their diplomas and do something big with them.
For me, the most memorable moment of the past four years was not something most Americans saw. It wasn't even on American soil. It took place in Iraq, at Camp Victory, where I was stationed. It was the Fourth of July, in 2009. My father was there on an unannounced visit to salute our troops. I watched as he led a naturalization ceremony in one of Saddam Hussein's palaces for a couple hundred men and women from all branches of our military.
As he led those new Americans through the oath of citizenship, this celebration of democracy in the land of a deposed dictator, I was struck by the strength and diversity of our country. I was reminded why we as a nation are stronger when everybody has a chance to do their part. And I was reminded of everything President Obama and my father have done to guarantee that chance.
We do have promises to keep. And my dad and Barack Obama are keeping them. And yes, we have miles to go before we sleep, but Joe Biden and Barack Obama are leading the way forward.
Four years ago, because I was going to Iraq, I asked you to be there for my dad, and you were. And for the last four years, I can say with certainty he has been there for us.
In moments both public and private, he is the father I've always known, the grandfather my children love, and the vice president our nation needs.
So tonight, it is my great honor to place into nomination for the office of vice president the name of my father, my hero, Joe Biden. And "I move to suspend the rules and nominate by acclamation Joe Biden as the Democratic Party vice presidential candidate."
Statement by Vice President Biden on the Eighteenth Anniversary of the Violence Against Women Act
eNews Park Forest (IL)
September 13, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Eighteen years ago today, the landmark Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) was signed into law. It was founded on the basic premise that every woman deserves to be safe from violence, and since its passage, we have made tremendous strides towards achieving that goal. We gave law enforcement and the courts more tools to combat domestic violence and hold offenders accountable. We created a national hotline to direct victims to life-saving assistance. And since VAWA passed, annual rates of domestic violence have dropped by more than 60 percent.
But we still have much work to do. Three women still die every day as a result of domestic violence. One in five women have been raped, many as teenagers, and one in six women have been victims of stalking. While women and girls face these devastating realities every day, reauthorization of a strengthened VAWA languishes in Congress. VAWA is just as important today as it was when it first became law, and I urge Congress to keep the promise we made to our daughters and our granddaughters on that day—that we would work together to keep them safe.
After Next Week, House Stopping Work Until Election
National Journal: Web Edition Articles (USA)
September 14, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., announced on Friday that, after next week, the House won't be returning to session until after the Nov. 6 elections.
A planned one-week session in Washington at the start of October has been scrapped. That means when the House adjourns next Friday, the chamber will not be scheduled to cast any votes again until Nov. 13.
Speaking on the House floor, Cantor said that the decision for House members not to return to the Capitol in October has been made given the Senate's anticipated passage next week of a bill to keep government running beyond the Oct. 1 start of the new fiscal year, a bill already passed on Thursday in the House.
The House still plans to hold its session next week as scheduled, starting next Wednesday evening, through Friday. One bill Republicans plan to bring to the floor next week would create a new green-card category for foreigners who have received doctorate degrees from U.S. universities in science, technology, engineering, and math (the so-called STEM disciplines).
Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md., responded on the floor with some incredulity, saying that although there remains much legislation left to be completed, Cantor's announcement means that lawmakers now have about two days of session work remaining. The two then argued about which party is to blame for stalled or no action on such issues as the farm bill, postal-service reform, the Violence Against Women Act, and renewing the George W. Bush-era tax cuts.
At one point, when Cantor included the farm bill in his comments about Democratic refusal to engage in “real reform” in some of those bills, Hoyer fired back that it is the House Republican leadership that has chosen not to bring a bipartisan bill to the floor.
On Thursday, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., had said she did not know for sure, but was worried that Republicans were planning not to return in October.
She told reporters, “I want you to know the Democrats stand ready to be here for as long as it takes to pass a jobs bill, to come to agreement on a budget bill, to avoid the sequester..." -- the scheduled cuts to defense and domestic spending set for Jan. 2.
“Unfortunately, the Do Nothing Congress wants to go home,” Pelosi said.
“Instead of leaving town for seven weeks after being gone for four or five weeks [this summer], let's work across the aisle to restore fiscal responsibility, put people to work, and strengthen the middle class. We absolutely have to do that for the American people,” she said.
JILL BIDEN APPLAUDS FIGHT FOR WOMEN
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (PA)
September 17, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
About 200 supporters of President Barack Obama turned out Sunday to hear the vice president's wife speak at a Women for Obama rally in the Strip District.
"Give everything you've got to get Joe and Barack re-elected," Jill Biden, wife of Vice President Joe Biden, said at the rally at the Obama field office on Smallman Street.
She touted Mr. Obama's record on women's rights issues, such as signing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, appointing women to prominent positions in government and increasing accessible health services for women through his health care law.
She also addressed the cost of higher education, saying Mr. Obama has tried to make a college education more affordable for the middle class by increasing Pell Grant funding.
Mrs. Biden praised her husband, too, saying he drafted the 1994 Violence Against Women Act when he was a U.S. senator and has long championed women's rights.
Women cannot "refight the battles of decades ago," she said, suggesting the Republicans represent a return to the past, and she urged the crowd to ask all of the women in their lives which side they trust to stand up for women.
"I know who I trust," she said. "Do everything you can to make sure Barack and Joe have four more years."
At that, the crowd erupted into chants of "four more years!"
Mrs. Biden was joined at the event by U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., who chairs the Democratic National Committee. She said that when she underwent seven surgeries for breast cancer in 2008, she benefited from the excellent health care coverage provided to members of Congress.
But, she said, she realized that millions of other women did not have the same coverage.
Under Mr. Obama's health care plan, she said, they will. She blasted Republican candidate Mitt Romney, who she said "thinks it's fine to deny health care."
Mr. Romney has repeatedly said he will work to repeal Obamacare because, he said, it is a "$2 trillion entitlement" that the nation cannot afford. According to the Romney campaign, he will give each state the power to craft its own health care plan.
The federal government's role, he said, will be to help create a "level playing field" for competition by taking such steps as capping medical malpractice damage awards and encouraging individuals and small businesses to form purchasing pools for insurance coverage.
Convicted killer out of prison
East Oregonian (Pendleton, OR)
October 9, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Twelve years to the day after killing her husband in a northeastern Oregon campground, Liysa Northon left the Coffee Creek Correctional Facility in Wilsonville Tuesday as a free woman.
With a new husband and new home awaiting in Clackamas County’s Eagle Creek community, life is beginning again for the 50-year-old former surfing photographer who swam with dolphins, wrote books and screenplays and jetted between homes in Hawaii and Bend.
“I haven’t seen the stars in 12 years; that will be a true joy,” Northon said in a telephone interview. “And privacy: I lived in a room with 128 women. Some quiet and privacy will be really welcome.”
Northon pleaded guilty in July 2001 in Enterprise to first-degree manslaughter in the Oct. 9, 2000, shooting death of her husband, Chris Northon, 44. Later, the 5-foot-4, 108-pound inmate known as “Surfer” to other Coffee Creek prisoners became the villain of Northwest true-crime writer Ann Rule’s 2003 best-seller, “Heart Full of Lies.”
The case landed back in the spotlight in July 2011 when freelance writer and former Wallowa County Chieftain editor Rick Swart did a cover story for Seattle Weekly magazine defending Liysa Northon and slamming Rule and her book. The story rebounded embarrassingly when it came out that Swart had neglected to mention that he and Northon fell in love while he was writing it. The couple married in the prison visiting room less than two months after the article ran.
Northon has said she was a domestic violence victim in fear of her life when she killed Chris Northon. Despite his 14-year career as a pilot for Hawaiian Airlines, he led a double life as a violent “high-functioning alcoholic” and drug addict, she said. Chris Northon threatened to dismember her and their son, Dane, now 15, who was with them on that fateful Wallowa County camping trip, and her other son, Aukai, now 21, Liysa Northon said.
“Chris had beaten the crap out of me,” she said. “I defended my child and myself, and because of my action, my children got to grow up.”
With prison behind her, she plans to become active in combating domestic violence, she said. She hopes to push for tighter enforcement of the Violence Against Women Act and to soften the state’s Measure 11 penalties against women who use a weapon on an abusive man, she said.
Still, the question looms: Was Northon a battered and heroic wife who did the only thing open to her during a desperate night at a remote Eagle Cap Wilderness trailhead? Or, as Rule and Chris Northon’s family claim, did she drug her 6-foot-3, 200-pound husband and then shoot him in the head at close range with a .38-caliber revolver, hoping to gain $300,000 in life insurance and control of the couple’s property valued at $1 million, plus get airline widow’s benefits that would allow her to fly free?
Such questions no longer are relevant, said Swart, 55, who now works as an Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife spokesman. “She has done her time and she is going home. It’s as simple as that,” he said.
Liysa Northon is a woman of integrity who’s been badly treated by Rule, the courts and the Oregon Department of Corrections, Swart said. The couple have no immediate plans, and just “want to go home and be left alone,” he said. “She’s done, she’s getting out and I’m thrilled.”
Rule, the 76-year-old author of more than 30 books including one about serial killer Ted Bundy, said Northon is a pathological liar practiced at portraying herself as “this poor, battered little wife.”
“There is no doubt she intended to kill Chris,” Rule said. “It seems to me she hasn’t served enough time.”
Chris Northon’s parents, Dick and Jeanne Northon, said Swart is besotted with a woman who falsely characterized their son, a successful commercial pilot and fitness enthusiast, as a wife beater and substance abuser.
“He was so loved by so many people; he was a wonderful person,” said Jeanne Northon, 82, speaking from the couple’s home on Wallowa Lake near Joseph. “I hate the idea that Liysa can come to Wallowa County and that she would come to our front door someday.”
The Northons are executors of Chris and Liysa Northon’s estate, valued at more than $1 million. Under the law, Liysa Northon can’t touch it, but Dane, who is Chris and Liysa’s son, eventually will inherit, Dick Northon said.
The Northons worry that Liysa Northon will go after the estate, they said.
“She could talk the legs off a frog,” Dick Northon said. “She could convince anyone of almost anything. It is sad what has been done to us and our son’s reputation and the lives of everybody involved. Our son had such a wonderful life ahead of him.”
Liysa Northon must check in with a parole officer for three years. She had to get permission to live in Clackamas County from the Oregon Board of Parole and Post Prison Supervision, said Jay Scroggin, the board’s executive director.
The inmate hopes to find peace when she leaves Coffee Creek, she said.
“It’s over now,” she said. “Let’s move forward and make each day a gift and be grateful for what we’ve got.”
House Republicans Refuse to Hear Calls to Return to Work
Government Press Releases (USA)
October 16, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
This afternoon Congresswoman Jaime Herrera Beutler, under orders from House Speaker John Boehner, gaveled down Representatives Gerry Connolly (D-Va) and Russ Carnahan (D-Mo) as they stood on the House Floor to call on Republicans to return to work on behalf of the American people:
"As she closed the session, Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) asked several times to be heard for a parliamentary inquiry. Democrats have made that request as a way to gain time on the floor to ask that the House return to work on looming issues like the possible tax hike at the end of this year. But Beutler ignored his request, and like other Republicans, left the chamber as Democrats remained on the floor..." [The Hill, 10/16 ].
House Republicans recessed for seven weeks after working only eight days between August 3 and November 13, earlier than any Congress in 50 years, to campaign to keep their jobs. It appears that House Republicans don't want to come to Washington to work on jobs for the middle class or defend their record of voting six times to end Medicare as we know it. As a new Kaiser Family Foundation study showed yesterday, the Ryan-Republican plan to end Medicare as we know it would raise premiums on fifty-nine percent of beneficiaries.
America's middle class families are waiting for House Republicans to take their duties seriously and act on their behalf to create jobs, extend the middle class tax cuts, pass a bipartisan Farm bill, reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, and ensure economic certainty by finding a balanced solution to the deep cuts to domestic and military programs in the sequester. The clock is ticking, House Republicans must act.
The new Democratic majority
The next Congress will bring women, Hispanics to the forefront of the party
Concord Monitor (NH)
November 9, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Meet Donna Edwards of Maryland, a veteran congresswoman who represents the new face of Democrats in the House.
Come January, women and minorities for the first time in U.S. history will hold a majority of the party’s House seats, while Republicans will continue to be overwhelmingly white and male. The chamber, already politically polarized, more than ever is going to be demographically polarized, too.
“One thing that’s always been very startling to me is to see that on the floor of the House of representatives when you look over on one side where the Democrats caucus and you look to the other side and it looks like two different visions of America,” Edwards, 54, a black woman who has served in Congress since 2008, said in a telephone interview.
The visuals will be striking when the House debates whether to overhaul the country’s tax code and considers ways to keep the costs of Social Security and Medicare under control. The white males of the Republican Party will be arguing to reduce benefits while the women and minorities of the Democratic Party will make a case for keeping the nation’s safety net where it is.
With eight races still to be settled, white men had secured about 90 percent of Republican seats and about 47 percent of Democratic seats, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.
There will be at least 57 female Democrats in the House, about 30 percent of the caucus. Republicans will have at least 20 women, less than 10 percent of their party’s House majority, according to the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University in New Jersey. The final tally in a few states could add to that count.
Democratic Hispanics are poised to outnumber their House Republican colleagues 23 to five, according to the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials Educational Fund.
“Latinos took advantage of the redistricting process,” said Arturo Vargas, the group’s executive director. “There will be more opportunities as the elections develop over the next decade.”
Black representatives should number 41 on the Democratic side of the aisle, the Congressional Black Caucus said. That compares with either one or two seats for black Republicans.
“When voters and citizens look at the Democratic Party, what they see is America,” said Edwards.
Republicans, who will continue to set the House agenda, could end up with just one woman heading a committee and a single woman in their top leadership ranks.
On the other side of the U.S. Capitol, women will hold a record 20 Senate seats next year. That includes both Democrats and Republicans.
“About a third of our caucus is going to be women,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told reporters in the Capitol.
“It’s clear we’re the party of diversity,” the Nevada Democrat said.
The Republicans who have majorities in legislatures controlled the redistricting process in enough states to lock Democrats of every color and gender out of contention in dozens of House seats for years to come, said David Wasserman, House analyst for the nonpartisan Cook Political Report.
“Republicans, in drawing safe districts for themselves, have also boxed themselves in somewhat in their long-term appeal,” he said. Packing minority voters into fewer districts “has reduced their own incentive to reach out to minorities in the electorate. That is not helpful for the party’s brand over the long term.”
Minority babies outnumbered white newborns in 2011 for the first time in U.S. history, census figures show. The U.S. population is projected to become majority-minority by 2042, according to the Census Bureau.
“Congress lags the general population in terms of how representative it is of the population,” said Kathryn Pearson, an associate professor specializing in American politics at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis.
“You rarely, if ever, see a press conference with Democratic leadership that doesn’t reflect the diversity of the House caucus, and that’s a pretty dramatic change just from Speaker Tom Foley in the early ‘90s,” said Pearson, referring to the Democratic lawmaker from Washington State who served as speaker from 1989 to 1995.
Men have been so dominant in the House for so long that it wasn’t until 2011 that Speaker John Boehner, an Ohio Republican, ordered that a women’s bathroom be installed off the House floor. Female senators got theirs in 1993.
In the 1970s, when the Democratic leadership decided it was time to put a woman and a black congressman on the House Armed Services Committee, it wasn’t exactly a moment of celebration, said Loren Duggan, Bloomberg Government’s chief congressional analyst.
The disapproving chairman, fellow Democrat F. Edward Hébert of Louisiana, refused to add two chairs, so Democrats Patricia Schroeder of Colorado and Ron Dellums of California had to share a seat at the committee’s organizational meeting, said Duggan.
“The House has come a long way,” he said. “Dellums took over the committee in 1993. Schroeder stayed in the House until 1997 and even sought the presidential nomination. Today, House Democrats are led by a woman and the No. 3 Democrat is a black man.”
Women and minorities are in line to become the top Democrats on almost half of the 22 committees, including powerful panels such as Judiciary, and Oversight and Government Reform.
Under the Democrats’ seniority system, Maxine Waters of California, a black woman, is in line for the party’s top slot on the Financial Services Committee.
Marcy Kaptur of Ohio, the longest-serving female in the House, is next in line for the top Democratic position on the Appropriations Committee. That would be a first for a woman.
Kaptur, first elected to Congress 30 years ago, recalled in a Nov. 5 interview how, no matter how comfortable former Speaker Tip O’Neill, a Massachusetts Democrat, tried to make her feel, she didn’t think she could pull up a chair when he and her other male colleagues were hanging out in the Cloakroom watching baseball on television.
“If you didn’t know what happened in the major and minor leagues for the last 50 years and quote every major player, you wondered if you could enter into the conversation,” she said. “I just remember how that felt. It’s changed a lot now.”
Analysts at the Cook Political Report and other Washington organizations predict that only one Republican woman has a shot at being elected to a top party leadership position in the House: Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington, who’s vying for the No. 4 job, conference chair.
Candice Miller of Michigan probably will become chairwoman of the Homeland Security Committee.
The House majority party’s smaller number of females can present challenges.
Sandy Adams of Florida, the only Republican woman on the Judiciary Committee, was front and center at all the press conferences when the House considered the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, H.R. 4970. She lost her primary, so party leaders have only men returning to that committee.
The Democratic Party’s more diverse caucus sometimes translates into a more disagreeable caucus.
“It can create some tensions within the Democratic caucus with the more moderate-to-conservative Blue Dog members, who are very focused on fiscal responsibility, and, say, the Black Caucus, which sees a generally larger role for government,” Pearson said.
The Blue Dog Coalition has shrunk with every recent election, and Nov. 6 was no different, with the defeat of Democrats Leonard Boswell of Iowa, Ben Chandler of Kentucky and Larry Kissell of North Carolina. The group will have at least 14 members next year, compared with 24 now.
“Their loss of Blue Dogs, who happen to be predominantly white men, means they’re likely to be in the minority for some time unless they benefit from some huge wave, and there’s simply no wave on the horizon,” Wasserman said.
“The redistricting map that has solidified Republicans’ position in the House this year is bad news for Democrats not only in 2012 but for the foreseeable future over the next decade that these maps will be in effect.”
White House Official Suggests Backers of Domestic Violence Bill Seek New Supporters
Roll Call
November 09, 2012
A White House official told grassroots supporters of a stalled Senate bill renewing domestic violence programs that widening their coalition to include law enforcement officials and faith-based leaders would help build pressure on House Republicans to advance the measure.
Lynn Rosenthal, the Obama administration’s adviser on violence against women, said resolving a long-running dispute between the House and Senate over a five-year renewal of the Violence Against Women Act (PL 103-322) “is a high priority for the lame-duck session” and that “work has already begun on our end to make this happen.”
Rosenthal suggested that an additional crop of supporters of the Senate-passed version (S 1925) could build more support for the Senate’s version among House Republicans.
The House passed its own renewal (HR 4970) of the 1994 domestic violence law, which funds a range of programs intended to help victims of domestic and sexual abuse and prosecute offenders. The House reauthorization is narrower and does not include provisions in the Senate bill that would expand protections for domestic violence victims who are gay and lesbian, immigrants and American Indians.
Rosenthal said that “putting a human face on this violence” can help advance final legislation to the president’s desk.
“We can’t ask you to lobby, but we can say that if you wanted to make your views known, that doing that with a coalition of law enforcement, faith leaders and others . . . can be a very effective way to get your message across,” Rosenthal said in a conference call organized by the National Coalition to End Domestic Violence, an umbrella organization of advocates who have pushed for the Senate bill.
Up to now, supporters of the Senate bill have consisted primarily of groups that work with survivors of domestic violence or advocate on behalf of women, immigrants, gays and lesbians.
In the conference call, advocates said they would renew efforts in the coming weeks to push the law’s renewal over the finish line during the post-election session to avoid having to begin the process over again in the 113th Congress.
“The stakes are too high for us to start at square one next year,” said Katy Tyndell, a staff attorney with the National Congress of American Indians.
Indeed, reauthorizing the law might prove a harder task next year, despite Democratic gains in both chambers this week. The National Coalition to End Domestic Violence noted in an email to its members that “nearly 30 of our key champions will not be returning to the 113th Congress due to retirement or [electoral] defeat.”
The list includes several moderate House Republicans who crossed the aisle and voted against their conference’s renewal of the domestic violence law in May, including Reps. Robert Dold and Judy Biggert, both of Illinois. They lost their reelection bids Nov. 6.
In the Senate, Republican supporters of the expanded domestic violence law who will not return next year include Scott P. Brown, R-Mass.; Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas; and Olympia J. Snowe, R-Maine.
Advocates hope the departures will increase the urgency among those representatives and senators to get the renewal done in the lame-duck session. They hope the same is true for the chief sponsor of the narrower House legislation, Rep. Sandy Adams, R-Fla., who was defeated in a Republican primary in August and also will not return next year.
“It makes sense that she’d want to build a good legacy and be on the right side of history on this,” said Tralonne Shorter, a policy analyst with the anti-domestic violence coalition.
In an interview last month, however, Adams said it was up to the Senate to take action on the law’s renewal, calling her bill “a very good piece of legislation that is victim-centered. The Senate could just pass that piece of legislation.”
Anti-Violence Law May Dash the Presumption of Innocence, SAVE Warns
GlobeNewswire (USA)
November 13, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
In their zeal to stamp out sex crimes, proponents of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) may be trying to overturn centuries of legal protections for the accused. The bills to reauthorize VAWA that are pending in Congress -- S. 1925 and H.R. 4970 -- would strip away the presumption of innocence in cases in which a sex crime was alleged, says Stop Abusive and Violent Environments (SAVE).
VAWA's proposed definition of sexual assault shifts the burden of proof to the defendant, thus effectively removing the presumption of innocence. According to both the Senate and House bills, "sexual assault means any nonconsensual sexual act proscribed by Federal, tribal or State law, including when the victim lacks the capacity to consent."
VAWA's dramatic expansion of government power in cases of alleged sexual assault is just one of many. For example, several states have abolished the statute of limitations for sex crimes altogether. For decades, no one could be convicted of a sex crime solely on the word of the accuser, but now not a single state requires objective corroboration of her allegations. A man can go to prison on the accuser's word alone.
In fact, many argue that rape and sexual assault have already become too easy for the state to prove. To date, the Innocence Project has freed 237 people from prison because they are innocent of the sex crimes for which they were wrongfully convicted.
SAVE applauds the efforts of lawmakers to crack down on sex crimes. Indeed, SAVE has been at the forefront of efforts to make domestic violence laws more effective and accord priority to victims of physical battering. But no law should remove the presumption of innocence in any criminal proceeding.
"Sexual assault and rape are terrible crimes that should be punished," said SAVE spokesperson Steve Blake, "but not at the expense of constitutional guarantees of due process. Those accused of sex crimes must, like all persons accused of a crime, be presumed innocent until proven to be guilty. To do otherwise would run the risk of condemning innocent people."
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments is a victim-advocacy organization working for evidence-based solutions to sexual assault and partner violence: www.saveservices.org . Contact: Teri Stoddard
Hell hath no fury
Billings Examiner (MT)
November 29, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Montanans overwhelmingly approved Initiative-166 obviously aware of the corporate interests that effect their daily lives, but most would be stunned to realize that 86% of these interests are driven by the purchasing power of women, frequently promoting a radical femenist ideology. This drastic shift in legislation has allowed women to destroy the influence of the patriarch (not to be confused with the oppressive patriarchal system), outright destroying our children, and we are now witnessing innocent men imprisoned because a woman felt slighted, regretted her decision, or simply wanted to pass the time.
A myriad of laws to protect women have been implemented in the last forty years but this oppressive new twist began with the implementation of the Department of Education’s Dear Colleague letter in April 2011 that sparked a brushfire on campuses around the country. Montanans observed their beloved University of Montana devastatingly converted to a “rape prone culture”. Nearly overnight the safest campus in the nation was morphed into the nation’s “rape capital” with enrollment immediately showing the effects. An impact has also been seen at Montana State University where 80 sexual assaults have suddenly also occurred, but with very little research we can see this has been driven by the femenist ideology.
Of the 80 sexual assaults at Montana State, one woman was brutally raped at knifepoint, the type of harrowing scene one might envision rape, or its twin sister sexual assault, to be. Conversely, legislation to protect women from this brutal abuse is being used to attack innocent men. Also included in the 80 rapes was a college student who set up a camera in a woman’s restroom, an exchange student who failed to check the ID of a “woman” he met at a party on campus, a teenager who grabbed a woman’s breast as he rode by, and a woman who blatantly lied to authorities and has yet to be punished. As voters we want legislation to protect women but we frequently see how it is being distorted, this hesitation is reflected in the Congress’ inability to pass the Violence Against Women Act.
The VAWA initially enacted by now Vice President Biden and Montana Senator Max Baucus to protect women has been inactive for nearly two years, even with current lobbying pressure to push it through the lame duck session. This is largely due to society’s realization that the legislation is causing more harm than good, case in point; of the men previously mentioned, the exchange student fled the country after realizing he had had sex with a 15 year old and was now facing life in prison, the rest of the men convicted of sexual assault are currently in prison and are required to register as a sexual offender for the remainder of their natural lives.
Overly ambiguous legal definitions of sexual assault coupled with biased legislation based on feminists' ideologies have falsely imprisoned two men while a woman who admittedly violated the law goes unpunished, these tales augment the pain of the woman raped at knifepoint and other true victims. Thankfully, as a democratic, consumer driven society, we have the power to change this. Call your representative today at (202) 224-3121 and tell him to vote no on VAWA reauthorization until it has restored the presumption of innocence, then shun any groups striving to destroy the lives of our sons.
Last Ditch Effort on VAWA Under Way
Roll Call
December 07, 2012
Lawmakers are in negotiations to take one final crack at approving the Violence Against Women Act before year’s end, but last minute talks may not be enough to iron out the remaining differences.
Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., are working together to try to bridge the gap on some of the outstanding issues between Democrats and Republicans on the measure’s reauthorization, including new language that expands rights to the gay community, immigrants and inhabitants of tribal land.
Sources close to both Cantor and Biden issued generic statements confirming talks are happening, but did not provide much detail beyond that. The unwillingness to talk about the negotiations could indicate both seriousness to reach an agreement and the difficulty of finding common ground. And while sources tracking VAWA’s progress admit the work is real, there is deep skepticism that House Republicans will compromise enough to support legislation similar to a Senate-passed bill that was approved with GOP votes, 68-31, in April.
“I think the talks are serious, but the prospects dim,” a Senate Democratic leadership aide said. “House Republicans don’t seem to be learning the lessons of the campaign and election.”
Democrats had been hopeful that because women and minority voters overwhelmingly favored them in November’s elections, Republicans would come around on some of the basic provisions involving immigrant and gay rights. One Democratic source who has been working on the bill said that VAWA’s reauthorization is a “good opportunity” for Republicans to show that they “have learned or are learning” from their failure to make electoral inroads with key demographics affected by the legislation.
But the aide noted that it is “too soon to tell whether it’s people going through the motions or [if they] are committed to real policy solutions” in the most recent uptick of activity on the initiative.
With most of the Hill’s political oxygen being consumed by the negotiations to avert the fiscal cliff, the reauthorization of the lapsed bill extending rights to victims of domestic abuse has largely fallen by the wayside. So the fact that talks are again happening on VAWA gives some of the legislation’s chief backers some hope for approval.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy, D- Vt., took to the floor Thursday to tout a House bill co-sponsored by Reps. Darryl Issa, R-Calif., and Tom Cole, R-Okla., that could complement the Senate bill on the tribal lands issue. Leahy called the House bill a potential “breakthrough” for overall VAWA fight.
“They all have tribes within their states and are concerned about the violence our Senate bill is trying to combat,” Leahy said of the House bill, which would allow defendants to move a case to federal court if their rights are violated.
“Some in the House Republican leadership have expressed a ‘just say no’ approach to any grant of tribal jurisdiction but the House Republican leadership should give serious and thoughtful consideration to this Republican proposal so that we can move forward and protect thousands of victims,” Leahy continued.
Meanwhile, on the larger bill, Biden and Cantor’s commitment to finding a solution could prove helpful. The two have a good working relationship and have come together before on major issues, most notably in the summer of 2011 to try to make headway on a deal to avert government default and reduce the deficit.
“This week I’ve actually been encouraged to see that we could very well see agreement on VAWA, and I’m very hopeful that that comes about,” Cantor said on the floor this week. “I am encouraged about the discussions that my office is having with the vice president’s office right now, that bill being a high priority of Vice President Biden.”
If the bill is to pass before the end of this Congress, an agreement likely would have to be struck outside of the confines of a formal conference, something for which Boehner had previously called.
“Time is short in that we’re looking at two, at most three, weeks,” said the Democratic source tracking the bill. “We don’t want to get into specific deadlines because when there’s actually an agreement, things can go quickly around here.”
Bellows: VAWA Must Protect All Americans
Roll Call
December 12, 2012
As final negotiations on the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act continue, as noted in Meredith Shiner’s recent article “Last Ditch Effort on VAWA Under Way,” (Roll Call, Dec. 7) the American Bar Association urges Congress to remember that VAWA must protect all Americans.
Victims of sexual assault, domestic violence and stalking deserve to be protected, regardless of who they are. Predators need to be punished. But under our law, Native American women are not effectively protected, and the controversial House of Representatives’ version of the Violence Against Women Act would do nothing to address the problem.
Native American women are left vulnerable even though they are more likely to be the targets of rape and violence than any other demographic group. If a woman is assaulted on nontribal lands, police can arrest her attacker and that person can be processed through the local justice system. Not so on tribal lands. Instead, if a Native woman is the victim of domestic or sexual violence by a non-Indian attacker on tribal lands, her attacker is apt to go free.
Tribal law enforcement cannot fully protect Native American women. Non-Native Americans cannot be arrested for raping, beating or stalking Native Americans on their own lands. Instead, tribal officials can only hold perpetrators until local, state or federal law enforcement arrive. Sometimes law enforcement never does.
What’s more, tribal nations are prohibited by U.S. law from prosecuting major crimes committed by non-Natives on Indian reservations. State or federal law enforcement is required to step in. But U.S. attorneys declined to prosecute half of violent crimes on reservations between 2005 and 2009. Sixty-seven percent of those cases were related to sexual abuse.
Across two decades, VAWA has saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of men, women and children. We commend the Senate for its version of the VAWA reauthorization bill. Legislators crossed party lines and updated the law to fulfill the intent of the original bipartisan legislation by extending protections to all victims of domestic and sexual violence.
Under the Senate version of VAWA, attackers of Native American women will face consequences. The tribal court would gain jurisdiction to try those accused of domestic violence, while guaranteeing all the U.S. constitutional rights that defendants retain no matter where they are tried. The House bill does not offer the same protection for victims of domestic violence.
The House version of VAWA does not protect victims on tribal lands. It is not only weaker than the Senate bill, but it also silences entire categories of victims. It perpetuates the idea that some survivors should feel guilty for being victimized and are unworthy of community support. The House bill essentially provides a two-tier system of justice; one level for most victims and another level that excludes from justice victims who are among the most vulnerable. That is why the American Bar Association supports the Senate bill, which protects all victims.
Rep. Richard Hanna helps lead 120 House members trying to break deadlock on domestic violence bill
Post-Standard, The: Web Edition Articles (Syracuse, NY)
December 12, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Washington -- U.S. Rep. Richard Hanna said today he will help lead a bipartisan coalition of 120 House members that wants to break a seven-month stalemate in Congress over an anti-domestic violence bill.
The Violence Against Women Act, or VAWA, has protected victims and their families since 1994. But the landmark law will expire at the end of the year unless the lame-duck session of Congress can agree on a compromise for a five-year renewal.
The reauthorization bill passed the Senate in April, gaining bipartisan support in a 68-31 vote.
But in May, House Republicans refused to consider similar legislation proposed by Rep. Judy Biggert, R-Ill. Her bill was supported by victim advocates nationwide, including Vera House in Central New York.
Instead of the Biggert legislation, House Republicans narrowly passed a different version of VAWA that had been opposed by victim advocates.
The House voted 225-205 for a version of the VAWA bill that excluded new protections in the Senate legislation for gay and transgender victims, American Indians and battered women who are in the United States illegally.
Hanna was among 23 Republicans who joined 182 Democrats in voting against the measure because it did not include the strengthened victim protections.
Rep. Ann Marie Buerkle, R-Onondaga Hill, voted to approve the House bill. She said in May that the legislation provided adequate protection for all victims. She could not be reached for comment Wednesday.
Since the House and Senate never reconciled their differences on the bill, VAWA will expire Jan. 1 unless Congress acts.
Hanna joined this week with Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-Fairport, and four other House members to circulate a letter among their colleagues, asking them to support legislation similar to the Senate version of VAWA.
The group sent the letter, with the signatures of 120 House members, to House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio; Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va.; Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, R-Calif.; and Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md.
“We write today asking you to move quickly on the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) by bringing a bill inclusive of protections for all victims of domestic violence, similar to that which has already passed the Senate, to the House floor for a vote during these final weeks of the 112th Congress,” the letter said.
Hanna said the earlier VAWA bill passed by the House failed to give adequate protection to all victims.
“If a daughter, sister or perfect stranger was raped, battered or needed help, no one would ask or care what her ethnicity, national origin or orientation was before we came to her aid – nor should the Violence Against Women Act,” Hanna said in a statement.
He added, “No community, and no person, should be neglected when it comes to domestic violence. Let us pass a bipartisan, inclusive Violence Against Women Act that service providers, law enforcement and most importantly – all victims – deserve.”
Still No Movement On Violence Against Women Act
Targeted News Service (USA)
December 18, 2012
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
WASHINGTON, Dec. 17 -- Del. Gregorio Sablan D-Northern Mariana Islands, issued the following news release:
With only a few days left before the end of the 112th Congress the House leadership still has not moved to complete work on reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act. A House version of the bill, H.R. 4970, contains the provisions of H.R. 4195, my bill increasing Sexual Assault Services Program funding for the Northern Marianas six-fold by giving us a state-equivalent grant. A Senate bill, S.1925, which has passed that body, also increases funding for the Northern Marianas. To prompt action on VAWA 120 Members of the House have written to Speaker John Boehner, asking him to schedule a vote before time runs out. VAWA has always enjoyed bipartisan support until now. The law saves lives and helps victims of domestic violence find safety, security, and self-sufficiency through programs such as STOP Violence Against Women and the Victims of Crime Assistance programs. VAWA gives us all hope for a future without violence and abuse.
Boehner ‘Not Interested’ in Bill That Most of GOP Would Reject
Roll Call
December 27, 2012
The House will return for votes on Sunday, but Speaker John A. Boehner assured his conference that he is not interested in putting a fiscal cliff measure on the floor that would pass with more Democratic votes than Republican.
On the packed GOP members-only call, Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., asked Boehner, R-Ohio, whether he would allow Democrats to carry a bill if the Senate passed a bill to which most House Republicans would object.
“I’m not interested in that,” Boehner remarked, according to a source on the call.
The speaker’s intention to stay steadfast means a rocky final stretch before Congress plummets off the fiscal cliff. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada tried to put pressure right back on Boehner by asking him to take up the bill the Senate passed earlier this year that extends the 2001 and 2003 tax rates on the first $250,000 of American’s annual income.
Reid and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., argued on the floor Thursday afternoon over the procedure for the Senate-passed bill, showing that at least publicly, the two leaders are not close to each other’s positions. McConnell said the Senate-passed bill was a “glorified sense of the Senate” that was going nowhere because, as a revenue measure, it did not originate in the House, per the Constitution.
President Barack Obama, meanwhile, has said he wants Congress to vote on a pared-down version of a fiscal cliff deal, one most House Republicans would surely not support.
Either way, the House will be in session starting Sunday. Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., told members on the conference call that votes are expected at 6:30 p.m. on Sunday and the House may be in session through Wednesday Jan. 2, just a day before the 113th Congress resumes.
The rare post-holiday weekend session sets up what could be a last ditch effort to pass a plan to avert the fiscal cliff, and it means Congress could very well be in session on Monday, which is New Year’s Eve.
It remains unclear what Congress will vote on, but Boehner reiterated to his members what he Cantor, Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., and Conference Chairwoman-elect Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., said in a statement Wednesday.
“The House has acted on two bills that collectively would avert the entire fiscal cliff. We passed HR 8 at the beginning of August to stop all of the tax rate increases that are set to occur on Jan. 1 under current law. And we’ve passed legislation to replace the entire sequester with responsible spending cuts,” Boehner said according to a source on the call. “These bills await action by the Senate. And as I, Eric, Kevin and Cathy said yesterday in a joint statement: If the Senate will not approve these bills and send them to the president to be signed into law in their current form, they must be amended and returned to the House. Once this has occurred, the House will then consider whether to accept the bills as amended, or to send them back to the Senate with additional amendments. The House will take this action on whatever the Senate can pass — but the Senate must act.”
But the speaker’s hand has been weakened after his conference rejected his call to pass a “plan B” — and the bruises in the conference are still showing. Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., expressed his support for the speaker and said that the conference had let him down. Other expressed their support for leadership as well. “We didn’t have a failure of leadership, we had a failure of followership,” Cole said on the call.
In a sign of just how charged and hyperbolic this year-end debate has become, House Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer, D-Md., used an unfortunately timed comparison that likened Republicans trying to use the debt limit for leverage on spending cuts to people threatening to shoot their own children.
“It is somewhat like taking your child hostage and saying to somebody else, ‘I’m going to shoot my child unless you do what I want done.’ You don’t want to shoot your child,” Hoyer said at a press conference following a brief 10-minute pro forma session for the House.
Hoyer expressed serious frustration over the House’s continued holiday recess without any resolution to either the fiscal cliff or a laundry list of issues still awaiting congressional approval, from the extensions of the Violence Against Women Act and a foreign intelligence bill to farm legislation to a disaster aid supplemental and a postal overhaul bill.
Democrats on both sides of the aisle have used the recess to attack Republicans for being lackadaisical about a packed year-end agenda. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said earlier Thursday that he couldn’t see a way to pass a budget agreement in the time left on the calendar.
Amid the pessimism over the fiscal cliff, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. swore-in Sen.-designate Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, to replace the late Daniel K. Inouye.
Reid had called for a hastened replacement process in case Democrats needed an additional vote to approve any year-end deals.
