VAWA Posts:
Asylum Philadelphia: A look at the overburdened Philadelphia Immigration Court
January 12, 2011
Philadelphia Daily News (PA)
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
IN JUNE 2006, men in military clothes grabbed Maria, kidnapping her as she slept in a church shelter in Angola, bound and blindfolded her and dragged her away. They beat and raped her, and interrogated her about her boyfriend's human-rights work. Maria eventually escaped to the United States, where she sought asylum. But more than four years went by before a judge in Philadelphia heard her testimony.
Separately in Philadelphia, "Esther," from Ghana, overstayed her tourist visa, fell in love with a naturalized U.S. citizen and married him in 2006. Then he turned abusive. "Esther" wants to stay here, and her attorney says that federal law permits it. But a backlog caused her hearing to be put off until Feb. 1, 2012, and now the matter appears headed out of the judicial system altogether.
These two cases provide a glimpse into the highly emotional issues often brought before the overburdened Philadelphia Immigration Court, where applicants can remain in limbo for years and where the number of cases pending before just three judges skyrocketed to 4,573 in fiscal year 2010 - a 20 percent increase from the previous year.
It was the court's highest number of pending cases since at least 1998, according to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), a data-research center at Syracuse University - and possibly its highest number ever.
And it's not just traumatic for applicants. The judges themselves, because of the number and nature of the cases, "suffer from significant symptoms of secondary traumatic stress and more burnout" than prison wardens or physicians, according to a nationwide survey by the University of California, San Francisco.
Last month, immigration lawyer Steven Morley was added to the Philadelphia court as its fourth judge, and he is to begin hearing cases Tuesday. The judges aren't allowed to discuss their work, but observers wonder whether the extra staffing will be enough to bear the burden triggered in large part by the Department of Homeland Security.
"I'm not even sure the fourth judge is going to make much of a difference, because enforcement [by Homeland Security] is cranking up, is still running full-tilt," said James Orlow, a veteran immigration lawyer in Philadelphia and past president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.
Even with more judges being sworn in, immigration judges nationwide "are still in a crisis phase," said Judge Dana Marks, of San Francisco, president of the National Association of Immigration Judges. New judges still have to go through training and don't take on full caseloads, she said.
Maria's day in court
Last month, more than four years after entering deportation proceedings in October 2006, Maria - who asked that only her first name be used for this article - finally testified before Judge Charles Honeyman.
Honeyman, like the other Philadelphia immigration judges - Miriam Mills and Rosalind Malloy - has been more likely to deny than to grant asylum, according to Syracuse's TRAC.
Summoning the horrible memory of the day she was kidnapped in Angola, in Africa's southwest, Maria told the judge that she had been dating a man who worked for a human-rights group.
"They tied me - my hands, my legs," she testified through a Portuguese interpreter. "They blindfolded me and took me to some location." During the four days that she was held captive, she was raped by several men and repeatedly beaten, she testified under questioning by her attorney, Troy J. Mattes, of Lancaster.
Maria, 32, said that she was allowed to leave after agreeing to poison members of her boyfriend's group. But after she was released, she told her boyfriend what happened and he helped her escape from Angola. Two months later, in August 2006, she applied for asylum in the United States.
Because of the high volume of cases in the court system and the time needed to locate, contact and get evidence from her former boyfriend, it took more than four years for her testimony to be heard.
Mattes, who began representing Maria in 2007, found out that Amnesty International had written about her former boyfriend. Through his efforts, Maria was able to phone the man and get him to send a letter that was introduced in court as evidence of their past relationship.
Ira Mazer, senior attorney in the Department of Homeland Security, cross-examined Maria on what appeared to be inconsistencies in her testimony. He questioned if the letter had been sent by her former boyfriend.
But Honeyman said that he found her credible, and the evidence that she had submitted "genuinely plausible," and he granted asylum. Sitting in the back of the courtroom, Maria cried. Afterward, she said she was happy.
Later, as Maria reflected on her case, she said that the hard part about waiting so long for a hearing was that she had to depend on others. "I can't work or anything," she said, speaking through a cousin who interpreted for her. "That's basically the downfall of that. I can't work, I can't study. I can't get any legal papers to do anything."
Her cousin said that Maria finally has received her legal papers to be in this country.
Mattes said that the case was unusual. The hardest part of asylum cases, he said, is to back them up with evidence. Fortunately for his client, she was dating someone known to Amnesty International. And, he said, she was a witness who "didn't flinch."
Stepped-up enforcement
Philadelphia Immigration Court is a cog in a vast network overseen by the Justice Department: 271 judges in 59 immigration courts located in 27 states, Puerto Rico and the U.S. territory of the Northern Mariana Islands, in the Pacific Ocean.
Two of those courts are in Pennsylvania - one in the federal building at 9th and Market streets, the other inside the York County Prison, in York, where U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), an arm of Homeland Security, houses detainees accused of violating immigration law. Philadelphia's court was relocated Sept. 1 from cramped quarters at 16th and Callowhill streets, where the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), another agency under Homeland Security, remains.
Judges decide whether foreign-born individuals whom Homeland Security charges with violating immigration law should be ordered removed from the U.S.
The Justice Department agency that oversees immigration judges was created in 1983, when the attorney general moved the judges from the former Immigration and Naturalization Service.
Many immigration lawyers say that Homeland Security has been more aggressive in recent years in its enforcement, bringing cases before judges that previously wouldn't have been argued in court.
Some attribute the increased enforcement to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
The Obama administration also has made it a priority to deport "criminal aliens," noncitizens convicted of crimes in the U.S. It recently touted its fiscal year 2010's record-breaking number of deportations - more than 392,000.
Lawyer Dave Bennion, of the nonprofit Nationalities Service Center, in Philadelphia, said that what would have been routine cases a few years ago - such as a marriage to a U.S. citizen - now may be disputed in immigration court. Often in the past an immigration officer at USCIS would have determined whether to grant a green card, without the case having to go before a judge.
The stepped-up enforcement efforts by USCIS and ICE "have the result of increasing the backlogs in the courts," Bennion said.
Bennion said that he's "a little bit reluctant to endorse" hiring more judges, because it "doesn't address the underlying problems that lead people to continue to come to this country and employers to continue to hire them."
The case of 'Esther'
Ricky Palladino, the attorney representing "Esther," from Ghana, said that hers is an example of cases that shouldn't clog up immigration court.
Under the Violence Against Women Act, Esther, 32, is "immediately eligible" for a green card because she is the abused spouse of a U.S. citizen, he said.
He said that her marriage to her husband, also of Ghana, started off well but that he then lashed out about the "way she cooked, the way she cleaned," then began choking her. The abuse escalated to rape, the woman told Palladino.
Esther and her husband filed for a green card for her in 2008, but failed to show up for their interview with the USCIS immigration officer, so the application was denied. Homeland Security placed the woman in removal proceedings in February 2009, after the green-card denial.
At a hearing Dec. 13, Palladino told Judge Mills that USCIS had approved the woman's petition to be classified as an abused spouse. He explained afterward that the approval also meant that USCIS agreed that the woman's marriage was legitimate, not a sham.
The Homeland Security attorney, Bruce Dizengoff, told the judge that he needed time to review the case and contended that it was properly before the court.
Judge Mills sided with Palladino, referring to an August memo by ICE Director John Morton to have some cases returned to USCIS jurisdiction instead of remaining in the courts, in an effort to help unclog the courts.
She instructed Palladino to file a motion to terminate the case, and to let the government's attorney respond. Palladino last week told the Daily News that the ICE chief counsel in Philadelphia, Kent Frederick, has agreed that the woman's removal proceeding should be terminated. Palladino also last week filed a joint motion indicating that both sides agree.
Once the judge grants the motion, as she is expected to do, Esther's request for a green card will be heard by a USCIS immigration officer, instead of languishing in the backed-up immigration-court system.
Vice President Biden Announces Bruce Reed as New Chief of Staff
eNews Park Forest (IL)
January 14, 2011
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Washington, DC–(ENEWSPF)–January 14, 2011. Vice President Joe Biden announced today that Bruce Reed will succeed Ron Klain in the role of Chief of Staff for the Office of the Vice President. Mr. Reed has most recently worked for the Administration as Executive Director of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, also known as the Bowles-Simpson Commission. In addition, the Vice President announced that one of his closest advisors, Michael C. Donilon, will be returning to his previous position as Counselor to the Vice President.
"I've known and admired Bruce for over 20 years," said Vice President Biden. "We worked closely together to pass the crime bill in the 1990s and I've frequently sought his advice and counsel in the years since. He brings a unique blend of experience and perspective to this position and his leadership will be a tremendous asset to my office, and to the entire White House. I'm also very pleased that my friend and closest advisor, Mike Donilon, will be returning to the White House in his role as Counselor. His wit, humor and guidance have been missed and we are all very happy to have him back."
"I'm very excited to join Vice President Biden's team, and to work with the fine staff he has assembled. I'm thrilled that he asked me to take on this role, and I look forward to helping him advance the important agenda of the Obama-Biden administration," said Reed.
Bruce Reed's previous work in the White House came during the Clinton-Gore administration, where he spent four years as the Chief Domestic Policy Advisor to the President, after two years as Deputy Domestic Policy Advisor and two years as Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy Planning. During this period, he helped President Clinton win passage of landmark welfare reform, the Clinton education agenda, and much more. On behalf of the Clinton-Gore Administration, Reed worked closely with then-Senator Biden to help craft and win passage of the 1994 Biden Crime Bill, which included then-Senator Biden's Violence Against Women Act and his initiative to put 100,000 cops on the streets.
Prior to the Clinton-Gore administration, Reed was deputy campaign manager for policy for the Clinton-Gore campaign and previously served on the staff of then-Senator Al Gore from 1985-1989. From 1990-1991, he served as policy director for the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC). Reed returned to the DLC in January 2001, where he served as Chief Executive Officer until his appointment nine months ago as the Executive Director of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. A native of Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, Reed is a graduate of Princeton University and was a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford University.
Reed's formal title will be Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff to the Vice President.
An excellent target for spending cuts
WorldNetDaily (USA)
February 1, 2011
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
While the U.S. House is trying to figure out how to cut wasteful and/or extravagant federal spending, members should be mindful of Reagan’s advice to begin by cutting programs that are harmful. One that fits this definition is the billion-dollar-a-year Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), now up for re-authorization.
This week is the 18th anniversary of an event that precipitated passage of VAWA in 1994. It’s known as the Super Bowl Hoax, the assertion made on Jan. 28, 1993, in Pasadena, Calif., with fulsome media coverage, that more women are victims of domestic violence on Super Bowl Sunday than any other day of the year.
That radical-feminist fairy tale lacked even a shred of truth. It was designed to feed the feminist anti-male and anti-masculine prejudices that men are naturally batterers, women are naturally victims, sports fans are prone to aggression and macho posturing, and football is especially guilty.
Reinforcing this non-news-story was an appearance on “Good Morning America” by Lenore Walker to regurgitate her then-14-year-old book called “The Battered Woman.” It is credited with originating what is known as the “battered woman syndrome,” which spread the propaganda that batterers are always men, the battered are always women, and the definition of domestic violence includes acts and words that are not violent.
Feminist political correctness demands that we accept these gender-specific notions while at the same time denying any other innate male-female differences. Larry Summers was driven out of the Harvard University presidency for daring to suggest that we might research possible gender differences between men and women in math and science.
NBC joined the propaganda push by airing a public service announcement before the 1993 Super Bowl to remind men that domestic violence is a crime. The original feminist news release, plus all its “legs” (a favorite media word), was later conclusively proved false by the scholar Christina Hoff Sommers.
Of course, real domestic violence exists and is a crime, and should be punished. However, this issue raises constitutional problems that domestic violence has come to mean whatever a woman alleges, with or without evidence, and men often lose their presumption of innocence and right to confront their accusers.
The fiscal problem is that a billion dollars a year is streaming into the hands of left-wing feminists to pursue their agenda, which does not include preserving or restoring marriage. Taxpayers’ funds are used to lobby for feminist legislation, to train law enforcement and judicial personnel in feminist ideology and in the aggressive enforcement of feminist laws, and to break up families instead of giving them pro-family and anti-substance-abuse counseling.
The VAWA appropriation is only the start of its high cost to taxpayers and society. When marriages are broken by false allegations of domestic violence, U.S. taxpayers fork up an estimated $20 billion a year to support the resulting single-parent, welfare-dependent families.
The total annual taxpayer costs for federal poverty programs arising from family fragmentation and fatherlessness are at least $100 billion. We should establish rigorous accountability for how the taxpayers’ money is spent for domestic violence and evaluate the results of the spending.
An organization called SAVE (Stop Abusive and Violent Environments) has identified VAWA’s major shortcomings. SAVE also offers some less-costly solutions for domestic problems.
Other proposals include requiring proof of physical violence or credible evidence of imminent violence and removing funds from persons who are “gaming” the system, so funds can be directed to enhance services for true victims. Taxpayers should not have to fund special-interest feminist lobbying, support for enforcement of counterproductive feminist legislation, or training and public awareness programs until they have been reviewed and shown to be accurate and truthful.
One example of VAWA funding doing actual harm is the lobbying to enact state laws requiring mandatory arrest and training the criminal-justice system to pursue aggressive enforcement. A Harvard University study of mandatory-arrest laws in 15 states found that they increased partner homicides by 57 percent.
In the interest of truth, SAVE has set up a Training, Education and Public Awareness (TEPA) program. The hope is that taxpayer funding will be suspended for any domestic violence educational program that lacks TEPA accreditation, a process that should eliminate the fake statistics that have plagued this issue.
SAVE estimates that these VAWA reforms can shave a significant sum off the federal deficit. Some may say that’s “chicken feed” in the big picture of cutting the budget, but these cuts will enable us to do a better job for true victims as well as save money.
Feminists' whines: Back with a vengeance
WorldNetDaily (USA)
Author/Byline: Phyllis Schlafly
February 8, 2011
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
The liberals have unjustly blamed Sarah Palin for many things, but there’s one thing for which she is probably responsible: making feminism the hot topic that it has become today. Every couple of years, Time and Newsweek ask, “Is Feminism Dead?” but all of a sudden feminism is being discussed and debated in the mainstream media.
Feminists have been weighing in to dictate their definition of feminism. Modern feminist Jessica Valenti defined it authoritatively in The Washington Post: “Feminism is a structural analysis of a world that oppresses women, an ideology based on the notion that patriarchy exists and that it needs to end.”
Picturing women as the victims of mean men is the engine of feminism. The feminists’ legislative agenda – from unilateral divorce in the 1960s, to the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970s, to taxpayer-financed day care in the 1980s, to the Violence Against Women Act in the 1990s, to the Paycheck Fairness Act in the 2000s – is always wrapped in whines about alleged discrimination.
Feminist dogma decrees that women can never be successful under our oppressive patriarchy. Feminists complain that Hillary Clinton was denied the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008 because of (in Gloria Steinem’s words) “profound sexism,” and feminists never honor genuinely successful women such as Margaret Thatcher or Condoleezza Rice.
The most scholarly book written about the feminist movement by a non-feminist is “Domestic Tranquility” by Carolyn Graglia. She read all those tiresome books and articles by the feminist leaders – Betty Friedan, Germaine Greer, Kate Millett, Gloria Steinem and Simone de Beauvoir – and concluded that the principal goal of feminism from the get-go has been “the status degradation of the housewife’s role.”
Phyllis Schlafly, the original “anti-feminist,” teams up with her niece in a tour-de-force defense of traditional womanhood – don’t miss “The Flipside of Feminism: What Conservative Women Know – and Men Can’t Say”
Graglia documented the fact that all branches of feminism are united in the conviction that a woman can find identity and fulfillment only by a career in the workforce. Steinem said “you become a semi-nonperson when you get married,” while de Beauvoir and Friedan labeled the housewife a “parasite.”
Acquiescence in devaluing the role of full-time homemaker has become part of our culture, taught in women’s studies courses and endlessly reiterated in the media. Conventional wisdom says that modern women should all be in the workforce because just being a homemaker is a wasted life.
Another contemporary feminist, professor and author Linda Hirshman, set forth a popular definition in the Daily Beast. She wrote that “support for abortion rights and Obamacare were litmus tests for true feminism.”
That shows how out of touch the feminists are. The Republican victories in the 2010 elections, which demonstrated American opposition to Obamacare, included many new non-feminist female House members, a senator and four governors. Nearly all newly elected Republicans are anti-abortion.
The feminists don’t know what to say about Sarah Palin, but they can’t resist talking about her. They can’t deal with the facts that she has a successful career, a cool husband and lots of kids; and it’s salt in the feminists’ wounds that she’s pretty, even while wearing glasses.
It’s clear that feminists never wanted gender equality; they want power for the female left, which is why they use the word empowerment so repetitively. The worldview of the women you see on television and in college classrooms is fueled by feminist dogma about men, sex, work, marriage, motherhood and politics.
The female left got Barack Obama to make his first acts as president to overturn the anti-abortion executive order known as the Mexico City policy, to sign the Lilly Ledbetter law to facilitate lawsuits against decades-old alleged employment discrimination and to give women the majority of jobs created by the stimulus.
By November 2009, the feminists were ready to gloat and to reproach Americans for relying on “an outdated model of the American family.” They gave fulsome publicity to “The Shriver Report: A Woman’s Nation Changes Everything,” published by the left-wing think tank Center for American Progress.
The 400-page Shriver Report boasted that we are now living in a “woman’s world,” and, “Emergent economic power gives women a new seat at the table, at the head of the table.” The female left argues for women to be independent of men, self-supporting, sexually uninhibited and liberated from the obligations of marriage and motherhood.
The result is that women are chronically dissatisfied ,however. The National Bureau of Economic Research reports, “As women have gained more freedom, more education and more power, they have become less happy.”
It’s time that young women have a handbook that sets forth the real goals and agenda of the feminists plus a non-feminist roadmap to a happy life. My co-author, Suzanne Venker, and I have provided this in our new book, “The Flipside of Feminism: What Conservative Women Know and Men Can’t Say.”
Valley woman trying to stay in US wins appeal
Yakima Herald-Republic (WA)
February 16, 2011
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
A Yakima Valley woman took a significant step toward winning legal immigrant status when a federal appeals court ruled that she qualified to remain with her children, her attorney says.
The San Francisco-based U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel issued its ruling Monday in the case of Maria Lopez-Birrueta, who had argued that she should not be deported because her children, who were legal residents, had been assaulted by their father.
Lopez-Birrueta, a Mexican citizen, entered the United States illegally in 1994, when she was 14.
The federal government notified her in 2002 that she would face deportation proceedings. She applied for permission to remain under a provision in the Violence Against Women Act of 1994.
That law allows illegal immigrants to fight removal on the grounds that their spouse assaulted them or, as in Lopez-Birrueta’s case, their unmarried companion has assaulted their children in common.
The law was intended to keep legal residents from using their partner’s or spouse’s illegal status as a way of preventing them from reporting crimes or otherwise controlling them.
Lopez-Birrueta was represented by the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, which has a Granger office.
Matt Adams, the project’s legal director, said the Ninth Circuit decision was important because it determined that the applicant must provide credible evidence that battery occurred. Battery is generally understood to include any act of violence or threatened act.
The immigration judge who heard Lopez-Birrueta’s case ruled that the “regulatory definition of ‘battery or extreme cruelty’ requires a heightened level of violence that ‘results or threatens to result in physical or mental injury.’ ”
The Ninth Circuit ruling found that the immigration judge went beyond the language of the statute in ruling against Lopez-Birrueta.
The court ordered that the case be returned to the Board of Immigration Appeals in Seattle for further consideration of other factors that govern whether Lopez-Birrueta should be allowed to remain in the country. Those include whether she is considered to be of good character or whether she has any criminal history that would bar her from staying.
“We’re confident there aren’t going to be any problems on those other issues,” Adams said.
The government was represented by the Department of Justice’s Office of Immigration Litigation in Washington, D.C., which could not be reached for comment after business hours Tuesday.
No criminal charges were ever filed against the children’s father, Adams said. The children testified that he had not assaulted them in recent years.
Boxer Statement on Meeting with United Nations Special Representative Margot Wallstrom on Sexual Violence in Conflict
Targeted News Service (USA)
February 17, 2011
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
WASHINGTON, Feb. 17 -- The office of Sen. Barbara A. Boxer, D-Calif., issued the following news release:
U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) today met with the Special Representative of the Secretary-General (SRSG) on Sexual Violence in Conflict Margot Wallstrom to discuss their shared goal of ending sexual violence against women and children in places like the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Republic of Sudan.
After the meeting, Senator Boxer said, "Too many women and girls worldwide endure horrific acts of violence every day, and we must take immediate and concerted action to end these human rights violations. I look forward to working with Special Representative Wallstrom to reverse this appalling trend and to give the United States government and the international community the tools to protect women and children from conflict-related sexual violence."
Special Representative Wallstrom said, "Sexual violence in conflict is a scourge that for too long has been seen as an inevitable consequence of conflict, or as collateral damage. Instead it must be seen as the crime it is, and no longer be the only human rights violation routinely dismissed. Thanks to great U.S. leadership, the U.N. Security Council recently and unanimously approved Resolution 1960. This gives us the tools and teeth we need to fight conflict-related sexual violence. I am in Washington to share with Members of Congress and U.S. Administration representatives my assessment of the current state of this combat, and welcome this opportunity to discuss this crucial issue with Senator Boxer."
Senator Boxer chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on International Operations and Organizations, Human Rights, Democracy and Global Women's Issues. She was also a lead sponsor with Senator John Kerry (D-MA) of the bipartisan International Violence Against Women Act, which called for a comprehensive, five-year strategy to reduce the levels of violence against women and girls across the globe.
Special Representative Wallstrom, a longtime advocate of the rights and needs of women, was appointed by United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in February 2010. She previously served as Swedish Minister and later as Environment Commissioner and Vice-President of the European Commission, and has served as Chair of the Council of Women World Leaders Ministerial Initiative since 2007.
Assembly Passes Barnes, Spencer & Vainieri Huttle Bill Providing Relief for Gender Motivated Violence
Targeted News Service (USA)
March 14, 2011
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
TRENTON, N.J., March 14 -- The New Jersey Assembly's Democrats issued the following news release:
Legislation sponsored by Assembly members Peter J. Barnes III, L. Grace Spencer and Valerie Vainieri Huttle that would provide an additional element of relief for women, and even men, who suffer at the hands of gender-motivated violence passed the General Assembly Monday, by a vote of 60-14-4.
"Gender-motivated violence is still a real and pervasive threat for women," said Barnes (D-Middlesex), chairman of the Assembly Judiciary Committee. "Victims may suffer for many years with the long-term ramifications of this violence, which are not always remedied by criminal prosecutions. This will provide an additional measure of relief for victims of these types of crimes."
A multimedia package consisting of a video of Barnes discussing the legislation and audio and a transcript of same accompany this release.
The bill (A-3086) would create a civil cause of action for gender-motivated violence, allowing victims to be awarded actual damages, damages for emotional distress or punitive damages, injunctive relief, or any other appropriate relief. Under the bill, the court may also award reasonable attorney's fees and costs.
"Victims of gender-based violence often see their lives shattered by the mental and physical trauma that can linger for years," said Spencer (D-Essex/Union). "Sometimes the effects require medical treatment, therapy, relocation, or any number of other actions. By creating a civil compensation element, victims will have an additional means to pick up the pieces of their life and move on."
The bill was modeled after the federal "Violence Against Women Act" as well as similar statutes in California and Illinois which provide for a cause of action for gender-motivated violence.
Under the bill, "gender-motivated violence" can mean any of the following:
* one or more acts that would constitute a criminal offense under the laws of this state that has as an element of use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another, committed at least in part based on the gender of the victim, whether or not those acts have resulted in criminal complaints, charges, prosecution, or conviction; or * a physical intrusion or physical invasion of a sexual nature under coercive conditions, whether or not those acts have resulted in criminal complaints, charges, prosecution, or conviction.
Under the bill, the civil action must commence within two years after the cause of action occurred, except if the victim was a minor at the time the action occurred, then the civil action must be commenced within two years after the person reaches the age of 18.
The bill does not require a prior criminal complaint, prosecution or conviction to establish a cause of action. It now heads to the Senate for further consideration.
A transcript of the Assemblyman Barnes' comments is appended below:
"Ordinarily, a victim of gender violence would have to pursue, potentially, three different remedies: a criminal remedy that the state would bring; they'd have to sue for a restraining order, usually in both municipal court and superior court; and then they'd have to turn around and file a regular lawsuit for compensatory damages.
"This bill essentially creates a more efficient mechanism for a victim to sue, where they can get both compensatory damages and a restraining order, which we call injunctive relief.
"In one setting, the victim, who is a victim of violence - gender violence - or an intrusion, an unwanted intrusion, can sue in one setting for all the various damages that she'd be entitled to receive."
NNEDV and NCADV are out of touch
Abuse and stalking victims left behind
Sacramento Examiner (CA)
Author/Byline: Alexis A Moore - Survivors In Action / SIA
March 16, 2011
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Domestic violence and stalking victims need leadership that will listen.
Victims of domestic violence are finding it more and more difficult to get the support that they desperately need. Funding continues to be allocated to outdated programs and policies that are out of touch with the needs of victims today. Shelters continue to turn away battered victims and their children, and stalking victims have no resource at all. The National Network to End Domestic Violence (NNEDV) and National Coalition Against Domestic Violence (NCADV) are not taking the steps necessary to reform resources and public policy to ensure that no victim is left behind.
It is time for the leadership that directs the funding and public policy to be held accountable for their actions. Today, victims and survivors of domestic violence and stalking are demanding the leadership within the national and state domestic violence organizations listen to their pleas and support DV REFORM or get out of the way.
“We are seeking leadership that will listen and put the needs of victims first instead of their own agendas and egos,” says Alexis A. Moore, founder of Survivors In Action (SIA). The non-profits that are providing the direct services and support to victims need the support of the leadership at the national level, and they are not getting that today. More often than not it is common for the NCADV and NNEDV to block public policy or resource reform that is vital to victims of today and this has to end.
Survivors In Action has been leading the movement known as DV REFORM since 2009, when Moore first spoke with the newly appointed White House Advisor for Violence Against Women and requested her assistance and support to improve domestic violence and stalking victim resources in the 21stcentury. After being told that Ms. Moore would need to provide evidence that would support the need for reform, Survivors In Action began to connect and collaborate with victims, survivors, and family members of abuse and stalking victims from around the nation.
There is a groundswell of support for domestic violence resource reform, but those fighting for DV REFORM are finding a disconnect between national leadership and the local non-profits who are dealing with the victims firsthand. It is the NNEDV and NCADV that the media, private donors, and government officials turn to for advice and input when directing funding and public policy regarding domestic violence and stalking victim resources and laws. These two organizations hold the purse strings and the ability to make all of the decisions while the local shelters and domestic violence organizations are left to do all of the work without any input.
There has to be a meeting of the minds -- the NNEDV and NCADV can’t continue to direct public policy without any accountability measures in place. Survivors in Action believes that they need to cut out the bureaucracy (do we really need two national organizations?) and start directing funding to shelters and to organizations that support victims directly. SIA acknowledges that this may mean that there will need to be more volunteer support and fewer paid staffers, and it certainly means that there should be fewer paid lobbyists. But the money should be going straight to victim support services, where it is most needed.
Domestic violence and stalking are far too often situations of life or death for victims. Leadership that listens is vital in order to prevent domestic violence and ensure victims have the resources they need to become survivors. New leadership and a new organizational structure that better serves the victims of domestic violence are needed now.
Domestic violence bill introduced
Slaughter seeks extension of portion of Violence Against Women Act
Niagara Gazette (NY)
April 21, 2011
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
WASHINGTON — Landmark 1994 legislation to curb domestic violence is set to expire at the end of this year and Rep. Louise Slaughter has introduced a bill that would preserve a popular component of it.
Slaughter, D-Fairport, announced Thursday that she has introduced the Violence Against Women Health Initiative Act, a bill that would help train doctors and nurses to spot the signs of domestic abuse and offer better care and counsel to victims.
The goal, according to Slaughter’s spokeswoman Victoria Dillon, is to prevent domestic abuse before it happens. Women often feel most comfortable talking about domestic violence with a doctor or nurse rather than friends or family and Dillon said this legislation looks to build on that relationship.
In addition to the obvious benefit, Dillon said preventing domestic violence represents a cost savings to the health care system as a whole.
“There is a level of trust that exists (between a doctor and patient),” she said. “By preventing domestic violence happening in the future by intervening earlier, the costs associated with that (are a) savings to the health care system.”
Slaughter’s office estimates that caring for victims of domestic violence can cost upwards of $8.3 billion per year.
“The health care system is uniquely positioned to take a leading role in fighting and responding to intimate partner violence,” Slaughter said in a statement outlining the legislation. “By training our future doctors, nurses and other health care professionals to recognize and help us prevent future domestic attacks, we will be able to save some of the $8.3 billion domestic violence costs our health care system each year. Most importantly we can save women from repeated attacks.”
Dillon said this is one of a number of bills that are expected to be introduced in the effort to reauthorize the 1994 Violence Against Women Act, of which Slaughter was a co-author. The relevant legislation will likely be bundled into a larger bill that will address all the expiring components of the original 1994 law.
The cost of implementing Slaughter’s legislation has not yet been estimated by the Congressional Budget Office, Dillon said, though it was last reauthorized in 2005 at a total cost of $13 million. In 2005, the bill received wide bipartisan support, passing by a 415-4 vote in the House and by unanimous consent in the Senate.
Justice Department Announces $6.9 Million in Grants to Engage Men in Preventing Crimes Against Women
Government Press Releases (USA)
April 27, 2011
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Department of Justice Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) announced $6.9 million in awards to 23 projects in the Engaging Men in Preventing Sexual Assault, Domestic Violence, Dating Violence and Stalking Grant Program (Engaging Men Grant Program). This is the first time in the history of OVW that a grant program directly encourages men to be part of successful crime prevention efforts addressing sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence and stalking, and to become partners in creating respectful and positive relationships.
The Engaging Men Grant Program creates a unique opportunity for OVW to support public education campaigns and community organizations to encourage men and boys to work as allies with women and girls for preventing violence.
"All men play a critical role in preventing crimes against women and are important partners in our effort to address the full spectrum of these crimes," said Susan B. Carbon, Director of the Office on Violence Against Women. "These grants and the work of the grantees will provide the framework for extending and developing these partnerships across the country."
The funded projects include non-profit non-governmental victim services agencies; non-profit community based agencies; state domestic violence or sexual assault coalitions; an institution of higher education; a unit of local government; a tribal coalition; and a tribal non-profit victim services agency. These awards are part of OVW's ongoing commitment to support gender and culturally specific education on healthy relationships and strengthen existing community outreach efforts to men and boys.
The following 23 organizations received $300,000 :
Alaska Network on Domestic Violence & Sexual Assault (Juneau, Alaska)
Korean American Family Service Center Inc. (Los Angeles)
Peace Over Violence (Los Angeles)
Howard University (Washington, D.C.)
Tapestri Inc. (Tucker, Ga.)
Idaho Coalition Against Sexual & Domestic Violence ( Boise, Idaho)
Maine Boys to Men (Portland, Maine)
Maine Coalition to End Domestic Violence ( Augusta, Maine)
Boston Public Health Commission (Boston)
Michigan Coalition Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault ( Okemos, Mich.)
Family & Children's Service ( Minneapolis)
Minnesota Indian Women's Sexual Assault Coalition (St. Paul, Minn.)
North Carolina Coalition Against Sexual Assault ( Raleigh, N.C.)
North Dakota Council on Abused Women's Services ( Bismarck, N.D.)
Enlace Comunitario ( Albuquerque, N.M.)
Family Services Inc. ( Poughkeepsie, N.Y.)
Retreat Inc. ( East Hampton, N.Y.)
Vera House Inc., ( Syracuse, N.Y.)
Klamath Crisis Center ( Klamath Falls, Ore.)
White Buffalo Calf Woman Society Inc. ( Mission, S.D.)
Migrant Clinicians Network Inc. ( Austin, Texas)
Migrant Health Promotion Inc. (Weslaco, Texas)
Refugee Women's Alliance (Seattle)
The Office on Violence Against Women (OVW), a component of the U.S. Department of Justice, provides leadership in developing the nation's capacity to reduce violence against women through the implementation of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) and subsequent legislation. Created in 1995, OVW administers financial and technical assistance to communities across the country that are developing programs, policies and practices aimed at ending domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking. In addition to overseeing 21 federal grant programs, OVW often undertakes initiatives in response to special needs identified by communities facing acute challenges.
W.Va. justices reverse shelter board ruling
Charleston Daily Mail (WV)
May 27, 2011
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
West Virginia's Family Protection Services Board has prevailed in a legal fight over its handling of domestic violence policies.
Thursday's unanimous ruling by the state Supreme Court reverses a 2009 Kanawha Circuit judge's order against the agency.
Judge Jim Stucky had sided with the group Men and Women Against Discrimination. It alleged gender bias and unfair practices.
The board provides funding and licensing standards for domestic violence shelters and family protection programs. It also oversees programs to treat abusers.
The justices ruled that Men and Women Against Discrimination had no legal standing to sue. But Thursday's ruling also rejects the group's challenge of three rules governing board policy. The Supreme Court affirmed each as reflecting the intent of the Legislature when it passed the state's Domestic Violence Act.
Against ICE policy to initiate removal proceeding against immigrants who are domestic violence victims
US Immigration and Customs Enforcement
June 17, 2011
Stop feminist pork
WorldNetDaily (USA)
Author/Byline: Phyllis Schlafly
July 12, 2011
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), now up for reauthorization, is in major need of revision. Its billion-dollar-a-year price tag spent by the radical feminists to pursue their ideology and goals (known as feminist pork) make it an embarrassment to members of Congress who voted for it.
For 30 years, the feminists have been pretending that their goal is to abolish all sex discrimination, eliminating all gender differences no matter how reasonable. When it comes to domestic violence, however, feminist dogma preaches that there is an innate gender difference: Men are naturally batterers, and women are naturally victims (i.e., gender profiling).
Starting with its title, VAWA is just about as sex discriminatory as legislation can get. It is written and implemented to oppose the abuse of women and to punish men.
Ignoring the mountain of evidence that women initiate physical violence nearly as often as men, VAWA has more than 60 passages in its lengthy text that exclude men from its benefits. For starters, the law’s title should be changed to Partner Violence Reduction Act, and the words “and men” should be added to those 60 sections.
The law should be rewritten to deal with the tremendous problem of false accusations so that its priority can be to help real victims. A Centers for Disease Control survey found that half of all partner violence was mutual, and 282 scholarly studies reported that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men.
Currently used definitions of domestic violence that are unacceptably trivial include calling your partner a naughty word, raising your voice, causing “annoyance” or “emotional distress,” or just not doing what your partner wants. The law’s revision should use an accurate definition of domestic violence that includes violence, such as: “any act or threatened act of violence, including any forceful detention of an individual, which results or threatens to result in physical injury.”
Women who make domestic violence accusations are not required to produce evidence and are never prosecuted for perjury if they lie. Accused men are not accorded fundamental protections of due process, not considered innocent until proven guilty and in many cases are not afforded the right to confront their accusers.
Legal assistance is customarily provided to women but not to men. Men ought to be entitled to equal protection of the law because many charges are felonies and could result in prison and loss of money, job and reputation.
Feminist recipients of VAWA handouts lobby legislators, judges and prosecutors on the taxpayers’ dime (which is contrary to Section 1913 of Title 18, U.S. Code), and the results are generally harmful to all concerned. This lobbying has resulted in laws calling for mandatory arrest (i.e., the police must arrest someone – guess who) of the predominant aggressor (i.e., ignore the facts and assume the man is the aggressor) and no-drop prosecution (i.e., prosecute the man even if the woman has withdrawn her accusation or refuses to testify).
The feminists’ determination to punish men, guilty or innocent, is illustrated by the capricious April 4 “Dear Colleague” letter issued by the feminists in the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights. It’s not a law (Congress would never pass it), and it’s not even a regulation required to be published in the Federal Register – it’s just a peremptory order to scare colleges into compliance by pretending it’s an implementation of the law called Title IX.
This letter orders colleges to use a “preponderance of the evidence” standard of proof in sexual harassment and sexual assault cases, replacing the traditionally accepted “clear and convincing” standard of proof. The new rule means that the feminist academics sitting in judgment on male college students need to be only 50.01 percent confident a woman is telling the truth (i.e., that the woman must be believed whether or not she has any credible evidence).
The way the Duke lacrosse players’ reputations and college education were destroyed is typical of feminist control of university attitudes. The prosecutor who falsely accused the men was disbarred, but there were no sanctions against the professors and college administrators who rushed to public judgment against the guys.
The definition of domestic violence and the standard of proof are so important because about one-fourth of divorces involve allegations of domestic violence. Judges are required to consider allegations of domestic violence in awarding child custody, even if no evidence of abuse is ever presented.
VAWA should encourage counseling when appropriate and voluntary, as well as programs to help couples terminate use of illegal drugs. When the abuse is only minor, divorce and/or prosecution should not be routine or the first choice of dealing with domestic conflict. Minor partner discord should not be overcriminalized.
VAWA should be subject to rigorous auditing procedures in order to curb waste and fraud and to establish accountability.
The Violence Against Women Act: Building On 17 Years Of Accomplishments
Hearing Before The Committee On The Judiciary
United States Senate 112th Congress
July 13, 2011
The Partner Violence Reduction Act
News & Politics Examiner (USA)
July 14, 2011
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Aiming to strengthen the federal Violence Against Women Act, this week the Partner Violence Reduction Act was released for consideration and future enactment by the United State Congress. The proposed law was developed by Stop Abusive and Violent Environments (SAVE), a national victim-advocacy organization.
The Partner Violence Reduction Act will bring hope to abuse victims such as Ebonee Barnes, mother of three. Writing in a Philadelphia-area newspaper, Barnes recently revealed that the "shelters they place us in are beyond unlivable."
The Partner Violence Reduction Act will also offer hope to persons like Sean Lanigan, a northern Virginia teacher who was falsely accused by a student of sexual assault. As featured in a recent Washington Post expose, the school district refused to restore Lanigan's full teaching privileges even after a jury found him innocent of all charges.
And the Partner Violence Reduction Act will kindle hope among victims of domestic violence who have been refused help on account of their sex or gender identity. The PVRA will ban discriminatory practices by abuse shelters and other domestic violence services.
Part of the problem stems from overly-broad definitions of abuse.
The Partner Violence Reduction Act:
1. Gives first priority to real victims and reduces false allegations by constraining definitions and distinguishing between an allegation and a judicial finding of domestic violence.
2. Makes the law gender-inclusive and removes discriminatory policies.
3. Seeks to protect and restore families when the abuse is minor.
4. Removes harmful mandatory arrest, predominant aggressor, and no-drop prosecution policies, thus helping to restore due process.
5. Allows legal assistance to be provided both to the alleged victim and alleged offender.
6. Improves the accountability of domestic violence organizations.
7. Curbs immigration fraud.
8. Removes provisions that violate the Constitution and restores civil rights to the accused.
SEN. LEAHY CHAIRS HEARING ON IMPORTANCE OF LANDMARK VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT
US Fed News (USA)
July 14, 2011
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
WASHINGTON, July 13 -- Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy issued the following news release:
The executive director of Vermont's Women Helping Battered Women testified today before a U.S. Senate Committee chaired by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) about the importance of the landmark Violence Against Women Act, which was signed into law in 1994.
Leahy invited Jane Van Buren to testify at the hearing about the critical need for programs supported by the Violence Against Women Act, including transitional housing. Women Helping Battered Women, which is based in Burlington, was founded in 1974, and has helped more than 4,400 children and adults in the last 37 years. The organization offers emergency shelter, legal assistance programs, 24-hour hotline services, and educational outreach programs to victims of domestic violence. Ms. Van Buren also testified about the innovative efforts underway in Vermont to provide this important service.
"I saw the devastating effects of domestic and sexual violence early in my career as the Vermont State's Attorney for Chittenden County," said Leahy. "Violence and abuse reach the homes of people from all walks of life and all parts of the country every day, regardless of gender, race, culture, age, class, or sexuality."
"Women Helping Battered Women was founded in 1974 to provide emergency shelter to women fleeing abuse," Van Buren said. "From 1974 to 1994 our advocacy consisted of sheltering women and children, responding to hotline calls and helping women secure relief from abuse orders. There was no money for paid staff but volunteers kept the shelter doors open and answered the hotline calls...Furthermore, national and state policy did not recognize the seriousness of domestic and sexual violence and the impact that systemic abuse and violence against women has on civil society. That all began to change when Congress passed the Violence Against Women Act."
Leahy continued, "The Violence Against Women Act has helped to transform our criminal justice system, improving the response to the complex issues of domestic and dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. It has provided legal remedies, social support, and coordinated community responses. With time, it has evolved to better address the needs of underserved populations and to include critical new programs focusing on prevention. Since the enactment of the Violence Against Women Act, the rate of domestic violence has declined, more victims have felt confident to come forward to report these crimes and to seek help, and states have come forward to enact complimentary laws to combat these crimes."
The Violence Against Women Act was first signed into law in 1994, and Leahy worked with former Senator Joe Biden to reauthorize the law in 2000 and 2005. The law is now set to expire in September. In past years, Leahy has authored legislation to strengthen VAWA. He has chaired several hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee about the importance of the law, particularly in difficult economic times.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATRICK LEAHY (D-VT.), CHAIRMAN, SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, "THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT: BUILDING ON SEVENTEEN YEARS OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS", JULY 13, 2011
Today this Committee considers once again the importance of the Violence Against Women Act, which since 1994 has been the centerpiece of the Federal Government's commitment to combating domestic violence, sexual assault, and other violent crimes against women.
We worked in a bipartisan way to pass the Violence Against Women Act and its two subsequent reauthorizations. This law filled a void that had left too many victims of domestic and sexual violence without a way to ensure safety and justice, and without the help they needed. I was proud to work with then-Senator Biden and Senator Hatch to achieve this progress, and I look forward to building on its legacy.
I saw the devastating effects of domestic and sexual violence early in my career as the Vermont State's Attorney for Chittenden County. Violence and abuse reach the homes of people from all walks of life and all parts of the country every day, regardless of gender, race, culture, age, class, or sexuality.
The Violence Against Women Act has helped to transform our criminal justice system, improving the response to the complex issues of domestic and dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. It has provided legal remedies, social support, and coordinated community responses. With time, it has evolved to better address the needs of underserved populations and to include critical new programs focusing on prevention. Since the enactment of the Violence Against Women Act, the rate of domestic violence has declined, more victims have felt confident to come forward to report these crimes and to seek help, and states have come forward to enact complimentary laws to combat these crimes.
Despite this progress, however, our country still has a long way to go. Millions of women, men, children, and families continue to be traumatized by abuse. We know that 1.3 million women are victims of physical assault by a partner each year. One in six women and one in 33 men are victims of sexual assault. One in 12 women and one in 45 men have been stalked in their lifetime.
As we look toward reauthorization of VAWA, we must continue to ensure that the law evolves to fill unmet needs. We must increase access to support services, especially in rural communities and among older Americans. We must prioritize our response to the high rates of violence experienced by Native American and immigrant women.
Programs to assist victims of domestic and sexual violence, and to prevent these crimes, are particularly important during difficult economic times. The economic pressures of a lost job, home, or car can add stress to an already abusive relationship. The loss of these resources can make it harder for victims to escape a violent situation. And as victims' needs are growing, state budget cuts are resulting in fewer available services, including fewer emergency shelters, less transitional housing, less counseling, and less childcare. A 2010 survey by the National Network to End Domestic Violence found that in just one day, more than 70,600 adults and children were served by local domestic violence programs. At the same time more than 9,500 requests for services went unmet due to a lack of resources.
These numbers illustrate the importance of maintaining and strengthening the Violence Against Women Act. Its programs are more vital than ever, including the STOP Formula Grant program, which provides resources to law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, the courts, and victim advocacy groups to improve victim safety and to hold offenders accountable for their crimes against women. The Transitional Housing Assistance Grants program is also essential to provide safe havens to victims fleeing from domestic and dating violence, sexual assault and stalking. In the midst of a mortgage and housing crisis, transitional housing is especially important because long-term housing options are becoming increasingly scarce.
Today we welcome a distinguished panel of witnesses from around the country who can share important perspectives and personal experience. I want to welcome Jane Van Buren, who is well known in Vermont for her work helping women to escape domestic violence through the organization Women Helping Battered Women. She brings particular insight into the importance of transitional housing to those seeking to escape abuse and violence. I look forward to the contributions of all of today's witnesses.
The Violence Against Women Act and its reauthorizations have always been passed on a strong, bipartisan basis. We have come together based on our shared conviction that domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, and dating violence are wrong and we should join together to help combat them. We have agreed across party lines that we must work together to confront these problems and help victims move on with their lives. I hope we can come together once again to reauthorize this vital legislation.
Friday's Our View: The ongoing saga of waste, fraud, abuse
Daily Nonpareil, The (Council Bluffs, IA)
July 15, 2011
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Call it a voice of Midwestern common sense. But while you’re at it, figure it will be a voice in the wilderness that will, in all the usual inside-the-beltway foolishness, go largely unheard.
The voice was that of Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and the setting was a hearing in Washington Wednesday dealing with the proposed reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act.
Grassley, in a prepared statement, noted that while he supports reauthorization of the 17-year-old VAWA to prevent sexual assault and domestic violence, his support is tempered by the fact that more than 14 million Americans, roughly 9.2 percent of the workforce, are currently unemployed.
“During these difficult times, we simply can’t continue to allocate resources without verifying that the resources are being used as effectively and efficiently as possible.
“… we need to take a hard look at every single taxpayer dollar expended, determine how those dollars are being used and determine if the stated purpose of the program is being met. The American taxpayers expect us to do this with every law.”
A decade ago, Grassley and others asked the Government Accountability Office to review all VAWA grant files at the Justice Department. That review found that VAWA files often lacked the documentation necessary to ensure that the required monitoring activities occurred.
Ultimately, GAO concluded in 2001 that “because documentation about monitoring activities was not readily available, the Department of Justice was not positioned to systematically determine staff compliance with monitoring requirements and assess overall performance. Grassley further noted that a review of individual VAWA grantee audits that were conducted from 1998-2010 by the Department of Justice Inspector General indicated that the problem with VAWA grantees’ administration and record keeping may actually be getting worse.
“During this timeframe, the Inspector General conducted a review of 22 individual grantees that received funding from VAWA program,” Grassley said. “Of those 22 grantees, 21 were found to have some form of violation of grant requirements ranging from unauthorized and unallowable expenditures to sloppy record keeping and failure to report in a timely manner.”
Ticking off examples, Grassley noted one grantee was found to have questionable costs for 93 percent of the nearly $900,000 in taxpayer dollars received; another showed inadequate support for $500,000 of $680,000 in expenditures; and a 2005 audit questioned the expenditure of $1.2 million out of $1.9 million grant.
“Given the difficult financial situation that our nation faces, it is imperative that any reauthorization of VAWA include, at a minimum, new studies to determine how effective VAWA programs are, whether grantees are providing adequate services for the funding they receive and how we root out and cut down on fraud and abuse by VAWA grantees,” Grassley said.
Grassley offers a common-sense approach to deficit reduction that, unfortunately, is too often more rhetoric than reality.
SAVE: Dr. Phil's testimony was 'reckless and false'
News & Politics Examiner (USA)
July 25, 2011
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Dr. Phil. Seems people either love him, or, not so much. Stop Abusive and Violent Environments, a national victim-advocacy organization, is charging that TV personality Dr. Phillip McGraw made statements at a recent Senate committee hearing that were "reckless and false."
Dr. McGraw's testimony was given during a July 13 hearing on the Violence Against Women Act held by the Senate Judiciary Committee. McGraw, a psychologist, often appeared on the Oprah Winfrey Show.
During his testimony, Dr. McGraw made repeated statements about violence against women, but glossed over the widespread problem of abuse against men. McGraw made a number of claims that were flatly wrong, SAVE alleges.
Dr. McGraw asserted that "Domestic violence is now the most common cause of injury to women ages 15 to 44." But the actual leading causes of injury to women are falls, overexertion, and car accidents.
McGraw told the senators that "In too many situations violence against women, young and old, is almost treated as an 'acceptable crime.'" But that statement ignores research showing over 90% of Americans abhor domestic violence.
Dr. McGraw's testimony "is reminiscent of the Jim Crow rape scares that focused on black-on-white rape, while studiously ignoring the problem of white-on-white sexual assault," the SAVE letter explains.
Women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners, according to a research summary compiled by Dr. Martin Fiebertof California State University.
A copy of the SAVE letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee can be seen here.
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments is a victim advocacy organization working for evidence-based solutions to partner abuse.
Spivack: Hearing Reveals Gaps in Domestic Abuse System
Roll Call
July 26, 2011
Earlier this month, Catherine Becker, 48, allegedly drugged her estranged husband and tied him to a bed. As he awoke, police said, she took a 10-inch knife to his penis, severed the appendage and tossed it into a garbage disposal.
Bail has been set at $1 million as Becker awaits arraignment on multiple felony charges.
Given the timing and the particularly gruesome nature of the attack, one would have expected that a recent Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the Violence Against Women Act would have featured heart-rending discussions about how similar incidents of gender-motivated violence could be avoided in the future.
But the Becker case was not deemed worthy of mention.
Just hours after the gavel fell on the Senate hearing, reports emerged that actor Daniel Baldwin had filed for divorce after alleged death threats by his wife. After watching a documentary on violent women, police said, Joanne Baldwin came into the bedroom and announced to her startled husband: “Now I know how to do it. I understand why they did it. You have been warned.”
Many studies suggest female-on-male violence has become equal to, or even more prevalent than, the male-initiated variety. Recently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that 10 percent of high school girls had hit, slapped or physically hurt their boyfriends in the previous year. In comparison, only 9 percent of boys had been physically aggressive to their female partners.
But a reluctance to acknowledge the existence of female aggression — and its consequences for male victims — is not the only problem that plagues our nation’s approach to curbing domestic violence.
One of the featured witnesses at the Judiciary hearing was Julie Poner, an Indiana woman who had been falsely accused of domestic violence by her immigrant husband so that he could gain priority for a green card and eventual citizenship.
Going on to explain that her experience was not unique, she emphasized, “Over the years, I’ve talked with countless men and women who have similar stories to tell — American citizens who have lost access to their children, their homes, their jobs and, [in] some cases, their freedom because of false allegations of abuse.”
Much of the problem arises because the Citizenship and Immigration Services deems a person accused of domestic violence to be a “prohibited source.” So the CIS, in Kafka-esque manner, refuses to accept any documentation that might reveal the immigrant to be a criminal, welfare cheat or perjurer.
Poner’s testimony elicited a hasty promise from Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) that the problem would be addressed in the upcoming revision of the law.
But the show was far from over.
The appearance of the next witness, Eileen Larence of the Government Accountability Office, provided an opening for committee ranking member Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa).
Citing a probe by the Department of Justice inspector general that unearthed shoddy accounting practices at 21 of 22 VAWA grantees, Grassley commented tartly: “Simply put, in today’s economic environment, we cannot tolerate this level of malfeasance in federal grant programs.”
So what’s the solution?
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments, a victim-advocacy organization for which I serve as a board member, has recently proposed a number of reforms to the Violence Against Women Act.
The common-sense changes include tightening up definitions so that true victims get priority, removing harmful mandatory arrest practices, restoring the presumption of innocence to the accused, improving accountability and making sure educational programs provide sound factual information.
To make the law gender-inclusive, we are proposing the law be renamed the Partner Violence Reduction Act. Our changes retain 95 percent of the existing Violence Against Women Act provisions that have done incalculable good, while incorporating the lessons learned since VAWA’s original enactment in 1994.
For persons who have been harmed by a partner or by a false accusation of abuse, the Partner Violence Reduction Act offers the prospect of healing and hope.
Crime and Courts: Ron Johnson puts the kibosh on Louis Butler and another judicial nominee
Capital Times, The (Madison, WI)
August 7, 2011
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
While President Obama has been successful in getting women and minorities confirmed to federal judicial posts, as this NPR story shows, two nominees in Wisconsin, a woman and an African-American, are going nowhere.
That's because of a Senate procedure that allows a single senator to thwart judicial nominees that would serve in the senator's home state. In this case that senator is Ron Johnson, a Republican businessman who narrowly defeated veteran Democrat Russ Feingold last fall.
Johnson has vowed to block the confirmations of former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Louis Butler and UW law professor Victoria Nourse.
Four times now Obama has submitted Butler's name to fill a vacancy in the U.S. Western District Court in Madison, with the blessings of Sen. Herb Kohl and Feingold. As I've previously written here and here, even with Democratic majorities in the Senate, Republicans have been able to employ Senate rules to block his nomination, painting Butler as an ultra-liberal judicial activist and two-time loser in state Supreme Court elections.
With the election of Johnson, Republicans have a more direct mechanism for killing the nomination: a so-called "blue slip," which senators are given by the Senate Judiciary Committee to give a thumbs-up or a thumbs-down to nominees that would serve in their home state. Or they can simply withhold the blue slip and put the nominee on indefinite hold, which Johnson has done.
"In my opinion, it goes without saying that Obama did not show proper respect for the people of Wisconsin in attempting to hand an unaccountable, life-tenured position to an activist judge twice rejected by the voters," Johnson says of the Butler nomination in a recent op-ed piece in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
Obama nominated Nourse last summer for the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. She has been with the UW Law School since 1993 and is currently the Burrus-Bascom professor of law, and she's also taught at law schools at Emory University, the University of Maryland, Yale, New York University and Georgetown.
In the early 1990s she also served as special counsel for the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, where she drafted the Violence Against Women Act, contained in the Biden-Hatch Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.
Johnson dismisses her as unqualified.
"Nourse simply does not fit the bill," Johnson says in the op-ed piece.
Johnson has proven to be a hard-liner, joining forces with the radical wing of the GOP. With the blue slip process in place, vacancies in both courts in Wisconsin may remain open for a very long time.
Abuse Programs Must Tell the Truth, SAVE Says
GlobeNewswire (USA)
October 20, 2011
http://www.cisionwire.com/stop-abusive-and-violent-environments/r/abuse-programs-must-tell-the-truth--save-says,c9176604
In the face of documented bias and misrepresentation, Stop Abusive and Violent Environments (SAVE) is urging abuse reduction programs to present accurate and balanced information about partner violence. This step is essential to assure programs are effective and all victims are served.
SAVE has demonstrated that only one in 10 domestic violence programs present truthful information about partner abuse.
The website of one national domestic violence organization makes the claim that "there is not a typical woman who will be battered -- the risk factor is being born female." But 250 studies show domestic violence is an equal opportunity problem for men and women alike.
The website of Futures Without Violence, a prominent organization in the area, depicts teenage boys as abusers, even though the U.S. Centers for Disease Control reports boys are 25 percent more likely to be victims of teenage dating violence than girls:
"It's impossible to address the problem of partner aggression if we ignore half the victims and half the abusers," explains SAVE spokesman Philip W. Cook. "All victims have a right to society's protection, and all perpetrators of violence need intervention and access to treatment."
The effect of these misleading portrayals is that male victims, and victims of gay or lesbian domestic violence, do not receive the aid they deserve. And female abusers do not receive the treatment and intervention they need.
Because of the need to assure valid information is presented to the public, SAVE has established an accreditation program for training, education, and public awareness (TEPA) programs that address partner abuse. In this way, SAVE ensures that educational programs are based on valid science: http://www.saveservices.org/accreditation/
Sen. Patrick Leahy will soon be introducing the re-authorization of the Violence Against Women Act. In a recent letter to the Senator, SAVE offered language for the bill to ensure the accuracy of informational programs.
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments is a victim-advocacy organization working for evidence-based solutions to partner violence: www.saveservices.org .
Contact:
Teri Stoddard
Telephone: 301-801-0608
Email: tstoddard@saveservices.org
Grassley Presses for Accountability in Justice Department Grant Programs, Notes Special Interests That Oppose Reform
Targeted News Service (USA)
October 22, 2011
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
WASHINGTON, Oct. 21 -- The office of Sen. Charles E. Grassley, R-Iowa, issued the following news release:
In an effort to ensure greater accountability in the Justice Department's distribution of money to grant recipients, Sen. Chuck Grassley offered an amendment to the appropriations bill being debated in the United States Senate that would include an 11-point accountability plan for federal grants administered by the Department of Justice. The amendment offered Thursday was defeated by a vote of 46 to 54 on mostly party lines. Grassley said he will continue to pursue the measure, despite the special interests that worked hard to defeat his amendment and protect their continued stream of federal funds.
"We have non-partisan audits showing that taxpayer money is being abused and wasted in federal grant programs." Grassley said. "We need transparency, accountability, and performance from both the Justice Department and individual grantees who are trusted with federal dollars. It's a shame we're wasting taxpayer dollars like this when we can immediately do something to begin to remedy the problem.
"And it's a shame that something this basic fell on partisan lines when this shouldn't be a partisan issue, but it just goes to show that reforms to Washington's spending addiction will be hard to come by, given the continued power special interests have. It also reinforces the need for the Deficit Committee to come up with big and bold ideas. The outcome also tells me I need to continue to educate my fellow members about the problems that come from granting money without enough accountability and to consider whether it's fair to grant taxpayer money to non-profit groups as long as they have their own money parked offshore to avoid federal taxes."
Grassley said the Boys and Girls Clubs of America, the national umbrella group for hundreds of clubs around the country, continued receiving tax dollars while using off-shore tax shelters, paying generous executive compensation and lobbyists' fees, and simultaneously closing clubs due to an alleged lack of funds. "I support the mission of the Boys and Girls Clubs. The local clubs help thousands of children every year," Grassley said. "However, given our current fiscal crisis, I can't support federal taxpayer dollars being awarded as grants to those who hold millions of dollars in rainy day funds off-shore. My amendment doesn't prohibit charities from investing offshore. It just says they can't get federal grants if they invest offshore to avoid taxes on their investment income. When organizations have funding and resources available to them, it's not clear why they shouldn't be dipping into those rainy day funds before seeking federal money."
A nearly identical version of the accountability package was included as part of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act Reauthorization Act voted out of the Judiciary Committee on a bipartisan basis just last week. Select pieces were previously approved as part of the Second Chance Act reauthorization this past July.
Grassley also submitted last week a similar plan, along with several other ideas, to the Deficit Reduction Committee. Grassley's letter can be found here.
Grassley's 11-point accountability plan:
* required the OIG to audit 10 percent of grantees,
* required mandatory exclusion for those with negative audit findings unremedied after 6 months, with priority placed to those with no past negative audit findings,
* required reimbursement for funds awarded erroneously to grant recipients that should have been excluded,
* required a mandatory 25 percent match with no less than 60 percent of the 25 percent constituting cash,
* prohibited non-profits that hold money off-shore for purposes of avoiding unrelated business income tax from receiving federal grants,
* capped administrative expenses at 8 percent, limited conference expenditures, prohibited grantees' lobbying, and
* required the Office of Justice Programs Assistant Attorney General to certify to Congress annual compliance with these provisions.
Grassley said an audit of the Government Accountability Office of nine Trafficking Victims Protection Act grants over the last five years found fraud in all nine grants, including more than $1.4 million in questioned costs on a $1.7 million grant.
Violence Against Women Act grants were also susceptible to fraud; 21 of 22 randomly selected grants over 10 years revealed significant fraud and abuse, including one audit where 93 percent of grant funds were questioned by the Inspector General.
So far in 2011, the Inspector General has audited 21 grant recipients with grant funding totaling $54 million and has questioned the use of more than 26 percent of these grant dollars. If the random audits the Inspector General has conducted were extrapolated to all 3,467 grants DOJ has awarded in 2011, totaling more than $2 billion, that would mean more than $500 million of grants administered could have questionable costs. "That's just an extrapolation but it reinforces the need for a higher percentage of grants to be audited, as my amendment would require," Grassley said.
Leahy Bill Would Turn Every College Male Into a Rape Suspect, Group Warns
Globe Newswire (USA)
October 27, 2011
Senator Patrick Leahy's proposed Violence Against Women Act reauthorization would trample upon the due process rights of college students, according to Stop Abusive and Violent Environments (SAVE). The bill would make into law the Department of Education's recently issued guidelines that reduce the standard of proof in sexual assault cases to the controversial "preponderance of evidence" level.
That unusually low standard requires only that 50.01 percent of the evidence be in favor of an assault having happened. SAVE previously requested the Department of Education to rescind its guidelines, which were issued without prior notice or opportunity for public comment:
Earlier this month, Caleb Warner was allowed to return to the University of North Dakota after being victimized by the university's unconstitutionally low standard of evidence. The accuser had filed claims of sexual assault with both the University and the municipal police department. Two investigations resulted -- the university's according to the preponderance standard, and the police's according to the usual "clear and convincing" standard -- and they could not have turned out more differently.
Warner was found guilty by his university and banned from campus after a swift investigation. Meanwhile local police reviewed the very same evidence, determined that Warner's accuser was lying, and charged her with filing a false report.
Section 304 of the proposed VAWA law would make the preponderance of evidence standard the legally required one, and sets up UND's shoddy treatment of Caleb Warner as the desired institutional response.
"If Senator Leahy's version of VAWA is passed, we can expect travesties of justice at every college in the nation," warns SAVE spokesman Philip W. Cook. "The frequency with which false allegations of sexual assault are made -- as many as half of all claims -- makes it absolutely essential that students' Constitutional due process rights are protected."
SAVE has documented the harm done by false sexual assault allegations. SAVE urges Senator Leahy to reject the Education Department's unjust "preponderance of evidence" standard, and adopt the proper "clear and convincing" standard instead.
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments is a victim-advocacy organization working for evidence-based solutions to partner violence: www.saveservices.org.
Biden wrong to use rape as scare tactic
Patriot Ledger, The (Quincy, MA)
October 27, 2011
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Vice President Joe Biden recently criticized opponents of the President Obama's failed jobs bill on the grounds that (among other things) rapes "will continue to rise" if the bill isn't passed.
Biden said the bill would have paid for more cops, thus ensuring that police officers would get to the scene of a rape quickly, before the crime could be completed. Biden knows this is nonsense, which is why it's so appalling that he would exploit such a serious crime for political gain.
Rape victims almost never call 911 because they rarely report the crime right away. Even when then they do, the cop almost never shows up in time to prevent the crime, not because there aren't enough officers on duty, but because by the time the victim is free enough to call 911, the perpetrator is long gone.
Biden also claimed that more cops are needed because rape is "on the rise."
But according to the Department of Justice, rape was down 5 percent in 2010 compared to 2009. While some observers (including me) question the accuracy of these data because the 5 percent could be a reduction in reporting rather than incidents, advocacy groups all over the country insisted it reflected fewer sexual crimes overall and lauded the current administration's spending policies as helping to facilitate the result.
So which is it? Either rape is down, which means Biden lied, or the Justice Department's data is flawed and Obama's anti-rape spending policies are ineffective.
Either way, it's interesting that Biden thinks more cops will help prevent rape even though victim advocates have never asked for an increase in the number of police officers to better prevent rape.
A far more effective option would cost taxpayers nothing: The definition of rape could be modified to eliminate force as an element of the crime. Almost all states define rape as requiring proof of force as well as non-consent.
This enables offenders to violate a victim against her will, with impunity, so long as they don't use force. If Biden really cared about preventing sexual violence and saving tax dollars, he would simply propose the elimination of force as a factor in rape law.
The worst part of Biden's comments is that he knows better. I voted for the guy in part because he sponsored the Violence Against Women Act more than 20 years ago and cited research demonstrating the profound disparity in prosecution and punishment rates when comparing the sentences of convicted rapists to the sentences of convicted thieves. He knew then what he knows now - that the huge amount of sexual violence in our country is tied to the failure of our legal system to fairly redress the crime - not from an inadequate number of police officers on the street.
His comments about rape are particularly perplexing given how enlightened Biden sounded earlier this year when he announced new federal rules to make college officials deal more effectively with rape on campus. He told the audience that only about 5 percent of victims report the crime to school or law enforcement officials, primarily because they believe the response will be meaningless, if not harmful. In his remarks, Biden never once said the problem of campus rape needs an influx of campus police officers.
Obama's Jobs Bill might be a good idea, but it lost credibility for good when Biden tried to tie it to sexual assault prevention. Too bad Biden's people didn't set him straight before he made his comments - not only because he was so wrong on the facts - but also because they might have stopped him from describing rape as having a "200-pound man standing over you telling you to submit."
Note to Joe: That's not how it happens. Ask any victim.
Wendy Murphy is a leading victims' rights advocate and nationally recognized television legal analyst. She is an adjunct professor at New England Law in Boston. She can be reached at wmurphy@nesl.edu. Read more of her columns at The Daily Beast.
SEN. MIKULSKI PUTS FUNDS IN THE FEDERAL CHECKBOOK FOR VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN PROGRAMS
US Fed News (USA)
November 3, 2011
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
WASHINGTON, Nov. 2 -- The office of Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski, D-Md., issued the following press release:
Commerce, Justice, Science (CJS) Appropriations Subcommittee Chairwoman Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.) announced Senate passage of the fiscal year 2012 CJS spending bill, which includes $418 million in funding for the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Office on Violence Against Women. This funding will support programs authorized under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), which Chairwoman Mikulski helped pass into law.
"Even in a spending bill that has less to spend, I want to make sure that we continue investing in programs to combat domestic abuse, dating violence and sexual assault, protect women, families and our communities, and help rebuild lives," Chairwoman Mikulski said.
"No woman in this country should live in fear that her husband or boyfriend will hurt or kill her or her kids," Chairwoman Mikulski continued. "I have zero tolerance for domestic violence. That's why I strongly support legislation and grant programs that help protect women and their families from continued abuse, particularly during economically distressed times when abuse is more common."
Domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking are crimes of epidemic proportions, exacting terrible costs on individual lives and our communities. Twenty-five percent of U.S. women report that they have been physically assaulted by an intimate partner during their lifetimes, 1 in 6 have been the victims of attempted or completed 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 House and Senate will work out the differences between their versions of the bill, which will then be approved a final time by both legislative bodies before being signed into law.
False domestic violence accusations negatively impact divorce cases
Milwaukee Examiner (WI)
November 6, 2011
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Domestic violence is a scary thing for anyone who is involved immediately in the situation. When one spouse becomes violent, the other spouse can often fear for her life, as well as the life of her children. She may worry that if she attempts to leave, he will cause harm to her or her children. The decision to divorce when domestic violence is a factor is often harder. However, some people use domestic violence as a way to inappropriately manipulate the situation.
In the aftermath of the Nicole Brown Simpson tragedy in 1994, the government passed the Violence Against Women Act that protects women in domestic violence situations. The purpose of this act was to allow the courts to take action whenever an allegation of domestic violence is part of any case, including divorce and custody cases. It also instated a national hotline which victims of domestic violence can call to receive help getting out of a bad situation.
While this act of congress was meant to protect women from domestic violence, it also has the potential for abuse. Because a woman can claim domestic violence and receive action without proof, a woman can falsely accuse her spouse of domestic violence in order to give herself an advantage in the case. While the court may eventually find the allegation false, the damage may already be done.
In some states, including Wisconsin, a woman doesn’t even need to prove domestic violence in order to benefit from the allegation. In many cases, a woman needs only express a fear of her spouse for the court to take action. Therefore, it is sometimes too easy for a woman to claim that she fears for her life or her safety while going through a divorce to gain custody of her children and force her spouse from her life.
The Violence Against Women Act was instituted to help women who are in abusive situations and want to leave. However, like many other laws that are meant to help, this law can be abused and sometimes have poor results, effectively cutting children off from their fathers for the wrong reasons.
False Accusations of Sexual Harassment May Soar, SAVE Warns
GlobeNewswire (USA)
November 8, 2011
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
The National Association of Scholars recently released a position paper condemning an Education Department directive that forces colleges to remove fundamental due process protections from persons accused of sexual harassment. The statement describes the Dept. of Education mandate as "ominous," bordering on the "surreal," and excluding any mention of free speech.
The National Association of Scholars (NAS) position statement follows similar letters by the American Association for University Professors, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, and Stop Abusive and Violent Environments.
Concerns about false allegations in society have escalated in the past week as a growing number of persons have questioned the validity of accusations by two unnamed women that GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain sexually harassed them over 10 years ago. Leading Democratic politicians have been subjected to false allegations of sexual offenses, as well.
The Department of Education directive mandates that all colleges receiving federal funds change the usual "clear and convincing" standard to "preponderance of evidence." This low standard requires only that 50.01 percent of the evidence be in favor of an offense having happened in order to reach a conviction.
Of greater concern, the draft of the federal Violence Against Women Act, currently being circulated by Senator Patrick Leahy, proposes to turn the Department of Education directive into statutory law. "It really is strange for a bill to delegate to a federal agency the power to lower due process protections and standards of proof. I believe that is unprecedented," says Hans Bader of the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
"The consensus among academics is that the proposed VAWA would turn campus disciplinary committees into veritable Kangaroo Courts, thus increasing the number of false allegations by leaps and bounds," warns SAVE spokesman Philip Cook.
A student who was wrongfully expelled by the University of North Dakota after a cavalier investigation of sexual assault charges against him is a recent example.
Over the last 20 years, sexual harassment policies on college campuses have become increasingly neglectful of Constitutional protections, reveals the NAS. In one case, a professor of history was handed a pink slip, unaware of the accusation or of a clandestine investigation being conducted against him.
SAVE calls on Senator Leahy's proposed Violence Against Women Act to protect the civil rights of the accused so the credibility of true victims is not diminished by trivial and non-meritorious claims.
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments is a victim-advocacy organization working for evidence-based solutions to partner violence: www.saveservices.org.
Chairwoman Mikulski Announces Final Congressional Approval of Critical Investments in Federal Violence Against Women Programs
Targeted News Service (USA)
November 19, 2011
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
WASHINGTON, Nov. 18 -- The office of Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski, D-Md., issued the following news release:
Commerce, Justice, Science (CJS) Appropriations Subcommittee Chairwoman Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.) today announced final Congressional approval of $413 million in funding for the Office on Violence Against Women at the Department of Justice's (DOJ). This funding will support programs authorized under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), which Senator Mikulski helped pass into law. The fiscal year (FY) 2012 CJS appropriations were approved as part of the Conference Report on H.R. 2112. The conference report provides a total of $27.4 billion to fight crime and terrorism, and protect communities and families.
"Even in a spending bill that has less to spend, I always want to make sure that we continue investing in programs to combat domestic abuse, dating violence and sexual assault; protect women, families and our communities; and help survivors rebuild their lives," said Chairwoman Mikulski. "No woman in this country should live in fear that her husband or boyfriend will hurt or kill her or her kids. I have zero tolerance for domestic violence. That's why I strongly support legislation and grant programs that help protect women and families from continued abuse, particularly during economically distressed times when abuse is more common."
Domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking are crimes of epidemic proportions, exacting terrible costs on individual lives and our communities. Twenty-five percent of U.S. women report that they have been physically assaulted by an intimate partner during their lifetimes, 1 in 6 women and 1 in 33 men have endured attempted or completed rape, 15.5 million children are exposed to violence each year, and the cost of domestic violence exceeds $5.8 billion annually, while rape crimes cost a staggering $127 billion per year.
The CJS portion of the conference report 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.
The bill was signed into law this morning by President Obama.
Leahy, Crapo To Introduce Bipartisan Bill To Reauthorize Landmark Violence Against Women Act
Historic Law, Nearly Two-Decades Later, Remains Critical Tool In Combating Domestic Violence
Government Press Releases (USA)
November 29, 2011
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
WASHINGTON (Monday, Nov. 28, 2011) - Bipartisan legislation to reauthorize the landmark Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) will be introduced later this week by Senators Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Leahy announced in remarks delivered on the Senate floor Monday evening. The law is at the center of the federal government's efforts to combat domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking.
"The resources and training provided by VAWA have changed attitudes toward these reprehensible crimes, improved the response of law enforcement and the justice system, and provided essential services for victims struggling to rebuild their lives," said Leahy. "It is a law that has saved countless lives, and it is an example of what we can accomplish when we work together."
Leahy, Crapo and others have been working for months to craft legislation to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, which has helped bolster resources for state and local governments and law enforcement to help combat domestic violence. The law has also helped victims and survivors of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking get back on their feet.
"The Violence Against Women Act has been successful because it has consistently had strong bipartisan support for nearly two decades," Leahy said. "I am honored to work now with Senator Crapo to build on that foundation. I hope that Senators from both parties will join us to quickly pass this critical reauthorization, which will provide safety and security for victims across America."
The Violence Against Women Act was first signed into law in 1994, and was reauthorized in 2000 and 2005. The law's current authorization expired in September. Programs supported by the Violence Against Women Act have provided victims with critical services such as transitional housing, legal assistance, and supervised visitation services. The Violence Against Women Act has also encouraged communities to coordinate their responses to domestic and sexual violence by bringing together victim advocates, law enforcement, the courts, health care professionals and leaders within faith communities.
The reauthorization legislation that Leahy and Crapo will introduce later this week will improve effective, existing programs to address evolving needs in the fight against domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. The proposed legislation will provide tools to prevent domestic violence homicides by supporting training to those law enforcement officers, victim service providers and court personnel who are working on the front lines to eliminate domestic violence. Importantly, the legislation promotes accountability to ensure that federal funds are used for their intended purposes, and consolidates programs and reduces authorization levels to address fiscal concerns while focusing on the programs that have been the most successful.
The Senate Judiciary Committee, which Leahy chairs, has held a number of hearings in recent years about the importance of the law, particularly in difficult economic times.
# # # # #
Statement Of Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee,
On The Upcoming Introduction Of The "Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act Of 2011"
November 28, 2011
I am pleased that on Wednesday, Senator Crapo and I will introduce the bipartisan Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2011. 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, and I am honored to help lead the effort to see it reauthorized.
Since its passage in 1994, no other piece of legislation has done more to stop domestic and sexual violence in our communities. The resources and training provided by VAWA have changed attitudes toward these reprehensible crimes, improved the response of law enforcement and the justice system, and provided essential services for victims struggling to rebuild their lives. It is a law that has saved countless lives, and it is an example of what we can accomplish when we work together.
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.
Over the last few years, the Judiciary Committee has held several hearings on VAWA in anticipation of this reauthorization. We have heard from people from all around the country, and they have told us the same thing I hear from service providers, experts, and law enforcement officers in Vermont: While we have made great strides in reducing domestic violence and sexual assault, these difficult problems remain, and there is more work to be done.
The victim services funded by VAWA play a particularly critical role in these difficult economic times. The economic pressures of a lost job or home can add stress to an already abusive relationship and can make it even harder for victims to rebuild their lives. At the same time, state budget cuts are resulting in fewer available services. Just this summer, Topeka, Kansas, took the drastic step of decriminalizing domestic violence because the city did not have the funds needed to prosecute these cases. We can and must do better than that. Budgets are tight, but it is unacceptable to turn our backs on these victims. For many, the programs funded through the Violence Against Women Act are nothing short of a life line.
The reauthorization bill that Senator Crapo and I will introduce on Wednesday will reflect Congress's ongoing commitment to end domestic and sexual violence. It seeks to expand the law's focus on sexual assault, to ensure access to services for all victims of domestic and sexual violence, and to address the crisis of domestic and sexual violence in tribal communities, among other important steps. It also responds to these difficult economic times by consolidating programs, reducing authorization levels, and adding accountability measures to ensure that Federal funds are used efficiently and effectively.
The Violence Against Women Act has been successful because it has consistently had strong bipartisan support for nearly two decades. I am honored to work now with Senator Crapo to build on that foundation. I hope that Senators from both parties will join us to quickly pass this critical reauthorization, which will provide safety and security for victims across America.
Senate Policy Measure Would Mean Cut in Funding for Domestic Violence Law
CQ Today (USA)
November 30, 2011
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
A bipartisan proposal introduced Wednesday would reauthorize the federal law aimed at reducing and prosecuting domestic violence and sexual assault cases at 19 percent below the law's 2005 reauthorization.
Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick J. Leahy, D-Vt., and Sen. Michael D. Crapo, R-Idaho, introduced the draft reauthorization Wednesday. The law's current authorization (PL 109-162) expired in September, and the bill is unlikely to reach the Senate floor before year's end.
Advocacy organizations said that they are not too upset or surprised at the proposed reduction of more than $144 million, saying that the policy in the bill is of more importance.
"Our hope would have been we could have kept the reauthorization level the same," said Kiersten Stewart, director of public policy and advocacy at Futures Without Violence, an organization aimed at preventing violence against women and children. "But we all understand that we're all in tough fiscal times. We think the good in the bill still outweighs some of the funding cutbacks."
Rita Smith, executive director of the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, noted that the law has historically been authorized at much higher levels than has ever been appropriated. "I don't know what the final outcome will be," she said. "It could possibly mean we get lower appropriations, which could be difficult in the field because they are experiencing budget cuts everywhere. We certainly need the government to do its part."
Smith said she was happy to see that the bill included policy changes sought by her organization and others, including extending protections to people who have been abused because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.
Leahy emphasized that the reauthorization is necessary to avoid a funding gap, saying that victim services funded by the law play a critical role in the current economic downturn.
"The economic pressures of a lost job or home can add stress to an already abusive relationship and can make it even harder for victims to rebuild their lives," he said in a written statement.
State budget cuts have reduced domestic violence services, putting more pressure on federal lawmakers to act, Leahy said. Topeka, Kan., for example, recently decriminalized domestic violence because the city did not have the funds needed to prosecute cases. By relinquishing its jurisdiction, the city handed the responsibility and expense of prosecution to the district attorney's office.
"We can and must do better than that," Leahy said. "Budgets are tight, but it is unacceptable to turn our backs on these victims."
Policy Changes The Violence Against Women Act (PL 103-322) was first enacted in 1994, and reauthorized in 2000 and 2005. It provides victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking with services such as transitional housing, legal assistance and supervised visitation services. It also helps coordinate responses to domestic and sexual violence by bringing together victim advocates, law enforcement, the courts, health care professionals and leaders within faith communities.
In addition to the funding decrease, the reauthorization would consolidate several programs in order to improve and expand the most successful and effective programs, according to Leahy and Crapo. The reauthorization would consolidate, for example, programs that train judges about the intersection of domestic violence and family courts.
Most of the money to fund the law's programs is provided through one main federal grant. The bill would make three changes to that grant by streamlining the application process, expanding its coverage to include male victims and those victimized because of their sexual orientation or gender identity, and putting in place a 25 percent set-aside for responding specifically to sexual assault crimes. Although sexual assault has been one of the core crimes addressed by law, the percentage of grant funding that goes to sexual violence is proportionally smaller than victimization rates, a Senate Judiciary Committee bill analysis showed.
The bill would provide tools -- such as training to law enforcement officers, victim service providers and court personnel -- to prevent homicides resulting from domestic violence. It also would funnel more money to tribal communities to address domestic and sexual violence.
The bill has received broad bipartisan support in the past, which has helped it move swiftly through both chambers, but chances of its passage by the end of this year are slim. The Senate floor schedule is already crowded, and a companion measure has not been introduced in the House.
Advocacy organizations said they expect the bill to move early next year, and predict that it will garner support from both sides of the aisle.
"The Violence Against Women Act has been successful because it has consistently had strong bipartisan support for nearly two decades," Leahy said. "I hope that senators from both parties will support this bill, which will provide safety and security for victims across America."
Key Franken Provision Included in Violence Against Women Act
Targeted News Service (USA)
December 1, 2011
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
WASHINGTON, Nov. 30 -- The office of Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., issued the following news release:
U.S. Sen. Al Franken's (D-Minn.) provision to protect women who are victims of domestic or sexual violence from being kicked out of their homes was included in the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2011 (VAWA). Introduced today, the bipartisan VAWA advances the federal government's efforts to combat domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. Sen. Franken's provision, which he first introduced as a standalone bill earlier this month, improves VAWA's housing protections by making it unlawful to evict a woman from federally-supported housing just because she is a victim of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking. "No woman in Minnesota should be a victim of domestic violence or sexual assault," said Sen. Franken. "This bill gives law enforcement and the government the tools they need to prevent violence against women and help women who have become victims of these crimes."
The Violence Against Women Act:
- Stresses the need to effectively respond to sexual assault crimes;
- 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; and
- Promotes accountability to ensure that federal funds are used for their intended purposes.
The Violence Against Women Act isn't just about women
Union Daily Times, The (SC)
Author/Byline: Martha Burk; Contributing Columnist
December 2, 2011
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
While members of Congress waste time naming post offices and devising ways to get seniors to pay for billionaires' tax breaks through cuts in Medicare and Social Security, other important business is slipping through the cracks.
Specifically, if Congress doesn't reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) - signed by President Clinton in 1994 after a four-year battle - by the end of the year, many valuable programs will end.
It is a fact that women are the most frequent victims of domestic violence, rape, and murder by spouses. But despite its name, this act has never been just about women. The Penn State scandal has chillingly reminded us that kids - both boys and girls - are very much at risk.
Most people don't know that according to the Justice Department, children under 18 comprise 67 percent of all sexual assault victims reported to law enforcement. And that only counts those that are reported. If the act isn't renewed, many services and prevention programs that help these young victims will go away.
VAWA began with discretionary grant programs to stem domestic violence and child abuse by funding battered women's shelters, rape prevention, and education, and by strengthening penalties for repeat sex offenders. When Congress renewed the act in 2005, new programs were created to prevent sexual assaults on campuses and to provide resources for young victims of sexual assault.
According to Justice Department statistics, in a typical three-month period the various programs serve almost 140, 000 people, more than 10 percent of them children. Virtually everyone who asks for services (including men and boys) gets them, ranging from temporary shelter to rape crisis counseling and victim advocacy.
Given this track record and ongoing scandals like the one at Penn State, renewing the law ought to be a no-brainer. But it ain't necessarily so with the present state of Washington's gridlock.
First of all, President Barack Obama supports VAWA programs, and the stimulus package he signed into law in early 2009 contained $225 million in increased funding for the Violence Against Women office at the Department of Justice. We know how that plays with Republicans, whose first priority, according to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, is to defeat Obama in 2012 - the country's needs be damned.
Second, conservatives have always attacked the program as a handout for "national feminist groups." They ignore the fact that almost all of the money goes to local resources, and also supports the National Domestic Violence Hotline located in Texas (where Laura Bush is reported to have been a donor at one time). Some want to do away with VAWA altogether.
And even though most of the statistics come from the federal government, conservative advocacy groups actively try to debunk the numbers. As a result, funding for VAWA is under incessant attack, and women's advocates must constantly defend the law and the national statistics on violence that are its underpinnings.
Those on the front lines - crisis line workers, rape counselors, social workers serving abused boys and girls, and shelter personnel - know how important this legislation is.
Congress has until December 31 to show that it can do something besides dither while a frightening number of women and children are raped, beaten, and abused.
Martha Burk is a political psychologist, women's issues expert, and director of the Corporate Accountability Project for the National Council of Women's Organizations (NCWO).
