Category: Violence Against Women Act

Categories
Violence Against Women Act

Violence Against Women Act: Policy Needs to be Driven by Solid Facts, not Fluffy Ideology

The Violence Against Women Act is up for reauthorization this year. And like previous years, VAWA is currently caught up in a partisan cross-fire with dueling versions of the law: Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s S. 2843 and Sen. Joni Ernst’s S. 2920.

Part of the problem is that VAWA has become caught up in a broader political and ideological debate. If we want to curb domestic violence and sexual assault, we need to start with a factual understanding of the problem. These are four key facts to help resolve the current political stalemate:

1. THREE MAIN CAUSES OF PARTNER VIOLENCE

Extensive research points to three main causes of domestic violence:

  1. Substance abuse[1]
  2. Mental health problems[2]
  3. Marital separation:[3]

2. PARTNER VIOLENCE RATES HAVE FALLEN DRAMATICALLY

The federal Centers for Disease Control does an annual survey known as the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey – NISVS. In 2011, the NISVS reported 6.5% of men and 6.3% of women had been on the receiving end of partner aggression in the previous 12 months.[4]

By 2018, these numbers had dropped by about half – 3.8% of men and 2.9% of women reported being domestic violence victims in the previous year.[5]

3. NO EVIDENCE THAT VAWA HAS CONTRIBUTED TO THESE DECLINES

Persons who have examined the trend-lines conclude that VAWA-funded programs cannot take the credit for declines in partner abuse:

  • “Between 2000 and 2010, rates of domestic violence actually fell less than the drop in the overall crime rate – at a time when VAWA was pumping hundreds of millions of dollars into the criminal system.” — Leigh Goodmark, University of Maryland Law School
  • “We have no evidence to date that VAWA has led to a decrease in the overall levels of violence against women.” — Angela Moore Parmley, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice

It’s not difficult to identify the reasons for VAWA’s lack of effectiveness. The language of VAWA does not say a word about addressing the causes of intimate partner violence: substance abuse, mental health problems, or marital separation.[6]

4. MEN ARE MORE LIKELY TO BE THE VICTIMS

Take a second look at the NISVS numbers shown under Number 2. above. In 2011, domestic violence was essentially an equal opportunity problem between the sexes. Then look at the numbers from the 2018 report – a 3.8% male victimization rate versus a 2.9% female victimization rate

In short, men now are 31% more likely to be victims than women.

LIKELY EFFECTS OF CURRENT VAWA BILLS ON OVER-CRIMINALIZATION

Many persons believe that VAWA has contributed to the problem of over-criminalization in America:

  1. Overly broad definitions of domestic violence
  2. Restraining orders issued without due process
  3. Exclusive reliance on mandatory arrest and mandatory prosecution policies
  4. Limited role of diversion programs

With the key facts in mind, let’s look at the two bills being considered in the Senate from the over-criminalization perspective:

Feinstein Bill, S. 2843

Good provisions:

  • Discourages use of bench warrants for complainants who refuse to cooperate (Sec. 101)
  • Adds new section on alternative criminal justice response that would encourage use of restorative justice approaches (Sec. 102)
  • Removes “pro-arrest” language (Sec. 102)

Bad provisions:

  • Expands the definition of domestic violence to include verbal, psychological, economic, and technological abuse. Does not provide a definition of verbal or psychological abuse.
  • Promotes use of “trauma-informed,” guilt-presuming investigations (Sec. 205)
  • Does not distinguish between a “victim” and a “complainant.”

Overall Assessment: The bill’s support for alternative criminal justice response is a welcome step. The most troubling aspect of S. 2843 is its expanded definitions of domestic violence. Although the language of the bill states the verbal, psychological, economic, or technological abuse definitions only apply to victim services, it is likely that such definitions will “bleed” into state-level definitions, especially for issuance of restraining orders.

Ernst Bill, S. 2920

Good provisions:

  • Discourages use of bench warrants for complainants who refuse to cooperate (Sec. 101)
  • Removes “pro-arrest” language (Sec. 102)
  • Recognizes value of addressing substance abuse and mental health problems (Sec. 501)
  • Defines due process rights of defendants in Indian courts (Sec. 804)

Bad provisions:

  • Expands definitions of elder abuse (Sec. 204)
  • Promotes use of “trauma-informed,” guilt-presuming investigations (Sec. 205)
  • Does not mention use of alternative justice approaches
  • Does not distinguish between a “victim” and a “complainant.”

Overall Assessment: Definitions are more constrained than S. 2843, but the bill’s other provisions do not satisfactorily address the problem of over-criminalization.

Citations:

[1] “Substance abuse has been found to co-occur in 40-60% of IPV incidents across studies.” https://www.asam.org/resources/publications/magazine/read/article/2014/10/06/intimate-partner-violence-and-co-occurring-substance-abuse-addiction

[2] Dutton MA: Intimate partner violence, PTSD, and adverse health outcomes. J of Interpersonal Violence, 2006.

[3] https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ipv9310.pdf.

[4]http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/NISVS_Report2010-a.pdf

[5] https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/2015data-brief508.pdf

[6] SAVE: How Effective are Domestic Violence Programs in Stopping Partner Abuse? http://www.saveservices.org/downloads/Why-DV-Programs-Fail-to-Stop-Abuse

Categories
Violence Against Women Act

The Long March to Turn Every American into a Victim of Domestic ‘Violence’

When the Violence Against Women Act was first passed in 1994, pretty much everybody agreed with the dictionary definition of violence: a “behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.” Accordingly, the original version of VAWA defined domestic violence (DV) as “felony or misdemeanor crimes of violence committed by a current or former spouse or intimate partner of the victim.”

Then the advocates went to work at the state level. Before long, terms like “fearful” and “afraid” began to pop up in statutory definitions. Some states went even further:

  • New Jersey: Any intrusion into your “well-being”
  • Illinois: “interference with personal liberty”
  • California, Delaware, Michigan, Montana, and Virginia: The mere feeling of “apprehension” of harm qualifies you as a victim of domestic abuse

But the victim advocates weren’t satisfied. So they convinced the DOJ Office of Violence Against Women to publish this sweeping definition:

A “pattern of abusive behavior in any relationship that is used by one partner to gain or maintain power and control over another intimate partner.  Domestic violence can be physical, sexual, emotional, economic, or psychological actions or threats of actions that influence another person. This includes any behaviors that intimidate, manipulate, humiliate, isolate, frighten, terrorize, coerce, threaten, blame, hurt, injure, or wound someone.”

This unauthorized characterization later was removed from the OVW website.

During the 2013 VAWA reauthorization, the DV advocates succeeded in expanding the law’s definition to encompass “dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking.”

But the advocates weren’t done.

During the current VAWA reauthorization, they expanded “domestic violence” even more. H.R. 1585 enumerates the following as types of domestic violence: Verbal abuse, emotional abuse, financial abuse, and technological abuse. “Verbal” and “emotional” abuse are not defined in the bill.

When you think about it, the possibilities are endless. Do a Google search, you’ll find information about “silence abuse.” According to the National Domestic Violence Hotline, “spiritual abuse” is reportedly “no less difficult to endure than any other kind of abuse.”

So what happens when domestic violence becomes so elastic and amorphous that every American becomes classified as a victim?

  1. A serious problem becomes trivialized — if everything is domestic violence, nothing is domestic violence.
  2. Scarce resources become diverted away from the neediest victims.
  3. All-encompassing definitions open the door to government intrusion into trivial matters and encourage false allegations.

As part of the VAWA Fresh Start, we need to consider the harmful effects of the decades-long push to expand and water-down definitions. We need to ponder whether the trend is helping or hurting the real victims of domestic violence.

Categories
Violence Against Women Act

Clery Act Prohibits Unilateral Changes To Sexual Violence Disciplinary Results

One of the fundamental tenets of the 2013 Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) amendments to the Jeanne Clery Act is that participants in “dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking” disciplinary proceedings should never be surprised that an action is being taken by an institution of higher education. Just like a respondent should never be in the dark about when or if their appeal will be heard, for example, no complainant should receive notice of a change in the outcome of their case they had no idea was coming as a result of extraordinary action being taken.

While the changing of results in response to legal challenges or new evidence isn’t new, with the hundreds of cases brought by respondents in recent years it is becoming more common. In addition to being an important reminder why it is critically important to get these cases right in the first place, it also puts the focus on one of the less well understood VAWA requirements that effectively precludes leaving the complainant out of the loop in these cases.

Under Clery regulations which took effect in 2015, at 34 CFR §668.46(k), institutions are afforded very wide latitude in how they resolve sexual violence allegations, and as a result the definition of “Proceeding” is very inclusive. It “means all activities related to a non-criminal resolution of an institutional disciplinary complaint, including, but not limited to, factfinding investigations, formal or informal meetings, and hearings.” An administrative action, including those that are extraordinary, to change the resolution of a disciplinary complaint readily meets this definition.

Clery regulations apply to the entire process, providing specifically that “a prompt, fair, and impartial process from the initial investigation to the final result” is required. “Result”, as a pertinent example, is a fluid term that covers “any initial, interim, and final decision by any official or entity authorized to resolve disciplinary matters within the institution.” If a proceeding is reopened for any reason the Clery regulations continue to apply if there is the potential for a new “final result”.

The principal requirement at issue then is that in order to be “fair” proceedings must be “transparent to the accuser and accused” (the Clery statute uses these terms which are generally understood to be equivalent to complainant and respondent respectively). As part of this both parties and any decision maker must be provided with “timely and equal access…to any information that will be used during informal and formal disciplinary” proceedings. Additionally, institutions must provide “timely notice of meetings at which the accuser or accused, or both, may be present” if any.

While this does not preclude an institution from taking steps to remedy potential procedural or factual deficiencies that may be identified through a legal action or other means it does mean that such action may not be taken unilaterally without notice to both complainant and respondent that includes access to “any information” to be used. While, consistent with the broad latitude under Clery, there is no set framework for what this must look like it should be “consistent with the institution’s policies”.

If proceedings are reopened then both the complainant and respondent should be afforded an opportunity to examine the information to be used and a meaningful opportunity to be heard in a manner consistent with the institution’s policies. While following Clery guidelines in the first place should generally limit this type of occurrence from ever happening, any exceptional means used to deal with them should be written into policy and disclosed as part of the Clery Annual Security Report policy statements to ensure that institutions have the authority to meet these Clery obligations.

This blog does not provide legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. If you need legal advice, please contact an attorney directly.

https://safecampuses.biz/clery-act-prohibits-unilateral-changes-to-sexual-violence-disciplinary-results/

 

This is the Clery Handbook Alison referred to.

Chapter 8 in the Clery Handbook:

https://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/safety/handbook.pdf

Categories
Campus Trauma Informed Violence Against Women Act

Highlights from the ATIXA Position Statement on Trauma-Informed Methods

On August 22, the Association of Title IX Administrators – ATIXA – issued a Position Statement on Trauma-Informed Training and the Neurobiology of Trauma that exposes the many fallacies of “trauma-informed” concepts and methods: https://cdn.atixa.org/website-media/atixa.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/20123741/2019-ATIXA-Trauma-Position-Statement-Final-Version.pdf

The Statement begins by quoting a claim that is often cited in trauma-informed training materials:

“Trauma leaves tracks on its victims. It is very difficult to fake or ‘act’ the sorts of symptoms [of trauma]. When someone displays these symptoms, this alone is evidence that they have been victimized.”

ATIXA delivers a strong rebuke to this claim: “Proffered as truth that a mere claim of trauma is proof of assault, this quote should be troubling to any rational mind. To assert that trauma cannot be faked is as flagrantly false a claim as asserting that trauma is proof of assault.”

The eight-page Statement goes on to address many of the flaws of the claims of trauma-informed proponents:

  • “Using a study of lab rats to reach any conclusion about the story of a victim of sexual assault is troubling..Do rats tell stories? Do they experience sexual assault?..there is science behind these ideas, but they are not empirical conclusions.”
  • “The ‘Neurobiology of Trauma’ should not significantly influence the way that colleges and schools evaluate evidence… improper use of trauma-informed methods turns trauma into evidence, which IS junk science and goes way too far.”
  • “application [of trauma-informed theories].. has gotten way ahead of the actual science… is being misapplied, and…some purveyors of this knowledge are politically motivated to extrapolate well beyond any reasonable empirical conclusions…”
  • There’s an “important distinction between practices that help an impacted party retrieve memory and avoid gratuitous re-triggering…and those [relying] on neurobiological theories to influence the interpretation of evidence.” Only the former is correct.

The ATIXA Statement concludes with this unequivocal message:

“The truth is that we understand perhaps 1/100th of 1% of what we need to know and may someday understand about how the brain responds to trauma. With such a nascent body of knowledge, most conclusions are premature. It is irresponsible to attribute much about how we interpret evidence to existing neuroscientific understandings of trauma, except to correlate scrambled memory encoding and retrieval with life-threatening incidents, and to see that flight/fright/freeze may be common reactions to such incidents. That is about it. Anything more than that is really theory, thus far unsupported by conclusive evidence.”

The ATIXA report may turn out to be a game-changer.

 

Quotes compiled by Cynthia Garrett, Esq.

Categories
#MeToo Violence Against Women Act

How the #MeToo Movement is Trying to Weaponize the Violence Against Women Act

Not too long ago, the Violence Against Women Act enjoyed strong bipartisan support. Every five years, senators Joe Biden of Delaware and Orrin Hatch of Utah collaborated in a fine display of bipartisan unity to urge their fellow lawmakers to reauthorize VAWA. That abruptly changed on February 12, 2013, when 22 Republican senators – including Sen. Hatch – voted a defiant ‘no’ on Sen. Patrick Leahy’s VAWA bill, and his ham-fisted refusal to involve Republicans during the drafting of the bill. Similar Republican ire was evident in the House of Representatives.

Part of VAWA’s not-so-hidden agenda is to progressively expand its scope, balloon its budget, and designate more and more Americans as members of the victim-class. As Joe Biden admitted earlier this year, “VAWA’s power is that it gets stronger with each reauthorization.”

In the 2013 reauthorization, the definition of domestic violence was expanded to include “dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking.” College campuses came under VAWA’s purview. Tribal authorities were accorded greater jurisdiction. And immigration provisions were expanded.

So what would be the next step of the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence, the behind-the-scenes group that had orchestrated the previous VAWA reauthorizations?

The answer appeared like a bolt from heaven in October, 2017 when actress Alyssa Milano popularized the #MeToo hashtag in order to popularize the prevalence of sexual assault and harassment. Despite its broad appeal, many suspected a more nefarious agenda. Julia Hartley-Brewer charged the #MeToo movement was “turning women into perpetual victims.” And one #MeToo group admitted, “We need a complete cultural transformation if we are to eradicate sexual assault in our lifetimes.”

For the so-called VAWA Mafia, the timing couldn’t have been better, since the 2013 VAWA law was set to expire within a few short months. Before long, VAWA proponents began to call out #MeToo as part of their justification for continuing the controversial law.

Dianne Feinstein, ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, noted at a VAWA hearing, “In recent months, we’ve all witnessed the bravery of women and men all over the country who have come forward to tell their stories of #MeToo…So it’s within this backdrop that it’s vitally important to discuss the strides that we have made under VAWA to protect all survivors.”

Karen Bass, VAWA’s lead sponsor in the House, likewise argued, “Movements like #MeToo across this country demand Congress’ attention to better deal with the gaping holes left unfilled in current law around the issues of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, harassment, and stalking.”

By “gaping holes,” Bass was alluding to yet another gargantuan expansion of VAWA’s definitions. On March 3, 2019, Bass introduced H.R. 1585, which dramatically increased the definition of “violence” to include emotional abuse, verbal abuse, technological abuse, and financial abuse. Emotional and verbal abuse aren’t defined in the law, but calling your partner a nasty name or giving your spouse the “silent treatment” certainly fall within the scope of these terms.

Only a month later, the bill came up for a vote, and was passed along mostly party lines by a vote of 263-158.

Like a lightning rod, H.R. 1585 drew sharp criticism. The Conservative Action Project charged it was an “act of immense political overreach.” The Eagle Forum charged the bill “encourages obscurity in the law through its loose interpretation of what defines violence against women.”

The Center for Immigration Studies chimed in on the law’s immigration provisions: “It doesn’t take deep reflection to recognize that a scheming alien might very well dupe a citizen into marriage, then claim abuse, file a self-petition, and take the citizen for the emotional and financial roller-coaster ride of his or her life. It happens all the time.”

Columnist Wendy McElroy argued, “every couple has fights in which both sides shout hurtful accusations, bicker about money, give ultimatums, slam doors and speak indiscreetly to friends in a bar or online. But lovers’ quarrels and angry outbursts are not DV.”

McElroy also noted, “the vagueness and elasticity of the DV definition invites frivolous or false allegations, which could raise skepticism about all accusations and prevent victims from coming forward.” Which harkens back to the prophetic warning by #MeToo advocate Emily Linden: “I’m actually not at all concerned about innocent men losing their jobs over false sexual assault/harassment allegations.”

So the ball is now in the Senate’s court. Will it take the politically expedient route, hold its nose, and pass the House’s deeply flawed, unconstitutional version of VAWA? Or will the Senate realize that the Violence Against Women Act is being co-opted by a fulminating, anti-male ideology?

Categories
Violence Against Women Act

New VAWA Entitlement Will Worsen Crisis of Unemployment Insurance Trust Funds

It’s no secret that many state unemployment insurance trust funds are in trouble right now.

According to the Department of Commerce’s latest Trust Fund Solvency Report,[1] unemployment trust funds do not meet minimum standards for solvency in 24 areas: AL, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DE, IL, IN, KY, MA, MD, MN, MO, NJ, NY, OH, PA, RI, SC, TN, TX, WI, WV, and the Virgin Islands. In addition, nine other states are teetering on the brink of insolvency because they have Average High Cost Multiple ratings of less than 1.10: DC, FL, GA, MI, ND, NH, NM, and VA, and WA.

Under a bill recently passed in the House of Representatives, things could get much worse.

The Violence Against Women Act bill, H.R. 1585, features a new entitlement for unemployment insurance. Titled “Entitlement to Unemployment Compensation to Victims of Sexual and Other Harassment and Survivors of Domestic Violence, Sexual Assault, or Stalking,” Section 703 states:

“no person may be denied compensation under such State law solely on the basis of the individual having a voluntary separation from work if such separation is attributable to such individual being a victim of sexual or other harassment or a survivor of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking”

Eligibility to receive such benefits could only require “an attestation that such voluntary separation is attributable to such harassment, violence, assault, or stalking.”

Equally troubling, H.R. 1585 features newly expanded definitions of domestic violence:

“a pattern of behavior involving the use or attempted use of physical, sexual, verbal, emotional, economic, or technological abuse or any other coercive behavior committed, enabled, or solicited to gain or maintain power and control over a victim…” (Section 2)

Which means that any person who has experienced a pattern of “attempted” verbal or emotional abuse could simply quit his or her job – no requirement for involuntary, not-for-cause termination — and then qualify for unemployment benefits merely by providing an “attestation.”

Over 100 thought leaders have noted that H.R. 1585 “would dramatically increase unemployment insurance and thus impose an enormous tax on employers that would result in a loss of jobs.”[2] In CY 2018, unemployment benefits in the United States amounted to $27.5 billion.[3] VAWA’s new entitlement could easily cause payouts to balloon by 10%, costing taxpayers $2.75 billion a year.

Such open-ended eligibility criteria would be unsustainable and fiscally irresponsible. In addition, they would also encourage of the filing of trivial and even false claims of “domestic violence.” That would greatly undermine the credibility of victims of physical, severe partner violence.

VAWA’s unemployment entitlement should be removed from further consideration by the Senate.

Citations:

[1] https://oui.doleta.gov/unemploy/docs/trustFundSolvReport2019.pdf

[2] https://tinyurl.com/y2948xku

[3] https://oui.doleta.gov/unemploy/DataDashboard.asp

Categories
Violence Against Women Act

I Survived Domestic Violence. Here’s Why I’m Voting ‘No’ on Violence Against Women Act.

Congresswoman Debbie Lesko represents Arizona’s 8th congressional district. 

 I’m Arizona Congresswoman Debbie Lesko. I’m a survivor of domestic violence from my ex-husband, who I left over 25 years ago.

I am voting ‘no’ on the Democrats’ version of the Violence Against Women Act because it is a radical bill that I believe will actually hurt women more.

This bill, under the weight of federal law, would force domestic violence shelters to take in biological males who identify as women.

This could be in showers. This could be in beds. Can you think of this? We have women that are placed in shelters that have already been abused, some of them sexually abused, but now the federal government is going to require these shelters to take in biological males and sometimes place them right next to these women?

The Violence Against Women Act also requires that prisons take in biological males who identify as women in women prisons.

In the United Kingdom, there’s already been a case where a man who identified as a woman raped two women in prison.

The Democrat version of the Violence Against Women Act takes away Second Amendment rights from people without due process.

When I got an order of protection against my ex-husband many years ago, I went to a justice of the peace and wrote down why I was threatened by him. The justice of the peace gave me an order of protection. My ex-husband was not there. But under this bill, it would have taken away his gun rights. In the case of my ex-husband, he really should have had his gun rights taken away because he was a threat. However, he did not have the ability of due process to defend himself. This is just wrong.

Please don’t be confused by the title of this bill, Violence Against Women Act.

This is nothing but a political strategy by the Democrat Party to put in things in this bill that aren’t bipartisan, that are totally partisan, knowing that Republicans will vote no so that the Democrats can say Republicans are against women.

I’m a survivor of domestic violence. I’m going to vote ‘no’ against this domestic violence act because I don’t believe it will protect women and will actually hurt women more.

Source: https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/04/03/i-survived-domestic-violence-heres-why-im-voting-no-on-violence-against-women-act/

Categories
Domestic Violence Violence Against Women Act

Everything You’ve Heard About Domestic Violence is One-Sided, Misleading, or Completely False

Certain groups in our society like to create a narrative and then run with that narrative, regardless of the facts of the issue. Domestic violence is perfect example of this phenomenon. Practically everything you’ve heard about domestic violence over the past 20 years is one-sided, misleading, or simply false. Here are three of those myths:

1. “Domestic violence is all about men beating up their wives.” Not true. According to the latest Centers for Disease Control report, men are more likely than women to be victims of physical abuse in the past year:[1]

Level of Violence – Previous 12 Months Men Women
Physical violence – overall 3.8% 2.9%
Slapped, pushed, or shoved 3.4% 2.6%
Any severe physical violence 2.0% 1.9%

2. “Abuse is not a problem among lesbians, because women never abuse.” Again, not true. According to the CDC, lesbian couples, indicated in bold in the table, experience higher rates of abuse than among homosexual couples or heterosexual couples:[2]

MALES – Lifetime Gay Bisexual Heterosexual
Slapped, pushed, or shoved 24.0% 27.0% 26.3%
Any severe physical violence 16.4% [Number too small to report] 13.9%
Total 40.0% 27.0% 40.2%
FEMALES – Lifetime Lesbian Bisexual Heterosexual
Slapped, pushed, or shoved 36.3% 55.1% 29.8%
Any severe physical violence 29.4% 49.3% 23.6%
Total 65.7% 100.0% 53.4%

 

3. “Domestic violence is caused by men seeking to uphold their patriarchal power and control.” This statement is not only wrong, it’s ridiculous. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control has identified over 25 different causes of domestic violence.[3] These include individual, relationship, and community factors. Substance abuse, marital instability, psychological disorders, and other factors are known to often lead to domestic violence incidents.

 

Another common domestic violence myth is that the problem only involves Partner A hurting Partner B. But in 58% of cases, the abuse is mutual and bi-directional, such as, The woman slaps the man, and he shoves her back.[4]

SAVE has developed a Fact Sheet on Seven Key Facts About Domestic Violence.[5] SAVE also has published two Special Reports that further explore the problem of domestic violence myths:

  • Most DV Educational Programs Lack Accuracy, Balance, and Truthfulness[6]
  • Fifty Domestic Violence Myths[7]

Domestic violence programs and services need to be based on sound research and good evidence, not on ideologically driven myths.

 Citations:

[1] Centers for Disease Control. National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey: 2015 Data Brief – Updated Release. Tables 9 and 11. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/2015data-brief508.pdf

[2] CDC NISVS: 2010 Findings on Victimization by Sexual Orientation. Tables 6 and 7. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_sofindings.pdf

[3] Centers for Disease Control: Intimate Partner Violence: Risk and Protective Factors. http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/intimatepartnerviolence/riskprotectivefactors.html

[4] Jennifer Langhinrichsen-Rohling. Rates of bi-directional vs. uni-directional intimate partner violence: A comprehensive review. Partner Abuse Vol. 3, No. 2, 2012. http://www.springerpub.com/content/journals/PA-KnowledgeBase-41410.pdf

[5] http://www.saveservices.org/wp-content/uploads/Seven-Facts-About-DV-2.5.2019.pdf

[6] http://www.saveservices.org/downloads/SAVE-DV-Educational-Programs

[7] http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/RADARreport-50-DV-Myths.pdf

Categories
Violence Against Women Act

Growing Consensus that VAWA’s Criminal Justice Approach Isn’t Working

For years, the focus of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) has been ramping up the criminal justice response — more restraining orders, more arrests, more prosecutors, more incarcerations. But this approach does not address the underlying causes of domestic violence: alcohol abuse, marital discord, and childhood emotional trauma.

SAVE has published numerous Special Reports that document the numerous fallacies and flaws of our current approach to domestic violence: http://www.saveservices.org/reports/

Now, that message is sinking in. Recently the HuffPost published an article expressing deep reservations about VAWA’s strong focus on criminal justice measures: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/joe-biden-violence-against-women-act_n_5c7d4097e4b0614614dd02b8

The article quotes University of Maryland law professor Leigh Goodmark:

“No reliable social science data ties the drop in the rates of intimate partner violence to criminalization or to increases in [VAWA] funding. Crime has declined and the funding to address intimate partner violence has increased, but the problem persists.”

SAVE invites you to read the HuffPost article and let your senators know your views on the issue — call the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121.

Categories
Violence Against Women Act

Plenty of Fireworks at Yesterday’s VAWA Hearing

The Violence Against Women Act reauthorization is churning ahead in Congress. Here’s the link to the House bill that was introduced last Thursday: https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/democrats.judiciary.house.gov/files/documents/VAWA_2019_xml%20%28003%29–Final%20Text%20%28004%29_0.pdf

The bill resembles more of a utopian wish-list than a sensible approach to domestic violence. For starters, the bill defines “verbal, emotional, economic, or technological abuse” as domestic violence crimes. “Verbal” and “emotional” abuse are not defined, so essentially every American would become a perpetrator or victim of domestic violence, or both!

Yesterday, the House Judiciary Committee held its mark-up session. Plenty of fireworks:

  • Ranking Member Doug Collins criticized Democrats for their efforts to “politicize and weaponize” the domestic violence issue, and described the VAWA bill as a “missed opportunity.”
  • Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin observed, “We are straying further and further from [VAWA’s] original purpose.”

In the end, the Judiciary Committee voted 22-11 to approve the VAWA bill: https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/433953-house-panel-approves-renewal-of-violence-against-women-act?fbclid=IwAR1nOa9iPwM9-u_29N87ePokS_xJPlh1JbrPFg1Q6fDu62CM6dxzCnEqi9o#.XIpJLF7-FxU.facebook

Politics is not a spectator sport. Call your Representative to share your concerns: 202-224- 3121