Violence Against Women Act to Expire

[IMPress Polly]

The Violence Against Women Act is set to expire (https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/violence-against-women-act-expiring-september_us_5b6b0a4ae4b0de86f4a789db) at the end of September, which, being as Congress doesn't reconvene until September 4th, gives both the House and Senate together just 11 legislative days to reauthorize the law. In spite of previous versions of the legislation passing with bipartisan support, the updated measure introduced to reauthorize funding for violence prevention and redress services (shelters, attorneys, that sort of thing) doesn’t have a single Republican co-sponsor, and had to be introduced in the House of Representatives instead of the Senate for the first time, which suggests that the bill's champions in the Senate were not confident of having sufficient or immediate support. The bill will also have to be signed into law by the current president and, if it signals anything, the Department of Justice is responsible for carrying out VAWA but the head of the DOJ, Jeff Sessions, opposed even a more modest version of the Act in 2013 when he was a Senator. I also frankly think we know what the general attitude of the current president toward questions of domestic and sexual violence is by the many accusations that stand against him and any number of his campaign and White House hires to date and by the way that he and his have thus far responded to them.

What I'm trying to say is that I'm not at all confident that this crucial law will be reauthorized. This is an important law and I think it would be remarkable if the governing political party's response to the popularization of the #MeToo movement over the last year were indeed to allow this law, which is the only federal law that treats domestic and sexual violence as serious crimes (and yes its services do attend to male victims as well; the name of the law simply recognizes who the principal victims of such violence overwhelmingly are), to expire. That would say quite a lot about what the Republican Party has become of late.

[Peter1469]

This is something that must be done at the state and local level. The federal government has no authority in this matter. See US Const., Art 1, sec. 8.

I have somehow stumbled into our local safe houses for abused women. We have good programs but of course I am in a major population center. I would support initiatives to encourage localities to make this a priority.

[Lummy]

Is there really anything in it that isn't already covered in other law?

[Adelaide]

This is something that must be done at the state and local level. The federal government has no authority in this matter. See US Const., Art 1, sec. 8.

I have somehow stumbled into our local safe houses for abused women. We have good programs but of course I am in a major population center. I would support initiatives to encourage localities to make this a priority.

Parts of it were struck down in United States v. Morrison by an arguably conservative court in 1994 (Rehnquist, during his Commerce Clause enforcement spree). I actually agree with that ruling, but my point is that there is really no reason that the remaining portions can't be a federal act/action. The Crime Victims Rights Act is perfectly legal, so I do not see a reason VAWA can't be.

And it is necessary because some states have been rapidly defunding support and crisis centers. Same reason there has to be federal legislation about the rights of all victims of crime. State legislation largely mimics the federal legislation, but it probably wouldn't if the federal legislation did not exist.

[Peter1469]

Parts of it were struck down in United States v. Morrison by an arguably conservative court in 1994 (Rehnquist, during his Commerce Clause enforcement spree). I actually agree with that ruling, but my point is that there is really no reason that the remaining portions can't be a federal act/action. The Crime Victims Rights Act is perfectly legal, so I do not see a reason VAWA can't be.

And it is necessary because some states have been rapidly defunding support and crisis centers. Same reason there has to be federal legislation about the rights of all victims of crime. State legislation largely mimics the federal legislation, but it probably wouldn't if the federal legislation did not exist.


That points to a bigger problem: states emasculating themselves before the federal government.

[Adelaide]

That points to a bigger problem: states emasculating themselves before the federal government.

States need guidance sometimes. Generally, I support state rights and do not agree with many of, what I view as, abuses by the federal government. But on this specific issue, the states do some whacky shit and both VAWA and the Crime Victims Rights Act protect victims.

[Peter1469]

States need guidance sometimes. Generally, I support state rights and do not agree with many of, what I view as, abuses by the federal government. But on this specific issue, the states do some whacky shit and both VAWA and the Crime Victims Rights Act protect victims.
In the United States, states do not need guidance from the federal government. That is how this was set up.

But it turned out poorly. Much of the blame goes to people who don't understand our Constitution and people who actively are against it. Like Obama.

[nathanbforrest45]

I want to know when are they going to pass the Anti Violence Against Elderly Bald Head Men Act. I mean everyone else is covered by a specific act. Why not us?

Not to make light of violence against women (my wife was an apartment manager for a complex established by the YWCA for battered women) but there are already dozens of laws covering assault and harassment. Why do we need a federal law that can easily be handled by the state or local government?

And by states needing "guidance" what you really mean is states need to be forced to do what the federal government dictates they should be doing.

[donttread]

The Violence Against Women Act is set to expire (https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/violence-against-women-act-expiring-september_us_5b6b0a4ae4b0de86f4a789db) at the end of September, which, being as Congress doesn't reconvene until September 4th, gives both the House and Senate together just 11 legislative days to reauthorize the law. In spite of previous versions of the legislation passing with bipartisan support, the updated measure introduced to reauthorize funding for violence prevention and redress services (shelters, attorneys, that sort of thing) doesn’t have a single Republican co-sponsor, and had to be introduced in the House of Representatives instead of the Senate for the first time, which suggests that the bill's champions in the Senate were not confident of having sufficient or immediate support. The bill will also have to be signed into law by the current president and, if it signals anything, the Department of Justice is responsible for carrying out VAWA but the head of the DOJ, Jeff Sessions, opposed even a more modest version of the Act in 2013 when he was a Senator. I also frankly think we know what the general attitude of the current president toward questions of domestic and sexual violence is by the many accusations that stand against him and any number of his campaign and White House hires to date and by the way that he and his have thus far responded to them.

What I'm trying to say is that I'm not at all confident that this crucial law will be reauthorized. This is an important law and I think it would be remarkable if the governing political party's response to the popularization of the #MeToo movement over the last year were indeed to allow this law, which is the only federal law that treats domestic and sexual violence as serious crimes (and yes its services do attend to male victims as well; the name of the law simply recognizes who the principal victims of such violence overwhelmingly are), to expire. That would say quite a lot about what the Republican Party has become of late.


It turns out a shocking number of men are physically abused , many by women. They are equally emotionally abused as well. Granted the violence is often less severe due to physics but it's still assault. Yet some "domestic violence " organizations simply use the female pronoun on their websites. So any such program helped by the government needs to be gender neutral ( separate buildings of course)
However, I don't think we need special laws. Just enforce what we have. If a woman slaps her husband that's assault. If a man beats a woman , drags her around the house and prevents her from leaving charge him with the multiple felonies he has committed.
If either sex uses weapons to intimidate their partner they should be charged.

[Chris]

Dems introduce measure to reauthorize Violence Against Women Act (http://thehill.com/homenews/house/399111-dems-introduce-measure-to-reauthorize-violence-against-women-act)


But the reauthorization bill introduced Thursday adds some provisions to the law, such as expanding housing protections for survivors and creating a Violence Against Women director position within the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

Democrats were dumb to add provisions. Probably a political ploy.

[Captdon]

Women's shelters are set up and run by people who care. It's not the federal government's job to be involved. The states can do something if they choose. In the three states I've lived in as an adult and the states I know people in, women raise the money and set the shelters up.

The states all have laws that far too many women won't take advantage given them. Too many women are enabling men to get away with this and so it continues. A few women are trying hard to educate them and to protect them.

I know men who donate money and, sometimes, movement to abused women. It's a problem for society but I fail to see what the federal government can do for starters. The states can do whatever they feel it must but it is women doing it on their own that works the best.

Not every problem can be solved by the government.

[The Xl]

What does this law cover that other laws wouldn't? Not being sarcastic, genuinely curious.

[Captdon]

What does this law cover that other laws wouldn't? Not being sarcastic, genuinely curious.

I wouldn't know what it would cover that isn't illegal now.

[Standing Wolf]

The sad truth is that there are states where ignorance and apathy regarding domestic violence - among politicians and especially law enforcement, and even the courts - is the norm. An American citizen who is the victim of one or more criminal acts addressed by this law should not be treated differently, and their rights and protections be less, because they live in Mississippi and not Massachusetts. It is all very well to say, "The laws against those things already exist", but another to recognize that in some jurisdictions attitudes about domestic violence have not progressed beyond what they were a hundred years ago.

As for the Republicans, if history - specifically their opposition to the 2012 renewal of the Act - is any predictor, there would be greater (read, any) support from that sector if provisions in the Act that include same-sex couples within its scope and allow for temporary visas for victims who are illegal aliens were removed. I'm certainly not advocating that they should be removed - just saying that it's the kind of thing that would make people like Jeff Sessions happy.

[nathanbforrest45]

The sad truth is that there are states where ignorance and apathy regarding domestic violence - among politicians and especially law enforcement, and even the courts - is the norm. An American citizen who is the victim of one or more criminal acts addressed by this law should not be treated differently, and their rights and protections be less, because they live in Mississippi and not Massachusetts. It is all very well to say, "The laws against those things already exist", but another to recognize that in some jurisdictions attitudes about domestic violence have not progressed beyond what they were a hundred years ago.

As for the Republicans, if history - specifically their opposition to the 2012 renewal of the Act - is any predictor, there would be greater (read, any) support from that sector if provisions in the Act that include same-sex couples within its scope and allow for temporary visas for victims who are illegal aliens were removed. I'm certainly not advocating that they should be removed - just saying that it's the kind of thing that would make people like Jeff Sessions happy.

Balderdash.

[Boris The Animal]

It turns out a shocking number of men are physically abused , many by women. They are equally emotionally abused as well. Granted the violence is often less severe due to physics but it's still assault. Yet some "domestic violence " organizations simply use the female pronoun on their websites. So any such program helped by the government needs to be gender neutral ( separate buildings of course)
However, I don't think we need special laws. Just enforce what we have. If a woman slaps her husband that's assault. If a man beats a woman , drags her around the house and prevents her from leaving charge him with the multiple felonies he has committed.
If either sex uses weapons to intimidate their partner they should be charged.
A huge factor is that Domestic Violence situations where the males are victims are shockingly unreported. Plus I do believe the other part of the equation is that there are very few, if any, resources available to help abusers as well.

[midcan5]

This is something that must be done at the state and local level. The federal government has no authority in this matter. See US Const., Art 1, sec. 8. ....

That's the usual hokum from conservatives justices throughout our history. Section 8 can be interpreted to mean anything. Read 'Injustices: The Supreme Court's History of Comforting the Comfortable and Afflicting the Afflicted' by Ian Millhiser. If covers this topic well. States in conservative hands would ruin a picnic in July and remove your rights in the name of freedom. Nothing really changes in this arena.


https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/22715946-injustices

[Captdon]

The sad truth is that there are states where ignorance and apathy regarding domestic violence - among politicians and especially law enforcement, and even the courts - is the norm. An American citizen who is the victim of one or more criminal acts addressed by this law should not be treated differently, and their rights and protections be less, because they live in Mississippi and not Massachusetts. It is all very well to say, "The laws against those things already exist", but another to recognize that in some jurisdictions attitudes about domestic violence have not progressed beyond what they were a hundred years ago.

As for the Republicans, if history - specifically their opposition to the 2012 renewal of the Act - is any predictor, there would be greater (read, any) support from that sector if provisions in the Act that include same-sex couples within its scope and allow for temporary visas for victims who are illegal aliens were removed. I'm certainly not advocating that they should be removed - just saying that it's the kind of thing that would make people like Jeff Sessions happy.

A load of nonsense. This isn't the 50's. The South is no different than anyplace else when it comes to laws about crimes against women. Women don't need special laws. they do have to report the crime and not back off. No law is going to change that. women have to start having men arrested and prosecuted.

I live in the heartland of the Old South. It no more ignores"'wife beating" than any place I've lived.

Volunteer shelters exist everywhere. They offer protection and help. no one can force help onto a woman. They have to stop the enabling. The law can't protect those who won't do their part.

You make no sense. Your editorial fails on all counts.

[Captdon]

That's the usual hokum from conservatives justices throughout our history. Section 8 can be interpreted to mean anything. Read 'Injustices: The Supreme Court's History of Comforting the Comfortable and Afflicting the Afflicted' by Ian Millhiser. If covers this topic well. States in conservative hands would ruin a picnic in July and remove your rights in the name of freedom. Nothing really changes in this arena.


https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/22715946-injustices

*sigh*

[Major Lambda]

That points to a bigger problem: states emasculating themselves before the federal government.


Exactly. Well said.

You would think we would not have to turn local domestic violence statutes into a federal case. There are a lot of jurisdictions that have mandatory arrest for both participants for domestic violence, no matter who is guilty and who is innocent.

Respectfully Adelaide, domestic violence is domestic violence and I dont see it as a legal debate for the federal government to get involved, unless it involves one state then another state for the DV participants.



M-L

[MisterVeritis]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0MK7qz13bU



Let it go.

[Adelaide]

A load of nonsense. This isn't the 50's. The South is no different than anyplace else when it comes to laws about crimes against women. Women don't need special laws. they do have to report the crime and not back off. No law is going to change that. women have to start having men arrested and prosecuted.

I live in the heartland of the Old South. It no more ignores"'wife beating" than any place I've lived.

Volunteer shelters exist everywhere. They offer protection and help. no one can force help onto a woman. They have to stop the enabling. The law can't protect those who won't do their part.

You make no sense. Your editorial fails on all counts.

It is a well-known issue that shelters, crisis centers, and support centers are being defunded or having their funding reduced significantly and it is not limited to one state or one part of the country.

[Peter1469]

That's the usual hokum from conservatives justices throughout our history. Section 8 can be interpreted to mean anything. Read 'Injustices: The Supreme Court's History of Comforting the Comfortable and Afflicting the Afflicted' by Ian Millhiser. If covers this topic well. States in conservative hands would ruin a picnic in July and remove your rights in the name of freedom. Nothing really changes in this arena.


https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/22715946-injustices
Leave America.

[Adelaide]

What does this law cover that other laws wouldn't? Not being sarcastic, genuinely curious.

Here is the history of what it covers (keeping in mind the 1994 version was impacted, rightly, by United States v. Morrison):


1994
Congress, in passing VAWA 1994, envisioned a nation with an engaged criminal justice system and coordinated community responses. VAWA 1994 fostered:


[*=left]Community-coordinated responses that brought together, for the first time, the criminal justice system, the social services system, and private nonprofit organizations responding to domestic violence and sexual assault
[*=left]Recognition and support for the efforts of domestic violence shelters, rape crisis centers, and other community organizations nationwide working everyday to end this violence
[*=left]Federal prosecution of interstate domestic violence and sexual assault crimes
[*=left]Federal guarantees of interstate enforcement of protection orders
[*=left]Protections for battered immigrants
[*=left]A new focus on underserved populations and Native American victims of domestic violence and sexual assault





2000
Congress improved on the foundation established in VAWA 1994, including:


[*=left]Identifying the additional related crimes of dating violence and stalking
[*=left]Creating a much-needed legal assistance program for victims of domestic violence and sexual assault
[*=left]Promoting supervised visitation programs for families experiencing violence
[*=left]Further protecting immigrants experiencing domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault or stalking, by establishing U- and T-visas and by focusing on trafficking of persons



2005
Congress took a more holistic approach to addressing violence against women. In addition to enhancing criminal and civil justice and community-based responses to violence, VAWA 2005 created notable new focus areas such as:


[*=left]Creating provisions that exclusively serve to protect immigrant victims of domestic violence but also include protections to alleviate violence against immigrant women
[*=left]Developing prevention strategies to stop violence before it starts
[*=left]Protecting individuals from unfair eviction due to their status as victims of domestic violence or stalking
[*=left]Creating the first federal funding stream to support rape crisis centers
[*=left]Developing culturally-and linguistically-specific services for communities
[*=left]Enhancing programs and services for victims with disabilities
[*=left]Broadening VAWA service provisions to include children and teenager




2013
On March 7, 2013, President Obama reauthorized the Violence Against Women Act, with new provisions extending the protection of Native Americans and members of the LGBTQ community. Click here (https://www.justice.gov/tribal/violence-against-women-act-vawa-reauthorization-2013-0)to read a comprehensive description of all of the new changes to OVW-administered grant programs. According to President Obama, VAWA 2013:


[*=left]Provides law enforcement with better resources to investigate cases of rape



[*=left]Gives colleges more tools to educate students about dating violence and sexual assault



[*=left]Empowers tribal courts to prosecute those who commit domestic violence on tribal lands, regardless of whether the aggressor is a member of the tribe



[*=left]Continues to allow relief for immigrant victims of domestic violence



[*=left]Provides for more care and assistance for LGBTQ victims



From: https://www.thehotline.org/resources/vawa/

Some people may want to focus on the bullets that include enforcing interstate protection orders, assisting immigrants (legal and illegal), and law enforcement training (includes federal). Many of the other items, on these lists and not on these lists, tries to address multiple issues that are problematic within specific/certain states but also across the country.

For example, when I sought to seek crisis services last fall as someone who lives in Northern Virginia, the closest crisis center was in Richmond, technically, otherwise I would have to go to D.C (which is a pain in the ass time-wise and expense-wise). Imagine if you live between Arlington county and Richmond VA - where do you go? The only other option is to pay a trauma therapist. A lot of psychotherapy is not covered by many insurance plans (psychiatry, medication, usually is). If you don't have insurance, what do you do? If you have to drive 2-3 hours to a crisis center, what happens to your job?

There also has to be support coming from VAWA that is not in the Crime Victims Rights Act because there are specific issues unique to women who are domestically abused or sexually abused or similar situations that tend to predominantly be female-oriented.

It is also important to encourage law enforcement across the country to follow the same guidelines and have the same education so that they do not revictimize someone or fail to make the necessary referrals to agencies like social services. Comes from the top down.

[Lummy]

The sad truth is that there are states where ignorance and apathy regarding domestic violence - among politicians and especially law enforcement, and even the courts - is the norm. An American citizen who is the victim of one or more criminal acts addressed by this law should not be treated differently, and their rights and protections be less, because they live in Mississippi and not Massachusetts. It is all very well to say, "The laws against those things already exist", but another to recognize that in some jurisdictions attitudes about domestic violence have not progressed beyond what they were a hundred years ago.

As for the Republicans, if history - specifically their opposition to the 2012 renewal of the Act - is any predictor, there would be greater (read, any) support from that sector if provisions in the Act that include same-sex couples within its scope and allow for temporary visas for victims who are illegal aliens were removed. I'm certainly not advocating that they should be removed - just saying that it's the kind of thing that would make people like Jeff Sessions happy.


Very good, but why stop there? Never blather in 1,000 words what you can blather in 10,000.

[Standing Wolf]

Very good, but why stop there? Never blather in 1,000 words what you can blather in 10,000.

Actually, that post was probably under two hundred words...but if two brief paragraphs, seven lines of text, strains your powers of concentration that unduly, I don't know how to help you.

[Captdon]

It is a well-known issue that shelters, crisis centers, and support centers are being defunded or having their funding reduced significantly and it is not limited to one state or one part of the country.

The shelters I know about are funded bu donations. There is no government involvement and shouldn't be. They don't need the government setting regulations for them. The ones I know of do their job just fine.

The government just meddles and provides no secrecy. Any lawyer can obtain the records. A private place may not even keep records. They may not be known to the public.

[Captdon]

That's the usual hokum from conservatives justices throughout our history. Section 8 can be interpreted to mean anything. Read 'Injustices: The Supreme Court's History of Comforting the Comfortable and Afflicting the Afflicted' by Ian Millhiser. If covers this topic well. States in conservative hands would ruin a picnic in July and remove your rights in the name of freedom. Nothing really changes in this arena.


https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/22715946-injustices

So little knowledge. It refers to the authority to enact laws to carry out the offices and so on.. Violence towards women isn't a constitutional issue issue to start with. Violence is a state issue unless it occurs on federal property.

All stated have laws on this issue. It is not federal issue. SCOTUS should throw all federal laws, with that exception, out.

[Captdon]

Here is the history of what it covers (keeping in mind the 1994 version was impacted, rightly, by United States v. Morrison):









From: https://www.thehotline.org/resources/vawa/

Some people may want to focus on the bullets that include enforcing interstate protection orders, assisting immigrants (legal and illegal), and law enforcement training (includes federal). Many of the other items, on these lists and not on these lists, tries to address multiple issues that are problematic within specific/certain states but also across the country.

For example, when I sought to seek crisis services last fall as someone who lives in Northern Virginia, the closest crisis center was in Richmond, technically, otherwise I would have to go to D.C (which is a pain in the ass time-wise and expense-wise). Imagine if you live between Arlington county and Richmond VA - where do you go? The only other option is to pay a trauma therapist. A lot of psychotherapy is not covered by many insurance plans (psychiatry, medication, usually is). If you don't have insurance, what do you do? If you have to drive 2-3 hours to a crisis center, what happens to your job?

There also has to be support coming from VAWA that is not in the Crime Victims Rights Act because there are specific issues unique to women who are domestically abused or sexually abused or similar situations that tend to predominantly be female-oriented.

It is also important to encourage law enforcement across the country to follow the same guidelines and have the same education so that they do not revictimize someone or fail to make the necessary referrals to agencies like social services. Comes from the top down.

The items you say to pay special attention to are already the law. Taking a woman across state lines to abuse her is already a federal crime.

Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, known as the "Full Faith and Credit Clause", addresses the duties that states within the United States have to respect the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state."

Any order in one state is valid in another state.

An arrest order may require extradiction but that is never denied.

You want federal intervention in something it can't do. The feds cannot due state and local things as well as the State and local governments. Think about when the feds have ever done anything as well. Once they enforce the Constitution they have done what they can do.

No, all states, counties and local governments do not need to have the same guidelines. It is illegal in any state to commit assault. That's all you need.

[Adelaide]

The items you say to pay special attention to are already the law. Taking a woman across state lines to abuse her is already a federal crime.

Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, known as the "Full Faith and Credit Clause", addresses the duties that states within the United States have to respect the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state."

Any order in one state is valid in another state.

An arrest order may require extradiction but that is never denied.

You want federal intervention in something it can't do. The feds cannot due state and local things as well as the State and local governments. Think about when the feds have ever done anything as well. Once they enforce the Constitution they have done what they can do.

No, all states, counties and local governments do not need to have the same guidelines. It is illegal in any state to commit assault. That's all you need.

VAWA is meant to reinforce the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Prior to VAWA, interstate protection orders were not always enforced because of the language of Clause. And no, it's not as simple as you are claiming. It is hard enough to enforce a protection order in a "simple" scenario. Law enforcement from different counties and cities often have trouble coordinating, nonetheless law enforcement from different states.

Also, VAWA has established several national databases for issues like stalking and tribal sex offenders. The legislation also funnels money into a lot of different research projects (similar to NIH, but aimed at the issue of violence/victims). It also funnels money towards rural areas that do not get local, state or individual contributions.

I am not going to change your mind and you can go on and on about how local and state level services already serve women, but that doesn't make it true. They are horribly inadequate. The goal of this legislation has always been to improve that situation and it has been successful in some ways but the volume of victims is always going to stress the system.

[Captdon]

I am not going to change your mind and you can go on and on about how local and state level services already serve women, but that doesn't make it true. They are horribly inadequate. The goal of this legislation has always been to improve that situation and it has been successful in some ways but the volume of victims is always going to stress the system.


I don't need to go on. You are wrong about federal involvement.