Our Senators must act now to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), the landmark achievement in the movement to end violence against women and girls. VAWA revolutionized the way violent crimes against women are prosecuted and prevented, reshaped the way victims receive services and transformed the way communities respond to survivors.
Authored by then-Senator Joseph Biden and signed into law in 1994, VAWA was the first federal legislation to acknowledge domestic violence and sexual assault as crimes. It created the first federal funding stream to support rape crisis centers across the country. VAWA provided federal resources to encourage coordinated community responses to combating violence, and it saved money while saving lives: nearly $12.6 billion in averted social costs in its first six years alone.
Subsequent reauthorizations in 2000 and 2005 -- widely supported in both chambers of Congress and by Democratic and Republican presidents alike -- created a legal assistance program for victims, broadened the definition of violence against women to include dating violence and stalking, implemented culturally- and linguistically-specific services for communities, and broadened VAWA service provisions to include children and teenagers.
The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act, S.1925, introduced in 2011 by Senators Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) and Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), is the result of more than two years of work by a coalition of over 300 advocacy groups. Contributing their voices, experience and expertise, over 2,000 advocates and survivors from across the country identified the most pressing needs of survivors of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking. Advocates, police, prosecutors and survivors support S.1925 because it reflects their vision -- and their commitment to ending violence.
Over the past several months, Senators from both parties have waged a dismaying battle over provisions in S.1925 regarding protections for members of the LGBTQ, immigrant and Native American communities. Partisan maneuvering must not derail an opportunity to hold defendants accountable, to prevent future violence, and to keep members of these communities safe and, if they suffer horrible trauma, provide them with the life-saving and transformative services they deserve.
Restricting VAWA's protections only to certain members of our communities will defeat its very purpose -- to end sexual and domestic violence and the suffering they bring. These restrictions also hamper the criminal justice system's ability to prosecute defendants and prevent future crimes. We must not allow political arguments to erode the progress our country has made toward that goal in the seventeen years since VAWA became law.
VAWA has protected, improved and restored lives. Reauthorization sends the message that our communities, our families -- and all people -- must be safe; that survivors must have the tools to heal and reclaim their lives; that we must engage the next generation in this effort -- and that breaking the cycle of violence is an unassailable national priority. To send any other message is unconscionable.
(Published first at TheHill.com)
Hargitay is the Founder & President of the Joyful Heart Foundation and the Emmy Award-winning star of 'Law & Order: Special Victims Unit.' You can watch a video of her discussing VAWA here.
Follow Mariska Hargitay on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@Mariska
Sen. Amy Klobuchar: Why We Must Reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act Now
Rep. Gwen Moore: Women Are Waiting...
Karen Teegarden: The War on Women: Why We're Fighting
Stephanie Schriock: War on Caterpillars? Absurd. GOP War on Women? Reality.
Senator Coons Calls for VAWA Reauthorization - Feminist Wire ...
VAWA Reauthorization a Top Priority for Students « AAUW Dialog
I have read most of this bill and see there are some things which truly deal with violence unto women but the vast majority of the bill is a gigantic disbursement list of quantities of dollars, grant projects, who has authority to do what, when and how with the funds. Many of the "things" are very ambiguously described and even more ambiguous in how they are measured and who would be accountable. There are "inter-agency" aspects which allow the Federal government to "cooperate" with local law agencies, when, in fact the cooperation actually bestows a degree of authority by the Federal government over the local entities and, under the commerce clause of the constitution, could be an argument for persistent control by the Federals over heretofore local jurisdictions.
Laws today are written chiefly by lobbyists, who submit them to congress people and hope they will sponsor the legislation. Interested parties making government people interested parties. Looking to congress to produce laws for the people's benefit, when they are confusing, complex and self-contradicting, is like looking to banks to find ways to help people, instead of ramping up as many charges, penalties and deadlines as possible. I support laws and do my best to protect those weaker (and stronger) than I am. I see no need to call a spending bill what it is really not. Read it. Think. Reflect. Sometime soon we the people need to start holding accountable, those who govern us and intentionally deceive us.
I mean, it's not like the Supreme Court has ever said "separate, but equal" laws were wrong, have they?
Men got an *.
Read the rest. All of the language of the bill still identifies women as the victims and men as the perps. 99.9% of the funding and programs are also specified for women, not men.
How could anyone oppose the full and equal inclusion of ALL victims of domestic abuse in this law?
It boggle the mind.
"Ian McNicholl, 47, has painful memories to remind him of the terror he endured when he found himself a male victim of domestic violence.
His then fiancee, Michelle Williamson, punched him in the face several times, stubbed out cigarettes on his body, lashed him with a vacuum cleaner tube, hit him with a metal bar and a hammer and even poured boiling water on to his lap. That at 6ft he was almost a foot taller than her made no difference. He still has burn marks on his left shoulder from when she used steam from an iron on him. Williamson, 35, is now serving a seven-year jail sentence for causing both actual and grievous bodily harm.
During the trial last year McNicholl told the court that, during more than a year of attacks and intimidation, he had lost his job, home and self-respect. He had been too scared to go to the police and had considered suicide. She was only arrested after two neighbours saw her punch him."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/sep/05/men-victims-domestic-violence
To point out that the example he posted was from the UK.
Are you denying that American men are abused?
It's funny...most feminists are too misandrist to keep up their own lie...
Modern feminists always claim that feminism stands for the equality for all and that's it not at all misandrist.
If that were true, they should be OUTRAGED by the lack of equal protection for all of this law.
INSTEAD, they make up trivial replies...or worse, argue against the inclusion of men...showing their true colors.
It would be zero skin of their backs to just say that the VAWA should cover men as well...even if they don't believe it or mean it...just to keep up the illusion that they care about anyone but themselves...
But they still can't bring themselves to do it.
and services under this title."
From http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-109hr3402enr/pdf/BILLS-109hr3402enr.pdf
While it's called the "Violence Against Women Act," it does in fact protect men as well.
For a long time, feminists have claimed that false accusations comprise only a tiny fraction of all accusations--If so, then protections against false accusations shouldn't be much of a problem.
If they really believed that to be the case, then they would have no problem with protections that would, no doubt, be fair and garner support for their cause.
Why originate undocumented polarized commentary?
Bit different there.
I am not condoning using gendered slurs as both sides have done, but there is a big difference between levying an insult at an individual person and introducing/passing legislation that restricts the rights and disrespects all women in the country/state.
The Act has redefined “domestic violence” to include dirty looks, name calling, or simply the “intuition” (imagination) of a woman that the accused is thinking ill thoughts.
The Act funds “training” for judges—retraining, more accurately—to be taught that under the terms of VAWA, the usual standards of due process, rules of evidence, and access to a defense are to be set aside.
You don't have to believe me just read it. It is bad. You are guilty until you prove yourself innocent and no due process is unconstitutional.
Is this not enough to proof that men is being mistrested ??
They don't care.
Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Stretchneck-Holler-Inside-Appalachia-ebook/dp/B007UIYD8A/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1334540832&sr=1-1
Protecting women as a gender is no more important or pressing than protecting men. We should be focused on protecting people. Being safe from violence is not a gender issue, it's a human issue.
Now in 2012 it's sad that men have to raise awareness about male victims of domestic violence because of the sexist advocacy of feminist who were primarily focused on framing men as abusive oppressors.
It's time that our views on this issue reflect reality instead of ideology. Domestic violence is a serious when we are talking about serious and persistent violence by intimate partners of either gender. Aside from that it is a family matter like siblings fighting with each other. We don't call the police every time that happens.
10 children. I see your face brighten up everytime you talk about
your children; your love for them just beams through your glowing
face. I know of couples who have adopted atleast 10 children.
If you feel you are called to adopt, I think you should adopt
atleast 10. God bless!!