We're #1

Read what Mia McLeod has to say about South Carolina being #1 in domestic violence.  Maybe raising the amount of the bond needed to be posted would help, but people that are crazy violent have been known to wait around a few days to take out their rage.

I was a visiting therapist at a shelter for battered women on Long Island back in the 90's, where three women in the month of December one year were killed by men to whom had been served an order of protection.  Interestingly, or obscenely, it was the same judge, and he had ordered the women to serve the petition themselves rather than have the court pay for a server.

While at the shelter, I saw what happens when a woman without family and financial resources makes the courageous decision to leave an abusive partner.  Even with social services and medicaid the resources are pathetic.  After the short stay they not only have to deal with housing, but also with transportation.  Often with children, there is inadequate care available, and finding a job while juggling temporary and/or unaffordable housing and transportation is one step too far in this nightmare.

More often than not, when abusers come calling with apologies and promises, the women go home to whatever security they have there.

Society's biases are really what this is all about.  Here in South Carolina where the mass killing of children in Newtown last December resulted in a season of gun bills designed to protect the rights of gun owners, we pretty much know where the loyalties lie.  Hard to believe but the philosophy is that women that get beat must be doing something to deserve it.  Oh, and if she doesn't like it why doesn't she leave.  And if she leaves and he comes after her, well, that's her own fault too.

Add to that an education system that struggles to provide "minimally adequate" schools, the constant stress of being working poor -- and in this economy, the stress of being working middle class.  We have a governor who won't take federal money to assure Medicaid for the poor, and who would like to prevent those on food stamps from buying sweets.

And then our legislature gerrymandered districts so that the status quo is guaranteed.

There's two levels here.

The first is stepping in those shoes and living that life.  Knowing what it is like to be a woman afraid, and unable to do enough to keep herself and her children safe.

The second is a society that approves and rewards power and punishes weakness.

Strong laws that communicate disapproval of violence against women and children need to happen before the violence will be lessened.

And while that happens, allowing people to have a life with the security of home, health, a living wage, and for their children a good education with promise for the future, will perpetuate the value that violence is unacceptable.

Mia McLeod is a strong voice to that end, but she needs a lot more voices to call out for change with her.
   

U.S. House version of VAWA bill

Here we go again.

The U.S. Senate re-authorized the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) earlier this month. (No thanks to SC's two senators.)  Now it's to be taken up by the House of Representatives.

The Republican-controlled House has now come up with their own version of this bill and, no surprise, it removes the protection under the bill for the LGBT community.

" Specifically, the bill removes "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" from the list of underserved populations who face barriers to accessing victim services, thereby disqualifying LGBT victims from a related grant program. The bill also eliminates a requirement in the Senate bill that programs that receive funding under VAWA provide services regardless of a person's sexual orientation or gender identity. Finally, the bill excludes the LGBT community from the STOP program, the largest VAWA grant program, which gives funds to care providers who work with law enforcement officials to address domestic violence."  

The House's rationale for this mean-spirited endeavor is that by enumerating the groups that the bill will cover it is excluding those groups that are not specifically referred to --which would entail "constant updating." of the bill.  Omigod!  I'm trying to imagine what other groups they could be talking about.  Giraffes?  Dust mites? Green creatures from space?

 The House Bill also modifies the provision targeting Native American victims.

 " Under the Senate bill, tribal courts would gain new authority to prosecute non-Native American men who abuse Native American women on reservations. The House bill also grants that new authority -- a major change from the bill House Republicans put forward in the last Congress -- but adds a caveat that would allow those people to move their case to a federal court if they feel their constitutional rights aren't being upheld."  (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/22/vawa-2013_n_2742096.html)
 

Here's a link to the bill and a discussion of what it contains:  http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20130225/CPRT-113-RU00-S47_xml.pdf

According to the Huffington Post

"House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) trashed the GOP proposal  altogether."House Republicans just can’t help themselves," Pelosi said in a statement. "Even with a strong, bipartisan bill passed by the Senate for the second Congress in a row, even with countless women in need of support and protection, Republicans are still turning the Violence Against Women Act into a partisan political football."
 

Right on.

Letters to Lindsey (and Tim)

I just put my letters to Senators Graham and Scott in the mail, asking for their reasons why they voted no on the VAWA.  Can't wait to see if they reply with the same form letter.

SC Senators Vote Against VAWA Reauthorization

Both of South Carolina's esteemed senators voted against the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act on Tuesday.  What were they thinking?  I decided to find out.

Here's the letter I am sending by snail mail to each of them. Feel free to use it, or any part of it, in a letter of your own.

We'll see what kind of response I get.  I'm not hopeful for much more than the standard "I'm busily fighting the War on Terror" from Senator Graham. Who knows what Senator Scott will come up with.  I suspect something like the "Tea Party made me do it."

_____________

The Honorable Lindsey Graham

290 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20501

or 

The Honorable Tim Scott

167 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator _____,

I would be interested in learning why you decided to vote against the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act this past week.

This Act, among other things, provides funding for the S.T.O.P. Violence Against Women program in South Carolina. This progran prosecutes domestic violence and sexual assault cases and trains law enforcement, judges, prosecutors and victim advocates throughout the state about the causes, effects and laws pertaining to those crimes.  (http://www.scag.gov/criminal-domestic-violence-in-south-carolina/s-t-o-p-violence-against-women-program)

The VAWA Act and its funds are especially needed in South Carolina. This state, which you were (elected or appointed) to represent, was rated number two in the country in 2010 for the number of  women murdered by men. (Violence Policy Center Report 2012).

So, again, I would be interested in learning why you decided to vote against this important bill.

I look forward to hearing from you,

 Regards,

 

Penny Travis, PhD
 

Small Minds

House GOP has made so many hateful decisions.  They are the definition of the narcissist -- enjoying their "celebrity," being wined and dined by all those other wealthy white men.  Having lived in that bubble and breathed that air for so long, they truly don't see anyone who is not like them.  They aren't capable of empathy; they are the bullies that whine when they don't get their way.  They have been forced to acknowledge women, but they don't have to like it.  So they chip away at legislation that would show respect or give aid to women just to prove to the world, and themselves, that they've still got it -- the power to do it, that is.

Let Them Buy Guns

Jim DeMint's comments about his opposition to the Violence Against Women Act is pretty much the republican excuse for any no vote that would help or protect a woman or child.  Letting the state handle it, when the state won't, is the dodge they have been using and getting away with for many years.

Basically, it doesn't matter where the tax dollars come from, DeMint is against it.  And as far as victims of violence go, it's the 1950's, where a woman only gets raped if she's asking for it.  The country as a whole may have rejected that backwards ideology in the last election, but let us never accuse our legislators here in South Carolina of being in touch with reality, or admitting they may be wrong.

I would imagine that a bill in our state legislature to fund handguns for women would go farther than one offering protection from violence.

On the Subject of Violence

Congress continues to nitpick the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act.  They apparently don't want to go overboard in protecting women.

On Sunday's Up with Chris (Hayes), there was a discussion about this Act and the nitpicking.  Sarah Deer, a tribal law specialist, explained that as the law currently stands, violence against women on a reservation can only be pursued and prosecuted by the tribal government if the accused is a member of the reservation.  And, unsurprisingly, when he is not a member of the reservation, federal prosecutors rarely follow up.  Or he gets what is known around here as a free pass.

Imagine the absurd logic:  if you invite someone into your home who happens to be from another state (or country) and he beats you up, your police force cannot arrest him, your prosecutors cannot try him, and his state of origin ignores the complaint.

Words fail me.