Court To Determine If Abusers Can Own Guns In Next Term

 A case to be heard by the Supreme Court in its next term (United States vs. Rahimi) will determine whether thousands of domestic abuse victims will be killed. New York Governor Kathy Hochul explains in the following op-ed for The New York Times:

The Supreme Court recently announced plans to take up the Rahimi case, which will most likely rely on the court’s recent Second Amendment decision, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. In that case, a majority led by Justice Clarence Thomas overturned New York’s concealed carry law that had been on the books for more than a century — claiming 21st-century gun laws should be consistent with an earlier time, when muskets were common firearms.

In doing so, the court stripped away a critical tool I had as governor to keep New Yorkers safe. In New York, we quickly responded with actions to try to prevent more deadly firearms than ever from flooding our communities, our businesses, our bars and restaurants and even our crowded subway cars. One stray word, or sharp elbow, could immediately have devastating, life-threatening consequences.

Now, in Rahimi, the Supreme Court will decide whether deadly firearms can flood the homes of domestic violence survivors. The case arrives at the court after a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in favor of abusers. The appeals court decided that government cannot prevent an abusive individual, against whom a court has issued a domestic violence protective order, from possessing a deadly firearm.

By striking down a federal law aimed at protecting survivors of abuse, the appeals court put forth an outrageous legal theory that claims individuals with domestic violence orders have a constitutional right to possess a gun. Using Justice Thomas’s historically focused argument from Bruen as precedent, the Supreme Court could rule that domestic violence survivors today deserve only the protections they had in the 18th century — a time before most women could own property or work outside the home, let alone vote.

The stakes could not be higher. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey indicates that about 41 percent of women and 26 percent of men in the United States have experienced sexual violence, physical violence or stalking by an intimate partner and reported being affected by it during their lifetime. According to U.S. crime reports, about one in five homicide victims is killed by an intimate partner, and over half of female homicide victims are killed by a current or former male intimate partner. . . .

The Supreme Court has a choice: It can lean into the dangerous Fifth Circuit theory that guns cannot be regulated for the purpose of protecting survivors of domestic violence, or it can uphold federal law that keeps guns out of the hands of dangerous individuals.

Before oral arguments are heard, there’s no way to tell which way the Supreme Court will rule. The precedent set by Bruen is extraordinarily troubling. Yet even within the court’s majority in Bruen, there was a split. Justice Thomas kept his focus on historical arguments. But a concurrence by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in which Chief Justice John Roberts joined, left room for certain basic protections, noting that “properly interpreted, the Second Amendment allows a ‘variety’ of gun regulations.”

This concurrence helped inform New York’s response to Bruen. After New York State’s century-old gun law was overturned, I took immediate steps to restore protections from gun violence, including signing new laws to strengthen training and gun licensing requirements. In the spring of 2022, we bolstered our state’s red flag laws, getting guns away from people like domestic abusers who pose a risk to themselves or others and closing loopholes that made the tragedies in Buffalo and in Uvalde, Texas, possible. As a result, courts have issued roughly 9,000 extreme-risk orders of protection in the past year, up from 1,400 in the preceding two and a half years.

Depending on the scope of the court’s decision in Rahimi, these protections could be at risk as well. After a brief spike during the start of the pandemic in 2020, New York is gradually and steadily returning to prepandemic shooting levels and has one of the five lowest rates of firearm-related deaths. I’ve always said public safety is my top priority as governor, and I’m committed to using every tool at my disposal to keep our communities safe from gun violence.

An extreme, out-of-control Supreme Court put gun safety laws at risk in Bruen. Across America, survivors of domestic abuse will now wait in fear to see whether Justice Kavanaugh and his colleagues deem laws that protect survivors to “properly” interpret the Constitution.

Will The Justice Dept. Domestic Terrorism Unit Be Effective?

A few days ago, the Justice Department announced creation of a new Domestic Terrorism unit. This was badly needed, since domestic terrorism is more dangerous to Americans than terrorism from abroad. Will the new unit be effective?

Former assistant director for counter intelligence at the FBI, Frank Figliuzzi, says three things must happen to make the unit effective. Here is part of what he says:

The Department of Justice has a new domestic terrorism unit, a response to a threat that The Washington Post noted “has intensified dramatically in recent years.” It sure has. Matthew G. Olsen, head of DOJ’s National Security Division, told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday that since Spring 2020, the FBI’s domestic terrorism investigative caseload has doubled. But it took a full year after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on our U.S. Capitol for DOJ to get around to forming a unit of lawyers to deal with the kinds of threats that Jill Sanborn, the FBI’s head of national security, calls “the most lethal” facing the country. . . .

If the new unit is to be a harbinger of serious efforts to detect, deter and defeat a domestic threat that FBI Director Chris Wray once said had become equal to the threat of international terror, then we need answers from DOJ to three important questions.

First, will there be an enhanced staffing level of prosecutors exclusively dedicated to domestic terrorism? Olsen told the Senate Judiciary Committee that the Justice Department previously had counterterrorism attorneys who worked both domestic and international cases and that the new unit would “augment our existing approach.” Is DOJ augmenting its “approach” or is it augmenting its staff with increased numbers? If the new approach doesn’t come with increased staffing, then it’s not sufficient. . . .

Second, will this new unit come with any new tools in the investigative or prosecutive tool kit? More than 25 years after the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City by domestic terrorists, we still don’t have a federal law against domestic terrorism. There are only laws against international terrorism, despite calls from some lawmakers and even the FBI Agents Association for domestic terrorism to be crime. Something called a “terrorism enhancement” permits prosecutors to ask for increased sentences for an underlying crime — say trespass or assault — if it’s connected to domestic terrorism, and Wray has testified that the violence at the Capitol was domestic terrorism, yet DOJ isn’t even asking for enhanced sentences against Jan. 6 defendants. At Tuesday’s hearing, Senators vented their frustration that available enhancements aren’t being requested in the Capitol cases. If the new unit doesn’t come with a willingness to call political, anti-government violence "terrorism," then what’s the point?

Third, will the new unit be engaged with implementing the White House national domestic terrorism strategy? Released in June 2021, with great fanfare, the strategy to combat the domestic threat was a mile wide but an inch deep. It spoke of enhanced government and law enforcement partnerships with social media platforms, battling disinformation by teaching Americans to be more savvy consumers of information, and it promised to at least look at the need for a domestic terrorism law. So far, we’ve heard nothing but crickets on any of these initiatives.

Prosecuting domestic terrorism after it’s already happened is like cleaning up the wreckage after a train derailment — it must be done, but the carnage has already occurred. That’s why new proactive investigative techniques, the kind lawfully permitted in properly predicated international terrorism investigations — informant development, electronic surveillance, undercover agents — should come with the new DOJ unit. The unit should also have staff dedicated to helping lead a whole-of-society approach to mitigating the threat by supporting implementation of President Joe Biden’s strategy. Let’s get it right this time. Before our train goes off the rails.

The Connection Between Domestic Abuse & Mass Violence

 

It seems that there is a connection between domestic abuse and mass violence. That's not something I had considered, but I'm not surprised. Those who hurt the people they love will find it easier to hurt people they don't know. If you remove the loners (those who have no domestic partner to abuse), I'll bet the percentage of mass murderers who were domestic abusers is much larger.

The following is part of a discussion of this is by Ashley Luthern and Mary Spicuzza in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel:

The violence starts at home.

Then it spills out to the public.

The 39-year-old Milwaukee man charged in the Waukesha Christmas Parade attack, which left six people dead and more than 60 injured, had a history of domestic violence and violence against women.

Experts and advocates who help survivors of domestic abuse say it's a troubling pattern they've seen repeatedly in mass casualty events.

"Domestic violence — family violence — predicts mass shootings," said Karin Tyler, the injury and violence prevention coordinator for the City of Milwaukee's Office of Violence Prevention.

Nearly 60% of 749 mass shootings between 2014 and 2019 were either domestic violence attacks or committed by men with histories of domestic violence, a 2020 Bloomberg analysis found. A peer-reviewed academic study released earlier this year had a similar finding: About 59% of the 110 mass shootings analyzed were related to domestic violence.

"Not all domestic abusers are this type of abuser, but in almost every mass shooting or mass killing, the person who committed it had a link to some sort of violence in their intimate partner relationships," said Carmen Pitre, president and chief executive of Sojourner Family Peace Center. 

Although studies have focused on domestic abuse and mass shootings — not vehicle attacks — the connection is still relevant, said Sara Krall, End Domestic Abuse Wisconsin's homicide prevention program director.

"It's the same dynamic," she said, "and clearly this perpetrator had shown previously that his vehicle was being used to perpetrate harm against his partner, still a weapon.". . .

Studies have found mass shootings typically come after an "explosive event," Krall said.

"Perpetrators of domestic abuse may be at a stage of heightened anger, maybe further emboldened by the situation that just unfolded and may, unfortunately, extend the violence to others who are just in the path of their destruction," she said. . . .

"Our attention is with all who are in shock, mourning, and grief — especially victims and survivors of domestic violence who are finding this time to be particularly challenging as details have emerged about the suspect having a history of domestic abuse," said Monique Minkens, director of End Domestic Abuse Wisconsin, in a statement this week. 

"We see time and time again that people who use violence against their current or former partners are more likely to go on to commit acts of violence on a larger scale," Minkens said.

U.S. Public Fears Domestic Terrorists More Than Foreign

Republicans still want Americans to believe that the greatest threat of terrorism comes from foreigners (especially muslims). This is probably because most domestic terrorists are right-wingers, and support the Republican Party (as long as those Republican officials support Trump).

But the American public knows better. They know that the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security have said the biggest threat today comes from domestic terrorists. This was shown again just a couple of days ago, when a right-wing terrorists threatened to blow up the Library of Congress.

Note in the chart above that all groups (all adults, Democrats, Independents, and even Republicans) have a bigger fear of home-grown domestic terrorists over foreign terrorists.

The charts are from the latest AP-NORC Poll -- done between August 12th and 16th of a nationwide sample of 1,729 adults, with a 3.2 point margin of error.

All four groups also said the wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq were not worth fighting.

Intelligence Report Warns of Increase In Domestic Terrorism

 The Office of the Director of National Intelligence has issued a new report on Domestic Violence Extremism (DVE) -- more commonly called Domestic Terrorism. That office warns that there will be an increase in extremist violence this year.

Here is what the report has to say:

(U) The IC assesses that domestic violent extremists (DVEs) who are motivated by a range of ideologies and galvanized by recent political and societal events in the United States pose an elevated threat to the Homeland in 2021. Enduring DVE motivations pertaining to biases against minority populations and perceived government overreach will almost certainly continue to drive DVE radicalization and mobilization to violence. Newer sociopolitical developments—such as narratives of fraud in the recent general election, the emboldening impact of the violent breach of the US Capitol, conditions related to the COVID-19 pandemic, and conspiracy theories promoting violence—will almost certainly spur some DVEs to try to engage in violence this year.

(U) The IC assesses that lone offenders or small cells of DVEs adhering to a diverse set of violent extremist ideologies are more likely to carry out violent attacks in the Homeland than organizations that allegedly advocate a DVE ideology. DVE attackers often radicalize independently by consuming violent extremist material online and mobilize without direction from a violent extremist organization, making detection and disruption difficult.

(U) The IC assesses that racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists (RMVEs) and militia violent extremists (MVEs) present the most lethal DVE threats, with RMVEs most likely to conduct mass-casualty attacks against civilians and MVEs typically targeting law enforcement and government personnel and facilities. The IC assesses that the MVE threat increased last year and that it will almost certainly continue to be elevated throughout 2021 because of contentious sociopolitical factors that motivate MVEs to commit violence.

(U) The IC assesses that US RMVEs who promote the superiority of the white race are the DVE actors with the most persistent and concerning transnational connections because individuals with similar ideological beliefs exist outside of the United States and these RMVEs frequently communicate with and seek to influence each other. We assess that a small number of US RMVEs have traveled abroad to network with like-minded individuals.

(U) The IC assesses that DVEs exploit a variety of popular social media platforms, smaller websites with targeted audiences, and encrypted chat applications to recruit new adherents, plan and rally support for in- person actions, and disseminate materials that contribute to radicalization and mobilization to violence.

(U) The IC assesses that several factors could increase the likelihood or lethality of DVE attacks in 2021 and beyond, including escalating support from persons in the United States or abroad, growing perceptions of government overreach related to legal or policy changes and disruptions, and high-profile attacks spurring follow-on attacks and innovations in targeting and attack tactics.

(U) DVE lone offenders will continue to pose significant detection and disruption challenges because of their capacity for independent radicalization to violence, ability to mobilize discretely, and access to firearms.

Domestic Racial Terrorist Is Apprehended In Louisiana

This booking photo is of Holden Matthews -- the 21 year-old son of a deputy sheriff in St. Landry Parish, Louisiana. He is the person responsible for the burning of three Black churches in that parish.

He is a violent criminal and a terrorist that was very likely motivated by racial hatred. And he is a prime example of a dangerous and growing problem in the United States -- domestic terrorism.

Recently, the Trump administration disbanded an investigative group within the Department of Homeland Security -- a group that focused on domestic terrorism (including that done by white supremacists and nationalists). This was not surprising, since Trump has refused to condemn (or separate himself) the white supremacists and white nationalists -- calling them "good people".

This was just the opposite of what should have been done. White domestic terrorists pose a far greater threat to this country and its citizens than any foreign terrorists -- and that threat is growing. Our government needs to focus more on these domestic hate terrorists -- not less.

Matthews faces a possible 15 year prison sentence. If convicted, he will deserve every day of that sentence.

NOTE -- Regular readers of this blog will know that I am an atheist. But I am also a strong believer in the U.S. Constitution that guarantees freedom of religion. That gives every American the right to believe in and practice the religion of his/her choice (or not believe in any religion). Criminal acts against religious people for their beliefs is wrong -- just as wrong as trying to force your religious beliefs on others, or using your religion to discriminate against others.

Domestic Violence Is A Far Bigger Problem Than Terrorism

(This chart is from upworthy.com.)

The Republicans would have you believe that the biggest danger to American citizens is terrorism -- and they have started wars, issued travel bans, and want to build a wall to solve that problem. But the truth is that there's a problem much bigger and much more dangerous to American citizens -- DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.

As the chart above shows, more women have been killed in this country between 2001 and 2012 than soldiers killed in Afghanistan & Iraq and Americans killed by terrorists -- combined! And yet, this is a problem on which most of our politicians, especially Republicans, are silent. They want to spend many billions more to fight terrorism, but seem to be complacent about the much more serious problem of domestic violence.

To their credit, many police departments are now taking domestic violence more seriously -- and no longer require a victim's consent to file charges against the abuser. But much more needs to be done. Sadly though, it won't be done until the population as a whole in this country recognizes the problem and demands it be corrected.

We need stricter laws and more judicial enforcement of those laws. And personally, I think we should make it much harder for those convicted of domestic violence to buy or own a firearm -- and we should seriously punish those who violate than ban.

Another Good Supreme Court Decision To Save Lives

(This graphic image is from everytown.org.)

Much was made of the Supreme Court decision on Monday to throw out the odious Texas abortion restriction, and justifiably so. But the Supreme Court also issued another decision on Monday -- one that was overlooked by many, but which will save many lives.

The case was Voisine vs. United States. It was brought by two men from the state of Maine -- Stephen Voisine and William Armstrong. Both had been convicted of misdemeanor assault (domestic violence). They were caught years later possessing firearms -- a violation of federal law. They argued that their cases involved "reckless conduct" rather than "intentional abuse", and therefore they should not be subject to the federal law that banned them from owning weapons.

The Supreme Court did not buy their silly argument. The court ruled that the government (federal, state, or local) could legally ban those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence from owning a weapon -- and that such a ban does not violate the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Court vote was 6 to 2 -- with Kagan, Breyer, Ginsberg, Alito, Roberts, and Kennedy upholding the ban. Sotomayor and Thomas dissented.

The ruling makes a lot of sense. These men, and indeed all those convicted of domestic violence (misdemeanor or felony), have shown they either cannot control their temper or have a propensity for violence (or both) -- and people who have shown that should not be allowed to own a firearm. As the graphic above states, allowing them to own a firearm just increases the likelihood that a death will occur.

The NRA leadership and other gun-nuts may not like the idea, but the right to own a gun guaranteed by the Second Amendment is not an absolute right. The Supreme Court has long ruled that government can place reasonable restrictions on that right. This decision by the court just upheld those previous decisions regarding reasonable restrictions.

Domestic Violence Is Best Handled By Police & Courts

Domestic violence is a huge problem in the United States -- a problem that affects far too many families, and takes far too many lives each year. These charts were made from a recent YouGov Poll on Americans attitudes toward domestic violence. It was done between February 14th and 17th of a random national sample of 1,000 adults, with a margin of error of 4 points.

As you can see from the top chart, about three out of four people don't think domestic violence is a problem that can be properly handled by just the people involved. They believe it is a problem best handled by the police and the courts -- and that attitude is shared across gender, age, race, and income demographic lines.

But after the police settle a domestic violence situation, who should decide whether charges are filed and the perpetrator convicted of the abuse? The percentages go down (see chart below), but those who think that should be a decision for the police and prosecutors have a much larger percentage than those who think the victim should decide. I agree. There is just too great a chance of the victim being pressured by the perpetrator (or his family) -- putting them right bad into the situation that got them hurt in the first place.

In my opinion, there is no excuse for assaulting a fellow human (except in self-defense with no alternative) -- and that is especially true in a family or domestic situation. I believe all perpetrators of domestic violence should be arrested, and the victim should have no say in whether they are prosecuted or not. That is a decision for law enforcement professionals.

Domestic Violence And Guns Don't Mix - And A Better Background Check Law Could Save Women's Lives

There are a few facts that are beyond debate. That women in the United States are 11 times more likely to be murdered with a gun than women in other high-income countries. That the presence of a gun in a domestic violence situation increases the risk of homicide for women by 500%. And that the majority of women murdered with a gun are killed by their spouse or intimate partners (either current or ex) -- which means a woman is more likely to be killed by her domestic partner than by a criminal.

These facts are why a federal law was passed preventing someone with a domestic violence conviction (even a misdemeanor conviction for domestic violence) from owning or possessing a gun. Recently, gun rights groups tried to use a Tennessee case to weaken that federal law. A man, who had been buying guns and selling them on the black market, was arrested and charged with possession of a gun by a person convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence. He tried to get his conviction overturned by claiming the Tennessee law on domestic violence (which he had pled guilty to) didn't specify domestic violence had to include physical force.

But the United States Supreme Court wasn't buying his ridiculous argument. They reinstated his conviction (which had been tossed out by a lower court judge). Writing for the majority, Justice Sotomayor said it was sufficient that he had pled guilty to having "intentionally or knowingly caused bodily injury to" his child's mother. This decision removes any doubt as to whether a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction is sufficient to deny the right to possess a firearm, and if the federal law is enforced it should save a lot of women's lives.

One of the best ways to enforce this constitutional law is to make sure a background check is done before a gun is sold. These background checks will expose any convictions for domestic violence -- and between 1998 and 2012 some 143,852 gun sales were denied because of domestic violence convictions or restraining orders.

The problem though is that far too many gun sales in this country are done without a background check (over 6.6 million in 2012) -- and that makes it easy for a domestic violence abuser to get his hands on a gun. This happens because many gunshot sales, sales between private individuals, and internet sales are not subject to a background check (thanks to the refusal of Congress to plug these glaring loopholes in the background check law).

Domestic abusers have already shown they are prone to violence -- and if they are violent to those they claim to love, then how much more violent could they be to someone else if angered? The law restricting their purchase or possession of a firearm should be strictly enforced -- both by the swift action of law enforcement and by a good background check law.

The Supreme Court has done its part. Now it is time for Congress to do its part -- and plug up the holes in the background check law. The people want this because they know it will save countless lives. And the inaction by Congress to fix the background check law is inexcusable.

30% Of Women Are Domestic Violence Victims

I have never understood how anyone of any sex or nationality could think that beating on another human being was in any way acceptable -- especially someone the person claims to "love". But evidently millions of men disagree with me worldwide.

A new report has been published in the latest issue of the journal Science, which shows violence toward women is at epidemic proportions all across the globe. The report was done by several researchers, who synthesized 141 previous studies from 81 different countries. The report is shocking in its conclusions.

That's because it says that worldwide at least 30% of women aged 15 and older have been the victim of violence from an intimate partner -- including physical attacks and sexual attacks. The rate varies in different parts of the world, and reaches unbelievable highs in certain areas (like the 2/3 rate in sub-Saharan central Africa) -- but it is way too high in all parts of the world.

Even here in North America, where we consider ourselves to be a bit more enlightened, the rate is about 20%. That means one out of every five women either has been or will be victimized by their intimate partner abusing them physically. In a country the size of the United States, that means there are many millions of victims. And the rate actually may be larger than the 20%, because many women do not report the physical abuse out of fear or shame.

And the problem of abuse grows much larger if we include abuse other than actual physical attacks. Rita Smith, executive of the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, says:

"Those numbers are consistent with what domestic-violence advocates know happens in local communities all over the country. What is important to notice about this report: there's a whole other layer of violence that happens that isn’t physical - emotional, economic, verbal, stalking, threats with weapons - that would raise those numbers exponentially. They are still terrifying. They are ways to control another human being. We need to pay attention to the (new) numbers because when we have this amount of people being physically assaulted, it indicates a much broader problem of violence."

Frankly, this makes me wonder just how civilized we humans really are -- both those who would commit such violence, and those who allow others to do it without taking action to stop it. This is a huge problem, and we must not just try to stop the abusers -- we need to make even the idea of abuse something that our society (worldwide) will not tolerate.

VAWA Passes As House GOP Caves

In the last election, the Republican Party did not do well with women voters, losing that demographic by a significant margin. And one of the reasons for that (among others) was their blocking approval of the Violence Against Women Act in the 112th Congress. And for a while, it looked like they were going to repeat that mistake in the 113th Congress.

The Senate easily passed a version of VAWA identical to the one that had been blocked by the Republicans last year. That left the fate of the bill up to the Republican-controlled House, and they immediately brought up the old arguments -- that some people did not deserve protection against domestic violence (specifically immigrants, members of the LGBT community, and Native Americans). But even some Republicans in the House knew that was a ludicrous argument, and did not want to be viewed again as anti-woman for opposing VAWA.

This posed a dilemma for the House GOP leadership. They were facing a split in their own party, and a lot of bad publicity if they didn't at least look like they were doing something about domestic violence. They first tried to avoid the issue by voting on a watered-down version of the bill that had been rushed through committee by some right-wingers. That did work though, as the watered-down version of VAWA failed on a 166 to 257 vote (with all Democrats and slightly more than 50 Republicans voting against it).

That left the House GOP leadership between a rock and a hard place. They could please the teabagger element and once again block the Senate version of VAWA, or they could bring the bill up for a vote and please women and moderates in their own party. They caved. And when voted on, VAWA easily passed on a 286 to 138 vote. Those voting to approve VAWA were 199 Democrats and 87 Republicans. All of the 138 votes against VAWA came from Republicans. Eight representatives did not vote -- 1 Democrat and 7 Republicans.

I'm embarrassed to say that my own representative, William Thornberry, voted against VAWA. For the women in Texas (and the men who care about them), here are the Texas representatives who voted against stopping domestic abuse:

Tx District #1 -- Louis Gohmert (R)
Tx District #4 -- Ralph Hall (R)
Tx District #5 -- Jeb Hensarling (R)
Tx District #6 -- Joe Barton (R)
Tx District #7 -- John Culberson (R)
Tx District #8 -- Kevin Brady (R)
Tx District #10 -- Michael McCaul (R)
Tx District #11 -- K. Michael Conaway (R)
Tx District #13 -- William Thornberry (R)
Tx District #14 -- Randy Weber (R)
Tx District #17 -- William Flores (R)
Tx District #19 -- Randy Neugebauer (R)
Tx District #21 -- Lamar Smith (R)
Tx District #22 -- Pete Olson (R)
Tx District #24 -- Kenny Marchant (R)
Tx District #25 -- Roger Williams (R)
Tx District #26 -- Michael Burgess (R)
Tx District #31 -- John Carter (R)
Tx District #32 -- Pete Sessions (R)
Tx District #36 -- Steve Stockman (R)

Regardless of which state you live in, if you would like to know how your own representative (or any representative) voted you can go to this C-SPAN page.

I want to thank the 87 Republicans who voted for VAWA, but I doubt they did much to help the image of their party since they were outvoted by 138 of their fellow Republicans. They did however help the victims of domestic abuse by joining Democrats to re-authorize VAWA through the year 2018 -- and that's a very good thing.

Senate Passes VAWA (Again)

Yesterday, the United States Senate again passed a bill to re-authorize the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) -- and they did it by a large margin (78 to 22). To their credit, 23 Republicans (about half of the Senate GOP) joined all of the Senate Democrats in voting for VAWA to be re-authorized. The bill that was passed is very much like the bill passed by the Senate last year (before being allowed to die in the House of Representatives). It includes protections for immigrants, Native Americans, and members of the LGBT community.

The bill now moves on to the House, where it was not even allowed to come up for a vote last year. The same thing could happen this year, since there is still substantial opposition to the bill -- especially from the teabagger Republicans. And the House leadership may still be afraid to allow a vote that might anger the large teabagger contingent. Those opposed to the bill are against the provisions that include protection from domestic violence for immigrants, the LGBT community, and Native Americans.

Frankly, I am amazed that these elected officials could even propose that some Americans should be protected from domestic violence while others should not be protected. That view is not only contrary to the constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law, but violates common and basic decency which says ALL people should be protected from domestic violence. Obviously, these politicians believe pleasing their racist and misogynistic base is more important than protecting Americans from violence.

The picture above shows the 22 senators (all of them Republican) who either don't think women should be protected from violence, or think that only certain groups should be protected and others not protected. American women (and the men who care about them) should remember the names of these senators when they come up for re-election. Here are those names (in alphabetical order):

John Barrasso (Wyoming)
Roy Blunt (Missouri)
John Boozman (Arkansas)
Tom Coburn (Oklahoma)
John Cornyn (Texas)
Ted Cruz (Texas)
Michael Enzi (Wyoming)
Lindsey Graham (South Carolina)
Charles Grassley (Iowa)
Orrin Hatch (Utah)
James Inhofe (Oklahoma)
Mike Johanns (Nebraska)
Ron Johnson (Wisconsin)
Mike Lee (Utah)
Mitch McConnell (Kentucky)
Rand Paul (Kentucky)
James Risch (Idaho)
Pat Roberts (Kansas)
Marco Rubio (Florida)
Tim Scott (South Carolina)
Jeff Sessions (Alabama)
John Thune (South Dakota)

Note that there were six states that had BOTH of their senators vote against protecting women from domestic violence (Texas, Oklahoma, Utah, Wyoming, Kentucky, and South Carolina). There were 10 other states that had one of their two senators vote against VAWA.

Congress Should Act Now On VAWA

One of the most shameful things about this country is the incidence of domestic violence. Some estimate that one out of every three women has been abused by their domestic partner. That is inexcusable. It also should not be a political issue, and in the past, it has not been.

In 1994, then Senator Joe Biden introduced a bill called the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). No one thought the bill would wipe out domestic violence overnight, but it did contain some important tools to help in the fight against domestic violence. To the credit of both political parties, the bill was passed in a bipartisan effort and was signed into law by President Clinton.

In 2000, President Clinton signed the reauthorization of VAWA -- which had again been easily passed by Congress through the bipartisan efforts of both political parties. In 2006, both parties agreed to reauthorize VAWA again and it was signed into law by President Bush.

This was not an era where bipartisanship was a common occurrence. Just as today, the Democrats and Republicans disagreed on many issues -- and those differences were vociferously aired in public debates. But both parties understood that domestic violence was a scourge and a stain on the American Dream -- and they acted together to what they could to fight it. And while VAWA did not eliminate domestic violence, it turned out to be an effective tool in fighting it. Here are some of the law's accomplishments (as related on Think Progress):

Victims can call for help. The National Domestic Violence Hotline was established as part of VAWA. It currently serves over 22,000 victims a month and has taken a total of 3 million calls.

Law enforcement officers are trained to help victims. 500,000 law enforcement officials, judges, and prosecutors a year are trained with VAWA funding to help domestic abuse victims.

Partner violence and homicides fell. From the year before VAWA’s passage until 2008, the number of women being killed by partners dropped 43 percent, and partner violence against women fell 53 percent.

Stalking became illegal. Before VAWA, stalking was not a federal crime. The law established stalking as a felony offense.

Rape is rape, no exceptions. Since the passage of VAWA, each state in the United States has updated its laws so that rape by a partner is treated equally to rape by a stranger.

It is now 2012, and it is time for VAWA to be reauthorized and funded (which must happen every six years to keep the law in effect and fully funded). But the bipartisanship has disappeared. When Democrats tried to get the bill passed in Congress this year, it was blocked by the House Republicans. They are opposed to VAWA now because the Democrats added three new groups to the laws coverage -- Native Americans, LGBT victims, and undocumented immigrants. The Republicans, who control the House of Representatives, say they will not allow VAWA to be passed unless those three groups are removed from the law's coverage.

Personally, I don't think the Republican position on VAWA is defensible. Are they saying that it is OK to commit domestic violence against people in those three groups? Can they really believe some groups should be protected against domestic violence, while other groups should not? Shouldn't ALL humans in the United States be protected against domestic violence -- regardless of race, ethnicity, sex, sexual preference, or documentation?

This is not an argument over what to do about illegal immigration, or whether homosexuality should be accepted. But that is what the congressional Republicans are trying to turn it into. They seem to be willing to stymie the progress against domestic violence, just so they can pander to the bigotry of many people in the party's base -- and that is appalling.

October is officially Domestic Violence Awareness Month. Will we have a new VAWA law by then? I certainly hope so, because it is the right thing to do (and that has been recognized by both parties in the past). But that is now up to the Republicans. We can only wait to see if they come to their senses and pass the law.

GOP Continues Its War On Women

The chart above (from the website of The American Prospect) shows the shocking figures on domestic violence in the United States (with each of the tiny red dots standing for one death). All of the people in this country killed by terrorist acts (3,073) combined with all of the U.S. troops killed in both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars (6,488) only adds up to 9,561 deaths -- far short of the 11,766 American women killed in domestic violence incidents in that same time period.

The Republican Party didn't have any problem funding both of the unnecessary wars. The GOP never met a war it didn't like, even if they accomplish nothing and cost thousands of Americans their lives. But when it comes to spending far less money to save the lives of thousands of American women, the congressional Republicans aren't on board. They would rather play politics with the issue than save women's lives.

It is time for the government to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) -- a bill that in the past has had bipartisan support. But when the bill was written this time, it was written in such a way as to include all women, including groups that had not been protected in the past (like immigrant women, members of the LGBT community, and Native American women married to non-Native Americans).

The Republicans have decided to play politics in this election year, and in a nod to their hard-hearted teabagger base, they have decided that only some women deserve to be protected against domestic violence (and that does not include immigrant women, women in same-sex relationships, or Native American women). Evidently they think its perfectly OK for these women to be beaten and/or killed.

The House Republicans, evidently feeling the heat for doing nothing on the bill, finally passed a scaled-down version of the bill (which cut out the groups discussed above). The bill will probably now go to a Senate/House conference committee to try and work out a bill that can be passed in both Houses and signed into law. But there seems to be little chance of that happening. The Senate (and the president) want all women included, while the House still thinks only groups they approve of should be protected.

This is just one more reason why the Republicans must be defeated in the November elections.

Senate Republican Men Say Violence Against Women Is OK

The Republican Party claims it is not waging a war on America's women. They claim this is just a false accusation that was made up by Democrats to embarrass them. But that is hard to believe considering the Republican record recently. They oppose the right of a woman to control her own body. They oppose giving women equal pay in the workplace. They oppose free and easy access to contraception for women. They oppose healthcare reform (Obamacare) which outlaws higher insurance premiums for women. They want to defund Planned Parenthood (which provided needed health care for poor women). And they want to slash social programs (where the majority of participants are single women with children).

That would be enough to convince any sane person that the Republicans are truly waging war on women. They consider them to be second-class citizens -- undeserving of equality with white men. And just to drive that point home, 31 Republican senators (all white men) have voted against the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). This move was so far over the line that all five Republican women in the Senate abandoned their own party and voted with the Democrats (even though they have voted with their party and against women on most other Senate votes).

How could these 31 white male Republican senators possibly justify such a dastardly vote? Two reasons. First, they really don't believe women are worthy of the same rights and protections that men have (they are misogynists). Second, the Democrats had the audacity to widen VAMA to include more abused people -- including immigrants (even undocumented immigrants), same-sex couples, and Native Americans abused by non-Native Americans.

For these white male Republicans, that is just going too far. They think it should be obvious that it is OK to abuse and attack these people. And to prove their point, they voted to allow domestic violence against all women. It's just one more example showing us that Republicans (especially the white males) value their right-wing ideology more than they care about American citizens.

How can any woman (or any man that cares for the women in his life) vote Republican?

There's Never Justification For Domestic Violence

October is half over and I just learned by reading a friend's blog that this is Domestic Violence Awareness Month.   That embarrasses me because I find few things as evil and damaging to human beings (and humanity in general) as domestic violence.   And this evil is not limited to any class or group of people.   It occurs among all races and ethnicities, among all income groups.   It is no respecter of religion (or the lack of it), and it has victims of both sexes, all ages and regardless of sexual preferences.

It is believed that domestic violence (abuse) affects at least 10% of the population of the United States.   That's about 31 million people in this country alone, and the problem is certainly not restricted to any one country.   It is a worldwide problem.

Domestic violence also comes in many forms -- physical violence, dominance, humiliation, isolation, threats, intimidation, denial and blame.   The violence can be physical, verbal, emotional or economic.   But one thing we can be sure of is that all forms of domestic violence has one purpose -- to get and keep total control over a victim.   That is inexcusable.   We are all here on this Earth for a limited time and should not have to submit to unwanted control by any other human.

There are a couple of things about abuse I have never been able to believe.   The first is that the abuser couldn't help him or her self.   Nonsense!   If you really can't restrain yourself from beating or abusing your fellow humans, especially those you profess to love, then you should be locked away for everyone's good.   The second is that the abuser didn't mean it and really loves the victim.   Utter nonsense!   How do you abuse another person without meaning to do so?   And no one abuses or hurts someone they really care for.

There are some red flags that can identify a person who is or will be an abuser.   If your domestic partner exhibits one or more of these, I suggest you get out before it escalates and someone gets hurt (or killed).   These are:

INTRUSION -- constantly asks where you are going, who you are with, etc.

ISOLATION -- demands that all (or most) of your time must be spent with him/her, cutting you off from friends and family.

POSSESSION AND JEALOUSY -- accuses you of flirting or having relationships with others, constantly monitors the way you dress or look.

NEED FOR CONTROL -- becomes extremely angry when things do not go his/her way, tries to make all of your decisions.

UNKNOWN PASTS / NO RESPECT FOR OTHERS -- very secretive about the past, has only negative things to say about others.

The excellent blog My Name Is Jujube has a list of 20 other danger signals.   I recommend you go there and peruse that list.   It could keep you from becoming a victim.

Regardless of your age, race, ethnicity, class, income level, place of residence, sex, or sexual preference, you have the right to expect your domestic partner or significant other to treat you with love and respect.   There is never a justification for domestic abuse/violence, and the very act of searching for such justification puts a person on the wrong side of this issue.

Domestic violence is an epidemic this country and the world could certainly do without.   It can be eliminated, but it will take an effort from all of us.

A French Solution To Domestic Violence

We have a huge problem with domestic violence here in the United States, but this is not solely an American problem. Domestic violence is a problem all over the world and most countries are failing miserably to control it (assuming they are even trying to control it).

It is also a problem in France, where at least three women die each week as a result of domestic violence. But the French are not among those who whine that there is little they can do about the problem. They are determined to get a handle on the situation and save the lives of women in their country.

A new bill has been introduced in the French Parliament, and it looks like the bill has an excellent chance of becoming law. While the French political parties on the left and the right usually disagree about almost everything, the new domestic violence bill has nearly unanimous support in the parliament. The French politicians have realized that saving women's lives is not a partisan political issue -- it is a necessity of the utmost importance.

The new bill would allow French courts to authorize the use of an electronic ankle bracelet on men deemed to be capable of violence toward their domestic partner. The court would order the men to stay away from their domestic partner, and if they disobey, the electronic anklet would send a signal to police. The police would respond to all signals from the devices, and arrest the men who violated their court order.

Now this is not a perfect solution that would save the lives of all women. If a man has only one purpose, to kill, and carries that out quickly, he may be able to succeed (although he would most likely be caught quickly and convicted). Although, even in those cases, if a woman can keep her attacker at bay for just a few minutes, help will arrive without the need for a 911 call.

But most domestic violence murders occur after an argument escalates, and that will give the police time to arrive. And if the man hesitates before trying to enter the home, police will arrive and arrest him before he can even make contact with his domestic partner.

I applaud the French in their effort to control domestic violence and save women's lives. And I don't want to hear anything about how this violates men's rights. If you don't want to have to wear the ankle bracelet, then keep your hands to yourself. If a man can't control his anger and engages in beating his significant other, then the only right he deserves is a nice prison cell.

It's sad that it has come to this, but the fact is that there is an epidemic of domestic violence and something needs to be done about it. If this new French approach does turn out to significantly reduce domestic violence and murder, then leaders in the United States should seriously consider doing the same thing.

A Good Supreme Court Decision

If you've read this blog for very long, then you probably know that I supported the Supreme Court's decision that verified the right of Americans to own a gun. I do not own a gun, and probably never will, but the Constitution is very clear. The second amendment clearly states that individuals have the right to own a firearm.

But that right is not unlimited. All states deny a convicted felon the right of gun ownership, and the Supreme Court was careful to say that the individual right to gun ownership does not invalidate this prohibition.

The federal government has also expanded this prohibition of gun ownership to those convicted of domestic violence, even if the conviction is a misdemeanor. Yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled on this new prohibition. In a 7-2 decision, the court upheld the law -- if you are convicted of domestic abuse, you do NOT have the right to own a gun.

I totally agree with this decision. It makes a lot of sense. If are unable to control your temper to the point that you wind up beating on members of your own family (those you supposedly love), then how can you be trusted to possess a deadly weapon like a gun?

This prohibition not only protects family members, but also neighbors and others. It also protects the police, who are the first responders in cases of domestic violence.

The Supreme Court was very clear in this lop-sided decision. If you want to own a gun, then control your temper and keep your hands off other people.

Domestic Violence - Our National Disgrace

There is a huge problem in this country that few of our leaders want to discuss or do anything about. We're good at creating problems to attack in America. Talk about protecting the flag, arresting honest and hard-working immigrants, denying rights to gays, filling our prisons with recreational drug users, or outlawing the speaking of Spanish, and people will flock to your banner -- just ask the "values" voters.

It doesn't matter that none of these so-called "problems" are really not problems at all. We could ignore all of them and do very little, if any, damage to our country. But you could still rack up a lot of votes by championing any of these phony causes.

But try talking about a real problem, like violence against women, and you'll be met with a lot of embarrassed silence. That problem hits too close to home. If it's not in your home, you're guaranteed to have a friend or relative experiencing it or doing it. It's a lot easier to attack people we don't know. But it's much harder to hold ourselves, our friends and our family members responsible for their actions.

However, this violence against women has reached epidemic status. If we are truly to be a great nation, it is time we do something about it. If we are to really have equality in this country, we must eradicate male dominance and violence against females. The crazy thing is we don't mind talking about how badly other countries treat women -- it's just our own shortcomings we don't want to deal with.

How bad has it become? The CDC says about one woman out of every four is a victim of domestic violence. Every year, 1200 women are killed and over 2,000,000 are injured. This violence should shame every one of us because we still allow it to happen in this country.

Every single one of us knows it is wrong to abuse a woman either verbally, sexually or physically. It's not a product of manliness, but cowardice and inhumanity.

It's time for all of us to get serious and put an end to this. We must make it totally unacceptable -- even among our friends and family.