A law that's been on the books for nearly two decades and was twice reauthorized by Congress with little debate has suddenly become a hot button issue in this election year.
Yesterday, the House of Representatives voted on a version of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) that was weakened because of what was left out or eliminated from the previously authorized version -- specific protections for immigrants, Native Americans, and LGBT victims of sexual and domestic violence. These protections exist in the VAWA version passed by the Senate, and now a compromise version of the bill will have to be agreed upon by two political bodies controlled by opposing political parties.
Is VAWA being butchered because it's Joe Biden's baby?
When Biden laid the groundwork years ago, he was a senator from Delaware who successfully put together legislation and funding to support battered women's shelters and train law enforcement to handle domestic violence situations. These efforts led to the passage of VAWA in 1994. It's universally recognized as a landmark piece of legislation that did more to advance anti-domestic violence advocacy in the U.S. than anything before it. It's always been deemed a worthy cause and has always passed when it has come up for reauthorization in years past.
But not this year. While VAWA has continually evolved and changed to meet the specific needs of domestic and/or sexual violence victims, the GOP has said no to recommended updates to VAWA which either add to or reinforce existing protections for three populations at high risk of abuse:
- immigrants
- Native Americans
- the LGBT community
With regard to immigrants, a Los Angeles Times editorial notes that the House version of VAWA actually strips away existing VAWA protections by removing a confidentiality clause and eliminating U visas:
[Curently] if an immigrant married to a U.S. citizen or a green-card holder -- and therefore eligible to stay in the country permanently -- can show evidence of abuse, he or she may file independently without having to rely on the abusive spouse. VAWA's gender-neutral protections apply to legal and illegal immigrants and allow the victim to file confidentially.
Confidentiality is crucial....without such guarantees, an abuser could try to derail a spouse's green-card application or push to have him or her deported. A battered woman whose application depends on her abusive husband certainly might think twice about filing if she knew her abuser would be notified that she was seeking help without him.
Eliminating the confidentiality provision is one of several changes House Republicans...[made] to weaken the law. They argue that the changes are necessary to combat fraud, in which immigrants falsely claim to have been abused in order to obtain visas. But where are the data and studies that indicate that fraud is a problem?...
The House reauthorization bill also seeks to undercut a provision that allows undocumented immigrants who assist in prosecutions of serious crimes to apply for U visas, and ultimately obtain green cards. The proposed changes would allow victims to obtain temporary visas only....U visas help protect American citizens too, by encouraging witnesses to step forward without fear of deportation. That's why the program enjoys the backing of many law enforcement groups.
A similarly disturbing elimination of protections for Native Americans by the House version ignores a horrific epidemic that's sweeping across tribal lands -- the rape of Native American women and girls by non-native perpetrators who get away with the crime because tribal law enforcement has no jurisdiction outside tribal lands. According to media network Indian Country:
[F]ederal statistics indicate that Native women are battered, raped, and stalked at far greater rates than any other population of women in the United States. The data indicates that 34 percent of Native women will be raped in their lifetimes and 39 percent will be the victim of domestic violence.
The Senate version extends tribal court jurisdiction over non-Indian domestic violence offenders, allows for tribal protection orders involving "any person," including non-Indian offenders, and strengthens federal authority to address violent felonies on reservations. None of these protections exist in the House version.
Finally, the House version contains none of the Senate's protections for women in the LGBT community, one of the groups at highest risk. Writing for the Washington Post, Suzy Khimm notes:
The rate of domestic violence among LGBT couples is about the same as for heterosexual ones -- an estimated 25 to 33 percent experience abuse in their lifetimes, according to National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs. But LGBT victims are significantly less likely to seek out help: 45 percent of them have been turned away from domestic violence shelters, and only 7 percent call the police after an incident of domestic violence. LGBT women are particularly at risk: they're victims of the majority of murders related to domestic violence in the gay community, the coalition says....
[T]he Senate bill....includes earmarked funding for community organizations that serve LGBT victims, a prohibition against LGBT discrimination by law enforcement and domestic-violence shelters, and an explicit allowance for states to use federal money to help LGBT victims.
Right now, only 24 states currently take advantage of federal funding to support LGBT-specific anti-violence programs, according to Sharon Stapel, executive director of the New York City Anti-Violence Project, which provides counseling, education, and support for LGBT victims. "If you are in a violent relationship and need somewhere to go, it's critical we have these services available in every state," Stapel says.
Not only are the disenfranchised losing out in this ridiculous display of political game-playing, but even those with a measure of power find their voices being ignored.
I found myself near tears as I watched Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Wisconsin) standing before the House, describing her own personal trauma as a victim of rape in order to give weight to her words in opposition to the weakened House VAWA bill. Twenty years before VAWA became law, she'd gone for a ride with "a guy I thought was a friend" who ended up raping and nearly choking her to death. When her case went to court, she described how she was made to feel on trial and why her abuser walked free. VAWA was created to give law enforcement the training and tools to make sure this sort of thing didn't happen to other women, Moore noted, adding that if the proposed House version passed, it would fly in the face of the recommendation of experts:
As a woman of color, I am particularly aggrieved that this bill ignores the special circumstances of women who are minorities, women who are in the shadows, and that we have created a veritable sanctuary for those who would commit sexual assault and abuse them...
What male Representative would ever stand before Congress and tell such a deeply painful story? None...because most are men of privilege and will never experience these degradations.
It's almost a moot point whether a "War on Women" is taking place because something just as bad is happening -- a war on effective long-standing legislation that does what it's supposed to do but just happens to have been crafted by a man who's now vice president and running for re-election under a president the GOP despises.
The GOP has lost its way. It was more progressive 90 years ago when it truly was the Grand Old Party for its support of the suffragist movement and the 19th Amendment.
Republicans, look to your history books and see how you promoted women's rights in a meaningful way. At the time, you were forward-thinking and interested in issues greater than getting your candidates into public office. But you've squandered that legacy and VAWA is only the most recent example of how far you've fallen.
If you want the support of women, extend that same support to us instead of slapping us down at every turn. Stop throwing women under the bus merely to make a point.
I can't say it any better than the LA Times did in its editorial: "Helping battered women is more important than political gains."
Related article:
VAWA - Joe Biden's Landmark Domestic Violence Legislation
If you honestly believe "Any publicity is good publicity," take a look at the controversy surrounding the TIME magazine breastfeeding cover fronting this week's issue. While the attendant article discusses Dr. William Sears and his approach to attachment parenting, the cover has taken on an infamous life of its own. Granted, extended breastfeeding is one aspect of attachment parenting, but despite the protestations of the photographer behind the image, TIME's cover shot aims to be provocative, titillating, and attention-grabbing.
And that's the problem. Did TIME really want to foster a discussion about modern parenting and the many theories of what's best for our children, or simply turn heads and sell magazines? And why throw the cover mother-and-child duo, 26-year-old Jamie Grumet and 3-year-old Aram, under the bus with a pose that doesn't foster warm and fuzzy feelings but instead elicits a "Did she really do that?" reaction?
Even the cover mom admitted, "There were other photos that were more nurturing, kind of like our daily life, the way we do it. I don't think it would have been quite as provocative,"
How different our reactions would be if Grumet were wearing a long-sleeved blouse unbuttoned to her breast (as many nursing moms do) instead of skin-tight leggings and a tank; or if her nursing son Aram was clearly 3 (instead of looking like a hulking 7-year-old) and was not wearing an army-grey shirt, grey and olive camo pants and tough-guy footwear.
The image does not reflect the love and closeness that is shared when a mother nurses her child. Because those emotions are absent from both participants in the photo, the act doesn't appear nurturing but looks like something darker, with subtle undertones that make most viewers uncomfortable.
There's been a lot of fuss made about the "war on women" in political circles, but a recent slew of "ewww, that's gross" articles about celebrity moms makes it clear that it's open season on women everywhere and mothers are not exempt. TVGuide.com notes that along with the TIME cover are other stories about "atypical parenting":
Last month a video of Alicia Silverstone regurgitating food into her son's mouth went viral. Hilary Duff also recently admitted to keeping her son's umbilical cord stump in a drawer, while Mad Men's January Jones said in March that she takes pills made from her placenta.
While some celebrities have shared their poorly-informed opinions via Twitter, actress and breastfeeding advocate Mayim Bialik of The Big Bang Theory spoke to CNN about attachment parenting. A mom who breastfeeds her own 3-year-old, Bialik explained to Suzanne Malveaux, "The concepts of believing that a child has a voice, whether it's a newborn voice or a 1-year-old voice, that's what then forms all your decisions about how long you breastfeed, how long you sleep safely with your child...how long you let their needs be part of yours."
While some are saying that this attention has helped launch public discourse on attachment parenting, more snide comments are circulating (like former Cosmo and Glamour magazine editor Bonnie Fuller's irresponsible remark that extreme attachment parenters are nuts) than thoughtful assessments along the lines of Mayim Bialik's.
The irony of the story breaking on the Friday before Mother's Day is not lost on me. In fact, I waited to write about it until today because criticizing the actions of a loving mom seemed ill-advised on the eve of this special day for mothers.
In the end, this story is essentially a non-issue especially in a world where bad parenting injures, maims, and impairs so many children for life...and kills untold others. Those are the stories that need to be covered and discussed widely, so that when a parent fails a larger network exists as a safety net operating under that child to see him/her safely through to adulthood. We need to focus on improved social services for at-risk children and better support mechanisms for women (especially single-parent heads of households) who are barely keeping it together for themselves and their families. This is where our energies should be spent instead of worrying about a magazine cover that misrepresents the article it illustrates.
For a much better take on intensive motherhood (and how feminism leads to better mothering), read Belinda Luscombe's commentary at Time.com. As she points out:
The affluent, slightly older and well-educated moms who are most likely perusing parenting books like those written by William Sears have already tasted financial independence, self-sufficiency and freedom of movement. They quickly become acutely aware that parenting severely curtails those things. And they want to make their sacrifices mean something. If they're giving up so much to raise this new human, they're going to make sure the kid is raised like a blue chip stock price....
We've educated women to forge a new path. Why did we think they'd treat raising children any differently?
Condom distribution in high schools and sex education classes that cover methods of contraception have long come under fire from parents, religious leaders, and some school officials who believe the above actions send a message to teens that having sex is okay. Like most teen pregnancy prevention advocates, I don't agree with that view but I can comprehend where those folks are coming from.
But a recent Tennessee State Senate decision is just a big box of crazy. It makes no sense. That legislative body voted 28-1 to ban any sex education instructors -- either within the school or brought in through an outside group -- from discussing or promoting "gateway sexual activity." Since "gateway sexual activity" is never concretely spelled out, the interpretation is up for grabs...and could include kissing or even handholding.
Does that mean a boy asking to carry a girl's books constitutes sexual harassment? Could a study date for a biology test be construed as a "gateway sexual activity"? Will GSAs enter our lingo just as PDAs (public displays of affection) once did?
I'm intentionally being ridiculous to illustrate the ridiculousness of this whole idea. Instead of beating around the bush, why don't they just say it? Clearly Tennessee lawmakers want abstinence -- and only abstinence -- to be taught in schools. But narrow-minded ignorance has led them to make a mistake of epic proportions. Countless studies over the years have proven that abstinence doesn't work in preventing teen pregnancy. What works is arming teens with the facts about sex education, contraception, STDs and personal responsibility. When we do this, we impact teen pregnancy statistics for the better. The latest evidence was put forth by the CDC in April: teen birth rates have dramatically dropped in recent years due to increased contraceptive use on the part of teens having sex.
Wishing that teens behave a certain way won't make it so. And in a state where handholding might constitute a "gateway sexual activity," it's the teens who will pay for the squeamishness of those adults who refuse to face reality.
Tennessee lawmakers know what the problem is: the state is ranked as having the 10th highest teen birth rate in the U.S. with 43.2 births per thousand teenage girls ages 15-19. But they're going about "problem-solving" the wrong way.
Studies have shown that abstinence pledges not only don't work but also put teens at a higher risk of not using birth control when they do engage in sexual activity. As one researcher put it, "Taking a pledge doesn't seem to make any difference at all in any sexual behavior....But it does seem to make a difference in condom use and other forms of birth control that is quite striking."
So if they want to lower the teen birth rate in Tennessee, scaring kids off of handholding is not the way to go. Legislators may think they can influence outcomes, but in reality it's the parents -- particularly mothers -- who have the biggest impact on a teen's decision whether or not to have sex.
In a year when nearly all conservative candidates are running campaigns that rail against too much government intervention, can't they see how this particular decision has gone over the edge?
Related articles:
Have you heard the one about the PUMA who's looking for a divorced man? It's not a joke but a new meaning for the term that previously described a young cougar (a woman in her thirties interested in younger males.)
What the new definition of puma does is glamorize divorced men for better or worse -- a trend that has caught on in the UK but not in the US as of this writing (thank god.) When we glamorize divorced women, I'll be all for it. Until then, let's reserve the use of puma for those mountain cats and that brand of footwear -- and leave women out of it.
Related article:
What is a puma woman? Definition of a puma and difference betwen puma and cougar
