Action Alert

We received the following action alert from the Georgia Coalition Against Domestic Violence:

We are in the final stretch of the budget process in the Georgia Legislature, so this is likely our LAST CHANCE to advocate on the funding issue. We need you to make calls to key legislators to ensure funding for domestic violence programs!

Unfortunately, the House Subcommittee on Human Services DID NOT restore any of the $3.7 million in state funding for domestic violence programs in their FY 2012 budget recommendation. However, there is still one last chance to get these funds restored in the FY 2012 budget as long as the Senate Subcommittee on Human Services includes it in their budget recommendation.

The Senate Subcommittee will be making its final budget recommendations within the coming days, so it is essential that these Senators hear from as many advocates and allies as possible.

Please take the time this week and early next week to call each of the Senate Subcommittee members and urge them to restore all $3.7 million in unrestricted state funds which are not being used for TANF MOE to Georgia's domestic violence programs in the Fiscal Year 2012 budget.

This is incredibly important. Women's Resource Center is large enough that we can find other funding sources to support our clients not covered by TANF (for example, DV survivors who don't have children), but other smaller shelters in the state cannot. Also, WRC as well as these smaller organizations rely on state funds for general operating, and TANF funds may not be able to be used for overhead. Visit GCADV's action alert via this link for a suggested script and a list of Senators to call.

Action Alert: State Funding for DV Services

The Georgia Coalition Against Domestic Violence has released the following Action Alert:

Because of YOUR phone calls last week, there are moves in the Georgia Legislature to restore a substantial portion of the state funds to domestic violence and sexual assault programs in the Fiscal Year 2011 Amended budget. This is FANTASTIC news!

However, the key legislators in the budget process need to hear from you THIS WEEK in order to ensure the restoration of these funds!

Please call each of the following State Senators, regardless of whether they serve your district. Thank them for restoring 2.5 million dollars in state funds to domestic violence and sexual assault programs in the Fiscal Year 2011 Amended budget, and urge them to adhere to this position in their budget negotiations.

• Senator Jack Hill, Chair of Senate Appropriations – (404) 656-5038


• Senator Chip Rogers, Senate Majority Leader – (404) 463-1378


• Senator Tommie Williams, President Pro Tempore – (404) 656-0089

Please call each of the following State Representatives, regardless of whether they serve your district, and urge them to adopt the Senate position for the restoration of 2.5 million dollars in state funds to domestic violence and sexual assault programs in the Fiscal Year 2011 Amended budget.

• Rep Terry England, Chair of House Appropriations – (404) 463-2245


• Rep Jan Jones, Speaker Pro-Tempore – (404) 656-5072


• Rep Larry O’Neal, House Majority Leader – (404) 656-5052

Background: The Georgia Senate and the Georgia House of Representatives are currently considering the Governor’s budget proposals for Amended FY 2011 and FY 2012. Included in each of these proposals is the elimination of all $4.5 million in state funds for domestic violence and sexual assault centers. In its deliberations, the Senate Appropriations Committee restored $2.5 million of those state funds. Unfortunately, the House Appropriations Committee did NOT recommend the restoration of these funds. Now, key legislators in the budget process are scheduled to come together early next week to make their final decisions about the FY 2011 Amended budget, based on the recommendations from the Senate and House. In order for this partial restoration of funds to become a reality, these six legislators must adopt the Senate position.

For additional information on how important it is to ensure that state funding be restored, please click here. Please make your calls as soon as possible.

Georgia House Bill Addresses Human Trafficking

On a better note than our last post about the Georgia legislature, a bipartisan group is tackling human trafficking and underage prostitution in our state.

According to the AJC, "House Bill 200 is designed to help law enforcement and prosecutors go after people who traffic in people, especially minors, for sexual servitude."

The proposal increases penalties for the crime to those similar to drug trafficking, with offenders facing up to 20 years in prison for human trafficking and 50 years in prison for trafficking in minors.

The bill also treats those in sexual servitude as victims, not criminals, by offering them recovery under the state crime victims fund and an affirmative defense when coming forward.

“Human trafficking for sexual servitude is one of the most serious criminal problems facing our state,” said Lindsey, R-Atlanta. “[The bill is] designed to make it easier to go after this crime and treat the victims with compassion and give an avenue to get out of the trap that was laid for them.”

Atlanta is a nation-wide hub for human trafficking, and it is nice to see the problem being addressed on a statewide level. The focus on treating women and children who are trafficked and prostituted as victims of their traffickers is also a very welcome change. Though our organization focuses on violence against women by their intimate partners, all forms of gender-based violence are intrinsically linked, and we cannot have freedom from one while others still exists. To learn more, visit the Atlanta Human Trafficking Project.

Guilty Until Proven Victim

We're used to using and hearing the words "domestic violence victim" and "rape victim", but when does a person become a victim under the law?

According to Georgia State Rep. Bobby Franklin (R-Marietta), a victim should not be called a victim until the person who victimized them is convicted of a crime. Therefore, you cannot be a victim of rape until a person is proven guilty of raping you.

It almost makes sense. After all, in this country, our legal system is meant to assume you are innocent until you are proven to be guilty. Therefore, until a crime is proven to be committed, there is no victim of that crime.

However, the lawmaker in question isn't applying his objection to the word "victim" to every crime. Robbery victims still get to remain victims. Trespassing victims are still victims. According to Representative Franklin, only the victimhood of rape, stalking, obscene telephone contact with a minor, and domestic violence victims should be called into question. We wonder why he chose those specific crimes.

Melissa at Shakesville has a theory.

Could it be because those are the only crimes around which we have narratives about multitudinous false accusations, despite the fact that false reports of sexual violence are lower than false reports of auto theft, and despite the fact that there is a higher threshold for convincing law enforcement to take action on reports of sexual violence and harassment than any other crime, and despite the vanishingly low percentage of reports that go to trial and the minuscule conviction rates?

Could it be because implying that people who report sex crimes and/or harassment are liars is an integral tool and prevalent narrative of the rape culture, which exists to protect rapists—a pretty significant constituency of any politician, since around 12% of men (pdf) have, by their own admission, committed sexual assault or rape, which is certainly much higher than the percentage of the population who commits auto theft, or bank robbery, or fraud?

Georgia ranks 11th in the nation for incidences of forcible rape and 10th in the nation for the number of women killed by men. We cannot afford laws that further stigmatize the reporting and prosecution of crimes against women by assuming that victims are liars. If you think our state congress should concentrate more on protecting women than on men who have been accused of committing a crime, call them and tell them so. Visit congress.org to find your representative.

Big Win for GCFV!

Thanks to everyone who responded to our call to help save the Georgia Commission on Family Violence. Your efforts worked!

The House and the Senate passed a budget that moves funding for the Commission over to the Judicial Council, where it can best be protected. And instead of zeroing out their budget, as originally proposed, the legislature made sure the Commission maintained 90% of its funding - which, in today's climate, is another huge victory.

To learn more about the Commission and the work that they do, visit their website.

GCFV Needs Your Help

Last year, advocacy organizations, legislators, and voters fought hard to keep the Georgia Commission on Family Violence alive. This year, their continued existence is being threatened again. The Commission provides valuable services for the state such as certifying all of the state's batterer's intervention programs. We cannot afford to have the power over certification moved to another state agency without a thorough knowledge of domestic violence and the tactics of control that batterers use.

The Georgia Senate budget recommendation that was just released shows that the Commission is in danger of having its funding zeroed out, which means that the Commission would cease to exist as of July 1 of this year. Their fate now rests in the hands of the 3 Representatives and 3 Senators on the budget conference committee that will work out the differences between the House and Senate budget bills. Please call or email these conferees, as well as the Lieutenant Governor and the Speaker of House, to ask them to Agree with the House’s FY 2011 Budget Recommendation for the Commission.

The talking points and contact info distributed by the Commission are as follows (note that the talking points are slightly different for the House and the Senate):

House:

Rep. Jerry Keen: Phone: 404.656.5052 jerry.keen@house.ga.gov
Rep. Jan Jones: Phone: 404.656.5072 jan.jones@house.ga.gov
Rep. Ben Harbin: Phone: 404.463.2247 ben.harbin@house.ga.gov
Speaker of the House David Ralston: Phone: 404.656.5020

House Talking Points: Thank you for working to preserve the Commission on Family Violence, by moving its funding to the Judicial Council. Please stand strong on this position in the conference committee - maintaining this position is vital for victims of domestic violence in Georgia.


Senate:

Sen. Jack Hill: Phone: (404) 656-5038 jack.hill@senate.ga.gov
Sen. Chip Rogers: Phone: (404) 463-1378 chip.rogers@senate.ga.gov
Sen. Tommie Williams: Phone: (404) 656-0089 tommie.williams@senate.ga.gov
Lt. Governor Casey Cagle: Phone: (404) 656-5030 FAX: (404) 656-6739

Senate Talking Points: It is crucial that the Senate agree with the House recommendation for the Commission on Family Violence in the FY11 budget -- to move the funding for the Commission to the Judicial Council. The Commission on Family Violence is the only state agency committed to this issue, and has helped to dramatically reduce Georgia's domestic violence homicide rate. If the Senate's recommendation were to prevail, the good work of the Commission would be lost. We urge you to preserve this vital agency by agreeing with the House recommendation for the Commission on Family Violence for FY11.

Harry Reid Links Domestic Violence and Joblessness

From the Christian Science Monitor: Senate majority leader Harry Reid stated during a procedural vote Monday night that the Senate’s jobs bill could do more than help people get back to work. It could bring down the rate of domestic violence.

“I met with some people while I was home dealing with domestic abuse. It has gotten out of hand,” Senator Reid reportedly said on the Senate floor. “Why? Men don’t
have jobs…. Men, when they’re out of work, tend to become abusive.

Even though women are losing jobs as well, “women aren't abusive, most of the time,” Reid added. "Men, when they're out of work, tend
to become abusive.”

While men's rights groups are calling for an apology, DV advocacy groups are clarifying, hoping those who heard Senator Reid's comments won't mistakenly think that joblessness causes domestic violence. Though it isn't a causal relationship, joblessness and family violence are linked.

While the study refrains from drawing comprehensive conclusions about all men, unemployment is definitely a significant risk factor – along with poverty and a low level of educational attainment – an extensive 2004 report by the National Institute of Justice found. The report found that the rate of violence against women increases as male unemployment increases. When
a woman's male partner is employed, the rate of violence is 4.7 percent. It’s 7.5 percent when the male experiences one period of unemployment. It’s 12.3
percent when the male experiences two or more periods of unemployment.

Women who lose their jobs are also more at risk for abuse. A lack of money is a common reason why a female victim may refuse to leave an abusive partner, according to the National Coalition Against
Domestic Violence.

And James Fox, criminologist at Northeastern University in Boston, says that when men lose their jobs, they lose self esteem and money – but also emotional support.

“Females are more
likely to have friends outside work, whereas men tend to have friendships on the job,” says Professor Fox. “Men rarely have friends outside work connections, and when
they lose their job, they lose all the people that were around them. They feel abandoned.”

The Boston Globe reported in December 2008 that “domestic violence programs report that victims experience an increase in abuse in part because out-of-work
abusers have more opportunity to batter.”


Another reason why joblessness could contribute to a rise in domestic violence is the batterer's lost sense of control. If he has lost his job and is worried about his finances, he may be feeling out of control in many areas of his life. For some men, that loss of control is very threatening, and they may seek to exert more control where they can. This is often over their family or their romantic partner. Those controlling behaviors often lead to physical and emotional violence. Never forget - domestic violence isn't about a loss of temper, it isn't about revenge, and it isn't about poverty. Domestic violence is all about power and control

Bill Would Protect Pets From Domestic Violence

A bill up for consideration in the Georgia Legislature this year would add pets as protected parties under domestic violence protective orders.

Animal rights advocates and domestic violence prevention groups have united behind the bill. They say it will help prevent situations like the vicious beating of a pet dachshund that occurred in Gwinnett County last week. Dainley Green, accused of beating his family's pet dachshund in front of his children, was charged in the case.

The dog was still bleeding and had bloodshot eyes from being strangled when deputies arrived at the Lawrenceville home. Authorities were tipped off to the abuse when Green's wife filed for a temporary protective order.

"If you think about it in a domestic violence way, people are so attached to their pets now," said state Rep. Sharon Cooper (R-Marietta), who sponsored HB 429. "One way to really hurt the person you're trying to control is to go after the pet."

The bill, which made it out of a House committee last year but missed the deadline for crossover to the Senate, would let judges order an alleged abuser to refrain from harming family pets. It also would allow the judge to direct the care, custody or control of a pet. The law would not apply to livestock, working animals, laboratory animals or sport animals.

Cooper said the bill went back to the Judiciary Non-Civil Committee, where she will ask for it to be resurrected this year.

Batterers often use pets to control family members, domestic abuse experts say. According to a national survey of family violence shelters conducted by university researchers in 1997, 71 percent of victims reported that their abusers threatened, injured or killed the family pets.

Nicole Lesser, director of the Georgia Coalition Against Domestic Violence, said securing protection for pets is a big issue in the field of domestic violence.

"I don't think you'll hear any opposition to that in the domestic violence world," Lesser said. "I've had many clients say, ‘If I can't take my dog, I can't leave.'"

The Ahimsa House is a Decatur-based nonprofit organization that takes in the pets of domestic violence victims, providing shelter for them in a network of foster homes and boarding facilities. The organization's president, Maya Gupta, said it has received 709 crisis calls and sheltered about 150 animals since 2007. A majority of the pets they see have injuries or illness resulting from neglect, Gupta said.

"It's such an under-recognized thing that people don't realize," Gupta said.

In issuing a protective order, courts can order a person to refrain from domestic violence, authorize a dangerous person to be evicted from a home or force them to provide housing elsewhere for a partner, and set up child and spousal support payments. Cooper's bill would allow pets to be included.

Eleven states have already passed similar pet-protection laws, according to the Humane Society of the United States.

Chesta Drake, a retired school counselor who volunteers for the Humane Society, and others involved with the organization will be at the Capitol next week urging passage of Cooper's bill. She said what happened to the Green family's pet dachshund shows just how timely the legislation is.

"So many times animals are used just like this to threaten or control or horrify the family," Drake said.

We'll have more updates for you on ways you can take action to help pass this bill.

Call to Action: SAFE Act

From Senator Patty Murray's website:

Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-Wash) introduced legislation with Senators Sherrod Brown and Chris Dodd to ensure that victims of domestic violence have the financial means to escape abusive relationships. The Security and Financial Empowerment Act (SAFE Act) would make a number of changes in federal law to ensure that victims of domestic violence have the ability to leave their abusers, support themselves and their families while they seek help, and are not discriminated against or penalized simply for being abused.

Murray’s reintroduction of the SAFE Act comes as Congress debates health insurance reform. Murray has long insisted that we reform the insurance industry to end the practice of considering domestic abuse to be a pre-existing condition. Her efforts to reform the system in the HELP Committee were voted down by Republicans in 2006, but the health care reform bill that passed the Committee in late July does include language that would end the practice.

“For too long domestic violence victims have been victimized twice – first by their abusers and then again by financial and insurance constraints that punish them for their abusers’ crimes. The SAFE Act will help domestic violence victims break the financial chains that bind them to their abusers,” Senator Murray said. “As we work to reform our health care system to eliminate discriminatory practices against victims of domestic violence, we also need to look at the larger financial system and ensure that no victim ever has to choose between personal safety and economic security.”

Senator Murray has spent years in the Senate fighting for awareness of and protection for victims of domestic violence

Senator Murray first introduced legislation that would provide financial protections to victims of abuse in 2001. She reintroduced similar bills in 2003. 2005, and 2007.

Murray also introduced an amendment in 2006 that would have prohibited insurance companies from discriminating against victims of domestic violence, but this was defeated in committee. This amendment was introduced at a hearing of the HELP Committee considering the Health Insurance Marketplace Modernization and Affordability Act.

Background on SAFE Act:

While the devastating physical and emotional effects of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking are well documented, little attention has been paid to the severe economic consequences of these types of abuse – estimated to cost U.S. employers between $3 billion and $13 billion annually.

Currently, victims of domestic violence are not expressly allowed by federal law to take leave from work for the purpose of dealing with domestic violence, nor do they have the right to unemployment compensation if they lose their jobs due to circumstances resulting from abuse. Victims who seek help to leave their abuser are often discriminated against by employers and insurers.

These restrictions often force victims to choose between their safety and their financial security. Abusers frequently exploit their victims’ economic dependence to keep them trapped in violent relationships.

To address these issues, Senator Murray is re-introducing the Security and Financial Empowerment (SAFE) Act. This legislation promotes financial security for victims of abuse in several ways:

• Allows a victim to take time off from work, without penalty from their employers, to make necessary court appearances, seek legal assistance, and get help with safety planning. For families attempting to escape a violent environment, attending to such necessities is often a matter of life and death.
  

• Ensures that victims can retain the financial independence necessary to leave their abusers without having to rely on welfare by requiring that states provide unemployment benefits to victims who are terminated from employment due to circumstances stemming from domestic violence.
  

• Prohibits employers or insurance providers from basing hiring or coverage decisions on a victim’s history of abuse.
  

• Addresses the punitive elements of the welfare system that can penalize victims who are fleeing dangerous situations, also called the Family Violence Option.

Contact your Senators and tell them to support the SAFE Act!

No Health Insurance for DV Victims

It sounds too ludicrous to be true, but according to a press release issued by the Service Employees International Union, it is legal in DC and eight other states for insurance companies to refuse service to women if they have ever experienced domestic violence. In 1994, an informal survey conducted by the Subcommittee on Crime and Criminal Justice of the United States Senate Judiciary Committee revealed that 8 of the 16 largest insurers in the country used domestic violence as a factor when deciding whether to extend coverage and how much to charge if coverage was extended. DV is labeled by these companies to be a preexisting condition.

Regardless of your opinion on healthcare reform, we hope you share our view that this is unconscionable. Insurance companies are further victimizing a group of women who need healthcare the most due to injuries that are not their fault. Women in violent relationships frequently sustain injuries and experience illnesses that require medical attention. According to the US Department of Health, domestic violence is one of the most powerful predictors of increased health care utilization.

Many sources have commented on this issue, and the most common defense of the insurance company is to blame the victim. Commenters argue that people who scuba dive or bungee jump regularly have higher rates or are denied coverage because they put themselves in high risk situations. Therefore, they argue, women who put themselves in the high risk situation of being battered should also share the burden for their increased medical costs. The women should bear that burden, not their batterers.

Amanda at Pandagon reminds us that this policy has additional consequences.

Obviously, the major one is that the fear of losing insurance coverage might drive victims to avoid reaching out for help, and it may even mean that they don’t get treatment for their injuries after an abusive incident. And of course, the less a woman reaches out for help, the less likely she is to get out of the situation. In addition, one form of control that abusers use over their victims is financial dependence, and impoverishing a woman by denying her health care coverage will only make her more dependent on the abuser. I wouldn’t even be remotely surprised to find out if abusers often use health insurance as leverage over their victims, especially since a much higher percentage of women than men are covered through a spouse’s employer-provided insurance.

The report I link is heavy on screening recommendations, which is already a point of tension between people who look at these issues from a public health perspective and individual providers. After all, it’s both true that screening for domestic violence at the doctor’s office would help lower the overall incidence of it and that having those individual conversations is a miserable event for everyone involved. But obviously, providers can be convinced to set aside their reservations and do the screening if there’s an overall benefit to their patients. The problem, though, is if you include screening questions about domestic violence, you’re helping put your patient in danger of losing her insurance coverage or being accused of defrauding the insurance company if it comes out that she has been victimized, but declined to admit that in the screening process. More than anyone, doctors are sensitive to the importance of not provoking insurance companies to deny coverage, and I doubt they’ll eagerly sign up for further screening programs that could create financial problems for their patients.

Even though Georgia is not one of the states who allows domestic violence to be categorized as a preexisting condition, our own Senator Johnny Isakson voted against a proposed 2006 amendment to the Health Insurance Marketplace Modernization and Affordability Act that would have required insurers to stop ignoring state laws that make it illegal for them to deny coverage to domestic violence survivors, ostensibly reopening Georgia to the practice.

To encourage Congress to pass a healthcare reform bill that includes protections for domestic violence survivors, sign the petition here.

Project VoteSafe Becomes Law

From ABC:

Georgia voters who have endured an abusive past now no longer have to worry about exposing their identities when voting, according to a news release sent to NewsChannel 9:

Georgia Secretary of State Karen Handel today announced enactment of Project VoteSafe, a program to ensure that individuals under protective orders or residents of family violence centers are protected from having their addresses exposed during the voting process. Governor Sonny Perdue signed the enabling legislation, House Bill 227, into law Friday.

Project VoteSafe, sponsored by Rep. Katie Dempsey (R-Rome), applies to citizens who have received a protective order issued by a court and to residents of family violence shelters. These individuals would be eligible to confidentially register to vote without their voter registration information becoming available as public information.
"I want to thank Governor Perdue for signing this important legislation and Representative Dempsey for her leadership in passing Project VoteSafe," Secretary Handel said. "Georgia citizens should not fear for their safety while trying to exercise their right to vote."

House Bill 227 received overwhelming support in the Georgia General Assembly, passing by a margin of 155 to three in the House and 50 to zero in the Senate.

Representative Dempsey said, "I'm delighted that Governor Perdue signed this common sense bill into law. It has been an honor to work with Secretary Handel to ensure that individuals in need of protective orders, such as victims of domestic abuse or stalking, have the opportunity to register and vote without the fear of being located by those wishing to do them harm."

The Project VoteSafe legislation allows the Secretary of State's Office to implement the mechanism by which an individual's information will be kept private.

Please click here for more information on HB 227 from the Georgia General Assembly website.

Save Funding for Girls who have been Prostituted

From the Interfaith Children's Movement:

During this year's Georgia legislative session, one of ICM's proudest accomplishments was helping win inclusion of $560,000 for a Regional Assessment Center for prostituted adolescent girls. The center opened in June with 12 beds and already has a waiting list. On average, one girl a week is referred for help.

Now the $560,000 you helped secure for the Regional Assessment Center is frozen. Without action the program will run out of funds in 3 months.

Because of the state budget shortfall, the Regional Assessment Center is one of the programs being recommended for elimination.

In September the Governor will decide what state program cuts become final. We have a small window of opportunity to raise concerns about cutting 100% of 2009 funds for this critical program.

We need services and programs for children who have been prostituted, because metro-Atlanta has become a national hub for the prostitution of adolescent girls, with the trafficking of girls from across the state and across the nation becoming an ever-increasing problem. Right now, child-victims are sent to Youth Detention Centers (YDC) because enough appropriate services do not exist.

The Regional Assessment Center needs your help.

1. Write or call Governor Perdue to restore funding for the Regional Assessment Center.
2. Call, write, e-mail or visit with your senator and representative in the Georgia General Assembly.
3. Write or call the members of the Joint Committee on Child Sexual Exploitation.

Information on making these contacts can be found here.

More information on the sexual exploitation of children in Atlanta can be found here.

Open Season

In March, we brought you the story of Ricardo Ferrante, 34, who was acquitted of any wrongdoing by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals after he snuck up behind a 16-year old in a Target and took photos under her skirt without her permission. The Court stated that this did not constitute a crime because the girl was in a public place and therefore had no reasonable expectation of privacy. The lone dissenting voter, Judge Gary Lumpkin, wrote "...it is open season for peeping Toms in public places who want to look under a woman's dress." He appears to have been correct.

Via Feministing

Charges against Brian Presken, 32, of Florida have been dismissed. Presken used a mirror to look under a woman's skirt at a Barnes & Noble in Pensacola last Summer. His attorney did not argue that he was innocent, but that the victim had no expectation of privacy in a public space.

Defense attorney Katheryne Snowden argued that the voyeurism charge should be dropped because Presken's accuser didn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place under Florida law.

The law under which Presken was charged states, 'It is illegal to secretly observe someone with lewd, lascivious and indecent intent in a dwelling, structure or conveyance, and when such locations provide a reasonable expectation of privacy.'

Judge George J. Roark III agreed and dismissed the case. Assistant State Attorney Greg Marcille stated that while he does not plan to appeal this decision, he will ask the Legislature to consider amending the statute during the next session to include incidences such as these. Marcille also intends to move forward on a disorderly conduct charge that is still pending against Presken.

It appears that this lack of protection under the law is a widespread problem. If you know of similar instances please contact your representatives to lobby for a change.

Women's bodies are not public property

Two years ago in Oklahoma, Riccardo Ferrante, now 34, followed a 16 year-old girl through a Target. He snuck up behind her and without her knowledge managed to situate his camera in such a way that allowed him to take photos under her skirt.

Last week Oklahoma's Court of Criminal Appeals ruled in a 4-1 decision that this did not constitute a crime. Blogger Lawhawk has posted the "Peeping Tom" statute under which Ferrante was originally charged.

Every person who uses photographic, electronic or video equipment in a clandestine manner for any illegal, illegitimate, prurient, lewd or lascivious purpose with the unlawful and willful intent to view, watch, gaze or look upon any person without the knowledge and consent of such person when the person viewed is in a place where there is a right to a reasonable expectation of privacy, or who publishes or distributes any image obtained from such act, shall, upon conviction, be guilty of a felony.

It was the majority opinion of the Oklahoma Criminal Appeals Court that once this 16 year-old child dared to wear a skirt in public, she forfeited any "reasonable expectation to privacy" concerning what was covered by that skirt. Huffington Post contributor Jessica Wakeman questions this logic, asking:

So, let me get this straight...it's not okay to violate someone in his or her own home, but it is okay to violate that person as soon as he or she sets foot on the sidewalk. Why would the court make such a distinction? To protect all those people who accidentally take photos or videotapes of other people's private parts?

Fortunately, there was one voice of reason sitting on the bench during this case.

The lone dissenting voter on the court, Appeals Judge Gary Lumpkin, wrote, "What this decision does is state to women who desire to wear dresses that there is no expectation of privacy as to what they have covered with their dress. In other words, it is open season for peeping Toms in public places who want to look under a woman's dress."

As shocking and horrible as this case is, it isn't abnormal. It has been "open season" on women in public spaces for quite some time. Allegations that the way a woman dresses could invite sexual assault are alive and well. Allison Stokke and allies are actually having to justify why her picture shouldn't be plastered all over the Internet without her consent. Justifications, we might add, that are falling on deaf ears. The paparazzi and the media consuming public don't think twice about the moral or ethical implications of taking, publishing,or viewing pictures of a private and embarrassing nature.

So Oklahoma didn't trail blaze viewing women's bodies as public domain, they just codified it.

Cross-posted

Real ID Creates a Real Threat

In an effort to standardize the information provided on driver's licenses throughout the nation, the Department of Homeland Security is advocating the Real ID Act, which mandates minimum standards for government issued ID cards and provides for a national database of ID holders rather than the current disconnected system of statewide DMV databases. Initially, proponents of the Real ID Act were unable to pass it on its own, so they attached it as a rider to a military spending bill and the Act passed without debate. Opponents of the Real ID Act worry about how it will affect victims of domestic violence and stalking.

Every year, about 1,000 domestic violence victims legally change their Social Security numbers in an attempt to elude people who may pose threats, and many more change their legal names, according to figures compiled by advocacy groups.

But hiding from stalkers may become more difficult under a federal law called the Real ID Act that's scheduled to take effect on May 11.

Anna Broach wrote a comprehensive piece on the shortfalls of the Real ID Act with respect to domestic violence on NewsBlog last week as part one of a four part series. While she acknowledges that the Real ID Act does provide an "

The final rule says that both an individual's "full legal name" and "true address" must be stored in the DMV database, regardless of what's displayed on the card and encoded on its bar code. It also requires that motor vehicle departments scan and store "source documents," such as birth certificates, to verify a driver's license applicant's identity.

The Department of Homeland Security has declined to comment on how they will provide protection to those trying to hide from stalkers, saying only that the exchange of information between the states will be "limited." The federal government has also proposed allowing the states to devise their own state specific safety plans, but has given no indication of how these systems would be implemented or how they would co-exist with the standard national database. Cindy Southworth, technology project director for the National Network to End Domestic Violence, pointed out the problems that come along with giving that much access to DMV employees.

Given that there are less than six degrees of separation between most abusers and a friend or relative who works for the DMV, we are concerned about victims' location information housed in state databases that could be searched nationally.... Prior to national search ability, a victim could move to a different state and increase her safety and privacy, but national search functionality could place countless victims at risk.

Without a comprehensive plan to protect victims of stalking and domestic violence, this national database could cripple their hope for a new life free from fear. The current deadline for implementation of the Real ID Act is May 11, 2008. However, it may be postponed again because of a lack of support from the States. To show your support for survivors, contact your representative and tell them to speak out against the Real ID Act until these changes are made.

Vote Expected Today on Amendment Harmful to Immigrant Surivivors

Via the National Immigrant Justice Center:

Vote expected today: Senator Vitter has offered a harmful amendment to the Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill that would undercut community policing and endanger public safety, particularly the safety of immigrants who are victims of domestic and sexual violence.

Sen. Vitter's amendment #3277 (read it here) attempts to deny Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) funding to cities and states that pledge not to ask about the immigration status of crime victims and witnesses.

Both Legal Momentum, an advocacy organization for women and girls, and the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence (NAESV) sent letters to senators this morning warning that battered immigrants would be hurt by the proposed legislation.

"Victims of domestic violence need to trust the police to seek assistance, but fear of being reported to immigration officials is one of the most significant factors preventing immigrant victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking from seeking help," writes Lisalyn Jacobs, Legal Momentum's vice president of government relations.

NAESV President Monika Johnson Hostler points out that sexual assault is already one of the most under-reported crimes. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, she says, only 36% of rape and sexual assault victims report the crime to the police. "As a result, NAESV absolutely opposes this measure which will create additional barriers to victims coming forward," she writes.

Contact your senators and explain that the Vitter amendment #3277 will harm our cities by decreasing support for law enforcement and public safety. The Senate switchboard number is (202) 224-3121.