Presented as extensions of the Violence Against Women Act at the Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearing on Wednesday were Sen. Amy Klobuchar’s Protecting Domestic Violence and Stalking Victims Act and Sen. Richard Blumenthal’s Lori Jackson Domestic Violence Survivor Protection Act.
The Pennsylvania Women’s Health Caucus is poised to celebrate its first legislative victory: On Wednesday, the state house passed a law criminalizing “revenge porn.”
Anti-choice activists and other social conservatives routinely argue that men are dogs whom women need to bring under control, usually by withholding sex in hopes of extracting a wedding ring. But this strategy is completely unnecessary, and there’s no evidence it works.
A recent Washington Post article put fault for abuse squarely on the shoulders of “women in unhealthy, unsafe relationships [who] often lack the power to demand marriage,” as if the only thing standing between a belt and a bruised baby is a woman who didn’t ask for a ring hard enough.
State lawmakers unveiled the second wave of bills introduced as part of Pennsylvania’s Agenda for Women’s Health, a pro-active legislative effort designed to address women’s health and economic equality.
A recent Slate piece argued that coercing testimony from survivors of violence means more victims testifying, which means more offenders jailed, which means less DV and sexual assault. However, this position is, as it turns out, largely nonexistent in the real world.
Introduced by the co-chair of the General Assembly’s newly unveiled Women’s Health Caucus, the bill frames revenge porn as a form of intimate partner harassment.
When journalists report that a man was arrested and charged with domestic violence, it sounds far less menacing than reporting that he was arrested for beating his partner bloody or punching her until she lost consciousness.
In my own experience testing an Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) screening intervention in Kenya, I have found that every one of the great reasons not to screen is critically important to consider. But in the course of my work on this issue, I have also found 111 reasons why screening for IPV cannot be brushed aside, either.
Recent comments by Wisconsin Rep. Don Pridemore, combined with his attacks on single mothers, gave us pause as to whether Mr. Pridemore really understood that women are individual human beings with basic human rights, or if he really takes that Adam’s rib thing literally. His response to a woman protesting his comments suggests it may be the latter.