Does Heidi Heitkamp Care About Victims Of Violence Or Trial Lawyers?

heitkamp-ap-photo

Rep. Kevin Cramer, noting that the mother of his adopted son was the victim of violence, notes some of the problems with the Violence Against Women Act that I’ve been writing about recently:

“I have some concern in reference to inherent sovereignty for the tribes and I want to check more thoroughly into the constitutionality of that,” he said. “What I’d hate to do is pass reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act only to find out that it’s successfully challenged in court — its constitutionality is successfully challenged — and then have the thing thrown out.”

He feels the expressed authority that has always been granted to the reservations is sufficient, Cramer said.

“The risk we run is that it can be used in any type of criminal proceeding if it’s used in one,” he said. “It can be precedent setting.” …

“The reservations are where they’re having a good number of the problems and now we’re suggesting in the same legislation that we give more authority — inherent sovereignty — to the very place that’s not dealing with it very well already,” he said. “I agree — we’ve got to do something on the reservations, but I’d also say the tribes themselves have got to do something on the reservations.”

Cramer is right to be concerned. Unfortunately, Heitkamp is angling to use the VAWA as a wedge issue, casting anyone questioning the legislation as being insufficiently against violent acts committed against women. “I will not support a Violence Against Women Act that does not have a provision for Native American women for protection on the reservations,” she said recently. That’s a fine sentiment, but what if the law infringes the right of the accused?

Aren’t we all entitled to equal protection under the law?

And there’s a good deal of evidence to suggest that this policy Heitkamp supports will do more to help trial lawyers than victims of violence. The VAWA would “would make it easier to sue domestic-violence shelters for discrimination,” writes Betsy Woodruff at National Review:

Republicans argue that the provision, intended to prevent discrimination against LGBT individuals, is unnecessary — they cite Democrats’ remarkable absence of evidence on systemic discrimination — and would open cash-strapped shelters to costly lawsuits. For instance, if a single-sex shelter for women didn’t let a gay man stay, it could face a lawsuit.

In other words, the new provision is bad for women and good for trial lawyers. But whatever, the Democrats are for it and the Republicans are against it, so it must save a ton of ladies!

The goal of protecting women from violence is, clearly, an admirable one. And I think you could make the argument that the VAWA did that in its previous iterations. But now Democrats seem to be larding up the bill with sops to their constituencies, like trial lawyers, and bad ideas like giving tribal courts sovereignty over non-tribal members.

There are valid reasons to oppose the VAWA, as passed by the Senate, on those grounds. Unfortunately, partisan demagogues like Heitkamp who chant the “war on women” mantra aren’t willing to let that debate happen.

Rob Port is the editor of SayAnythingBlog.com. In 2011 he was a finalist for the Watch Dog of the Year from the Sam Adams Alliance and winner of the Americans For Prosperity Award for Online Excellence. In 2013 the Washington Post named SAB one of the nation's top state-based political blogs, and named Rob one of the state's best political reporters. He writes a weekly column for several North Dakota newspapers, and also serves as a policy fellow for the North Dakota Policy Council.

Related posts

  • whowon

    Aren’t we all entitled to equal protection under the law? Exactly, the left continues making women and gays weaker somehow. Shame on them.

    • SusanBeehler

      Somehow the permission was given to allow a man to beat their spouse, nothing was done, many avoided any punishment, no equal protection under the law was being given. It is not about being weaker, it is about insuring we do not repeat history. Shame on you for being in denial of a problem which still continues and needs the support of VAWA!

      • whowon

        Really, where is that law Susie? A complete lie. Read Robs story on the joke VAWA, good for lawyers. We are ALL already protected under the law. Get off your silly high horse and open your eyes. I am sorry you allowed yourself to be abused but don’t look for the government to help you, choices.

        • SusanBeehler

          It was the lack of enforcement. The passage of VAWA helped train officers so the cases could be prosecuted. Rob has not given any proof this has been good for lawyers, and the proof should be able to be found if this is a problem. Open your eyes we cannot allow a new generation of law enforcement to slide back into the long history of non-enforcement. VAWA provides funding and resources to continue to bring justice for those who are victims of violence. I was born into the family of domestic violence, I did not make the choice to live in domestic violence I was a child in the family. Open your eyes and realize domestic violence is more complicated because they are supposed to be the ones who love you, not hurt you or other members of the family. It is not a choice for a child to be born, you can’t choose your parents. Get off yourhigh horse and get educated about what domestic violence is. It is not a stranger entering your home to commit violence on you or your family so you can just shoot them or leave, the perpetrator can be the one who gave you life on this earth, get a clue!!!!!!! Government has a interest in helping with this problem because in our state domestic violence is our number one reason for murders happening in our state and is a big killer of law enforcement officers also.

          • whowon

            lack of enforcement…just like the MANY gun laws that the feds are not enforcing. New laws do not change anything. Where is that VAWA funding come from? ANY clue? Government is here to help…we know the end of that story.

          • two_amber_lamps

            14th Amendment means nothing to lil Ms. SuzyBS’er…. she uses the same hackneyed argument that the race mongers like Jessie Jackson (both dad and the one going to the pen) and Sharpton use for justification of reparations for slavery.

            Nothing is ever good enough for the leftist do-gooder “minority” complex.

          • SusanBeehler

            Women are more then a minority. You would not exist if it would not be for a woman.

          • jl

            Women are a minority? News to me.

          • two_amber_lamps

            Funny, despite the fact that women do outnumber men you still clamor for “minority status” because that’s exactly what these sorts of ludicrous bills convey. Just as “anti-discrimination” bills create special classes, your bill creates all manner of new special treatment classes.

            Law of unintended consequences… but you leftists just think if you pass more asinine legislation you’ll create some utopian world.

            All the man-made laws in the world will not change the human condition. Busy-body wanna-be social engineers just can’t seem to understand this fact.

            This is why your do-gooder legislation fails time and again.

          • SusanBeehler

            I said women are more than a minority. We do outnumber men

          • two_amber_lamps

            (…Chrissakes)

            What part of…

            “despite the fact that women do outnumber men”

            … did you not understand? Did that big word “despite” throw you?

            I actually agreed with you on that FACT, because that’s what it is.

            The rest of your nonsense, is just that.

            Carry on with your doddering since I know you won’t stop.

            However “minority” means more in the daily lexicon than the one-dimensional definition you give it.

            http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/minority

            3. a group differing, especially in race, religion, or ethnic background, from the majority of a population: legislation aimed at providing equal rights for minorities.

            Which in leftist-speak is a condition being conveyed to ANYONE not of the white-male class, that is another contrived leftist “protected class” which they seek to create.

            Thank your leftist PC consortium for creating this dreck. You really should get yourself a copy of the most recent version of leftist Newspeak Dictionary since I’m sick of telling you what you should already know, being the burgeoning leftist you aspire to be.

            http://api.ning.com/files/PQX4NBBGMF7ptLmgSB1nGj7HTQ8za1o7tECIX1xgwjhvf*lswWVbRujWWp7nKxgxarj**kxEHsLt0u5zlVjYNZj8QfsBJrO5/ImpliedFacepalm.jpg

          • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

            It’s “victim status” that Beehler claims, but any of the rest is just cream on the pie.

          • two_amber_lamps

            In left-ese “victim” and “minority” status are virtually synonymous.

          • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

            Trying to make sense out of SB’s effusions is like trying to read ebonic shorthand.

          • two_amber_lamps

            So THAT’S why I have a headache….

          • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

            I should be grateful for THAT!

          • SusanBeehler

            It is not a new law it is reauthorizing a law we have been using as a tool to fit violence for over 20 years.

          • JoeMN

            And the studies which confirm the VAWA is an effective tool have been found wanting, to say the least.

            http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/judicial/280897-vawa-must-be-reformed-for-domestic-violence-rates-to-come-down#ixzz2JyYZaCtt

          • SusanBeehler

            Why are you so against protecting and providing services for those benefiting from VAWA? Why? So, yours/their answer: do nothing? I have seen it work. Fighting crime is never ending. If you believe nothing can be done. Your logic is as flawed as: why lock your doors? Why put your money in a safe? Why not just kill yourself if you are going to die eventually? Why date anyone if they may beat or rape you? Why get married if they may beat you or your children?

          • JoeMN

            I just provided for you evidence that the VAWA is NOT an effective piece of legislation

            From the link;

            Analysts of VAWA who are more serious than Gandy know there’s no
            evidence that the law has ever functioned as intended. In fact, domestic violence expert Dr. Angela Moore Parmley of the U.S. Department of Justice has said, “We have no evidence to date that VAWA has led to a decrease in the overall levels of violence against women.”

            http://blog.heritage.org/2013/02/13/front-group-for-vawa-funded-organizations-gets-the-facts-wrong/

            So it comes down to spending a half a billion dollars to assuage Susan Beehler s emotions

            You cant even be bothered to use logic

          • SusanBeehler

            If there has been no decrease is this evidence it is not working. It would stand to reason the population increases so if it would not be working wouldn’t it stand to reason it also would be increasing.
            Bias organizations are not evidence they are not effective they are just bias sources. It is illogical to believe an organization who claims something but has no research that I could find to support their claim of male victims.

          • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

            Take a deep breath and try to write English.

      • yy4u2

        You know why most married men die before their wives? Because they want to. Indeed, quit repeating history n start swishing.

      • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

        Seems to me that you are making the case for guns. In the context of wife-rapes and beatings, a gun makes things equal between the sexes, between young and old, between healthy and infirm, between strong and weak, and it does so in a very timely fashion.

        • SusanBeehler

          A gun does not make things equal between the sexes, the one with the gun has the power of deadly force. Abuse is about control, nothing more controlling than having a gun pointed on you. If you want to have a relationship trust and love is the foundation not fear and control. Maybe you can NOT understand this because you do not “get it”

          • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

            No, I don’t, but if someone does who can think and write English, I do hope that they will explain it to me.

  • dakotacyr

    How is committing a crime on the reservation not like committing a crime in another country. Do we tell that other country that you have to try that person in the US because we don’t like their system? The VAWA allows appeals to the federal courts. Then maybe those non-indians ought not allegedly beat women on reservations.

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      The reseevations aren’t foreign countries. If they are, why do the people there vote in our elections?

      • Matthew Hawkins

        They are semi-sovereign by treaty and law. That makes a difference.

    • two_amber_lamps

      If US law shouldn’t apply there, then perhaps we need to end the perpetual culture of poverty on the Res. by ending welfare paid to as you deem “foreign nations and foreign nationals?”

      • dakotacyr

        I didn’t say US law should not apply, it should, so they should be prosecuted on the reservation. if you are going to beat a woman on the reservation then a jury of your peers is from the reservation. There are many whites living on the reservation.

        • two_amber_lamps

          How is committing a crime on the reservation not like committing a crime in another country.

          I’d say it’s pretty clear what you implied… and if you think Federal Law is subservient to Tribal law and they should not have to follow the federal laws we all live under, you’re implying that they’re not US Citizens.

          14th Amendment… Equal Protection Clause. Read it.

          • Matthew Hawkins

            I am implying that like states they can have their own judicial system. Under federal law when Congress approves the Supreme Court agrees with me.

          • two_amber_lamps

            And if you recall correctly, federal law trumps state law in most cases. BTW- are you a sock puppet for dakotacyr or just interposing your opinion for theirs?

          • Matthew Hawkins

            Federal law does not trump state law in most cases. Criminal law is largely a state concern.

            I am not a sock puppet, I just interpose my opinion because I think you are an idiot.

          • two_amber_lamps

            Really? Tell that to AZ who’s trying to create it’s own immigration statutes patterned after federal law. Or how about states like CA where they’ve passed marijuana use laws that contradict federal law. If the DEA or other federal agency arrests you for use/distribution, there’s not much of a thing the state can do for you.

            Though do let me clarify… in cases where the federal government has primacy FEDERAL LAW trumps state law.

            Ever wonder who does the majority of major criminal investigations (ie murder, drug distribution, etc) on the Res? I’ll give you a hint, it isn’t the BIA.

          • Matthew Hawkins

            Where the Constitution has granted the federal government power it is primary. With immigration the Constitution has granted the federal government control of nationalization it is primary. It the police power of controlling crime it is not. As for drugs, I disagree with the federal government. I think drug use is a state issue.

          • two_amber_lamps

            With respect to Immigration, the federal government has SOLE authority over both naturalization/status determination as well as enforcement. This authority can be delegated to state or local agencies but if you research this you will find Comrade Napolitano has rescinded almost all instances of this delegated authority. In the case of AZ they tried to parallel the federal law since the federal agencies charged with enforcement of these laws are being precluded from doing so… seems agents within some of these agencies are getting fed up with leftists not allowing them to do their job.

            http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/23/immigration-agents-sue-stop-obamas-non-deportation/?page=all

            The FBI handles virtually all major crime investigations on Indian Reservations.

            DEA in almost all cases has first dibs on drug cases, however they decline most due to the number of violations.

            As for “Crime”…. specific cases do fall to the fed (kidnapping comes to mind). However where no federal jurisdiction/nexus exists:

            The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
            prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
            or to the people.

          • Matthew Hawkins

            That was a very convoluted way of agreeing with me.

          • two_amber_lamps

            Your short answer indicated you were lacking information on the various subjects at hand. I know it takes a while to google/wiki all that info so I put it all in one place for you.

            With immigration the Constitution has granted the federal government control of nationalization it is primary.

            Apparently you’re lacking clear understanding of how to use pauses and commas, etc. despite claiming perfect understanding of such in another thread. I’m strongly doubting your efficacy as a Constitutional Attorney now. However I believe I’ve pieced together your thought process…

            You’d have been looking long time under that topic “Nationalization.” Was Immigration authority once a private enterprise that was later assumed by the federal government? The correct term for what I believe you are looking for is “Immigration Law” Perhaps you were referring to “Naturalization?” Were you drunk when you posted last?

            Comrade, please use valid terminology when trying to discuss “big people” topics in the future. You’re less inclined to look foolish in retrospect.

        • yy4u2

          What if you are just accused n really didn’t do anything?

          • Matthew Hawkins

            That is a problem always. What is special here?

          • yy4u2

            How about a jury of one’s peers?

          • Matthew Hawkins

            Show me in any document where we are guaranteed that.

            We are not. We are guaranteed an impartial jury. That jury is always chosen from the jurisdiction where the crime is committed.

            If you commit a crime on a reservation it should not be unexpected to get a jury of people on the reservation.

          • yy4u2

            I’m gonna go with the Sixth Amendemnt to the US Constitution, Alex.

            http://members.mobar.org/civics/jury%20of%20peers.htm

          • Matthew Hawkins

            Where is the word peers in the Sixth Amendment?

          • yy4u2

            I guess the word impartial to you means ‘in tribal court’ and if it the crime or alleged crime occurred off the reservation, you would say ‘tribal court or stacked with easily manipulated people.’ Run along now.

  • Yogibare

    The theme of Animal Farm: some are more equal than others. Why do we not have faith in the law that says violence against any person is wrong and is punishable? Do we have have a post script to the law that says if the wrong is committed against a LGBT or a female there will be exceptional penalties and extra punishments?

    • SusanBeehler

      Because throughout our history men were given special treatment when they committed a crime against a women they were not arrested. The simple reason was because they were married to the woman, so somehow somewhere in history this was seen as permissible. You could beat your wife but not the man you had a disagreement with. You would be arrested for assault if you beat a man, but beat your wife and you would not be arrested. It has been only 20 years since VAWA was instituted and 20 years is not a long enough time to ensure we do not repeat the history of a man being allowed to be their spouse. The penalties are not exceptional or extra. The problem is unique because of history, because of bias.

      • two_amber_lamps

        So what do yo want? Abrogation of the 14th Amendment? Reparations? Both?

        • SusanBeehler

          Passage of VAWA

          • two_amber_lamps

            Leftist incrementalism Ms. SuzyBS’er… the current “act” will never be enough to satisfy you. When the act is passed you and your moonbat friends will push for more.

          • two_amber_lamps

            So Abrogation of the 14th Amendment it is you say?

      • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

        So … you actually believe that men have not been beaten by women. I beg to differ. Trouble is, how many men are going to report it?

        Previously published

        findings have shown that, in both surveys. the rate

        ofwoman-to-man assault was about the same (actually

        slightly higher) than the man-to-woman assault

        rate (Straw & Gelles, 1986, 1990). However,

        the seeming equality may occur because of a tendency

        by men to underreport their own assaults.

        http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/VB33.pdf

        • SusanBeehler

          Did I say that? NO! The same services supported by VAWA are available to men. Do you have someone harming you now?

          • JoeMN

            Actually, they are not

            http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/judicial/280897-vawa-must-be-reformed-for-domestic-violence-rates-to-come-down#ixzz2JyYZaCtt

            Analysts of VAWA who are more serious than Gandy know there’s no
            evidence that the law has ever functioned as intended. In fact, domestic
            violence expert Dr. Angela Moore Parmley of the U.S. Department of
            Justice has said, “We have no evidence to date that VAWA has led to a
            decrease in the overall levels of violence against women.” The law’s
            proponents prefer to overlook that inconvenient fact.

            VAWA fails
            to protect male victims and that ends up harming women. The
            organization that tracks domestic violence policy, Stop Abusive and
            Violent Environments (S.A.V.E.), calculates that less than 2 percent of
            VAWA funding goes to help male victims or female perpetrators despite
            the fact that 50 percent of the victims of domestic violence are men.
            That unwillingness to help women who hit, or men who are hit, increases
            the number of women who suffer at the hands of an abuser.

          • SusanBeehler

            I have never heard of SAVE. In a search I found it is a organization formed not to insure a safe environment but is in fact a politically motivated organization. This statement shows their political bias “The real purpose of the VAWA is to shell out taxpayer dollars to liberal organizations that help elect Democrats” I have never seen a shelter when talking about domestic violence ever elude to the fact they are a democrat or republican machine. In all the years I have been at the state legislature the bills about domestic violence were supported by both parties. How did SAVE calculate? How does not protecting men harm women? How can you protect someone or something if you do not know who they are or they do not reach out for help? How the system works to protect abused adults women or men, the victim initiates the contact through the shelter, the helpline or a referral from law enforcement. If someone like SAVE says 50% of the victims are men than why are they refusing to reach out for help. I know as a crisis call person out of 1000’s of hours of answering the calls, I had only one male who called. He received the same help as any female caller did.

          • JoeMN

            If someone like SAVE says 50% of the victims are men than why are they refusing to reach out for help
            Susan

            It’s not their facts
            Methods. We analyzed data on young US adults aged 18
            to 28 years from the 2001 National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent
            Health, which contained information about partner violence and injury
            reported by 11 370 respondents on 18761 heterosexual relationships.

            Results.
            Almost 24% of all relationships had some violence, and half (49.7%) of
            those were reciprocally violent. In nonreciprocally violent
            relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the
            cases. Reciprocity was associated with more frequent violence among
            women (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]=2.3; 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.9,
            2.8), but not men (AOR=1.26; 95% CI=0.9, 1.7). Regarding injury, men
            were more likely to inflict injury than were women (AOR=1.3; 95% CI=1.1,
            1.5), and reciprocal intimate partner violence was associated with
            greater injury than was nonreciprocal intimate partner violence
            regardless of the gender of the perpetrator (AOR=4.4; 95% CI=3.6, 5.5).

            Read More: http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2005.079020

            Democrats are including men in the next round of VAWA, along with LGBT, seniors American Indians, aliens, and a partridge in a pear tree, but this still fails to address the fact that if the VAWA is so ineffective at solving what it claimed, how can a VAWMLGBTSAIAP……act be any more effective ?

          • SusanBeehler

            Here is the key:
            “Regarding injury, men
            were more likely to inflict injury than were women”
            Women are at a disadvantage in a physically violent “brawl”. Common sense will tell you that, so a woman slaps a guy and the guy plants one on her and breaks her jaw. Who is the victim? the one with the broken jaw or the one with the red mark on their cheek. This is why you need VAWA because the “guy” who thinks a slap justifies a broken jaw is at fault. Both actions are wrong but as you can see from the research you are better off if you don’t reciprocate.” Within a shelter this is what victims are taught, you should not reciprocate, you need to leave, to get away. Because if a woman wants to physically stand her ground with a man, the research show she will be the “loser” walking away if she walks away.
            Your definition of ineffective does not mean it has not been helpful. The research you give is all the more reason it is needed to be continued because you have another violent generation needing education on intimate relationships and violence prevention. It goes in the face of the “gun” culture which says defend, the answer is walk away, get away. Violence is all about CONTROL!!!

          • yy4u2

            If he tells you he is going to clock you the next time you slap him? No it isn’t right but then the lady needs to grab a glass of water n start swishing it until he goes to bed. Many a male has learned early on not to make another angry. Those that continue to push that person’s buttons unfortunately learn the hard way. If a person is losing the war of words, back off. If they are getting beaten for no other reason than the stronger needing a good time, take the bully out.

          • JoeMN

            Women are at a disadvantage in a physically violent “brawl”.

            I agree completely.

            _____

            so a woman slaps a guy and the guy plants one on her and breaks her jaw. Who is the victim?

            Legally ?

            Both

            And both acts are considered assault.
            ______

            This is why you need VAWA because the “guy” who thinks a slap justifies a broken jaw is at fault.

            No

            We need the VAWA to REDUCE these incidences from happening in the first place.

            Surely you are not suggesting we need the VAWA to lobby for exemptions for women.

            Statistics show violence against women has gone down proportionally to violence in society as a whole.

            Therefore, the VAWA has been ineffective.

            ______

            Your definition of ineffective does not mean it has not been helpful.
            “Helpful” is purely subjective, yet does nothing to reduce violence

          • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

            A slap in the face carries a lot more weight than the resulting injury. That’s why the expression “a slap in the face” is so often used to describe serious insults. In days of yore a slap in the face was the prelude to arranging a deadly duel. In fact, this ritual slap in the face did not produce any significant pain or injury.

          • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

            It is implicit in your wild generalizations; to wit, “You could beat your wife but not the man you had a disagreement with. You would be arrested for assault if you beat a man, but beat your wife and you would not be arrested.”

            And this is not true. There are historical cases, even very old ones (a famous case in pioneer N.D., I might add) of women killing abusive husbands and getting off scot free.

          • SusanBeehler

            Because you find some woman killing her old man for a beating you say I am not telling the truth. That is like saying we do not have a gun culture in North Dakota. Start counting those historical cases and less compare how many women got off scot free and how many women got beat and the men got off scot free. I have also read in North Dakota history women being shoot in a public gathering and nothing being done because it was just a “woman” who was shot. But than you worship slave owners so of course you would want to keep the little “lady” under your thumb and by God she better be photogenic too. It is not a “wild” generalization, you are under reporting.

          • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

            Unlike liberals, I do not equate ignorance or error with lying. You, however, do. Where did I accuse you of lying? In your case, you are horribly ignorant, but I have not yet noticed you actually lying. Please use language correctly, if you can.

          • SusanBeehler

            “And this is not true”,

          • Matthew Hawkins

            It wasn’t too long ago that it was legal for a man to rape his wife because it was her wifely duty. This would obviously also include beating your wife.

            Your example of a woman killing her husband and getting off scott free is what is known as a “needing killing case.” Ned beats his wife and everybody in town knows it. She finally kills him. The jury is made up of townspeople. The acquit her in a bout of jury nullification because Ned needed killing. Sometimes it is known as justice.

          • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

            Does it really obviously include beating your wife? Prove it.

          • Matthew Hawkins

            Go back 60 years and look at how many domestic violence cases their were. You will find that they were rare.

            Do you really think it is a new phenomenon. The feminist movement is what has given it publicity.

          • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

            I do not know what point it is that you are trying to make. There have been cases of domestic violence since Cain killed Abel. Greek plays are virtually based on it. Awareness of wife-beating has been present since God-knows-when. People in small towns know very well who is beating his wife. The phenomenon has never been denied. Such is not the case with child-abuse, however. That was kept very quiet until the early eighties, and I am proud to know one of the people who brought it to public attention. Husband-beating remains pretty much outside of public consciousness for obvious reasons, but it is very far from rare. Domestic violence was never rare. If you claim that cases of domestic violence were rare 60 years ago, that is quite an extraordinary claim and the burden of proof is on you.

          • SusanBeehler

            He is saying your historical references are rare.

          • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

            If that is what he is trying to say, let him say it. It’s a sad day for Hawkins when you, with your “English,” need to help him. Your own reply makes no sense because I do not give any historical references; I do, however, refer to history. There’s a big difference between the two, as is recognized by those who speak English.

          • JoeMN

            It wasn’t too long ago that it was legal for a man to rape his wife because it was her wifely duty
            .Also known as Sharia law.
            Libs are curiously silent here.

          • Matthew Hawkins

            Cite me one example of a criminal court in the US using Shariah law.

          • JoeMN

            This judge cites sharia in a controversial ruling.

            http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/291921/sharia-court-pennsylvania-transcript-andrew-c-mccarthy

            I can’t help but wonder how this moron of a judge would react to an honor killing case,

          • Matthew Hawkins

            Where in the ruling does he ever cite Shariah law?

            Please, use specifics.

          • JoeMN

            Read much ?

            Well, having had the benefit of having spent over two-and-a-half
            years in a predominantly Muslim country, I think I know a little bit
            about the faith of Islam. In fact, I have a copy of the Koran here, and I
            would challenge you, sir, to show me where it says in the Koran that
            Mohammed arose and walked among the dead.

            [Unintelligible.] You misinterpreted things. Before you start
            mocking someone else’s religion you may want to find out a little bit
            more about it. That makes you look like a doofus.

            And Mr. Thomas [Elbayomi’s defense lawyer] is correct. In many other
            Muslim speaking countries – excuse me, in many Arabic speaking
            countries – call it “Muslim” – something like this is definitely against
            the law there. In their society, in fact, it could be punishable by
            death, and it frequently is, in their society.

          • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

            Good one!

          • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

            Just a SAB bimbo blogger trying to kill me with stupidity.

          • SusanBeehler

            “And this is not true”

  • Yogibare

    BTW: Heidi will get 95% of the Indian vote no matter what she does. There is a bias that is quite clear as we look at voting results of the State.

    • camsaure

      So then it is obvious that it is more for the trial lawyers, and secondary about race and gender baiting.

  • Camburn

    The VAWA has resulted in more women finally coming forth and reporting that violence. There is no fear of prosecution from this bill unless you are violent.
    Easy solution, do not support violence against anyone.

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      So we are just to pretend as though nobody is ever falsely accused?

      Those Dume lacross players might beg to differ.

      • SusanBeehler

        The percentage of falsely accused is minimal when compared to the rate of domestic violence. Your bias is still showing. VAWA has been effective in bringing a justice to the problem of domestic violence long ignored.

        • Roy_Bean

          What would you consider to be an acceptable number of innocent people wrongly convicted and imprisoned to solve this violence problem? Are you proposing a “kill em all and let God sort them out” solution?

          • SusanBeehler

            Why have any laws? People have been wrongly convicted by our imperfect system already. Show me the numbers of this “made up” problem you and Rob want to propagate. How many people have been wrongly convicted with VAWA? If it is happening, show me.

          • dakotacyr

            What would you consider an acceptable number of women going without justice?

  • SusanBeehler

    Republicans if they are using this as argument: “For instance, if a single-sex shelter for women didn’t let a gay man stay, it could face a lawsuit.”
    They are searching for an excuse not to pass this. Where do think people went before shelters existed? The system was started with safe homes, much like we have emergency shelter care for children in a abusive home, they are placed in a emergency foster home.
    I believe anyone saying this opens the door for lawsuits does not understand how the services for domestic violence are given. These shelters are not government run and anyone calling the help line will be directed to services they can use no matter what sex or sexual orientation they are or at least they are here in the Bismarck Mandan area.
    When I worked as a crisis volunteer no one was denied services because of their sex or their sexual orientation. We did not “hang up” the phone if it was a man who was being abused. These types of situations are a minority of cases and we should not discontinue VAWA because the majority accessing the services are woman.

  • SusanBeehler

    Where is your proof of the “falsely accused” as a major problem, the proof of “undue process” and not just anomaly of the system?

  • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

    Does some cold-hearted, merciless right-wing photographer follow Heidi around who uses an ugly-filter on his lens, or is she just not photogenic?

    • two_amber_lamps

      Having seen her in person, yes… the photo that Rob uses is reality. Her campaigning photos do her FAR too much justice.

      • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

        So Rob’s the merciless SOB. Maybe someone could Photoshop a bag over her head if the campaign photos are inaccessible. Pelosi, Hilary, and Feinstein are about all I can stand. Head-bag them as well. It takes a forensic coroner to look at this sort of thing day after day.

        • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

          Why don’t you photoshop the bag you normally use when you are hyperventilating?

          • two_amber_lamps

            We could photoshop the bag Tranny’s Mom eats out of… when she’s not making him hot pockets while he sits in the basement playing violent video games.

          • SusanBeehler

            YOU are sick!

          • two_amber_lamps

            Oh noe’s! Did it ever occur to you I could care less what the addle-brained busy-body from Mandan thinks of me?

          • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

            Hey, dupe, try to upgrade your come-backs from second- to third-grade level.

          • two_amber_lamps

            You’re asking a hell of a lot from him….

    • SusanBeehler

      You have no legitimate argument so you attack personal appearance. Your avatar is quite “lovely”

      • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

        Whoa, racist! Among my people I am considered quite handsome.

        (Just as an aside, what was I supposed to argue?)

      • camsaure

        Oh, and just about every subject you comment on contains some barb against men. You really are a hypocrite.

        • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

          If we had all the information, I suggest that we are really catching the fallout from Suzy’s marriage issues.

          • two_amber_lamps

            Displacement…. perhaps!

          • SusanBeehler

            Not hardly, I am married to a good man. We mutually respect each other and will never lay a hand on each other in anger. My home is a “domestic violent” free home. Love not fear rules.

          • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

            Uh-huh. You should really know when and when not to defend yourself. Personally, I wouldn’t respond at all to a remark such as mine.

          • Hal801

            I see you do all the talking for him. I’m guessing he hates to show his face in public since you have made such a fool of yourself.

          • SusanBeehler

            How do you know he doesn’t do the talking? He is very well-liked and he is not afraid to be seen! I am no fool and neither is he.

  • Matthew Hawkins

    Betsy Woodruff doesn’t explain how it would open a shelter up to lawsuits, she just says it does and you take it as fact. ‘

    It is a terribly written article, short on fact, long on accusations and you take it as gospel.

    • SusanBeehler

      Exactly. I think I should write an article the world is ending tomorrow, maybe some blog will grab that as fact too. Sounds like a good headline.

      • Hal801

        It would be as worthwhile as the rest of the garbage you post.

  • mickey_moussaoui

    Women who fear being beaten by men should get a C&C license and use it. The government should make affordable handguns available for women. It will save more lives than an obamaphone

  • DelawareBeachHouse

    Cripes, Kevin, talk English. “I have some concern in reference to inherent sovereignty for the tribes and I want to check more thoroughly into the constitutionality of that…” That’s just awful language. Say it directly, with no adverbs. The more adverbs, the less I trust you.

  • whowon
    • two_amber_lamps

      Of course you realize that logic/reason bounce off of lil Ms.SuzyBS’ers skull like small caliber bullets off of an M-1 Abrams Tank.

  • Sandy Buckweiller

    Heidi will be the Jessie Jackson Jr. of North Dakota :)

  • Sandy Buckweiller

    I do not trust anything that pees sitting down & bleeds for 5 days and lives :)

Top