The Democratic War on women-only domestic violence shelters
The version of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) currently being held up by Republicans has an interesting provision barring discrimination against LGBT people by domestic violence shelters. One might wonder which shelters are being targeted and against whom they are discriminating. A troubling statistic is being tossed about, that
45 percent of LGBT victims were turned away when they sought help from a domestic violence shelter, according to a 2010 survey
(see this page on myths about VAWA ). So the solution in this bill, according to this page about VAWA myths, is
All victims deserve services. No program being funded by federal VAWA dollars should be allowed to turn away a domestic violence victim because of his or her sexual orientation or gender identity.
To find out what discrimination this new provision is targeted against, which survivors are actually being turned away, I looked up the source of this statistic, a study from the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs which states on page 27:
The proportion increase of survivors turned away from shelters highlights that many mainstream domestic violence shelters are not equipped to house male-identified and/or transgender survivors, and many still have policies that explicitly prohibit male-identified and transgender survivors from accessing their shelter. These policies create substantial barriers for accessing safety for LGBTQH IPV survivors. As a result, LGBTQH survivors may only have access to homeless shelters, which may not be equipped to support LGBTQH IPV survivors’ needs. Homeless shelters may not have staff that are familiar with LGBTQH terminology, access to gender neutral restrooms and accommodations, knowledge of LGBTQH IPV issues, and institutional policies to prevent discrimination and violence within the shelter for LGBTQH survivors. These statistics demonstrate the need for increased advocacy regarding LGBTQH survivors’ access to domestic violence shelters.
So it appears this new provision is not meant primarily to force shelters for battered women to accept lesbians or bisexual women. I doubt that kind of discrimination is much of a problem. The problem seems to be, some shelters do not want to take in battered gay males or transwomen. A shelter that wishes to remain for women only will evidently not be eligible for federal funds. Way to go, Democrats! It just goes to show, the war on women is waged across the political spectrum, however much Democrats may wish to pretend it is these radical Republicans who are waging war on women.
April 27th, 2012 at 7:05 pm
This evidently is the section of the law in question, from page 205 of the Government Printing Office PDF of the bill text:
May 11th, 2012 at 10:58 pm
The House version of the bill took out a couple of words in the first sentence, so some are screaming that gay and transgender victims of domestic violence will not be protected. On pages 19-20 of this version, Section (13) (A) begins:
Gender identity and sexual orientation have been removed. However, since the excluded groups were in practice gay men and transwomen, it could be argued that they are still covered, since discrimination against males and perceived males will still be prohibited. It seems to me that shelters with a women-only policy do not want to take in gay men and transwomen because they are not biologically female, not because they are gay or transgendered. So it appears a women-only policy will still cause a shelter to lose federal funds, since despite the screaming of gay and transgender activists that their rights have been removed, unless they are arguing that the House has sacrificed their rights in favor of heterosexual men battered by female partners, which is quite a stretch, they do not have a leg to stand on. In practical terms, this change of language, while it may pacify those who hate gay and transgender people, will have virtually no impact. If the word sex had been removed, then a shelter with a women-only policy could continue to receive funds. I am generally skeptical when claims of discrimination are made against females by non-females. The concept of reverse discrimination does not make much sense to me.
August 8th, 2012 at 10:31 pm
Patty Murray used some very unusual language to explain how the language the Senate added to VAWA is not about politics. This is from Roll Call(italics mine)
Women who are gay? Who would that be? No, the language Republicans want taken out is about gay MEN who will be able to demand access to any shelter for battered women accepting federal funds! Not that the language House Republicans substituted will do anything about that, but they want to pretend it will to appease homophobic Republicans!
Not to worry; the Women’s Campaign Forum blog MsRepresentation says the inclusion of LGBT women is just common sense!
How can anyone in their right mind deny that forcing shelters for battered women getting federal funding to take in battered gay men and transwomen is political? The Women’s Campaign Forum is not even partisan; it has backed several pro-choice Republican women, yet it certainly seems to have drunk the Democratic Kool-Aid on this issue!
February 27th, 2013 at 9:32 pm
Patty Murray and the Women’s Campaign Forum are still at it, blasting Republicans for trying to keep VAWA the way it was. Ms. Murray said,
The WCF Weekly Brief: February 27, 2013 says,
The Think Progress blog I linked above, which quoted Senator Murray, says
Who do these people think they are kidding? Are lesbians and bisexual women complaining about the barriers to accessing victim services? There are no such barriers, except perhaps at a few scattered shelters here and there run by fundamentalist fanatics who only care about battered heterosexual women, but gay men and transwomen have been making a huge stink about being turned away! This is not rocket science, but Democrats will do anything to maintain this myth that Republicans are waging a relentless war on women, while mainstream women jump all over themselves to show how easily they can be manipulated. Democrats are waging a war on women as well; it just takes subtler forms, like the President promising nothing will happen to the Hyde Amendment on his watch, and Democrats using VAWA as a vehicle to punish shelters for battered women that want to provide services for women only.
Another irony of all this is, fundamentalist fanatics running a shelter might be inclined to provide services for battered lesbians to rescue them from their horrid lesbian lovers. Why are feminists so eager to lump all non-heterosexuals together as if their interests are all the same in this matter? They are not, not even close. Senator Murray speaks of specific groups of women, but the groups that pushed for VAWA to include this language protecting the LGBT community are not females. Never mind, gay men are big supporters of Democrats, and some have lots of money to give, so Democrats put that language in the bill for them, pretending all the while it is all about protecting underserved women.