Hi - sorry it's been a while... I'm pregnant with twins & haven't been feeling well - and, trying to ignore the news and anything remotely political in the interest of healthy babies!
HOWEVER, I heard something on public radio this morning that made this social worker's blood boil. In case you missed it, the Supreme Court had their last session of the "year" yesterday, Monday, June 27th. One of the decisions was in regards to a person's ability to sue the police when a valid restraining order is not enforced by same police department. This case stemmed from a situation in Colorado where a woman's three children were murdered by her estranged husband after he kidnapped them from her front yard and allegedly took them to a Denver amusement park, and in which the local police did not alert the Denver police or have the amusement park searched for the man and children. (Castle Rock, Colo., v. Gonzales, 04-278)
"Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to police enforcement of the court order against her husband", the court said in a 7-2 opinion. Further, Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, said, "The creation of a personal entitlement to something as vague and novel as enforcement of restraining orders cannot 'simply go without saying.' We conclude that Colorado has not created such an entitlement.''
WHAT THE HELL?! Here's the rant: so tell my why on earth we have such a thing as OFP's (Orders for Protection) and restraining orders, if the person who legally requests and receives one from a judge cannot reasonably expect police enforcement of said legal order?! Seems to me this completely strips away the very limited options that abused women (and their children) have to stay somewhat safe from their abusers. Most abused women already won't stick their necks out in a courthouse to request said OFP's & restraining orders, because it would require them to come into contact with their abuser at the courthouse - can you imagine the impact this ruling will have on their future choices?!
Now, I have to point out that there were two lone voices of reason in this decision. Justice John Paul Stevens was joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in dissenting this decision (note: the ONLY woman on the bench!). Justice Stevens wrote in his dissent that the woman's "description of the police behavior in this case and the department's callous policy of failing to respond properly to reports of restraining order violations clearly alleges a due process violation.''
I simply cannot fathom this. Further evidence of male domination and the squashing of women and children's rights... and I'm not a firm believer in systemic misogyny!
It's also worth mentioning that the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) has been pending reauthorization in Congress this year, and, as of today, has only been introduced in the Senate. It not only has to make it's way not only through both Houses of Congress, but also must first pass through the Senate Judiciary Committee. Don't know much about VAWA? Check out this link - the good folks at Wellstone Action! have an entire portion of their website devoted to educating people about VAWA and tracking the bill as it moves through Congress:
http://www.wellstone.org/swinstitute/category_page.aspx?catID=3800
If VAWA interests you - contact your Congressional representation in Washington and urge them to sign on as co-authors of VAWA and work to get it passed.
Well, that's my rant for today. Maybe I'll be back in the blog business, since this has really rattled my cage. Also, our state goverment in MN is set to shut down at midnight thursday, since our fabulous Governor (President Bush's golden boy, I might add) is NOT budging even a centimeter on his infamous "no new taxes" pledge... THAT ought to give me something to rant about in the month of July!
Oh - and Happy 35th Birthday to me! :)
No comments:
Post a Comment