Iowa Attorney General Advocates for Crucial Funding Increase to Protect Crime Victims

​

Published: January 2, 2024

​

The Iowa Attorney General's Office asked for a $4.6 million boost for Victim Assistance Grants in its fiscal year 2025 state budget request dedicated to bolstering the state's crime victim service provider agencies.

 

We appreciate Attorney General Bird's efforts for actively seeking additional state funds, which are crucial for Iowa crime victims, particularly in light of the imminent threat of a 41% reduction in Iowa's largest source of federal funding for victim support services –generated entirely with non-taxpayer revenues – through the federal Victims of Crime Act (VOCA).

 

This potential cut in federal funding could lead to a substantial $5 million loss to agencies providing support services to survivors, families, and communities across the state – decimating the capacity of victim service provider agencies to maintain statewide access to comprehensive support services. It will leave many violent crime victims with no place to go, especially in rural areas and via small programs serving communities disproportionately impacted by violence.

 

The Iowa Coalition Against Domestic Violence (ICADV) and the Iowa Coalition Against Sexual Assault (IowaCASA) support 26 local victim service provider agencies receiving federal, state, local, and private funding to provide comprehensive support services to violent crime victims, including families impacted by homicide; and victims of domestic and sexual violence, stalking, rape, child abuse, and human trafficking. Most of the 55,965 victims who sought support from Iowa victim service provider agencies last year were served by one of these programs.

 

These victim service providers are vital in helping crime victims recover and become contributing members of their families and communities. With the persistent prevalence of intimate partner violence (IPV) and the concentration of violent crime victimization among individuals who have previously experienced any violent crime, more significant and consistent investment in victim support services could have a substantial impact on reducing crime and preventing violence.

 

Victim service providers work tirelessly alongside various stakeholders to assist crime victims, from crisis response to long-term support. Their roles include counseling, safety planning, helping with paperwork, guiding through legal proceedings, job applications, preventing homelessness, finding stable housing, and connecting victims with financial independence and recovery resources.

 

For years, insufficient state and federal funding has jeopardized victim access to support. The failure to prioritize state investment in victim services exacerbates the impact of the looming 41% cut in federal VOCA funds. Help for crime victims involves a combination of federal, state, local, and private funds. Iowa's reliance on federal VOCA funding – with a minimal state investment of $5 million – strains service providers.

 

Despite federal grants enhancing program capacity, consistent state investment is crucial for operational support and statewide accessibility of services. A lack of funds translates to fewer available staff, limited support for victims, constraints on victim access to 24/7 crisis response, support in rural areas, and limitations on the services victims need. 

 

We appreciate the efforts of Attorney General Bird in requesting additional state funding and asking federal policymakers to help avert this looming crisis, as well as the responsiveness of Iowa's U.S. Congressional delegation in meeting with Iowa service providers and committing to work toward solutions that truly support Iowa crime victims. However, crime victims and the people who support them desperately need policymakers to prioritize their promises and come through with additional state and federal funding.

 

Violence is preventable, and failing to address it is a public policy choice. Victims are counting on our state lawmakers to do the right thing and invest at least an additional $4.6 million in victim services this legislative session.

 

In Solidarity,

Iowa Coalition Against Domestic Violence and Iowa Coalition Against Sexual Assault

​

 

U.S. Supreme Court to Determine Access to Firearms for Domestic Abuse Offenders 
– Statement from Iowa Crime Victim Advocacy and Service Provider Agencies

Published: November 7, 2023

​

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in U.S. v. Rahimi, a case challenging the constitutionality of a federal law [18 U.S.C.922(g)(8)] prohibiting individuals subject to qualifying domestic abuse civil protection orders from possessing firearms. This law was enacted in 1994 as part of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) to reduce gun violence by abusive partners who are found by a court to be dangerous but have not been convicted of a domestic abuse crime. It remains a critical acknowledgment that abuse survivors need multiple and timely options for safety, and marks a decades old recognition of the increased risk of harm when guns are involved.

 

For 30 years, federal courts routinely upheld USC 922(g)8 against Second Amendment challenges. However, a 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen challenging an unrelated state law altered the framework for judicial review of Second Amendment challenges and created confusion in some lower courts. In February 2023, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals erroneously applied the new framework to USC 922(g)8 and deemed the law unconstitutional. Now the U.S. Supreme Court will decide.

 

This case is about so much more than either domestic violence or guns. The exponential risk of injury and death from domestic abusers with guns extends well beyond individuals. The destruction of lives that occurs at the intersection of these two dangerously prevalent public health problems threatens us all. This case is about ensuring the U.S. Constitution continues to allow policymakers to address crisis levels of violence eroding our collective freedom to live safely in our homes and communities. Not only must the U.S. Supreme Court reverse the 5th Circuit Court decision, but they must provide clarity and certainty in confirming the Constitution does not render elected officials powerless to protect people from violence.

 

The decision by the U.S. Supreme Court is poised to have far-reaching effects on a range of laws that prevent individuals under civil orders from possessing firearms. Notably, it will likely influence regulations like background checks, which, since 1998, have prevented over 77,000 weapon purchases across the nation by individuals under domestic abuse protection orders. Furthermore, this decision could potentially have repercussions for numerous other gun safety laws, including Iowa law, which has paralleled federal regulations regarding gun possession concerning domestic abuse since 2010.

 

Staggering statistics confirm domestic abusers with guns create an extraordinary public safety threat to victims, families, law enforcement, and communities. One in two women in the United States experience intimate partner violence in their lifetime. Although the number of women and children threatened and terrorized by guns greatly exceeds the number of domestic abuse homicides, the presence of guns makes it five times more likely a female partner will be murdered.

Guns kill 55% of women murdered by an intimate partner, including 75% of Black female homicide victims in 2020, and cause nearly two-thirds of related child fatalities. Responding to domestic abuse routinely accounts for the highest number of service-related fatalities for police officers. In fact, firearms were involved in 95% of officer deaths between 1996 and 2010. And tragically, the domestic abuse connection to mass shootings is now well-documented. More than two-thirds (68%) of mass shootings are related to domestic violence incidents or perpetrated by shooters with a history of domestic violence.

 

Civil protection orders cannot guarantee safety for victims – no law can. However, limiting gun restrictions only to individuals criminally convicted would leave most victims with no legal protection from gun violence. Civil protection orders restricting domestic abusers from having guns offer an effective alternative that provides courts and individuals with a more flexible, time-limited mechanism for legal protection from urgent threats to safety and further violence.  Every state has some type of civil protection order, but not every protection order qualifies for the firearms restrictions at issue in this case. Qualifying protection orders must prohibit the individual from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child; the person must have received notice of, and opportunity to participate in, a court hearing; and must include a finding that the person represents a threat or is expressly prohibited from threatening to use physical force against the partner or child.

 

Many abusive individuals subject to civil protection orders have criminal histories, e.g., one study found half had prior criminal charges of domestic violence against either their current partner or former partner. Women often pursue civil protection orders after enduring particularly severe physical or sexual violence and after accessing other services. In one study, 61% of women requesting a civil protection order said they experienced potentially lethal violence, forcible rape, or suffered major injuries. Another study showed that in the six months prior to obtaining the civil protection order, 81% had called the police, and 37% had utilized victim services for support.

 

Notably, civil protection orders offer many victims substantial benefits over gun restrictions tied to criminal convictions. Civil orders allow victims to decide when and how to pursue legal protection compared to criminal proceedings, which typically take longer to initiate and leave victims without legal protection from often urgent threats. Criminal proceedings are lengthy, and security depends on decisions made by prosecutors and judges about whether or how a person who harms will be held accountable. And, because victims have more control over the civil process, they can drop a protection order if that meets their safety needs better. Most abusive partners are not convicted for abusive behavior and most women who experience abuse do not pursue criminal prosecution for a variety of good reasons. For many, like Rahimi’s ex-girlfriend, calling the police or seeking criminal prosecution increases their risk of violence or delays their ability to recover by avoiding contact with an abusive partner. Many victims want legal protection but do not want to undermine their economic security or sever a parent-child relationship by prolonged criminal prosecution, jail, incarceration, or deportation.

 

Different state laws lead to different levels of effectiveness, but researchers have found that domestic violence protection order firearm restrictions are associated with decreases in intimate partner homicide. They are also associated with decreases in total intimate partner homicides committed with any weapon, which debunks the erroneous claim that gun restrictions do not matter because a person who harms will use other methods to commit violence. The research is clear – removing guns from abusive partners saves lives.
 

The case of U.S. v. Rahimi itself reflects a common reality. After Zackey Rahimi – a resident of Arlington, Tx – physically assaulted and threatened to shoot his girlfriend if she told police, she pursued a protection order. At a court hearing, the judge determined Mr. Rahimi posed an ongoing safety threat, and in addition to ordering him to stay away from his ex-girlfriend and child, the order prohibited Mr. Rahimi from possessing firearms. For months, Mr. Rahimi terrorized his community – shooting at the driver of a car he crashed into, intimidating strangers by firing off gun shots into the air when he did not get his way, shooting at a constable, and firing an AR-15 into the home of a man he sold drugs to. However, it was Mr. Rahimi’s violation of the civil protection order that enabled his arrest and helped prevent him from continuing to threaten public safety. He was convicted of possessing firearms in violation of the protection order and failed in his first attempt to appeal his conviction before the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. He tried again after New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, and this time, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed his conviction claiming that without a criminal conviction for domestic abuse, the civil protection order could no longer legally prohibit his gun rights.

 

In a civil society, we routinely balance individual rights with public interest. Confronted with overwhelming evidence confirming our nation’s exceptional gun violence problem threatens public safety, the U.S. Constitution should not be used to undermine laws protecting the security interests of its people. The U.S. Supreme Court must overturn the 5th Circuit Court’s dangerous decision to put an abuser’s access to guns over survivor safety.

 

Maria Corona, PhD; Executive Director

Iowa Coalition Against Domestic Violence

 

Nicole Stepleton Hardin; M. Ed; Deputy Director

Iowa Coalition Against Sexual Assault

 

Ben Brustkern; Executive Director

Friends of the Family; Waterloo office serving 14 counties in NE Iowa

Shelter/housing & human trafficking support services

 

Melissa Cano Zelaya; Executive Director

Latinas Unidas por un Nuevo Amanecer (L.U.N.A.); Des Moines office serving Latinx survivors central Iowa

Culturally specific victim support services for Latinx communities

 

Kathleen Davis; Domestic Abuse Resource Center Director

Helping Services’ Domestic Abuse Resource Center; Decorah office serving 7 counties NE Iowa

Domestic violence support services

 

Kristie Fortmann-Doser; Executive Director and Liz Van Deusen, Shelter Services Coordinator

Domestic Violence Intervention Program; Iowa City office serving 8 counties in SE Iowa

Domestic violence & shelter/housing support services

 

Mary J. Ingham; Executive Director

Crisis Intervention Service; Mason City office serving 23 counties in North Central/NE Iowa

Domestic violence, sexual assault, & homicide support services

 

Stephanie Pickinpaugh; Executive Director

SafePlace; Sioux City office serving 19 counties in NW Iowa

Domestic violence support services for Plymouth & Woodbury counties; shelter services for 19 counties

​

Lori A. Rinehart; Director, Domestic Violence Services

Children and Families of Iowa; Des Moines office serving Polk & Warren counties

Domestic violence & shelter support services

 

Jessica Rohrs; Executive Director

Family Crisis Centers; Sioux Center office supporting Statewide Victim Call Center (‘hotline’)

DV, human trafficking, homicide services 31 Western Iowa counties

 

Lorraine Uehling; Executive Director

Family Crisis Center; Ottumwa office serving 12 counties in South Central Iowa

Domestic violence support services

 

Mira Yusef; MSW, MA; Executive Director

Monsoon Asians & Pacific Islanders in Solidarity; Des Moines & Iowa City offices serving statewide

Culturally specific victim support services for API communities

​

 

U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe vs. Wade in an egregious decision that sets women's civil rights back 50 years

​

Published: June 17, 2022

​

Today's egregious decision by the United States Supreme Court to overturn Roe vs. Wade sets birthing people and women’s civil rights back 50 years.

As the state's leading voice to end gender violence in Iowa for more than 35 years, we believe all people have the right to bodily autonomy and to

determine what is best for themselves, including abortion and primary medical care. Ending a constitutional right to an abortion will not stop women and birthing people from seeking an abortion; it will only impact the safety and health of women who seek this procedure. 

 

Abortion access is one of several fundamental rights under attack in the U.S., including our right to vote, racial justice, LGBTQ+ rights, and many other rights intertwined with our right to liberty in which Roe v. Wade was grounded. Restricting and prohibiting access to abortion is a first step toward imposing dangerous and harmful laws that once again disproportionately impact young women, Black and Brown women, low-income women, and LGBTQIA+ individuals – the same populations disproportionately affected by state-sponsored and gender violence.

 

Gender violence, including domestic abuse, sexual assault, and dating violence, is about power and control. It remains a persistent public health crisis due to epidemic levels of prevalence. Approximately 1 in 4 women experience rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner, and most first violent experiences occur before age 25.

 

Reproductive health services are essential to primary medical care for all women. Victims of domestic and sexual violence have an acute need for timely access to comprehensive reproductive health services, including abortion. Reproductive coercion occurs when a person who harms restricts the freedom of their partner to control their bodies, lives, and futures. Harmful partners use intimidation, threats, or violence to deny bodily autonomy. This includes rape, sabotaging contraception, and coercing a person to become pregnant and carry a pregnancy against their will.

 

Outlawing access to reproductive care threatens women's freedom and health and places victims of violence in greater danger. Privacy is fundamental for survivors seeking safety; they rely on this protection to feel safe seeking help and accessing services. With today's decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has compromised all Iowans’ constitutional right to privacy and for survivors of gender violence, putting them at additional risk for harm. 

 

Abortion services are essential healthcare, and having equal access – for all people, everywhere – is vital to their social and economic participation, reproductive autonomy, and the right to determine their own lives. Reproductive justice is a necessary component of gender equality and racial justice. Reproductive justice is only achieved when all people have the social, political, and economic power to decide their health, bodies, and sexuality. 

 

Iowa service providers report that barriers to accessing abortion increase a survivor's risk for injury from a person who harms and undermines their health because it delays the ability to obtain care until later in pregnancy. Providers in rural areas report these opportunities are incredibly few and far between and the lack of access to transportation compounds the difficulty.

 

Safety is not the antidote to violence. Self-determination is. Women should be able to control their bodies and safely and freely decide whether to become or stay pregnant. We believe in a future free from violence where we all have the freedom to determine our medical care needs, safely care for loved ones, and access the services that make that possible. Today's decision is detrimental to abortion rights and bodily autonomy, but we are not defeated. We will push forward and advocate for systems and policy change that will ensure all Iowans have the freedom to make their own decisions about their lives and futures.

 

In Solidarity,

ICADV Staff and Board of Directors

 

​

Iowa Supreme Court rules state's constitution does not include a fundamental right to an abortion

​

Published: June 17, 2022

​

We are angry and deeply disappointed that the Iowa Supreme Court ruled the state's constitution does not include a fundamental right to abortion in their

decision on a case challenging a medically unnecessary mandatory 24-hour waiting period for abortion. The Supreme Court did not take a position on whether the 24-hour waiting period law should be upheld which allows Planned Parenthood to continue its legal challenge to the law in District court. However, since the Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision, the 24-hour waiting period law goes into effect while the legal challenge to the law continues.

 

Right now, abortion remains legal in Iowa, but this devastating ruling makes it easier for Iowa legislators to restrict or prohibit access to abortion because the Court dramatically lowered the level of constitutional protection for abortion rights. This decision comes just before the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to issue a significant ruling regarding the federal constitutional right to abortion.

​

Restricting and prohibiting access to abortion is dangerous, harmful, and exacerbates disparities in access to care that disproportionately impact young women, Black and Brown women, low-income women, and LGBTQIA+ individuals – the same populations disproportionately affected by state-sponsored and gender violence.  

​

The unnecessary 24-hour mandatory delay law undermines the personal decisions women make about what is best for their lives and the well-being of their families. This insulting and burdensome requirement will not stop women from deciding to have an abortion; it will negatively impact the safety of health services women receive and increase the danger for victims of violence. 

​

Reproductive health services are essential to primary medical care for all women. Victims of domestic and sexual violence have an acute need for timely access to comprehensive reproductive health services, including abortion. Imposing medically unnecessary barriers to accessing abortion threatens women’s freedom and health and places victims of violence in greater danger. 

​

Gender violence, including domestic abuse, sexual assault, and dating violence, is about power and control. It remains a persistent public health crisis due to epidemic levels of prevalence. Approximately 1 in 4 women experience rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner, and most first violent experiences occur before age 25.

​

Reproductive coercion occurs when a person who harms restricts the freedom of their partner to control their bodies, lives, and futures. Harmful partners use intimidation, threats, or violence to deny bodily autonomy. This includes rape, sabotaging contraception, and coercing a woman to become pregnant and carry a pregnancy against her will. 

 

Preventing a partner from having an abortion is abuse and forcing a partner to stay pregnant keeps someone trapped in an unhealthy relationship. A 24-hour mandatory delay is another form of power and control and effectively denies many women their right to abortion. Without timely access to abortion, many individuals return to abusive relationships they wanted to leave and carry unintended pregnancies to term at significant risk to themselves and other children. 

​

Iowa service providers report that overcoming barriers to accessing abortion increase a survivor's risk for injury from a person who harms and undermines their health because it delays the ability to obtain care until later in pregnancy. A medically unnecessary 24-hour waiting period will result in severe and sometimes insurmountable barriers to abortion. It forces women to travel long distances, make multiple trips to health providers, and dramatically increases health care costs. It is difficult to find a safe window to travel for services when a person who harms controls their time, mobility, and finances. Providers in rural areas report that these opportunities are incredibly few and far between and the lack of access to transportation compounds the difficulty. 

​

Safety is not the antidote to violence. Self-determination is. Women should be able to control their bodies safely and freely decide whether to become or stay pregnant. We believe in a future free from violence where we all have the freedom to control our bodies, safely care for loved ones, and access the services that make that possible. 

​

Eliminating access to abortion care because of disagreements over personal health care decisions is harmful to women’s health, irresponsible public policy, and does not reflect the reality of people’s lives.  

​

In Solidarity,

ICADV Staff and Board of Directors

​

​