It was a chilling moment in a conversation that took place a week and a half after a man shot his ex-girlfriend and several other people at Emcore, an Albuquerque fiber optics company.

Other members of the panel discussion include Quentin McShan, a State Police captain who studies fatal incidents of domestic violence and Sharon Pino, Gov. Bill Richardson’s former domestic violence czar who is now the violence against women resource prosecutor for the New Mexico Attorney General’s office.

The commission would meet six times annually and will:

• Identify domestic violence services that are lacking or in need of improvement and provide recommendations to the secretary of Children, Youth and Families Department and the governor to enhance the quality and efficiency of services statewide.

• Develop strategies for addressing issues of domestic violence and raising public awareness.

• Review laws, regulations and policies related to domestic violence to assess their effectiveness and recommended changes.

• Report annual before October 1st to an appropriate legislative interim committee and the governor on domestic violence policy issues.

Federal regulations already prohibit a person convicted of a felony domestic violence crime from owning a firearm, and HB 17 hopes to add other crimes such as stalking, aggravated stalking and misdemeanor assault to the list of offenses that prohibit a person from becoming a law enforcement officer. Currently, misdemeanors such as DWI already prohibit people from becoming or continuing to be police officers.

Senate Majority Leader Michael Sanchez was the only no vote in a discussion that did not mirror the explosive debate seen when the bill was in the House Judiciary Committee.

Sen. William Payne, who ultimately voted for the bill, asked Cote, about the previous issues. Though last year a similar bill passed the House unanimously, this year the bill passed the House by a vote of 48-18.

Cote clarified saying that the law, “does not require law enforcement convicted to be automatically kicked off the force.” Instead it takes the matter to the law enforcement board, which reviews the facts and circumstances of each individual case before a decision about licensure is made.

“Someone would lose their livelihood for shaking their finger at their wife,” he said.

The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Nate Cote, D-Doña Ana, disagreed, saying the bill only pertained to those who had actually been convicted of domestic violence. The bill had been amended in the House Judiciary Committee, he explained, to ensure that the bill only applied to those convicted of the crime. Speaker of the House Ben Lujan later pointed out to Rehm that he voted for the bill in that committee hearing. Rehm replied that if he voted for the bill in committee, it was a mistake as he is not in favor of the bill.

Rep. Powdrell-Culbert, R-Corrales, said HB 17 was “a needless piece of legislation,” citing the lengthy test potential law enforcement officers must take before being accepted into police academies and which she said would weed out those with violent tendencies.

Cote made the point that it was important to ensure domestic violence offenders weren’t on the police force because police officers were the “first responders” to domestic violence calls. HB 17 adds to a federal law that prohibits the carrying of firearms for certain domestic violence crimes, including aggravated stalking and aggravated assault.

Rep. Dennis Roch, R-Tucumcari, attempted to add an amendment to HB 17 that would make the law apply only to felony convictions. “The smallest misdemeanor conviction cannot be put on par with the greatest felony conviction in this matter,” Roch said.

Cote, who pointed out that there are misdemeanor offenses on the books already that remove certifications from law enforcement offers responded by saying, “I wouldn’t confuse other misdemeanors with domestic violence, which is a serious problem, “adding that his bill would help “to protect the citizens of New Mexico.”

The amendment, which failed, was also opposed by Rep. Ken Martinez, who said misdemeanor battery was important to include and that “any attempt to take misdemeanors out really guts the bill,” as misdemeanor battery is defined as “temporary painful disfigurement,” ie. bruises, scratches, etc.

Here is a short video of Cote explaining the intent of the bill:

Rep. Nathan Cote, the bill’s co-sponsor, offered an amendment to the bill that would define domestic violence nearer to that of SB 2, which narrows the definition of “household member” to “spouse, former spouse, parent, present or former stepparent, present or former parent in-law, grandparent, grandparent-in-law, a co-parent of a child or a person with whom a person has had a continuing personal relationship.” The re-definition would strike family member or relative from the definition.

At Friday’s hearing both Reps Kintigh and Rehm expressed concerns that the current definition was too broad and used the example of an altercation between brothers as one that would fall under current domestic violence crimes. Kintigh and Rehm, both former law enforcement officers, protested the possibility of an officer losing his job due to such an altercation.

Kintigh, who along with Rehm, and Reps. Bandy and White, walked out of Friday’s Judiciary Committee meeting in an attempt to block a vote on the bill, praised Cote’s amendment saying it was “an excellent amendment” and offering his support. However, Judiciary Committee Chair Rep. Al Park made a motion to send the bill back to Judiciary saying, “this is not what was approved by judiciary,” a motion to which Cote agreed.

HB 17 is Cote’s second attempt to pass this domestic violence legislation into law. Last year his HB 33 passed unanimously through House and Senate Public Affairs and Judiciary Committees before being postponed before a final vote.

The move to reexamine the bill comes just one day after the Albuquerque Journal reported the filing of a tort claim against the city of Santa Fe and the Santa Fe Police Department for the inappropriate display of nude photographs confiscated from the home of a woman who called police about a domestic disturbance.

The lawsuit harkens to the concerns of many domestic violence advocates who warn that women fear calling law enforcement in cases of domestic violence and that bills similar to the one Cote is trying to pass will make victims safer.  At Friday’s hearing Rep. Antonio Maestas raised concerns about law enforcement officers’ partners saying, “If I’m a cadet and if I’m abusive, is my victim less likely or more likely to call someone to intervene?” to which Cote responded “I think they’d be more likely to call” if this legislation were passed.

Though a federal law, the The Gun Control Act, exists that prohibits persons who have been convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence crimes from possessing fire arms, the New Mexico law would cover crimes not covered in the federal law, including stalking and property damage.

HB 17 would only prohibit offenders from becoming or retaining their certification for three years and a 2000 study cited by the American Bar Association states “41 percent of participants reported that the men committed a re-assault during the 30-month follow-up period,” and “early 2/3 of the first time re-assaults occurred in the first 6 months.”

Photo by Michael Galkovsky

ALBUQUERQUE — The brutal murder of a pregnant Santa Fe teenager has reopened a debate over how to properly punish such crimes. It has also prompted supporters of a “fetal homicide” bill to announce plans to introduce it again in the next session of the New Mexico Legislature.

Women’s rights groups say they’re hesitant to support such a law because it could be used against pregnant women and discourage domestic violence victims from coming forward and seeking help.

Sarah Lovato, the 17-year-old Santa Fe High student whom detectives allege was shot by her 22-year-old boyfriend on May 22, was nine months pregnant. Her father was also killed in the incident.

Santa Fe District Attorney Angela “Spence” Pacheco originally charged the suspect, Marino Leyba Jr., with three counts of murder, but the third count was dropped when it was determined that New Mexico law did not allow for such a charge.

“I was unaware that we didn’t have a law that would protect a baby in the later stages of pregnancy. It’s wrong (not to have such a law),” Santa Fe police Capt. Gary Johnson told the Santa Fe New Mexican. “This is not an issue of pro-choice or pro-life. It’s an issue of protecting a pregnant woman and her child.”

Most crimes of this nature are prosecuted under state law, and according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, at least 36 states have fetal homicide laws (variously known as the Fetal Protection Act, the Preborn Victims of Violence Act and the Unborn Victim of Violence Act). Some laws apply to the killing of a fetus at any time after conception, while others only apply to a fetus that is capable of surviving outside the womb.

In 2005, state Rep. Larry Larrañaga, R-Albuquerque, introduced The Unborn Victims of Violence Act, but the bill was defeated in committee. The Right to Life Committee of New Mexico and the National Right to Life Committee strongly support such legislation.

But some advocates for women say these laws don’t protect women from violence and that the debate over them distracts from the discussion about effective ways to reduce violence against women.

“What we’ve discovered is that the minute one of these laws passes, the first people who are prosecuted are not batterers, but pregnant women themselves,” says Lynn Paltrow of National Advocates for Pregnant Women, a women’s rights organization that has fought against fetal homicide laws.

“These cases are always presented as a response to violence against women. But not a single state has ever looked at whether these laws have done anything to decrease the epidemic of violence against women. And no state should pass another law like this until that research is done,” Paltrow says.

Paltrow says that similar laws in other states are used to prosecute pregnant women who suffer from substance abuse problems.

In particular, she points to South Carolina, where a fetal homicide law has been used to prosecute dozens of pregnant women struggling with substance abuse. In one case, a 22-year-old homeless woman whose pregnancy resulted in a stillbirth was convicted of murder and sentenced to 12 years in prison, even though health experts said there was no evidence her drug problem caused the stillbirth. If she had instead had an illegal third-trimester abortion, her sentence would have been only two years, Paltrow says.

Lynn Rosenthal, executive director of the New Mexico Coalition Against Domestic Violence says that while fetal homicide laws are well-intentioned, she worries that they may prevent some victims of domestic violence from getting help.

“I am very hesitant about fetal homicide laws, not because I don’t feel just terribly for this family… but when you focus on the pregnancy, do you take the focus away from the steps that could have been taken to save this woman and her pregnancy?” Rosenthal asks.

“I understand the desire to hold a perpetrator accountable, and of course you want the maximum accountability for a crime… but I worry about women being battered during pregnancy and [laws like this] creating an additional fear for them, preventing them from coming forward because they believe they’ll be punished or judged, resulting in women not getting the necessary care.”

“I’m thinking, down the line, of where we go with public policy,” Rosenthal says. “We should be very cautious not to create unintended consequences.”

Claudia Medina, Executive Director of Enlace Comunitario

To kick-off the Independent’s new feature highlighting New Mexicans from all walks of life, I connected with Claudia Medina — founder and executive director of Enlace Comunitario, which provides comprehensive domestic violence services to immigrant women.

Claudia, a Colombian immigrant who has lived in New Mexico for almost 20 years, received her Master’s degree in Latin American Studies, with a specialization in Community and Regional Planning, from the University of New Mexico in 1993.

Her work since then has led to the creation of three important projects in support of immigrant families in New Mexico: Enlace, El Centro de Igualdad y Derechos—an immigrant rights organization—and Mujeres en Accion, which is a cooperative that sells tamalas.

NMI: What led you to the creation of Enlace Comunitario?

CM: In 1994 I began working for UNM in the family planning program as a community planner in the South Broadway area of Albuquerque. I soon realized that domestic violence was a serious problem for the immigrant women I was encountering. I brought in volunteers and organized a training process that 13 women signed up for. Then, during that period one of the women was killed by her husband in a case of domestic violence. That changed my perception of what I needed to do. I realized I needed to do more–that this community really needed help.

So what did you do to get started?

We formed a grupo which was composed of myself and these community women. We met for eight months, every Monday, to think through what was needed most. The two main things were counseling services and an economic development project that would allow these women to leave their abusers.

And the economic development project was Mujeres en Accion, which makes those wonderful tamales, right?

Yes, but that wasn’t the original idea. They decided to create a cooperative that made pottery and ceramics. We were given space in the back of a church, Iglesia Congregational Unida, and got a kiln and donated materials. But, you know, the women then decided they were really bad at making pottery — at least the kind that can compete with all the beautiful pottery out there. That didn’t work, but they soon started making tamales to come up with money to pay for the electricity and materials, and those tamales started selling really well. And they have a thriving business today that is freestanding of Enlace.

And Enlace started by offering direct services?

Initially we were still part of UNM, in the education department. We got a grant for a part-time counselor and began forming the program. But our scope eventually expanded and we realized we needed to be independent. That’s when we became Enlace — in 2000.

We understood from the very beginning that in order to eliminate domestic violence, we needed to understand the root problems and take a systemic approach. We recognized that we needed to be both a domestic violence service-oriented and a social justice oriented organization, which means we have to be involved at the policy level through advocacy and organizing.

So, in 2000 we created Enlace and raised $45,000 through small grants here and there. Today, we have a budget of $1.2 million and 20 employees.

Isn’t El Centro de Igualdad y Derechos also an organization that was started through Enlace?

El Centro is our sister organization that does grassroots organizing for immigrant rights. Rachel Lazar, the executive director of El Centro, was one of the first employees of Enlace. We have a very collaborative relationship, and share a leadership institute that trains promotoras. These are immigrant women who are cross-trained on immigrant rights and domestic violence issues, who then go back out into the community to do education work.

And doesn’t Enlace also have a youth program?

When it comes to domestic violence, we can’t separate women from their children. Our program offers a comprehensive approach — from counseling, to legal services, to case management, and to prevention — and meeting the needs of the children is very important. We offer counseling to young children and have two youth groups, one for girls and one for boys.

What makes Enlace different from other domestic violence programs in the state?

We are the only culturally specific program for Latino immigrant victims of domestic violence in the state. Other programs may have Spanish services, but we are the only ones who offer a comprehensive package for that community.

Why is that important?

The needs of immigrant women have an added dimension. First, let me emphasize that domestic violence is something that faces women from all walks of life, regardless of who they are. But immigrant women face more challenges. They have significant language barriers. They might not seek help because they have a fear of deportation. We find that there is a real lack of understanding of their legal rights here, and they are often very intimidated by the legal system. Many are not able to find a job because they have no documentation, so will be reluctant to leave their abuser. These barriers make them isolated — often their extended families are in other countries so they don’t have support networks.

So, shifting gears a little, will the state budget crunch affect Enlace?

Yes, we are very worried –50 percent of our budget is state funding. Plus, private foundations are also facing difficulty because of the decline in the stock market. So we’re being very cautious, very lean in terms of managing our finances. It’s a scary time for the non-profit sector — we are very concerned.

Do you have any bills you’ll be supporting during the session?

We’ll be keeping a look-out with El Centro for anti-immigrant bills are proposed. Plus, I participate on a task force concerned with human trafficking. A bill was passed last year making it a crime — we think it needs some revisions that would include more protections, and the task force is working on creating a bill. I’ll also be helping the statewide domestic violence coalition in communicating to legislators about why it’s so important to not cut funding for domestic violence programs.

Why is that important?

Well, domestic violence is basically an epidemic. It affects more and more women every year. National reported statistics tell us that 15 women per 1,000 suffer from it. But in New Mexico, it’s more like 24.5 per 1,000. The problem is huge. And these women need the public to support programs that help them get out of these situations.

Do you generally find that the public is supportive of your work?

All I can say is that I feel very blessed with the amount of support we get year after year. We’ve had so much support from individuals, funders, and policy makers. It’s unbelievable, really.

And what about you personally? What do you do in your spare time?

Spending time with my family, first, plus a truly wonderful group of co-workers and friends. And then, I have a hammock in the backyard, and when I’m in it with a book I feel like a queen.

Do you have a favorite author?

Being from Colombia, I just love [Gabriel] Garcia Marquez. But at the same time, I read a lot and every time I put a book down I say, wow, that was my favorite author. What can I say? Life is good.

]]> http://newmexicoindependent.com/12372/nmi-qa-with-claudia-medina/feed 4 http://newmexicoindependent.com/8104/last-chance-ladies-get-out-and-vote http://newmexicoindependent.com/8104/last-chance-ladies-get-out-and-vote#comments Mon, 03 Nov 2008 17:30:28 +0000 Kate Nelson http://newmexicoindependent.com/?p=8104 Of all the depressing statistics bedeviling our nation right now, here’s one that’s easy to fix: When the polls close Tuesday night, one in three women will have failed to cast a ballot.

Jane Addams and Susan B. Anthony, two of the suffragists who truly suffered through the long fight to win women’s right to vote, will be shaking their heads in shame.

It’s not as if women haven’t charted historic paths in this election. Hillary Clinton posted the most credible campaign by a woman in U.S. history. Sarah Palin stands a shot at being the nation’s first female vice president.

With a woman leading the U.S. House of Representatives and women gaining governorships across the nation (maybe soon in New Mexico), gender balance in the world of politics has admirably improved. Although not enough.

One woman, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, now sits among eight men on a U.S. Supreme Court that has already displayed its disdain for women’s equal-pay issues in the Lily Ledbetter case. With advancing age and retirement to a nice beach house becoming pressing concerns for some of those justices, the next president’s appointments could create a court that will help — or harm — generations of women to come.

Reproductive health is a key area, though certainly not the only one. (And don’t buy anyone who says the left is “for” abortion. Nobody I know who’s had one enjoyed the experience, but they darned well don’t want the government making such a difficult decision for them or anyone else.)

The health care industry rarely acknowledges the different ways that heart disease and cancer affect women — both in how the symptoms present themselves and what treatments best serve them.

Domestic violence proportionately affects more women than men, though every family in such a circumstance is harmed.

Women tend to wield the family wallet, making economic issues of primary concern to them.

When they try to open a small business, women have always found the doors of big banks closed to them. Who knows how many extra locks have been added since the economy plummeted?

Children’s health care and the quality of a child’s school should concern everyone who hopes to have a healthy, educated workforce in the future. Too often, it’s women who fight the battles to improve both.

But one in three can’t be bothered to vote? In 2004, 38 million eligible women voters stayed silent.

Look, I know, life’s crazy. From the moment the alarm goes off until we hit the pillow again, we run our days like long-distance sprints. Stuff gets in the way. The car breaks down. The baby has a fever.

Still … you can stand in line at a Linens ‘n’ Things sell-off, but can’t stand in line to vote? You can squeeze in a midweek pedicure but can’t find time to select the next leader of the free world?

During the primary, a widely circulated but rarely credited e-mail detailed what happened in 1917 when the suffragists picketed Woodrow Wilson’s White House:

The women were innocent and defenseless, but they were jailed nonetheless for picketing the White House, carrying signs asking for the vote.

And by the end of the night, they were barely alive. Forty prison guards wielding clubs and their warden’s blessing went on a rampage against the 33 women wrongly convicted of “obstructing sidewalk traffic.”

They beat Lucy Burns, chained her hands to the cell bars above her head, and left her hanging for the night, bleeding and gasping for air.

They hurled Dora Lewis into a dark cell, smashed her head against an iron bed, and knocked her out cold. Her cellmate, Alice Cosu, thought Lewis was dead and suffered a heart attack. Additional affidavits describe the guards grabbing, dragging, beating, choking, slamming, pinching, twisting, and kicking the women.

It would take another three years before women won their ballots. There are women among us today who were born without that right, who had no voice whatsoever in the programs, policies and budgets — not to mention university admission standards — that guided their lives.

The Linens ‘n’ Things sale is a bust. Trust me and skip it. Postpone the pedicure. Think of the women who’ve given it all on the campaign trail, who’ve smashed the glass ceilings in courtrooms and operating rooms, who’ve stayed up all night with a sick child and no money for medicine.

If you still can’t find a reason to vote Tuesday, do it in memory of Lucy Burns.