Nevada Gun Law Changes - Some Good, Some Bad

Las Vegas Review Journal

link provided by George Jefferson with the following remark:

"Nevada Gun law Changing for the better‏"

The Assembly on Friday passed a gun bill that would expand and clarify Nevada’s justifiable homicide law and prevent people convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence from possessing firearms.

The Assembly voted on party lines 25-17 on Senate Bill 175.

The bill, which has already passed the Senate, goes to Gov. Brian Sandoval’s desk. The governor’s office didn’t indicate if he will sign the bill.

SB175 would expand the definition of justifiable homicide to include killing someone in defense of an occupied motor vehicle or someone who intends to enter a vehicle to assault a person inside. The bill also would grant civil liability protection to those who use justifiable force.

It would end a handgun registration requirement in Clark County and establish “state control over the regulation of policies concerning firearms.”

Under the bill, anyone convicted of domestic violence, including a misdemeanor offense, could not own a firearm. Doing so would be a felony.

SB175 would also expand the current law recognizing other states that offer concealed carry permits and allowing residents of those states to carry weapons in Nevada. States that require a class, program or training to obtain a permit would be granted reciprocity, expanding the number of such states by about 10.

Assemblywoman Dina Neal, D-North Las Vegas, opposed the measure, saying it’s too subjective and tips the scales in favor of shooters who claim they were afraid.

“How do you determine fear?” Neal said.

In another development, the Assembly introduced a new “campus carry” bill on Friday that would allow permit-holders to carry a concealed weapon on college campuses. Assembly Bill 487 was referred to the Assembly Judiciary Committee.

Just a day earlier, legislators in the Assembly rejected an amendment to SB175 that would have allowed campus carry. The Assembly voted 24-18 Thursday to kill the controversial proposal, with eight Republicans helping defeat it.

Most of the eight Republicans who voted against campus carry Thursday had a change of heart Friday.

Big Victory for W. Clark Aposhian

(Rick Egan | Tribune file photo) W. Clark Aposhian, seen in this 2005 photo, has been charged with four misdemeanors, including domestic violence. Aposhian has taught concealed-carry classes for legislators, public officials and the governor and hundreds of other Utahns, but a conviction could cost him his right to own guns.


The Salt Lake Tribune

Utah’s foremost gun advocate and his ex-wife had a contentious divorce wrought with conflict, emotional distress and pain.

At times, Clark Aposhian may have been annoying and intimidating but, a judge ruled last week, he wasn’t dangerous.

Third District Judge Andrew Stone denied a protective order request from Aposhian’s ex-wife, Natalie Meyer, last Tuesday and ruled the woman has no reason to fear the gun lobbyist.

It’s a long-awaited victory for Aposhian, who has been embroiled in several legal disputes stemming from a Memorial Day incident in which he was accused of driving a 2.5-ton military vehicle onto his ex-wife’s driveway and threatening to run over her new husband and his car.

Aposhian still faces misdemeanor domestic violence charges in Holladay Justice Court, but his attorneys hope Stone’s ruling, which states there was no abuse or criminal trespassing on the Meyers’ property, will help them in fighting that case.

No physical violence • The judge dismissed this fear of physical abuse, noting her interactions with Aposhian had never escalated to physical violence in the past, and there was little evidence to show they were likely to in the future — two legal requirements of granting a protective order under Utah law.

You have to wonder if a guy who makes threats and does intimidation is really safe. Aren't these exactly the types who need to be disarmed BEFORE they escalate into out-and-out violent behavior?  Is it reasonable to expect people like this to gradually calm down and not get worse over time?

Guns and Domestic Violence

Dissident Voice

Single Florida male, 30, wants to meet caring female.  Must like guns — a new Zimmerman ad?

Ladies — do you recognize this guy? He is volatile, possessive, moody and prone to adult temper tantrums. He plays the tough guy but reserves his ire for women, children and even pets. When you’re through with his huffing and puffing and bullying and try to leave him — he turns violent and you need to get an order of protection.

George Zimmerman is the classic domestic batterer whose brushes with the law become more frequent and extreme until he is stopped. Partners of batterers end up dead with alarming frequency. Still, the NRA unabashedly defends domestic abusers’ “rights” to remain armed while they are under orders of protection from terrified wives and girlfriends. Why? Because the right to own and carry a gun is more sacred to the gun lobby than victims of domestic violence! The NRA and other gun rights groups have “beaten back legislation mandating the surrender of firearms in domestic violence situations,” says the New York Times.

Lifetime Gun Ban Constitutional in Spousal Abuse Cases

From the Trenches

A federal appeals court upheld the constitutionality of a lifetime ban on gun possession for anyone convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held Monday that a person convicted of domestic violence is disqualified from the core right of Second Amendment to possess firearms for defense of the home.

The only two exceptions are: if the conviction is expunged or set aside and if the offender is pardoned and has his or her civil rights restored.  

Daniel E. Chovan, of San Diego, challenged the law as unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

The U.S. Supreme Court decision recognizing a personal right to possess handguns found the core of the Second Amendment right “is to allow ‘law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home,’” the opinion states.

Chovan didn’t meet that requirement.

“Keeping guns from domestic violence misdemeanants is substantially related to the broader interest of preventing domestic gun violence,” wrote Judge Harry Pregerson.  Because the gun ban “is supported by an important government interest and substantially related to that interest, the statute passes constitutional muster…” he said.

When Men Murder Women: An Analysis of 2011 Homicide Data

Violence Policy Center



Number of Females Murdered by Males in Single Victim/Single Offender Homicides and Rates by State in 2011, Ranked by Rate

Vermont Governor Wants Abusers' Guns Stored

boston dot com

Law enforcement officials should be able to charge for storage of firearms belonging to people subject to protection from abuse orders, Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin said Thursday.

Those subject to relief-from-abuse orders usually are required not to possess firearms, which Shumlin called an important safeguard when emotions are running high, and the legislation Shumlin is backing would lighten the burden on authorities trying to make sure those weapons are secure.

‘‘The goal is to give law enforcement and professional (gun) dealers the means to take control of the storage of firearms while protection orders are in effect, instead of letting abusers hand them over to a friend or family member or, worse, hold on to them,’’ the governor said.

Under the legislation, sheriffs would be allowed to charge a fee for the storage of weapons and could sell them if the fee were not paid. A $75,000 fund would be set up to support building and maintaining storage facilities, with the aim that the fund would be replenished by the fees.

Shumlin said current gun laws —Vermont is among the most favorable states in the country toward gun ownership rights — would not change. What would change would be the ability of law enforcement to take and store firearms when a judge issues an order that a domestic violence perpetrator not possess weapons.

Tronsgard-Scott said national research showed that the ‘‘presence of a gun in domestic violence situations increases the risk of homicide for women by 500 percent.’’

Nobody's Checking - Exactly What the Gun-Rights Fanatics Like

Gender Violence Prevention

Domestic Abuse - Murder with Knife - Suicide with Gun

Local news reports



Police believe a Bullhead City man stabbed his girlfriend to death before shooting himself with a gun early Sunday morning in what is being called a murder-suicide. 



He stabbed her and shot himself.  What do we make of that? 

North Carolina Woman Commits Double Homicide

Local news reports

A North Carolina woman has been charged in the shooting death of her husband and his son in South Carolina.

Horry County police have charged 40-year-old Sandy Lee Locklear of Tabor City, N.C., with two counts of murder, burglary and filing a false police report.

Locklear is accused of shooting and killing her 66-year-old husband, Amos Hatfield, and his son, 40-year-old Thomas Howard Hatfield, at their home in Loris early Sunday.

Officials say Amos Hatfield had bought the home for his wife in Tabor City in June, while he lived with his son in Loris.

Retribution for domestic abuse is the first thing that comes to my mind, but really it could be anything. Heck, she could have been the abuser.

One thing for sure is, Sandy was one of the adherents of that school of thought which says "the gun is the answer."

What do you think?  Please leave a comment.

Floyd Mayweather Goes to Jail

 SI.com reports

Boxer Floyd Mayweather Jr. is about begin a three-month jail sentence in Las Vegas in a domestic violence case.

The case stems from a hair-pulling, arm-twisting attack on the mother of three of his children in September 2010.

Mayweather pleaded guilty last December to reduced charges in the altercation with Josie Harris while their two sons watched.

What's your opinion? Do you think Mayweather lost his gun rights over this? Do you think he should?

Domestic abusers, who plea bargain their offense down, like Floyd Mayweather did, often retain their right to own guns.  Depending on the State, there are many violent and dangerous people who can still own and use guns legally.

This is wrong-

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.

Bad Dad Using a Firearm Inappropriately to Punish Daughter

What does this tell us about the gun lunatic mentality? 

It tells us that they see guns as giving them the power to hurt.
It tells us that they see guns as giving them a power to punish, threaten, intimidate, harass and retaliate.

This is an inappropriate firearm discharge. This teaches a bad lesson about firearms, and it goes a long way towards explaining why firearms are so closely involved in domestic abuse cases.  This is the same exact problem with all the murder suicides, differing only in degree but not in kind or in philosophy. 

It is an excellent representation of the mindset that is the problem with the so-called legal gun owners.

This father should not have a gun.  I stop short of saying he shouldn't have a daughter either; he may otherwise be a better parent than this example of his parenting skills.  But at the very least he screwed up here, badly.

What lesson does this example teach his daughter? That if I get a gun, I can hurt you back, I can use it to cause you pain and distress, either hurting you directly or using it to hurt what you care about.

What it does NOT say is that this firearm is here to keep you safe.  It says, in fact, quite the opposite.  It says my firearm can make you my victim.  It says do what I say or I will harm you, directly or indirectly, with my firearm.

Bad Dad. 

I have no problems with a parent objecting to social media participation.  I have no problem with a parent restricting their child's computer use.  But I have a problem with the destruction of that child's property, particularly if the child paid for it. That sends the wrong message.  Destruction of property with a firearm sends the wrong message as well, regardless of the parental relationship.  This appears to be much closer to revenge than good parental discipline.

If this turns out to be a bogus video, then it still represents what is far to common a philosophy among gun owners, that it gives them power over other people, both their own persons, and their property, and that it allows them to intimidate and threaten others to get their way.

From Digital Life Today:

Dad punishes Facebook post with 8 bullets to daughter's laptop

By Bob Sullivan

A video purporting to be the work of an angry father teaching his daughter a lesson by shooting bullets through her laptop is the viral video of day. The father, who identifies himself as Tommy Jordan, says his daughter broke ground rules when using Facebook, and posted disrespectful remarks about him there.

He retaliates by laying out a case against her in an 8-minute video, concluding it with firing 8 bullets through her computer.  The video was posted on YouTube and supposedly on the 15-year-old girl’s Facebook page last night. By mid-morning, it had more than 1 million views, and it sparked debate across the Web – some cheered on the father’s "tough love," while others accused him of abuse.

As this video continues to blow up on the Internet, we are investigating whether this is a real parent or some sort of stunt. We’ll explore this issue in depth later today in Red Tape Chronicles.

Tell us what you think. Is this appropriate parenting, abuse ... or somewhere in between? How do you, as a parent, a teen, a teacher or someone who cares, deal with conflicts between Facebook and "the real world?"

Follow Up on the Topeka Misogyny

Dog Gone covered it before

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Police and Domestic Violence October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month

Police are involved as abusers significantly more often than other groups of people who commit domestic violence. I contend that means that family members who are abused cannot expect protection from the police departments, and are at greater risk than other domestic violence victims. But it is not only in dealing with the police departments that we have systemic failures in dealing with domestic abusers and victims, as is evident from the second article here.  Courts are also sometimes part of the problem as much as they are part of the solution.  

 From the News Junky Journal:

New State Domestic Violence Law May Affect New York Police Officers Charged with Domestic Assault

Under federal law, individuals convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence are forbidden from purchasing firearms. Known as the Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban, or the “Lautenberg Amendment,” persons convicted of domestic abuse or who are subject to a restraining order are prohibited from transporting or owning guns or ammunition anywhere in the United States. The law also applies to gun dealers who attempt to sell guns to such persons.

While no specific permits apply to rifles and shotguns, the State of New York is notoriously strict about handgun possession. Only those holding a valid pistol license may purchase a handgun, and the weapon must be registered with the state. Also, the gun must be transported in accord with state law.

However, the differences between how New York state and federal domestic violence statutes are applied has created a gap in the law where the information from those found guilty of domestic violence crimes in New York courts is not always transmitted to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which is commonly used for background checks of those purchasing firearms.

Under the new statute, when a defendant is convicted of a domestic violence offense in New York, the court will determine whether the crime is applicable to the federal domestic violence statute and if so, transmit the defendant’s information to the Division of Criminal Justice Services which passes it on to the NICS.

The impact of the new law on police officers could be significant. If an officer charged with domestic assault is also subject to a restraining order, he or she would not be allowed to carry a firearm in the course of his or her work. Such would be the case Roger Roth, a Town of Newburgh police officer who was arrested and charged with assault last June. Police responded to domestic dispute at Roth’s home in Montgomery, and he was accused of hitting a woman in the face with a drinking glass.

Also important is the prevalence of domestic violence in police officers’ own homes. According to the National Center for Women and Policing (NCWP), more than 40 percent of police officer families experience domestic violence, compared to 10 percent of families in the general population. The new statute is particularly critical in situations where an accused abuser has a gun, knows where the victim lives as well as the locations of battered women’s shelters, and knows enough about the legal system to manipulate statements and accusations to avoid prosecution. The added protection of knowing that abusers cannot legally access their service weapons could change the way victims report abuse.

NCWP also reports that victims often fear calling the police, because they know the case will be handled by other officers who, more often than not, know their abuser personally. They also fear that responding officers will automatically side with their abuser and fail to properly investigate or document the crime.

For those officers who are investigated, the penalties are often benign. Many are assigned to attend anger management or some type of domestic violence counseling. These concessions are usually made in light of the exemption in the federal gun ban specifically created for police officers. Essentially, officers may carry their service weapon while on duty under the “official use exemption” unless a protective order specifically indicates that the officer may not carry a firearm at any time, or departmental policy prohibits him from carrying a weapon while subject to an order.

Further, most police department policies require an officer to report that an order of protection was issued, so that an internal determination can be made about placing the officer on administrative duty (where no weapon may be carried). However, supervisors may see the order of protection as a marital dispute or a “he said, she said” situation that does not warrant any reassignment or disciplinary action.

Also, some officers may plea to charges other than domestic violence to avoid any implications on their ability to carry a weapon. Under the new law, courts will specifically review motions for protective orders to determine if the official use exemption will apply.

Illegal possession of a loaded firearm in New York is a class C violent felony, punishable by a minimum mandatory term of three and a half years and a maximum of fifteen years. As such, domestic abuse convictions and domestic violence protective orders carry considerable consequences for police officers.

Accusations of abuse can have a severe impact on a person’s life, especially if that person is a law enforcement officer. If you have been accused of domestic violence, speak with an experienced criminal defense attorney.

Article provided by Brill Legal Group, P.C.
Visit us at www.brill-legal.com

The enlarging and bold print is my emphasis added in the following.  The surrenduring of firearms and other weapons would seem to me to be particularly pertinent in the domestic violence cases where law enforcement officers are the abusers.
From Gazette.net:Montgomery:

Montgomery County courtroom lapses leave domestic violence victims at risk, group says

Study documents failings, recommends changes to court system

by Danielle E. Gaines, Staff Writer

A Montgomery County woman broke out in hives and cried uncontrollably during a hearing to get a protective order from her husband this year after a District Court judge ordered the woman — who had a black eye at the time — to work out child support and visitation with her husband in a courthouse hallway, even though the husband was supposed to be under a “no contact” order from the court.
The woman’s husband had attacked her five times, requiring police intervention three times.
The incident was documented by Court Watch Montgomery, a new nonprofit that aims to improve the judicial process for abuse victims, in a report that documents serious lapses in the restraining order process in the Montgomery County District Courts and suggestions for improving the system.
Court Watch contends that lapses — such as failing to keep victims and abusers separate during judicial proceedings — leaves the victims of abuse unnecessarily at risk of violence.
The report is based on observations of 25 citizen-volunteers who monitored more than 640 restraining order hearings between mid-January and mid-July before all 11 Montgomery County District Court judges.
The report finds that:
-- Judges allowed victims and abusers to leave the courthouse at the same time in 85 percent of cases, exposing victims to potential threats and violence after court. In one instance, an alleged abuser and his new girlfriend tried to hit a victim with their car outside the courthouse. The victim wanted to file criminal charges against her abuser after the incident, but her protective order was dated incorrectly, so it was invalid.
-- 67 percent of the time, judges failed to tell abusers it is a crime to violate their protective order, even though telling them this can boost deterrence.
-- In 68 percent of the hearings observed, judges did not tell abusers to surrender their firearms. State law requires the abuser to surrender all firearms to a law enforcement agency if a Final Protective Order is issued, but not for temporary orders. Abusers are not required to turn over other weapons disclosed in court — such as knives, swords, hatchets and other objects. The group would like to see the state law expanded to require more turnover of weapons from known abusers, said Laurie Duker, Court Watch’s executive director.
The group also says three of the 11 judges observed displayed inappropriate, intimidating or belittling behavior to the parties before them. The judges are not named.
More than 4,000 women in Montgomery County are victims of domestic violence every year and national estimates suggest that more than 76,000 Montgomery County women will be attacked by an intimate partner at some time in their lives, according to Court Watch.
In 2009 fiscal year, 4,171 domestic violence and peace order cases were filed in the county’s district courts, according to the Maryland Judiciary.
The report outlines some of the violence victims went to the court for protection from: an abuser who sprayed the wheelchair-bound victim with an outside hose in winter; a man who threatened to throw the couple’s baby in the ocean so that it would drown or over their home’s balcony; a man who threatened to “cut off my face” if his partner dated anyone else.
Since July 1, 2002, 48 people were killed by their partners or ex-partners in Montgomery County, according to the Maryland Network Against Domestic Violence, which supports the report.
In the past year, two Montgomery County residents are suspected of having been killed by their partners and the report is dedicated to them.
On Feb. 9, 2011, Elizabeth Velez Vasquez was chased by her husband into a back bedroom where he cut her 74 times and stabbed her five times. Bernardo Paz Flores-Olvera pleaded guilty to the crime and will be sentenced this week.
The second dedication is to Sue Ann Marcum of Bethesda who was found bludgeoned and strangled to death in her home on Oct. 25. Police suspect Jorge Rueda Landeros, of Juarez, Mexico, killed her.
The report includes 11 low-cost recommendations to make victims safer. Among them:
-- Judges and bailiffs should always allow the victim time to leave the court before releasing the alleged abuser.
-- A victim and abuser should never be left alone in waiting areas without a bailiff present to provide security.
-- Judges should warn every respondent that violating a protective or peace order is a crime that can lead to time in jail.
-- The courts should create a low-cost video in English and Spanish to clearly explain to all parties the complicated restraining order process. This could be played at the beginning of each docket and would save judges time.
Calls for response to the report to Montgomery County District Administrative Judge Eugene Wolfe’s chambers were referred to the Maryland Judiciary’s headquarters in Annapolis.
Angelita Plemmer, a spokeswoman, said the judiciary had received a copy of the report, which is 67 pages, but it was premature to respond Tuesday. She did not know if the judiciary would prepare a formal response.
Court Watch Montgomery’s next task will be to assess any increases in the use of best practices and possibly issue a follow-up report naming underperforming judges if no improvement is seen, Duker said.
dgaines@gazette.net

October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month

DVA symbol

Something to keep in mind as we post here examples of domestic violence using firearms.

To better acquaint our readers with Domestic Violence Awareness Month, here is some information from the Domestic Violence Awareness Project:

The Domestic Violence Awareness Project...

In 1995, the National Resource Center on Domestic Violence (NRCDV) convened several national domestic violence organizations – the Family Violence Prevention Fund, the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, the National Domestic Violence Hotline, and later the National Network to End Domestic Violence – to launch a new effort to support domestic violence programs’ awareness and education efforts for Domestic Violence Awareness Month (DVAM), observed annually in October. The collaborative effort became the Domestic Violence Awareness Project (DVAP). Today, the DVAP is a diverse and unique partnership of local, tribal, state, and national domestic violence organizations and networks. The DVAP collaborates to collect, develop, and distribute resources and ideas relevant to advocates’ ongoing public and prevention awareness and education efforts not only in preparation for DVAM, but also throughout the year.
The work of the DVAP strives to creatively bring to life its statement of purpose:
The Domestic Violence Awareness Project (DVAP) supports the rights of all individuals, especially women and girls, to live in peace and dignity.  Violence and all other forms of oppression against all communities and families must be eliminated.  The purpose of the DVAP is to support and promote the national, tribal, territorial, state, and local advocacy networks in their ongoing public education efforts through public awareness, strategies, materials, resources, capacity-building, and technical assistance.
These strategies include campaigns that address the victimization of women throughout their lifespan.  The voices, leadership, and expertise of women who have been battered are acknowledged as critical and necessary components of these campaigns.  To change belief systems and practices that support violence and abuse that disproportionately affects women, and other marginalized people, the DVAP recognizes and promotes the participation of the entire community in building social intolerance towards domestic violence.  We will use our diverse and collective voice to promote safe, respectful, and equitable relationships; increase survivor’s access to support systems that are culturally and linguistically appropriate; and foster programming that is responsive to the needs of the LGBTQ community, as well as survivors of abuse in later life. 

©2009 Domestic Violence Awareness Project

3605 Vartan Way, Suite 101 - Harrisburg, PA 17110

800-537-2238 ext. 5

717-545-9456 (fax)

The Domestic Violence Awareness Month Project is coordinated by the National Resource Center on Domestic Violence, a project of the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Vilolence.

To better put this in perspective was this article I came across from Topeka, Kansas from 'TheWeek.com':

Legalizing domestic violence: Topeka's 'terrible' plan to save money

Just in time for Domestic Violence Awareness Month, Kansas' capital city is on the verge of decriminalizing domestic battery as part of a budget standoff

posted on October 7, 2011, at 11:35 AM

Due to budget cuts, domestic violence cases may no longer be prosecuted in Topeka, Kan., potentially sending a "terrible message" to victims of domestic battery. Photo: Gaetano/Corbis SEE ALL 24 PHOTOS

The Topeka City Council will decide next week whether to essentially legalize domestic violence in the Kansas capital, in a budgetary game of chicken with Shawnee County, which encompasses Topeka. The fight started when Shawnee District Attorney Chad Taylor, facing a 10 percent budget cut for next year, announced Sept. 8 that his office would no longer prosecute misdemeanor cases, including those involving domestic violence, inside Topeka city limits. The City Council is betting that if it strikes Topeka's ordinance against domestic battery, it will force Taylor to reconsider. Here's what you should know:
What happens if Topeka follows through?If the City Council repeals the domestic-battery ordinance, municipal courts wouldn't be able to take on those cases, effectively sending the ball back to Taylor's court. Domestic violence is still a state crime. But "because only Taylor has authority to decide what cases he files and prosecutes," domestic violence prosecution could slow to a trickle, says The Topeka Capital-Journal in an editorial. Repeat offenders are charged as felons, and the D.A. would still take those cases.
How bad could this get?Already, the standoff is putting victims in grave danger "in the world that does not exist inside of an Excel spreadsheet," says Erin Gloria Ryan at Jezebel. Taylor has rejected at least 30 domestic violence cases since Sept. 8, and the 18 people arrested in Topeka for domestic battery have all been released from county jail because no charges were filed. And even if Taylor eventually blinks, and decides to resume prosecuting first-time offenders, the City Council's decriminalization of domestic violence would still send "a terrible message to victims of domestic battery and the entire community," says The Topeka Capital-Journal's editorial board.
How dire is the financial situation?In 2012, the D.A.'s office expects to see $347,765 cut from its budget — which is $3.5 million this year. Of course, if nobody takes these domestic violence cases, it could save some money in the short run, says Marie Diamond at ThinkProgress. But domestic violence has "staggering financial consequences" — medical costs, for instance. There are bigger human costs, too, says Topeka victims' advocate Claudine Dombrowski. If the city and county keep up this "disgusting" fight, "they need to invest in headstones, because these women are going to end up in cemeteries."
Who should shoulder the blame?Everyone involved says they believe domestic violence needs to be prosecuted vigorously, but that they can't pay for it, says Maya Dusenbery at Feministing. And "it’s hard to blame them too harshly for that," given the deep budget cuts hitting states and cities. "Thanks, austerity!" Maybe, says National Organization for Women's Kari Ann Rinker. But right now, local officials are just "finger-pointing and blaming" like 5-year-old children, and they all deserve "some amount of blame" for putting women at undue risk.
Sources: Feministing, Fox 4 Kansas City, The Frisky, Jezebel, Mother Jones, ThinkProgress, Topeka Capital-Journal (2,3,4)