Activists argue a Republican senator’s answer to violence against indigenous women on tribal lands would sacrifice justice for survivors to protect non-Native offenders.
After a temporary extension of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) of 1994 lapsed earlier this year, Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst met a largely bipartisan effort to reauthorize it with a competing attempt of her own when she introduced a bill last Wednesday.
She promised in a news release it would go further than the rival bill, which the House passed in April before being stalled in the Republican-controlled Senate.
Ernst, a rape and domestic violence survivor herself, said that her bill “holistically addresses” female genital mutilation, “bolsters housing protections available to victims” and “enhances criminal penalties for child sexual abuse.”
“Reauthorizing VAWA shouldn’t be a partisan issue ― we should be putting the wellbeing of women and children of sexual and domestic violence first,” Ernst said in a statement. “That’s what this bill does; it’s a practical solution that focuses on survivors, not politics.”
But the lie detector results are in.
When faced with a choice between acting preventatively to protect victims and appeasing the National Rifle Association, Ernst clutched onto the NRA like a newborn baby suckling to her mother’s breast.
The congresswoman’s bill removed a gun safety provision not only included in the lapsed federal act but expanded in the House’s attempt at reauthorizing the law.
The House bill would restrict the gun rights of people convicted of domestic violence against relatives or spouses and extend the same restriction to those convicted of stalking or abusing people they are dating or those targetted in temporary protective orders.
The National Rifle Association predictably took issue with that protection, and the end result was no mention of guns whatsoever in Ernst’s bill.
Related: Moscow Mitch refuses to reauthorize VAWA, offers Ernst's NRA-friendly, anti-woman replacement
Rep. Deb Haaland, one of the first Native American congresswomen, spoke out about Ernst’s bill on Twitter last Thursday.
”Every woman, Indian Tribe, American should be mad about the Senate GOP’s attempts to shortchange our country by introducing a #VAWA that cowers to the #NRA and disparages Tribal Courts,” she said in the tweet.
Related: Rep. Haaland reminds allies who want to support Native communities: 'Make sure we're included'
Jennifer Baker, a spokeswoman for the NRA, told The New York Times that provision is “too broad and ripe for abuse.”
“Like if you were sending harassing messages to somebody on Facebook, to somebody you never met or somebody you dated five years ago,” she said, “How it’s written right now, you could be convicted for a misdemeanor stalking offense for a tweet that causes someone emotional distress and then you would be prohibited from owning a firearm.”
Now common sense would lead most to assume that if a person caused so much emotional distress that it led to a stalking conviction, that person probably shouldn’t own a gun.
Leave it to the NRA to defy common sense, and leave it to Ernst, a white woman, to decide she knows best for indigenous sexual assault survivors seeking justice.
Ernst’s bill does little to address a call from tribal leaders seeking more say-so regarding how crimes on their land would be prosecuted when involving someone who isn’t Native American.
The 2013 version of VAWA gave tribes jurisdiction regarding some crimes related to domestic abuse, and instead of expanding that authority to other categories, Ernst’s bill back-tracks, according to the National Indigenous Women’s Resource Center.
Mary Kathryn Nagle, an attorney and activist for the nonprofit, said in a news release last Thursday that the earlier reauthorization of VAWA in 2013 was a success “both for the protection of victims in our communities” and “the due process rights of non-Indian defendants.”
“Ernst’s bill is based on the assumption that the protections for Native victims in VAWA 2013 must be rolled back because tribal courts are not capable of fairly administering justice," Nagle said. "Since 2013, tribes have clearly demonstrated this assumption to be false.
She added, tribal courts prosecuting non-Indian defendants provide the same—if not more—due process than state and federal courts.
“Placing paternalistic restrictions on tribal courts in the name of 'due process' is nothing more than a disguise for prejudice,” Nagle said. “Legislation that strips tribal courts of their inherent authority to protect victims in their communities based on prejudice alone must be stopped."