Advertisement

Iowa lawmaker explains why she wants to make it harder for victims of domestic and sexual abuse to get protective orders

  • 256
    Shares

Illustration by Jordan Sellergren.

During a meeting with constituents on Saturday, Rep. Sandy Salmon claimed the two bills she introduced in the Iowa House of Representatives this month that would make it harder for victims of domestic and sexual abuse to get temporary protective orders were just attempts to “explore some options that curb abuses in the system.”

Salmon’s bill HF 2246 would increase the standard for getting a temporary protective order from “a preponderance of the evidence” to “beyond a reasonable doubt.” The other bill, HF 2214, would strip judges of the power to schedule hearings on protective orders at their discretion, and would automatically terminate any order if a hearing on it didn’t occur within 15 days of the request for the order being filed.

Both bills only target temporary protective orders in cases of domestic and sexual abuse. None of the other types of protective orders available under Iowa law, such as ones for victims of stalking or harassment, would be affected.

“It’s dangerous, and kind of unfathomable, that someone would pick out one civil procedure, and say we’re going to have a higher evidentiary standard for one and not the others,” Kristie Dozer, executive director of the Domestic Violence Intervention Program, told Little Village after the bills were filed.

At the meeting in Denver, Iowa, Salmon was asked by one of her constituents to explain why she had filed the bills.

“What I was seeking to do with that would be to have us explore some options that curb abuses in the system, while still be able to protect women and children that find themselves in that kind of situation,” Salmon said.

The questioner pressed Salmon for a more complete answers, saying,

So, the rate of false reporting, if that’s what you’re talking about, is in the single digits. It’s a very small number, in any [studies] you look at. So, are we more concerned about that small percent of false reporting, or the 90-some percent of families that are being victimized? I’m not following.

Salmon explained she didn’t rely on any academic studies regarding domestic and sexual abuse, but instead relied on anecdotes.

Well, I had a constituent that deals with the issue quite a bit visit with me about it, and said there are definitely abuses in the system. And so I was hoping to, you know, get conversations started about how we could curb those abuses, yet still keep that protection in place.

Justin Scott, the founder and director of the Eastern Iowa Atheists, captured the exchange on video and uploaded it to YouTube.

Salmon’s claims at the meeting don’t match the facts.

If Salmon’s intention was to “explore some options,” she could have filed a bill directing the Iowa Department of Human Services to prepare a report on how the judicial system protects victims of domestic and sexual violence.

Her claim that she just wanted to “get conversations started” doesn’t make sense either. All bills filed in the Iowa legislature have a section that explains the purpose of the bill. In her bills, Salmon doesn’t offer any reasons for the bills in those sections, and instead just describes the changes the bills would make to current law.

Little Village has reached out to Salmon by phone and email to discuss her bills, but has not yet received any reply.


  • 256
    Shares

2 thoughts on “Iowa lawmaker explains why she wants to make it harder for victims of domestic and sexual abuse to get protective orders

  1. I’m a victim of false accusations which hurt my chances for a fair divorce and custody hearing. I have talked to countless other spouses who have claimed this also happened to them using this “unconstitutional” law which strips people of their civil rights by a presumption of guilt instead of innocence, turning our justice system upside down. Even if all allegations are disproved there is no recourse for the accused to repair their reputation and seek justice from the court. This has led to attorneys using this “strategy” to use as “leverage” for their client. They know there is “no standard of proof” as would be expected at a real criminal complaint. Adding “some” standards of proof as well as penalties for false accusations would be a step in the right direction in my view. As far as statistics showing low levels of “false” reports, I completely challenge that. I believe I’m backed up by the low level of cases making it to prosecution. Once the accuser gets his of her way by this dirty pool they settle and dismiss the charges in exchange for what they wanted. This is a sick system which is almost as bad as the abuse this law was attempting to address.

  2. I must concur with Lonnie. I am also in the “small percentage” category who has been railroaded by this unjust setup that strips defendants of their rights-BEFORE THEY ARE EVER EVEN CHARGED. My “trial’ was a cross between the Salem Witch Trials and ‘Hee Haw’. I was convicted with no physical evidence; and even with photographs proving nothing had happened, her statement that “she felt pain” was enough. It’s time we looked at this rationally with a presumption of innocence for defendants facing this total abuse of the system.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Name *

Keep it free.

Support local independent media with a monthly contribution in any amount.

BUY HALF-PRICE GIFT CARDS