Friday, December 5th, 2008...7:36 am
More Indications That Things Will Suck…
Talk is that Governor-in-Waiting Jan Brewer might pick Laura Knaperek as her successor as Secretary of State. As if this isn’t bad enough, other rumors put her in charge of the Department of Health Services.
I think I can handle her as Secretary of State, where her conservative hackery can be kept in check, but in charge of AHCCCS and and licencing child care? -shudder-
Knaperek, for those who don’t remember, was the committee chairman who sat on the bill to modernize our spousal rape laws until community pressure forced her to allow a vote. Now, she wasn’t for men raping their wives, but she was willing to keep this bill from behing heard entirely for partisan reasons. Is this the way she would operate in a cabinet position or in a state constitutional office?
27 Comments
December 5th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Herschberger was actually the chair of the committee, but Knaperek was the deciding vote that would have killed the bill. Political pressure did cause her to move for a reconsideration of the bill, which she then voted for. Point is, she only supported it because of political pressure. The previous year, it was Senate Rules Chair Robert Blendu that sat on this same bill and didn’t allow it to come to a vote.
The rumor I heard puts Knaperek as head of DES, not DHS. I’ve heard Sue Gerard is likely to come back to head DHS.
December 5th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
I don’t care why someone kills a spousal rape law. “Political pressure” or no, they are saying they support allowing men to rape their wives.
December 5th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Or maybe Ted Williams. He was just named to her transition team.
December 5th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
In fact, they might really, really, suck, particularly if you live outside Maricopa County. Only two of the 27-member Brewer transition team are from outside the Phoenix area; Mayor Bob Walkup and Unisource President Jim Pignatelli.
December 5th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Minor point, AHCCCS is not part of DHS. It is a separate agency.
December 5th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
The spousal rape bill that you are all referring to needed to be amended and that is exactly what I did. Voting no in Committee on a bad bill is very typical. Fixing a bad bill is not.
December 5th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
Ms. Knaperek, with all due respect, the “fix” you mentioned was not needed. The amendment was to make false reporting of a sexual assault of a spouse a felony, when making a false report of a crime was already a felony. If memory serves – and please do correct me if this point is inaccurate – your fix made reporting of sexual assault of a spouse that could not be substantiated a more severe felony than that incurred for falsely reporting any other felony crime, despite strong and repeated evidence presented to the committee that the rate false reporting of sexual assault is about even with the false reporting rate of other crimes – between 2% and 10%, depending on the methodology, source data, and definition of “false report” used.
Unsubstantiated reports and false reports are not the same thing, and the law here is still far too vague for my taste. What I think you and I agree on is that people who lie about being raped (or victimized in any other way) should be punished. Lying about being a victim of a crime makes it more difficult for the real survivors to be believed and receive vital services. But sexual violence is singularly unique in the stigma attached to its victims. And the law can unfortunately be interpreted to punish women for reporting rapes that did happen, but for which there is little to no available physical evidence, since most of such evidence degrades quickly after the assault.
Those of us in the anti-rape movement conceded to the more draconian false reporting amendment mostly because it doesn’t make a lot of difference in the long run (blatantly false reports are extremely rare) and the benefits to women who are raped by their husbands (and husbands who are raped by their wives) were huge. Thanks for eventually voting the right way, but there was much more to this story that ought to be known (e.g., your former colleague, Ward Nichols stating in committee, when he initially voted against the bill, something to the effect that a marriage license is essentially license for a man to have sex with his wife whenever he wants it…he sure heard from a lot of really good men in the law enforcement and prosecution communities after that, which is a big reason why he had his change of heart).
December 6th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Thank you, michael. Is there any other criminal statute in Arizona that includes a provision to punish false reports at all, let alone with a harsher penalties for the false reporting than for the crime being charged? None that I’m aware of but perhaps Laura Knaperak or someone else can explain what is so different about rape. Although I suspect the reason will be something to do with women being lying, conniving trollops.
December 6th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Michael & Donna — they shoot, score — nothin’ but net!
December 6th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Michael,
With due respect, after the bill failed in committee because it was a bad bill. I was not the only no vote. Even though it was not my bill, I worked to make the fix with another legislator, the county attorney’s office and a group that represents the rights of victims, who all supported the concept.
They helped craft the language that fixed the original bill. In fact, they came and testified at the hearing when the amendment was introduced by Warde Nichols. I was not the only no vote on the original bill. The sponsor was kind enough to allow the amendment, which was needed as noted in testimony.
As a woman and mother of several daughters and granddaughters, I find it most offensive that because I happen to be a conservative Republican, I am accused of wanted women to be raped by their husbands. It is simply not true.
December 7th, 2008 at 11:18 am
Ms. Knaperek, I did not say you were the only no vote on the bill. I also never said (nor never would say) that you want women to be raped by their husbands. I’m not sure how you got that from my post, but I do apologize if that’s what you took from it.
Please re-read my earlier post to see that I was explaining the “fix” you mention (and in which I did thank you for eventually voting the right way). I disagree that the original bill was bad and that the “fix” was necessary. The source of those edits to the bill are based on a misconception that women lie about being raped, which is simply not the case in the vast majority of cases. From my perspective as a (award-winning) victim rights advocate, the new felony charge for false reporting was unnecessarily harsh for this crime when there is already a false reporting statute on the books, but it was a reasonable compromise to change a horrific law that set Arizona apart from the rest of the country (literally) – and not in a good way.
And also in my original post, I did note an area of common ground, which I think is important for us to identify and work from in the future: people who falsely report crimes should be appropriately punished because they detract from those who are legitimately victims. Rather than arguing over areas idealogical disagreement, I hope that we can all work together starting from areas of common ground, whether you end up in Governor-designate Brewer’s administration or not.
December 7th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
You are all being to nice to Laura Kandidate.
December 8th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Ms. Knaperek:
“As a woman and mother of several daughters and granddaughters, I find it most offensive that because I happen to be a conservative Republican, I am accused of wanted women to be raped by their husbands. It is simply not true.”
That is what’s known as ‘arguing a strawman’. No one accused you of wanting women to be raped. Try addressing the actual issues people are taking with your actions on the spousal rape bill instead of playing the victim and hiding behind your children and grandchildren, okay?
December 8th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Michael, you are being way too magnanimous but I admire you for your tact and restraint.
December 8th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
I think Michael’s acting in a way that would make the blogosphere more inviting if it were the rule rather than the exception. You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.
December 8th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Ms. Knaperak was not the only no vote on the bill. Her committee voted to kill the bill. But guess what, it was after it passed nearly UNANIMOUSLY in the Senate with her party’s leadership supporting it. So what happened?
Now, I’m not a legislator – and I am hoping someone who is could clarify. But if a bill comes through the Senate and the House likes the concept but wants to make it better – is killing the bill in committee the best way to go? Is getting people to vote no, and then not having it on the calendar for further consideration the best plan? Isn’t it possible to make the changes legislatively at that point without a no vote? Isn’t that why the committee exists?
December 8th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
Hey so check this out.
I was prez of the Young Dems of AZ and worked at the ADP when this whole episode went down. With the Gov stuck in a budget battle and the Party doing their best to help get it through, it seemed that nobody was willing to step up to the plate and fight for this bill. There was just too much going on.
So, the Young Dems stepped up in a big way. I found the old web page we put together with bill links, articles from the time, etc (it is still up!) We collected over a thousand letters, hundreds for Ms. Knaperek specifically, urging reconsideration on the bill. You should go check it out.
We delivered all of these letters to Ms. Knaperek and the other committee members who had previously voted no before the hearing to reconsider. We also provided them with a letter and a purple ribbon to wear during the committee meeting to signify their support for stopping domestic violence. None of them wore the ribbons, but that doesn’t necessarily mean anything – it is just something I remember.
Here is the link to our action center:
http://www.ydaz.org/sb1040
It is important to note that the bill was NOT slated for reconsideration until AFTER all of this pressure from us an others. Links to articles on the web page show that the legislators who voted against the bill weren’t talking about bringing it back up – they were talking about it as done. Go read them and you will see.
Also, here is the worst part. Look at what Ms. Knaperek’s colleague said about this bill and why he killed it. Just look at HIS rationale for voting against it in committee. I’d like to note that this rationale was never publicly repudiated by Ms. Knaperek. I imagine she has an opportunity to do so now.
**from az daily star http://ydaz.org/spousal-rape-bill-is-tossed-by-panel **
“And Rep. Warde Nichols, R-Gilbert, said he feared the legislation would undermine the whole concept of marriage.
‘When you enter into a marriage, you enter into a contract for all sorts of different things with your spouse,’ including sex, he said.
Nichols said those benefits ‘need to be eliminated’ if someone is getting a divorce. But short of that, he said it is wrong to impose this kind of penalty when a wife charges rape.”
**
Also, I wrote a blog post generally about this entire thing on the long since dead wactivist in response to Ted Downing’s defense of his no vote on the issue. It includes my recollections of how the reconsideration committee meeting itself went (I was there and spoke) and why we joined the fight when we did. It also can be offered as evidence that many people, myself included, were angry at opposition to this legislation regardless of party – despite Ms. Knaperek’s claim that attacks on her public voting record are purely partisan.
http://www.wactivist.com/?p=1258
I’ll let everyone draw their own conclusions here,.
Gotta tell you though, researching all this again makes me want to pack up my things here in DC, ditch national politics, and get back home to rejoin the fight leading up to 2010.
Next up, stopping what i’m sure will be their renewed push to allow guns in bars. Another piece of legislation Ms. Knaperek has a strong record of support for.
December 8th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
I went back and found the action center we put together with the Young Dems of AZ to lobby Ms. Knaperek on this bill and some other relevant info you might find interesting.
It hit Ted’s spam block because of all the links – so hopefully he approves it, but in the mean time I went ahead and posted the comment on my now basically dead blog.
wactivist.com/?p=1605
Don’t miss it, and Ted – please approve my comment. Sorry for all the links.
Also – has anyone else noticed that Ms. Knaperek hasn’t denied your speculation about a new gig for her?
December 9th, 2008 at 12:25 am
“I think Michael’s acting in a way that would make the blogosphere more inviting if it were the rule rather than the exception. You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.”
Funny, I hadn’t noticed that the blogosphere wasn’t inviting enough. The “catching more flies with honey than vinegar” rule is the one the MSM has been following vis a vis the Bush admin. Look where that’s landed them. The Tribune family of newspapers have declared bankruptcy, radio stations are in heavy debt all over the place (while Limbaugh and Hannity enjoy lucrative contracts), and more and more people are getting their info from the Internet than from anywhere else.
December 9th, 2008 at 11:48 am
Thanks for the refresher, Tony. The successful passage a few years ago followed several years of unsuccessful attempts to pass essentially the same bill. I’m sure the coalition that we built that year (which included the Arizona Sexual Assault Network, the Arizona Coalition Against Domestic Violence, the Southern Arizona Center Against Sexual Assault – my former employer, the Arizona Police Officers Training Association, and YDA) was integral to changing the minds of previously reluctant legislators.
Thanks especially for digging up the Nichols quote. It was one of the most shameful entries in the legislature’s hall of shame in recent memory, among many worthy examples.
Not that anything will happen about this now, but did y’all know that the state spends $10M a year on sex offender treatment, but provides no funding for programs that benefit rape victims? All funding comes from the federal government and local governments, and private donations. Rape victims are still treated like second class citizens in this state.
December 10th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Donna- you are a true left wing liberal with a mental disorder. You are hurting the rest of us Dems that love this country.
Here is what you said,
“I don’t care why someone kills a spousal rape law. “Political pressure” or no, they are saying they support allowing men to rape their wives.”
Later you said,
“Ms. Knaperek:
“As a woman and mother of several daughters and granddaughters, I find it most offensive that because I happen to be a conservative Republican, I am accused of wanted women to be raped by their husbands. It is simply not true.”
That is what’s known as ‘arguing a strawman’. No one accused you of wanting women to be raped. Try addressing the actual issues people are taking with your actions on the spousal rape bill instead of playing the victim and hiding behind your children and grandchildren, okay?”
Talk is cheap, Donna, but be careful when the words are recorded or in print. You can’t talk out of both sides of your mouth.
Even as a Democrat since birth, I would love to see Laura serve the state again. She has always done a great job serving her district.
Go get Laura, make the rest of the haters even angrier!!
December 10th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
Donna,
So are you accusing her or not?
December 10th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
Kristin, I am a Republican since birth. 100% anti-abortion, get government off my back and into homosexual’s bedrooms conservative, and I believe that Jan Brewer is a bad secretary of state, would be a terribly bad governor, and Laura Knaperak would be even worse, and I say this as a Bush-votin’ gun-totin’ white mail Christian.
But talk is cheap, Kristin, so you have to actually do something, like stand up and help organize an event against a legislature that would rather treat spousal rape the way it would treat a parking ticket than allow a Democratic bill to be passed, so you now must do something to prove yourself to me. Right now. Do it.
December 10th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Kristin, being willing to allow something to happen is not the same thing as *wanting* it to happen. For example, I’m certain that supporters of the war do not *want* Iraqi children to be blown up. But they are willing to *allow* it to happen. See the difference? It shouldn’t be that hard, even for you.
December 11th, 2008 at 12:57 am
Oh and Kristin, while I’m not accusing Knaperek 0f *wanting* women to raped I am accusing her of being willing to *allow* it. Does that clear it up for you?
December 11th, 2008 at 11:50 am
Laura Kanaperek forgot the drill.
When a bill has problems, you are always supposed to pass it out of committee anyway. You are supposed to make a big long speech about the litany of problems with the bill, talk about how bad it will be for the future of Arizona, etc., then end by saying “but the sponsor assures me that these problems will be fixed in Committee of the Whole, so I vote aye.” This is followed whether or not there is any actual indication that the problems will be addressed.
Maybe I got it wrong and this is just the drill that Republican legislators are supposed to follow when they are blindly doing the bidding of leadership.
December 13th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
Womba,
Please, are you telling us that our own Democrats don’t follow marching orders from their leadership? If so do some research about our party. Remember when Harry Mitchell was forced to change his vote on the illegal immigrant gov’t services bill by Pelosi?