October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month, and advocates in Iowa are especially alarmed about what comes up in a few weeks: a proposed gun rights amendment on the November ballot.

It is a question of whether "strict scrutiny" language should be added to Iowa's constitution in establishing the right to keep and bear arms. Opponents say it would make it easier to overturn common-sense gun laws, including one prohibiting someone convicted of a misdemeanor domestic violence offense, or who is subject to a protective order, from having a firearm.

Lindsay Pingel, director of community engagement for the Iowa Coalition Against Domestic Violence, said such individuals should not possess a gun.

"It doesn't necessarily have to mean that the firearm even has to be used to cause harm," Pingel pointed out. "A person who harms might never fire that weapon at their victim, but they might use it to terrorize them."

She noted it includes pointing it at the victim or threatening to kill themselves. Supporters of the proposed amendment stressed Iowa is one of only six states to not have a right to bear arms in its constitution. They added their approach is in response to legal upholding of broader gun restrictions in the U.S., arguing backers of the laws have been able to work around the 2nd Amendment.

Matt Sinovic, executive director of Progress Iowa, another group opposed to the ballot question, said in Missouri, one of the states adopting "strict scrutiny" language, a case saw some success by leaning on the argument.

"It really will depend on the court and their interpretation of this because it is so new," Sinovic explained. "There's nothing that would prevent that from happening here in Iowa"

The ballot question comes after a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling expanding rights to carry firearms in public. A recent state report noted Iowa has seen 12 domestic violence fatalities in the first eight months of 2022. And Pingel feels there are more dangerous situations where a weapon is present, not on the radar of police or service providers.

"We know that for every victim that we hear about that is reporting a crime, or we unfortunately hear about after a tragedy, there's always so many more who aren't reporting what is happening to them," Pingel emphasized.

Sexual violence remains a significant concern in Ohio, and specialized teams, such as Sexual Assault Response Teams and Coordinated Community Response Teams, are designed to provide critical support to survivors. Now, a new study aims to assess the effectiveness of these teams and identify gaps in service.

Nicole Kass Colvin, director of coordinated community responses with the Ohio Alliance to End Sexual Violence said this research is essential.

"We are really hoping to get some information on what teams exist and what we can do to make our teams really effective across the state of Ohio. It takes all of us to end sexual violence," she explained.

While the teams aim to provide holistic support, there is limited Ohio-specific data on their effectiveness. The survey tied to this research seeks to gather information about how these teams are structured and where they could improve. Some question whether this approach alone can address all the challenges faced by survivors without more resources.

Anna Ressler, assistant professor at Miami University is leading the research, and explained that while the teams are known to be valuable, the details of how they operate effectively are still unclear.

"There's a lot of research that shows that these teams are necessary. But we don't know what constitutes an effective team," she said.

The study's results are expected to inform improvements in services for survivors across Ohio. Those involved in these response teams, or those interested in starting one, are encouraged to participate in the survey, contributing to this important research and Ohio's ongoing efforts to address sexual violence.

In Ohio, the effects of domestic violence continue to devastate families.

The Ohio Domestic Violence Network released its ninth annual fatality report, which revealed 114 people, including 15 children, lost their lives to domestic violence in the past year, including incidents where victims were shot, strangled or beaten, often while trying to leave their abuser.

Lisa DeGeeter, senior director of policy and prevention for the Ohio Domestic Violence Network, said many victims were seeking help.

"We continue to see victims, particularly parents, reach out for help to protect themselves and their children and not receive what is needed to save their lives," DeGeeter explained. "The victims were leaving, they were reporting, filing charges, requesting protection orders but it wasn't enough to stop the violence."

Despite protective measures, 72% of cases involved victims who had prior interaction with the justice system. Critics argued current resources and interventions are insufficient to prevent violence escalation, fueling debates about Ohio's legal framework for protecting survivors.

Advocates said Ohio's younger population is also deeply affected. The report showed 79 children lost a parent to domestic violence, with at least 33 children present during the fatal incidents.

Maria York, policy director for the Ohio Domestic Violence Network, highlighted the profound effects on children who not only lose their caregiver but also a sense of security and normalcy.

"We don't want this to be the new normal," York urged. "After COVID, we had 131 fatalities, it seems like this is the new normal of just having these triple-digit homicides with domestic violence."

The report showed domestic violence fatalities have not returned to pre-pandemic levels and more than two-thirds of the cases involve firearms. York called on law enforcement, policymakers and community leaders to collaborate to address the issue.

Groups are warning an Idaho city's decision to declare itself a non-sanctuary city could have far-reaching implications.

The repercussions are still being felt from the decision by the city of Eagle, near Boise, in July.

Sanctuary cities limit their cooperation with the federal government on immigration laws. The Eagle resolution said the city will not provide services for people who are undocumented. It could be especially harmful for vulnerable community members, such as those who have experienced domestic violence or sexual abuse.

Sarah Sheehan, a clinician with the Women's and Children's Alliance in Boise, said the resolution could prevent people from getting support.

"It can create a lot of fear of seeking help from community services in non-sanctuary cities," Sheehan explained.

The Eagle city council passed the resolution on a consent agenda without public comment. It said the goal of the resolution is "maintaining the safety, well-being, and resources of its residents." Critics are urging the council to rescind it.

Some states have banned the ability for cities to declare themselves sanctuary cities, such as Florida, but a declaration of non-sanctuary status is rare. In February, Mesa County, Colorado declared itself a non-sanctuary county.

Nisha Newton, social change communications associate for the Idaho Coalition Against Sexual and Domestic Violence, said harms from the resolution could spread beyond Eagle.

"I'm just worried that this decision is going to embolden other discriminatory practices or empower other discriminatory policies throughout the state that we won't necessarily be able to catch up with as service providers and advocates," Newton noted.

Newton added people need to stand up for each other and the resolution is the wrong tactic if the goal really is to keep people safe.

"It requires all of us to build safer communities," Newton emphasized. "Our safety and our wellness doesn't come off the backs of other people being oppressed and other people being denied services."