June 02, 2007 12:36 AM UTC

Doug Lamborn for Congress? Lamborn voted against Battered-Woman Syndrome evidence bill

• 4 Comments
• by: CD-5 Line

Perhaps, like his vote against the bill to protect victims of female genital mutilation http://www.coloradop… Doug Lamborn saw as “unnecessary” a proposed bill in 1995, Colorado House Bill #1143, that was designed to protect female victims of domestic violence.  Or, maybe Lamborn was simply unqualified as a lawyer to offer the comments that he did in support of his vote against providing women the protections of the bill.  (House Bill #1143 and his comments are discussed in a “Battered-Woman Syndrome” article appearing February 3, 1995, in the Gazette Telegraph.)

In 1995, Colorado Representative Rob Hernandez introduced a bill that would have authorized the admission of EXPERT testimony concerning BATTERED-WOMAN syndrome “when relevant and when permitted under rules of evidence.” The bill was killed in the Judiciary Committee, on which Lamborn sat. Battered-woman syndrome refers to the history of abuse and adverse physiological and emotional effects caused by a “continually repeated cycle of violence” in an intimate relationship. The Judiciary  complained that it had insufficient evidence of the validity of the syndrome. The bill failed on a 7-6 vote.

In debate of the battered-woman syndrome bill, Janet Mickish, executive director of the COLORADO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE COALITION, said that some judges do not recognize battered woman syndrome. In support of DEFEATING the proposed protection to battered women, then Representative Doug Lamborn, a lawyer, said he had not encountered judges in El Paso County who failed to recognize the syndrome.  Ms. Mickish said she could give him NAMES and jurisdictions of the judges.  Apparently, that was not enough to persuade Representative Lamborn. 

Pause to consider Lamborn’s words used to support the defeat of additional protection to the victims of battered-woman syndrome.  (If nothing else, his words could be said to be “clever.”)

In its simplest form, if Lamborn had NEVER argued a domestic violence case in his life, it would be self evident to say, “I’ve not encountered judges in El Paso County who failed to recognize the syndrome.”  Duh!

If Lamborn had had a thriving domestic violence law practice (I do not believe Lamborn has ever had a successful law practice of any kind based on this: http://www.coloradop… however, if Lamborn had had 100s of battered women as clients, and never encountered women being denied this defense “when relevant and permitted by rules of evidence”, THAT would be something entirely different to possibly support his words for taking away the proposed protections of Representative Hernandez’ bill.  (Lamborn’s biography holds him out as a “an attorney in private general practice in Colorado Springs for 20 years, emphasizing business and real estate” http://lamborn.house… and doesn’t at all suggest he’s an expert in domestic violence law.)

Not only do I not sense Doug Lamborn as an expert on domestic violence cases, I also don’t sense the legislative compassion from Doug Lamborn toward his female constituents, whether as victims of female genital mutilation or as victims of domestic violence, that a professing Christian might be expected to show.  How about you?