The debate over the NFL’s botched handling of Ray Rice’s brutal assault on his now wife threatens to divert our nation’s attention from the real issue: the need to treat seriously incidents of domestic violence and to enact laws and policies that aid survivors in their attempts to escape violence. Time and again, those who suffer intimate partner violence are victimized – not only by the partner who abuses them but by society at large.  Sadly, our laws often are complicit in this victimization.

One pernicious but little known way our laws harm survivors is through the enforcement of so-called crime-free housing and nuisance laws enacted by local governments throughout the country. Under these laws, rental property is deemed a “nuisance” when a certain number of calls have been made to the police or alleged nuisance conduct has occurred on the property. They force landlords to evict tenants, regardless of whether the tenant is the victim and is calling for police assistance.

A recent case from a Chicago suburb shows how these laws victimize domestic violence survivors a second time. A woman was assaulted in her rental home by her boyfriend. The police were called and her boyfriend was arrested. Invoking a so-called “crime-free housing” ordinance, the local government threatened to designate the rental home as a “chronic disorderly house” as a result of the incident of domestic violence. The local government directed the landlord to immediately take corrective action, including the eviction of the entire household. The landlord avoided the “chronic disorderly house” designation by evicting the household, including the victim of violence.

Crime-free housing or nuisance ordinances are widespread and increasing in both number and scope.  Already, more than 100 towns and cities in Illinois have such laws. They purportedly are aimed at making communities safer but in reality, undermine public safety by forcing victims of domestic violence not to call the police and endure more serious abuse. These laws pressure women into suffering in silence because they fear that if they seek police protection, they risk losing their home. Indeed, testimony offered to Congress in support of the Violence Against Women Act documents that fear of becoming homeless is one of the biggest obstacles women confront when weighing whether to leave the person  who abuses them.

Focusing our attention only on the NFL’s gross mishandling of the Rice case would be as myopic as Goodell’s initial response. Domestic violence hurts millions of Americans each year – not just the wives and partners of professional football players. (According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, nearly 23% of all American women and 14 % of American men suffer serious physical violence at the hands of an intimate partner.) We must confront and change the ways in which our legal system turns a blind eye – or worse to this abuse.

A good way to start would be the repeal of crime-free housing and nuisance ordinances. In addition, the Illinois General Assembly should consider enacting a law, similar to one introduced in Pennsylvania this past year that would clarify existing rights to seek emergency aid and would prohibit municipalities from penalizing people because they sought police protection.

Rather than continue to focus on the future of the NFL Commissioner, or debate why Jenay Rice married her husband after he struck her so brutally, we should use this moment of national discussion about domestic violence to focus on changing laws and systems that further victimize survivors. We should start with fixing “crime-free housing” and “nuisance” ordinances.

This article was published as a letter to the editor in the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin on September 26, 2014.

As police departments nationwide, including the Chicago Police Department, move swiftly to adopt body cameras to record interactions between officers and civilians, we should pause. It would be unwise to deploy this new technology without instituting some basic privacy protections for the man on the street.

If we don't, police body cameras may devolve into yet another tool for routine surveillance of the public, not oversight of the police.

A body camera placed on an officer's vest, headwear or even sunglasses raises the reality that recordings could take place in areas where people have a high expectation of privacy, like homes or apartments. That potential level of intrusion requires that civilians know their conversation with police is being recorded and stored. When an officer records a conversation with civilians, he or she should notify them that a recording is occurring. When an officer is not in uniform, it is crucial that he or she self-identify as a police officer and provide notice of the recording.

The next critical point is determining which conversations are recorded. If police officers are the final arbiters in deciding to activate a body camera, they may not capture interactions that result in the use of force.

Some have suggested recording an officer's entire shift, bathroom breaks and all. This is unfair. But it points to the need for a bright line for recording so that we can achieve the oversight and accountability expected by the public.

The best approach is to require officers to record every interaction with a civilian. The only exception to this policy should be for First Amendment activity (e.g., a protest, demonstration or rally), which should not be captured and cataloged by police. This activity should not be recorded — absent some reasonable suspicion of criminal behavior.

This standard means capturing a lot of data, from stop-and-frisk searches to tourists seeking directions. Concern about collecting this many recordings can be mitigated by regulating how this data is retained and distributed.

Recordings should be retained no more than 90 days, unless the encounter has been flagged — an instance in which force is used, a detention or arrest results, a formal or informal complaint is filed or because a supervisor holds it for internal training purposes.

Individuals recorded by police officers should have access to recordings pertaining to their incident. Flagged recordings should be released to the pu blic on request. Any recording not flagged should not be disclosed. Finally, no recordings should be disclosed to other government agencies unless a supervisor determines they are relevant to an ongoing investigation or contain evidence of criminal activity.

With these simple protections, body cameras can provide critical insight into the way law enforcement officers interact with civilians each day, while also protecting personal privacy. Rarely do we have the opportunity to make certain that critical privacy policies are in place before we begin to use new technologies. But we need to take this opportunity now, and get it right.

This article originally appeared in the Chicago Tribune.

In approximately 40 days, Illinois voters will go to the polls. There are many highly-contested races across the State, with many issues driving those races. On that same ballot, you and other voters will have an opportunity to speak out on a matter that the ACLU of Illinois cares about deeply -- unfettered access to birth control.

The question before voters is straightforward: "Shall any health insurance plan in Illinois that provides prescription drug coverage be required to include prescription birth control as part of that coverage?"

The answer to this simple question can have broad implications.

Vote "YES" and you will help send a strong signal that birth control access for all persons in our State is a priority -- a priority that should not be ignored by the legislature or other elected officials. Vote "YES" and you will join the ACLU in our historic commitment to supporting access to all forms of contraceptive care -- without interference from government or from an employer -- for all persons in Illinois.

We urge you to add voice on this issue. So go to the polls on November 4th and vote "YES" on this resolution. And, share this message on Facebook and Twitter to encourage your friends and family members to vote for the resolution as well.

Thanks so much for participating in this process.