In April 2026, Dr. Cerina Wanzer Fairfax was shot and killed by her husband while their divorce was pending.

She had done what she was supposed to do. She had initiated the legal process to leave Justin Fairfax, the former lieutenant governor of Virginia. It didn’t save her.

What happened to Wanzer Fairfax has a name: femicide.

Femicide is the intentional killing of women on the basis of gender. Women are most often killed by their partner, former partners or another person who believes they have a claim on their life. It happens in living rooms and driveways and parking lots. It happens during marriage, divorces, separations and in the weeks after a woman finally walks out the door.

As a scholar focused on the intersection of firearm violence and intimate partner homicide, I examine the policy and structural conditions that determine who is at risk and where prevention efforts are falling short.

Intimate partner homicide doesn’t affect all women equally. Black women have the nation’s highest rates of homicide by an intimate partner, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

A 2024 study in The Lancet tracking homicide deaths from 1999 to 2020 found that Black women ages 25 to 44 are killed at nearly four times the rate of their white peers.

Spring 2026 saw three such cases make national headlines.

Just prior to Wanzer Fairfax’s death, Vice Mayor Nancy Metayer Bowen of Coral Springs, Florida, was shot to death – allegedy by her husband. Also in April, in Louisiana, Shaneiqua Pugh was shot by her husband, as was Christina Snow, the mother of three of the killer’s children. Pugh and Snow are both expected to survive. Eight children, however, were killed.

Three cases. Three states. One month. All, sadly, preventable.

Intimate partner homicide claims more than 1,800 lives in the United States every year. Nearly half of victims are killed by a current or former intimate male partner – not a stranger. These aren’t random acts of violence.

Separation is one of the most dangerous times in an abusive relationship. This is why we cannot see the death of Wanzer Fairfax and others like hers as one-off tragedies. They represent a decades-long pattern of intimate partner femicide in Black relationships – a pattern driven by firearm access coupled with inadequate policy enforcement.

Guns are what make intimate partner violence so deadly. About half of the roughly 1,800 annual intimate-partner femicide cases involved a gun. And in every region of the country, firearm homicide disproportionately kills Black women.

If the gun is what escalates the risk, it is also where policy has its best chance to intervene.

State law can explicitly restrict perpetrators of domestic violence from purchasing or possessing firearms through two types of civil protection orders: final domestic violence restraining orders and temporary restraining orders. Research demonstrates that states with strong gun restrictions along these lines have meaningfully lower rates of intimate partner homicide.

Generally speaking, though, these laws are not working as designed.

In most states, for example, only certain kinds of relationships qualify for protective orders to be issued against an abusive partner. The most common qualifying relationship is romantic partner or former partner. This characterization poses a problem called “the partner loophole.”

Federal gun-possession restrictions had a similar limitation for decades. If the relationship was a dating partnership, the prohibition against abusive partners obtaining a firearm did not apply. This came to be known as the “boyfriend loophole.”

In 2022, the bipartisan Safer Communities Act extended the gun prohibition to abusive dating partners. While the law now covers more kinds of relationships, it does not yet offer equal protection to Black women in those kinds of relationships.

Research using the National Violent Death Reporting System found that state-level enforcement of the policy was associated with reductions in intimate partner homicide among unmarried white victims, but not among victims of color.

Firearm-relinquishment laws are another weak spot I’ve identified in protecting Black women from intimate partner violence.

When a court issues a domestic violence protective order, federal law prohibits the restrained person from possessing a gun. But this prohibition does not automatically remove guns already in the person’s possession: A gun-relinquishment law must be invoked to compel them to surrender their weapons.

Some states, including California and Washington, have strong relinquishment provisions. They require judges to mandate surrender, set compliance deadlines and authorize law enforcement to recover unrelinquished weapons. These laws are associated with reductions in intimate partner homicide.

But other states give judges discretion. A 2025 review of civil protection order cases in South Carolina found that courts issued a firearm-protection order in only 32% of eligible cases in 2019. In North Carolina, a 2024 study examining state enforcement laws found that despite 93% of cases meeting the conditions for gun relinquishment, the policy was enforced in only 37% of cases.

As a result, researchers have found, firearms are discussed in fewer than 1 in 4 protective-order hearings nationwide, and courts order abusers to surrender their guns in 66% of applicable cases.

The result of unequal state policy enforcement is a prohibition that exists on paper and a gun that stays in the home.

The evidence is clear: When gun prohibition and relinquishment laws are fully enforced in abusive relationships, they can save lives.

Yet most states have gaps that limit how effective these policies are in practice. And that failure falls hardest on Black women.

Research shows that state firearm restriction laws with relinquishment provisions were associated with a 16% reduction in firearm intimate partner homicide for white victims. For Black victims, the reduction was not statistically significant.

This is especially concerning given that Black women experience the highest incidence of injury and death from intimate partner violence in the country.

The problem isn’t the laws themselves. It’s that the mechanisms of the law depend on a delivery system – courts, law enforcement, protective orders – that doesn’t work well for Black women.

After reporting domestic abuse, Black women are more likely to be incarcerated for defending themselves against their abuser, and they lose custody of their children more often once CPS becomes involved. A study examining preferences of intimate-partner violence survivors found that Black women report fear and distrust of police as a barrier to engaging with the legal system.

Because of these experiences, Black women understandably engage the criminal justice system less frequently. And laws protect only the people who can use them.

Another problem surrounding intimate partner homicide inflicts its harms after death.

When a woman is killed by her partner, media coverage often follows a familiar script: a name, a location, a grieving community. What it almost never includes is the word that I believe most accurately describes what happened: femicide.

Feminists in many countries, particularly in Latin America, have fought to enact femicide laws in response to pervasive violence against women. But the U.S. has no such laws and lags behind here.

Research has documented consistently that news coverage of intimate partner homicide depicts it as episodic rather than systemic, treating each killing as an isolated event rather than part of a preventable pattern.

When the victim is a Black woman, the issues compound.

Coverage of Black women’s deaths is less frequent, less sustained and less likely to generate the kind of public outrage that drives policy change. The focus in these stories, when they do run, tends to fall on the relationship or the victim’s personal history rather than on the systems that failed her.

This matters because media framing helps to determine what the public believes is fixable.

When journalists cover intimate partner homicide as a private tragedy, it becomes politically inert. When they contextualize it as the result of an unenforced gun law or a legal loophole, it becomes a policy failure – and policy failures have a policy remedy.

I believe the U.S. needs comprehensive standards for firearm restrictions in domestic violence cases, more robust enforcement and targeted efforts ensuring these protections reach all communities equitably.

For Black women, delay or failure may be the difference between life and death.

This story was produced in collaboration with Rewire News Group, an independent, nonprofit newsroom dedicated to covering reproductive health.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Sativa Banks, University of California, Davis

Read more:
Why black women’s experiences of #MeToo are different

Black mothers trapped in unsafe neighborhoods signal the stressful health toll of gun violence in the U.S.

Intimate partner homicide has clear warning signs – and is often preventable, research shows

Sativa Banks does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.