Domestic violence law abuses rights of men | The San Diego Union-Tribune
May 13, 2006 | Posted by ANCPR Domestic violence law abuses rights of men | The San Diego Union-Tribune
By Phyllis Schlafly
May 12, 2006
In January, President George W. Bush signed the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act without public debate, even though evidence has surfaced that Congress should have examined it before the law was extended.
The act, which costs nearly $1 billion per year, is one of the major ways former President Bill Clinton bought the support of radical feminists.
Why Republicans passed this bill is a mystery. It’s unlikely that the feminists who will spend all that money will ever vote Republican.
Passage of the Violence Against Women Act was a major priority of the American Bar Association for whose members it is a cash cow. More than 300 courts have implemented specialized docket processes to address the cases stemming from the act, more than 1 million women have obtained protection orders from the courts, and more than 660 new state laws pertaining to domestic violence have been passed, all of which produce profitable work for lawyers.
A recently issued ABA document called “Tool for Attorneys†provides lawyers with a list of suggestive questions to encourage their clients to make domestic-violence charges. Knowing that a woman can get a restraining order against the father of her children in an ex parte proceeding without any evidence, and that she will never be punished for lying, domestic-violence accusations have become a major tactic for securing sole child custody.
Voluminous documentation to dispel the feminist myths that created and have perpetuated the act are spelled out in seven reports just issued by an organization called Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting, or RADAR, and in an 80-page report called “Family Violence in America†published by the American Coalition for Fathers & Children.
For example, it is a shocker to discover that acts don’t have to be violent to be punished under the definition of domestic violence. Name-calling, put-downs, shouting, negative looks or gestures, ignoring opinions or constant criticizing can all be legally labeled domestic violence.
The ABA report states flatly: “Domestic violence does not necessarily involve physical violence.†The feminists’ mantra is, “You don’t have to be beaten to be abused.â€
Advocates of the Violence Against Women Act assert that domestic violence is a crime, yet family courts often adjudicate domestic violence as a civil (not a criminal) matter. This enables courts to deny the accused all Bill of Rights and due process protections that are granted to even the most heinous of criminals.
Specifically, the accused is not innocent until proven guilty but is presumed guilty, and he doesn’t have to be convicted “beyond a reasonable doubt.†Due process rights, such as trial by jury and the right of free counsel to poor defendants, are regularly denied, and false accusations are not covered by perjury law. The act provides funding for legal representation for accusers but not for defendants.
Those concerned about judicial activism, i.e., judges legislating from the bench, could observe judges doing this every day in domestic violence cases. Every time a judge issues a restraining order, the judge creates new crimes for which an individual can be arrested and jailed without trial for doing what no statute prohibits and what anyone else may lawfully do.
This criminalizing of ordinary private behavior and incarceration without due process follows classic police-state practices. Evidence is irrelevant, hearsay is admissible, defendants have no right to confront their accusers, and forced confessions are a common feature.
Some of these injustices result from overzealous law enforcement officials (sometimes running for office), and some from timid judges who grant restraining orders and deny due process to defendants for fear of being blamed for subsequent violence. Most of this, however, is the result of feminist activism and the taxpayer money given them by Congress.
The ease and speed with which women can get restraining orders without fear of punishment for lying indicates that the dynamic driving domestic-violence accusations is child custody rather than violence. Restraining orders don’t prevent violence, but they do have the immediate effect of separating fathers from their children and imprisoning fathers for acts that are perfectly legal if done by anyone else (such as attending a public event at which his child is performing).
The restraining order issued against TV talk show host David Letterman, allegedly to protect a woman who claimed he was harassing her through his TV broadcasts, is a good example of how easy it is to get a court order based on false allegations. Another ridiculous restraining order was issued against celebutante Paris Hilton to protect a man she had bad-mouthed.
Violence Against Women Act money is used by anti-male feminists to train judges, prosecutors and police in the feminist myths that domestic violence is a contagious epidemic, and that men are naturally batterers and women are naturally victims. Feminists lobby state legislators to pass must-arrest and must-prosecute laws even when police don’t observe any crime and can’t produce a witness to testify about an alleged crime.
Assault and battery are crimes in every state and should be prosecuted. But people so accused should be entitled to their constitutional rights. After all, is this America?
 Schlafly is a lawyer, conservative political analyst and the author of “The Supremacists.†She can be reached via e-mail at phyllis@eagleforum.org. 
Categories: Courts and Legislatures, News | 
Tags: | 
15 Comments »
The reason these laws get passed is because men are sitting on their buts and not being involved in our legislative process. Th e irony is that men in our legislatures are too stupid to realize the impact these laws will have not only on them or their children but also on females and all taxpayers. These lawyers do not realize they can become victims of a female wrath just as the clients they are bilking.
Have any reader ever called their legislatures to vote against these laws? We need to stop taking this crap from these welfare receipients/government workers. We are paying these legislatures to represent us and they are screwing us. We are allowing them to do this crap.
Why are there no laws or funding to help all the homeless men in every USA cities? The feminazis will say the men need to go to work but do not use same argument on women. women have equal right to work just as men.
I like to know how how many men’s lives have been ruined by women?
Why are womens’s abuses not classified as such against men? Why doesn’t the media report the women’s abuses against men, such sex deprivation, continous bitching, mood swings, obesity, lazyness and all the other female evil ness? Is the media biased? Are the family courts discriminating against men or not?
I wonder if anybody knows who has the list of those that signed on for this bill? Didn’t it have to go through congress before the President signed it? Somebody on this web-site maybe can be assigned a person in getting the vote count so we can all know who voted for what and we then we can vote accordingly on election time. Just a thought; or if somebody can teach somebody in finding it we can all get educatated as to who are our friends and which ones are our foes.
Gerardo
MycahsDAD@aol.com
Friends: Ron Paul (R-TX).
Foes: everyone else.
The following is a list of sponsors of the 2005 law
S.1197
Title: A bill to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act of 1994.
Sponsor: Sen Biden, Joseph R., Jr. [DE] (introduced 6/8/2005) Cosponsors (58)
Related Bills: H.R.2876, H.R.3171, H.R.3402
Latest Major Action: 10/6/2005 Held at the desk.
Note: Provisions on international marriage broker activity were enacted in H.R. 3402, the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005. H.R. 3402 became Public Law 109-162 on 1/5/2006.
——————————————————————————–
COSPONSORS(58), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]: (Sort: by date)
Sen Akaka, Daniel K. [HI] – 9/14/2005 Sen Baucus, Max [MT] – 10/26/2005
Sen Bayh, Evan [IN] – 6/13/2005 Sen Bingaman, Jeff [NM] – 6/16/2005
Sen Boxer, Barbara [CA] – 6/8/2005 Sen Byrd, Robert C. [WV] – 6/21/2005
Sen Cantwell, Maria [WA] – 6/9/2005 Sen Carper, Thomas R. [DE] – 7/19/2005
Sen Chafee, Lincoln [RI] – 6/16/2005 Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY] – 6/14/2005
Sen Cochran, Thad [MS] – 7/11/2005 Sen Coleman, Norm [MN] – 9/28/2005
Sen Collins, Susan M. [ME] – 7/11/2005 Sen Cornyn, John [TX] – 9/14/2005
Sen Corzine, Jon S. [NJ] – 6/16/2005 Sen Crapo, Mike [ID] – 6/9/2005
Sen Dayton, Mark [MN] – 7/21/2005 Sen DeWine, Mike [OH] – 6/8/2005
Sen Dodd, Christopher J. [CT] – 6/14/2005 Sen Domenici, Pete V. [NM] – 10/4/2005
Sen Dorgan, Byron L. [ND] – 6/28/2005 Sen Durbin, Richard [IL] – 6/20/2005
Sen Feinstein, Dianne [CA] – 6/28/2005 Sen Grassley, Chuck [IA] – 6/8/2005
Sen Hagel, Chuck [NE] – 10/4/2005 Sen Harkin, Tom [IA] – 7/18/2005
Sen Hatch, Orrin G. [UT] – 6/8/2005 Sen Hutchison, Kay Bailey [TX] – 7/11/2005
Sen Inouye, Daniel K. [HI] – 6/14/2005 Sen Jeffords, James M. [VT] – 7/11/2005
Sen Johnson, Tim [SD] – 6/16/2005 Sen Kennedy, Edward M. [MA] – 6/8/2005
Sen Kerry, John F. [MA] – 6/16/2005 Sen Kohl, Herb [WI] – 6/8/2005
Sen Landrieu, Mary L. [LA] – 7/27/2005 Sen Lautenberg, Frank R. [NJ] – 6/9/2005
Sen Leahy, Patrick J. [VT] – 6/8/2005 Sen Levin, Carl [MI] – 6/30/2005
Sen Lieberman, Joseph I. [CT] – 6/20/2005 Sen Lincoln, Blanche L. [AR] – 9/28/2005
Sen Mikulski, Barbara A. [MD] – 6/16/2005 Sen Murkowski, Lisa [AK] – 10/4/2005
Sen Murray, Patty [WA] – 6/8/2005 Sen Nelson, Bill [FL] – 10/4/2005
Sen Nelson, E. Benjamin [NE] – 7/11/2005 Sen Obama, Barack [IL] – 7/13/2005
Sen Pryor, Mark L. [AR] – 7/28/2005 Sen Reed, Jack [RI] – 7/19/2005
Sen Rockefeller, John D., IV [WV] – 6/30/2005 Sen Salazar, Ken [CO] – 6/24/2005
Sen Sarbanes, Paul S. [MD] – 7/19/2005 Sen Schumer, Charles E. [NY] – 6/8/2005
Sen Smith, Gordon H. [OR] – 9/15/2005 Sen Snowe, Olympia J. [ME] – 7/12/2005
Sen Specter, Arlen [PA] – 6/8/2005 Sen Stabenow, Debbie [MI] – 6/8/2005
Sen Stevens, Ted [AK] – 7/28/2005 Sen Talent, Jim [MO] – 9/26/2005
Actually I wrote my congressman Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ) one of the most conservative members of the House asking him to vote against VAWA for many of the reasons stated in the article and more. The Act is inheirently discriminatory. I recevied a form reply that the Congressman ‘ahbors’ any type of violence against women and children and ’steadfastly’ supports VAWA in this regard. When even the so called ‘conservatives’ espouse this harmaul rhetoric it is no wonder we have such a battle before us for equal parenting. When our legislators hear our voice they respond with indoctrinated ‘women/feminist studies’ psychology..’We are victims by birth’. The backlash is brewing and will be formidable when culteral/socio restraints are finally tossed aside for the truth. Men, woman and those interested in the healtiest families possible will organize much as the hispanic ‘immigrant’ population has and extract justice from those who choose a path of discrimination for political expediency.
Gads, my typos from cultural to harmful are…not meant to encourage illiteracy!..LOL
January 2006 this was passed. Swell.
So tell me why are hearing about this now?
Wouldn’t it make more sense to hear about this sooner, or do we conitinue to jump up and down well after the horse leaves the barn?
I believe the original Domestic Violence Law was passed in 1994, sponsored by Senator Joe Biden, this was just a re-aurthorization of the old law with a few changes.
Remember the great welfare reform of 1996? This law made changes to how child support was collected (ug) It was also designed to get people off of welfare and get them to work. People could only be on TANF for a limited amount of time. I think it was 5 years. Mothers were to go to work and help support their children. But there was the Wellstone/Murray Amendment that may have contributed to rising numbers of domestic abuse claims. IFa woman was abused at SOMETIME in her life by SOMEONE the state did not have to limit her to the 5 year rule. She did not have to comply with the child support rules, etc. Some states required proof such as police reports, others just took her word that she has been abused. I just found the Wellstone/Murry Amendment today, and believe it or not I think they may still be in Congress.
I notice IL has 2 pussies now; there use to have one in DIck Durbin. I am moving to Ky. I didn’t see anyone from that State.
Obama is a black shinning star so there is no hope in IL. It’s a shame too because I know for a fact that blacks are the biggest rolling stones out of all races. Even Jesse Jackon is just a child support guy; but he gets his money from all the poor blacks to pay his child support. Call me racist but unless I see the numbers I am standing by my story.
It’s acts like this that discourage families and relationships from coming into existence or maintaining stability. Because of this act and the females that are looking to take advantage of it men have to live in irrevocable fear unless they behave and not talk back. Nice!
It just goes to show you that some politicians will do anything to get their dick sucked.
[“Why Republicans passed this bill is a mystery. It’s unlikely that the feminists who will spend all that money will ever vote Republican.â€]
The answer to this question is complicated and has as many different answers as there are politicians. For example; a Republican may support VAWA to gain support from Democrats for federal funding to build a new prison in his/her district etc. It’s “almost always†about money. It may also just be a case of a Republican politician who has been brainwashed by the “leftwing feminist propaganda machineâ€. (This includes most of the media and regretfully even some of the people who post on this forum.)
In my opinion, the bottom line in all this is that; as long as it remains profitable to discriminate against men/fathers, the practice will continue. The only way for us to take the profit motive out of this “extortion racket†is to refuse to pay.
How can any self-respecting human being pay, or continue to pay, this extortion; especially those who have been wrongfully accused of all kinds of heinous acts against their former spouse and kidnapped children. For anyone to claim that their continued payment of this outrageous extortion is somehow the right or noble thing to do, to me, is the ultimate act of cowardice.
I pity the Mothers and Fathers and Sons and Daughters for having a Son or Father like you.
By the way, feel free to quote me on that.
“All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.â€
Thomas Jefferson
Can any of you imagine the courts trying to take children from these great men? They would spit on any coward who cooperated with these tyrants and the tyrants themselves would undoubtedly pay with their lives.
Kevin Merck
Look for the PORK in all anti male leglislation, who is it that actually profits.
Did the shared parenting bill in NY fail because of women, or did it fail because shared parenting would reduce formal child support (throught the child support enforcement agency) and the state of NY would lose money?
What is NYs share of the reward money given to states for collecting child support. Informal child support (when money goes directly from father to mother) does not contribute to collection rates. When the budged debate of 2005 was going on and the issue of cutting funds to the federal office of child support was being debated the Senator from Texas was extremely concerned about how much money his state would loose in incentive payments from the federal government. (Your Tax Dollars) When it is all added up, the federal government pays states to run local child support offices about 5 Billion dollars, then they give states reward money for doing a good job, then they give them grant money to find out ways to do a better job of determining paternity, establishing more support orders, and collecting more child support. Just this alone makes it obvious that the STATE benifits most from having fathers pay child support. And just how much money does your state get from the Laws governing the Domestic Violence Act? Does this money benifit the State more than women? We all know how our elected leaders pass laws to get money to their home states. Child support and domestic violence equal BIG BUCKS going back to their home state. So not only do you, the father pay child support, you pay the government money to collect the support, and you pay the government money to reward the state for collecting child support from you. And much the same can be said about the domestic violence issue.
“Why Republicans passed this bill is a mystery. It’s unlikely that the feminists who will spend all that money will ever vote Republican.”
The Democratic/Republican coalition is a dictatorship. There may be a new face on the Dictator every 4-8 years, but laws like this exist to keep one of their factions in power, and thus keep all of them in power. Consider, that men with a desire to be free are a threat to a dictatorship, and it’s not hard to understand the need to eliminate due process, as means to control dissension.
When an opponent declares, “I will not come over to your side,” I calmly say, “Your child belongs to us already… What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community.”
Adolf Hitler
It’s time for a 3rd party. I have gone to the left radio programs and have been able to hint on the bias and the hypocrasy of the Democratic party. I realize they are both to blame on this but at least I am able to bring it to their attention so all can hear. I once asked my Congressman Rob Weller (R) to look into it; I mentioned to him that I have noticed you are single and you already must know of the bias in the court.
Now I recently found out he may be one of those congressman that was in Ca. with prostitutes. I guess that’s one way of beating the system just rent love. They say you can’t buy love but nobody said anything about not being able to rent it.
kjm said,
on May 14th, 2006 at 12:40 pm
Look for the PORK in all anti male leglislation, who is it that actually profits.
Did the shared parenting bill in NY fail because of women, or did it fail because shared parenting would reduce formal child support (throught the child support enforcement agency) and the state of NY would lose money?
What is NYs share of the reward money given to states for collecting child support. Informal child support (when money goes directly from father to mother) does not contribute to collection rates. When the budged debate of 2005 was going on and the issue of cutting funds to the federal office of child support was being debated the Senator from Texas was extremely concerned about how much money his state would loose in incentive payments from the federal government. (Your Tax Dollars) When it is all added up, the federal government pays states to run local child support offices about 5 Billion dollars, then they give states reward money for doing a good job, then they give them grant money to find out ways to do a better job of determining paternity, establishing more support orders, and collecting more child support. Just this alone makes it obvious that the STATE benifits most from having fathers pay child support. And just how much money does your state get from the Laws governing the Domestic Violence Act? Does this money benifit the State more than women? We all know how our elected leaders pass laws to get money to their home states. Child support and domestic violence equal BIG BUCKS going back to their home state. So not only do you, the father pay child support, you pay the government money to collect the support, and you pay the government money to reward the state for collecting child support from you. And much the same can be said about the domestic violence issue.
kjm:
You are absolutely right and make an “excellent argument†as to why none of us should contribute to this extortion racket.
Keep speaking out. I think people need to hear what you have to say.
Thanks,
Kevin Merck