Thursday, July 14, 2005

Violence Against Women Act

ALERT: In 1994, during the Clinton administration, Sen. Joseph Biden (D-DE) introduced the "Violence Against Women Act" (VAWA). It passed, and was re-authorized in 2000; now, it's up for another re-authorization vote in the Senate, with support from plenty of groups like NOW and the Feminist Majority.
Sounds good, right? No one supports violence against women. So we should support the re-authorization of this Act, right?
Actually, NO -- at least, not as it's presently written. Somewhere along the way, VAWA became "a huge funneling scheme to radical feminist activists who use the funding to basically set up anti-men programs," according to Wendy Wright, senior policy director of Concerned Women for America, the largest women's organization in the country. Now, the Act "seems more to be about funding the radical left than about finding a solution," says Wright.
Gee, no wonder NOW and the Feminist Majority are so hyped on pushing this bill through.
Recognizing the need to protect women from violence, the Violence Against Women Act, as currently written, is DECEPTIVE in its purported aims and DESTRUCTIVE to American families and freedom. Well-intentioned lawmakers are being misled about its purposes and effects. Even feminist advocate Andrea Dworkin acknowledged that the original bill was enacted only because "Senators don't understand the meaning of the legislation that they pass."
The vote for re-authorization of VAWA is coming up SOON in both houses of Congress. We need to URGE our elected representatives to withhold or withdraw ANY support for this re-authorization bill, unless and until VAWA is significantly modified to END its gender-based discrimination and its funding of radical left-wing organizations.
TAKE ACTION: VAWA is a prejudiced act which violates the 14th amendment's guarantee of equal rights. It does not help male victims of family violence (who studies show are fully HALF of the victims), and it's explicitly written in such a way as to effectively eliminate help to male victims.
The political reality, however, is that this Act *will* be re-authorized (what candidate wants to go on record as being against women and children?). We can, however, *change* VAWA -- and a good start would be to rename it the "Family Violence Prevention Act," making the bill gender-neutral; amend it to explicitly prohibit denial of funding or services to any victims of domestic violence; and strictly prohibit funds from being used for any political purpose.
Click through NOW to urge your Congressman and Senators to withhold or withdraw ANY support for re-authorization of the "Violence Against Women Act" (S. 1197, HR 2876) unless VAWA is modified in both name and funding:
http://capwiz.com/sicminc/issues/alert/?alertid=7829836&type=CO
NOTE: Be sure to send this Alert to EVERYONE you know who wants to help END the "Violence Against Women Act's" gender-based discrimination and its funding of radical left-wing organizations! Thank you!
Sincerely,
William Greene, PresidentRightMarch.com

4 Comments:

At 10:36 PM, Blogger AlohaTexan said...

Nixon,

What about this act scares you again? Oh thats right its a "huge funneling scheme" for "anti-men programs". Lets look at all the anti-men programs this funnels money to- new grant programs encouraging states to address domestic violence and sexual assault including:

* law enforcement and prosecution grants (STOP grants)
* grants to encourage arrest
* rural domestic violence and child abuse enforcement grants
* the National Domestic Violence Hotline
* grants to battered women's shelters

Sweet Jesus these people sure do hate men !!! They actually want to spend money on prosecuting us if we start kicking the crap out of our wives and girlfriends. The feminists have gone too far I tell you and dont get me started on those man-hating battered womens shelters.

So do you feel like a tool yet? No? OK how about if I tell you that the act is in no way unconstitutional under the 14'th amendment because all of the bills language is gender neutral. Therefore, if you are ever out with a girl who goes all "anti-man" on you and starts mercilessly beating you into a sniveling pulp, then rest assured you can pursue a claim of gender motivated violence against her under the VAWA. So no constitutional problem there. The 1994 VAWA was declared unconstitutional in US v. Morrison but this was because it was seen as an over expansive use of federal power and had nothing to do with the Equal Protection Clause. Since then the 2000 VAWA has been carefully written to withstand any other constitutional challenge regarding federalism.

So anyway, in conclusion, I don't think you get off on hitting girls but it does seem obvious that you get off on bashing feminists. Why is that? I, along with the feminists, want women to be our equal in society. Are you afraid to compete with women in the job market? or is your misogyny related to failed personal relationships in your past. Whatever the reason is just remember one thing - In 2000 the VAWA passed the house 415-3 and the senate 95-0. Sorry Concerned Women of America.

 
At 7:44 PM, Blogger Mike said...

Hi, Nice blog you have here. Lots of great info on chris howard jacksonville jaguars. I have a chris howard jacksonville jaguars related site. It has lots of information, discussion, stats etc. on chris howard jacksonville jaguars. Please check it out if you get a chance.

 
At 6:48 PM, Blogger all about news and such said...

I just came across your blog about north carolina genealogy and wanted to drop you a note telling you how impressed I was with the information you have posted here. I also have a web site about north carolina genealogy so I know what I'm talking about when I say your site is top-notch! Keep up the great work, you are providing a great resource on the Internet here! If you get a chance, please stop by north carolina genealogy

 
At 8:18 PM, Blogger Maggie M. Thornton said...

I'm a fiercely independent woman, I have wonderful men in my life...like my husband, my brothers, and others. I like men.

I do not see a need for a Violence Against Women Act. Violence is violence. The problem is, when women pound on a man, like take a rolling pen (yeah - don't we all have those today?) to him, or an ax...the men don't want to file charges unless their lives are still likely to be in danger. It sounds "wussy" to file a complaint against a women. I sympathize with that.

Common sense, good evidence and a court trial should settle the matter without a special act.

I AM for double murder when a woman is with child and she and the baby are dead. Assault on a pregnant women should be treated very seriously, as it should be if she's not pregnant. If our society valued life, we wouldn't need a special law to make killing an unborn child another murder.

The bottom line problem is that we do not treat assault seriously enough - especially when it is child abuse. Domestic violence is just violence, only more hateful because it's within the family - it's still just sheer violence and should be treated that way in a court of law.

If the punishment fit crime, the assaulter would be in prison a very long time for endangering a life.

Our courts and juries seem to think if you live through an assault...well, you're not dead - and the punishment is often far too light.

Having said all that, it makes me furious that money would be funneled to Code Pinkers, or worse, to further their frustrated agendas.

We already have laws. Let's use them and enough with special acts.

A good and informative post.

Maggie
Maggie's Notebook

 

Post a Comment

<< Home