Women Against VAWA Excess – WAVE – is dedicated to exposing how the Violence Against Women Act has veered away from its original intended purpose to stop domestic violence. Now, VAWA has come to embrace a radical ideology that marginalizes true victims, harms families, and betrays the ideals of equality feminism.
WAVE invites persons to visit its website, which features articles by Wendy McElroy, Anna Rittgers, and others:
WAVE also sponsors a Facebook page at . We invite women to drop by and share your experiences and concerns about VAWA and with the domestic violence programs in your area.
For information on submitting an article, contact: firstname.lastname@example.org
The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) is up for reauthorization this year.
Despite its innocent-sounding name, the problem with VAWA is that it assails the family, the Constitution, and the economy. And it has failed to live up to its promises to help women – see:
Dear Friends of Children's Rights,
Senator Leahy and VAWA supporters are six co-sponsors short of avoiding a filibuster. They are close, but that doesn't mean they will succeed. Not if we get busy and make a few phone calls.
To see if your senators have co-sponsored the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) visit. Enter bill number S.1925.
Tell them not to listen to the "If you're pro-women you're pro-VAWA" line. Remind them that women's groups like the Independent Women's Forum and Concerned Women for America have come out in opposition to VAWA. Or suggest they visit the Women Against VAWA Excess website to see what women really think about VAWA.
Have a few extra minutes? Call as many senators as possible who are not on the co-sponsor list.
We can do this, so let's get started...
RE: Reckless and False Statements Made to the Senate Judiciary Committee by Dr. Phillip McGraw (Dr. Phil)Honorable Patrick Leahy
Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee
Honorable Chuck Grassley
Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee
Dear Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Grassley:
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments – SAVE – is a victim advocacy organization working for evidence-based solutions to domestic violence. We are writing in regard to the recent July 13, 2011 Judiciary Committee hearing on the Violence Against Women Act.
To place this important issue in proper context, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control has conducted two national surveys about intimate partner aggression:
• A survey of high school students found 10% of teenage girls had initiated dating violence, compared to only 9% of teenage boys. (I)
• A study of persons 18-28 years old concluded that females were the perpetrators in 70% of cases of one-way aggression. (II)
These government findings have been confirmed by over 250 scholarly investigations that show “women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners.” (III)
The problem of female-initiated domestic violence recently made front-page news with the recent California case in which a woman hideously drugged, bound, and castrated her husband. (IV)
Against this background of research and national news, Dr. Phillip McGraw (a.k.a. “Dr. Phil”) was invited to be the lead witness for the recent Judiciary Committee hearing on the Violence Against Women Act. (V)
During the course of his testimony, Dr. McGraw repeatedly made statements that were one-sided, misleading, unverifiable, and/or demonstrably false:
1.) “2,000,000 women a year are victimized [by] being beaten, terrorized, and intimidated.” – This statement, based on research conducted by Murray Straus at the University of New Hampshire, found equal numbers of men were also victimized by domestic violence. Why did Dr. McGraw choose to cherry-pick the research?
2.) “In too many situations violence against women, young and old, is almost treated as an ‘acceptable crime.’” This statement is misleading and false. Research shows the vast majority (nine out of 10) of Americans view wife-beating as unacceptable. (VI) (Ironically, two out of 10 of persons still view domestic violence against men as acceptable.)
3.) “Domestic violence is now the most common cause of injury to women ages 15 to 44.” –This statement, which has been previously refuted by a leading family violence researcher, (VII) is a scurrilous misrepresentation of the facts. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control:
a.) In 1996, motor vehicle accidents and accidental falls were the leading causes of injury to women ages 15-44. Domestic violence ranked as the ninth cause of injury. (VIII)
b.) From 2004-2007, the leading causes of injury to women 15-24 years of age were falls, motor vehicle accidents, and overexertion, in that order. For women in the 25-44 year age group, the leading causes of injury were falls, overexertion, and motor vehicle accidents: (IX)
4.) "In fact, among teenage girls who are killed, nearly one-third is killed by a boyfriend or former boyfriend" – SAVE staff undertook an extensive search to locate the source of this statement, including the FBI Supplementary Homicide Reports. The source could not be located. Therefore, we conclude this unverifiable claim is a “factoid from nowhere.”
5.) Through use of gender-biased examples and terminology (e.g., “women,” “mothers,” “girls,” etc.), Dr. McGraw painted a picture of domestic violence that is oblivious to three decades of research, which shows approximate symmetry in the perpetration of intimate partner aggression between men and women.
6.) Dr. McGraw’s testimony often relied on emotion-laden phraseology and photographic images that were designed to play on persons’ feelings and passions. In conclusion, Dr. McGraw’s testimony was systematically biased, scientifically deficient, and deeply flawed. His testimony is reminiscent of the Jim Crow rape scares that focused on black-on-white rape, while studiously ignoring the problem of white-onwhite sexual assault.
Effective policy-making rests on sound research and unbiased evidence. Dr. McGraw’s statements are reckless because they could serve to justify and promote federal abuse reduction policies that are ineffective, neglectful of civil rights, and even harmful.
SAVE’s report, Most DV Educational Programs Lack Accuracy, Balance, and Truthfulness, documents how many claims by representatives of domestic violence organizations lack any basis in scientific fact. (X)
Ensuring the accuracy of domestic violence statements made to policymakers, the public, and criminal justice personnel should be an important public policy objective. We are therefore requesting that the Senate Judiciary Committee correct the numerous misleading, unverifiable, and erroneous statements of fact that permeate Dr. McGraw’s testimony. We furthermore request that the Judiciary Committee give consideration to the VAWA reauthorization including provisions to require third-party accreditation of all government-supported domestic violence training, education, and public awareness programs.
We look forward to working with you during the upcoming months to assure the prompt reauthorization and revitalization of the Violence Against Women Act.
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments (SAVE)
P.O. Box 1221
Rockville, MD 20849
Cc: All Members of the Senate
(IX) www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_10/sr10_241.pdf , Table 4.
Senate Committee Passes VAWA Only on Party Vote (10-8).
The Senate Judiciary Committee passed VAWA on a party line vote, 10 Democrats in favor and 8 Republicans voting against. This was a good sign that VAWA is in trouble down the road when it comes up for votes in the Senate and House and good reason to continue to press Senators in your state to vote 'No' on VAWA.
We are continuing our efforts to repeal the Florida DV law and get the courts out of family life. Your can support our work here.
1. VAWA re-authorization uncertain.
1. The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) passed the Judiciary Committee but only on a party line vote. This is quite likely the first time it did not have bi-partisan support and presents an opportunity for defeating VAWA in either the Senate or the House. Start contacting senators and representatives now and tell them why VAWA should not be re-authorized.
DV Laws should require a warrant before a domestic abuse order could be issued and restricts the ability of police to make arrests without one. However, the bill's provisions on 'domestic violence' warrants will die unless people speak up and make their voices heard.
Shared parenting efforts depend on reform and eventual repeal of these draconian 'domestic violence' laws.
It is imperative that people write the committee members (below) before next Monday, Feb. 6 and let them know how domestic abuse orders are issued without justification and the harm it causes to their family life and to their financial well-being.