“Watch HouseLive.
”E-lert: Let’s Watch the House Vote on VAWA » SAVE: Stop Abusive and Violent Environments
FYI, more work to do!
The Violence Against Women Act reveals structural bias, political gains
Domestic violence is intolerable – and so are gender biased laws like the Violence Against Women Act; acts like this tell an incomplete story of domestic violence for political gain.
The VAWA first started replicating local and state domestic violence laws in 1994. It was hailed then as “landmark” legislation, turning a local issue into a federal one. In 2000 it visited the Supreme Court, where U.S. v. Morrison’s ruling found the law unconstitutional for violating the Commerce Clause and the 14th Amendment.
One formal intention of the VAWA is to fund domestic violence programs. Informal intentions are to provide the opportunity for fake bipartisan celebration while defacing opponents every time the bill is voted for re-authorization. Last Thursday, the U.S. House voted 286-138 in favor of the bill, reciprocating the Senate’s 78-22 vote last month.
Proponents are so adamant for this legislation that legitimate objections for debate are always squandered to demagoguery. This is the first of a long list of issues this law hides under its thick framing effect that automatically produces an improper assumption: anyone who’s against it must be pro-women’s violence.
Surface-level framing hints at underlying structural problems. Men’s domestic violence statistics are systematically ignored by leading anti-domestic violence organizations as if they aren’t relevant. The National Coalition Against Domestic Violence provides the most popular statistics on its website: one in four women will experience domestic violence in their lives, 1.3 million women are assaulted by their partner every year and 85 percent of domestic violence is against women – criteria justifying the VAWA. Hundreds of advocacy groups fall in line with the same angle: suppressing or downplaying the men’s numbers.
Due to this practice, many forget that significant amounts of domestic violence cases happen to both sexes as well as children. The same study that found that 1.3 million women were assaulted by their partner every year also found that 835,000 men fell victim to the same violence.
Aggregate totals of more than 250 studies since the 1970s find that men and women nearly split partner violence rates halfway. One study in 2011 conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that 40 percent of severe, physical domestic violence cases were against men.
Misrepresenting relevant statistics has consequences. Significantly fewer studies include men and boys because few organizations are willing to provide funding for seemingly needless information. Domestic violence studies and policies are not created nor treated equal.
A snowball effect enables biases and misunderstandings to grow.
In turn, policy is influenced in favor of women – the flagship legislation being the VAWA. But the VAWA doesn’t only feed off of misinterpreted statistics; audits by the Government Accountability Office discovered the bill breaks its own rules.
The audits found some organizations receiving the VAWA’s appropriations to have large portions of funding never reaching victims and many instances of spending against a grant’s intentions. Other audits even found embezzlement and outright fraud. These cases are covered up in the name of preventing violence against women.
Julie Borowski, a policy analyst at FreedomWorks, wrote how the $660 million annual budget’s lack of accountability measures opens the door for mishandled funds, possibly explaining why the program cannot take credit for reducing domestic violence rates.
“The real purpose of the VAWA is to shell out taxpayer dollars to liberal organizations that help elect Democrats – which is why the re-authorization passed out of committee on a straight party-line vote,” Borowski said.
Democrat minority house leader Nancy Pelosi accepted her political gravy in a tweet, @NancyPelosi, “No woman should be forced to suffer abuse in silence.” Pelosi is absolutely right. Still, the VAWA’s re-authorization should have addressed growing biases against men and boys and many other concerns. Rather, politicians seem more interested in taking advantage of domestic violence to gain political face than providing aid for all citizens. Politics continue to infiltrate social services.
Jeff Bart is a senior in the College of Liberal Arts and can be reached at opinions@purdueexponent.org.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
ReplyDeleteUnited States v. Morrison
United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000), is a United States Supreme Court decision which held that parts of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 were unconstitutional because they exceeded congressional power under the Commerce Clause and under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued January 11, 2000
Decided May 15, 2000
Full case name United States v. Antonio J. Morrison et al. and Christy Brzonkala v. Antonio J. Morrison et al.
Docket nos. 99-5
99-29
Citations 529 U.S. 598 (more)
120 S. Ct. 1740; 146 L. Ed. 2d 658; 2000 U.S. LEXIS 3422; 68 U.S.L.W. 4351; 82 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1313; 77 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P46,376; 2000 Cal. Daily Op. Service 3788; 2000 Daily Journal DAR 5061; 2000 Colo. J. C.A.R. 2583; 13 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 287
Prior history Brzonkala v. Va. Polytechnic Inst. & State Univ., 935 F. Supp. 779 (W.D. Va. 1996), aff'd, 169 F.3d 820 (4th Cir. 1999), cert. granted sub nom. United States v. Morrison, 527 U.S. 1068 (1999).
Argument Oral argument
Holding
The Violence Against Women Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 13981, is unconstitutional as exceeding congressional power under the Commerce Clause and under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy
David Souter · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg · Stephen Breyer
Case opinions
Majority Rehnquist, joined by O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas
Concurrence Thomas
Dissent Souter, joined by Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer
Dissent Breyer, joined by Stevens, Souter (Points 1 and 2 only), Ginsburg (Points 1 and 2 only)
Laws applied
U.S. Const. Art. I, § 8, cl. 3; U.S. Const. Amend. XIV; 42 U.S.C. § 13981.
SAVE Praises Attorney General Eric Holder for Visionary Statement on VAWA Inclusion ~
DeleteWASHINGTON / March 7, 2013 – SAVE, a leading victim-rights organization, is applauding United States Attorney General Eric Holder for his statement advocating for the inclusiveness of programs funded by the Violence Against Women Act.
Within hours of the bill’s passage in the House of Representatives, Attorney General Eric Holder released this statement: “I applaud Congress for passing a bipartisan reauthorization that protects everyone – women and men, gay and straight, children and adults of all races, ethnicities, countries of origin, and tribal affiliations.” (1)
The recently passed bill contains numerous non-discrimination provisions designed to assure all victims are helped by the new law.
Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) likewise noted, “Today’s passage of the Senate’s bipartisan Violence Against Women Act reauthorization is a victory for millions of women and men across the nation who are victims of sexual and domestic violence, and proof that the voice of the American people matters.” (2)
“Today, many Republicans are taking a stand for a more modern and inclusive GOP. Our leaders in Congress should be weary of leaving the LGBT community out of legislation that is intended to protect all Americans from domestic violence,” said Gregory Angelo, executive director of Log Cabin Republicans.
“The VAWA debate over the last year has exposed a disturbing pattern of prejudice and bias in our nation's approach to curbing partner abuse,” notes SAVE spokesperson Sheryle Hutter. “We thank Attorney General Holder for his courage and foresight in advocating in advocating for all victims of domestic violence.”
Discriminatory practices have been documented on a wide scale against male (3), lesbian/gay (4), and immigrant (5) victims of abuse.
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments is a victim-advocacy organization working for evidence-based solutions to domestic violence and sexual assault: www.saveservices.org
1.http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2013/February/13-ag-253.html
2.http://ellison.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=967:rep-keith-ellison-violence-against-women-act-passage-a-victory-for-the-wellstone-legacy&catid=1:latest&Itemid=16
3.http://www.saveservices.org/downloads/Domestic-Violence-Programs-Discriminate-Against-Male-Victims
4.http://www.cuav.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/5670_2008NCAVPDVReport.pdf
5.http://www.vawnet.org/applied-research-papers/print-document.php?doc_id=384
HOW DID CHILDREN OF DIVORCE GET STUCK WITH THE VISITATION PLAN THAT AFFORDS THEM ACCESS TO THEIR NON-RESIDENTIAL PARENT ONLY ONE NIGHT DURING THE WEEK AND EVERY OTHER WEEK-END?
ReplyDeleteWhat is the research that supports such a schedule? Where is the data that confirms that such a plan is in the best interest of the child?
Well, reader, you can spend your time from now until eternity researching the literature, and YOU WILL NOT DISCOVER ANY SUPPORTING DATA for the typical visitation arrangement with the non-residential parent! The reality is that this arrangement is based solely on custom. And just like the short story, "The Lottery," in which the prizewinner is stoned to death, the message is that deeds and judgments are frequently arrived at based on nothing more than habit, fantasy, prejudice, and yes, on "junk science."
This family therapist upholds the importance of both parents playing an active and substantial role in their children's lives----especially in situations when the parents are apart. In order to support the goal for each parent to provide a meaningfully and considerable involvement in the lives of their children, I affirm that the resolution to custody requires an arrangement for joint legal custody and physical custody that maximizes the time with the non-residential----with the optimal arrangement being 50-50, whenever practical. It is my professional opinion that the customary visitation arrangement for non-residential parents to visit every other weekend and one night during the week is not sufficient to maintain a consequential relationship with their children. Although I have heard matrimonial attorneys, children's attorneys, and judges assert that the child needs the consistency of the same residence, I deem this assumption to be nonsense. I cannot be convinced that the consistency with one's bed trumps consistency with a parent!
Should the reader question how such an arrangement can be judiciously implemented which maximizes the child's time---even in a 50-50 arrangement----with the non-residential parent, I direct the reader to the book, Mom's House, Dads House, by the Isolina Ricci, PhD.
Indeed, the research that we do have supports the serious consequences to children when the father, who is generally the non-residential parent, does not play a meaningful role in lives of his children. The book, Fatherneed, (2000) by Dr. Kyle Pruitt, summarizes the research at Yale University about the importance of fathers to their children. And another post on this page summarizes an extensive list of other research.
Children of divorce or separation of their parents previously had each parent 100% of the time and obviously cannot have the same arrangement subsequent to their parents' separation. But it makes no sense to this family therapist that the result of parental separation is that the child is accorded only 20% time with one parent and 80% with the other. What rational person could possibly justify this?
"Normal parents can put the needs of their children first. They know that demeaning and demonizing their partner harms the children and however they may feel about their they do not want to harm their children. The problem of brainwashing children arises when one or other parent or both put their needs first and use the children as weapons against each other. These are the adults who have personality disorders that go unrecognized in court. There both parents are given an equal hearing the problem occurs when one parent lies and cheats under oath, manipulates the judiciary and everyone in the case while the normal parent looks on in horror. Women will always be given the benefit of the doubt over men especially by men which is why so many men loose their children. The training of so called experts in the universities and in workshops has been in the hands of radical feminists for the last forty years as a result there is no level playing field between parents any longer. All I can say that I have seen children deprived of a loving parent reconnect after years of demonizing that parent. For other parents they have to live with the injustice for the rest of their lives their child or children are to damaged to ever know the truth." ~ Erin Pizzey
ReplyDeletePresident Obama signed into law the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization. Obviously the law has many, many bad things in it, especially when compared to our 12 VAWA Reform Principles: http://www.saveservices.org/pvra/vawa-reform-principles/
ReplyDeleteThat said, we can’t allow ourselves to slip into despondency and despair. We’ve reviewed the 2013 law, and the one silver lining is the language is more inclusive than the previous version: http://www.saveservices.org/vawa-reauthorization/inclusive-vawa/
This certainly doesn’t mean that shelters will begin to put out the Welcome mat to male victims. We still have many battles to fight, especially at the state level. But at least we now have a strong legal basis for demanding an end to discriminatory practices.
So moving forward, we will highlight the stronger inclusiveness language in the new VAWA, and we will call on lawmakers and DV providers to implement the new mandate.
And in the upcoming weeks, we will return to our frequently-highlighted concerns about false allegations, lack of due process, lack of the presumption of innocence, and so forth. To do that, we’ll need to adjust our strategy, tactics, and messaging.
Thanks for all your blood, sweat, and tears the last several years. The struggle will continue.
Ed
E. Everett Bartlett, PhD, President
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments (SAVE)
P.O. Box 1221
Rockville, MD 20849
Office: 301-801-0608
Cell: 301-670-1964
Email: ebartlett@saveservices.org
Internet: www.saveservices.org
SAVE is a 501(c)3 victim-advocacy organization working for evidence-based solutions to domestic violence and sexual assault.
Violence Against Women Act passed by House, sent to Obama for signature
ReplyDeleteBy Rosalind S. Helderman
February 28, 2013
The Republican-held U.S. House signed off on a reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act that includes expanded protections for same-sex couples Thursday, ending a protracted political fight over the measure and sending the bill to President Obama to sign into law.
Obama said he will sign the bill as soon as he gets it. “Renewing this bill is an important step towards making sure no one in America is forced to live in fear,” he said in a statement.
The measure, which was already approved by the Senate, passed the House on a 286 to 138 vote, as 199 Democrats joined 87 Republicans to push the bill over opposition from a bloc of 138 conservatives, who opposed the bill for a number of reasons, including the new protections for gays and lesbians.
More Republicans voted against the bill than supported it — the third time since December that House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) has allowed legislation to move off the floor that did not have the support of a majority of his divided members.
In this case, the outcome stemmed from a broad desire from GOP leaders to get past the Violence Against Women Act issue. It was an acknowledgment that their continued opposition to a measure that had passed with broad bipartisan support in the Senate and has strong appeal with women voters was damaging the party’s image.
Hailed as landmark legislation when it was first passed in 1994, the Violence Against Women Act authorizes funding for programs across the country that help in the prosecution of sexual assault and domestic abuse, and assists victims of the crimes.
Those include battered women’s shelters, victims advocates, rape-prevention education and other programs.
The bill will authorize up to $660 million be spent each year for the next five years for such programs — a drop of 17 percent from the last time the act was reauthorized in 2005.
Read more: http://www.saveservices.org/2013/02/vawa-passed-by-house-sent-to-obama-for-signature/
Source” WP
Senate VAWA Reauthorization Violates First Amendment
PRO SE RIGHTS:
ReplyDeleteBrotherhood of Trainmen v. Virginia ex rel. Virginia State Bar, 377 U.S. 1; v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335; Argersinger v. Hamlin, Sheriff 407 U.S. 425 ~ Litigants can be assisted by unlicensed laymen during judicial proceedings.
Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 at 48 (1957) ~ "Following the simple guide of rule 8(f) that all pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice"... "The federal rules reject the approach that pleading is a game of skill in which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome and accept the principle that the purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on the merits." The court also cited Rule 8(f) FRCP, which holds that all pleadings shall be construed to do substantial justice.
Davis v. Wechler, 263 U.S. 22, 24; Stromberb v. California, 283 U.S. 359; NAACP v. Alabama, 375 U.S. 449 ~ "The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, are not to be defeated under the name of local practice."
Elmore v. McCammon (1986) 640 F. Supp. 905 ~ "... the right to file a lawsuit pro se is one of the most important rights under the constitution and laws."
Federal Rules of Civil Procedures, Rule 17, 28 USCA "Next Friend" ~ A next friend is a person who represents someone who is unable to tend to his or her own interest.
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) ~ "Allegations such as those asserted by petitioner, however inartfully pleaded, are sufficient"... "which we hold to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers."
Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1959); Picking v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 151 Fed 2nd 240; Pucket v. Cox, 456 2nd 233 ~ Pro se pleadings are to be considered without regard to technicality; pro se litigants' pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards of perfection as lawyers.
Maty v. Grasselli Chemical Co., 303 U.S. 197 (1938) ~ "Pleadings are intended to serve as a means of arriving at fair and just settlements of controversies between litigants. They should not raise barriers which prevent the achievement of that end. Proper pleading is important, but its importance consists in its effectiveness as a means to accomplish the end of a just judgment."
NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415); United Mineworkers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715; and Johnson v. Avery, 89 S. Ct. 747 (1969) ~ Members of groups who are competent nonlawyers can assist other members of the group achieve the goals of the group in court without being charged with "unauthorized practice of law."
Picking v. Pennsylvania Railway, 151 F.2d. 240, Third Circuit Court of Appeals ~ The plaintiff's civil rights pleading was 150 pages and described by a federal judge as "inept". Nevertheless, it was held "Where a plaintiff pleads pro se in a suit for protection of civil rights, the Court should endeavor to construe Plaintiff's Pleadings without regard to technicalities."
Puckett v. Cox, 456 F. 2d 233 (1972) (6th Cir. USCA) ~ It was held that a pro se complaint requires a less stringent reading than one drafted by a lawyer per Justice Black in Conley v. Gibson (see case listed above, Pro Se Rights Section).
Roadway Express v. Pipe, 447 U.S. 752 at 757 (1982) ~ "Due to sloth, inattention or desire to seize tactical advantage, lawyers have long engaged in dilatory practices... the glacial pace of much litigation breeds frustration with the Federal Courts and ultimately, disrespect for the law."
Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 2d 946 (1973) ~ "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of Constitutional Rights."
Schware v. Board of Examiners, United State Reports 353 U.S. pages 238, 239. ~ "The practice of law cannot be licensed by any state/State."
Sims v. Aherns, 271 SW 720 (1925) ~ "The practice of law is an occupation of common right."
“Justice is a part of the human makeup. And if you deprive a person of Justice on a continuous basis, it’s really an attack (and not to get religious or anything) but it’s an attack on the human soul. We have, as societies, evolved ideas of Justice and we have done that because human nature needs Justice and it needs resolution. And if you deprive somebody of that long enough they’re going to have reactions…” ~ Juli T. Star-Alexander – Executive Director, Redress, Inc.
ReplyDeleteRedress, Inc. 501c3 nonprofit corporation, created to combat corruption. Our purpose is to provide real assistance and solutions for citizens suffering from injustices. We operate as a formal business, with a Board of Directors guiding us. We take the following actions to seek redress: Competently organize as citizens working for the enforcement of our legal rights. Form a coalition so large and so effective that the authorities can no longer ignore us. We support and align with other civil rights groups and get our collective voices heard. Work to pass laws that benefit us and give us the means to fight against corruption, as is our legal right, and we work to repeal laws that are in violation of our legal rights. Become proactive in the election process, by screening of political candidates. As individuals, we support those who are striving to achieve excellence, and show how to remove from office those who have failed to get the job done. Make our presence known through every legal means. We monitor our courts and judges. We petition our government representatives for the assistance they are bound to provide us. We publicize our cases and demand redress. Create a flow of income that enables us to fight back in court, and to assist our members impoverished by the abuses inflicted on us. Create the means to relieve the stresses on us, as we share information and support each other. We become legal advocates for each other; we become an emotional support network for each other; we problem solve for individuals on a group basis! Educate our judges, lawyers, court personnel, law enforcement personnel and elected leaders about our rights as citizens! Actively work to eliminate incompetence, bias/prejudice, special relationships and corruption at all levels of government! Work actively with all media sources, to shed light on our efforts. It is reasonable to expect that if the authorities know we are watching and documenting, that their behaviors will improve. IT'S A HUGE TASK! Accountability will not happen overnight. But we believe that through supporting each other, we support ourselves. This results in a voice for justice and redress that cannot be ignored. Please become familiar with our web site, and feel free to call. We need each other - help us to help you! Although we are beginning operations in Nevada, we intend to extend into each state in a competent fashion. We are NOT attorneys, unless individual attorneys join us as members. We are simply people helping people. For those interested, we do not engage in the practice of law. You might be interested in this article Unauthorized Practice of Law on the Net. Call Redress, Inc. at 702.597.2982 or e-mail us at Redress@redressinc.com. WORKING TOGETHER TO ATTAIN FAIRNESS