Activists Resolve to Expose VAWA’s Inequities
RESOLUTION
Regarding the Violence Against Women Act
- Whereas, in 2000 Senator Orrin Hatch directed the executive branch to “ensure that men who have been victimized by domestic violence and sexual assault will receive benefits and services under the Actâ€1
- Whereas, despite that statement of Congressional intent, male victims continue to be turned away from VAWA-funded shelters.2
- Whereas, the language of the 2005 Violence Against Women Act now recognizes that male victims of domestic violence are in need of treatment and protection, and requires VAWA-funded programs to provide them with such services.3
- Whereas, VAWA funds judicial education programs that instruct judges to disregard constitutionally-protected due process provisions,4
- Whereas, judges often issue restraining orders without any direct threat of harm,5,6 and restraining orders are widely used as “part of the gamesmanship of divorce.â€7,8
- Whereas, the Massachusetts Trial Court found that less than half of all restraining orders issued in that state involved even an allegation of physical violence,9
- Whereas, it has been estimated that each year one million protective orders are issued in the United States, and about 500,000 of such orders represent a direct violation of due process protections,10,11
- Whereas, 15% of such protective orders are issued against women and 85% against men.12
- Whereas, research shows that most instances of partner aggression are minor in nature,13 and such cases require counseling, not legal intervention,
- Whereas, VAWA-funded programs and policies often discourage couple counseling and partner reconciliation, and
- Whereas, various VAWA incentives serve to promote family break-up,14 which results in children losing daily contact with one of their parents.15
Therefore, the undersigned organizations request that:
- The VAWA appropriation bill for FY2007 include report language directing the DoJ Violence Against Women Office to provide Congress, no later than December 30, 2007, with client utilization statistics of VAWA-funded programs and services, in compliance with the male-inclusive requirements of Section 40002(b)(8) of the 2005 Violence Against Women Act.
- The Senate and House Appropriations Committees support and approve President Bush’s budget request to fund the Violence Against Women Act at the $347 million level in FY2007.
- The United States Congress establish a panel to investigate the claims that the Violence Against Women Act promotes the excessive issuance of restraining orders, which often leads to family break-up and inappropriate loss of parent involvement.Signed:
Michael J. Geanoulis
RADAR: Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse ReportingMichael McCormick
American Coalition for Fathers and ChildrenDavid R. Usher
ACFC – Missouri CoalitionAlan Rusmisel
Alabama Coalition of Fathers and ChildrenTom Smith
American Union for MenJames Hays
Coalition of Fathers and Families NY, Inc.Paul Clements
Dads Against Divorce Discrimination-NHJames Semerad
Dads and Moms of MichiganMichael Burns
Dialogue on Sustainable CommunityJamil Jabr
Fathers-4-JusticeMike East
FATHERS: Fathers Asking to Have Equal RightsD’Arcy L. McGreer
Fathers for VirginiaRichar’ Farr
Krights RadioMarc Angelucci
National Coalition of Free Men, Los Angeles ChapterGary Gagnon
National Congress of Fathers and Children – New HampshireHarry Crouch
Men’s Advocacy NetworkJeffrey W. Dick
MensCustodyShelterNetwork.comMarc Snider
NHCustody.orgPastor Kenneth Deemer
Shattered MenPhilip Cook
Stop Abuse for EveryoneLee Newman
Stop Abuse for Everyone, NH ChapterGregory Romeo
Tulsa Area Fathers Rights Association
| More from MNDwire
Stumble It!

March 22nd, 2006 at 3:07 pm
[...] Activists Resolve to Expose VAWA’s Inequities [...]
March 23rd, 2006 at 1:38 pm
This is a silly and ridiculous “article.”
Eric
March 23rd, 2006 at 1:56 pm
Why is this silly ad ridiculous, Eric?
Simple.
The VAWA is bogus and the information to create such an entity is bogus.
Why support a bogus entity whether or not men may/can take advantage of it?
Why not just support the existing laws that dealt with this stuff from a constitutionally criminally correct posture as opposed to taking it out of criminal law (innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt) to one of civil law that takes what used to be criminal law into the realm of civil law that states one is guilty with the prepoderance of evidence (more that 51%)?
It is stupid to support such crap. In fact, I am ashamed of the “signers/supporters” of this crap!
If you want to support socialism and communism (where MOST of this crap came from), fine. Just state what you believe and don’t hide behind the crap.
If you want to support the Republic of the United States of America, don’t listen to politicians (not a single one has acknowledged that we are really a Republic and not a deomocracy). Not one has acknowledged that we are a republic in over 50 years or so…
We can take back our Republic.
Will you?
Eric
Eric@FIRMncp.com