VAWA:
Radar’s latest report “An Epidemic of Civil Rights Abuses:
Ranking of States’ Domestic Violence Laws” provides
Americans with a new perspective on VAWA: we treat the average terrorist better
than we treat the average husband facing a false allegation of spousal abuse.
It is now well-known
(but often ignored by beltway candy-men) that VAWA (the Violence Against Women
Act) is used more commonly as a tactical divorce weapon than for its intended
purpose. We also know that physical
family altercations are initiated slightly more often by women than men, but
almost zero federal funds are used to help men facing a violent spouse.
Some states have
lowered the bar of law so low that anything is considered “domestic violence”,
such as a simple statement of fear with no supporting narrative or even one
whit of evidence. A 1995 study in
This convenient weapon
of mass destruction powers the feminist divorce industry. It has lead to massive violations of the
fundamental civil right for good men to be in the family and to parent their
own children, and placed cities-full of innocent children at risk for serious
child abuse (about 66% of which is committed by natural mothers who have
serious chemical abuse or mental disorders).
RADAR estimates that
approximately two to three persons are outrageously evicted from their families
every year, without so much as a reasonable evidence-based trial. Half of these do not even include an
allegation of violence.
The latest RADAR report
makes an astonishing finding: there are no states where domestic violence laws
have a “low risk” of being abused.
Seven states have laws
placing them at “extremely high risk” of abuse:
Twenty-six states fall into the “high risk” category:
Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, District of Columbia, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North
Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South
Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, and West
Virginia.
High risk states incorporate statutory elements that act
to replace the well-settled standard of probable cause with reference to a
specific action, with vague or subjective psychological idioms such as “fear”
or “harassment” or “stalking”. Within
these paradigms, law tiptoes on eggshells around unreliable and uncontestable
“feelings” of an alleger. Theoretical
appearance or happenstance operates the machinery of law such that virtually
anything can be construed to fall under the purview of VAWA.
Moderate-risk states include
RADAR’s report does not incorporate factors that increase
the risk of statutory abuses, such as the implementation of police and court
training programs by women’s abuse centers.
One example is in
Chief Widera bases this law enforcement approach by citing
data narrowly claiming that 73% of victims are women. Widera fails to recognize that this data is
based on injuries (who got hurt), rather than looking to probable cause (who
was the instigator of family violence).
There is little question that police must arrest the initiator of
violence, not the person who in defending him or herself used reasonable and
necessary force to win (and therefore end) a spousal altercation. Police departments that ignore probable cause
and only blame men are covering for and instigating organized domestic violence
by feminists.
Restraining orders are commonly issued on an ex-parte basis without any evidentiary
hearing, in some jurisdictions on the basis of nothing more than an application
faxed to the courthouse.
Matching RADAR risk rankings against rankings provided in
the Children’s Defense Fund “Kids Count” report shows a correlation between
VAWA abuses of marital rights and the well-being of children. States in RADAR’s “High Risk” category also
tend to have the highest child
poverty rates [i].
In summary, VAWA is the framework providing substantial
incentives that empower nuts and feminists to manipulate the legal system for
every prurient purpose imaginable, deeply violating the civil and social rights
of their targets:
Judge Rucker Smith of
Following a short trial in May 2006, Judge Smith was
acquitted. Speaking to the news media afterwards, he explained, “For someone to
falsely accuse another out of anger and vengeance silences the voices of the
many real victims.”[ii]
However, most restraining orders are issued within the
context of a divorce or child custody proceeding, in which large sums of money
are are literally “up for grabs”. In my
nineteen years of experience as a student of the divorce industry, I have found
that the vast majority of these allegations are applied as ad motem litem tactical weapons (a term which holds the legal
action as suspect due to the timing of the filing), rather than as cause for
dissolution or because of a real action on the part of the alleged abuser.
VAWA is not a well-crafted mechanism geared towards
achieving its stated purpose. It is
truly a drive-by bomb, most often misused to irresponsibly destroy marriage
according to anti-family feminist dicta.
The downstream costs of this senseless destruction of
marriage are much greater than often recognized. Our extremely high social entitlement
expenditures are weakening our ability to fight the war on terror (feminists
strongly oppose war because it immediately brings focus to massive fraud and
waste of their very large entitlements).
Congress must recognize this fact and place a high
priority on replacing VAWA with
narrowly-tailored gender-neutral legislation crafted to intervene
quickly and effectively where real spousal violence exists or is imminent. And, the American Bar Association has an
explicit duty to change its positions on family violence law to meet
long-settled standards of proof and evidence.
Until VAWA is reformed, men should wisely avoid settling
in states and cities where their civil rights are likely to be abused.
-------------------------------------------------
David
R. Usher is Senior Policy Analyst for the True Equality Network, and
President of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, Missouri
Coalition