Glenn Sacks and A330

This is all from the latest Glenn Sacks newsletter. You can subscribe by clicking here.

Excerpts:

James Hays of the Coalition of Fathers and Families New York, which is sponsoring the New York Shared Parenting Bill, informed me yesterday that your faxes have completely shut down the fax machines of the 16 members of the Assembly's Children & Families Committee. The committee members have asked us to stop, and we complied immediately.

Five thousand of you have faxed or emailed the committee members in support of A330, the shared parenting bill. FaFNY wants to deliver your letters personally to the committee members this week, and has asked that you continue filling out the letters form. To write to the committee members with your support for this bill, click here.

This bill has been locked up in committee for 12 years! The vote on the bill was set for March 28 but has been postponed until April 4. This may be a maneuver designed to allow the bills' opponents--which include the New York Chapter of the National Organization for Women--to make their impact felt. New York is a battleground state for shared parenting and fatherhood. Again, to support the bill, click here.

New York NOW Defends Mothers' Veto over Fathers' Fatherhood

Pappas wrote a revealing letter to a shared parenting activist explaining her opposition to A330.

In opposition to A330 Pappas writes:

"Many women who are victims of domestic violence and women who have had to endure watching their children be abused, would disagree with [the bill]. Many women have said, 'forced joint custody sent my children right into the arms of their abusive father.' We believe that joint custody should be agreed upon by both parties and if one party disagrees, then there is usually a good reason. A woman who is victim of violence should not have to be victimized again by the courts. This is what forced joint custody does" (emphasis in original).

The old domestic violence bugaboo. A330 only applies to fit parents--abused women would get sole custody.

Pappas' views amount to this--if mom wants a dad to remain a dad, fine, but if not, too bad. Feminist family law proponents essentially seek to give mothers veto power over fathers' fatherhood.

Your Tax Dollars at Work

The New York State Coalition Against Domestic Violence's opposition to A330 is a fine example of your tax dollars at work--the coalition receives government funding, probably from the Violence Against Women Act.

One of the things about VAWA which I find the most objectionable is the fact it results in state-funded radical feminist lobbying. Whenever our movement tries to bring fathers and children together, these groups are always among our most vocal and influential opponents.

In California, for example, they opposed AB 1307, the California Shared Parenting Bill, and were instrumental in defeating it last Spring. These groups were also among the leading opponents of Gary LaMusga, a heroic father who fought an eight-year battle all the way up to the California Supreme Court to prevent his two boys from being moved out of state. To learn more about the LaMusga case, click here.

Are You a High Earner Paying Child Support?

Family law reform activist Josh Gonze is looking for high-earners who are paying child support. He says his state has no ceiling on child support and that he is "searching for published legal precedent where a court placed a limit on child support on the grounds that the statute produces excessively high child support." Those interested can respond to Gonze at reformfamilylaw@hotmail.com.

Breaking the Science

I have added a new site under the Links heading: Breaking the Science.

The site "is about the broken "science" that's being used to create law and drive social policy" and currently includes a large section on domestic violence.

Report: Men need some help - NH

Concord Monitor

Report: Men need some help
Trouble areas: health, schools, legal system

Excerpts:

In the group's first report, New Hampshire's Commission on the Status of Men recommends that the state devote more resources to correcting the gender biases men face in divorce and domestic violence cases, as well as promoting the role of fathers in families.

The commission, the first of its kind in the country, was established in 2002 as a counterpart to the state-funded women's commission. Most of its seven members have some background in social welfare, mental health or family law.

Much of the report is concerned with what commission members describe as the biases leveled against men in divorces, child support arrangements and custody disputes. In research and in meetings held over the last year, the commission found that many fathers feel they are treated unfairly in family court disputes. Many complained of judges who automatically side with mothers, child support guidelines that leave the father with little income, and a general lack of understanding of the benefits of a father-child relationship.

Citing numerous studies that show children who spend time with their fathers are better-adjusted, the report recommends that the state provide funding to the men's commission so it can launch a public awareness campaign to support bringing fathers and children together. The commission does not receive any public money.

The report also discusses domestic violence. Men told the commission that some women accuse men of assault so that the judge will award the woman custody of the couple's children. Judges tend to take the woman's side, the report states, which can make it difficult for the man to dispute the charges later.

The commission also studied the traditional assumption that all domestic violence is caused by men, and it found studies suggesting that women assault men just as often. Domestic violence education and advocate training programs tend to compound the bias by referring to perpetrators of violence in male terms.

"Efforts to get relief from the domestic violence problem have been unduly influenced by special interests who have successfully sold the problem as solely a responsibility of males over the years," the report states. "The whole truth on this emotionally charged dichotomy isn't being fully revealed."

Jim Crow Days For Men

Jim Crow Days For Men
by Carey Roberts

Excerpts:

Abuse of these orders is not an isolated problem. In Massachusetts, about 30,000 domestic orders are issued every year. One analysis by the Massachusetts Trial Court found that fewer than half of these restraining orders involved even an allegation of physical abuse.

Another troubling piece of this law -- clearly unconstitutional -- is its “mandatory-arrest” provisions. Let’s say you get into a marital tiff, your wife or girlfriend calls 911, and the cops come running. But in the meantime, things cool down and she asks police to leave. Fine, but don’t forget your toothbrush, because you will be going out in handcuffs.

It’s no surprise that this $1 billion-a-year anti-father juggernaut eventually takes its toll on families. Highlighting the fact that almost 40% of our nation’s children now live in a home without their own father, Schlafly urges Congress to “conduct an investigation to find out how much of this fatherlessness is the result of bad government in the hands of a small radical group that is biased against marriage and fathers.”

Related article: Time to Defund Feminist Pork — the Hate-Men Law by Phyllis Schlafly

Campaign Update: PBS BOMBSHELL - Glenn Sacks

This is directly from an email:

PBS Portrays Known Child Abuser as Hero:Juvenile Court, CPS, Family Court Records Detail Mother's Physical Abuse

Sadia Loeliger, one of the central characters in Breaking the Silence: Children's Stories, is portrayed by the filmmakers as a heroic mom. The filmmakers spotlight and applaud her fight to gain custody of her daughter Fatima, who is also featured.

After the film's debut I was contacted by Dr. Scott Loeliger, Sadia's ex-husband, and we are now revealing, for the first time publicly, Sadia's long, documented history of child abuse--a history which the film's producers chose to ignore despite repeated warnings.

We are launching Round 2 of our campaign against Breaking the Silence today--read the shocking Loeliger revelations here and then return to this E-newsletter for instructions on how you can participate.

Round 2 of the Campaign Begins

To date, we have generated over 4,000 calls and letters to PBS protesting Breaking the Silence. Round 2 begins now--I want all of you to join our campaign by clicking here.

There have been many indications, some of which I am not at liberty to discuss, that our protests have concerned PBS. The film, which aired on some PBS affiliates on October 20 and will air on many others in the coming weeks, is a direct assault on fatherhood. The film portrays fathers as batterers and child molesters who steal children from their mothers. We want PBS to allow both sides of this issue to be heard.

Again, I want all of you to join our campaign by clicking here.

Our Side Gets Chance to Speak on Houston PBS

To its credit, Houston PBS followed through on its commitment to allow our side to air its view of Breaking the Silence: Children's Stories and Parental Alienation Syndrome on its round-table discussion show The Connection on Friday, October 28 at 8 PM CST and again on Sunday, October 30 at 5 PM CST.

The show featured Dr. Reena Sommer, an expert on Parental Alienation Syndrome, as well as Andy Sperling, director of Fathers for Equal Rights in Houston. The opposition was represented by Thomas H. Burton III, General Counsel for the nonprofit organization Justice for Children.

Burton labeled Parental Alienation Syndrome "junk science" and his group's website calls claims of PAS an "unethical, immoral" tactic.

According to Barbara Sweet of Help Stop PAS Inc, our side's points came across loud and clear.

Thanks to Sweet, who has done a lot of good work on this issue, as well as to Sommer and Sperling.

Also, I suggest you commend Ken Lawrence, the Director of Programming for PBS of Houston, for his evenhandedness--to write him, click here.

To read a more detailed description of the Houston broadcast, click here.

I'm disappointed and a little surprised at the position Justice for Children is taking on PAS. I had one of their leaders, Donnalee Sarda, on His Side with Glenn Sacks earlier this year, and while Donna and I certainly don't see eye to eye on everything, she seems much more reasonable than what is posted on their website.

I receive a steady stream of letters from target parents of PAS, and I told some of the stories I was able to investigate in the first part of my co-authored column PBS Declares War on Dads (World Net Daily, 10/20/05). To deny that alienation exists, or that children can buy into the alienation and align themselves with the alienating parent against the target parent, seems to me to be an intellectually untenable position.

However, this is certainly not to say that claims of PAS are not misused--in my co-authored column PBS' Breaking the Silence: Family Law in the Funhouse Mirror (Albany Times Union, 10/20/05, Norfolk Virginian-Pilot, 10/24/05) I noted:

"To be fair, it is true that there are fathers who have alienated their own children through their abuse or personality defects, and who unfairly blame their children's mothers by claiming PAS. Yet parental alienation is a common, well-documented phenomenon. For example, a longitudinal study published by the American Bar Association in 2003 followed 700 'high conflict' divorce cases over a 12 year period, and found that elements of PAS were present in the vast majority of them."

To hear Sommer and Judy Jones of Help Stop PAS Inc on His Side, see The Lohstroh Case: Alienating Mother Pushes 10 Year-Old Boy to Kill Father (10/31/04).

Mental Health Professionals Condemn PBS's Breaking the Silence, Endorse Campaign

Last E-newsletter we announced that the American Psychological Association Says Breaking the Silence Misrepresents Its Position on PAS. Over two dozen mental health professionals have now endorsed our campaign. To read their statement, click here.

Breaking the Silence: More Credibility Problems
American Psychological Association Says Breaking the Silence Misrepresents Its Position on PAS

A spokeswoman for the American Psychological Association says that PBS's new documentary Breaking the Silence: Children's Stories distorts the APA's position on Parental Alienation Syndrome. The film criticizes PAS, which arises when one parent tries to turn his or her children against the other parent during a divorce or separation.

In the documentary Joan Meier, a professor of clinical law at George Washington University and one of the film's chief spokespersons, states that PAS "has been thoroughly debunked by the American Psychological Association." Connecticut Public Television, one of the film's producers, put out a press release promoting the film which stated that PAS had been "discredited by the American Psychological Association."

However, according to Rhea K. Farberman, Executive Director of Public and Member Communications of the American Psychological Association, these claims are "incorrect" and "inaccurate." Farberman says that the APA "does not have an official position on parental alienation syndrome--pro or con." She adds:

"The Connecticut Public Television press release is incorrect. I have notified both Connecticut Public Television and their PR firm of the inaccuracy in their press release."

To learn more, click here.

Leader of Domestic Violence Shelter Which Helped Fund Breaking the Silence Criticizes Film

Calling Breaking the Silence imbalanced and focused on extreme cases, Pam Kallsen, executive director of the Marjaree Mason Center, a domestic violence shelter in Fresno, California, contacted her local PBS affiliate and told them she was distressed that her shelter's name and logo were associated with the program.

Kallsen had been a staunch supporter of the film project, even helping to secure funding for it, but says she changed her mind after seeing the film.

To learn more, click here.

PBS Internal Memo Tells Affiliates to Stonewall Protesters

A source at PBS sent us this confidential internal memo on Friday. The memo is an instruction sheet that PBS's national office has dispensed to their affiliates to instruct them as to how to deal with the thousands of people who have called or written them to protest Breaking the Silence. As you'll notice, the common theme of this memo is to stonewall protesters.

Manipulating Children into Making or Corroborating False Charges

An important element of Parental Alienation Syndrome is the way children can be manipulated into making or corroborating false charges. Ironically, the Los Angeles Times just published this article--McMartin Pre-Schooler: 'I Lied': A long-delayed apology from one of the accusers in the notorious McMartin Pre-School molestation case--which could serve as a textbook for the method. Kyle Zirpolo, now 30 years-old, writes:

"[As a child] I remember them asking extremely uncomfortable questions about whether Ray touched me and about all the teachers and what they did--and I remember telling them nothing happened to me. I remember them almost giggling and laughing, saying, 'Oh, we know these things happened to you. Why don't you just go ahead and tell us? Use these dolls if you're scared.'

Male Domestic Violence Victim Sues over Being Denied Access to Services

My friend Marc Angelucci, Esq. is at it again, bringing a California lawsuit on behalf of a gentleman who was badly abused by his wife and repeatedly refused services by domestic violence treatment providers. The case has several interesting twists--see Men's Rights Group: Victim Support Only For Women or watch the video here. To write to CBS13 and commend them for their coverage of this important issue, click here.

Similar suits have been brought against California shelters in the past--to learn more, see my column Plaintiff in Suit Against LA DV Shelters is Right to Demand Services for Abused Men (Los Angeles Daily News, 6/12/03).

Have You Been the Victim of a Child Support Error?

If you feel you have been billed for child support payments that you believe you do not owe, or if you believe you have experienced a questionable practice by a child support agency, Jane Spies and the National Family Justice Association are conducting a study on this issue and want to hear from you. Click here for more information.

Best Wishes,

Glenn Sacks

GlennSacks.com HisSide.com

A new way to treat children of divorce - NH

The Telegraph Online

Excerpts:

Divorcing couples with children will find a change of procedure in New Hampshire’s court system starting Oct. 1.

A new law aimed at making divorce less hostile allows judges to refer parents to mediation when they are unable to agree on how much time their children will spend with either mom or dad as part of broader custody issues.

The law, however, would not apply to cases where domestic violence has been an issue.

Lawyers who deal in divorces and other family issues hope the law will encourage parents to settle custody disputes themselves by setting up a plan for shared child-rearing responsibilities rather than having a judge impose a top-down solution.
It could be a less costly and quicker resolution of custody issues and a happier outcome for children who are the unhappy bystanders in a marital breakup.

The law, approved by the Legislature as part of a bill called the Parental Rights and Responsibilities Act, is the product of a task force that studied ways to reform divorce and other aspects of family law in the state.

Under the law, lawyers and others familiar with divorce proceedings hope parents, through mediation, will work cooperatively to set up visiting schedules, holiday participation, school attendance and living arrangements that best meet their kids’ needs rather than their own.

New research shows bias in restraining orders

MensNewsDaily

Excerpts:

209A abuse protection orders grant the “victim” enormous power over their alleged abusers. Provisions include removal from one’s own home, granting of immediate custody of minor children to the alleged victim with a consequent assignment of child support, and the threat of 2 ½ years in jail and $10,000 fine for any violation of the order, including the no-contact provisions. It’s important to understand that a 209A order taken against a father, besides removing all legal and physical custodial rights to his children, also extends the no-contact provisions to those children. Any contact he may have with his children, direct or third-party or even unintentional, holds him criminally accountable to the same punishments as mentioned above. This is why a 209A restraining order is referred to as the nuclear first-strike in the commencement of a divorce action.

The study also analyzed court response with respect to granting of custody of minor children when the litigants are parents. Mothers were 288% more likely than fathers to receive custody of children as a direct provision of the 209A order. However, in the few cases where fathers received custody, which was only at ex parte hearings, none of the fathers secured long-term custody of their children at follow-up hearings.

The message couldn’t be clearer. If you are a father suffering domestic violence from your wife (or otherwise mother of your children) do not try to use the legal system to gain protection for yourself and/or your children—there is a high risk you will lose your children regardless of the circumstances of the abuse in the household.

VAWA: Making Divorce Easy, Profitable and Fun

realitycheck.org


Excerpts:

The linchpin of the VAWA marriage wrecking-ball is a series of state-level laws enacted at the behest of local N.O.W. chapters. These laws define “violence” in the broadest possible terms. For example, the Illinois Domestic Violence Act defines any action that causes a person to experience “emotional distress” to fall within its umbrella of abuse.

Word is beginning to leak out that VAWA represents a grotesque violation of men’s civil rights. Worse, people are hearing that VAWA is based on a bald-faced lie – that in truth, women commit half of all domestic violence. [www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2005/0629roberts
.html]

Normally Senate hearings feature witnesses who voice the full gamut of opinions. That’s democracy at work. But at Tuesday’s Judiciary Committee hearings, only hand-picked apparatchiks who were willing to spout the VAWA party line were invited to speak.

A few men who claimed to be DV victims had requested to testify at the hearings, but they were sent away since obviously they were liars. In politically-correct society, only people who tell the truth enjoy the right to free speech.

And in the House of Representatives, VAWA operatives plan to skip the committee hearings altogether. They plan to bundle VAWA into a larger Department of Justice bill and steam-roller a floor vote by the end of the month. That’s warp speed by Washington standards.

VAWA Debate Heightens

Senate hearings are being held today in reference to the reauthorization of Violence Against Women Act. The committee has refused to hear testimony of those against the act. There is a lot of news out there about this so what follows is an ad hoc synopsis of the latest (these are only excerpts from the articles, please click on the article title to read it in full):

FAMILY GROUPS ASSAIL SENATE VAWA HEARINGS :

Washington, DC., Jul. 18/05/TRC Media/ -- The upcoming Senate hearings on the Violence Against Women Act are drawing fire from a broad range of groups who charge the July 19 hearings will provide the Senate Judiciary Committee members with incomplete and biased information about the proposed law.

This past Friday those groups released a letter to the Judiciary Committee, calling for it to "receive testimony from a diversity of witnesses, including male victims of domestic violence, women who can testify to the harm VAWA has done to them and their families, and researchers whose work is based on scientific principles rather than ideology."

Women are also criticizing the proposed VAWA legislation. In her June 29 article Fox News columnist Wendy McElroy condemned the discriminatory nature of VAWA: "tax-funded domestic violence shelters and services assist women and routinely turn away men." And in her July 1 column, Kathleen Parker charged that VAWA has "demonized men and made women into martyrs and victims."

RADAR, a group concerned about domestic violence bias, recently released a report that concludes, "VAWA tramples on persons' basic human rights, undermines the family, and makes a mockery of fairness and justice." RADAR calls on lawmakers to "make sure VAWA helps all victims of domestic violence." (www.mediaradar.org/RADAR_Analysis_of_VAWA.pdf). Research shows that women are just as likely as men to commit domestic violence. "Family violence is an important social problem," Baskerville notes, "but ignoring male victims leaves half the problem unsolved."

VAWA: Information for Our Federal Public Policymakers :

The data below is not from some mens rights or anti womens rights group. In fact, the following data is on page 28 & 29 of the U.S. Department of Justice sponsored research report, Full Report of the Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women.

The authors of this report inform our public policy makers that violence is more widespread and injurious to womens and mens health than previously thought an important finding for legislators, policymakers, and interventions planers.

Despite the reality of male victimization our public policy makers submit only the Violence Against Women Act that demonstrates little to no concern about the victimization of men.

Perhaps they just lack the facts. This is your opportunity to help them. Please FAX this to:
Arlen Specter FAX 1-202-228-1229
Orrin G. Hatch FAX 1-202-224-6331
Joseph R. Biden, Jr FAX 1-202-224-0139

It is not necessary that half of the victims be men in order for them to have access to equitable services and funding. Further, it is not necessary to minimize, marginalize or ignore male victimization in order to protect female victims from abuse.

Why Congress Must Reject VAWA :

Republicans will pass VAWA anyway --- because they haven't taken the time to develop solid pro-marriage social policy. In the short run, we must expect Republicans to require Senator Joe Biden to effect modifications making VAWA gender neutral. Republicans can vote for VAWA and the stand up for the 14th Amendment by insisting that the VAWA be made gender neutral. At minimum, funding must be provided to help men and children living in marriages where the wife is dangerous or abusive, as called for by the Safe Homes For Families and Children Coalition

VAWA is unconstitutional on its face --- just as unconstitutional as a Violence Against Whites Act would be. No court in America would permit the existence of a multi-billion-dollar federal program pretending that violence is solely a black-on-white issue and makes sure it always looks that way regardless of case facts. It is a long held tenet that law enforcement must be blind to race and sex except of course unless it has the letters VAWA in front of it.

The National Institute of Justice and the Center for Disease Control estimates that 1.3 million women and 835,000 men are the victims of domestic violence each year. According to this NIJ/CDC survey, 37% of the domestic violence is against men. 100% of the federal domestic violence funding under the Violence Against Women Act is to be used for domestic violence against women. 100% of the federal domestic violence research funds disbursed to several federal agencies is devoted to domestic.

VAWA Renewal Provides Opportunity to Stop Destruction of Innocent Cops Careers :

Under the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 individuals, including police officers and armed forces personnel, are prohibited from possessing a firearm if they are subject to a restraining order issued at the behest of a spouse or an intimate partner. The 1996 Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban expanded this prohibition to bar officers and service personnel from carrying weapons as part of their jobs. As a result, most police officers who are hit with restraining orders lose their careers.

Were restraining orders issued as a result of a reasonable proof of guilt, the two laws might make sense. However, according to Elaine Epstein, former president of the Massachusetts Womens Bar Association, restraining orders are doled out "like candy" to virtually all who apply," and that "in virtually all cases, no notice, meaningful hearing, or impartial weighing of evidence is to be had."

A study conducted by Massachusetts courts revealed that the majority of restraining orders did not even involve an allegation of violence. According to family law attorney Lisa Scott of Seattle, Washington, the woman saying she feels afraid' of her husband is usually enough. Men have no way to defend themselves against these accusations. Most judges grant restraining orders to any woman who applies for one, and often do so in an assembly-line fashion.

Former Torrance, California police officer John Brumbaugh recently won a seven-year legal battle after an ex-girlfriend falsely accused him of battery. Though Brumbaughs conviction was overturned and his name finally cleared, the false charges cost him his career as a police officer and several hundred thousand dollars in legal expenses and lost wages and benefits.

The Violence Against Women Act expires in September and legislation to renew it for five years was recently introduced by Senators Joseph Biden (D-DE), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), and Arlen Specter (R-PA). In hearings beginning on July 19, the Senate Judiciary Committee will consider various amendments to include in the laws reauthorization.

The Committee should repeal the Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban, and provide that men with restraining orders against them can still possess department-issued firearms for the purposes of their employment.

The principle of ensuring that police officers are of solid character is a good one. What is lacking in current law is a reasonable standard for punitive action. The findings of police department investigations and criminal convictions are reasonable standards. The issuance of restraining orders is not.

After the Facts, Domestic Violence Laws Still Discriminate Against Men :

The Return Of A Feminist Nutbar :

Did Phil Hartman Die from Congressionally-Sanctioned Discrimination?

Scream Queens Fuel Nightmarish VAWA System

Time to Dispose of Radical Feminist Pork :

If Republicans are looking for a way to return to their principles of limited government and reduced federal spending, a good place to start would be rejection of the coming reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act sponsored by Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del. It's a mystery why Republicans continue to put a billion dollars a year of taxpayers' money into the hands of radical feminists who use it to preach their anti-marriage and anti-male ideology, promote divorce, corrupt the family court system, and engage in liberal political advocacy.

The act refuses to provide any help whatsoever for male victims of domestic violence. Let's hear from professor Martin Fiebert of California State University at Long Beach who compiled a bibliography of 170 scholarly investigations, 134 empirical studies and 36 analyses, which demonstrate that women are almost as physically abusive toward their partners as men.

The act encourages women to make false allegations, and then petition for full child custody and a denial of all fathers' rights to see their own children.

The act promotes the unrestrained use of restraining orders, which family courts issue on the woman's say-so. This powerful weapon (according to the Illinois Bar Journal) is "part of the gamesmanship of divorce" and virtually guarantees that fathers are expelled from the lives of their own children.

A woman seeking help from an act-funded center is not offered any options except to leave her husband, divorce him, accuse him of being a criminal and have her sons targeted as suspects in future crimes. The Violence Against Women Act ideology rejects joint counseling, reconciliation and saving marriages.

It's time to stop the act from spending any more taxpayers' money to promote family dissolution and fatherless children.

Also, Silly Seattle always has lots to say about VAWA. Other posts on this blog is reference to VAWA can be seen here, here, and various entries on this page.

Finally, though I am reticent to do this as I don't feel you should have to ascribe to one political ideology or the other in order to see how screwed up our government is in its treatment of men and families, a new site has been established called DROP the GOP. On the site they currently are listing three issues: VAWA: A four-letter word that means tyranny, Stealing our Children for Profit and Drugging our Children by Force. Through the site (were you a confirmed Republican contributor) you can request a refund for all of you contributions and they provide the relevant links to do so. Here is the intro for their VAWA page:

One of our major concerns today is the introduction of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) of 2005 by U.S. Senators Joe Biden (D-DE), Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Arlen Specter (R-PA). This action conclusively proves that both of our major political are anti-family and hold no respect for our civil rights or the United States Constitution. There are no words strong enough to express both the heartbreak and outrage over this betrayal of the promises to uphold and protect our family values has caused.

It must be mentioned that most of the funding for VAWA goes to the Lawyers and Social Workers whose organizations support the DNC and their anti-family progressive agenda. The GOP's support of VAWA is in effect forcing Republicans to fund the very people and agenda we have worked so hard to vote out of Congress and the White House with our tax dollars. That is intolerable!

After eleven years as law, The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) has done little more than destroy families and fund social engineering schemes unrelated to intimate partner violence. This dysfunctional law leaves violent criminals free to abuse at will, but inflicts brutalities unworthy of a free society on innocent victims of false allegations of domestic violence.

The plain truth is VAWA is unconstitutional. Nothing in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States of America, including the Commerce Clause, authorizes the Congress to regulate and control personal relations between individuals. Further, the blatant and undeniable gender bias seen on the face of VAWA is discrimination against a subject class, men, in direct violation of Section 1 of Amendment XIV of the Constitution notwithstanding pious statements to the contrary by uninformed Senators.

Irrespective of your political leanings, there is a lot of good information on the site. If you are a disgusted contributor to the Republican party you might seriously consider requesting a refund. Sadly, it appears the only way to really get the attention of our legislators is to hit them in pocketbook.

Also, to contact the legislators directly:

Sen Joseph Biden, Delaware:
1105 N. Market St. Suite 2000 Wilmington, DE 19801-1233
Phone: 302-573-6345 Fax: 302-573-6351

Sen Orrin Hatch, Utah:
104 Hart Office Building Washington, DC 20510
Tel: (202) 224-5251 Fax: (202) 224-6331

Sen Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania:
711 Hart Building Washington, DC 20510
Tel: 202-224-4254 Fax: Fax: 215-597-0406

Destruction of family a step toward fascism

Journal Gazette 07/05/2005 Destruction of family a step toward fascism

Excerpts:

This family dissolution has been gradual and incremental, occurring almost without our notice. First, we demonized men and made women into martyrs and victims. We didn’t do this halfheartedly, but with gusto. We codified the concept “men bad, women good” with laws that gave women supremacy over men: child custody awards in divorce; acceptance of drive-by, sperm-bank impregnation and single motherhood; and finally, special status in new laws such as the “Violence Against Women Act.”

Violence against women, though indefensible, is presumably no more unacceptable a crime than violence against men. Nevertheless, we created a special law just for women?– funded by taxpayers?– that institutionalized female victimhood and cemented the image of man as predator.

Then, we turned child-rearing over to day-care workers and public institutions where parental control over the moral content of their children’s lives has been diluted. From sex education to diversity training, public educators increasingly have decided what and when children should learn, sometimes without parental approval.

Finally, we “advance” toward the “de-institutionalization” of marriage, as David Blankenhorn (president of the Institute of American Values and author of “Fatherless America”) recently described the move toward same-sex marriage. As same-sex marriage becomes law in other countries, and perhaps, inevitably, here, power is being shifted from the natural family to the state.

Today’s family portrait as a collage of individual snapshots is not a happy or promising picture: no fathers; single?– busy and stressed?– mothers; no-fault divorce and “marriage” that means everything and therefore nothing; children depressed and dosed in dumbed-down schools where the least common denominator dictates curriculum.

In such a state, someone has to take charge, for better or worse. When the state takes over, you can bet on worse.

A Government Program is No Substitute for a Bear-Hug

RedState.org

A Government Program is No Substitute for a Bear-Hug
By: Carey Roberts

In this Father's Day essay, Carey Roberts analyzes how well-intentioned government programs have contributed to the rise of fatherlessness.

For the better part of the last 40 years, policy experts and childrearing gurus relegated fathers to the parental minor leagues. Dads were seen as well-intentioned but inept Homer Simpsons who might be able to teach junior how to swing a baseball bat, but little else.

But kids see it differently. Mary Kay Shanley's book, When I Think About My Father, recites these love-words from Amanda, age 6: "At the end of the day when I go to bed, Daddy tucks me in. We talk together about our day. He reads me a story to help me sleep. We pray together. That is my favorite part."

Research confirms with Amanda's endorsement of fatherhood. It turns out that kids with hands-on dads have greater levels of self-esteem and social competence, get higher grades in school, and do better on a broad range of social and psychological indicators. Even in high-crime, inner-city neighborhoods, over 90% of children who grow up in two-parent families avoid becoming delinquents.

Sadly, government social welfare programs have a dismal track record in this area. It's not that they have just ignored the essential role of fathers. The problem is, they have offered inducements to actually remove dads from the lives of their kids.

This pattern can be traced back to the 1960s. Under Lyndon Johnson's Great Society, welfare benefits came with a catch: first, kick dad out of the house. As a result of this exclusionary "man-in-the-house" rule, the number of children growing up in fatherless homes rose dramatically.

Before long, people began to notice that poor fathers were "abandoning" their children. So beginning in 1975, the Congress passed a series of child support laws that targeted so-called "deadbeat" dads.

The reforms may have been well-intentioned, but they missed the mark on one key point: many low-income dads couldn't pay their child support because they were on Skid Row. But that fact didn't stop the federal Office for Child Support Enforcement, with a budget of $4 billion, from hounding indigent fathers and sending thousands to debtor's jail each year.

But the government was not done with its task of dismembering the traditional family.
In 1994 the Congress passed the Violence Against Women Act, a $1 billion-a-year feminist windfall that claims to combat domestic violence. One of VAWA's tools is the issuance of restraining orders.

The dirty little secret that feminists never like to admit is that they have stealthily broadened the scope of violence. For example, the National Victim Assistance Academy came up with this all-encompassing definition: "Domestic violence is a pattern of coercive behavior designed to exert power and control over a person in an intimate relationship through the use of intimidating, threatening, harmful, or harassin behavior."

As a result of this definitional sleight-of-hand, "domestic violence becomes whatever the woman says it is," according to columnist Phyllis Schlafly.

So when these "battered" mothers seek a restraining order, they also petition for divorce and custody of the children. Once again, the kids are left without a father.

The effects of these federal programs are predictable -- and tragic. In 1960, five million American children lived in fatherless homes. By 1980, that number more than doubled to 11 million. And now, 16 million children live only with their mothers.

The National Fatherhood Initiative issued this sobering warning: "Children who live absent their biological fathers are, on average, at least two to three times more likely to be poor, to use drugs, to experience educational, health, emotional, and behavioral problems, to be victims of child abuse, and to engage in criminal behavior."

So consider the 16 million boys and girls who go to bed each night without getting a bear-hug from daddy, and it's easy to see why a 1999 Gallup poll found that 72% of Americans believe that "the physical absence of the father from the home is the most significant problem facing America."

On Father's Day, it's traditional to honor our fathers - those home-grown heroes who sacrifice their moments of quiet reflection, their comfort, and even their health to support and protect their families. This coming Sunday I will remember my own dad, thankful for all the good times we spent together.

Perhaps this Father's Day should also be a day of reckoning. It's time to ask, Why does the US taxpayer continue to subsidize government programs, to the tune of billions of dollars a year, that end up separating fathers from their families?

VAWA, VAWA, VAWA

The Violence Against Women Act is certainly the theme for the week - and for good reason, the 2005 version was just introduced in the Senate and will be in the House in the coming days.

The MND Blog has a good post here: VAWA 2005: Time of Decision

RADAR - Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting also has info at their site including Make the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) Gender Inclusive, or Dump It!,
The Institutionalization of Misinformation: VAWA II and Domestic Violence Law Fuels Big Government

More on Domestic Violence

In response to a reader who seemed to be so interested in statistics regarding women and domestic violence, I provide this link:

REFERENCES EXAMINING ASSAULTS BY WOMEN ON THEIR SPOUSES OR MALE PARTNERS: AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

this one

TGB's Links Pages - Domestic Abuse & False Accusations Links

and this one

Disabusing the Definition of Domestic Abuse

VAWA Law Polarizes the Sexes, Weakens the Family

RedState.org

Excerpts:

That process of family and social disintegration is spurred by the Violence Against Women Act - VAWA for short -- the $1 billion-dollar-a-year law that was passed five years ago at the behest of the radical feminists. VAWA comes up for renewal later this year in Congress.

When you look closely, it becomes clear that VAWA has an agenda that reaches far beyond the protection of women.

VAWA-funded educational programs push the time-worn storyline of the violent man and a brutalized woman. But that stereotype is false. The truth is, members of the fairer sex are just as likely to commit domestic violence as men. [www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm]

But once society comes to believe that members of the male sex are a menace to women, it becomes easy to enact laws that strip men of their Constitutional rights of due process and equal treatment under the law.

One of the tools promoted by VAWA is the use of restraining orders. At first blush, the idea sounds common-sensical: a woman who is being abused should be able to get her husband removed from the house.

But in many states, judges crank out restraining orders like Confederate one-dollar bills, not pausing to verify the woman's claims or even to hear the man's side of the story.

A 1995 Massachusetts study found that 60,000 restraining orders were issued each year. In fewer than half of those cases was there even an allegation of physical violence. In the other cases, the woman simply claimed she felt afraid, or maybe there had been a marital spat. [www.salon.com/mwt/feature/1999/10/25/restraining_orders/]

Recently the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court became concerned that this epidemic of restraining orders was fraying the fabric of judicial impartiality. The Court opined that judges must "resist a culture of summarily issuing and extending these orders."

Elaine Epstein, former president of the Massachusetts Bar Association, was even more candid: "Restraining orders are granted to virtually all who apply...In many [divorce] cases, allegations of abuse are now used for tactical advantage."

Tactical advantage? Ms. Epstein was referring to the fact that while hubby is barred from the house, the wife quickly files for a divorce, and cleverly requests temporary custody of the kids. That paves the way for near-automatic award of sole custody once the divorce is finalized.

So last month, family advocates in California set out to challenge these perverse incentives by introducing the Shared Parenting Bill. Their aim was to encourage equal participation of fathers by granting them joint custody of their children in the event of divorce. [http://cspaonline.org/index.php]

Who could ever be against that?

The ladies from NOW, that's who. Their argument? Changing the practice of awarding sole custody to mothers would expose the kids to all manner of abusive dads.

That smear conveniently ignored an interesting fact: it's mothers, not fathers who are far more likely to abuse and neglect their children, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. [http://faq.acf.hhs.gov/cgi-bin/acfrightnow.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_fa qid=70&p_created=1001611491]

So two weeks ago, the California Assembly Judiciary Committee killed the Shared Parenting Bill. And divorced children were rendered fatherless by a spiteful gender stereotype.

Removing Legal Incentives To Lie

The latest article by Wendy McElroy is available at American Daily.com and ifeminists.com.

From the article:

But the false accusations that impact most people are more commonplace. They often occur in the process of divorce, in battles over custody and child support. For years, advocates of fathers' rights have accused the family courts of being "anti-male" and of rubber-stamping women's claims. And, judging by increasing interest in concepts like shared custody, their voices are being heard.

Unfortunately, the sensational headlines along with men's disillusionment are creating something of a backlash against women who make any allegations at all -- true or false. The backlash should be directed against the legal system itself for offering incentives to lie.