U Not Gonna Like This

The VAWA first from a blog at Mens News Daily:

Ironically, curbing workplace violence against women was the initial push behind VAWA. That rational allowed VAWA to be passed under the Interstate Commerce Act, which provides federal funding and oversight in overcoming obstacles to interstate trade.

When the multibillion-dollar VAWA was first passed in 1994 under President Bill Clinton, critics pointed out that relatively few women experienced job-related “assaults and violent acts,” a key category used in arguing for federal protection under the commerce act. In fact, only about 2 percent of all assaults and violent acts involved women. Incidents in this category include “violence by persons, self- inflicted injury and assaults by animals.” The figure remains about the same today.

and an article located at Human Events Online:

Violence Against Women Act Abuses Rights of Men
by Phyllis Schlafly
Posted May 15, 2006

In January, President George W. Bush signed the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act without public debate, even though evidence has surfaced that Congress should have examined before the law was extended.

The act, which costs nearly $1 billion per year, is one of the major ways former President Bill Clinton bought the support of radical feminists.

Why Republicans passed this bill is a mystery. It's unlikely that the feminists who will spend all that money will ever vote Republican.

Passage of the Violence Against Women Act was a major priority of the American Bar Association for whose members it is a cash cow. More than 300 courts have implemented specialized docket processes to address the cases stemming from the act, more than 1 million women have obtained protection orders from the courts, and more than 660 new state laws pertaining to domestic violence have been passed, all of which produce profitable work for lawyers.


A recently issued ABA document called "Tool for Attorneys" provides lawyers with a list of suggestive questions to encourage their clients to make domestic-violence charges. Knowing that a woman can get a restraining order against the father of her children in an ex parte proceeding without any evidence, and that she will never be punished for lying, domestic-violence accusations have become a major tactic for securing sole child custody.


Voluminous documentation to dispel the feminist myths that created and have perpetuated the act are spelled out in seven reports just issued by an organization called Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting, or RADAR, and in an 80-page report called "Family Violence in America" published by the American Coalition for Fathers & Children.

For example, it is a shocker to discover that acts don't have to be violent to be punished under the definition of domestic violence. Name-calling, put-downs, shouting, negative looks or gestures, ignoring opinions, or constant criticizing can all be legally labeled domestic violence.


The only web site so far to openly question the constitutionality of the VAWA has been Men's News Daily. Hopefuly I can dig up more information about this piece of legislation and whether if it is indeed unconstitutional...