Violence Against Women Act
Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2012 10:42 am
It sounds like something that everyone should get behind, after all violence against women is a terrible thing and there should be a law against it.
Oh wait...there is.
States have many laws already, there is also the 1994 Violence Against Women Act that was passed. Now it is up for reauthorization with some interesting addons.
Why do we need more, and why from the Federal Level?
One only has to peruse the bill to see the "why"?
Pandering. Pandering in an election year to various groups that the incumbent Democrat President needs to vote his way. Almost $1 Billion dollars of your money going to a lobby group for "Women's Rights", a back door amnesty program? An illegal alien can make the accusation of domestic violence to get special services and likely even a Visa to stay in the country. Not a conviction, mind you, only the accusation. Special considerations for American Indian women as well as same sex couples. perhaps there are one or two special interest groups that did not get mentioned and don't get money? Oh, and certainly when they are spreading out the money, not much of it is going to actual victims. Most is going to the special interest groups to "research" and "combat" violence against women"
Throughout the bill the reader is give the impression that the legal stance is that all men are potential abusers and all women potential victims. It even goes so far as to bypass due process and require the responding officer to make an arrest to a domestic violence call, even if he sees no evidence of wrong doing. let me give an example where this could be a terrible thing from my own experience.
My girlfriend and I had a new surround sound system put in and were watching a movie (probably a little too loud, but it was only 6PM in the evening). We were cuddled up on the couch, barely dressed and about to to turn off the TV and get busy any minute when there was a pounding on the door and a constant barrage of the door bell. I muted the TV, slipped on my jeans and went to see who it was. it was a male and female LMPD officer.
They told me they were responding to a domestic violence call. I told them they must have the wrong address, but they confirmed that a neighbor called in complaining of the sounds of someone getting beaten up and screaming. Once the officers were allowed to enter my home and look around, question my girlfriend privately, etc, etc, they were satisfied that there was nothing going on and either my neighbor heard something on TV that he confused or he was just pissed about the noise and figured the cops would respond quicker to a domestic violence call than a "TV too loud" call. Now, under this new law, SOMEONE would have to be arrested. Dimes to doughnuts that someone would be me (the man) and not the woman. Guess who gets their guns confiscated in a situation like that and has to fight to get them back? Guess who has to surrender their Concealed Carry permit? All because a neighbor called something in. What about a vindictive soon-to-be-ex calling in a false report? A mandatory arrest directive does not leave much room for the responding LEO to make their own call. They only have to choose who gets to ride downtown.
Want to hear more that is worse? There is the possibility that this law will MANDATE PROSECUTION. What does that mean? it means that even if the woman drops the charges and says there is (was) no abuse, the LEO are obligated under federal law to prosecute anyway. maybe now is a good time to get on some kind of pre-paid legal services retainer program?
Here is a link to the Reauthorization Act and all the proposed changes that have come out of the judiciary committee on a Democrat party line vote.
http://www.leahy.senate.gov/imo/media/d ... ionAct.pdf
The fear is (and rightly so because the Libs are starting the 'war' already) that any opposition from Conservatives (and there has been some already, especially on the Due Process ramifications and the illegal immigrant issues) will be met with "Republicans Hate Women" They don't want them to have safe abortions, free contraception or be able to protect themselves against brutal men attackers". In the face of this argument, how many Republicans will stand and fight for what is right in an election year?
Oh wait...there is.
States have many laws already, there is also the 1994 Violence Against Women Act that was passed. Now it is up for reauthorization with some interesting addons.
Why do we need more, and why from the Federal Level?
One only has to peruse the bill to see the "why"?
Pandering. Pandering in an election year to various groups that the incumbent Democrat President needs to vote his way. Almost $1 Billion dollars of your money going to a lobby group for "Women's Rights", a back door amnesty program? An illegal alien can make the accusation of domestic violence to get special services and likely even a Visa to stay in the country. Not a conviction, mind you, only the accusation. Special considerations for American Indian women as well as same sex couples. perhaps there are one or two special interest groups that did not get mentioned and don't get money? Oh, and certainly when they are spreading out the money, not much of it is going to actual victims. Most is going to the special interest groups to "research" and "combat" violence against women"
Throughout the bill the reader is give the impression that the legal stance is that all men are potential abusers and all women potential victims. It even goes so far as to bypass due process and require the responding officer to make an arrest to a domestic violence call, even if he sees no evidence of wrong doing. let me give an example where this could be a terrible thing from my own experience.
My girlfriend and I had a new surround sound system put in and were watching a movie (probably a little too loud, but it was only 6PM in the evening). We were cuddled up on the couch, barely dressed and about to to turn off the TV and get busy any minute when there was a pounding on the door and a constant barrage of the door bell. I muted the TV, slipped on my jeans and went to see who it was. it was a male and female LMPD officer.
They told me they were responding to a domestic violence call. I told them they must have the wrong address, but they confirmed that a neighbor called in complaining of the sounds of someone getting beaten up and screaming. Once the officers were allowed to enter my home and look around, question my girlfriend privately, etc, etc, they were satisfied that there was nothing going on and either my neighbor heard something on TV that he confused or he was just pissed about the noise and figured the cops would respond quicker to a domestic violence call than a "TV too loud" call. Now, under this new law, SOMEONE would have to be arrested. Dimes to doughnuts that someone would be me (the man) and not the woman. Guess who gets their guns confiscated in a situation like that and has to fight to get them back? Guess who has to surrender their Concealed Carry permit? All because a neighbor called something in. What about a vindictive soon-to-be-ex calling in a false report? A mandatory arrest directive does not leave much room for the responding LEO to make their own call. They only have to choose who gets to ride downtown.
Want to hear more that is worse? There is the possibility that this law will MANDATE PROSECUTION. What does that mean? it means that even if the woman drops the charges and says there is (was) no abuse, the LEO are obligated under federal law to prosecute anyway. maybe now is a good time to get on some kind of pre-paid legal services retainer program?
Here is a link to the Reauthorization Act and all the proposed changes that have come out of the judiciary committee on a Democrat party line vote.
http://www.leahy.senate.gov/imo/media/d ... ionAct.pdf
The fear is (and rightly so because the Libs are starting the 'war' already) that any opposition from Conservatives (and there has been some already, especially on the Due Process ramifications and the illegal immigrant issues) will be met with "Republicans Hate Women" They don't want them to have safe abortions, free contraception or be able to protect themselves against brutal men attackers". In the face of this argument, how many Republicans will stand and fight for what is right in an election year?
