Rosa Parks, hailed as the mother of the modern Civil Rights movement,
passed away last week at the age of 92.
In an interview, Ms. Parks explained why she had refused to give up her
seat on a Montgomery, Alabama bus: "The more we gave in, the more we
complied with that kind of treatment, the more oppressive it became."
Thanks to her courage, many of the Jim Crow laws that dated back to the
1890s were eventually overturned. And as Americans reflected on how Rosa
Parks' actions 50 years ago helped to restore the rights of Blacks,
another recent report revealed how the constitutional rights of another
segment in our society are being systematically eroded.
"Time
to Defund Feminist Pork -- The Hate-Men Law" is the title of the
hard-hitting exposé by columnist Phyllis Schlafly. With surgical
precision, Mrs. Schlafly dissects the Violence Against Women Act and
reveals how lawmakers have been duped into believing they are doing
something good for women.
Some persons ask, Who could possibly be against protecting women? That
chivalrous attitude has allowed VAWA to escape the scrutiny of civil
rights advocates since it was first signed into law by President Clinton
in 1994.
For starters, we should ask why VAWA-funded programs only serve women?
After all, we live in a society that abhors sex discrimination. And male
victims need our help.
"Studies by the leading domestic violence researchers found that half of
all couple violence is mutual, and when only one partner is physically
abusive, it is as likely to be initiated by the woman as the man,"
explains Mrs. Schlafly.
Then there's the word "violence." Most people think of violence as
someone battering and bloodying their partner. But in VAWA lala-land,
violence has morphed into abuse, a much broader and ill-defined term.
So under many state laws, everything from name-calling, controlling the
household finances, and even making certain facial expressions now
qualify as abuse. So men, think twice about furrowing a brow and telling
your wife to not over-spend the credit card limit. She could take out a
restraining order and send you packing.
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.
There's more.
Once Joe is out on the street, Jill files for divorce and custody of the
kids. "What VAWA does is to promote divorce and provide women with
weapons, such as the restraining order and free legal assistance, to get
sole custody of their children," Schlafly warns. And sole custody equals
many years of tax-free child support checks.
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 gets worse.
Let's say your wife, who was well-lubricated that evening, later
realizes she took the first swing and wants the complaint to be dropped.
Sorry, VAWA bribes local law enforcement agencies to implement "no-drop"
policies that require prosecution, even though reconciliation has taken
place.
This issue came to light a few years ago when former football star
Warren Moon was arrested for allegedly assaulting his wife. Afterwards
Mrs. Moon requested the charge be dropped. But because the police were
required to prosecute the case, Warren was taken to trial. At that time
Felicia Moon was forced to admit that she, not Warren, had started the
fight by throwing a candlestick.
Is this beginning to sound like a totalitarian nightmare?
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."
Currently the U.S. Congress is mulling the fate of a five-year extension
to the Violence Against Women Act, a law that has caused the basic civil
liberties of hundreds of thousands of fathers and men to be casually
disregarded.
And come to think of it, where has the ACLU been all this time?
