http://www.insideronline.org/summary.cfm?id=17198
Talking Points
- Under the U.S. constitutional framework, police power is reserved to the states, and all states have laws to protect all citizens from crimes against them, including domestic violence against women. The battle against domestic violence shouldbe waged, and paid for, primarily at the state and local levels.
- The reauthorization bill for the Violence Against Women Act—S. 1925—engages in mission creep by expanding VAWA to men and prisoners, despite the lack of rigorous evaluations to determine the effectiveness of existing VAWA programs.
- S. 1925 expands the already duplicative grant programs authorized by VAWA.
- Without precedent, the bill surrenders the rights of average Americans to racially exclusive tribal courts.
- Instead of working to fix the bill’s substantive problems, proponents characterize opponents of S. 1925 as anti-woman and pro-domestic violence—an absurd proposition that stifles genuine debate on the legislation’s many problems.
Read the entire report here: http://www.insideronline.org/summary.cfm?id=17198
David B. Muhlhausen Ph.D. and Christina Villegas, the authors of "The Violence Against Women Act: Reauthorization Fundamentally Flawed" have earned their right — by the views they expressed — to be honorary members of the Board of the National Organization for Women.
In the previous comment, I accidentally dropped a quotation mark. It should read: … "S. 1925 would leave the law only tenuously connected to the VAWA’s original purpose—reducing domestic violence against women." — Ah, what an effrontery to the Conservative's sense of propriety!… In other words, the two authors of the Heritage Foundation's paper are mainly concerned that now VAWA includes other victims — not just women.
What the hell do they count on? — That men can't read?
For all practical purposes, the Heritage Foundation's critique of VAWA proposed by Sen. Leahey focuses on the "Scope Creep", which the authors, a man and a woman, define as unnecessary services in the previous and current re- authorizations, such as inclusion of services to *young people, the elderly, and men*. They sound really offended: "Continuing VAWA’s mission creep, S. 1925 fundamentally transforms the VAWA from a law originally specially focused on women to a law targeting both men and women." "Mission Creep: Watering Down Services by Including Men and Prisoners. Violence against anybody is wrong, period. However, the radical and unnecessary changes proposed in S. 1925 would leave the law only tenuously connected to the VAWA’s original purpose—reducing domestic violence against women. — Ah, what an effrontery to the Conservative's sense of propriety! — Men???? You want to help Men???
Meanwhile, they give only a lip service to the fundamental flaw of VAWA, the Federal overreach: "the original VAWA and its
subsequent reauthorizations represent the federal government’s overreach into matters more appropriately addressed by state and local governments." — Overall, the alleged "critique" of the S. 1925, as offered by the Heritage Foundation reads — in most parts — as if written by the Domestic Violence Industry Neanderthals. Do not look to the Heritage Foundation for moral leadership. They are brain-dead. Their position is definitively anti-men. It only underscores the corrupt nature of the two main political parties — their sucking up to a better organized voter block — women.