Talk:Violence Against Women Act

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

First External Link is not to the Violence Women Act=[edit]

Untitled[edit]

It points to the "Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005". Surely a copy of such a monumental act exists somewhere. I suggest somebody find it and put it there. I'm bloody exhausted. Kire1975 (talk) 08:11, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

restitution[edit]

I think the word 'restitution' is used wrong: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=restitution —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.150.235.215 (talk • contribs)

Where and why to you think 'restitution' is used wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kire1975 (talk • contribs) 08:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Section Regarding Men's Rights Activist Groups Reaction[edit]

I think this section should be deleted or significantly paired down as unsourced and violating wp:NPOV. The only reference is to a political activist group whose agenda is reflected by this section. Anybody else have thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcbiglaw (talk • contribs)

The section is obviously POV and original research. I've pared it down to one sentence, which I hope is more or less representative of the views of some men's rights groups. Any more might be giving undue weight to a marginal point of view, when the article is really about the act itself. Next time, do feel free to make bold editing decisions like this yourself - if you're worried it's controversial, just leave a note on the talk page explaining why you did it. --Grace 03:31, 20 June 2006

The section on Men's/Father's rights activists has violated wp:NPOV... again. I've cut it down to just one sentence, although I think it should be rephrased to sound more neutral. I'm also concerned that the majority of the links in this piece point to sites promoting an anti-VAWA agenda. I feel that it compromises the neutrality of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by tekanji (talk • contribs)

I just deleted the section that said "some father's rights groups/men's rights groups" due to POV and first hand use of "feminazi" for POV. The links provided do not back up what it said. It should not be hard to find the FR or MR group that opposes the Act and give reasons for it, but that was just blatantly POV and name-calling for Wiki.NeoApsara 19:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article has a unbalanced POV that does portrays men as perpetrators and woman as victems. The neutrality of the article is not compromised by criticisms, and it is necessary to point out the abuse and misuse of VAWA restraining orders just as it is necessary to point out the absurdity or injustice by NAZI's or communists to adequately describe them. David Letterman recieved a domestic violence injunction from a woman 2000 miles away for sending her 'subliminal' messages over the TV airways, millions of men recieve similar injunctions for absurd reasons that do not involve any actual physical violence, usually in the context of divorce for the woman to automatically win sole custody of the children and possession of the home and marital assets. This article needs an unbiased POV that will allow criticims and point out this abuse of VAWA and false allegations. --User:loneranger4justice\loneranger4justice 18 September 2006 (UTC)

This article is feminist, misandrous, gynocentric POV, so I have added a section on 'criticisms' to provide a balanced POV. Many of the links, articles etc reference criticisms of VAWA and hundreds of other sources are readily found with any quick internet search. For some reason the links section will not appear after this recent revision, please re-insert the links, but do not remove the 'criticism' section that is badly needed to balance this otherwise biased article. --User:loneranger4justice\loneranger4justice 25 September 2006

Edited and restored criticisms and links for a more balanced POV- this article is being vandalized by those who attempt to stifle the criticims that the VAWA is misandrous, prejudice and discriminates against men - which is the main crticism against the VAWA. User:loneranger4justice\loneranger4justice 10 October 2006 (UTC)


This site is being vandalized and used to instill feminist POV. references and links to sites critical of VAWA are deleted, then crticism of VAWA are deleted for being unsourced or claims of POV, then constantly reverted back to revised PC POV version with no discussion. Recommend a non-feminist non-POV moderator for this site. User:loneranger4justice\loneranger4justice 11 October 2006 (UTC)

NO NO No- People please take a good look at where the information comes from that says men are just as likely to be victims of aggression or that women are more likely to be the initiator. Seriously, take a look at it. They look at primary agression. It is not about who the primary agressor is. Rather, it is about the pattern of abuse. Women are far less likely to be the perpetrator of the abuse. There is a huge difference between primary agression and patterned abuse. Also, it is a lot less likely to be reported if the man is the abuser, because of this pattern which in turn means that the abuser is so controlled by the abuser and fearful, that it will not be reported. The fact of the matter is: the deeper the abuse runs, the more afraid the victim is and the less likely they are to report. Also, when the abuse has become a cycle, it is more than likely to be kept private. This means that an abused woman may feel that she has an opportunity to retaliate in public when people are around and she feels safe to do so, even though it is more likely to be reported by a bystander. Now lets get to more real talk. when a female get up in your face, how do you react? Do you become paralized with fear? Well, if you are like most men, you laugh or think: oh, she's so cute when she is angry. Honestly, think about it. Now some will say that men are less likely to report out of shame. Do you think the shame of a woman who has built her life around this man only to find out how he really is would be any less? I know I didn't.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.221.205.86 (talk • contribs)
Were you covering your ears and shaking your head when you shouted "No No No"? That's how I pictured it when I read that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.167.143.5 (talk) 06:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me you are trying to make an argument towards one point of view. It's not your place to dictate what can and can't go into the article, based on your own biases and perceptions. If the content is sourced, you don't get to remove it because you don't like the implications. This response of yours is basically an admission of guilt of biased tampering. 206.223.168.238 (talk) 21:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One should first start at Wikipedia's entry for Misandry, VAWA,DV Violence against women, Domestic Violence are all misandristic tactics feminists propagandists also put foward Power and Control as an attack solely aginst males as a sex and use open Propaganda "Power and Control Wheel" which is not a peer reviewed empirical model but rather an embodiment of what somen seek advantage in over men. The Power and Control Wheel decries budgets in a husband wife setting, where a freshman taking Econ 101 would know all units require budgets. The Misandry Caucus has espewed propaganda as fact for at least three decades and this deserves the highest degree of examination. NO NO NO below has reversed the facts and presnted a propaganda piece: for instance "the continuing pattern of abuse" which includes any effort to maintain a family budget, women make the largest (by dollar volume USD) share of retail purchases and efforts to thwart that spending pattern, as by a Family budget, is then abuse. Abuse is also denigration of another such as you are not good enough for me to sleep with tonight, or "be a man", "get me this" or "do this", and if you do not I am taking the kids.VAWA is indeed a political piece where some women and certainly the misandry caucus seek leverage over the male citizens of their country for personal gain. Keep this discussion open it will take time to link the sources, and cite them, overwhelming evidence USDOJ, RADAR, et al demonstrates female perpetration as more pervasive, further the totality of what is alleged by some to be abusive or violent (such as budget, not my fault comes from the Wheel) behavior. There has been a huge amount of political activity around this for years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BobV01 (talk • contribs) 13:50, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

This information should be of interest:

Just read this for my own knowledge, and have to say it's not very informative at all. Only negative aspects of the bill are included. Criticism is fine but this article is really unbalanced. What does Feibert's study have to do with the VAWA act, for one?? Don't know much about Schlafly but she's hardly a good reference point for an editor trying to be neutral. Dinorific 07:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Links are ridiculously one-sided as well! Dinorific 07:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is bullshit. This is about as NPOV as WW2 propaganda.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.213.144.164 (talk • contribs)

"The feminists have continued their campaign against marriage through Joe Biden's favorite legislation, the Violence Against Women Act, which provides a billion dollars a year to feminist centers to promote divorce and oppose reconciliation" writes Phyllis Schlafly. "The act is based on feminist ideology that women are naturally victims entitled to tax-paid legal and financial assistance, while men are naturally batterers who are not entitled even to due process protections." Asteriks (talk) 17:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So the truth is unwelcome! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.56.6.172 (talk) 03:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism[edit]

In addition to the fact that this article needs to be cleaned up, someone needs to include the fact that many men claim to have been unfairly proesecuted, denied their constitutional rights, ect . . . under VAWA. As for Schlafly I believe her views should be included as representing one side of the arguement as she is both a constitutional lawyer, and the countries leading feminist basher and opponent of VAWA. It isn't POV to include major critics critism as long as you give both sides a mention. 216.255.40.133 07:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The criticism section needs work. Not only is it the first section besides the overview, but the heading isn't "criticisms" - it's one criticism like it's the top issue surrounding VAWA. Not to mention that VAWA has been used against its original intentions by anti-immigration lawmakers. Please, someone who knows more, clean this up!! Glitterglue 19:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep your RFC open for awhile, a clean definition, will take considerable time, VAWA is a political piece with valid political amplification from many points of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BobV01 (talk • contribs) 13:53, August 27, 2007 (UTC) A balanced article on VAWA should also reference the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in the year 2000 of the 1994 Act's unconstitutionality (U.S. v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598)Liberty1st (talk) 18:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The criticism section of the article states: "The censorship and secrecy around VAWA is so strong that everytime immigration fraud is mentioned in this Wiki article, someone removes it." True or false, isn't that more for the discussion page and not the article itself? I'm new to this page (and generally don't use Wikipedia to inform myself on political matters - but surely there's got to be a way to point to a page that generally (or even specifically) discusses immigration fraud rather than making an extraneous comment about censorship in a particular article? Plainstarchedtom (talk) 15:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed as it is unneeded —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.108.154 (talk) 16:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please be more specific? Also please sign your contributions with four tildas I.E. ~ * 4. Thank you. YouAndMeBabyAintNothingButCamels (talk) 05:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure where to put this comment, so here will do I guess. The article contains nothing about the provisions of the law. We hear about when it was passed, who administers it, criticisms of it, but nothing about what the law actually says.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.139.28 (talk) 22:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment[edit]

I've opened an RFC on this page to establish whether Criticism section is violating WP:NPOV or not. The criticism section that has been posted into this article and parts of it into Pro-feminist men may be a povpush by User:Loneranger4justice. This diff shows the most recent re-insertion by Loneranger4justice. What I see wrong with the section is that it violates neutral point of view, borders on soapboxing, is possibly synthesising sources and in other places is unverified.

The final sentences of the second paragraph have been added to 2 other articles: Feminazi and Pro-feminist men. These lines are unsourced pov: "Critics of VAWA reject inferences that instill gender politics of radical feminists and pro-feminist men by portrayal of women as victims and men as perpetrators and view the VAWA as discriminatory toward men as would be a Violence Against White's Act toward blacks. False allegations of violence or of a sexual nature was also a main tactic of the WKKK to encourage discrimination of black men." These lines have been removed.

The external links to eagleforum.org are also violations of WP:EL.

This material is not neutral and not properly verified by reliable sources and has been reinserted by revert by Loneranger4justice twice this month[1][2] here and 6 times since February 2007 on Profeminist men.[3][4][5][6][7][8] Loneranger4justice has few other contributions to wikipedia outside of adding these criticisms and making these reverts. They have twice been warned at level 4 (final warning) for NPOV about this.--Cailil talk 13:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The material is not neutral, but that is irrelevant as to whether it violates NPOV. It is appropriate to include non-neutral things (in fact it is a requirement of NPOV to do so) in order to make the article NPOV. Good and appropriate challenges to the position of some main pov in the article is appropriate. The edit that is presented here has some failures though. It should not weasle word saying "some critics say X". It should simply point out the criticism with a reference. So the introductory phrase in the first sentence, first paragraph should be deleted. The second paragraph may be true but it is unreferenced. Without a reference it should get a tag and then if it fails to get a cite in a month, take it out of the article. In both cases, the relevance of the criticism to the main article should either be clear or it should be made clearer. --Blue Tie 16:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Critics Win Again[edit]

Another blow for justice by men (and a female victim of female violence) in a decision by a California appellate court. Victory! CA Appellate Court Says Excluding Men from Domestic Violence Programs is Unconstitutional http://mensnewsdaily.com/glennsacks/2008/10/14/victory-ca-appellate-court-says-excluding-men-from-domestic-violence-programs-is-unconstitutional/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.251.254.172 (talk) 15:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup to do - 2009[edit]

The following things probably need to be addressed in this article. --Lendorien (talk) 14:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Biden proposed bill info needs to be culled. This article is about VAWA, not a failed unrelated bill. (done)
  • New section needed. Specifically, a background/History section detailing the history of the bill, the debate and related information.
  • Background section is subjective. Needs removal or rewriting. Suggest replacing with a above suggested history section.
  • A debate section covering criticism as well as supporting arguments.
  • Better sourcing, especially for details in intro.
  • The section containing info on the Texas organization probably should be deleted. It's blatant advertising and doesn't seem to be directly related.

Proposed reorganization[edit]

I suggest that this article be reorganized as follows

  • Introduction - Solid as is. Needs better sourcing.
  • History - containing backgrouns ont he bill. Impetus for writing the bill, sponsors, the debate on the bill, bill passing, subsequent legal challenges to the bill, etc. subsection as needed.
  • Bill provisions - Specific provisions of the bill
  • Criticisms and debate - info on the debate over the bill, arguments for and against
    • There must be discussion on the Green Card loophole issue. Thousands of innocent Americans are being arrested each year because of this, and no Wiki article on VAWA would be fair or neutral unless the topic is dealt with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kops2222 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quote for the Criticism section[edit]

"In a human love affair between a man and a woman, the secrets of meeting and personal experiences are fully guarded for reasons of their own. Only then are they sweet, enjoyable, memorable and above all, undisturbed by others."

The author, Dr. Ravindra Kumar, does NOT have a WP article. The publisher is Llewellyn Worldwide. The publication, Kundalini for Beginners, is currently footnote 7 in the past life regression article.

Any thoughts on whether the above quote is appropriate to include in the criticism section? Kammel Toe (talk) 05:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

V.A.W.A. Green Card fraud[edit]

It is now clear throughout the United States that the loophole in V.A.W.A. Green Card issuance is causing thousands of innocent Americas to be sent to jail on false assualt charges. I am not the written of the men's rights stuff below, and those writers are not as articulate as I am, but the issue must be dealt with. I support other aspects of VAWA, but it is clear that some reform or procedural protections need to be put in place. Russian crime groups have figured out the VAWA loophole, and NYC family courts are now flooded with bogus abuse claims related to these Green Cards. Make thoughtful edits, but do not delete these sections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kops2222 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is an editor who is trying to refer to ANY mention of the VAWA Green Card Situation as vandalism. This witter is one of the thousands of innocent Americans who was framed on false assault charges as part of a VAWA Green Card fraud, as have thousands of other innocent Americans, several other of whom are also apparently trying to edit this page. While we realize that one editor feels that VAWA is perfect, and no information can be included in this page that is at derrogatory of VAWA. You claim about specific cases being mentioned is true, and the Klimnko case is backed up by two decisions of the NY 2nd Appellate Decisions which are both public record, and the facts are part of the appellate record. The editor who keeps removing ALL references to the VAWA Green Card loophole, and the resultant arrests of thousnads of innocent Americans, is violating the Wiki neutral point of view. One of the source web sites is NY ecourts. Another references a major televion station and investigative report, which also shows two more specific cases. This will not go away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kops2222 (talk • contribs)

Kops, the section is problematic because of the way it's written. It needs to be carefully sourced, preferably to secondary sources (e.g. newspapers or books), and written in a disinterested tone. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted this again. You're naming what appear to be living people, but using only primary sources to write about them. You must use secondary sources e.g. newspapers or books. Please read our policy on living persons, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, carefully before proceeding. This section must not be restored with that material in it, unless you find reliable secondary sources and stick closely to what they say. Also, please note that the sources must discuss the case with reference to the Violence Against Women Act. We can't publish material about living persons based on a Wikipedian putting two and two together: see WP:SYN. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 03:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've posted the following on your talk page. I'm repeating it here to make sure that you see it.
I'm even more confused now that I've read through the court document. It doesn't seem to mention the two names you published, but does seem to be about you. This is highly inappropriate; see WP:COI, WP:BLP, and WP:NOR. You really must not restore it, or you risk being blocked, as this is a serious violation of our policies. The purpose of Wikpedia articles is only to tell readers what reliable sources (and that usually means secondary sources such as books, newspapers, and academic articles) are saying about a given topic. We're not allowed to use articles to engage in personal advocacy, and particularly not where living people are concerned. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 03:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, if the above editor is implying that I am the "one editor [who] feels that VAWA is perfect," they are wrong (the implication is ludicrous). I have no dog in this fight: my interest is to keep encyclopedic articles free from non-neutral statements and especially, in this case, from BLP violations. Drmies (talk) 15:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed criticism of Massachusetts law[edit]

I removed two paragraphs from the criticism section, as they appear to be directed at Massachusetts state law, and not the Federal law that is the subject of this article. (I presume the Fatherhood Coalition comment refers to the entry dated February 14, 2010, which is talking about Massachusetts HB 4443.) The two paragraphs are preserved below (with reference citations turned into plain links), in case somebody wants to restore them with an explanation of the connection to the Federal law. Sam8 (talk) 21:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A main criticism of VAWA is that it allows an individual to claim 'fear' of imminent physical harm(http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/gl-209a-toc.htm) without any supporting physical evidence to obtain a restraining order. This has resulted in an explosion of orders, principally by women against men, in order to get leverage in divorce and child custody cases. The effect on those charged under VAWA include loss of children, home, finances and stable employment. In Massachusetts(http://www.mass.gov/courts/courtsandjudges/courts/stats/index.html) some 30-50,000 ROs are issued annually.
Other defects in the law include a loss of the constitutional right to trial by jury. Fathers' rights organizations such as the The Fatherhood Coalition(http://www.fatherhoodcoalition.org) have called for the repeal of the law.

added VAWA criticism[edit]

I'm a real person really appealing VAWA in the U.S. Supreme Court. I appreciate other people's view however I do not appreciate the deletion of mine. What I stated were not view but facts and legal concerns which concern men and women's needs equally.

I do not appreciate technocrats nor feudalism. Leave my words alone unless there is better criticism to replace them with. But deleting all criticism might just get you sued.

No. 09-2291, John Hendrickson v. Loudoun County et al 1:09-cv-00563-CMH-IDD

This was first filed In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia Alexandria Division

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sven nestle (talk • contribs) 18:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

removing from VAWA criticism[edit]

I'd like to remove this statement because is it argues against its own point, which is preposterous It is "politically charged", it cites targets of Democratic criticism that have no real involvement with VAWA in any way.

"Various groups and persons including Rush Limbaugh, Marc H. Rudov and Glenn Sacks have voiced concerns that VAWA violates due process, equal protection and other civil rights."

Criticism section - reliable sources[edit]

Their editor review guidelines are [9] and [10]. You may also select from one of hundreds of other reliable sources or the primary source however i seem to recall SlimVirgin writing in one of her wiki-policy docs that we dont have a hierarchy of reliability on WP. thanx YouAndMeBabyAintNothingButCamels (talk) 06:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC) (if you get a page error delete the URL extension so the URL says "editorial-guidelines" & "faq")[reply]

See this discussion [11] - I've brought this up before and others agreed with me. I think if you want to use it, you need to get agreement at the RSN board. Dougweller (talk) 09:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've linked to the press release. But why was this under criticism? I've changed the section heading, removed the bit about high school and suicide as that was just one small part, and put in the main thing which was domestic violence month. Dougweller (talk) 10:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the focus of the press release was no criticism of VAWA and the bit about high school and suicide was just one small part of the press release. YouAndMeBabyAintNothingButCamels (talk) 05:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any claim to helping children needs to be removed or verified[edit]

There are a number of sections within this article that claim VAWA helps children. Aside from the fact they are very poorly sourced (if at all), and should never have been put up, it is also demonstrably false...

VAWA's STOP funding guidelines for several states (I only checked a few, but all I checked had it), specifically prohibits programs applying for funding to exclusively benefit children...

For those that actually believe VAWA is intended to help children...

Hawaii VAWA STOP funding guidlines.

Page 2-6
Section 2 Service Specifications
I. Introduction
G. Limitations on STOP Program Funding
"Children’s services supported by STOP Program funds must show an inextricable link and be the direct result of providing services to an adult victim of violence against women."
http://www.state.hi.us/spo2/health/rfp103f/attachments/rfp7411265074918.pdf

Louisiana STOP VAWA application instructions

Page VAWA-4
General Funding Information
Funding Priorities
Prohibited Activities or Uses of Funds
"Prohibited Activities or Uses of Funds
6: Supporting Services that focus exclusively on children"
http://www.cole.state.la.us/programs%5Cuploads%5CVAWA%5CVAWA_App_Instruct_rev_072010.pdf

Kentucky ARRA & VAWA STOP Formula Grant Guidelines

Page 13 of 30
Administrative Requirements
Applicant Eligibility
Additional Considerations
"Children’s services supported with the funds must be a direct result of providing services to an adult primary victim. VAWA grant funds may not be used to support services that focus exclusively on children …"
http://justice.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/19707F82-27E3-4A19-A282-7865F287DE3E/0/VAWA_arra_guidelines_instructions.pdf

Now, I acknowledge that this can not be included in the article, as it constitutes original research, but it clearly demonstrates a need for any claims that VAWA helps children be thoroughly, verifiably sourced with more then simple hearsay. --Kratch (talk) 06:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sound like it helps children, but not independently of spouses. That would be a pretty simple, 'yes, it helps children' then. 76.21.107.221 (talk) 23:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

criticism not allowed[edit]

Why is that adding a criticism section is not allowed to where the entire article is locked from being edited? Boobymonster (talk) 15:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Is there a source to the budgetary impacts of this law?[edit]

I've seen lots of comments as to the budgetary costs of this law, but no citations. Has anyone seen such? It doesn't seem to be a large bill. 76.21.107.221 (talk) 23:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The lead section says $1.6 billion, though there is no citation for this. I assume that's annually, not a lump sum, but it would be nice to confirm this. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 18:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

March 25, 2012 Huffington Post excerpt[edit]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/25/arlen-specter-gop-women-life-among-the-cannibals_n_1378308.html

When asked whether he thinks the GOP is hurting its prospects with women voters, he exclaimed, "Terribly! Terribly!"

"You can't win a presidency, a general election in Pennsylvania with that stand," he said. "The suburbs of places like Philadelphia decide the presidential election. Everybody knows where California and New York are going. Everybody knows where Texas and Mississippi and Louisiana are going. But Florida and Pennsylvania and a few other states determine it. That just won't sell. That's why [Rick] Santorum got drubbed in 2006 [during his Senate reelection race]."

The latest controversy is the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, a landmark piece of legislation that has never before sparked partisan battles -- until now.

On Feb. 2, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved legislation (S. 1925) reauthorizing VAWA, which expired in September. The bill was sponsored by Chair Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) -- who is not on the committee -- and cosponsored by 34 senators from both parties. Nevertheless, the legislation attracted no GOP support among committee members and passed out of committee on a party-line vote of 10-8. It was, according to Leahy's office, the first time VAWA legislation did not receive bipartisan backing out of committee.

Specter, along with then-Democratic Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.), was an original cosponsor of VAWA.

When asked what he thinks of the law becoming partisan, he said, "I think it's very sad."

"I have followed Sen. [Jeff] Sessions' comments to the press that there are some provisions they don't like. But the basic Act is very very important and ought to be passed. Whatever differences there are can be worked out on the floor with amendments," he added.

Sessions, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, recently said he favors reauthorizing VAWA, but he accused Democrats of being the ones to make it political and argued that the current version has provisions that "almost seem to invite opposition."

“You think that’s possible?" he told The New York Times. "You think they might have put things in there we couldn’t support that maybe then they could accuse you of not being supportive of fighting violence against women?” Raymm (talk) 21:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bogus ACLU Citation Link.[edit]

There is the following link listed in the citations. At the time of my writing this, it was citation #7:

"Tell Congress to Support the Violence Against Women Act". (embedded link to https://secure.aclu.org/site/Advocacy?pagename=homepage&id=251&page=UserAction) American Civil Liberties Union.

This was a citation in support of the following under "Debate and Legal Standing":

The American Civil Liberties Union had originally expressed concerns about the Act, saying that the increased penalties were rash, the increased pretrial detention was "repugnant" to the US Constitution, the mandatory HIV testing of those only charged but not convicted is an infringement of a citizen’s right to privacy and the edict for automatic payment of full restitution was non-judicious (see their paper: "Analysis of Major Civil Liberties Abuses in the Crime Bill Conference Report as Passed by the House and the Senate", dated September 29, 1994). However, the ACLU has supported reauthorization of VAWA on the condition that the "unconstitutional DNA provision" be removed.[7]

Citation #7 does not support the final statement starting with "However". It is a link to a donation page on the ACLU site.Tgm1024 (talk) 04:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed -- pointed to the archived page on Archive.org. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non encyclopedic: "the Court's conservative wing overturned the provision". There *IS* no officially conservative wing.[edit]

I understand that there are people who are angry about the turning over of the Violence Against Women Act, but despite the citations, you *cannot* refer to a "conservative wing" of the SCOTUS! That's a matter of opinion, and despite any number of statistics you bring up, you need to reword this as "the justices who are commonly thought of as conservative" or better words to that effect. There is NO officially conservative wing of the supreme court, and to say otherwise sounds like an opinion paper. Take your partisan anger elsewhere and be careful please.Tgm1024 (talk) 23:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a wing of the Court which is consistently described by reliable sources as "conservative". Our policies mandate that we reflect the content of reliable sources. The reliable sources cited in this article clearly and directly support the text you're questioning. I don't see the need for a contrived, wordy work-around, and would rather we just state the obvious, as do the cited reliable sources. MastCell Talk 20:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

States' Rights v. Federalism in Morrison[edit]

I don't read Morrison as a state's rights issue, but instead as a federalism issue. I suppose it can be characterized as a states' rights issue in that the states have only given certain enumerated powers to the federal government, but Morrison was more concerned about what the federal government CAN'T do than what states CAN do.

Dustinscottc (talk) 04:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and I've changed this passage to link to Commerce Clause. JamesMLane t c 17:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest moving some material out of summary to article body[edit]

I would suggest that the summary could be pared down to essential information and much of the information incorporated in the body of the article. For instance, the numerical outcomes of the 2013 votes is not something which helps a brief summary of the topic, but this information should be included in the article, certainly. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Violence Against Women Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:14, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Protecting gays[edit]

Clarity needed on the following: "In April 2012, the Senate voted to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, and the House subsequently passed its own measure (omitting provisions of the Senate bill that would protect gays, Native Americans living in reservations, and illegal immigrants who are victims of domestic violence). Reconciliation of the two bills was stymied by procedural measures, leaving the re-authorization in question"

Protect gays? Does this mean it removed protections for women assaulted or abused by women with whom they are in a relationship? Or does it mean "gays" particularly? Gays is imprecise, many women in relationships with women are bisexual or pansexual, not gay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.60.230 (talk) 08:42, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Remmarriages After Divorced[edit]

This is On my : My legal Case On USCIS. 

 This are the Marriages of my Husbands Gary Moon.
  Brigitte Heinrich  Date of Marriage; 2/22/1063   Date of Divorced;10/3/1968 Germany
  June E.Moon        Date of Marriage: 6/22/1968   Date of Divorced;10/1/2012  USA
  Edna Manliclic-Moon  Date of Marriage: 9/28/2003 Barcelona Spain
            Remarried  Date of Marriage; 1/24/213  Summerville SC

My husband is A Retired Vietnam Vet. I'm sure all this marriages are on his Personal Records on file. June E Moon Complained about me in USCIS.  I was given Lawful Permanent Card and Gary Moon was not divorced at the time we got married .USCIS Condemned me For Reasons that Gary Moon Was not Free to marry me  that time Gray Moon Married me 2003.
In your judgement and according to the Dates of Marriages  and Divorced Dates of Gary Moon.Who is Illegitimately Married to Gary Moon and he is  not Free to marry.
 My Husband Gary Moon is Very Much Free to marry me No matter how you look at this Dates. 
 Wives that are not truthful,LAW should be imposed strickly no matter if it is American or Alien . There are times Military personnel does things differently.My husband was not even on Begamy.
Thank you

[1] 

Edna Manliclic -Moon  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.107.197.161 (talk) 18:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ ~~~~

Incorrect vote in image for Montana[edit]

Steve Daines of Montana voted Aye for the re-authorization, but the map shows Montana as a No vote. I know that he later voted to defund it, but the vote the image is discussing is simply the re-authorization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.131.103.111 (talk) 16:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

172 Republicans vote to oppose Violence Against Women Act[edit]

John Cummings (talk) 22:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Public Writing[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 September 2022 and 8 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Joy.Zheying.Shi (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Joy.Zheying.Shi (talk) 04:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confused by this sentence in Background section:[edit]

"Although it's hard to calculate the increase in criminal costs, its influence on social welfare should be negligent regarding the huge amount of decrease in victimization costs."

I'm a little confused by this sentence and hope someone with more experience can reassure me that the changes I'm proposing are appropriate:

"Although it's hard to calculate the increase in criminal costs, its influence on social welfare expenses should be negligible considering the huge decrease in victimization costs."

I'll leave it to someone else to address the vague and unsourced reference to "victimization costs." Noctuella (talk) 07:12, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Violence_Against_Women_Act&oldid=1208306354"