Now this is a Presidential Race!
So, a lot has been happening with the Presidential race, as you probably know, since this blog is a terrible source of up-to-the-minute news. Some thoughts on the VP picks:
Joe Biden: I saw him speak when I was finishing my undergrad in Delaware, and he impressed me then, explaining why it was important to renew the Violence Against Women Act. He's got strong foreign policy experience, and (hopefully) useful connections in Pennsylvania, a battleground state currently leaning Obama. Pulling from my dad's thoughts on these things, he's also been in the Senate long enough for people to owe him something, making it possible to get some stuff done.
Sarah Palin: This certainly mixes things up. A woman with strong, strong conservative credentials, and about a year and a half of experience as governor of Alaska. It's interesting that this is supposedly more experience than Obama has. Anywho, to me this feels a little like the Clarence Thomas Supreme Court appointment - put a black man in place to dismantle affirmative action, put a woman in place to dismantle abortion rights. To be fair, she takes the pro-life stance seriously - Palin recently gave birth to a child with Down's Syndrome, and her 17-year-old daughter is pregnant and set to marry the child's father. Article here (from FOX news, for the sake of balance :) ).
8 comments:
Women Want Safety, not Biden's Abuse of Power
Senator Joe Biden proudly proclaims that he was regularly and severely beaten by his older sister as a child and as an adolescent. This is the same sister that raised his two sons after his wife and daughter were killed in an auto accident.
Biden has often claimed that the Violence against Women Act is the greatest achievement of his career. He also claims that a woman cannot be a perpetrator of domestic violence, despite the fact that hundreds of studies show that women commit acts of domestic violence as often as, or more often than men. Many studies also show that lesbian women physically attack their intimate partners at least as often as heterosexual men.
As a result of Biden's Violence against Women Act, the federal government pays states to create laws effectively requiring that men be removed from their homes and families without even an allegation of violence, with no legitimate standards of evidence, when a woman makes a claim that she is afraid.
Elaine Epstein, president of the Massachusetts Bar Association (1999), has said "the facts have become irrelevant... restraining orders are granted to virtually all who apply. Regarding divorce cases, she states "allegations of abuse are now used for tactical advantage". According to Epstein, who is also a former president of the Massachusetts Women’s Bar Association, restraining orders are doled out "like candy" and "in virtually all cases, no notice, meaningful hearing, or impartial weighing of evidence is to be had."
State restraining order laws are starting to fall because they're unconstitutional. The federal law behind them, written by Joe Biden, is likely to fall as well, not because it isn’t popular, but because it is clearly unconstitutional.
Supporting Documentation
Here are some of the facts regarding Biden's abuse at the hand of his sister. During senate hearings held on December 11, 1990, Biden testified to the abuse.
www.ifeminists.net
This recent CDC study indicates that women between the ages of 18 and 28 initiate reciprocal violence against their intimate partners about as often as men. It also indicates that women initiate non-reciprocal violence against their intimate partners more than twice as often as men.
pn.psychiatryonline.org
Here is a link to a bibliography of over 200 studies indicating that women are as violent as men in their intimate relationships:
www.csulb.edu
According to the US Department of Justice, women also abuse, neglect and kill their children at significantly higher rates than men. Here’s some of the data on child homicides.
www.acf.hhs.gov
Research clearly indicates that lesbian battery is at least as common as heterosexual battery.
www.musc.edu/vawprevention
lesbianlife.about.com
Cathy Young reports on the Elaine Epstein quote and the broader issue at Salon.com here:
www.salon.com
and provides in depth analysis here:
www.iwf.org
Wasn't VAWA found to be unconstitutional in 2000?
also, if you believe abortion is murder, then you don't really have a choice not to abort, do you? I mean, it's not really such a sacrifice or demonstration of her commitment to values, right? I don't know. Palin just gets wackier and wackier by the minute.
US v. Morrison struck down the portion of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 that gave victims of gender motivated violence the right to sue their attackers in federal court. The Supreme Court ruled that this portion of VAWA exceeded congressional power under the Commerce Clause and the Equal Protection Clause. The funding provisions of VAWA were unaffected.
A fundamental challenge to VAWA has not yet been heard by the Supreme Court.
This fascinating article gives some great insights into the shaky constitutional foundation on which the Violence Against Women Act stands.
Who are you, RS?
Why do you want to know, Amy?
Trying to decide if I want to delete your comments or not.
In response to your basic points, you're barking up the wrong tree on the VAWA piece. I've got too much direct experience with it.
Post a Comment