According to Trudy W. Schuett’s “Betrayal of women – VAWA 2005”:
VAWA 2005 cannot help women much, if at all. Worse, it belittles their anguish, ignores their needs and insults their intelligence. In many cases, it makes a bad situation so much worse, it’s a wonder this kind of approach has lasted a full decade with federal sustenance in partisan politics. At the heart of VAWA is the mistaken presumption that by removing women from their homes, jailing their husbands and indoctrinating their children, this will have a positive impact on intimate partner abuse.
With Father’s Day now a month past, we need remember, again, that father absence seriously harms children, which makes father absence a well-known yet ignored variety of child abuse. According to both federally funded and private research, father absence is strongly correlated with every manner of suffering for their children from increased likelihood of rape and pregnancy to violence and drug abuse. The National Fatherhood Initiative has assembled volumes on the topic. Still, we remain unwilling to recognize the intentional excision of fathers from their children’s lives for what it is. It is domestic violence toward children. It is typically state approved. And legislation like VAWA creates a strong incentive for this variety of child abuse, by glorifying what is essentially archaic victim-feminist propaganda. VAWA is not likely to help either women or children, but it will certainly garner votes for politicians like Nancy Pelosi, who continue to be reelected by wooing votes from entrenched outdated women’s organizations like N.O.W.
Children not allowed access to their own fathers by VAWA are children who will pick father substitutes in the form of everything from extremist religions to gangs to raw self destructive licentiousness. So oppose domestic violence in all its forms; support father presence and help stop child abuse. Just say no to VAWA, where a woman who needs real help raising her children will, instead, as Shuett puts it, “[ be] bombarded with feminist ideology about being ‘empowered’ by her victimhood… helped to apply for an Order of Protection against her presumed offending spouse, [and told] Divorce is the ultimate solution to her problems.”