🚀 go-pugleaf

lisarea@netcom.com (Elisabeth Higgins) wrote:

>In article <50tigi$7129@michiganj.intr.net>, rex@intr.net says...
>>
>>lisarea@netcom.com (Elisabeth Higgins) wrote:
>
>>>I am not aware of any "violence against women laws." Please provide some 
>>>citation for this.
>>
>>Um, the violence against women law that Clinton signed back in May.
>>That is the name of the act which was signed into law - "The violence
>>against women act".  It was widely publicized on TV, and in
>>Newspapers.  I am sure you can find the citation yourself if you do a
>>net search.
>
>That's just what you get for watching TV and reading the papers lightly. 
>The "Violence Against Women Act" is primarily a misnomer. Provide me with 
>actual text that excludes protection for men or prosecution for women. It 
>provides tougher penalties for certain types of domestic violence and 
>sexual assault, but I cannot find anything in the actual text that 
>specifically increases penalties if the victim is female. Now, I can't 
>prove a negative, so the ball's in your court.
>
>Here's an URL for you:
>
>http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c103:h.r.3355.enr:

And here's one for you, you'll find the full text here:

http://justice2.usdoj.gov/vawo/

I think you'll find chapters 2 & 3 very interesting as they deal specifically
with grants for *WOMEN* and not men.

So prosecutorially (sp?), there is no difference, but more money is being
directed specifically at women.


>Knock yourself out.
>
>>I am not aware of the exact text of the law.  The title appears to be
>>self-explanitory.  Anybody know the URL for the full text?
>
>The title is not self-explanatory. You cannot simply listen to what the 
>media tell you and take it at face value. If you can't fit it into a sound 
>bite, you can't say it on the news.

Jack