Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Romney Draws a Blank on Violence Against Women Act

Mike Romney speaks at forum in Salem, N.H. (Reuters).

By Juliet Eilperin
SALEM, N.H. -- During an "Ask Mitt Anything" forum at the Derry-Salem Elks Club here, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney demurred when an audience member asked him whether he would hold up reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act on the grounds that it kept men from visiting their children.

"I'm not familiar with the Act," Romney replied.

The answer surprised some women's rights advocates, since the Violence Against Women Act -- which established new federal crimes for domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking -- has been federal law for more than a dozen years. Former President Bill Clinton signed it in 1994, it was the subject of a high-profile Supreme Court case in 2000 and has been reauthorized twice by Congress. Bush signed the most recent version in 2006.

"I think we'd hope in this process he'd educate himself about the Violence Against Women Act," said Sandra Park, a staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union's Women's Rights Project. "It addresses a huge problem in this country with domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking and dating violence."

Romeny spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom said his boss cares about women who are under physical threat from their partners.

"Mitt Romney is opposed to domestic violence," Fehrnstrom wrote in an e-mail. "He is not familiar with the details of that particular federal law well enough to debate it. As a governor, he is better acquainted with state laws that protect battered women, and he upheld and enforced those laws."

During the town hall in Salem, Romney said that when it came to a court issuing a restraining order against someone, those issues were generally decided on the state level. But he added that in those instances, "The court is wise to put the interest of the child first... If I'm going to err, I'm going to err on the side of protecting the child."

By Web Politics Editor  |  January 7, 2008; 7:19 PM ET
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: A Woman President? Not for Clinton Hecklers.
Next: No Ban on Lobbyists as Advisers for Obama


I agree with a majority of the information on here. As far as the Judges comment. The law may not follow his personal belief, so when speaking of the law, personal bias needs to remain out.
One big problem we face is our constitution, and how the law views it. Now stating to voilate rights. I believe our constitution states that NO law shall violate the rights protected by the constitution.
What's with these violence against women groups? I read a caption from one which said "We are seeking gender equality, and women's rights." That's like saying we have genders then we have women.
My belief is that no one has any right to abuse anyone else. Those who do should be punished, but we need a system that assures the actual agressor is the one who's punished. The way the law works now, in cases where the woman is the agressor 90% of the time the man is still the person arrested.
Domestic violence, anger, control, manipulation, and so on are behaviors. We have governments that are literally trying to control behaviors. You can't to that through the legal system. Speaking of the law. How many prostitutes get off the street permanently after a night of jail, and how long has the legal system tried to control their actions? I bet there are more working the streets since the government first outlawed it.
The first thing that needs to happen to show some concern for men being abused is changing the name of the VOW. How many men are going to seek assistance through a place that titles its self under a single gender? If I had a store and called it "Adult Toy Emplorium" How many people would be disappointed when they came in and saw models, and crafts etc. The name would be misrepresenting the business, the same is true when singling out a gender in the name. If I owned a bar called "women on women" I bet there wouldn't be too many straight women who'd frequent my establishment.
When establishing laws, certain criteria should be reviewed prior to submitting it. (1) Does the law violate the rights within the constitution. (2) Does the law protect all men women and children.
I read something not long ago, and I wish I could find the site again I read it on. An organization was asked to redesign their literature to be gender neutral. The spokes person for their group stated "If we made our literature geneder-neutral, we'd be ignoring the purpose of domestic violence laws which are to protect women and arrest men."
These laws do cause more damage than good. In order to change them, we as a society need to take a stand and stop just accepting them because they're there. This country is built on the people who reside here, not on our government, it's up to us to demand rights violations be put to an end. Nothing changes as long as we keep ignoring the problem.

Posted by: rcnoe71 | February 13, 2008 1:54 AM | Report abuse

As a man who has been the recipent of a false restraining Order (it was finally VACATED by the Massachusetts Appeals Court and my case is now cited by defense Attorney's) I am totally confused by the fact that when a Restraining Order is proven to be FALSE the person who obtains it suffers no consequences. I have not seen my children in over 8 years as they were brainwashed during the years the Restraining Order was in effect. Restraing Orders are good if the are for an honest valid reason. Things would change if those responsible for filing False Restraining Orders were held accountable and had to reimburse the victim of the False Restraining Order.

Posted by: pszymkowski | January 17, 2008 2:11 PM | Report abuse

Indeed a piece of paper cannot stop a father throwing his four children off a bridge to their death to prove he is the man of the house nor can it prevent a muslim father from killing his two beautiful daughters because they wanted to be normal teen girls. It can't stop a mother letting her car roll into a lake with her two innocent babes strapped into their carseats.

Posted by: wintrywood | January 13, 2008 10:49 AM | Report abuse

The issue here is about civil rights, although ignored because it is a man's civil rights. When a judge states that evidence should be ignored and throw the man out on the street there is a large problem here. If this happened in any other judicial hearing, the nation would be up in arms. If DV hearings, most used as a tool in a divorce hearing would only be based on evidence rather than gender we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Even the name points out that it discriminates. Violence Against Women Act. Why is the American taxpayers funding legislation for a law that only protects one segment of the community rather than all. As a law enforcement employee, I am aware that there are already laws protecting the public against violent acts. They should be used over any other "special" laws that protect only a chosen few. Problem with that, is there are a lot of special interest groups who use this legislation for their own personal profit at taxpayers expense.

Posted by: dzwald | January 13, 2008 9:39 AM | Report abuse

I was forwarded this article. I find it Ironic that a Governor of a State that received millions in Federal funding from the V.A.W.A act would not know what it is. Perhaps this is why Massachusetts is the #1 dysfunctional State for Domestic Relations Conflicts. Ripping children out of the hands of loving Fathers on mere allegations. Then again if you expect to Get an answer from Billory guess again. She has been posed this very question for over 4 years and has diverted answering it everytime. Making New York State #2 on the list. What is also a little known fact is that Bill Clinton signed another bill into law at almost the same time.

I see no one enforcing this law. Nor do I see anyone upholding our Constitution. I find nothing wrong with giving protection to Women who need it. However, at the expense of exploiting and victimizing men! By Women who just exploit it's intended purposes for nothing more than to further the abuse, to exploit the children and to gain monetarily for no other purpose but to Domestically Terrorize their former spouse's. Bring nothing but discredit to everything the V.A.W.A act should stand for. Let us not forget the fundamental Rights of the People. Your next President should be one who believes in equality and most importantly the Constitution of this United States.

Who is speaking for the victim's of those put through years of Court action, Incarceration, Loss of assets, Family torn apart, left homeless and jobless? Yes who is protecting these victims of Domestic Terrorism. Where are our shelters? Where is our accountability? Where is our assistance? Where are our protections? No need to ramble on. Simply educate yourselves and do it quickly. Your family may depend on it...

Posted by: drfennel | January 11, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse


You "think" they save more people than are harmed. What do you base that upon? I already posted a link to the USDHHS figures as to whom perpetrates abuse against the nation's children. No one is saying that there shouldn't be a system to protect victims of abuse. What is being said is that the gender bias is endangering those victims and that the preponderance of accused are never found guilty.

With annual USDHHS figures as evidence, the blood of children stains the souls of those who continue to stand for current domestic violence laws.

Posted by: carl | January 11, 2008 10:21 AM | Report abuse

FFI: I am well-versed on VAWA and policy reform solutions, and am willing to interview with media outlets who care about women, children, men, and marriage enough to take up this issue. My contact is 314 991-1959 / drusher[at]

Posted by: drusher | January 11, 2008 10:15 AM | Report abuse

To Mr. Romney,

In a nutshell, here is how VAWA works, and why it is wrong:

1. Women initiate over half of all serious spousal altercations. VAWA only funds services and organizations representing female victims. If you would not support a "Violence Against Whites Act", you have a real good idea what is wrong with VAWA.

2. The ABA, APA, and womens advocates have generated tons of false studies based on self-generated, one-sided surveys pretending that men are always the abuser and women the victim. The ABA even uses sexist terminology in its official Standards of Practice document.

3. All that is needed to get a restraining order is a statement of "fear". No evidence, no fact, no objective verification. This is a license for widespread manipulation and abuse of family law.

4. Alcohol and drug abuse is the #1 predictor of domestic conflict according to the BJS [1999]. When the female is the chemical abuser, the laws end up giving her pre-emptive sole custody of children. This is a primary reason why single mothers are responsible for at least 2/3 of serious and fatal child abuse and neglect. Women with drug or alcohol problems need treatment. There is nothing sadder than to watch a woman with a drinking or drugging problem trying to "do it all" on less money, while the kids pay for it all.

5. Because of its great unchecked power, VAWA is being misused to drive the divorce and illegitimacy revolution. Since the 1960's, feminists have been working to kill marriage. VAWA is the atom bomb of marriage. It must be reformed to serve sensible purposes, dictated by well-known science rather than rumor and fear.

VAWA must be restructured and refunded to behave as a gender-neutral Family Violence Act.

David R. Usher
Senior Policy Analyst
True Equality Network

Posted by: drusher | January 11, 2008 10:11 AM | Report abuse

No system is perfect and as with all imperfect human run systems, some will abuse it and innocent people get harmed. True, some people falsely accused and seek protection orders to gain an advantage in a custody dispute. Recently, Kevin Federline was granted one against his ex Britney Spears. Unfortunately, we need such systems. I think they save far more people than are harmed.

Posted by: wintrywood | January 11, 2008 9:54 AM | Report abuse

I have to agree with the above post. Marriage, and especially fatherhood, is a reckless endeavor in these times. 85% of divorces are filed by women, and VAWA is nothing less than a nuclear arm in the hands of an angry woman bent on destroying her family.

Clear and convincing evidence is not required for a final protective order. Preponderance of the evidence, less than that required for a traffic citation, is all that is required to separate a daddy permanently from his children.

What I just can't understand is why no candidate can simply state "I believe in equal protection under the law." Especially a candidate that espouses "family values."

No candidate can reasonably deny the destruction of divorce on society, and the social pathologies that arise from a nation of fatherless children. It's a sad fact that the majority of these fathers do not want these divorces, and want to stay connected to their children, but are unfortunately limited to 2 weekends per month, at best, as a result of an involuntary, unilateral divorce.

I wish one candidate could simply get up and say "I believe shared parenting, 50/50 custody, should be the law of the land in the absence of clear and convincing evidence that one parent is unfit."

This would represent true family values, true change, and someone that many, many people (fathers, second spouses, adult children of divorce, grandparents, etc) could vote on.

Posted by: abbieguard-dads | January 11, 2008 12:04 AM | Report abuse

I was in the US military for 6 years. You couldn't pay me enough money now to serve even one day knowing that should I be killed in combat, I would be dying to protect the greediest, most selfish, arrogant, violent generation of women who have ever lived in this nation. Even soldiers are victims of DV and most women don't care. Soldiers are victims of false charges and most women don't care. Soldiers are victims of paternity fraud (lots of them) and women don't care.

And I AM talking about my grandmother, my mother, my sisters, in laws, aunts, and many other women in the family's circle of influence.

I have a nephew whose girlfriend consistently abuses him and the women in the family make sick jokes about him and claim it's his fault because he is stupid enough to stay with her. THAT is the caliber of women in this country today.

Refuse to shed one precious drop of your male blood for these harpies and their sick vision of a society for women only. Refuse to date them, wed them or give them children. Kick them out of your beds, out of your kitchens and out of your homes. Invest in real estate not women and children. Women and children are a worthless investment for any man's future. Live alone and you will survive. Don't invest in the American govt either. Neither Republicans nor Democrats have a clue as to what is really going on and/or they don't care. Even Ron Paul had to be told what VAWA was. He didn't know. And he is possibly the best hope we might have for the future?

The only true fight is the fight for men's rights. Join a men's rights group and do what you can or you can kiss this country goodbye.

Oh and don't watch tv either -- nothing but a tool of man-hating feminist propaganda.

a militant masculist

Posted by: bjernigan7040 | January 10, 2008 8:12 PM | Report abuse

Preponderence of evidence? Have you ever tried filing a restraining order or protection from abuse as they are called in some states? I was abused in college by my fiance, and I filed one. All I had to do was watch a 20 minute video and fill out a form. Then I was brought in front of a judge, asked if what I wrote was true and correct, and it was GRANTED. Right there on the spot, no verification, no asking to see bruises, nothing. Luckily I was telling the truth, but make no mistake, this is used by women to get custody of their children every single day.

My partner has gone through this with his ex-wife. While court professionals take these things very seriously when they are taken out against men, they ignore them when taken out against women. His exwife broke into his home, with the kids with her who were 3 and 6, stole his guns and threatened him to commit suicide with them, verbally and physically assaulted him in the driveway, in front of neighbors, and you know what the child custody evaluator said about the PFA? It was "attorney posturing."

VAWA is disgusting. And the largest organization that gets 1.8 billion of the funding is even worse, take a look at what they think of fathers rights groups: The groups that use these funds believe that all men are abusive and that women never are, and there is simply nothing further from the truth. Take a look at this blog for instance:

Domestic violence is a huge issue, it's an issue that effects women AND men.

Posted by: mweaver606 | January 10, 2008 6:05 PM | Report abuse

Given that Gov. Romney has been bombarded with communications from men being divorced in Massachusetts, probably the most male unfriendly state in the union, he has heard about VAWA from dozens of them because it mirrors the family court system there; the woman is almost always seen as the victim and the man as the perpetrator even before the facts of the case are known. In this instance he lied to avoid addressing a highly contentious issue; when I have written to him, he avoids the issue by saying he believes in the separation of powers, and that he does not interfere with the judicial system.
Gov. Romney, like most judges, won't face this contentious issue by acknowledging there is good and bad on both sides because, being leaderless, they fear the wrath of radical feminist organizations such as NOW who will pillory you in the press if you attempt to be fair and reasonable. They will picture you as someone who is cruel and unwilling to help the poor damsel in distress and will let the Simon Legree walk out unscathed, rubbing his hands and looking for his next victim, no matter what the real truth is. And the press will just eat this stuff up. It is just so much easier to strip the man of his assets and/or throw him in the slammer than it is to really try to solve the problem.
There is a chance, albeit a small chance because people have to be politicians to survive in politics, that John McCain or Barak Obama would try to deal with contentious issues like this rather than duck them out of fear. And that would be a real change from what is now going on in Washington where politicians live in fear of these fanatics or they cater to them. The type of change Hillary Clinton will bring about is instead of catering to the zealots on the right as George Bush has done, she will cater to the radical feminists on the left, and they will pick the man cleaner and/or throw him in jail longer.
Ken Jones
Silver Spring, MD

Posted by: ken.a.jones | January 10, 2008 5:13 PM | Report abuse

Video of the exchange with Romney
is available here:


Posted by: richard_smaglick | January 10, 2008 1:16 AM | Report abuse

We already knew that Mitt lies and dodges. He lied here also, again. Like most front-runner candidates, he too is very politically correct, a term developed by Red China's Chairman Mao for his state religion of communism...

A couple years ago as Governor of Mass. Romney was under attack over upholding rabid Massachusetts DV (domestic violence) laws and supporting such legislation which was abusing fathers and children, and ultimately women too once what goes around comes around. Romney does not care about children; he just cares about looking like he cares about them... Political correctness is prime with him. He just doesn't want to get attacked by the politically correct system for heresy.

Back then, Romney was under strong attack by a bunch of fathers' advocates and others in Mass. and elsewhere who let me and others know. I then let members of our Utah groups know about it and asked anyone concerned to join in too. A lot of us wrote to Romney on these issues, urging him to do what's right.

Their debate on these issues, including VAWA, was comprehensive then. It was about why Romney was supporting abusive state laws and practices and ALSO supporting abusive VAWA as well, and why he had an still was supprorting legislation, practices and VAWA which are all abusing and hurting men, women and children most of all. Romney is very aware of VAWA and what the domestic violence industry does vs what it claims (the opposite of what it does). Romney ducked that general question because he, like others, wants us and our children to get lost so he can keep looking "presidential" and not get into hot water with his real religion - political correctness (not Mormonism at all).

The point is that Romney, like others, He knows these issues very well (and VAWA) and is lying once again. But that's what a "good" politician does - good at looking good to both sides and sliding out from under examination. We just saw it in action again (and again, and again...) with the new Teflon Man.

I'm embarrassed that Romney and Senator Harry Reid (D- NV) claim to be Mormon.


Tom Miller

Posted by: advoc8tomm | January 10, 2008 12:48 AM | Report abuse

Exactly Ed. In fact, the CEO of the Naples Shelter for Abused Women and Children (linked in my previous post above) was fired for battering her employees.

I ask again, how many women would seek shelter for their abused child at a facility named "The Shelter for Abused Men and Children"?

Posted by: carl | January 9, 2008 1:38 PM | Report abuse

For those who believe that women are never violent, check out the recent story of a Florida woman who was stabbed to death by another woman, while they were residents at an Abuse Shelter!


Winslow MV, Young C. Suspect in SafeSpace stabbing in Martin County claims self-defense. TCPalm November 14, 2007.

Posted by: edwardbartlett | January 8, 2008 7:50 PM | Report abuse

As Gov. of MA, Romney was certainly given PLENTY of information on domestic violence in the state by the several fathers groups there. Same for child support and custody issues. I've contacted him (his office) several times myself, without even an acknowledgement of the letters. I questioned him in person on one occasion, and was snubbed. He has shown himself to be totally unresponsive to male constitutents. One must infer that a lousy governor will not make a good president.
Paul Clements

Posted by: pclem | January 8, 2008 6:48 PM | Report abuse

Follow-up. After considering the USDHHS chart in my post above, someone please tell me how a father is supposed to seek protection for his abused child, when the only shelter available in the area is "The Shelter for Abused Women & Children".

Here is the link to the only available domestic violence shelter in my area -

How many women would seek shelter for their abused child at a facility named "The Shelter for Abused Men and Children"?

Posted by: carl | January 8, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

More information and a link to the video will be available here on Wednesday.

JakeD: The question in nearly verbatim as I read most of it to Romney. You can reach me at:

Posted by: richard_smaglick | January 8, 2008 2:45 PM | Report abuse

"If I'm going to err, I'm going to err on the side of protecting the child."

Clearly, that is not what is occurring. Here are the facts, if anyone cares to debate the best manner in which to protect children:

Posted by: carl | January 8, 2008 2:37 PM | Report abuse

"Mitt Romney is opposed to domestic violence,"

Essentially all of our elected officials can declare this but they only oppose domestic violence to women!

Unbiased research shows women are as violent as men yet we have no protection for this half of the victims of domestic abuse.

Many organizations requested that the Violence Against Women Act be made the Family or Domestic Violence Act to protect everyone but the powers behind this act would not consider it

Senator Joseph Biden, the Delaware democrat who once chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee, first proposed the VAWA in 1990. The bill was a collaborative effort, with key roles played by Victoria Nourse, then Senate Judiciary Committee counsel, and Sally Goldfarb, then NOW
Legal Defense and Education Fund (NOW LDEF) staff attorney. A broad range of feminist groups offered input and support, and NOW LDEF's Pat Reuss lent lobbying expertise.

Radical feminist wrote this act. Would not this be like asking the Klu Klux Klan to write laws concerning racial relations?

I ask you to substitute the word "women" in any of this with Black, Asians, or any other group. Would it be fair? Would it be Just?

Would it stand the test of the Equal protection clause of the


Many state attorney generals have actually stated that they would not prosecute a women for domestic abuse. Part of the reasoning for this is that VAWA does not allow it. It encourages an arrest anytime police are called but often they will arrest the man even if he is the only victim. We can see that in our own areas whereby two of our fire fighters were arrested for assaulting women when they were PROTECTING themselves.

There are many resources from unbiased sources...sources that do not get paid for what they find. If we use only the biased sources, it would be like asking Ronald McDonald what the best hamburger is.

There are some resources you can check:

RADAR Special Reports

Effects of VAWA

· Threat to Families

· VAWA Discriminates Against Male Victims

· Abuse of Domestic Restraining Orders

· Justice Denied: Arrest Policies for DV

· Bias in the Judiciary

· A Culture of False Allegations

· Has VAWA Delivered on its Promises to Women?

I do believe each candidate needs to be asked this question because if we do not look at BOTH sides, more women will be harmed but more important, more of our children will be as our homes are destroyed at a record level.

To conclude, Unless we look at BOTH sides, the problem will not be resolved, it will only get worse

Pastor Kenneth Deemer

Director Shattered Men
P.O. BOX 166

JUNE is Domestic Violence Against Men Awareness Month

Web site:

Posted by: shatteredmen | January 8, 2008 12:48 PM | Report abuse

Smaglick's site looks to be this:

He's also got his own Youtube channel:

Maybe he could ask the same question of an approachable Dem like Richardson or Edwards and post it online.

Posted by: LonewackoDotCom | January 8, 2008 12:08 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Smaglick-As I alluded in my previous answer, too much of the activism tends to be one-sided against Men in general. In a day and age, when Dr. Rice is the Secretary of State, and Billary is trying to be the Commander in Chief, people need to accept the fact women are quite capable of being aggresive, and possibly hostile!
If anything, it is the Men being emasculated-Just ask Bill!

Now, consider if Mitt Romney had the "TEAM" I keep trying to recommend. The Statesman could bounce that particular piece of sh-- er, Legislation, off Giuliani and Fred Thompson, consider their Legal expertice(Of which Mitt also has some), and make a very educated and informed decision.
I agree, it showed intelligence not just shooting from the Hip!

Posted by: rat-the | January 8, 2008 11:10 AM | Report abuse


Can we see the video on-line? Was the latest version called Laci & Connor's Law? Did you really ask that entire question word-for-word? Thanks in advance for answering my questions.

Posted by: JakeD | January 8, 2008 10:28 AM | Report abuse

Well, temporary or emergency orders are short-term judicial decisions made based on a preponderance of the evidence to err on the side of personal safety for the respondent. Final protective orders require clear and convincing evidence to be approved, which is a harder standard than other civil actions.

As far as throwing men out of their house with the clothes on their backs, judges can make a determination with co-habitating couples (overnights for 90 days w/in the past year, generally) as to who will reside in the home for the duration of the order (or until another decision made in civil court supersedes the terms of the order)... even if the title or lease isn't in the respondent's name... considering what resources both parties have access to, income, alternative housing options, etc., but many judges aren't too thrilled to rule this way. Since abusers are controlling, it is more likely that they will control the income, have the title/lease in their name, and will have isolated the victim from friends and family who they otherwise might stay with. So when it's a bona fide DV situation, I can see how this makes sense.

I think Romney understood the point of the question, but everyone's trying to pretend they're so moderate, and that was a loaded, leading question, so that's probably why he didn't answer it.

Posted by: DVProfessional | January 8, 2008 10:24 AM | Report abuse

It's on tape.

I went to two of Hillary Clinton's appearances. I tried very hard to ask her the same question but didn't get the opportunity.

Posted by: richard_smaglick | January 7, 2008 11:06 PM | Report abuse

Richard Smaglick: While I'd prefer questions on immigration, good job with at least asking a real question.

However, to be much more effective, let me suggest asking Hillary, or at least one of the Dems about it.

And, in order to avoid the WaPo's spin, *get it on videotape* and upload it to a video sharing site.

Voters asking politicians real questions about the flaws in the policies and putting them online would go a good ways towards reforming both politics and the MSM.

Posted by: LonewackoDotCom | January 7, 2008 10:54 PM | Report abuse

I'm the guy who asked the question referred to in this really unbalanced article. The question went like this:

My question involves the difficult subject of domestic violence.

According to the New Jersey Law Journal, Judge Richard Russell of Ocean City, NJ made the following statement regarding restraining orders:

"Your job is not to become concerned about the constitutional rights of the man that you're violating as you grant a restraining order," he said. "Throw him out on the street, give him the clothes on his back and tell him, see ya around ...The woman needs this protection because the statute granted her that protection ... They have declared domestic violence to be an evil in our society. So we don't have to worry about the rights."

A New Mexico judge granted a restraining order against David Letterman based on a woman's claim that Letterman was harassing her with subliminal messages in his television appearances. As a result of the Violence Against Women Act and current domestic violence policy, the judicial oversight in this case amounted to verification that the form was filled out properly with no consideration of the veracity of the claims. This type of judicial oversight is practiced in many states and frequently results in innocent men losing all or most of their meaningful involvement in their children's lives.

First, is it acceptable to you that restraining orders are granted in this manner and second, if this is unacceptable to you, will you pledge to veto further reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act and similar domestic violence legislation without provisions to prevent the issuance of restraining orders based on false claims?"

Posted by: richard_smaglick | January 7, 2008 10:28 PM | Report abuse

Me three. Give the guy a break. I'm not much of a Romney fan, but I'll congratulate him for giving a straight "I don't know" rather than trying to BS his way through an answer.

Posted by: bsimon | January 7, 2008 9:52 PM | Report abuse

Uhhh, Maybe because as Governor, he was pre-occupied with State Legislation-You know, Legislation, Legislators draw up.

Then, It probably did not register with Him, because he could not concieve of battering His Wife!

Not everyone is involved in Dysfunctional Relationships!

But, when they are, they deal with Social groups and Trial Lawyers!

Now, allow me-If a Woman demands the right to decide if SHE is going to have the baby, then if she decides to have one, but does not want the Father to share the child, WHY SHOULD HE BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CHILD SUPPORT?!

Posted by: rat-the | January 7, 2008 7:40 PM | Report abuse

Was the latest version called Laci & Connor's Law? Honestly, if it isn't, then I'm not familiar with the Act either. Don't hold it against me, though, as I'm not running for President and being expected to know with instant recall all 500,000 laws passed in the last couple decades.

Posted by: JakeD | January 7, 2008 7:32 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company