Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Obviously, the entire four billion dollars would not used for background checks. As is stated in the article, the new provisions of VAWA would require the match-making agency to do background checks on potential husbands. It does not appear that this new law would require any significant governmental funding. The match-making agencies realize a profit from each "match." Doesn't it make sense to have them check out potential husbands to ensure the safety of the women coming from another country? It seems to me that this should actually limit the strain on taxpayers by hopefully screening out the abusers and thereby reducing the number of women who will need to go to the police and the courts to obtain protection.
The four billion dollars that will be spent under the VAWA will go largely towards providing grants to local shelters, agencies, police departments, and family courts. One new program that has been developed by the Office on Violence Against Women gives grants to battered spouses to seek transitional housing.
Finally, I question A Single Man's characterization of men who utilize mail-order brides as "vulnerable." While these men may be lonely and indeed "have few other options," buying a wife off of the internet does not seem to be a particularly vulnerable act. If these men wish to protect themselves from the mercenaries from afar, I would suggest unplugging the computer and trying to meet some local women.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
