The Office of Violence Against Women is one of the federal agencies that has compromised its mission and lost its credibility,
resulting in a failure to protect women from violence and abuse.  The many reasons for OVW's mission failure are addressed in my
book “Restraining Orders….You can’t call the bullet back”.

This article addresses one of the reasons for the agency’s failure.  My arguments are not intended to be political nor are they
intended to be a rally for or against the three laws recently enacted by our Supreme Court (1) Same-sex marriage, (2) Affordable Care Act,
and (3) Upholding housing discrimination law.

Not only did the laws sharply divide the Supreme Court, the issues sharply divided the country. Despite the divisiveness, the country
must accept the fact that these laws are now the law of the land.  So why then do I say these three laws politically motivated directly or indirectly
OVW and some of its affiliated nonprofit organizations?  One in particular called Futures without Violence, was a driving force behind
passage of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994.  This nonprofit was and still is heavily funded by federal grants and subsidies and totally
espouses OVW's approach and radical ideology to end violence against women.

Take a look at the
2018 financials for Futures without Violence.  Hundreds of other similar nonprofits affiliated with OVW that promote the VAWA
concept and approach are also blessed with similar or greater financial support.

The most powerful and financially stable nonprofit supporting the VAWA/OVW mission and goals is New York's Safe Horizons organization.  
A peek at its
2018 financials reveals just how much money is spent on trying to eradicate violence against women.  Between the
billions of tax dollars spent by OVW and the millions of dollars spent by thousands of associated organizations for more than 20 years, the war on
violence against women should have ended several years ago!
According to experts and statements in the press, domestic violence is still an epidemic; however, OVW contrary to public opinion, tells congress
that they had success in reducing violence against women by 68% but there is still more to do.  Ironically, in turn, that tells congress we are
winning but don't stop or reduce the funding or “the war will regress”.

Enough with the background information let me address the reason for this article.  When the divided Supreme Court proclaimed that
the three laws stated above were now the law of the land, Esta Soler president of Futures Without Violence a strong radical voice for the Violence
Against Women ACT in 1994, made a politically motivated statement to her staff and volunteers in a widely distributed email.

Esta stated that the laws enacted are a “
win- win- win” for survivors of domestic violence.  She said that these 3 laws are so important to
survivors of domestic violence that voting for them in the affirmative was a must in order to help achieve the main mission of VAWA and Futures
Without Violence.  Why is this statement politicizing the mission of protecting women against violence?

Those who agree with Esta on passage of the laws see no conflict or evidence that her statement is self-serving and used as a political ploy
to influence the public.  Basically, what she is saying is that all three laws affect the war on domestic violence.  And, the beneficiaries of
these laws are the women who are victims of domestic violence.

Let me put it in a more concrete way when applied to the same-sex marriage law.  Esta's article politicizes and dupes congress by saying the
law on gay marriage is helping domestic violence victims.  Of greater serious political significance is the fact that her statement implies that the
millions of citizens who opposed the gay marriage law, including the dissenting Supreme Court Justices are guilty of not caring for the
survivors of domestic violence!

Also, Esta's statement “Now that LGBT couples everywhere can get married, the door is open to fortify existing laws that support and protect all
abused spouses” bears scrutiny and clarification as to how OVW and Futures Without Violence “intend to fortify existing law”.  For example,
fortifying the Restraining Order court process without revamping the process itself would only inflict more damage to innocent children.  
the process ow grants all allegations of domestic violence capriciously without due process or the standard “innocent until proven guilty”
ignoring and subverting the US Constitution.

Same-sex couples have lived together or have been married in many states long before the Supreme Court enacted the law.  Many of
these couples have experienced domestic violence and abuse and were granted restraining orders by state courts.  The judiciary
processed these cases in the same manner as all other restraining orders.  The only difference now that same-sex marriage is the law
of the land is the possibility of a significant increase in the number of restraining orders filed and granted without evidence or due process.

When political games are played, funding is often provided for new policies and procedures to stem perceived problems that are not normally
based on facts.  Basically, these political games become a self-serving money grab of no value to humanitarian needs!  
The win-win-win political statement of these three laws will definitely be conveyed to Congress by OVW with a request for additional funds to
fortify existing laws that support and protect all abused spouses” while silently ignoring the fact that OVW’s approach is failing and
is not protecting women.

In addition to the same-sex law falsely proclaiming that it is linked with domestic violence, the Affordable Care Act is also falsely linked
to the same domestic violence cause.  The only difference is that the Act actually provides special insurance to help support victims of
domestic violence.  This proviso could also be included in insurance proposals other than Obamacare as some law makers have
indicated.  So, whether or not you believe in the Affordable Care Act, the insurance proviso for victims of domestic violence is not necessarily an
intrinsic part of the law.  Furthermore, you will find a glitch in the law that makes it necessary for victims of domestic violence to lie on the form as
instructed by advocates.


Like the dissenting Supreme Court Justices, millions of American citizens opposed these laws for various reasons.  Esta’s implied rationale
that anyone opposing the law is against supporting survivors of domestic violence is a politically motivated and self-serving
approach.  I am sure that the dissenting Justices and the millions of citizens that opposed the law would not appreciate being labeled
as not caring for victims of domestic violence especially by a nonprofit 501c(3) organization largely funded by tax dollars! To the contrary, most
citizens are totally against domestic violence and are ready to fight to protect all true victims of abuse women, men or children.

BY Robert Leclair