Of all the astonishingly bad reasons conservatives oppose reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act, concern for men is probably the worst. Make that definitely the worst. Via Sahil Kapur at TPM:
Claiming that the reauthorization would expand the definition of domestic violence to include “emotional distress,” Heritage [Action] declared that the “expansive and vague language will increase fraud and false allegations, for which there is no legal recourse.”
“Under VAWA, men effectively lose their constitutional rights to due process, presumption of innocence, equal treatment under the law, the right to a fair trial and to confront one’s accusers, the right to bear arms, and all custody/visitation rights,” the group wrote. “It is unprecedented, unnecessary and dangerous.”
FreedomWorks also worried that the legislation would be unfair to men.
Um, no. No, wrong, incorrect, false, fail, no. There's absolutely nothing in the nearly 20-year-old legislation that deprives anyone of their constitutional rights—not even men who beat the crap out of women. But according to these conservative groups, it's unfair to men that this legislation funds, for example, violence prevention programs, or rape crisis centers. Because if communities are better equipped to reduce violence, well, that's not very fair to the perpetrators of violence, is it? And is it really fair to them that their victims might have a safe place to go after being raped or beaten? Obviously not.
Freedomworks went on to say:
Supporters of the VAWA portray women as helpless victims – this is the kind of attitude that is setting women back.
Oh, I see. The best way to support victims of violence is to tell them to drop that whole helpless victim attitude, defund programs to help them, and make sure our legal system understands that prosecuting rapists and wife-beaters just subverts the whole Constitution so don't bother.