Month: February 2023

Growing Wave of Bills Frustrate Biden Plan to Allow Biological Males to Compete in Women’s Sports

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date February 13, 2023

	Dating		Married
	Male %	Female %	Male %	Female %
Any physical violence	14.6	17.4	13.6	12.1
Severe physical violence	11.9	5.6	4.9	4.4

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Growing Wave of Bills Frustrate Biden Plan to Allow Biological Males to Compete in Women’s Sports

WASHINGTON / February 14, 2023 – Surfer Bethany Hamilton is speaking out against the World Surf League’s newly announced policy that would allow biological males to compete against women in professional surfing events (1).

Hamilton’s comments spotlight the growing controversy arising from a Department of Education proposal, issued last June, to redefine the meaning of “sex” in the Title IX law to include “gender identity” (2). Such a change would impose a competitive disadvantage on biological females (3).

In response, a milestone court decision was handed down, and a series of proposed bills have been introduced at the federal and state levels that are designed to protect women’s sports.

On January 5, 2023, the Southern District Court of West Virginia ruled in favor of the Save Women’s Sports Bill, which defines “girl” and “woman” as biologically female for the purpose of secondary school sports (4).

In Congress, Rep. Greg Steube recently introduced the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act. The bill, which now has 20 co-sponsors, would require that sex “be recognized based solely on a person’s reproductive biology and genetics at birth” (5).

In 12 states, lawmakers recently have introduced bills designed to protect women’s sports:

Alaska: HB 27 (6)
Colorado: HB 23-1098 (7)
Connecticut: SB 468 (8)
Hawaii: HB 508/SB 1429 (9)
Kansas: HB 2238 (10)
Maryland: HB 359 (11)
Minnesota: HF 551 (12)
Missouri: SB 48 (13)
New Jersey: SB 589 (14)
North Dakota: HB 1249 (15) and HB 1489 (16)
Texas: HB 23 (17)
Virginia: HB 1387 (18)

Eighteen states previously enacted laws designed to ban biological males from competing in female sports: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Iowa, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia (19).

A SAVE opinion poll found that 71% of Americans oppose allowing transgender athletes to participate in women’s sports (20). SAVE urges lawmakers to discourage attempts the redefine “sex” and work to assure fairness in women’s sports (21).

Links:

Domestic Violence

Prevalence of Domestic Violence in Australia

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date February 7, 2023

Prevalence of Domestic Violence in Australia

Domestic Abuse and Violence International Alliance

February 7, 2023

Seven population-based or large-scale surveys have examined the sex-specific prevalence of physical domestic violence in Australia. Studies with the strongest methodologies surveyed a large, random sample of the population, and asked about the occurrence of specific abusive behaviors, e.g., slap, shove, hit, etc., consistent with the Conflict Tactics Scale.[1]

The surveys were conducted among adolescents (Gibbon et al), university students (Straus), newlyweds (Halford et al), and the general adult population (Headey et al, Grande et al, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Ahmadabadi et al).

The following surveys found higher rates of male victimization or female perpetration:

Headey et al
Straus
Halford et al
Ahmadabadi et al (among persons currently in a relationship)
Gibbon et al

The following surveys found higher rates of female victimization or male perpetration:

Grande et al
Australian Bureau of Statistics
Ahmadabadi et al (among persons currently not in a relationship)

We conclude that overall, men and women in Australia experience domestic violence at similar rates. Summaries of each survey are shown below, in chronological order of year of publication:

Headey B, Scott D, & de Vaus D (1999). Domestic violence in Australia: Are women and men equally violent? Data from the International Social Science Survey/Australia 1996/1997 was examined. A sample of 1,643 subjects (804 men, 839 women) responded to questions about their experiences with domestic violence in the past 12 months, as assessed by responses to three questions about a slap, shake, or scratch; hit with fist or threw something; or kicked. Results reveal that 5.7 % of men and 3.7 % of women reported being victims of domestic assaults.[2]
Grande ED, Hickling J, Taylor, & Woollacott T (2003). Domestic violence in South Australia: A population survey of males and females. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 27(5), 543–550. A representative random sample of South Australian adults responded to items related intimate partner violence. Results reveal that 2.9 % of 2,596 men and 3.4 % of 2,884 women reported experiencing physical violence perpetrated by their partners.[3]
Straus M (2008). Dominance and symmetry in partner violence by male and female university students in 32 nations. Children and Youth Services Review 30 (252-275). As part of an international study of dating violence among students in 32 countries, Straus surveyed university students in Adelaide. Among the respondents, 20.2% admitted to pushing, grabbing, slapping, throwing something, twisting the arm or hair, punching, kicking, choking, slamming against a wall, beating up, burning, or using a knife or gun against their dating partner within the past year. These incidents were of the following type (Table 2):

Male-only: 14.0%
Female-only: 21.0%
Both violent: 64.9%

Halford W, Farrugia, C, Lizzio A, & Wilson K (2010). Relationship aggression, violence and self-regulation in Australian newlywed couples. Australian Journal of Psychology, 62(2), 82–92. A sample of 379 newlywed couples in Australia responded to a short version of the CTS. Results reveal that 22% of couples experienced a least one act of physical violence in the past year. Female perpetration of violence was more common that male perpetration. Authors report that in violence couples the more common pattern was for women to be violent (59%) followed by violence by both partners (34%) and least common was violence by men only (7%).^[4]
Australian Bureau of Statistics Personal Safety Survey (2017). A large, nationally representative survey inquired about persons’ experience of “violence.” The two components of physical violence are defined as:
1. Physical assault is any incident that involved the use of physical force with the intent to harm or frighten a person.
2. Physical threat is any attempt to inflict physical harm or a threat or suggestions of intent to inflict physical harm, which was made face-to-face and which the person believed was able and likely to be carried out. Excludes incidents of violence in which the threat was actually carried out.

Of all incidents committed by an intimate partner in the past year, 35% of victims were male and 65% female.[5]

Zohre Ahmadabadi, Jackob M. Najman, and Peter d’Abbs (2017). Gender Differences in Intimate Partner Violence in Current and Prior Relationships. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 36 (1-2). The sample consisted of 2,060 young adults (mean age = 30 years) who had participated in the 30-year follow-up of the Mater Hospital and University of Queensland Study of Pregnancy. Percentages of persons who had experienced physical abuse in the previous 12 months:[6]
1. Currently in a relationship: 12.0% of males and 5.9% of females
2. Not currently in a relationship: 22.6% of males and 27.2% of females

Gibbon KF, Meyer S, Boxall H, Maher J, Roberts S (2022). Adolescent family violence in Australia: A national study of prevalence, history of childhood victimisation and impacts. ANROWS conducted a national online survey of over 5,000 adolescents ages 16-20 regarding their abusive actions directed to family members. The survey found that 23% of females and 14% of males reported they had ever perpetrated some form of abuse against a family member (Table 2):

Physical violence — Males: 7%; Females: 11%
Verbal abuse — Males: 9%; Females: 17%
Emotional/psychological abuse – Males: 2%; Females: 6%

The age of onset among female adolescents tended to be earlier than male adolescents (Figure 1.5). The violence was directed to siblings (68%), mothers (51%), and fathers (37%).[7]

Citations:

[1] http://rzukausk.home.mruni.eu/wp-content/uploads/Conflict-Tactics-Scale.pdf

[2] http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/dom/heady99.htm

[3] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14651403/

[4]https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00049530902804169

[5] https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/crime-and-justice/personal-safety-australia/latest-release

[6] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0886260517730563

[7] https://anrowsdev.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/RP.20.03-RR1_FitzGibbon-AFVinAus.pdf

Child Custody Domestic Violence False Allegations Istanbul Convention Law & Justice Legal

CONSEQUENCES OF THE LAW OF GENDER VIOLENCE AND GENDER IDEOLOGY IN SPAIN

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date February 6, 2023

CONSEQUENCES OF THE LAW OF GENDER VIOLENCE AND GENDER IDEOLOGY IN SPAIN

D. Jesús Muñoz

Dª María Legaz

National Association for Assistance to Victims of Domestic Violence (Asociacion Nacional de Ayuda a Victimas de Ayuda de Violencia Doméstica)

24 January 2023

The passage of the LIVG, the comprehensive law against gender-based violence, in Spain in 2004 has led to the violation of the fundamental rights of all heterosexual citizens, especially loss of the “presumption of innocence.”

The socialist party, from which this ideology of copyright criminal law
originated, had on the table, according to public statements by one of its proponents, safeguarding the protection of victims or the presumption of innocence. They opted for the protection of victims, destroying the “presumption of innocence” for hundreds of thousands of men in the past 18 years.

The gender violence law is based on the study of the Minneapolis mandatory arrest law.

From 2004 to 2022, there have been more than 2,260,000 judicial
proceedings, with more than 1,705,000 defendants ending up being declared innocent. This means that innocent people have been prosecuted with public money, depriving them of their liberty. By applying Article 544 TER of the Ley de Enjuiciamiento Criminal, they have been separated from their children, with jail detentions of 24 and 72 hours. These detentions normally take place on weekends, beginning on Fridays, so the man spends the whole weekend in a jail with deplorable hygienic conditions. The man is in a state of shock, not knowing why he has been deprived of liberty, expelled from his house with only what he was wearing. and deprived of his children’s visitation regime.

An average of more than 455 men are arrested every day in Spain for allegations of gender violence, based solely on the word of a woman. An average of 160,000 men are prosecuted each year as terrorists. Year after year, it has been shown that more than 80% of them, who have been deprived of their liberty, are declared innocent, according to data from the General Council of the Judiciary.

Hundreds of billions of euros are spent in Spain, coming from the European Union, squandered by political parties. As an example, between 2014 and 2016 the Junta de Andalucía spent a whopping sum of more than of 66,000 millions of euros.

The European Union allocates €366 billion a year to addressing gender violence. None of these grants are audited.

An estimation of the costs of gender violence in the EU, according to a study carried out by the United Kingdom, estimated that Spain received from more than 24,000 million euros in 2012. With these funds, networks of feminist associations related to political parties have been created, which obtain economic revenue through their gender ideology.

The Spanish gender violence law is based on author’s criminal law, as
stated on page 92 and 93 of the CGPJ’s, LIVG draft report and
Constitutional Court Judgment 59/2008, dated July 4. The Particular
vote of five magistrates, including Judge Jorge Rodríguez Zapata, states
in writing, on folio 25 of the sentences, that this law would make the
dreams of Edmund Mezger, German jurist from Nazi Germany, come true.

He writes in the seventh paragraph:

“Finally, I express my wish that this Judgment not to be the
beginning in our order of the fulfillment of Mezger’s dream: two
Criminal Laws; a criminal law for the generality, in which, in essence, the principles that have governed up to now will remain in force. And, along with it, a completely different criminal law, for special groups of certain people. I leave a record of my position in this Vote.
In Madrid, on May fourteenth, two thousand and eight. Jorge
Rodriguez Zapata Perez. -Signed”.

In addition to this, a renowned member of the Socialist party and expresident of the Spanish Government, Alfonso Guerra, publicly declared that he spoke with an acquaintance of his, who had been the president of the Constitutional Court in 2004, who confirmed to him that the seven magistrates who approved the unconstitutional law, that they did so under pressure from feminist lobbies, and from the socialist party of José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero:

Alfonso Guerra reveals the pressure on the TC on the LIVG.

In Spain we are suffering from what Poland and Hungary already warned about, which is why they withdrew from the Istanbul Agreement.

If we add to this, that the socialist government subsidized women’s allegations with public money, since the higher the number of allegations, the more women are declared mistreated and the more
money the feminist associations receive. So says the BOE of 2005, Number 215 on page 30453.

Currently, in addition to all of the overhead, a lot of women in a divorce or children custody proceeding, profit from Articles 92.7 and 94 of the Civil Code. These women use the gender violence law so that fathers cannot fight for joint child custody. And with article 94, during the investigation and judicial process, the man is deprived of child visitation rights, despite the fact that 80% of them are eventually declared to be innocent. You can imagine the ordeal they suffer, when one to five years can pass without being able to see their children.

ANAVID asks that all of these discriminatory laws, which violate constitutional, fundamental and human rights, be repealed. These laws are destroying the lives of men, children, and entire families, and are not protecting the truly mistreated women. We demand laws that protect and punish all people equally, regardless of sex, age, ethnicity or sexual orientation.

Furthermore, we ask that any person declared innocent, that had been
deprived of their liberty to be compensated with €600 per day and for
those who have suffered a restraining order being found innocent, we ask for a compensation of €110 per day.

Note: The original Spanish version of this statement is available on the ANAVID website.

Bills Gender Agenda

Twelve States Have Introduced Bills to Affirm Parental Rights. More Bills Are Expected.

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date February 5, 2023

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Twelve States Have Introduced Bills to Affirm Parental Rights. More Bills Are Expected.

WASHINGTON / February 6, 2023 – Following reports of secretive school policies that marginalize and exclude parents, parental rights has become a hot-button issue across the United States (1). For example, the New York Times recently published an article highlighting the concerns of parents who were kept in the dark about their child’s gender dilemmas (2).

In response, 12 states have introduced bills in the past month designed to affirm and strengthen parents’ rights. These bills can be classified in terms of whether they affirm fundamental principles of parental rights, assure parental notification, address curriculum and instruction issues, or relate to gender transitioning of children:

Fundamental Principles

Alabama: H.B. 6 prohibits the government from burdening certain fundamental rights of parents (3).

Hawaii: H.B. 1393 states, “Each parent in the State shall have the right to direct the upbringing, education, care, and welfare of the parent’s child.” (4)

Indiana: H.B. 1407 affirms no government entity shall “infringe on the fundamental right of a parent to direct the upbringing, education, health care, and mental health of the parent’s child” without a “compelling governmental interest of the highest order.” (5)

Minnesota: H.F. 682 seeks to amend the state Constitution to affirm that parents have a fundamental right to “direct the education of their child.” (6)

Mississippi: H.B. 509 states, “The liberty of a parent to direct the upbringing, education, health care and mental health of that parent’s child is a fundamental right.” (7)

New Hampshire: H.B. 10 establishes a “parental bill of rights.” (8)

North Dakota: H.B. 1403 prohibits “governmental entities from interfering with parental rights.” (9)

South Carolina: H. 3485 includes a provision that the government “shall not substantially burden the fundamental right of a parent to direct the upbringing, education, health care, and mental health of that parent’s child….” (10)

Texas: HJR 58 proposes an amendment to the state constitution that states in part: “A parent has the right to direct the education of the parent’s child…” (11)

Parental Notification

Indiana: S.B. 413 proposes that schools “may not discourage or prohibit parental notification of and involvement in decisions affecting a student’s social emotional, behavioral, mental, or physical health.” (12)

South Carolina: H. 3197 states that no public school employee shall “withhold from a child’s parent information that is relevant to the physical, emotional, or mental health of the child.” (13)

Texas: H.B. 61 affirms: “The Texas Education Agency shall adopt procedures for notifying a student’s parent if there is a change in the student’s services or monitoring related to the student’s mental, emotional, or physical health or well-being.” (14)

Utah: S.B. 100 states that “each school and each local governing board shall ensure that no policy or action of the school or LEA [local education agency]: (a) operates to shield any student’s information from the student’s parent.” (15)

Curriculum and Instruction

Indiana: H.B. 1608 states that teachers may not provide instruction on ambiguous concepts of “gender identity” to children in grades K–3. (16)

Missouri: S.B. 4 says that parents have a “right to know what their minor child is being taught in school including, but not limited to, curricula, books, source materials, and other instructional materials.” (17)

Oklahoma: S.B. 95 states no school “may provide any sexually explicit material…to a student …without written consent from the student’s parent or legal guardian.” (18)

Gender Transitioning

Indiana: H.B. 1407 protects a parent’s right to raise “the child consistent with the child’s biological sex” and to decline to consent to the child undergoing gender transitioning. (5)

Additional parental rights bills are expected be introduced in the near future in other states (19). A listing of current lawsuits, federal court rulings, and model legislation is available on the SAVE website (20).

Links: