Women for Family Restoration

Families are made up of individuals who find themselves joined together by the most personal and intimate bonds and who, hopefully, intentionally establish good patterns for that family.  A strong woman is at the heart of a strong family.  

 These five Regent Law students are women of purpose, and are excited to share the passion of promoting and protecting life at all ages and stages.  Married, single, and mothers, as we collaborate together we make a tremendous difference, in our own families, and for helping others to restore their families.  The women in this group have summer internships set up to make a dent in ending the trafficking of women and children, to strengthen and promote adoption through law and policy, to bring restoration to families, and to make a positive difference in family law.  The student body of Regent University School of Law is packed with women making a difference.

Family Restoration Requires Family Security

Personal security for family members is significant for strong societies, and strong family law.  Dr. Mary Manjikian, Fulbright Scholar with the Robertson School of Government at Regent University, on the BLog Women in International Security highlights the importance of legal support for family restoration in the face of abuse and manipulation within marriage.

21st Century UK: Can women still be coerced within marriage?

March 18, 2013

Mary Manjikian
For the past two months, British newspaper readers have been riveted by the sage of Vicky Pryce and Chris Huhne. Here’s the story in brief: Price and Huhne were a British power couple. He was a liberal democratic member of Parliament and Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, while Price, an immigrant from Greece, was a high-flying academic who had served as Chief Economist in the Department of Business, Enterprise and Reform. They divorced in June 2010. During the divorce proceedings, Pryce gave a series of interviews alleging that they had had an abusive marriage in which he had coerced her on numerous occasions. According to Pryce, he forced her to sign a legal document saying that she had been the driver of the car when he was arrested for speeding in 2003, claiming that being convicted of such a charge could cost him his career. She also alleged that he pressured her to have an abortion on two occasions – the first time she complied while the second time she refused, going on to have a son.
In the legal trial which followed – both were tried for perverting the course of justice due to the fraud committed when Pryce took the speeding points for her husband – she adopted an unusual legal defense. She claimed that she was not liable for her unlawful behavior because it was an act of marital coercion. The coercion defense dates back to the seventh century in Britain when women had no legal rights or independent social, political or economic identity. In the original case, a husband hid stolen goods in the family home and the wife claimed that she felt forced to go along with his larcenous behavior since she had no independent means or recourse. She was found innocent by reason of marital coercion.
However, in 2013 (some thirteen hundred years later), Pryce lost her trial and now faces jail time, along with her ex-husband. The situation has led to a debate in Britain about the notion of martial coercion. At present, legal analysts claim that the defense is outdated for two reasons: First women today have independent legal status, along with incomes and careers. It is difficult to see how a woman could be coerced, they argue, when she clearly has the option of leaving the marriage. In other words, the law is outdated because marriage is no longer a patriarchal institution.
Second, some analysts argue that it is wrong – and in violation of European Human Rights legislation – to claim that only women can be coerced in an intimate relationship. Thus the law is discriminatory since it does not afford the same protection to everyone– including those in non-traditional partnerships. It improperly privileges both marriage and the rights of women in according this protection to them alone.
The stance advocated by both the jury and the judge in the Pryce case represents a clear shift from traditional 1970’s feminist thinking. Back then, scholars described marriage as an inherently repressive institution which did not benefit women and always oppressed them. Later, marriage was deemed to be an irrelevant institution, which conferred no utility upon the participants, and which should not be treated as in any way special or unique. In current debates about gay marriage, the thinking has changed again – with advocates noting that marriage benefits the participants and society, and that this benefit should be available to all. This argument against marital coercion legislation also represents an end to feminist essentialism arguments which suggested that women were inherently more peaceful or more fragile and that masculine behavior was inherently more belligerent. The new viewpoint suggests that both sexes have the potential for violence, aggression and coercion within marriage and that therefore women should not be afforded special protection.
The problem with both of these arguments is that they ignore other worldwide/global realities. Those who pillory Price and ask why she did not simply leave sound a great deal like those who would blame a woman for being raped.
It is also far too simplistic to argue that coercion no longer exists and that protections are no longer required. Even in Britain, statistics presented by Plan UK note that ten percent of adolescent girls in the UK marry before the age of eighteen. They note that worldwide, “every three seconds a girl becomes a child bride,” with the average age of marriage in some African nations hovering around fifteen. In addition, gendercide of female fetuses still exists – in India, in China and even in the US and the UK. Just this week, the British press reported on women in England who were pressured by their husbands and families to abort their female fetuses. (Even a prominent female physician felt powerless to resist deeply ingrained cultural attitudes and family power structures.) In another high profile case a surrogate was pressured to abort a child with birth defects. In addition, we can still identify situations where husbands will not ‘permit’ their wives to work, and feminist analysts have suggested that domestic violence within marriage represents a sort of internal terrorism.
So how do we reconcile these two conflicting views of marriage and intimate relations? Clearly, the jurors believed that Vicky Price could not have been coerced within the bounds of marriage because she was wealthy and educated. And certainly it upsets the feminist ‘party line’ to believe that even wealthy, educated women might be coerced into making reproductive choices by other people. Similarly, it is disturbing to contemplate that despite strides being made in women’s political representation and education, marriage may still be harmful to at least some women both in the UK and worldwide.
The problem is that in establishing an upper-middle class, educated, white woman as the standard for feminist thinking, we have (once again) failed to focus on the fact that she herself is an anomaly. It would be wrong to adopt universal policies regarding marital coercion or indeed marriage in general by making reference to this one isolated and atypical case. As we think about issues of human security, about the vulnerability of women who are refugees, immigrants and victims of war, we need to acknowledge that women are often uniquely vulnerable and deserving of special protection. Admitting this does not make anyone a bad feminist, nor does it affect the agenda of those who wish to provide more opportunities for women everywhere.
The danger is if Western policymakers continue to see middle-class white women as the ‘typical woman’ and to assume that policy prescriptions in the West will work equally well elsewhere in the world. For example, rolling back legislation which protects women within marriage in the UK might establish a standard which could then become a universal norm. This does not create a positive worldwide precedent.

____________________

Mary Manjikian is an Assistant Professor at the Robertson School of Government in Virginia Beach, VA. She is currently a Fulbright Research fellow at the Institute of Advanced Study at Durham University in the UK. She is the author of three books on international security.
Further Reading:
The Guardian: Marital Coercion
BBC: Martial coercion legal defense explained
The Daily Telegraph: Vicky Pryce trial – Guilty of perverting the course of justice

Endangered Gender Deserves Global Attention for Family Restoration

Just as genocide is the deliberate extermination of a race of people, gendercide is the deliberate extermination of persons of a particular gender. Reproductive female gendercide – killing female fetuses as soon as it becomes clear they are females – is occurring not just in some remote parts of the world. This reproductive gendercide, also known as female feticide, is occurring around the globe.

This phenomenon is resulting in a serious ratio imbalance for myriad nations. The natural sex ratio balance for any society is generally 100 girls for every 103-106 boys. Sex ratios at birth are being severely skewed by reproductive choices around the world. For example, recent research indicates that India’s sex ratio imbalance in 2008 was 112 boys for every 100 girls; Albania reported an imbalance of 113 boys for every 100 girls; China nationally reported a sex ratio imbalance of 118 boys for every 100 girls. In some parts of that country that ratio skews to 168 boys to 100 girls in third births. The west is just slightly behind eastern nations, as in the UK the sex ratio is also skewed 108 boys to 100 girls; the US rate is 107 – and these rates are not abating. See The War on Baby Girls: Gendercide, The Economist, available at http://www.economist.com/node/15606229, (May 4, 2010). These ratios have been moving toward greater imbalance since 2010, and are expected to continue that course into 2050. These ratios are not limited by geographic location, nor are they limited by economic ability. In fact, sex selection is prominent even among higher income families in wealthy nations. Why is that? Reproductive choice in gender selection has been aided by medical technology to those who can afford it. The proliferation and affordability of ultra sound testing, which allows for a 99% accuracy rate in determining the sex of a fetus has significantly contributed to gendercide worldwide. Another method for sex determination of a fetus – a simple non-invasive pin-prick blood test of the mother – micro-cell fetal DNA testing – which will soon be available is 100% accurate. The results of this ability according to sociological sources suggest that the world is missing more than 163 million females over the past 3 decades. Currently, according to United Nations statistics, there are 61 million fewer girls in the world than boys. To give you a context for that – there are 60 million people in the UK; all the human beings in the combined NY, NJ, and New England area equal 61 million people. That’s a lot of missing people–but that’s what the UN says we’re missing in girls. These are shocking realities.

What does this mean? The low status of females has been combined with abortion on demand, population policies that limit families to a certain number of children, and cultural mores that strongly incentivize son-preference. Girls are devalued by raw gender discrimination working through politics and culture. The evidence suggests that this problem is not abating on its own by a postmodern sense of gender equality. Rather, it is advancing around the world – by public policy in China, by cultural more in other Asian nations, and by parental eugenics in the west. What is needed is significant and concerted cultural, communications, ethical and legal pressure to ensure that no child is aborted simply because she (or he) is the “wrong” sex. I've been writing about this since 1997. See http://ssrn.com/author=183817.

Last weekend a symposium was held on this issue entitled “Endangered Gender: A Discussion on Sex-Selection Abortion,” with the screening of the new documentary “It’s a Girl: The three most dangerous words” was viewed Friday night, followed Saturday morning by an all-star team of global experts in human rights abuses who took on this issue in both its concerns and its potential solutions. Hosted by the Regent University School of Law’s Journal of Law and Public Policy, the Regent Journal of International Law, Regent Students for Life, the International Law Society, and the Center for Global Justice, Human Rights, and the Rule of Law, and sponsored by Diakon Baseball Group and Themus Bar Review, the symposium discussed this tragedy of fetal gender discrimination from several angles of law, policy, and culture.

Mr. Stephen Mosher, President of Population Research Institute, and internationally recognized authority on China and its population issues, discussed his research on coercive population control programs since 1979 when he was a pro-choice atheist invited by the Chinese government as the first American social scientist to that great nation. At that time he witnessed forced abortions under the then “new one-child policy.” This experience led Mosher to reconsider his spiritual conviction and to eventually become a practicing pro-life Catholic. He has testified before Congress as a world population expert, and an expert on human rights abuses, and is the author of the best-selling book A Mother’s Ordeal: One Woman’s Fight Against China’s One-Child Policy. His research set the stage for the discussion. Professor David Smolin, the Harwell G. David Professor of Constitutional Law, and the Director of the Center for Children, Law, and Ethics of Cumberland Law School at Samford University in Alabama spoke on the domino effect of skewed sex ratio imbalances in any society. Widely published on the missing girls of China, children’s rights, adoption, abortion, child labor, children as research subjects, and assisted reproductive technology, Professor Smolin brought a big picture perspective to what he termed “parental eugenics” in gender choice. Medical Dr. Prakash Tyagi, of India, Executive Director of GRAVIS, a development agency working toward the self-reliant empowerment of the Indian Thar Desert communities, and founder-director of GRAVIS Hospital where he practices medicine, discussed the medical and cultural aspects of sex selection abortion. An expert in international public health, Dr. Tyagi was a Fulbright scholar in international public health at UNC Chapel Hill, and a Ford Fleishman Fellow at Duke University. His Indian perspective and concern for global public health was both illuminating and personal. As a father of two young daughters himself, he noted that fathers hold the key for their daughters’ future.

The Symposium panel also included Dr. Ana Aspras Steele, former Harvard professor and current President of the DALIT Freedom Network – government relations directed social justice addressing the tragic practice of untouchability perpetrated ever day in Indian society against the Dalit people based on racial and caste discrimination. In her work as director of the DALIT Freedom Network - an evangelical organization focused on economic policy, health care, education, and social justice – Dr. Steele works hands on with women who have been forced to abort their baby girls under cultural and family pressure. Her stories were profound and disturbing, and she foresees a rise in the trafficking of women and children in the face of female fetal endangerment. Finally, and very significantly, Congressman Trent Franks, Representative (R) from Arizona related the issue to slavery and eugenics in world history. Having been a child advocate nearly his entire adult life, from the Arizona House of Representatives, to the Center for Arizona Policy, to the Head of the Arizona Governor’s Office for Children, he authored of one of the most controversial bills presented in the U.S. Congress last year, PRENDA – the Prenatal Non-Discrimination Act – a bill to criminalize the knowing abortion of a child for sex-selective or gender purposes. That Act was passed by the House but failed in the Senate. It will likely be proffered again in light of global sex ratio imbalances and the outright gender discrimination inherent in them.

The Journals will be publishing scholarly articles by the panelists in their upcoming issues. To find out more go to www.regent.edu/endangeredgender. The three most deadliest words in the world should not be “It’s a Girl!”

Endangered Gender Symposium

Regent University Law School's Journal of Law and Public Policy and International Journal will be hosting a symposium on Friday February 15th and Saturday February 16th.

The event, Endangered Gender: A Discussion on Sex-Selection Abortion, will delve into the astonishing reality that according to the United Nations there are an estimated 200 million girls missing in the world today due to sex-selection abortion, female infanticide, forced abortion, and other human rights violations. The world is facing a "gendercide" -- a term describing the systematic destruction of a gender -- of mass proportions. This symposium is designed to raise awareness of the realities of gendercide and thoughtfully consider the cultural and economic reasons behind it while also looking at the natural consequences of missing girls. Some of the consequences being the further commodification of women, as seen in the sky rocketing existence of sex-trafficking and bride buying. The symposium will challenge attendants to consider this issue and to actively seek solutions to the problem. For more information about the realities of gendercide see Professor Lynne Marie Kohm's forthcoming article The Challenges of Teaching Gender Equality in a World of Reproductive Gendercide in Regent's Journal of Law and Public Policy.

In order to facilitate this discussion the Journals will be hosting a screening of the documentary, It's a Girl: The Three Most Deadly Words in the World Today. You can watch the trailer for the film and learn more about it here. This screening will be hosted on Friday, February 15th from 5:00-7:00pm with light refreshments being served. It will be screened at Regent University, Robertson Hall - Moot Court Board Room.

Then on Saturday morning, starting at 8:30am the Journals will host several international experts on the issue of sex-selection abortion. Congressman Trent Franks from Arizona will be joining us, as well as Dr. Prakash Tyagi from India, Dr. Ana Aspras Steele, Steven Mosher, Professor David Smolin, and Professor Lynne Marie Kohm. To see each of the notable speakers bios, click here. This event will take place at Regent University, Robertson Hall - Moot Court Board Room. A continental breakfast will be served.

This is a free event and all are encouraged to attend! Please register here.

Millenials and Regent Law Alums Protecting Life

An increasing number of young people who strongly support pro-life causes has prompted the current president, Nancy Keenan, of the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) Pro-Choice America to resign at the end of 2012. Keenan cited NARAL's own data in telling The Washington Post that "new and younger leadership" is needed to reach Millennials — people between the ages of 18 and 34.

Janice Crouse, Ph.D., a senior fellow at the Beverly LaHaye Institute, noted that Keenan's resignation acknowledges that the pro abortion movement in American is losing the new generation of young women.

Meanwhile, Regent Law alums are making a difference for life on several fronts. Benjamin DuPré (1999) with Personhood Alabama (http://www.personhoodalabama.com/) recently appeared on CNN Newsroom to discuss the expose of unborn children to drugs, which in Alabama is a crime called "chemical endangerment of a minor." DuPré claimed that just as pregnant women do not drink alone, they don't abuse drugs alone either, arguing that States should give equal protection of the law to born and unborn children, Read the New York Times Magazine article on this topic, and see the CNN interview here: http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/crime/2012/05/08/nr-felon-moms-in-alabama.cnn.

Meanwhile, Regent Law alums Greg Terra and Stephen Casey of the Texas Center for Defense of Life are training other lawyers, with the assistance of the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), through webinars on how to protect girls and women from coerced abortions.

Restoration for Redlight Runaways

Family restoration through law is one of the reasons students choose to attend Regent University School of Law. Annalise M. Lang, Regent Juris Doctor 2012 wanted to learn family law in this manner, and recently found that opportunity in a Juvenile Law course.

From Portland, Oregon, Lang was distressed to learn that Protland was the #2 city in the nation for underage prostitution. She researched the problem of runaway children falling into prostitution on the streets of Portland, and has written on the law in this area and some solutions to this problem. Her article, "Underage Prostitution in Portland: Should Law Enforcement Be Able To Walk Away from Runaways?" presents a fabulous overview of the problem, and works toward solutions to restore child victims to their families who often need rehabilitation themselves, or to safe family situations.

The article addresses an issue that is a continual and increasing problem in Portland, Oregon, and greatly affects Portland’s youth and the city. It takes in that issue by proposing a change in law that could begin to move the city towards addressing the issue one runaway at a time, while also providing practical considerations for helping children who fall into street prostitution by laying out a process and plan for rehabilitation after runaways are removed from the streets. Lang writes,

"According to the National Runaway Switchboard, 75% of runaways will become involved in theft, pornography, or drugs. On a national level, 75% of runaways are females. Within two days of leaving home, one out of every three runaways will be lured into prostitution. In 2002, an estimated 23,000-25,000 of Oregon’s youth were runaway or homeless in a year’s time. Homeless runaways have a variety of issues. Interestingly, more than one-third of males and approximately half of females report family dynamic and conflict as the most important issue they are facing." Read her entire article here.

Family restoration is possible even for children who fall into prostitution, but they need law enforcement and safe and healthy families to help them to experience that restoration.

Gendercide is Possible in American Families

The House of Representatives failed to meet the two-thirds legislative requirement for passage of PRENDA, a bill prohibiting sex-selective abortions. See the article from The Hill's Floor Action describing the events at
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/230283-house-rejects-bill-penalizing-doctors-for-sex-selection-abortions.

This update below from the Law of Life Project (cofounded by Regent Law alum Ann Bruwalda and her Jubliee Campaign) discusses the process and implications of the event with some embedded video investigation by Live Action:

Pro-Abortion Democrats Block Bill to Ban Gendercide through Sex-Selection Abortions

"The most dangerous place for a woman to be should not be in her mother's womb."

-Samuel B. Casey, Managing Director & General Counsel
Jubilee Campaign, Law of Life Project-

Democrats in the House of Representatives prevented passage of a H.R. 3541, the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PRENDA) which would have banned sex-selection abortions. The legislation needed a two-thirds vote and Democrats voted overwhelmingly against the legislation after President Barack Obama and Planned Parenthood came out in opposition.

With a 246-168 vote, the bill did not obtain the two-thirds majority necessary to pass. Republicans voted for the bill on a 226-7 margin while Democrats opposed banning sex-selection abortions on 161-20 vote margin.

The bill would make it a federal offense to knowingly do any one of the following four things: (1) perform an abortion, at any time in pregnancy, "knowing that such abortion is sought based on the sex or gender of the child"; (2) use "force or threat of force. . . for the purpose of coercing a sex-selection abortion"; (3) solicit or accept funds to perform a sex-selection abortion; or (4) transport a woman into the U.S. or across state lines for this purpose. However, the bill says "A woman upon whom a sex-selection abortion is performed may not be prosecuted or held civilly liable for any violation . . ."

The bill also specifically states, "Nothing in this Act shall be construed to require that a healthcare provider has an affirmative duty to inquire as to the motivation for the abortion, absent the healthcare provider having knowledge or information that the abortion is being sought based on the sex or gender of the child."

Leading pro-life groups were aghast that Democrats would stand in the way of passing what should be a common sense bill. Sam Casey, Managing Director and General Counsel of Jubilee Campaign's Law of Life Project, said: "While not surprised, we are deeply saddened that there our members of the U.S. House of Representatives who say they are pro-women but would vote to keep sex-selection abortion used primarily to intentionally kill girl babies in this country. That anyone on either side of the political aisle would vote against a bill preventing such a gendercide in the United States is profoundly troubling. Given that CDC data suggests sex-selection abortion is occurring in our country, and a recent undercover video released this week by Live Action showing Planned Parenthood's willingness to facilitate a sex-selection abortion, the American public cannot ignore this sexist practice.

"But because of lobbying by Planned Parenthood and the White House, the bill to protect against sex-selection abortion failed. We applaud the 246 Members on both sides of the aisle who voted for the bill. We thank Rep. Trent Franks and the House leadership for holding a vote on this legislation to ban this tragic and discriminatory practice. We will continue to work with them to pass this legislation in the future, so that pre-born women across the nation will be protected from gendercide and sex discrimination," Casey concluded.

NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson said: "We are heartened that a strong majority of House members voted to ban performing or coercing abortions for the purpose of eliminating unborn babies of an undesired sex - usually, girls. Shamefully, President Obama, and a minority of 168 House members, complied with the political demands of pro-abortion pressure groups, rather than defend the coerced women, and their unborn daughters, who are victimized by sex-selection abortions."

Among the organizations that warned House members not to vote for the bill was the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA). PPFA sent an email memo to House members on May 29 warning of its "intent to score" a vote for the bill as a vote against "women's health." Also on May 29, the Huffington Post reported that "no Planned Parenthood clinic will deny a woman an abortion based on her reasons for wanting one, except in those states that explicitly prohibit sex-selective abortions (currently Arizona, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Illinois).

"We commend the House Republican leadership for bringing this bill to the floor today under the fast-track procedure," Johnson said. "Today's groundbreaking majority vote was a stepping stone to this bill ultimately becoming law - perhaps after the replacement of some of the lawmakers who today were unwilling to protect victimized women and their unborn daughters from sex-selection abortions, because they were more concerned with maintaining favor with the abortion industry, pro-abortion advocacy groups, and Hollywood donors."

Obama's opposition comes after a new video exposing how Planned Parenthood encourages women to have sex-selection abortions. A second video showing another Planned Parenthood clinic okaying sex-selection abortions has followed it up.

As we reported yesterday, a few years ago, a national study showed the possibility that the practice of sex-selection abortions has made its way from Asia to the United States. Researchers Douglas Almond and Lena Edlund of the National Academy of Sciences say their analysis of the 2000 Census shows the odds prematurely increasing for Asian-American families from China, Korea and India to have a boy if they already have a girl child.

The data "suggest that in a sub-population with a traditional son preference, the technologies are being used to generate male births when preceding births are female," they wrote in the paper. Previously, abortion advocates not only opposed the bill in great hysteria but also denied the very existence of sex selection abortions. Nancy Northup, President of the Center for Reproductive Rights, called it a "trumped up bill for a trumped up problem." Meanwhile at the pro-abortion blog Jezebel, a writer called sex selection abortions "a problem rampant only in its rampant nonexistence."

A recent poll conducted by the Lozier Institute found that 77% of respondents would support the enactment of laws prohibiting abortion in cases where "the fact that the developing baby is a girl is the sole reason for seeking an abortion." Illinois, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma and Arizona already have laws on the books which prohibit this practice, according to the Lozier Institute.

Meanwhile, a 2006 poll showed a majority of Americans would likely support the bill. A 2006 Zogby International poll showed that 86% of the American public desired a law to ban sex-selection abortion. The poll surveyed a whopping 30,117 respondents in 48 states.

ACTION: Click here to see how your lawmakers voted and tell them what you think of their votes.

The War on Women is a War on Family

When Ann Romney became the target of Democratic Strategist Hilary Rosen for "not working a day in her life" the war on women began in earnest, sparking a firestorm on not only women, but their families as well. See http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/12/democrat-defends-ann-romney-comments-amid-firestorm/?hpt=hp_t2.

As a key voting block, women are imporant to the upcoming November 2012 Presidential election, and political strategists generally know that. See http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/12/politics/campaign-wrap/index.html?hpt=hp_t2. Now an apology has been issued by Rosen, understanding the potentially deep divide those remarks have created. See http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/12/politics/campaign-wrap/index.html?npt=NP1.

Ann Romney represents women who have placed a high value on parenting and family. To be derided for that is to target the entire institution of the family. See remarks about this on CBN Newswatch on Thursday, April 12:



The real "war on women" is a war on marriage, family, parenting priorities, and gender equality in the context of a struggling economy and a divisive political landscape. Women's voices in November could make all the difference to the future of America, and to the future of family strength.

Protecting Women, Children and Families with Ultrasound Testing Fosters Family Restoration

State legislation to protect women and children is important to family restoration. Virginia is another example of a state taking measures to insure informed consent is authentic for women choosing the dramatic decision of abortion. The current legislation on the use of ultra sound testing prior to any abortion in Virginia is an important component of comprehensive protection for women. The New York Times reports on Virginia House Bill 462 on Abortion, noting that the Virginia Senate, “which is split evenly along party lines, adopted the bill earlier this month. The bill, which could pass the Republican-led House of Delegates as early as Tuesday, is one of the stronger ultrasound laws passed by states in recent years. If it is adopted, Virginia will become the eighth state to require ultrasounds before abortions, a rule that anti-abortion forces hope will cause some women to change their minds but that women’s advocates call an effort to shame women and interfere with their privacy.” You can read the entire NY Times piece here.

The facts of the bill include:

1. That an ultrasound be done prior to an abortion, only after a woman gives consent to the abortion procedure. No woman who is merely contemplating abortion is ever forced to undergo the test – indeed, the reality is that most pregnant women would like the benefit of an ultrasound.
2. Several states already have this requirement; Virginia is not breaking any new legal ground.
3. Any sound medical practice requires the proper tests to be done. Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Federation state that an ultrasound is necessary to determine the age and size of the unborn child to ensure the health of the mother.
4. The ultrasound test is standard medical procedure, a fact confirmed in committee testimony by Planned Parenthood representatives.

This legislation has already passed the state Senate and needs only one more vote by the full House of Delegates before going to Governor McDonnell for his signature. Rhetorical sound bites do no justice to this issue, nor to the women, children and families that will be affected by this decision.

To see more about this pending protection, see WVEC’s report on it featuring Professor Lynne Marie Kohm.

Facts, rather than rhetoric, are critical to the protection of women, children and their families; ultrasound testing and other measures to afford women truly informed consent will foster family restoration.

Family Friendly Policies Needed in Law Firms to Promote Family Restoration

In a recent report the National Association for Law Placement (NALP) says that law firms may be making strides toward diversification of their employeees, but a family friendly work environment could promote stronger families for their employees, and more accurate representation of society in general as well.

Of particular note was the fact that proportions of minority employees rose in law firms in 2011. The proportions of lawyers who are racial minorities at large U.S. law firms rose in 2011 while those who are women declined slightly from the prior year, according to a report (http://op.bna.com/dlrcases.nsf/r?Open=smgk-8napv9) released Nov. 3, 2011, by the National Association for Law Placement. In 2010, “on the heels of the recession, we saw the figures for women and minority associates dip for the first time since NALP began tracking lawyer demographics at law firms,” said James Leipold, NALP's executive director. “The 2011 figures reveal that a year later, while the figures for minority associates have bounced back, the overall number of women associates actually declined further,” Leipold said. “This is a significant finding.”

The downward trend for female associates is troubling. The newest data suggest that the temporary setback for minority representation found in 2010 has been reversed but that the representation of women among associates has continued to trend downward, the report said. “The loss of women has slowed, but at a time when far too few women make up the partnership ranks of U.S. law firms, this is not a trend that can be ignored,” Leipold said. Among all lawyers, the share of women fell to 32.6 percent from 32.7 percent in 2010, while the proportion of minorities increased to 12.7 percent from 12.4 percent, NALP said, based on data compiled from its 2010-2011 Directory of Legal Employers. Among law firm partners, the share of women rose to 19.5 percent this year from 19.4 percent in 2010, while the proportion of minorities rose to 6.6 percent from 6.2 percent. Meanwhile, among law firm associates, the share of women remained little changed this year at 45.4 percent, while the proportion of minorities rose to 19.9 percent from 19.5 percent in 2010. Minority women continue to be the least represented at law firms, at 2.0 percent of partners and 11.0 percent of associates, NALP said. The directory of 124,000 lawyers at 1,349 offices was compiled in early 2011 and does not reflect staff changes that may have occurred since then.

Women and minorities increased, however, in D.C. and New York. Examining lawyers at a consistent group of “core” office listings in the five largest metropolitan areas represented in the directory, NALP said representation of women and minorities among partners and associates improved only in New York and Washington, D.C., and not in Boston, Chicago, or Los Angeles. In all five cities, most of the changes were small, less than one percentage point. Over the 18 years NALP has tracked diversity at law firms, total gains for women and minorities have been “only marginal,” the group said.

The text of the report on law firm diversity may be accessed at http://op.bna.com/dlrcases.nsf/r?Open=smgk-8napv9 . Law firms have not been known for their family friendliness toward female attorney associates and partners, but that does not mean that such an environment is not possible. In fact, the subject of mothers as great attorney hires has already been addressed in Lynne Marie Kohm, A Fresh Perspective on Women and Motherhood: The Traditional Values Mother Is One of a Few Good Men, 81 WOMEN LAWYERS J. 8 (June 1995); and the matter of hiring married women (and men) to foster firm and societal stability and strength has also been addressed in Lynne Marie Kohm, Does Marriage Make Good Business? Examining the Notion of Employer Endorsement of Marriage, 25 WHITTIER L. REV. 563 (2004).

Family friendly policies in law firms can make a tremendous difference in family restoration, for attorney employees certainly, but also for staff and clients as well, communicating that family strength is significantly important to that firm, an ideal that is well worth upholding for both society, the firm and those it serves.

Juvenile Girls, Gangs, and Family Restoration

When girls are devalued, families are harmed. Further evidence of that fact is contained in this article by Michele Cavanaugh, Regent University School of Law Candidate (December 2011) entitled "Girls in Gangs: This Ain't the Girl Scouts, but it may be Your Family." Her article examines whether female participation in gangs can be curbed by solutions that restore family strength to society and to girls in a culture where gang affiliation now replaces the family.

She writes, "[T]his article presents and discusses the history of gang research in America and the problems with the early research on female gang participation. [It] touch[es] upon the evolution of female gang members and the growth of female participation in gangs. Section II will cover gang recruitment, the initiation process females must endure, and the reasons females seek membership in the gang. Section III will provide some of the solutions that have emerged to curb gang participation. These solutions focus on implementing polices that strengthens the girls’ connections with their families and community and work to displace the position gangs have taken for girls. In addition, this section will cover the economic benefit received by society through gang prevention and family restoration. Lastly, Section IV concludes that an alternative solution will prevent girls from being lured into gangs by restoring the family structure and the development of community programs. Restoration of the family is essential in providing the strength society and girls need to combat female gang membership."

Read the entire article here. Girls and their protection and safety within families are a pivotal key to large scale family restoration.

The Consequences of a World With Fewer Girls

Family restoration involves protecting the most vulnerable members of families. Around the globe today, girls are devalued to such an extreme that they are subject to terrible horrors never before imagined.

In many parts of the world today, girls are killed, aborted and abandoned simply because they are girls. The United Nations estimates as many as 200 million girls are missing in the world today because of this so-called “gendercide.” (See Marie Vlachovà and Lea Biason, Lea, Eds. (2004) Women in an Insecure World: Violence Against Women - Facts, Figures and Analysis. Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces.)

Girls who survive infancy are often subject to neglect, and many grow up to face extreme violence and even death at the hands of their own husbands or other family members. The war against girls is rooted in centuries-old tradition and sustained by deeply ingrained cultural dynamics which, in combination with government policies, accelerate the elimination of girls. This blog has discusssed these concerns before. (See the post here.)

A new film to be released in 2012 shot on location in India and China, It’s a Girl! explores these issues, asking why this is happening, and why so little is being done to save girls and women. They call "It's a girl" the three deadliest words in the world.

The film tells the stories of abandoned and trafficked girls, of women who suffer extreme dowry-related violence, of brave mothers fighting to save their daughters’ lives, and of other mothers who would kill for a son. Global experts and grassroots activists put the stories in context and advocate different paths towards change, while collectively lamenting the lack of any truly effective action against this injustice. See more about this film at http://itsagirlmovie.com//,

The law can respond to trafficking of girls with justice. In fact, the first man to be convicted of trafficking females out of the UK, in a case involving two Nigerian girls, was jailed for 20 years this past summer. See the article "Man jailed for trafficking girls" from BBC.com. This is just a beginning of protecting girls.

Families are not possible without girls, and family restoration will be impossible if peoples and nations around the globe fail to recognize the consequences of a world with fewer girls.

Blackstone Fellows and the Alliance Defense Fund: Can Girls Rule?

Marriage litigation over the legality of California’s public referendum supporting marriage has been abandoned by the State of California to the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), an international network of Christian attorneys who defend life, liberty and family. It seems pretty apparent from a recent San Francisco Chronicle report that California’s elected officials deem ADF a more appropriate advocate for their constituents than themselves.

SF Chronicle (AP) : “The judge said Tuesday he wants detailed information about what effects Proposition 8 has on the couples suing as well as ‘opposite-sex couples and others not in same-sex relationships in California’ . . . The governor and attorney general, who are supposed to defend state laws, submitted separate but similar filings Friday saying they would leave it to the conservative legal group the Alliance Defense Fund to take the lead in defending California’s gay marriage ban.” (from California Judge orders new filings in marriage litigation, published Wednesday, August 12, 2009 3:50 PM at www.telladf.org )

Wow. Well, I can tell you why ADF is more competent in this representation than most attorneys – because of the excellent litigation training provided to attorneys around the globe in ADF’s National Litigation Academies (NLA) and their annual Blackstone Legal Fellowship program. And a large number of those ADF attorneys today are Regent Law graduates.

In early August I had the privilege of addressing the more than 100 Blackstone interns from top law schools all around the world, including Regent Law. By chance I found myself as the only woman in a faculty panel presentation with other law faculty from top U.S. law schools, and I felt compelled to speak to the future of men and women in our culture.

Women who are sold out for Christ are being called by God to the law in greater numbers than ever before, and it is clear to me that this is happening for two very important cultural and legal reasons: marriage and abortion. The feminist concept of essentialism demands that only women can authentically understand the experiences of women – a notion which plays directly into why God is calling Christian women to be lawyers.

For the past four decades women have been assaulted by abortion and challenged by marriage in the demise of marital protections. Now the world is facing the feminization of reproduction (UK researchers have recently found how to procreate via cloning without needing men), and the feminization of marriage (it is commonly known that homosexual women rush to same sex unions in vastly greater numbers than do homosexual men). At a time when the American Bar Association (ABA) is trying to foster a repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)[ ABA Journal : “The ABA policy-making House of Delegates passed by an overwhelming voice vote a resolution calling on Congress to repeal a section of the Defense of Marriage Act that denies federal marital benefits and protections to lawfully married same-sex couples.”] and abortion on demand is the centerpiece of presidential health care reforms and Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) legislation, who better to speak on these key cultural/legal issues than women lawyers empowered by God?

And the best news is that many of them are right here at Regent Law now and at Blackstone this summer. You go, girls.

(click photo to view larger image)

Professor Kohm mentors through discipleship women Regent Law students while they work toward their Juris Doctor. You can read some of her scholarship on women, marriage and abortion at these publications:

What’s the Harm to Women and Children? A Prospective Analysis, in WHAT’S THE HARM: DOES LEGALIZING SAME-SEX MARRIAGE REALLY HARM INDIVIDUALS, FAMILIES OR SOCIETY? 79 (Lynn D. Wardle, ed. 2008).

Does Marriage Make Good Business? Examining the Notion of Employer Endorsement of Marriage, 25 WHITTIER L. REV. 563 (2004); cited in 6 U. PA. J. LAB. & EMP. LAW 865 (Spring 2004); Selected Current Bibliography on Labor & Employment Law, 98 NW. U. L. REV. 579 (2004); Daniel W. Olivas, Tennessee Considers Adopting the Louisiana Covenant Marriage Act: A Law Waiting to be Ignored, 71 TENN. L. REV. 769 (2004); Karen Turnage Boyd, The Tale of Two Systems: How Integrated Divorce Laws Can Remedy the Unintended Effects of Pure No-Fault Divorce, 12 CARDOZA J. L. & GENDER 609 (2006).

From Eisenstadt to Plan B, 33 WM. MITCHELL L. REV. 787 (2007)(cited in Jennifer E. Spreng, Pharmacists and the "Duty" To Dispense Emergency Contraceptives, 23 Issues L. & Med. 215 (2008); James T. O’Reilly, Losing Deference in the FDA’s Second Century: Judicial Review, Politics, and a Diminished Legacy, 93 CORNELL L. REV. 939 (2008); 23 ISSUES L. & MED. 301 (2008); 83 N. DAK. L. REV. 1365 (2008); 9 U. PA. J. LAB. & EMP. L. 235 (2007); Bibliography, 14 CARDOZO J. L. & GENDER 819 (2008)).

The Rise and Fall of Women’s Rights: Have Sexuality and Reproductive Freedom Forfeited Victory? 6 WILLIAM & MARY JOURNAL OF WOMEN AND LAW 381, (Winter 2000)(co-authored with Colleen Holmes)(cited in The Truth About Women’s Rights, Janet Benshoof, 6 WILLIAM & MARY JOURNAL OF WOMEN AND LAW 423 (Winter 2000); Dana Neacsu, Tempest in a Teacup or the Mystique of Sexual Legal Discourse, 38 GONZ. L. REV. 601 (2002-03); RECENT CASE: Constitutional Law - Substantive Due Process - Eleventh Circuit Upholds Florida Statute Barring Gays from Adopting. -- Lofton v. Secretary of the Department of Children & Family Services, 538 F.3d 804 (11th Cir. 2004), 117 HARV. L. REV. 2791 (June 2004); Cheryl B. Preston, Women in Traditional Religions: Refusing to Let Patriarchy (or Feminism) Separate us from the Source of Our Liberation, 22 MISS. C. L. REV. 185 (2003); Michael Scaperlanda, Rehabilitating the “Mystery Passage”: An Examination of the Supreme Court’s Anthropology Using the Personalistic Norm Explicit in the Philosophy of Karol Wojtyla, 45 J. CATH. LEG. STUD. 631 (2006)).

Sex Selection Abortion and the Boomerang Effect of a Woman’s Right to Choose: A Paradox of the Skeptics, 4 WM & MARY J. WOMEN & L. 91 (Winter 1997); cited in Vineet Chander, “It’s (Still) a Boy…”: Making the Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act as an Effective Weapon in India’s Struggle to Stamp Out Female Feticide, 36 GEO. WASH. INT'L L. REV. 453 (2004); James DiFonzo, Customized Marriage, 75 IND. L. J. 875 (2000); Naryung Kim, Breaking Free from Patriarchy: A Comparative Study of Sex Selection Abortions in Korea and the United States,17 UCLA PAC. BASIN L. J. 301 (1999); Kindra L. Gromelski, You Made Your Bed… Now You are Going to Pay for it: An Analysis of the Effects Virginia’s Mandatory Paternal Identification in AFDC Cases will have on the Rights of Unwed Fathers, 5 WM. & MARY J. WOMEN & L. 383 (1999); Paul M. Kurtz, 1999 Annual Survey of Periodical Literature, 32 FAM. L. Q. 875 (1999); Alisonn Wood Manhoff, Banned and Enforced: The Immediate Answer to a Problem without an Immediate solution – how India can prevent another generation of ‘missing girls,” 38 VAN. J. TRANSNAT’L. L. 889 (May 1, 2005); Maneesha Deckha, (Not) Reproducing the Cultural, Racial and Embodied Other: A Feminist Response to Canada’s Partial Ban on Sex Selection, 16 UCLA WOMEN’S L. J. 1 (2007).

Why I am not a Feminist

I’m a Christian, not a feminist. As a Christian I am a follower of Jesus Christ. (Matt 16:24) I confess and profess that Jesus is Lord and believe in my heart that God raised Him from the dead (Romans 10:9). My calling is to become like Christ (Romans 8:29), and to do that I must love, serve and worship Him foremost. (Matt 22:37). If I were a feminist my focus would be on women and equality and power. Since I’m a Christian, however, my focus is on Christ, and His truth and grace and power, (John 1:17), which allows men and women to submit to one another in love, in full submission to Christ (Eph. 5:21).

As a Christian, I don’t function in a feminist paradigm. “Feminist” may be defined as “one who believes in the principle that women should have political, economic, and social rights equal to those of men,” (Webster’s Dictionary) and I do adhere to that principle. Gender equality, however is not what feminism is about. Feminist Legal Theory (or FLT) has become a huge area of jurisprudence promoting an existential essentialism that is focused on women and women’s subjective experiences alone. I’ve argued elsewhere that feminism has cannibalized the movement for women’s rights with reproductive rights alone. (See The Rise and Fall of Women’s Rights: Have Sexuality and Reproductive Freedom Forfeited Victory? 6 WILLIAM & MARY JOURNAL OF WOMEN AND LAW 381, (Winter 2000)(co-authored with Colleen Holmes). A feminist paradigm is destructive to women, and as a woman who loves Christ, I don’t function in a feminist paradigm.

On the contrary, I function in a biblical paradigm. I function in a biblical paradigm that holds truth as transcendent, based on the creator of men and women (not based on men or women themselves) - a Christian paradigm. Christians do not have to be feminists to believe in social justice or gender equality. Feminism is not something that needs to be added to Christianity in order for the church to honor women. In fact, the man who foremost honored women was Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ was revolutionary in His view of, value for and treatment of women. From associating with the woman at the well (John 4), to teaching Mary and Martha (Luke 10), to entrusting women as the first witnesses to His resurrection (Matthew 28) Jesus treated women with respect, dignity and equality. The gospel itself is pro-women.

It is as unnecessary for a Christian to be a feminist as it is for a Christian to be a humanist. These worldviews do not need to be blended, as a Christian worldview already has the highest view of humanity, and the highest view of women, and the highest view of men. In fact, anyone who thinks that treating women fairly is a feminist thing to do rather than a Christian thing to do does not understand Christianity. Feminism owes any concept of gender equality to Jesus Christ alone.

Furthermore, when I squabble about power or personal status, I display a lack of faith in God’s plan. When disputes arise between men and women, or over men and women, and particularly in the church, a lack of faith is displayed in God’s plan. In fact, it was for freedom that Christ set us free, and free indeed (Gal 5:1). Free to be reconciled to God (2 Cor 5:18) in Christ, where there is neither male nor female. (Gal 3:28)

Azusa Pacific University Dean Sarah Sumner argues that the debate over women in ministry has been improperly reduced to a debate over roles, rather than an understanding of the differing natures of men and women as designed by God. (See her book Men and Women in the Church, IVP at page 30). Theologist Ann Arkins argues that “Christians and feminists are agreed in wanting the job market to be fair, but we are not agreed on the purpose of life itself…There is indeed an essential difference between Christianity and feminism, but it is a difference we have not just with the women’s movement but with almost any philosophy in our society. We do not live for the here and now; we believe in a hereafter. We cannot live to please ourselves…We may not simply work for a just society; we have a gospel to proclaim which is even more urgent. (See her book, Split Image, IVP at 253). (See also generally John Piper and Wayne Grudem, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, IVP.)

I am not a feminist because I am a Christian, indwelt by the living God who died for me, offering me life by His loving grace. My identity is in Christ, and the power of His resurrection. I am created by God as a woman, equal in personhood and potential and possibility for all He’s called me to in this life and for eternity. Feminism is about women’s power. Christianity is about Christ’s power. And my life as a woman is about Christ’s power in me.

Professor Kohm teaches Gender & the Law at Regent Law. See her scholarship on the issue of gender equality, read her recent article published by Duke University Law School: Lynne Marie Kohm, A Christian Perspective on Gender Equality, 15 DUKE J. GENDER L. & POL’Y 339 (2008).

Law Women, Discipleship and preparing for Family Restoration

Here at the Regent University School of Law the members of the law faculty have a strong sense of mentoring and discipleship. There are upwards of 7 or more women involved in my central discipleship group each semester. Each of these women generally leads her own small group discipleship bible study as well. What type of study each will do depends on felt needs of the group, while also concentrating on discipleship training.

My group of women is the central discipleship group, which involves a two hour commitment every two weeks at my home where we focus on bible study, prayer, and training aspects of discipling others, including evangelism techniques, bible study methods, leadership components of discipleship, personal discipleship tools and mentoring generally to include life, practice and family responsibilities as priorities for any woman who's called to the Great Commission. 2L and 3L women put together bible studies geared toward discipleship for future women lawyers who also want to balance family concerns.

We focused on sequenced objectives in spiritual growth in each woman’s personal relationship with Christ: an assurance of Salvation, forgiveness, living a Spirit-filled life, familiarity with the Bible (Books, translations, OT & NT Highlights), establishing a consistent personal Quiet Time, understanding personal Bible Study, prayer, etc. We also gain expertise in evangelism by learning how to communicate a basic gospel outline, how to draft and give a personal testimony, how to share the gospel from the Bible directly, how to do basic follow up of a new believer, how to do basic discipleship in a Bible Study, and most importantly, how to maximize life with the concept of Spiritual Multiplication.

Discipleship in this manner aids a future attorney in developing an eternal perspective while advancing professionally in law school. The result is simultaneous progress in vocational and Christian growth through discipleship based on five key principles: Bible, Prayer, Fellowship, Witnessing, Obedience.

Last year, we also focused on more particular aspects of spiritual growth of concern to women which included purity, stewardship, holiness, Sabbath-keeping, and discipleship of children. Additionally we had a lot of fun doing a study together to discern our Spiritual Gifts, and pursuing inductive Bible study methods.

Discipleship with these women has developed important Christian maturity that will pay deep dividends in each woman’s abilities toward personal and family discipleship in the future. It is so very exciting to be involved in not only the mentoring and discipling of law students as a faculty member, but also in the creation of a network of multiplied discipleship groups that reaches dozens of our students to build Christian leadership that changes the world.

**If you are a student at Regent Law and interested in discipleship, contact Professor Kohm or Dean Brauch today!

Gender Research and Scholarship

Gender research and scholarship can make a tremendous difference – for women, for children, for men, and for family restoration. In fact, I have learned a great deal about female aggression recently from a new appreciated connection, Dr. Theresa Porter.

Even though sometimes I dread opening my Outlook account for fear of all the work contained therein, email and the internet are great tools to connect people and ideas. And it is encouraging to learn that scholarship can make a difference. I recently received an email note from Theresa Porter, Psy.D. at Connecticut Valley State Hospital:

I just finished reading your paper "Prom Mom Killers" and wanted to comment on the excellence of your writing. I am completing a chapter on infanticidal women for a compendium on women's violence and found your ideas on blame shifting enlightening. 
Regards,
Theresa Porter Psy.D.
Connecticut Valley State Hospital

Further correspondence with Dr. Porter has been enlightening. Dr. Porter is working with Dr. Helen Gavin of Huddersfield University in England on the chapter she mentions above. Drs. Porter and Gavin met at a conference called "Women, Evil and the Feminine" this year, both presenting on female child molesters and both focused on female aggression. They make a good team as one is a published author and academic while the other works with female criminals. Between the two they may have every bit of information ever written on violent women! Their work is currently in manuscript draft form, and at this point their chapter on Infanticide and Neonaticide will cover:

• the incidence and prevalence in industrialized nations
  
• the differences between neonaticidal and infanticidal women,
  
• the role mental illness does and does not play in these murders including the scientific findings on "postpartum" depression and psychosis,
  
• language about the victims,
  
• the methods used,
  
• the issue of which gender is murdered more (in industrialized countries, it looks like 5-6% more male infants are murdered even controlling for the differences in birth rates)
  
• pregnancy denial/concealment as a precursor to neonaticide,
  
• recidivism,
  
• typologies,
  
• legal issues including the lack of need for specific infanticidal laws and the under-arrest rates.
  

Dr. Porter admits that some of the information she learned researching this topic surprised her. For example, "postpartum" depression and psychosis are not caused by maternal hormones. “There have only been a few studies looking at maternal mental health and hormones (surprise #1) and they concluded that the hormone fluctuations during and after labor don't effect one's mental stability (surprise #2). If a woman has an episode of clinical depression or of psychosis after childbirth, it's because she has a pre-existing predisposition; it's not because of the hormones,” Dr. Porter reports. She was also surprised at the number of ways “an odd sexism” as she termed it, appeared to creep into some of the research. Dr. Porter writes, “The language used was one way; women who murdered their infants were referred to as ‘mothers’ but the babies who died were referred to as ‘victims.’ We generally use either ‘mother/infant’ or ‘perpetrator/victim’ or ‘murderer/victim.’ It's almost as if the writers couldn't bring themselves to term these women, these mothers, as murderers. There were also comparisons made between the methods used by males and females when murdering infants and I noted an odd trend towards terming the males' methods as more aggressive or violent and the females' as more passive. I'm not sure there is a passive, non-aggressive form of murder but I am pretty sure that the person being murdered doesn't think being strangled or drowned is any less aggressive than being shot.”

Information on women's aggression from a forensic psychology perspective is just coming into its infancy over the last 20 years or so and it's not widely circulated, according to Dr. Porter. “Further, when one talks about or does an internet search on a topic such as ‘child molester’ or ‘batterer’ or ‘serial killer,’ the presumption is of a male offender. This is not only inaccurate, it also helps hide the female perpetrators, keeps the victims from getting full assistance and ultimately leaves society in danger.”

My correspondence with Dr. Porter is further aiding me in my gender-based scholarship. I’m grateful for her initiative in internet networking! To read our ideas on blame shift in neonaticide check out: Prom Mom Killers: Distorted Statistics, Blame Shift, and Their Impact on Punishment for Neonaticide, 9 WM & MARY WOMEN'S L. J. 43 (Fall 2002) (with Scott Liverman, Regent ’02, now family violence prosecutor). That article has been cited in Amy D. Wills, Neonaticide: The Necessity of Syndrome Evidence When Safe Haven Legislation Falls Short, 77 TEMP. L. REV. 1001 (Winter 2004); Jennifer R. Racine, A Dangerous Place for Society and its Troubled Young Women, A Call for an End to Newborn Safe Haven Laws in Wisconsin and Beyond, 20 WIS. WOMEN’S L.J. 243 (2005); Susan Ayres, Who is to Shame? Narratives of Neonaticide, 14 WM. & MARY J. WOMEN & L. 55 (2007).

Love is a Battlefield: Marriage & Family Restoration

Marriage is something that literally everyone wants “happily ever after,” according to top social scientists who research these things. “[A]ll the relevant data over the past thirty or so years shows that adults of all ages say that having a ‘happy marriage’ is one of their most important goals in life.” [1]

Yet whenever I research marriage I can’t help but hear the familiar refrain from Pat Benatar: “Love is a battlefield….” 

To mimic a popular retort, what’s up with that? Why are love and marriage such a paradox? Simultaneously desired and destroyed by those who seek it? 

A great paradox exits in our culture, revealing that even marriage-morphing (be it cohabitation, same sex unions, or unilateral divorce) does not change the fact that authentic marriage remains very important to adult Americans. People want to be married, but the likelihood of marital success is negatively correlated with marriage substitutes. The work of researcher and sociologist Norval Glenn has caused him to surmise that “[t]his paradox can be resolved by assuming that the decline in the probability of marital success has resulted from forces external to values, attitudes and feelings concerning marriage.” [2]

The fact is there has been a steady decline in the commitment to marriage accompanied by a steady rise in the expectations of marriage. Glenn says, “Having a good marriage could remain a salient goal while the values and norms conducive to attainment of that goal become weaker. People could want and expect more from marriage while they become less willing to make the sacrifices and ‘investments’ needed for marital success.” [3]   That is why the battlefield rages over marriage - from cohabitation, to homosexual partnerships to easy divorce.

But here’s the good news: the culture wars over marriage are making us all think – and think hard. Let’s look at the evidence.

(1) Family court judges are concerned about the high rate of unilateral divorce. J. Leah Ward Sears (Supreme Court of Georgia, retired, previously Family Court) recently discussed her concerns, and they were followed here on this blog. When marriage is deconstructed by one party to the union it is more than a breach of contract, it is a breach of covenantal trust, and harms all those dependent upon it.

(2) The democratic process continues to uphold marriage. Judicially, however, marriage continues to be deconstructed. Princeton professor Robert George lays out this governmental struggle and the possible results in his most recent piece published by the Wall Street Journal. “It’s a raucous battle, but democracy is working,” says Professor George. “If marriage is redefined, its connection to organic bodily union—and thus to procreation—will be undermined. It will increasingly be understood as an emotional union for the sake of adult satisfaction that is served by mutually agreeable sexual play. But there is no reason that primarily emotional unions like friendships should be permanent, exclusive, limited to two, or legally regulated at all. Thus, there will remain no principled basis for upholding marital norms like monogamy.” You can read the entire article here.

(3) Public support for homosexual unions is now down by 9% in the past few months. [See Maggie Gallagher’s Carrie Effect from National Review (read online PDF here).  Ms. Gallagher, director of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy in New York, details in her own cleverly witty style the decades of drama over the battlefield of marriage in a judicial strategy that may surprise you. She also suggests another cultural paradox. “There is a generation gap on gay marriage, but the biggest gap is between cultural elites and everyone else. The urgent job facing marriage advocates is to take an issue on which we have the agreement of almost 60 percent of the American people and translate that into politically effective organizations that can elect our friends and defeat our enemies. If we continue to fail to do so, our political opponents will use their cultural power to create an America in which traditional religious groups are redefined by the government as the moral and legal equivalent of racists. That was the point of the strange public outburst of hatred that ensued when Carrie Prejean [Miss California] said, ‘I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman.’” (Read my blog piece on those events here.) Gallagher continues, “Gay-marriage advocates understand that if you can persuade elites that gay marriage is inevitable, public opinion won't matter, because it will be silent. An idea that people are afraid to speak ceases to matter. That is their best hope, and our opportunity.”

Ms. Gallagher has said this sort of thing elsewhere, linking the need for individuals to not only speak truthfully, but to also remain committed to their own marriages.

In matters of the heart, no less than the market, a bigger investment means better returns. The benefits that marriage (but not cohabitation) brings are not small… marriage for most people is the means to health, happiness, wealth, sex, and long life. In love, victory goes not to the half-hearted but to the brave: to those ordinary people who dare to take on the extraordinary commitment marriage represents. [4]

This analysis resonates that marriage is a basic intrinsic good rather than a functional instrumental good, and the law cannot regulate happiness; it can only incentivize stability and welfare of its citizens. “Marriage is more than a private emotional relationship. It is also a social good.”

A Regent colleague (who is not a lawyer) once asked me what she could do about the battlefield over the breakdown of marriage in our culture. Robert George, Maggie Gallagher and Norval Glenn give us the answer – and it’s constitutionally guaranteed: free expression and continued commitment to marriage. From the voting booth to the kitchen table you can speak your mind with love, reason and compassion, and most importantly live it out in your own marriage, “happily ever after.” Authentic marital commitment and reasoned views make sensible policy, sensible conversation, and a sensible lifestyle - not built on emotion, but on a common good desired by all – and first and foremost by partners to marriage.

When Jesus was answering the Pharisees about divorce He reminded them that “it was not that way at the beginning,” (Matthew 19) referring to creation of one man and one woman who “For this reason a man would leave his father and his mother and the two would become one flesh.” (Gen 2:24) The problems with divorce and marriage alternatives are really all about a desire for authentic marriage - oneness of two individuals by Grand Design, for a lifetime. Anything else works to the detriment of the individual, the family, the community, and eventually to the detriment of society as a whole. Individuals, one marriage at a time, making marriage a lifetime commitment is the preeminent solution. This is the essence of family restoration.

And therein lies the paradox – marriage is deeply spiritual and requires unconditional commitment between a man and a woman with very human natures – making love a battlefield.

You can find some of Professor Kohm’s scholarship at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=183817#.

More of Professor Kohm’s scholarship on these issues is available at these sources:
What’s the Harm to Women and Children? A Prospective Analysis, in WHAT’S THE HARM: DOES LEGALIZING SAME-SEX MARRIAGE REALLY HARM INDIVIDUALS, FAMILIES OR SOCIETY? 79 (Lynn D. Wardle, ed. 2008).

On Mutual Consent to Divorce: A Debate with Two Sides to the Story, 8 APPALACHIAN J. L. 35 (2008).

Understanding and Encouraging Realistic Reconciliation in an Age of Divorce, 32 VBA J. 8 (June/July 2006).

Cohabitation and the Renaissance of Marriage (coauthored with Karen M. Groen), 17 REGENT U. L. REV. 261 (2005); cited in Lynn D. Wardle, What is Marriage? 6 WHITTIER J. CHILD & FAM. ADVOC. 53 (2006); Nancy Levitt, Pitfalls and Promises: Cohabitation, Marriage and Domestic Partnerships: Bibliography: Cohabitation, Domestic Partnerships, and Nontraditional Families Annotated Bibliography, 22 J. Am. Acad. Matrimonial Law (2009)( noting the exploitation of women and children).

Does Marriage Make Good Business? Examining the Notion of Employer Endorsement of Marriage, 25 WHITTIER L. REV. 563 (2004); cited in 6 U. PA. J. LAB. & EMP. LAW 865 (Spring 2004); Selected Current Bibliography on Labor & Employment Law, 98 NW. U. L. REV. 579 (2004); Daniel W. Olivas, Tennessee Considers Adopting the Louisiana Covenant Marriage Act: A Law Waiting to be Ignored, 71 TENN. L. REV. 769 (2004); Karen Turnage Boyd, The Tale of Two Systems: How Integrated Divorce Laws Can Remedy the Unintended Effects of Pure No-Fault Divorce, 12 CARDOZA J. L. & GENDER 609 (2006).

The Collateral Effects of Civil Unions on Family Law, 11 WIDENER J. PUB. L. 451 (2002); cited in John G. Culhane, The Heterosexual Agenda, 13 WEIDNER L. J. 759 (2004); Melissa Durand, From Political Questions to Human Rights: The Global Debate on Same-Sex Marriage and its Implications for U.S. Law, 5 REGENT J. INT’L L. 269 (2007).

Fairness, Accuracy and Honesty in Discussing Homosexuality and Marriage, 14 REGENT L. REV. 249 (2002) coauthored with Dr. Mark Yarhouse; reprinted at SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH NETWORK www.SSRN.com, available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=269418 (May 2002).

How Will the Proliferation and Recognition of Domestic Partnerships Affect Marriage? 4 J. FAM. STUD. 105 (2002); also available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol13/papers.cfm. cited in Katherine Shaw Spaht, Revolution and Counter-Revolution: The Future of Marriage in the Law, 49 LOYOLA L. REV. 1 (Spring 2003); Lynn D. Wardle, Counting the Costs of Civil Unions: Some Potential Detrimental Effects on Family Law, 11 WIDENER J. PUB. L. 401 (2002); Michael Scaperlanda, Kulturkampf in the Backwaters: Homosexuality and Immigration Law, 11 WIDENER J. PUB. L. 475 (2002); Katherine Shaw Spaht, The Last One Hundred Years: The Incredible Retreat of Law from the Regulation of Marriage, 63 LA. L. REV. 243 (Winter 2003); Herma Hill Kay, “Making Marriage and Divorce Safe for Women” Revisited, 32 HOFSTRA L. REV. 71 (2003); Lynn D. Wardle, The Curious Case of the Missing Legal Analysis, 18 B.Y.U. J. PUB. L. 309 (2003); Lynn D. Wardle, 116 HARV. L. REV. 1026 (2003); Nancy K. Kubasek, Alex Frondorf and Kevin J. Minnick, Civil Union Statutes: A Shortcut to Legal Equality for Same-Sex Partners in a Landscape Littered with Defense of Marriage Acts, 15 J. LAW. & PUB. POL'Y 229 (Spring 2004); Appendix A, Law Review Articles citing Baker v. Vermont, Justin W. Starr, 18 BYU J. PUB.L 353 (2004); Nancy D. Polikoff, Making Marriage Matter Less: The ALI Domestic Partner Principles Are One Step In The Right Direction, 2004 U. CHI. LEGAL F. 353; Mary Kay Kisthardt, 19 J. AM. ACAD. MATRIMONIAL L. 223 (2005); Domestic Partnerships: What the United States Should Learn from France’s Experience, 24 PENN ST. INT’L L. REV. 683 (2006); Laura A. Rosenbury, Friends with Benefits? 106 MICH. L. REV. 189 (2007); Melissa Durand, From Political Questions to Human Rights: The Global Debate on Same-Sex Marriage and its Implications for U.S. Law, 5 REGENT J. INT’L L. 269 (2007); Erin Cleary, New Jersey Domestic Partnership Act in the Aftermath of Lewis v. Harris: Should New Jersey Expand the Act to Include All Unmarried Cohabitants? 60 RUTGERS L. REV. 519 (2008); Shahar Lifshitz, A Potential Lesson from the Israeli Experience for the American Same-Sex Marriage Debate, 22 BYU J. PUB. L. 359 (2008).

What do VAWA, Elian and Grandparents Have in Common? Federal Involvement in Family (Law) Governance, VIRGINIA LAWYER 18 (Feb. 2001); reprinted in ELIAN GONZALEZ: THE CRITICAL READER, Paul Allatson, ed. (published by the Institute for International Studies, Sydney, Australia)(2007).

Marriage and the Intact Family: The Significance of Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110 (1989), 22 WHITTIER L. REV. 327(2000); cited in June Carbone, Which Ties Bind? Redefining the Parent-Child Relationship in an Age of Genetic Certainty, 11 WM. & MARY BILL OF RTS. J. 1011 (2003); Marie A. Failinger, A Peace Proposal for the Same-Sex Marriage Wars: Restoring the Household to its Proper Place, 10 WM. & MARY J. OF WOMEN & L. 195 (2004); Niccol Kording, Nature v. Nurture: Children Left Fatherless and Family-Less When Nature Prevails in Paternity Actions, 65 U. PITT. L. REV. 811 (2004); June Carbone, The Legal Definition of Parenthood: Uncertainty at the Core of Family Identity, 65 LA. L. REV. 1295 (2005); David M. Wagner, The Man Who Declines to be Socrates: Justice Scalia, Truth, and the Jurisprudence of Tradition, 12 WIDENER L. REV. 473 (2006); Mary Patricia Byrn, From Right to Wrong: A Critique of the 2000 Uniform Parentage Act, 16 UCLA WOMEN'S L.J. 163 (2007); Rena M. Lindevaldsen, Sacrificing Motherhood on the Altar of Political Correctness: Declaring a Legal Stranger to be a Parent Over the Objections of the Child’s Biological Parent, 21 REGENT U.L. REV. 1 (2008)).

The New Paradigm for the Feminine Mystique: The Authentic Women’s Perspective, 2 LIBERTY, LIFE & FAMILY 259 (June 1996).

_______________________________________________

[1] Norval D. Glenn, Values, Attitudes and the State of American Marriage in Promises to Keep: Decline and Renewal of Marriage in America, David Popenoe, Jean Bethke Elshtain, and David Blankenhorn, eds. (Rowman & Littlefield, 1996) in Family Law in Action, A Reader 13, Margaret F. Brinig, Carl E. Schneider and Lee E. Teitelbaum (Anderson Publishing Co., 1999), citing the American Life Study by the Institute of Social Research at the University of Michigan, and the Massachusetts Mutual American Family Values Study in particular.

[2] Id.at 13.

[3] Id. at 11.

[4] Linda J. Waite and Maggie Gallagher, The Case for Marriage 46 (2000).

[5] William J. Dougherty, et al., Why Marriage Matters: Twenty-One Conclusions From the Social Sciences 6 (2002).