In a June 6, 2008 WorldNetDaily article, Joe Biden’s war on dads, Phyllis Schlafly points out that the American Bar Association is:
…a special interest group like any other association representing its members. The Chamber of Commerce represents corporate interests, such as seeking cheap labor to keep the cost of wages low, and the National Education Association represents the education industry’s interests, such as seeking more public funding to create more school jobs.
The ABA represents lawyers who seek to win their cases, especially if they are profitable and result in verdicts that order transfers of money. We can therefore assume that ABA publications are not disinterested research, but are meant to promote the litigating and financial interests of lawyers.
A good example of a special-interest publication is called “10 Myths About Custody and Domestic Violence and How to Counter Them,” which was produced “for use in litigation” by an ABA subgroup called the Commission on Domestic Violence. “10 Myths” is designed to teach lawyers how to win money verdicts against fathers by using false or misleading arguments masquerading as objective research.
The ABA publication mentioned by Phyllis Schlafly cannot be found on the Internet under the title she used, but it exists at the website of the ABA under the title “10 Custody Myths and How to Counter Them,” (ABA enewsletter, Vol 4, July 2006; 35kB PDF file) and, just as Phyllis Schlafly reports in her article, that publication was produced by an ABA subgroup called the Commission on Domestic Violence.
It is fascinating that the ABA publication presents myths that are fictitious and likely to create prejudice, much like a question would that asks a man in court, “When did you stop beating your wife?” That is not all, virtually all of the “10 Myths” are outright propagandistic slogans that are false, misleading or unsupported by research. Many of those propagandistic slogans were discredited already as long as 20 years ago, as long ago as the publishing dates of the studies purported to support the “facts”. The flyer has not been approved by the House of Delegates of the ABA Board of Governors. Yet, the ABA persists in promoting its propagandistic “10 Myths”. It appears that the ABA Board of Governors lost control over whatever ideologists run its website, and that it has no control over the ABA Commission on Domestic Violence.
Not only are the research studies cited in the “10 Myths” ABA publication quite dated, some of them were even openly refuted by some authorities who once either published, cited or otherwise promoted them. Some of them are from foreign (e. g.: Canadian and Australian) feminist social researchers who produced results based on unsubstantiated claims and on selective study samples from whom no valid projections to the general population may or must be made, study samples that violate rigorous and objective academic and scientific standards. Moreover, the vast majority of the alleged “facts” are extremely biased, misleading and false. The selection of the study reports themselves that allegedly support those “facts” is extremely biased and therefore misleading as well. On account of that, it should not surprise anyone that the snake-oil-salesman tactics prevalent in the “10 Myths” ABA publication were already many years ago and numerous times since then exposed as being fraudulent and have been properly debunked on many occasions.
The propagandistic ABA’s “10 Myths” was apparently compiled to aid lawyers with the aim of justifying outrageous court decisions against husbands, boyfriends and fathers embroiled in custody and divorce litigation, and one must not forget that judges are lawyers, too. A proper and exhaustive critique of “10 Myths” is documented in an excellent study report (Summary – 221kB PDF file – and Details – 144kB PDF file) issued in 2008 that is accessible at the website of RADAR (Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting).
RADAR’s analysis, “Myths of the ABA Commission on Domestic Violence”, is a fundamentally sound source of information that will prove to be useful in refuting claims in court that are similar to or based on the “10 Myths” publication by the ABA.
The preceding comments relate only to the leading paragraphs in Phyllis Schlafly’s article. The remainder of the article must be read. It describes another episode in US Senator Biden’s perpetual and very destructive war against fathers and the traditional nuclear family.
Senator Biden is a feminist and appears, as such, never to have shied away from using propagandistic, misleading, false and unsupported claims in promoting father- and family-hostile legislation throughout his campaign of many years against men and their families. Not surprisingly, the ABA and other feminist organizations have been long-standing, vigorous supporters of Senator Biden and others like him. Senator Biden is not only a feminist, he is also an extremist environmentalist who is to be credited with the promotion of legislation that is harmful to the economy and to the sovereignty of the US. He is a lawyer, and he has the intention of becoming the president of the USA.
A search of the website of Fathers for Life will lead you to more articles on Senator Biden.