These folks that voted to kill HB 700 have to go. Anyone running against them would be better than bringing back these people that seek to protect batterers. From Ms. Magazine:

Abused Women in Maryland Aren’t Lying

This spring, the Maryland legislature killed a bill that would have brought Maryland’s restraining order policies into line with every other state in the union. Remarkably, in Maryland, a stalking victim seeking help is required to prove her case with “clear and convincing” evidence, a higher standard than “preponderance of the evidence,” which is the universal standard for civil dispute.

There can be only one reason for this absurd requirement: that the Maryland legislators who voted for the bill, listed here, believe that women who testify that they’ve been abused are less credible than men who deny being abusers. That’s not a level playing field, and it’s an absolutely unacceptable attitude for a legislator to hold.

But it’s no mystery where they’re getting this idea. Father’s and men’s rights activists have long promoted the myth that false allegations of domestic violence are rampant, especially in custody cases, and that women frequently file for protective orders in order to gain an upper hand in court. The group Fathers and Families in particular has promoted fathers’ rights propaganda around the country, and has directly targeted legislators. When Maryland Rep. Luis Simmons stated in an interview that he believed it only fair to expunge records of those who had been given a Temporary Restraining Order that didn’t lead to a final order (because a judge dismissed or denied it), Fathers and Families encouraged its supporters to contact Simmons to applaud his statement.

In fact, bona fide false allegations of domestic violence are rare. Dr. Michael Flood wrote in his paper “Fact Sheet #2: The Myth Of Women False Accusation Of Domestic Violence And Misuse Of Protective Orders” that most abused women are reluctant to take out restraining orders:

The risk of domestic violence increases at the time of separation … Women living with domestic violence often do not take out protection orders and do so only as a last resort … Protection orders provide an effective means of reducing women’s vulnerability to violence.

It is only when women experience more severe forms of violence, such as choking, beating, or being shot at, that they are more likely to take out a protective order.

As experts Rita Smith and Pamela Coukos of the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence wrote in an article for the peer-reviewed Judges Journal:

Although both common sense and the prevailing legal standard dictate careful consideration of evidence in domestic or family violence when determining custody, allegations of domestic violence and/or child sexual abuse made during a divorce or custody proceeding are not always taken seriously. These allegations often are wrongly perceived as false because they are asserted in a contentious environment and because of the widespread myth that parents fabricate domestic violence and child abuse allegations in order to gain an advantage in court. When combined with the misuse of psychological syndrome evidence, the perception that a parent has fabricated the allegations often results in unfair retribution against the reporting protective parent.

Furthermore, obtaining a restraining order does not guarantee that an abused woman will be able to gain custody of her children or see her abuse taken seriously. According to Attorney Elizabeth Kates, citing Zorza, Dore, and Rosen:

Research does not substantiate this popular myth [that women frequently lie about domestic violence]. However, research does substantiate that there is no tactical advantage to making domestic violence claims. Fathers are more likely to get visitation when domestic violence is alleged, even in states with custody presumptions enacted to protect battered women. Abusive fathers are more likely to obtain primary custody when domestic violence is present, alleged or not.

More evidence that women don’t lie comes from a 1994 study of a Massachusetts database tracking restraining orders (RO’s):

[T]he high frequency with which RO’s are issued might lead some 
skeptics to assume that these orders are granted too easily for minor
 offenses and almost any man is at risk of being a defendant. The data
 from the new RO database in Massachusetts reflect otherwise. Men 
against whom RO’s have been used are clearly not a random draw
 from the population. They are likely to have a criminal history, often 
reflective of violent behavior toward others.

Thus, it simply isn’t true that women are likely to lodge false charges of child abuse or battering against their spouses in an effort to manipulate or retaliate–the rate of false reports in these circumstances is no greater than for other crimes.

This research and testimony needs to get out there to combat men’s and father’s rights group propaganda, so legislators are not influenced by untruths. To do anything less places an unfair burden of proof on abused women.

From last year's Washington Post:

Md. Domestic Violence Bill Splits Female Lawmakers

By Rosalind S. Helderman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, March 15, 2009

A controversial domestic violence measure that sparked an emotional debate on the floor of the Maryland House of Delegates last week has created an uncomfortable divide among some women in the legislature, particularly awkward because abuse issues have long been considered a unifying cause for female lawmakers.

Almost a third of the members of the General Assembly are women, one of the highest percentages among state legislatures in the country. But leading female delegates failed to convince many of their colleagues that the bill, which would allow records in some unproven domestic abuse cases to be expunged, could be harmful to domestic violence victims, most of whom are women.

Although 29 joined 40 male colleagues in a successful effort to defeat the bill, 15 women voted for the measure, saying it could help those falsely accused of abuse clear their records.

"I was really shocked," said Del. C. Sue Hecht (D-Frederick), who spent 13 years working for a support service for domestic abuse victims in Frederick County and urged women to join her in opposition. "It showed you can't take for granted your natural allies."

Hecht and others say many requests for protective orders are dismissed because victims are intimidated by their abusers and fail to follow through in court. Eliminating the public record of such denied or dismissed requests could erase a record of abuse, they say.

But other women say dismissed protective orders can be unfairly used to deny people jobs or housing. They worry about the stigma of an unproven abuse accusation in a world where the Internet has increased access to public records. Innocent people should be able to clear their records, they said.

"It is a good common-sense measure, and I don't know why anyone would oppose it," Del. Jill P. Carter (D-Baltimore) said last week.

As Carter stood explaining her position in the lobby of the House Office Building, Del. Ana Sol Gutierrez (D-Montgomery) strolled by.

"I'm feeling some wrath from my friends -- my fellow felines," Carter said, laughingly directing the comment at Gutierrez, who had voted to kill the bill.

Gutierrez stopped.

"My Latino women, they need to be encouraged to step up," Gutierrez said. She had constituents who were hesitant to leave abusive partners and could be intimidated into dropping their requests for protective orders, she said. "This is against them."

"It would still be accessible to a judge -- why do I need to know about it?" Carter responded.

The two went back and forth.

"Why risk losing a woman's life?" Gutierrez asked.

"This is like Hillary versus Obama," Carter told her as they continued. "There's this long-standing women's movement that fought for all its rights, and they don't want to give any ground."

In the past 20 years, big changes have been made in laws intended to combat domestic violence, which was once often dismissed by law enforcement as relationship issues. Courts and police are now far more likely to recognize the danger to women posed by frequently abusive spouses.

Victims can get emergency temporary orders requiring an accused abuser to stay away for up to seven days, even before the suspect has a chance to tell his side of the story.

A final protective order, issued by a judge after a hearing where both sides present evidence, was once available for a maximum for 30 days. It can now be issued for up to a year, and the legislature is considering a measure this year allowing orders in some cases to be extended to two years.

Cynthia Lifson, legislative counsel for the Maryland Network Against Domestic Violence, said the increasing number of women in the legislature over the past two decades is partly responsible for such changes.

"It's always helpful to have women in elected positions," she said. "Their life experiences are different than men in elected office."

For that reason, advocates on domestic violence issues particularly focus their lobbying efforts on the 59 women in the House and Senate. And it can be especially touchy for women to go against their advice.

"You want to look at the issues based on the merits," said Del. Gerron S. Levi (D-Prince George's), who backed the records bill last week. "But as a woman, you never want to be against the women's caucus. It makes it very difficult."

The records bill was revived last week and returned to committee for possible amendments, meaning debate will continue. A similar split has emerged over a separate measure scheduled for debate this week that would make it easier for victims of domestic violence to get handgun permits. Many members of the women's caucus in the legislature say the measure would send the dangerous message that guns can be used to solve domestic violence. Other women say victims who want a gun to protect themselves should be able to get one.

This week, the House will debate bills supported by victims and Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) that would make it easier to take firearms from suspected abusers. There has been more unity over these measures.

Del. Jolene Ivey (D-Prince George's) said her first impulse was to oppose the bill about expunging records and the proposal that would make it easier for victims to get handguns. The measure would direct the state police to take domestic protective orders into account when deciding whether to grant permits.

Then, she said, she spoke to women who support the measures on the Judiciary Committee, which delved deeply into both issues, and to her husband, Prince George's State's Attorney Glenn F. Ivey. She said she decided that neither measure would hurt victims and supports both.

Still, as the debate unfolded, Ivey said she couldn't help but feel the stare of one of the advocates, seated in the House gallery.

"You feel a little guilty voting against these people who have the interest of victims at heart," she said.

Del. Karen S. Montgomery (D-Montgomery), president of the women's caucus, said she was disappointed that the group did not stand together against the records bill. But, she said, the split might be an important symbol of change.

"I think it's a sign of social progress," she said. "Women do feel free to argue."