An old political trick begins by proposing legislation too radical to pass—then “accepts” a marginally less radical “compromise.” The “Violence Against Women Act” (VAWA) recently introduced into the senate has the characteristics of such procedures.
The bill’s creators—Senators Durbin, Ernst, Feinstein and Murkowski—tout it as “moderate” and “bipartisan.” That claim “works” only in contrast to 2019 (HR 1585) and 2021 (HR 1620) House bills too extreme for the senate to have considered. But the new bill is more extreme than any version of VAWA ever passed into law. This is clear both from its provisions and from the radicalism of proposals whose omission is presented as a “compromise.”
Preservation of the so-called “boyfriend loophole” is the most publicized “moderation.” Older VAWA enactments prohibited firearms purchases by those convicted of assaulting a spouse. That limited the impact to spouses whose violence was extreme or persistent enough to be seriously threatening.
The new bill’s authors wanted the prohibition extended to those “convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence against a dating partner.” In some states one instance of "threatening to hurt someone while walking toward him [or her] with a clenched, raised fist would constitute [misdemeanor] assault.” Leaving out such a radical, unpassable provision is a key "compromise" of the senate bill.
Another “compromise” removed provisions from last year’s House bill that would have granted unemployment benefits to any woman who: 1) Quit her job. 2) Claimed this was due to fear of violence by anyone with whom she had been romantically involved. 3) Produced no evidence for this beyond her own word.
When omission of such absurd and unpassable provisions indicates a bill’s “moderation” its content is sure to be bad. VAWA 2022 lives down to expectations. It largely preserves the defunct HR1620—sometimes even strengthening its radical emphases. Three areas of concern stand out.
First: Sec. 901 of VAWA 2022 funds a costly and unnecessary federal bureaucratic agency. It’s emotive name—the “Office on Violence Against Women”—seems to equate opposition to it with acceptance of anti-female violence. But the matters it handles are covered by law enforcement and other federal, state and local offices.
At best the existence of the agency: 1) Ignores the fact that romantic partner violence is most commonly perpetrated by women. 2) Ignores the fact that the vast majority of violent crime victims are men. 3) Reflects a “progressive” belief that central planning can eliminate evils kept under control by existing measures.
Second: Sec. 502 of VAWA 2022 mandates “guilty until proven innocent” policies for law enforcement. The euphemism is “trauma informed methods.” These actually: 1) Presuppose bogus psychological theories. 2) Destoy frorensic objectivity. 3) Have been the first step in a slippery slope towards trying to convict without evidence—by criminalizing normal behavior.
Third: VAWA 2022 promotes social engineering. This is particularly manifested in two ways: 1) Expansion of programs into rural areas (Sec. 202) with the intent to “overcome cultural norms that include family privacy…traditional gender roles and keeping their families together.” These norms actually do more to prevent domestic violence than to facilitate it. 2) “Normalizing” transgender ideology and “lifestyles” (Sec.206).
What will VAWA really do? Increase bureaucracy. Require increased taxes to fund that bureaucracy and various programs. And these will then propagate a radical ideology inimical to due process of law, the market economy and traditional values. Fairminded legislators should vote against this bill.
