The Senate Judiciary Committee’s October 5 hearing about reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) might seem little more than a cheerleading exercise. Beneath that surface were concerning indications about the Committee’s forthcoming bill.
The hearing emphasized four points of interest: 1) The forthcoming bill is bipartisan and builds on “traditional VAWA” rather than the House of Representatives’ “hard-left” version. 2) The need to protect (alleged) victims. 3) Expanding “services” into rural areas. 4) An alleged spike in domestic violence during COVID restrictions. Each is a red flag to those familiar with legislative history.
“Traditional VAWA” was neither moderate nor objective. According to an assessment by Janice Shaw Crouse in US News and World Report, it was “more about building feminist power structures than about protecting vulnerable women or helping battered women.” Supporting “rehabilitation programs that address” behaviors leading to domestic violence also took a backseat to feminist projects. “Traditional VAWA” has also been part of an “anti-domestic violence” agenda which ignores a crucial fact—women are the most common perpetrators and males the most common victims. Violent crime as a whole “disproportionately” impacts men as well. In 2019, for example, male victims exceeded females by 100,000.
“Violence against women” receives special focus for ideological reasons. Leftists: 1) See women as a “victim group” and men as “oppressors.” 2) Use “combating violence against women” as a tool for “challenging [real or imagined] hierarchies of power.” 3) Believe (in extreme cases) that family life is inherently risky for women. According to mental health experts and former residents, the type of “women’s shelters” that receive VAWA funding often promote such beliefs.
These same beliefs were manifest in two aspects of the 2012 VAWA critiqued by the Independent Institute’s Mary Theroux: 1) It “redefined ‘domestic violence’ to include dirty looks, name calling, or simply the “intuition” (imagination) of a woman that the accused is thinking ill thoughts.” 2) “[Female] accusers need provide no proof and are not held accountable for lying. The accused can and are summarily jailed, denied access to their children, and put under restraining orders on nothing more than the say-so of a woman who may very well be acting out of anger, a desire to retain marital property or sole custody of their children, or just plain whimsy.”
During the Judiciary Committee hearing, senators endorsed “victim centered” and “trauma informed” methods—methods which take a “guilty until proven innocent” approach. Loose definitions of “violence” have been taken to new extremes by It’s On Us—whose founding by the Obama administration was influenced by Joe Biden. Both tendencies have even seeped into the armed forces. Those who implement VAWA are likely to interpret it in as radical a way as possible.
One prominent implementation goal is expansion into rural areas. Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith effectively conceded this means social engineering, stating: “Before making the decision to seek help, these [rural] survivors must often overcome cultural norms that include family privacy…traditional gender roles and keeping their families together.”
In reality, such “cultural norms” do more to prevent domestic violence than to keep people in abusive situations. Domestic violence is least common in stable families, most common in unstable sexual relationships. Children from stable families are more likely to have good physical and mental health, less likely to use drugs and turn to crime, perform better in school and obtain better paying jobs. Because of this they are likely to enter abusive relationships or become abusers. Stable families are more common in rural areas than cities. VAWA and other “anti-domestic violence” initiatives have tended to undermine family stability—saving the few while putting the many at risk.
Claims domestic violence increased during COVID lockdowns are dubious. Important statistics suggest domestic violence may have decreased. These include statistics from the National Commission on COVID-19 and Criminal Justice and the National Domestic Violence Hotline. Some argue current statistics are unreliable—that COVID restrictions increased domestic violence while creating obstacles to reporting it. Treating this as a hypothesis for investigation is reasonable. Building policy on that unproven hypothesis is not.
If new research discovers a spike in unreported domestic violence certain factors would need consideration: 1) Domestic violence is most common within disproportionately violent “underprivileged” segments of society. 2) FBI statistics report a 30% rise in homicides and a 12% rise in aggravated assault during 2020. 3) The latter largely occurred among the “underprivileged” while police were impeded by reduced support.
It should also be noted that rape—the other crime on which VAWA focused—went down by 12% in 2020 according to the FBI.
A responsible version of VAWA must do the following:
Assure programs it funds combat the lifestyles that contribute to domestic violence—not spread an ideological or partisan message. These lifestyles include illegal drug use, excessive use of alcohol, promiscuity and serial romantic relationships.
Work to support the lifestyles and “cultural norms” that reduce the dangers of domestic violence—stable family life, sobriety, etc.
Provide clear and strict definitions of “violence” and “abuse.”
Reject “guilty until innocent” approaches. Different matters can call for “proof beyond a reasonable doubt,” “clear and convincing evidence” or “preponderance of evidence.” But in all cases allegations must be presumed false until objectively assessed evidence meets a particular standard of proof.
Assess and act on the relationship between domestic violence and “cultures of violence” among the “underprivileged.”
