Not too long ago, the Violence Against Women Act enjoyed strong bipartisan support. Every five years, senators Joe Biden of Delaware and Orrin Hatch of Utah collaborated in a fine display of bipartisan unity to urge their fellow lawmakers to reauthorize VAWA. That abruptly changed on February 12, 2013, when 22 Republican senators – including Sen. Hatch – voted a defiant ‘no’ on Sen. Patrick Leahy’s VAWA bill, and his ham-fisted refusal to involve Republicans during the drafting of the bill. Similar Republican ire was evident in the House of Representatives.
Part of VAWA’s not-so-hidden agenda is to progressively expand its scope, balloon its budget, and designate more and more Americans as members of the victim-class. As Joe Biden admitted earlier this year, “VAWA’s power is that it gets stronger with each reauthorization.”
In the 2013 reauthorization, the definition of domestic violence was expanded to include “dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking.” College campuses came under VAWA’s purview. Tribal authorities were accorded greater jurisdiction. And immigration provisions were expanded.
So what would be the next step of the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence, the behind-the-scenes group that had orchestrated the previous VAWA reauthorizations?
The answer appeared like a bolt from heaven in October, 2017 when actress Alyssa Milano popularized the #MeToo hashtag in order to popularize the prevalence of sexual assault and harassment. Despite its broad appeal, many suspected a more nefarious agenda. Julia Hartley-Brewer charged the #MeToo movement was “turning women into perpetual victims.” And one #MeToo group admitted, “We need a complete cultural transformation if we are to eradicate sexual assault in our lifetimes.”
For the so-called VAWA Mafia, the timing couldn’t have been better, since the 2013 VAWA law was set to expire within a few short months. Before long, VAWA proponents began to call out #MeToo as part of their justification for continuing the controversial law.
Dianne Feinstein, ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, noted at a VAWA hearing, “In recent months, we’ve all witnessed the bravery of women and men all over the country who have come forward to tell their stories of #MeToo…So it’s within this backdrop that it’s vitally important to discuss the strides that we have made under VAWA to protect all survivors.”
Karen Bass, VAWA’s lead sponsor in the House, likewise argued, “Movements like #MeToo across this country demand Congress’ attention to better deal with the gaping holes left unfilled in current law around the issues of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, harassment, and stalking.”
By “gaping holes,” Bass was alluding to yet another gargantuan expansion of VAWA’s definitions. On March 3, 2019, Bass introduced H.R. 1585, which dramatically increased the definition of “violence” to include emotional abuse, verbal abuse, technological abuse, and financial abuse. Emotional and verbal abuse aren’t defined in the law, but calling your partner a nasty name or giving your spouse the “silent treatment” certainly fall within the scope of these terms.
Only a month later, the bill came up for a vote, and was passed along mostly party lines by a vote of 263-158.
Like a lightning rod, H.R. 1585 drew sharp criticism. The Conservative Action Project charged it was an “act of immense political overreach.” The Eagle Forum charged the bill “encourages obscurity in the law through its loose interpretation of what defines violence against women.”
The Center for Immigration Studies chimed in on the law’s immigration provisions: “It doesn’t take deep reflection to recognize that a scheming alien might very well dupe a citizen into marriage, then claim abuse, file a self-petition, and take the citizen for the emotional and financial roller-coaster ride of his or her life. It happens all the time.”
Columnist Wendy McElroy argued, “every couple has fights in which both sides shout hurtful accusations, bicker about money, give ultimatums, slam doors and speak indiscreetly to friends in a bar or online. But lovers’ quarrels and angry outbursts are not DV.”
McElroy also noted, “the vagueness and elasticity of the DV definition invites frivolous or false allegations, which could raise skepticism about all accusations and prevent victims from coming forward.” Which harkens back to the prophetic warning by #MeToo advocate Emily Linden: “I’m actually not at all concerned about innocent men losing their jobs over false sexual assault/harassment allegations.”
So the ball is now in the Senate’s court. Will it take the politically expedient route, hold its nose, and pass the House’s deeply flawed, unconstitutional version of VAWA? Or will the Senate realize that the Violence Against Women Act is being co-opted by a fulminating, anti-male ideology?