of the most blatant tax grabs in recent history is up for renewal
in Congress H.R. 1248, which would re-authorize the Violence
Against Women Act (VAWA) at close to a 200 percent increase
in funding. PC feminist sites on the Internet are currently abuzz
with petitions aimed at preserving their "right" to belly-up
and drink deeply at the public trough. The 1994 VAWA authorized
a tax transfer of $1.6 billion over a six-year period to programs
that "fought" violence against women. As often as not,
these tax-supported programs were nothing more than subsidies to
political campaigns such as the drive to eliminate alleged sexual
harassment on American campuses. This drive alone which has
become a gender witch-hunt has almost killed free speech
and academic liberty in America. Of course, the public face presented
by the VAWA speaks of funding to battered women’s shelters and rape
crisis centers. What person of good faith could argue with such
Me for one, and not primarily because of the tax angle. (After all,
everything is tax-funded these days.) The VAWA
is a brazenly ideological step toward cementing the gender apartheid
that presently divides American society. Consider one aspect of
the 1994 Act the aspect that was struck down by the Supreme
Court last spring. Namely, the section that allowed a victim of
rape or other violence "motivated by gender" to sue the
perpetrator for civil damages in federal court for violating her
In 1995, Christy Brzonkala became the first person to sue under
the Act over a rape that allegedly occurred in her dormitory room
while she was a student at Virginia Polytechnic Institute. The accused
men had been cleared by both a university judicial committee and
a criminal grand jury. Although the evidence could not sustain a
criminal charge, Brzonkala used the VAWA to bring a civil case against
them in federal court. The advantages to feminists of using a civil
court to punish an alleged criminal wrong were clear: civil courts
require only a preponderance of the evidence (51%) rather than "beyond
a reasonable doubt" (99%) to "convict." Moreover,
the standards and procedures are far looser in a civil proceeding.
In short, the evidence required to ruin a man’s life was watered
down to meet feminist requirements.
Definition ia not a strong point in the VAWA in ‘94 or now. The
Act is vague as to what constitutes "gender-motivated violence."
Its vagueness has served the cause of PC feminism. They routinely
consider words and images to be acts of gender violence, and definitions
that legally expand and contract to accommodate circumstance suit
them well. Fortunately, by a vote of 5-4, the Supreme Court found
that a federal civil remedy for alleged rape was unconstitutional.
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor stated, "Your approach [PC feminism’s]...would
justify a federal remedy for alimony or child support." That
is how pernicious the righteously titled Violence Against Women
Act might have been.
The fact that this provision was embedded in the ‘94 VAWA should
raise questions about whether the Act is intended to protect women
against real violence, or is merely a cynical step in a political
agenda. Real violence against women murder, battery, rape has been
steadily and steeply declining since 1990. Yet the renewed VAWA
calls for a three-fold increase in funding against gender violence.
What else does it call for? As with the ‘94 Act, the new measure
is filled with hidden political "gotchas." For example,
consider Title IV, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PREVENTION Subtitle C
Victims of Abuse Insurance Protection SEC. 423. DISCRIMINATORY ACTS
PROHIBITED. By this clause, insurance agencies cannot refuse to
accept or maintain a battered woman as a client even though she
remains in the situation of her own free will. Indisputably, such
a client has an increased likelihood of requiring medical care and
hospital stays that result from her own choices. Yet private insurance
companies would be required to underwrite the cost of this choice.
Moreover, "No insurer or health carrier may terminate health
coverage for a subject of abuse because coverage was originally
issued in the name of the abuser and the abuser has divorced..."
By virtue of being abused, a woman must be carried by insurance
companies who issued a policy to her on the strength of her husband’s
profile. Insurance companies will finance the feminist agenda on
The $3.8 billion reauthorization of the VAWA is nothing more or
less than an attempt to federalize and embed a specific definition
of domestic violence and gender crime into American society. One
feminist site proclaims, "In the past six years, the Violence
Against Women Act (VAWA) has provided grants which" enable
"states to train...law enforcement officials on proper techniques
to use when they are confronted by situations involving domestic
violence." At the e-headquarters of the National Organization
for Women (NOW), President Patricia Ireland declared of the VAWA’s
critics, "Some conservative members of Congress...apparently
do not consider stopping violence against women a national priority.
But tens of thousands of women and men will prove them wrong at
the World March of Women 2000
on October 15."
To judge by its online petition, the worldwide series of coordinated
women’s rights demonstrations collectively known as the World March
of Women has three objectives: 1) to "eliminate poverty and
ensure a fair distribution of the planet’s wealth between rich and
poor, and between women and men"; 2) to "eliminate violence
against women"; and, 3) to "ensure equality between men
and women." Who can believe that this petition is not the expression
of an ideological agenda one that will be reflected in programs
such as the training of police required by the VAWA2.
Consider the "value-free" analysis offered by Violence
Against Women Act NEWS (Sept. ‘96), "In 1994, there were
88,500 incidents of domestic violence where a firearm was present.
Moreover, responding to these calls has been deadly business for
law enforcement. From 1985 to 1994, there were 65 law enforcement
officers killed when they responded to family quarrels, and 9 out
of 10 of those deaths resulted from firearms. The connection between
guns and domestic violence can have dangerous, even deadly consequences."
PC feminists are in the forefront of calling for a ban on gun ownership
for men accused of domestic violence offenses even misdemeanors.
It is criminally naive to believe that billions of dollars placed
into their bank accounts will not be used to limit the constitutional
rights of gun owners. But this is only one political implication
of the VAWA.
With such underlying ideological tensions, it is no wonder that
the VAWA has encountered raw cynicism from its critics. For example,
an attempt is underway to co-join the VAWA with a less popular bankruptcy
bill that feminists have actively opposed. The American
Bankruptcy Institute "the premier site for bankruptcy
information on the web" states (as of October 3rd),
"It appeared late last week that Senate leaders may seek to
attach the bankruptcy measure to a freestanding bill, the Violence
Against Women Act (VAWA), rather than an appropriations bill. However,
sources remained skeptical that the plan would be successful due
to Senate Democratic and White House opposition to the latest version
of the legislation." Feminist opposition will remain strong
as well since the new bankruptcy bill would divert the funds of
husbands and ex-spouses from women’s pockets to creditors in the
private sector. Or, as one feminist sarcastically stated, "to
share the ex-husband’s income with MasterCard and Visa."
There is nothing noble or righteous about the VAWA. The Act is a
money grab to back an agenda. In the wake of its political turbulence,
it is women who will be battered (as well as men) by having to live
with the burden of gender apartheid.
McElroy is author of The
Reasonable Woman. See more of her work at ifeminists.com
and at her personal website.