VAWA not the solution to domestic violence

By Doug Carlson
Apr 25, 2012

One of the age-old tricks of the legislating trade is to name legislation with a title that sounds either catchy or simply too good to oppose. Naturally, lawmakers invoke this tactic on both helpful and harmful bills alike. Such is the case with a deceptive domestic violence bill presently under consideration.

This week, the Senate is taking up a measure to reauthorize a nearly two-decades-old program designed with the express purpose of reducing levels of violence against women. As such, it also originally aimed to ensure that justice is served for victims’ abusers, namely men. The present version of the Violence Against Women Act (S. 1925), however, is a significant departure from that original stated objective.

Under the reauthorization, VAWA, as the bill is known, would spend vast sums of taxpayer money—more than $400 million each year—on programs that lack sufficient oversight and fail to address the core issue of protecting vulnerable women from abuse. Many of the programs duplicate efforts already underway. Among other problems, it would expand special protections to include same-sex couples. Men who are victimized by their male sexual partners would receive benefits under the law not afforded to heterosexuals. And with broadened definitions of who qualifies for services, the women who are most in need of the bill’s protections would have diminished access to it.

First enacted in 1994 and reauthorized in 2000 and 2005, VAWA was noncontroversial among lawmakers in its first rendition—it sailed through the Senate in 1994 without objection. But that sentiment has since changed.

“If we had just a straight reauthorization, it would pass 100 percent,” Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, speculated last month. A report by Sen. Grassley, who is among a number of senators who have registered their complaints on the bill, also noted that a Department of Justice Inspector General review of 22 randomly audited VAWA grantees from 1998-2010 found 21 of them “to have some form of violation of grant requirements ranging from unauthorized and unallowable expenditures, to sloppy recordkeeping and failure to report in a timely manner.” This lack of accountability, which includes one grantee found to have “questionable costs for 93% of the nearly $900,000 they received from the Department of Justice” in 2010, is hardly encouraging.

Pro-family groups, too, have been leveling attacks on the bill for months for its anti-family policies. Many of them expressed those concerns to the Judiciary Committee in February in hopes of derailing the bill. “We, the undersigned, representing millions of Americans nationwide, are writing to oppose the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA),” Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission President Richard Land, along with nearly two dozen other religious and conservative leaders, wrote in a Feb. 1 letter to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. “This nice-sounding bill is deceitful because it destroys the family by obscuring real violence in order to promote the feminist agenda.”

“There is no denying the very real problem of violence against women and children. However, the programs promoted in VAWA are harmful for families. VAWA often encourages the demise of the family as a means to eliminate violence,” they added.

Regrettably, a slim majority of committee members rejected that counsel, ultimately approving the bill in February on a narrow 10-8 vote. Now the battle lies in the full Senate, where those opposed to the new VAWA are facing significant pressure to support it. Allies of the bill are tagging its opponents as waging a “war on women.”

But no matter how noble its title suggests, the Violence Against Women Act is the wrong answer to addressing ongoing domestic abuse. With a shortage of evidence to date of VAWA’s success in reducing levels of violence against women, the war to decrease such violence and to ultimately strengthen the family shouldn’t include reauthorizing a flawed policy that promises an expansion of the same.

If you agree, please urge your senators to oppose the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2011 (S. 1925).

Further Learning

Learn more about: Family, Abuse,

You May Also Like

Senate passes ENDA; House stands in way

By Tom Strode - Nov 8, 2013 - (1)

The U.S. Senate has approved for the first time legislation to grant workplace civil rights on the basis of homosexual, bisexual or transgender status, leaving the House of Representatives as the lone potential barrier to enactment of the controversial proposal.…

Read More

Moore says suspension of Robertson ‘ridiculous,’ calls for ‘cultural conversation,’ not intimidation

Dec 18, 2013

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Elizabeth Bristow, 615-782-8409
or Dan Darling, 615-782-8413
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

NASHVILLE, Tenn.—During a recent interview on CNN’s Erin Burnett OutFront, Russell D. Moore, addressed the criticism that Phil Robertson, star of A&E’s Duck Dynasty, is receiving for his comments on homosexuality in a recent article for GQ magazine.

“Suggesting that people who hold to what every branch of the Christian faith has held to for 2,000 years is somehow bigoted or hateful is not productive for speech,” said Moore, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, on CNN.

In response to the controversy, A&E announced that it has put Robertson “on hiatus,” an action that Russell D. Moore calls “ridiculous.”

“Silencing views one doesn’t agree with, rather than engaging them, is hardly open-minded,” Moore said on Twitter tonight.

Moore expounded his position on his blog, Moore to the Point.

“Admittedly, A&E didn’t hire Robertson to be Charlie Rose or George Will. They hired him to be comedic and sometimes shockingly homespun. Now, I thought his reported anatomical comparisons were ill-advised and crude. But that doesn’t seem to be where the controversy lies.

“The comments that seem most offensive to people are his moral assessments of sex outside of conjugal marriage, which were more or less just a recitation of the Apostle Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 6. As Christians, we believe that Jesus is lord over sexuality, and he says that sexuality is expressed rightly only in the marriage of a man and a woman. That’s not new. We also think we’re all sinners, and that God calls us all to repentance. That’s not new either.

“We’re a divided country on sexual issues. That’s why every news cycle brings more controversy. Why not engage one another, and have the debates in a civil fashion, without attempting to silence one another. I don’t agree with David Letterman’s views on divorce and cohabitation, but I don’t want him suspended for voicing them. I’ll bet I don’t agree with MTV’s Nev Schulman of the popular Catfish show on sexual ethics, but it wouldn’t put me in the fetal position under the table to hear him voice them.

“Let’s have the sort of cultural conversation that allows us to seek to persuade each other, not to seek to silence one another with intimidation. That’s what real diversity is all about.”

The full text of Moore’s blog can be found at russellmoore.com.

The Southern Baptist Convention is America’s largest non-Catholic denomination with more than 15.8 million members in over 46,000 churches nationwide. The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission is the SBC’s ethics, religious liberty and public policy agency with offices in Nashville, Tenn. and Washington, D.C.

- END

To request an interview with Russell D. Moore
contact Elizabeth Bristow at (615) 782-8409
or Daniel Darling at (615) 782-8413,
or by e-mail at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).
Visit our Web site at http://www.erlc.com.
Follow us on Twitter at @ERLCPressRoom.

Read More

Bible shaped America, historians at forum say

By Tonika Reed - Apr 3, 2013

Scripture has had a tremendous influence on the rights of citizens throughout American history, two historians said at a recent Washington, D.C., forum.

“The Bible permeated both private expressions and the public announcements of those who shaped the new nation and its political institutions,” said Daniel Dreisbach, an author and a law professor at American University.…

Read More
NYC church policy challenged in court filing Ricky Skaggs: Leaving the mainstream community