Why a woman does not support the Violence Against Women Act

JackieLynn Wellfonder explains why she and many others do not support the Violence Against Women Act. Does this make her — a woman — a woman-hater?

With my focus as of late being on second amendment issues, primarily, I had not paid a lot of attention to the Violence Against Women Act until I saw this video that a few of my female conservative activists friends posted on Facebook.

Bravo Julie Borowski, bravo! We cannot continue to let the left define the narrative, we must rebut their talking points with facts and Borowski does an outstanding of job of that.

First, some history. VAWA was drafted by the office of current Vice President Joe Biden and passed with bipartisan support in 1994. The act was popular with the left because of protections for same-sex couples and “undocumented immigrants” who were enabled to get temporary visas. The ACLU brought up constitutional issues surrounding the pretrial detention and HIV testing, but later supported reauthorization, provided the DNA provision be removed.

The current bill easily passed in the Senate last Tuesday and now will go to the House. As one with a modicum of common sense might expect, conservatives are voicing their opposition. One of the primary concerns? The cost.

From the Congressional Budget Office:

Assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts (and accounting for the amounts already appropriated for those programs in fiscal year 2012), CBO estimates that implementing S. 1925 would cost about $2.2 billion over the 2012-2017 period. Enacting the legislation would affect direct spending and revenues; therefore, pay-as-you go procedures apply. CBO estimates that enacting the bill would increase direct spending by $108 million (including $6 million that would be classified as off-budget spending) and decrease revenues by $3 million over the 2012-2022 period.

As Julie mentions, while feminists use the bill to further their ideology, they are actually discriminating against men. Conservative activist Phyillis Schlafly emphasizes these points here: 

Ignoring the mountain of evidence that women initiate physical violence nearly as often as men, VAWA has more than 60 passages in its lengthy text that exclude men from its benefits. For starters, the law’s title should be changed to Partner Violence Reduction Act, and the words “and men” should be added to those 60 sections.

Senator Marco Rubio, who just delivered the GOP response to the State of the Union, released a statement indicating his reasons for not supporting the entire legislation.

Unfortunately, I could not support the final, entire legislation that contains new provisions that could have potentially adverse consequences.  Specifically, this bill would mandate the diversion of a portion of funding from domestic violence programs to sexual assault programs, although there’s no evidence to suggest this shift will result in a greater number of convictions. These funding decisions should be left up to the state-based coalitions that understand local needs best, but instead this new legislation would put those decisions into the hands of distant Washington bureaucrats in the Department of Justice. Additionally, I have concerns regarding the conferring of criminal jurisdiction to some Indian tribal governments over all persons in Indian country, including non-Indians.

JackieLynn Wellfonder is a contributor to The Brenner Brief. Twitter: @princy_lyn

While the left would have you believe those that are against the bill are evil woman haters, it’s clear when you research the facts, that is not the case at all. I find it incredibly ironic that their claim to fame is empowering women and advocating for protection of women with this bill, yet in the same breath, work to take away second amendment rights, effectively making women more vulnerable to attacks and less able to defend themselves.

From a libertarian and constitutional perspective, the opposition is simple — it’s an issue that does not need federal intervention and should be handled at the state level. No matter what stance you take, please educate and arm yourselves with the facts. Stay in touch with your legislators, and never forget that they work for you. Bills like this affect all of us, especially considering the price tag that goes along with it.

Sign up for The Brenner Brief newsletter! Free subscription; unsubscribe any time. Connect with conservative, alternative media — we are “rendering the mainstream media useless” at TheBrennerBrief.com!

Related articles

• VAWA: Offensive, Sexist And Ignorant; Representative John “Jimmy” Duncan, Jr (R-TN). (theobamacrat.com)
• Violence Against Women Act Updates (theobamacrat.com)
• Senate passes Violence Against Women Act (wlky.com)
• Baucus hears praise for Violence Against Women Act at Missoula roundtable (missoulian.com)
• GOP Rep. Dismisses Violence Against Women Act As A ‘Bill With A Motherhood-And-Apple-Pie Title’ (thinkprogress.org)
• US Senate Passes the 2013 Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) (nichellemitchem.typepad.com)
• Sen. Ron Johnson says Violence Against Women Act is unconstitutional (wisinfo.biz)
• Sen. Ron Johnson votes “no” on the Violence Against Women Act (wisinfo.biz)
• Why Would Anyone Oppose the Violence Against Women Act? (theatlantic.com)

by