Violence Against Women Act
The Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA) is a United States federal law (Title IV of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, H.R. 3355) signed by President Bill Clinton on September 13, 1994. The Act provided $1.6 billion toward investigation and prosecution of violent crimes against women, imposed automatic and mandatory restitution on those convicted, and allowed civil redress when prosecutors chose to not prosecute cases. The Act also established the Office on Violence Against Women within the U.S. Department of Justice.
The bill was introduced by Representative Jack Brooks (D-TX)[1] in 1994 and gained support from a broad coalition of advocacy groups.[2] The Act passed through both houses of the U.S. Congress with bipartisan support in 1994, however, House Republicans attempted to cut the Act's funding the following year.[3] In the 2000 U.S. Supreme Court case United States v. Morrison, a sharply divided Court struck down the VAWA provision allowing women the right to sue the accused in federal court. By a 5–4 majority, the Court overturned the provision as exceeding the federal government's powers under the Commerce Clause.[4][5]
VAWA was reauthorized by bipartisan majorities in Congress in 2000 and again in December 2005. The Act's 2012 renewal was opposed by conservative Republicans, who objected to extending the Act's protections to same-sex couples and to provisions allowing battered undocumented immigrants to claim temporary visas, but it was reauthorized in 2013 after a long legislative battle. As a result of the United States federal government shutdown of 2018–2019, the Act expired on December 21, 2018. It was temporarily reinstated via a short-term spending bill on January 25, 2019, but expired again on February 15, 2019. The U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill reauthorizing VAWA in April 2019 that includes new provisions protecting transgender victims and banning individuals convicted of domestic abuse from purchasing firearms.[6] In an attempt to reach a bipartisan agreement, Senators Joni Ernst (R-IA) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) led months of negotiation talks that came to a halt in November 2019. Senator Ernst has said she plans to introduce a new version of the bill, and hopes it will pass in the Senate.[7]
The Independent Women's Forum has urged Congress to include provisions enhancing penalties for female genital mutilation (FGM) and funding to combat FGM.[8] According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, an estimated 513,000 women and girls in the U.S. are at risk of FGM or have already been subjected to such abuse.[9] The 2019 House version of VAWA, H.R. 1585, does not include any additional federal penalties for FGM.[10] VAWA was reauthorized on March 15, 2022, by President Joe Biden.
The World Conference on Human Rights, held in Vienna, Austria, in 1993, and the Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women in the same year, concluded that civil society and governments have acknowledged that domestic violence is a public health policy and human rights concern. In the United States, according to the National Intimate Partner Sexual Violence Survey of 2010, 1 in 6 women suffered some kind of sexual violence induced by their intimate partner during the course of their lives.[11]
However, during the early period of 1970-1990, domestic violence was regarded as a private matter and sometimes was ignored by the police. According to Zorza in Criminal Law of Misdemeanor Domestic Violence, 1970-1990, "throughout the 1970s and early 1980s, officers believed and were taught that domestic violence was a private matter, ill suited to public intervention."[12] Unfortunately, the arrest did not deter and punish abusers. The results of three studies, conducted in Omaha, Charlotte, and Milwaukee, indicated that arrest alone did not deter abusers.[13]
The Violence Against Women Act was developed and passed as a result of extensive grassroots efforts in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Advocates for the battered women's movement included sexual assault advocates, individuals from victim services, law enforcement agencies, prosecutors' offices, the courts, and the private bar. They urged Congress to adopt significant legislation to address domestic and sexual violence.
The Violence Against Women Act established new offenses and penalties for the violation of a protection order or stalking in which an abuser crossed a state line to injure or harass another, or forced a victim to cross a state line under duress and then physically harmed the victim in the course of a violent crime. Therefore, VAWA-I's efforts in legislation and prosecution increased the criminal costs, posing harsher punishment and higher costs to criminals. Although it's hard to calculate the increase in criminal costs, its influence on social welfare should be negligent regarding the huge amount of decrease in victimization costs.
One of the greatest successes of VAWA is its emphasis on a coordinated community response to domestic violence, sex dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking; courts, law enforcement, prosecutors, victim services, and the private bar currently work together in a coordinated effort that did not exist before at the state and local levels. VAWA also supports the work of community-based organizations which are engaged in work to end domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking, particularly those groups that provide culturally and linguistically specific services. Additionally, VAWA provides specific support for work with tribes and tribal organizations to end domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking against Native American women.
Many grant programs authorized in VAWA have been funded by the U.S. Congress. The following grant programs, which are administered primarily through the Office on Violence Against Women in the U.S. Department of Justice, have received appropriations from Congress:
Debate and legal standing[edit]
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) had originally expressed concerns about the Act, saying that the increased penalties were rash, that the increased pretrial detention was "repugnant" to the U.S. Constitution, that the mandatory HIV testing of those only charged but not convicted was an infringement of a citizen's right to privacy, and that the edict for automatic payment of full restitution was non-judicious (see their paper: "Analysis of Major Civil Liberties Abuses in the Crime Bill Conference Report as Passed by the House and the Senate", dated September 29, 1994). In 2005, the ACLU had, however, enthusiastically supported reauthorization of VAWA on the condition that the "unconstitutional DNA provision" be removed. That provision would have allowed law enforcement to take DNA samples from arrestees or from those who had simply been stopped by police without the permission of a court.[14]
The ACLU, in its July 27, 2005 'Letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee Regarding the Violence Against Women Act of 2005, S. 1197' stated that "VAWA is one of the most effective pieces of legislation enacted to end domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. It has dramatically improved the law enforcement response to violence against women and has provided critical services necessary to support women in their struggle to overcome abusive situations".[15]
Some activists opposed the bill. Janice Shaw Crouse, a senior fellow at the Christian Concerned Women for America's Beverly LaHaye Institute,[16] called the Act a "boondoggle" which "ends up creating a climate of suspicion where all men are feared or viewed as violent and all women are viewed as victims". She described the Act in 2012 as creating a "climate of false accusations, rush to judgment and hidden agendas" and criticized it for failing to address the factors identified by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as leading to violent, abusive behavior.[17] Conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly denounced VAWA as a tool to "fill feminist coffers" and argued that the Act promoted "divorce, breakup of marriage and hatred of men".[18]
In 2000, the Supreme Court of the United States held part of VAWA unconstitutional on federalism grounds in United States v. Morrison. That decision invalidated only the civil remedy provision of VAWA. The provisions providing program funding were unaffected.[19]
In 2005, the reauthorization of VAWA (as HR3402) defined what population benefited under the term of "Underserved Populations" described as "Populations underserved because of geographic location, underserved racial and ethnic populations, populations underserved because of special needs (such as language barriers, disabilities, alienage status, or age) and any other population determined to be underserved by the Attorney General or by the Secretary of Health and Human Services as appropriate".[20] The reauthorization also "Amends the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968" to "prohibit officials from requiring sex offense victims to submit to a polygraph examination as a condition for proceeding with an investigation or prosecution of a sex offense."[21][22]
In 2011, the law expired.[23] In 2012 the law was up for reauthorization in Congress.[24] Different versions of the legislation were passed along party lines in the Senate and House, with the Republican-sponsored House version favoring the reduction of services to undocumented immigrants and LGBT individuals. Another area of contention was the provision of the law giving Native American tribal authorities jurisdiction over sex crimes involving non-Native Americans on tribal lands. By repealing a portion of the 1978 Oliphant v. Suquamish ruling, such a provision could alter the constitutional balance between federal, state, and tribal power. Historically Congress has not allowed tribal governments to exercise criminal jurisdiction over non-tribal members. The two bills were pending reconciliation, and a final bill did not reach the President's desk before the end of the year, temporarily ending the coverage of the Act after 18 years, as the 112th Congress adjourned.
New provisions in the Reauthorization of VAWA 2013[edit]
Protection for Native Americans:
Prior to the 2013 passing of VAWA, Native American women who were the victims of non-Native American assault were not covered by the law. The Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe[36] case from 1978 was overturned by provisions added to the new VAWA 2013, which also makes it possible for non-Native Americans to be prosecuted in tribal courts for domestic or dating violence perpetrated against Native Americans.
Protection of same sex couples:
LGBTQ people experience domestic abuse at the same 25%–33% rate as other members of the community.[37] VAWA 2013 develops programs and laws to protect the rights of LGBTQ people who have been the victims of IPV (intimate partner violence). LGBTQ victims are expressly included in two important VAWA grant programs by the act. It is now against the law for LGBTQ people to be dismissed from shelters or other VAWA-funded services because of their sexual orientation or gender identity, according to a non-discrimination clause in VAWA.
Protection of victims of human trafficking:
Each year, 50,000 individuals are reportedly trafficked into the US, according to the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000.[38] Occasionally, victims of trafficking experience the same forms of abuse as those who have experienced violence from an intimate partner: physical and sexual violence, financial control, threats, intimidation, and restriction on freedom of movement.
Protection for Immigrant Victims of IPV (intimate partner violence):
Neither the number of U Visas nor the government's interest in studying crime in immigrant communities increased as a result of VAWA 2013. Based on data provided by Migration Policy Institute,[39] 18.9 million (12%) of all women in the United States are immigrants. The number of immigrants who have been victims of IPV is unknown because national studies haven't been conducted to look at this issue in immigrant communities.
The Violence Against Women laws provided programs and services, including:
VAWA allows for the possibility that certain individuals who might not otherwise be eligible for immigration benefits may petition for US permanent residency on the grounds of a close relationship with a US citizen or permanent resident who has been abusing them. The following persons are eligible to benefit from the immigration provisions of VAWA:
Coverage of male victims[edit]
Although the title of the Act and the titles of its sections refer to victims of domestic violence as women, the operative text is gender-neutral, providing coverage for male victims as well.[56] Individual organizations have not been successful in using VAWA to provide equal coverage for men.[57] The law has twice been amended in attempts to address this situation. The 2005 reauthorization added a non-exclusivity provision clarifying that the title should not be construed to prohibit male victims from receiving services under the Act.[58] The 2013 reauthorization added a non-discrimination provision that prohibits organizations receiving funding under the Act from discriminating on the basis of sex, although the law allows an exception for "sex segregation or sex-specific programming" when it is deemed to be "necessary to the essential operations of a program."[59] Jan Brown, the Founder and Executive Director of the Domestic Abuse Helpline for Men and Women contends that the Act may not be sufficient to ensure equal access to services.[60]