VAWA Re-authorized

On Thursday, January 5, 2006, President Bush signed into law  a five—year, $3.9 billion extension of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), originally enacted in 1994 under President Clinton.  VAWA is a particularly pernicious piece of pork—barrel legislation that puts billions of dollars of taxpayer funds, and the imprimatur of the federal government, in the service of the radical feminist ideology that all men and boys are potential abusers who must be re—educated according to the dictates of the nation's left—leaning 'domestic violence' industry. 

No more G.I. Joes for you, little boy!  And, of course, the supporters of VAWA believe that the 'solution' to the violence that 'pervades' our society will only come when Congress 'invests more resources into building healthy, peaceful communities.'  See here for Phyllis Schlafly's powerful critique of the ideology and politics of VAWA.  Incredibly, the reauthorization of VAWA was passed by unanimous consent in the Senate, and only four congressman voted against the bill in the House.  So President Bush was not the only Republican steamrolled by the left on this issue.  The bipartisan rush to renew (and, indeed, expand) VAWA is clear proof that the title slapped on a piece of legislation is more important that the actual contents thereof.  Republicans should remember this lesson as they craft future legislation of their own.

Steven M. Warshawsky  1 08 06

Thomas Lifson adds:

We can thank VAWA for Bill Clinton's lying under oath. The only reason his sexual history was subject to examination under oath is that VAWA authorizes sexual harrassment litigants to violate privacy in this manner. I would rather be rid of VAWA. But BJ Clinton can thank the feminists for his sordid behavior coming to light inthe first place.

On Thursday, January 5, 2006, President Bush signed into law  a five—year, $3.9 billion extension of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), originally enacted in 1994 under President Clinton.  VAWA is a particularly pernicious piece of pork—barrel legislation that puts billions of dollars of taxpayer funds, and the imprimatur of the federal government, in the service of the radical feminist ideology that all men and boys are potential abusers who must be re—educated according to the dictates of the nation's left—leaning 'domestic violence' industry. 

No more G.I. Joes for you, little boy!  And, of course, the supporters of VAWA believe that the 'solution' to the violence that 'pervades' our society will only come when Congress 'invests more resources into building healthy, peaceful communities.'  See here for Phyllis Schlafly's powerful critique of the ideology and politics of VAWA.  Incredibly, the reauthorization of VAWA was passed by unanimous consent in the Senate, and only four congressman voted against the bill in the House.  So President Bush was not the only Republican steamrolled by the left on this issue.  The bipartisan rush to renew (and, indeed, expand) VAWA is clear proof that the title slapped on a piece of legislation is more important that the actual contents thereof.  Republicans should remember this lesson as they craft future legislation of their own.

Steven M. Warshawsky  1 08 06

Thomas Lifson adds:

We can thank VAWA for Bill Clinton's lying under oath. The only reason his sexual history was subject to examination under oath is that VAWA authorizes sexual harrassment litigants to violate privacy in this manner. I would rather be rid of VAWA. But BJ Clinton can thank the feminists for his sordid behavior coming to light inthe first place.