A Brief History of the 25-Year Debate Over the Violence Against Women Act

The act has established the National Domestic Violence Hotline, the Office on Violence Against Women within the Department of Justice, and myriad programs to train victim advocates, police officers, prosecutors and judges on gender-based violence. Since it was created, more than $7 billion in federal money has been given to programs that work to prevent domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence and stalking. It has also funded shelters, community programs and studies tracking violence against women.

Addressing gender-based violence seems like it “would be a bipartisan issue,” said Carol Baldwin Moody, president and chief executive of Legal Momentum, one of the organizations that has spent the past two years drafting language for the latest reauthorization of the act.

“Unfortunately there was more debate about a bill that reflects the real needs of survivors than we would expect,” she said.

In the past quarter-century, as sexual violence on college campuses and harassment in the workplace have sparked widespread discussion and the #MeToo movement, the act has been changed, tweaked and fought over. Here is a look at its evolution.

1990s

“The bill has three broad, but simple, goals: to make streets safer for women; to make homes safer for women; and to protect women’s civil rights,” Joe Biden, one of the bill’s sponsors when he was a senator from Delaware, said in 1990.

That summer, survivors delivered stirring testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee. At the time, the Senate had only two women and the proposal had little support from women’s groups or civil rights groups.

Some critics said that penalties for rape were too stringent and that domestic abuse was a “fad.” A major sticking point was a provision that allowed victims of gender-based violence to sue their attackers.

The Department of Justice under President George Bush opposed the legislation. Chief Justice William Rehnquist criticized its criminal provisions for being “open-ended” and said its civil rights provision was “so sweeping” that it would “involve the federal courts in a whole host of domestic relations disputes.”

But in 1994, during late-night debates over the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, the bill became “a war flag for congressional leaders who wanted to show they are tough on crime,” The New York Times wrote.

The rape and murder of Megan Kanka, a 7-year-old from New Jersey, in July 1994 prompted the creation of sex offender registries and galvanized some lawmakers.

When Clinton signed the Violence Against Women Act into law in September 1994, it created new offenses and penalties, enhanced sentencing for repeat federal offenders, and strengthened investigations and prosecutions of sex offenses.

The act also provided grants to a range of groups, including law enforcement, intervention and prevention programs, and women’s shelters, and created the National Domestic Violence Hotline.

2000

The Violence Against Women Act suffered a small setback in 2000 when the Supreme Court ruled part of the law unconstitutional. That decision centered on a lawsuit brought by a woman who had accused two men of assaulting and repeatedly raping her while they were students at Virginia Tech.

Her lawsuit was made possible by the provision of the act that allowed victims of gender-based violence to sue their attackers in federal court, but the Supreme Court decided that Congress lacked the constitutional authority to enact such a measure.

That fall, a bill reauthorizing the act for another five years passed Congress with nearly universal support before being signed into law by Clinton. The renewal included $3.3 billion in financing for law enforcement and for shelters for victims of domestic violence. It also created programs designed to protect elderly and disabled women and provided funds for rape prevention and education.

2005

When the act came up again for reauthorization in 2005, lawmakers were virtually unanimous in approving it. The renewal of authority took “a more holistic approach,” according to the National Network to End Domestic Violence, including encouraging collaboration among law enforcement, health and housing professionals and community organizations.

The 2005 reauthorization included a new focus on prevention, housing protections for victims, funding for rape crisis centers and culturally sensitive services, according to the network. It also strengthened penalties for repeat stalking, added cyberstalking to the federal definition of stalking and expanded services for communities of color and immigrants.

2013

Authorization for the act expired in 2011, and efforts to renew it the following year fell apart amid objections from conservatives over some of the more obscure provisions in the bill. In particular, those on the right were concerned by the bill’s inclusion of visas for abused unauthorized immigrants, funds for victims in same-sex relationships and provisions strengthening American Indian courts.

But the 2012 election changed the political dynamic. Having lost the female vote, Republicans felt pressure to move ahead. In early 2013, House Republican leaders unexpectedly allowed a vote on the bill, which eventually made its way to President Barack Obama, who signed it into law.

That reauthorization included nondiscrimination protections for victims seeking help from grant-funded organizations. It also strengthened provisions to fight human and sex trafficking, established housing rights for victims and expanded the information that colleges and universities must share with the federal government about gender-based crimes.

2019

Opposition this year to renewing authorization for the act a fourth time has centered on gun control.

The National Rifle Association, the nation’s largest gun lobby, sought to block the act’s renewal because of a new provision that expanded law enforcement’s ability to strip domestic abusers of their guns, known as the “boyfriend loophole.”

On Thursday, however, the majority-Democratic House, with its historic number of women, easily passed the reauthorization bill.

If it becomes law, those convicted of abusing, assaulting or stalking a dating partner or those subject to a court restraining order would be barred from buying or owning firearms.

“I know that fear, I know that terror, and I just want to try to save another family from going through that terror,” said Rep. Debbie Dingell, D-Mich., recalling how she was afraid as a child that her father, who had a mental illness and owned a gun, would harm her mother or her siblings. “Why would you not close that loophole?”

It is unclear how the gun provisions will fare in the Republican-controlled Senate, where the reauthorization bill heads next.

This article originally appeared in The New York Times.