The New Violence Against Women Act Aims To Protect Women From State Violence
The bill addresses treatment of women in federal prisons and sexual assault of people in police custody.

If you ask President Joe Biden, the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)—passed as part of former President Bill Clinton's 1994 crime bill, with expansions authorized every few years since—was an unabashed good that single-handedly taught Americans to take domestic violence seriously. This supremely overstates the case (as I've written about at length). In fact, the VAWA's overreliance on law enforcement approaches and cop-centric solutions crowded out less carceral alternatives to addressing violence and created problems for many victims.
"VAWA married anti-violence feminists to the violent state," wrote journalist Judith Levine and Northeastern Illinois University professor Erica R. Meiners in their 2020 book The Feminist and the Sex Offender. The act "overwhelmingly leans on arrest and prosecution—in other words, criminalization, an option that fails to serve many women."
But in a surprising twist, the latest VAWA update actually addresses state violence against women. Introduced in the U.S. Senate last month, the Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization Act of 2022 contains sections on improving conditions for women in federal custody and "closing the law enforcement consent loophole."
Better Treatment for Female Prisoners
The new VAWA proposes a broad range of reforms for women in federal custody, including better access to menstrual products and a pilot program to let women who give birth while in federal prison not have their babies taken from them.
To this latter end, the law would "establish a pilot program…to permit women incarcerated in Federal prisons and the children born to such women during incarceration to reside together while the inmate serves a term of imprisonment."
The bill would take several steps to address the needs of incarcerated parents and pregnant women. These include:
- Establishing an office within the Bureau of Prisons to determine prisoner placement that would, "if the prisoner has children, consider placing the prisoner as close to the children as possible."
- Prohibiting federal prisons from placing prisoners who are pregnant or have recently given birth in segregated housing units "unless the prisoner presents an immediate risk of harm to the prisoner or others" (and requiring any such placement to be "limited and temporary").
- Providing parenting classes and other resources to incarcerated people who are the primary caretaker to children.
- Training correctional officers and staff on "how to interact with children in an age-appropriate manner…basic childhood and adolescent development information; and basic customer service skills."
Other provisions in this section address the special health and hygiene needs of female prisoners, including a directive to "ensure that all prisoners have access to a gynecologist as appropriate" and to "ensure each prisoner who requires [menstrual] products receives a quantity the prisoner deems sufficient." (Inadequate provision of sanitary products has been a major complaint of incarcerated women across the U.S.)
The measure also addresses weird rules regarding visitors with periods. Some prisons have banned women wearing tampons or menstrual cups from visiting, claiming that these could be used to smuggle in contraband. The new VAWA would stipulate "that no visitor is prohibited from visiting a prisoner due to the visitor's use of sanitary products."
The bill would also address more general health and hygiene needs. It would train correctional staff on recognizing and responding to trauma, and order that "essential hygienic products, including shampoo, toothpaste, toothbrushes, and any other hygienic product that the Director determines appropriate" are made available to prisoners without charge.
The female jail and prison population has been exploding in recent decades. It would of course be nicer if Congress would address some of the root causes of this—like the war on drugs and increasingly militant policing of prostitution—instead of tweaking the experience of people once they're confined. Still, taking steps to ensure better treatment of those who are incarcerated in federal prisons is a good thing, as is the bill's mandate that the Bureau of Prisons keep better track of the demographics of women imprisoned, why they're there, and for how long.
Closing the 'Consent Loophole'
Another positive section of the new VAWA ("closing the law enforcement consent loophole") addresses sexual misconduct and assault by federal law enforcement officers.
It does so by amending Section 2243 of the U.S. criminal code—a portion prohibiting "sexual abuse of a minor or ward"—to also include prohibiting sex with "an individual in Federal custody."
Section 2243 currently prohibits knowingly engaging in sexual activity with someone who is between ages 12–15, is in official detention, or is "under the custodial, supervisory, or disciplinary authority of the person so engaging." To this, the new VAWA would add a prohibition on anyone "acting in their capacity as a Federal law enforcement officer" to knowingly engage "in a sexual act with an individual who is under arrest, under supervision, in detention, or in Federal custody."
The law enforcement loophole section would also authorize the U.S. attorney general to make grants to any state that makes it a crime "for any person acting under color of law of the State to knowingly engage in a sexual act with an individual who is under arrest, in detention, or otherwise in the actual custody of any law enforcement officer" and "prohibits a person charged with [doing so] from asserting the consent of the other individual as a defense."
And it would collect information on the number of reports made to state and federal law enforcement agencies that this had happened and how these cases were resolved.
No More 'Boyfriend Loophole' Provision
Speaking of loopholes: A section present in the failed 2021 reauthorization that Biden referred to as the "boyfriend loophole" has been removed from the 2022 version.
This controversial measure would have drastically expanded the VAWA's provisions by stretching the term intimate partner to cover not just spouses, domestic partners, or co-parents, but also any "person who is or has been in a social relationship of a romantic or intimate nature" with an alleged victim.
This change would've allowed the federal government to restrict or ban gun ownership by anyone convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (a broad category that can include "offensive touching").
This section was removed to give the broader package a better chance of passing.
From 'Proarrest' to 'Offender Accountability'
There are still plenty of problems with the VAWA reauthorization—including a language change that isn't fooling anyone.
Some of the main criticisms of the VAWA are that it orients money mainly toward law enforcement responses to domestic violence and has made grant money contingent on police having mandatory or "proarrest" policies. This means police either must or are strongly encouraged to make arrests when responding to a domestic disturbance report, even if an alleged victim does not want it.
Initially, the VAWA favored grant recipients with policies that mandate arrest; this was later changed to policies that encourage or mandate arrest. But even these proarrest policies can be damaging and have drawn ample criticism. Perhaps that's why the latest version strikes "proarrest" from a section authorizing grants "to implement proarrest programs and policies in police departments." However, the replacement language seems to be just a fancier way of saying proarrest policies.
Now, grants would go "to implement offender accountability and homicide reduction programs and policies in police departments."
Elsewhere, the latest VAWA would remove the word "mandate" from language saying grants will go to those who "encourage or mandate arrests of domestic violence offenders."
All in all, the massive VAWA reauthorization would continue or strengthen many negative carceral elements of earlier iterations. But the bill's focus on addressing violence against women by government actors—instead of simply seeing law enforcement officers as women's saviors—is a small step in the right direction.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Oh that's not gonna cause problems, letting mothers raise their children *while in prison*.
Man I can see where that's going. Anyone can
ENB: please comment on this elephant in the room.
I mean .....
C'mon, woman!
Taking the Kids In Cages thing to its logical end.
[JOIN NOW] I am making a real GOOD MONEY ($200 to $300 / hr.) online from my laptop. lop Last month I got cheek of nearly 50,000$. this online work is simple and straightforward. Don’t have to go office, Its home online job. You become independent after joining this job. I really thanks to my friend who refer me this:-
..
SITE….., http://moneystar33.blogspot.com/
Born in prison. Stay in prison. Cuts out all that wasteful bureaucracy in the middle.
Exactly.
Interviewer: What high school did you graduate from?
Applicant: San Jose Correctional Facility High.
Very good point and it gives rise to another question:
Isn't allowing childbirth and child-rearing in a prison just government-sponsored Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor? Isn't it just raising a whole generation of criminals at taxpayer expense to grow up and go out and victimize taxpayers even further?
Step away from the heavy machinery of power, ENB and fellow Girl Power Pigs!
ENB: please comment on this elephant in the room.
What part of "The Constitution guarantees that mothers have an unfettered right to abort their clumps of cells as they see fit." do you not understand?
Damnit, this is just creating a new class of human beings who are deprived of Liberty and Property--and possibly Life if they are put among the general prison population--by virtue of birth!!!
Can someone say "Caste System?" Or even "Slavery?"? And all #BecauseVagina???
Elizqbeth Nolan Brown must have lost her Goddamn mind to Baby Rabies!
And even if children of inmates are allowed to come and go to school or later work and visit friends ans other family memebers as they please, wouldn't this create weaknesses in the prison sysrem that would allow inmates greater opportunity to smuggle goods in and out or riot or escape?
Someone is not thinking any steps ahead here!
Some of the main criticisms of the VAWA are that it orients money mainly toward law enforcement responses to domestic violence and has made grant money contingent on police having mandatory or "proarrest" policies.
Huh. I would have thought a main criticism is it completely ignores the overwhelming majority of the victims of violence (aka the be-penised).
I know when there is a gender disparity in favor of men it is always sexism, and when there is gender disparity that favors women it is because of meritocracy but enough. Until feminists start addressing the overwhelming disparity between men and women on college campuses, the overwhelming disparity between men and women in combat- and on-the-job deaths and the overwhelming disparity between men's and women's incarceration rates, I'll keep the slipcover on my fainting couch. If women are only paid $.75 on the dollar the least we can do is throw them in jail at the same rate and have them treated just as poorly.
How about the overwhelming disparity in treatment, arrests and convictions of abusive intimate partners of males? Most shelter's are female only, and males who are abused by their partners often get little to no help from the authorities. In fact it happened to my deceased brother, where his ex-wife was the abusive one, but when the cops showed up, and removed her, she went to a woman's shelter and filed a complaint against him, and the woman's shelter help her flee the state with the kids, despite there being a court order saying she couldn't leave the state with the kids.
I asked a lesbian about partner abuse once. She said she couldn't complain.
So the prisons, if not owned, staffed, and run directly by the state, run on state and federal contracts. Which means they are forbidden from discriminating based on sex/gender. Yet, overall corrections personnel are something like 65/35 M/F overall and closer to 75/25 for female prisons. Again, the prisons can't discriminate so you'd think an issue that affects women so deeply would motivate them to bring those numbers closer to, you know, college graduate sex/gender ratios. But, I guess a degree in Women's Studies, the debt incurred along with it, and an OnlyFans account are more critical to women's liberation.
I'd settle for a rate of 75:100.
Pretty sad that there needs to be an actual law to prevent cops from raping women and then claiming it was consensual (being that the cop is always believed in a he-said-she-said I can only assume that there's a whole lot of rape by cop going on).
Eh, I can see both sides of the story. I've seen plenty of women who seduced men in power for the privilege (happened quite often when I was in the service) only to have them then claim sexual harassment or assault when it stopped benefitting them.
Smart thing is, keep your dick out of anyone who is lower in power than you, even if she throws herself at you. And make records of everything if someone tries this.
I'm sure there's a lot of "suck my dick and I'll rip up the ticket" or "fuck me or I'll put you in solitary" happening as well.
Probably some, but I doubt it's as high as people think it is, with people recording everything these days.
It also gets tricky with regard to consent and abuse of power, especially if you're a pro-sex worker like ENB. If, all on video, a woman steals $20 of food, the cop catches her and says, "Give me a BJ or I'll haul you in." She replies, "OK!", settles the business, and proceeds along her marry way. Isn't the just punishment to make the officer pay the store clerk $20? If we swap out the cop for an ordinary dude saying, "Give me a BJ or I'll call the cops." is it still an abuse of power? I mean, yeah, blackmail, but if we're going the blind justice route, she's guilty of theft and/or prostitution.
If, all on video, a woman steals $20 of food, the cop catches her and says, "Give me a BJ or I'll haul you in." She replies, "OK!", settles the business, and proceeds along her marry way.
I believe that's what police call consent.
I believe that's what police call consent.
So, in an issue that you explicitly state is a he said/she said issue, what the woman said can't/shouldn't be considered in any way?
Not when there's an implicit or explicit threat of force. No. That's abuse of power. Period.
The force used to tear up a ticket?
He's gonna tear up the ticket if she says no?
He's gonna tear up the ticket if she says no?
Ah, so the force required to hand her the ticket.
Don't be daft. Even a ticket can result in deadly force. Don't show up to court or pay the fine? You've got a warrant out for you now. Next comes the no-knock raid, and we all know how those can go. Assuming the cops raid the correct dwelling.
Don't be daft. Even a ticket can result in deadly force. Don't show up to court or pay the fine? You've got a warrant out for you now. Next comes the no-knock raid, and we all know how those can go. Assuming the cops raid the correct dwelling.
OK, I won't be daft. An officer saying "Suck my dick or I'll tear up the ticket.", the woman refusing, failing to pay the ticket online, failing to show up in court, and getting shot by a group of other officers on the warrant for her arrest shouldn't result in a rape conviction for the ticketing officer. Especially if the ticket was valid.
"...shouldn't result in a rape conviction for the ticketing officer. Especially if the ticket was valid."
I said asking or hinting should be automatic abuse of power and blackmail. Do not pass go.
I said asking or hinting should be automatic abuse of power and blackmail. Do not pass go.
So, like sexual harassment where Weinstein stays at the head of his company for 3 decades?
It already *is* conduct unbecoming and they can be terminated for it. The issue is as I indicate elsewhere, women who think it's OK to flirt a little to get out of a ticket and men who think they can more slyly request such services. I don't disagree with a more professional culture. I just don't think you can legislate or even necessarily "policy harder" your way into it. Kinda by your own precepts.
It already *is* conduct unbecoming and they can be terminated for it.
And, I don't see any particular distinction between "Suck my dick and I'll tear up the ticket." and issuing someone a ticket (presuming the deal is honored) and "Fuck you too, sir. Have a nice day." and handing a male a ticket.
I think the best solution is that cops can't have sex with anyone they interact with on the job. If they do then it will be assumed to be abuse of power. Remember a while ago there was an article about cops in Hawaii having sex with prostitutes and then busting them? It was so pervasive that they had to pass a law saying cops can't do it anymore. That's the kind of people we're talking about here.
Oh, I'm not saying the law is fair. I'm just saying that tipping the scales 100 or 98 or 77% in the opposite direction isn't fair either.
I think the best solution would be to end women's studies programs and for mothers and fathers to encourage their daughters (and their brothers) to go into law so they can try and adjudicate these cases more fairly or even just give juries a better background understanding of equality on such issues through public education.
Re: Hawaii police busting prostitutes, I don't recall all the details but I think ENB actually has a decent solution in decriminalizing prostitution. I don't know whether the women agreed or not but the criminalization makes it so they can't reasonably consent. I oppose ENB generally because she generally takes it too far in the 100% opposite direction, opining about how a sting operation that snags and doxxes 100 johns is bad because it snagged a couple of janes too.
I don't disagree, however I still think if cops have sex with members of the public that they interact with on the job, that it should be considered prima facie proof of blackmail and abuse of power. Do not pass go, no matter how much she begs and pleads.
I still think if cops have sex with members of the public that they interact with on the job, that it should be considered prima facie proof of blackmail and abuse of power. Do not pass go, no matter how much she begs and pleads.
IDK, maybe. That line seems to swerve kinda jaggedly across situations like "I went to report that my purse had been stolen at the local PD and that's where I met my husband/wife."
Maybe the idea is to make police work so unattractive that fewer deplorable morons join. That seems a pretty reasonable motive. Still kinda runs jaggedly across otherwise completely innocent behavior, IMO.
That line seems to swerve kinda jaggedly across situations like "I went to report that my purse had been stolen at the local PD and that's where I met my husband/wife."
I think the line is pretty clear. No hanky panky until the professional part of the situation is over. "No honey, you can't suck my dick until after the investigation is complete." That's assuming the cop actually does an investigation. In my experience when you're the victim of a crime if you're lucky they grudgingly file a report which is never looked at again, and if you're unlucky they look for an excuse to bust you for daring to ask them to do their job. So even in the situation you describe, the blow job is probably the only reason there was an investigation.
I think the line is pretty clear. No hanky panky until the professional part of the situation is over.
Contains a stipulation that
I still think if cops have sex with members of the public that they interact with on the job, that it should be considered prima facie proof of blackmail and abuse of power. Do not pass go, no matter how much she begs and pleads.
Doesn't make and is arguably impossible to enforce. When is the professional part of the situation over? When the purse is located? Secured? Returned? The purse snatcher apprehended? Convicted? Does an appreciative and unsolicited peck on the cheek count as hanky panky? Does the woman whose purse was stolen have any say in the matter?
Does an appreciative and unsolicited peck on the cheek count as hanky panky? Does the woman whose purse was stolen have any say in the matter?
Can an officer, professionally... or not, search for and apprehend his own wife or GF's or, hell, barista's purse/purse snatcher? Or do they have to hand that case off to another officer?
Probably some, but I doubt it's as high as people think it is, with people recording everything these days.
Again, when accusations against Weinstein first came out, NPR ran a story by one of their affiliates or a friend of a friend or whatever about how they did a reading for him once and didn't come forward. The story started with her as a waitress and bumping into Harvey at her place of work and he asked her to come to his place for a reading. She agreed. In telling the story, she almost literally yada-yada's her way from the front door to reading for Harvey in the bathroom where he's taking a bath. He asks her to take her top off, which she does and continues reading. It wasn't until he asked her to fully disrobe, she 'Nopes' out. She told a friend, they creeped out about it, laughed, and nothing else happened (well, then anyway).
I'd bet "suck my dick and I'll rip up the ticket" is exceedingly rare and much more commonly it's something like "I could be persuaded to make the ticket go away." and for every 10 "I could be persuaded..." I'd bet there's a half-dozen or so "I'll do a.ny.thing to avoid getting a ticket." and probably close to a dozen "Tousles hair as cop walks up, checks lipstick, rearranges bra and... 'Oh, I'm so sorry officer... Mehoff... I didn't realize I was going so fast.'"
Admittedly, I have some selection bias as I've never been around for the former but I have been first-hand witness to the latter on more than one occasion.
That's about it with me on reports of sexual abuse and harassment in the military. I've seen it happen a time or two, but far more often seen females openly flirting, etc with superior males, and then turning them in when it doesn't benefit them anymore.
I should say it works the other way too. There are a couple of female officers in local village PDs that, were I in a different life situation, I would absolutely tell them I stole some condoms and was in need of frisking. I can't imagine they haven't heard it all before and, as a male, I could only speculate in the abstract as to how they may or may not have used their assets to *ahem* abuse their power.
Again, no love for the badge, never talk to the cops, and never stick it in crazy. However, Officer Gaitan (I believe it's her, 4th from the right).
I could only speculate in the abstract as to how they may or may not have used their assets to *ahem* abuse their power.
I think the Red Hot Chili Peppers did a song about that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tX23qUNslJA
She could frisk me...
Again, no love for the badge, never talk to the cops, and never stick it in crazy.
I very much live by two of these precepts.
Yeah, rape is only acceptable / funny when it happens to men in prison.
Or when the perpetrator is a trans-woman (for the duration of their sentence only).
I wonder if any of these women who are giving birth and need to raise kids in the prison system have brothers, husbands, fathers, or grandfathers who are also being abused or even wrongly incarcerated by the prison system.
I mean, I know women have reproductive rights and men don't but it seems, I dunno, obsessively retarded to consider the story the way ENB has presented it.
"Providing parenting classes and other resources to incarcerated people who are the primary caretaker to children."
You can't teach people to give a shit about their kids.
Define "woman" first, please
You're being a hyper-emotive panicking bigot. You need learn to stop doing that when the women are talking.
Isn't biology hate speech?
If you ask President Joe Biden, the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)—passed as part of former President Bill Clinton's 1994 crime bill, with expansions authorized every few years since—was an unabashed good that single-handedly taught Americans to take domestic violence seriously. This supremely overstates the case (as I've written about at length). In fact, the VAWA's overreliance on law enforcement approaches and cop-centric solutions crowded out less carceral alternatives to addressing violence and created problems for many victims.
And unconstitutional.
"The bill addresses treatment of women in federal prisons and sexual assault of people in police custody."
Great! Anything that addresses treatment and sexual assault of men in federal prisons?
No? Nobody gives a fuck?
Ha, ha, that's right. Prison rape is funny if it's happening to a guy.
Prison rape is funny if it's happening to a guy.
And both brave and sexy if it's being perpetrated by a woman.
re: "ensure each prisoner who requires [menstrual] products receives a quantity the prisoner deems sufficient."
That seems ... poorly worded. If I were in that position, the quantity I would "deem sufficient" would be precisely the amount (in cases) necessary to climb over the wall. I'm hoping this is a reporting error and not something that some congresscritter really thought was appropriate?
Remind me why women need so much special protection under the law when they're our (men's) equals in every way and can do anything a man can do?
These people keep confusing me. First, it was "women are equal to men in every way". Then it was "women are better than men". Now its "women are weak and need special protective status". That sounds like what we had for thousands of years before all the shouting.
Equal but better.
All people should be protected from state violence, the Jan. 6th protestors most of all right now.
But those aren't legitimate people. Just like truck drivers in Canada. Laws protect only the righteous. If it sounds biblical, its how the new leftist-statist religion works.
I am guessing who is actually righteous in God's eyes, and who is considered righteous by the State will be wildly different.
"The female jail and prison population has been exploding in recent decades."
Finally. Equity!
A lot of transitioning going on.
Food Czar Herbert Hoover and Drug Czar Anslinger would be so proud of Dope Czar Biden. What is our current token dope czar doing these days?
First take; this laws makes stuff already against the law more criminal.
Second glance; Oh, I see! new departments and staffing and goodies to pass to my friends.
Most of this is good as far as it goes, though I do share concerns about raising children in prison.
However, biological males who claim to be "trans women" are still being allowed to serve their time in women's prisons in some states. And yes there have already been trans "women" raping and/or physically assaulting biological women in prison. Unless this is stopped, the VAWA is a farce.
Amazing to me that a nation that accepts women in combat roles feels it necessary to give them special protections against violence.
Note that women are much less likely to be the victims of violence than men anyway.
Shucks. I was expecting courageous looter politicians to do something about Texas hiring ku-klux vigilantes to torment pregnant women. What did Clarence Darrow say? "One has the right to hope, yeronner."
How about a "Violence Against Men Act"? Men are much more likely to be the victims of violence than women.