Nevertheless, the VAWA allowed her to bring civil suit against them in both state and federal court. In short, the VAWA allowed her to pursue a criminal case that was too weak to be admitted into criminal court. This is promising for feminists who routinely consider even words and images to be a form of gender violence. To this end, the VAWA attempted to create a special class of crime defined by ideology. A major tenet of radical feminism is that violence against women is part of a political campaign that men as a class inflict upon women as a class.
Facts are often irrelevant to ideology.
In refusing to expand congressional power under the Commerce Clause, the Supreme Court decision inadvertently dealt an unexpected blow to this feminist agenda. It was unexpected because, on mere statistical grounds, the Supreme Court tends to overturn rather than to uphold earlier rulings on the cases it hears. NOW President Patricia Ireland felt betrayed. I've never seen a more compelling argument for a constitutional amendment guaranteeing women's equality. For them, ending violence against women takes a back seat to preserving states' rights to deal with violence - or not deal with it at all.