This time, the safety of women has been subsumed in a strange debate about security at our country’s southern border. Amid unpaid furloughs, federal employees who are working without pay, and shuttered federal departments sits the expired Violence Against Women Act, also known as VAWA.

VAWA funding supports a variety of initiatives in Connecticut, said Liza Andrews, Connecticut Coalition Against Domestic Violence director of public policy and communications. Those include various services for survivors of sexual and domestic violence, as well as funding for advocacy and training. Nearly 40,000 Connecticut residents seek help around domestic violence every year. Shelters for women leaving domestic violence are over capacity all. The. Time.

VAWA funding was included in the recent federal budget that Congress hasn’t passed after President Donald Trump tied its passage to paying for a wall (or a fence or a series of steel slats, depending on which tweet you read) along the country’s border with Mexico.

The new Congress can either pass a budget or reauthorize VAWA—which sounds simpler than it’s been in the last few years. While activists watched in horror, the law was nudged forward (barely) by a Republican Congress when it was due to expire in September, and again in December.

This is what happens when funding is subject to the political winds of a partisan Washington. Something as important as VAWA can take a back seat.

By Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images.

VAWA supporters demonstrate in 2013.

An example? Sen. Mitch McConnell is the senior senator from Kentucky who has emerged as a rabid Trump supporter. He was one of the original co-sponsors of the first iteration of the bill in  1991 after the contentious and disappointing Clarence Thomas Supreme Court confirmation hearings, but he voted against its reauthorization in 2013 when Democrats sought to include provisions for same-sex couples and immigrants, as well as expand programs for victims of sex trafficking. That reauthorization took 18 months, said Karen Jarmoc, president and CEO of Connecticut Coalition Against Domestic Violence. (Votes for two earlier reauthorizations, in 2000 and 2005, were mostly bipartisan and smooth.)

That kind of politicization “is not helpful in any way, especially when we’re speaking about such an important challenge as violence against women in their homes, in their workplaces, and in society,” said Jarmoc.

The law’s original intent, according to the Congressional Research Service, was to address “domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence, and stalking,” crimes that overwhelmingly affect women. Funding addressed, among other things, revamping the criminal justice system, community and prevention. People at state organizations such as Connecticut Alliance to End Sexual Violence (CONNSACS) and Connecticut Coalition Against Domestic Violence, are counting on the shutdown ending soon. Funding for programs that come through the federal Department of Health and Human Services was approved in September, though funding from the Department of Justice, home of the Office of Violence Against Women, is tied to the new budget.

And this is important. With its passage in 1994, VAWA created a network of protections for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, and dating violence. According to a 2016 Department of Justice report, VAWA funding “transformed” how the criminal justice respond to sexual and domestic violence. Its importance can’t be overstated.

The act was originally part of the Violence Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a piece of legislation that was six years and multiple late-night caucuses in the making. Among other things, the law pumped money into urban areas—such as Hartford—that were being choked by gang violence. But it also created harsher (the so-called “three strikes” provision) punishment for federal crimes and President Bill Clinton, who lobbied hard for the bill, eventually apologized for the bill’s negative impact on communities of color.

Trump says he’s ready to deal on the border wall. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi may be able to guide the president into something workable.

But here’s an idea. Let’s make funding for these services permanent. The protection of women should never be subject to political whims.

Susan Campbell is a distinguished lecturer at the University of New Haven. She can be reached at slcampbell417@gmail.com.

Some of this is pure conjecture, since Trump’s policy talks have been notably short on details. Trump has, however, repeatedly said he intends to repeal most of the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, which would have grave effect on hundreds of thousands of families, if not more.

Since 2010, the ACA has cut in half the number of uninsured citizens to a historic low of 8.6 percent of citizens, or 27.3 million people . A 2015 Congressional Budget Office study said that repealing the program would eliminate insurance coverage for about 22 million in 2017, and coverage of birth control and critical prenatal care might no longer be offered.

The study also said that the repeal of Obamacare could increase the federal budget deficit by some $137 billion by 2025, a conjecture that has been lost in the discussion.

Obamacare is not without its challenges. Recently, some insurance companies announced they were backing out because they weren’t making enough money. Simply, old and sick people in need of insurance coverage are signing on faster than are young, healthy people. Insurers that have stepped back include Hartford’s Aetna —and here is more on that company’s healthy quarterly earnings. Industry watchers predict rate hikes for roughly 10 million people who are insured through health exchanges in their states, such as Connecticut’s Access Health CT.

That’s a fixable speed bump, but one that Trump seized upon in his campaign. He called Obamacare a “horror,” and promised to repeal and replace it with a program that will push the vulnerable to suckle at the dry tit of the marketplace.

iStock Photo.

Coverage of birth control could be eliminated if the ACA is repealed or amended.

And how will the marketplace treat women? If history is a teacher, prior to Obamacare, women were subject to something called gender rating, where companies on the individual insurance market considered gender when setting premium rates. Women could pay more—sometimes one and a half times more—than men for the exact same coverage. Obamacare eliminated that. Without laws in place—and Trump has shown a disdain for government regulation—the insurance industry could revert to the bad old days, where being a woman costs more—medical care-wise—than being a man.

And what of features such as domestic violence screenings, now included in the ACA? That’s any one’s guess. Again, we’d look to the marketplace for succor.

Even without repealing Obamacare, Trump could eliminate coverage of birth control—one of the ACA’s most popular features—without the input of Congress. All that requires is a request to the Department of Health and Human Services for what means preventive health benefits for women, which by the current administration’s definition includes contraceptives.

As for reproductive rights, Trump says he’s anti-abortion and late in the campaign moved even further into the anti-abortion camp by affirming his support of the Hyde Amendment. Last March, he told MSNBC he believed that women who get abortions should be punished. Trump soon amended that statement to say that he meant the doctors who perform abortions should be punished.

Trump said he intends to appoint Supreme Court justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade—unless, of course, the Democratic Senate serves up the same kind of obstructionism their Republican colleagues have since the March nomination of Merrick Garland, the District of Columbia federal judge who’s been in limbo as Republican after Republican has blocked his appointment.

But if you are not a Trump supporter—or if you simply favor a progressive future—take heart. A 2014 study said that the more heated a campaign, the more effusive politicians become with their promises. The study also said that promises aren’t just talk. On average, politicians fulfill roughly 60 percent of their promises, but that’s contingent on constituents pushing them to live up to their word. In the end, it just may come down to who pushes harder.

Susan Campbell is a distinguished lecturer at the University of New Haven. She can be reached at slcampbell417@gmail.com.