J.D. Vance has become a laugh line to some, but his stance on divorce is seriously dangerous

Republican vice presidential candidate J.D. Vance, shown at a rally in Mecosta County, Mich., on Aug. 27, 2024, has shared his view that divorce should be more difficult. (Photo by Anna Liz Nichols/Michigan Advance)

Laughing at J.D. Vance has become a part-time job for progressives, who have been gleefully sharing childless cat lady memes and couch jokes. I’ll admit I’m guilty of chuckling along with them.

But Vance’s regressive agenda to limit the right to divorce has scared me. As a therapist who specializes in treating women navigating divorce, many of whom are leaving abusive marriages, I believe Vance’s stance is dangerous. His long list of what women should not be allowed to control keeps getting longer: their bodies, their reproductive rights, who they marry, whether they have children (or cats) and now, whether they can divorce.

In 2021, Vance lamented that children suffer when their parents divorce, even when those marriages were violent. In his memoir Hillbilly Elegy, Vance describes being raised by his grandparents, who had a chaotic and violent marriage. He recounts a scene in which his grandmother doused his grandfather with gasoline while he slept on the couch. She then lit him on fire and their 11-year-old daughter had to put out the flames. For Vance, even this extreme level of family violence is preferable to divorce.

It’s not unusual for politicians to ignore research or thoughtful scholarship to score points with ideologues, but let’s get clear on the facts. Nearly half of all marriages in the United States end in divorce. And 70% of those are initiated by women, and a significant number are fleeing their marriages due to domestic violence.

Research shows it is not divorce, per se, that is damaging to children, but rather parental conflict. Ongoing arguments between parents can have a negative impact on children’s social, emotional, and academic functioning. According to a 2013 Scientific American article, “Is Divorce Bad for Children?” researchers found that only a small percentage of children experience long term serious problems after their parents divorce. In fact, children fare better in amicably divorced families than in those where married parents are in constant conflict.

Vance believes that people are too quick to divorce and would have the process be more difficult. In his 2021 speech, he equated the ease of shifting spouses to changing underwear.

I’ve got news for him: Divorce is never easy. Most of the hundreds of women I’ve seen in my practice think about their decision for years before finally contacting a lawyer. None of them have ended their marriages impulsively, and they have all gone through extensive mental gymnastics thinking about what is best for their children.

Many of them stay in their unhappy marriages for their children for years before deciding they must leave for their children. When they do finally divorce, their children are often much better off in the end. I have not seen any research that suggests living in a family with domestic violence is good for kids.

Not only are Vance’s beliefs about divorce misguided, but his proposed policy initiatives would have serious consequences. No-fault divorce allows couples to divorce without having to prove that one party is to blame. Many right wing politicians, Vance included, are advocating for eliminating no-fault divorce, which would further curtail women’s rights and endanger children living in abusive homes.

Navigating the legal and financial aspects of divorce is challenging and expensive enough without the added burden of proving your spouse was violent, addicted, or abusive. Countless women would be forced to remain in unhealthy marriages due to a lack of proof or funds to argue their case. Eliminating no-fault divorce laws would create an increase in domestic violence and spousal murder and become yet another way of controlling women in the name of family values.

Now imagine our world if Trump is elected and Vance is given power to promote domestic policy. A woman, let’s call her Mary, has been physically and emotionally abused by her husband for many years. Mary wants to divorce but has little evidence to prove her claims.

She hires expensive lawyers to try her case, borrowing money from her family. She has no way to prove the emotional abuse she has endured for years, but she has photo evidence of his physical abuse. Her husband tells the judge that the photos of Mary’s bruises are evidence of her clumsiness, not the result of his rage. The judge denies her right to divorce and she leaves the courthouse with her husband. We can only imagine what happens next. Is that the society we want to live in?

I don’t plan to sit around on my couch doing nothing this November. Instead, I’ve signed up to drive people to polling stations, divorcees and childless cat ladies included.

This article first appeared on CommonWealth Beacon and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.