GOP senators who voted against anti-rape law refuse to explain why

By Daniel Tencer
Thursday, October 22nd, 2009 -- 9:40 pm
Share on Facebook Stumble This!

jamieleighjones GOP senators who voted against anti rape law refuse to explain whyNot one of the 30 Republican senators who voted against Sen. Al Franken's anti-rape amendment agreed to explain their rationale when MSNBC came calling, news host Rachel Maddow told her audience Wednesday evening.

Jamie Leigh Jones, the woman whose alleged gang rape at the hands of co-workers at defense contractor KBR was the inspiration for the amendment, appeared on The Rachel Maddow Show Thursday night to laud its passing in the Senate earlier this month. The amendment prohibits the government from contracting with companies that refuse to allow employees to pursue rape allegations in court.

As Jones explained to Maddow, that was the case with KBR -- then a subsidiary of Halliburton -- when the company responded to Jones' allegations of rape by locking her in a shipping container and refusing to give her access to medical treatment or contact with the outside world.

"I cannot even understand the reasoning as to why anyone would vote against" the Franken amendment, Jones told Maddow. "I'm thrilled it's gotten as far as it has gotten."

But, according to a report at the Huffington Post, the amendment -- though considered to be wildly popular -- may have trouble getting any further. Reporter Sam Stein cites "multiple sources" who told him Sen. Daniel Inouye, Democrat of Hawaii, is considering watering down the amendment, or eliminating it altogether, when it goes to a vote on the Senate floor as part of a defense appropriations bill. Stein reports:

Story continues below...

Inouye's office, sources say, has been lobbied by defense contractors adamant that the language of the Franken amendment would leave them overly exposed to lawsuits and at constant risk of having contracts dry up.

As Rachel Slajda reported at TalkingPointsMemo, despite the horrible optics of appearing to be in favor of rape, both the White House and the Pentagon are opposed to the amendment, at least in its current form.

The [Pentagon] argued that it and its subcontractors "may not be in a position to know about such things," i.e., whether contractors employ the mandatory arbitration clauses. "Enforcement would be problematic," the note read, because contractors may not be privy to what's in their subcontractors' contracts.

The department suggests that "it may be more effective" to seek a law that would prohibit the clauses in any business contracts within U.S. jurisdiction.

A White House spokesman told Slajda that President Obama supports "the intent of the amendment," and is working with legislators to rewrite the amendment so as "to make sure it is enforceable."

But even as the wheeling and dealing over the Franken amendment continues inside the Beltway, on Main Street the GOP's opposition to it has been turned into a powerful talking point for Democrats and progressives. A Web site entitled Republicans For Rape has sprung up, satirizing the 30 senators' opposition to the amendment.

On her show Thursday night, Maddow listed the names of all 30 senators who voted against the amendment, and suggested she continues to hope they will eventually speak up about their vote.

"Senators, I want you to know, the invitation [to appear on the show] remains open," she said.

The following video was broadcast on MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show, October 22, 2009.

Share this article:
  • Print
  • email
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Story comments are below...

  • skyballs
    I live in Seator Cornyn's jurisdiction and I wrote his offices asking for justification for his decision last week. I too have yet to hear back from him.
  • texasaggie
    Don't hold your breath. I have yet to receive anything from his office after sending several separate messages. The most recent one was asking why he needed all my personal information when I asked a question, especially if it bothered him so much that the WH wanted to know about the toxic emails that were going around.
  • lkern
    Simple... Because their hatred of Franken and the Dems supersedes their care for the common good. Next cycle lets bounce these clowns.
  • DougI
    I wrote to Senator Brownback on why he chose to support gang rape. To nobody's surprise I haven't heard a response from him. The local media never covered the story because they want to be on the good side of the next Kansas governor.
  • Phil E. Drifter
    Why on earth were they granted these rights in the first place?
  • Foxhunter
    I am curious to learn what Daniel Inouye has to say for his reasoning for watering down the anti-rape amendment. As much as I despise many Republicans, I fail to believe that all thirty of the Republicans who are voting against this amendment are in favor of rape. There must be at least a dozen who are not in favor of rape and have some other reason than favoring rape. Personally, I think convicted rapists should be executed along with pedophiles and if this were already the case, I could totally understand the Republicans' opposition to allowing rape trials.
  • texasaggie
    Inouye has a reputation for not being too much of a Democrat. There are other instances where he favored the Republican line over the Democratic.
  • Savantster
    .
    Because they favor businesses being able to cheaply sweep this kind of thing under the rug, based on the trumped up lie that "everyone will sue us over everything and we'll lose so much money in fighting lawsuits that we'll have to go bankrupt and thousands of people will lose their jobs!!".

    For the right-wing (and many so-called Dems), this is about making sure profit margins stay "high". God forbid we should start having a mandate that companies be moral. To the right-wing (and many so-called Dems), profits trump human rights. They are against protecting rape victims for the same reason they are against unions, mandatory break times, limited shifts, child labor laws, and the Public Option.. To some, money and the gaining of it are all that matter in human existence.
  • darker
    30 Republican senators who voted FOR RAPE are a bunch of rapists themselves.
    That's 1/3 of the US Senate. THROW OUT THOSE GOP REPUBLICAN RAPISTS! !
  • sparkey
    The only reason all those republicans voted against this bill is because a democrat brought it up. It's that simple. If a republican had done the same thing, the democrats would be against it. They don't care about the public. Politicians only care about NOT letting the other party get anything done.
  • Mooftown
    i want to know why they vote against such a thing
  • dickjones01
    Whoopi GOLDBERG can kiss my 'GOY' ass! Rape is rape.
  • dennycrane
    They vote against anything that the democratic party is for. The "thirty-filthy-assholes" that voted against the bill did not include a woman. Have a "rape-publikan" woman explain that. Good enough reason to dump GOP affiliation.

    I was amazed that Hatch from utah was not on the list.
  • sigrid
    Putting the contract waiver aside, shouldn't the US government charge the rapists for the crime and sue the company on her behalf for the cover-up?

    It seems to me that in the future, the waiver could be kept in place for protection against most lawsuits but with an exception for violence against your person.
  • wallacewpancoast
    This is a prime example of the accountablility of the Reprehensible Party to the public which put them in congress. What are they doing there? If you have any conscious idea of the re-
    sponsility voters assume when they vote for these kind of cretins into such an office, you cer-
    tainly are embarrassed by this kind of behavior. If you aren't you need medical treatment NOW!
  • Savantster
    .
    "because contractors may not be privy to what's in their subcontractors' contracts."

    A) you demand to see the employment contracts of all your subcontractors. Problem solved.

    B) why are we wasting extra tax payer money on bloated profits for "contractors"? That is, if they can "subcontract" and both people make money, why doesn't the government contract directly with both and remove some of that profit (taxpayer spent money)? If company A needs something that company B does, they tell the government to negotiate a contract with B to do the other work. Profits reduced, tax dollars saved, and problem of the above quoted text SOLVED.

    and most of these contractors are owned and run by right-wing warmongers.. less taxes, less protections for the public, but keep those tax dollars flowing to the war machine. Disgusting.
    .
  • sambarber
    My own Senator Cornyn voted "no." SAHME! SHAME! SHAME!
  • larryoinpdx
    Inouye's office, sources say, has been lobbied by defense contractors adamant that the language of the Franken amendment would leave them overly exposed to lawsuits and at constant risk of having contracts dry up.

    It is way past time for this to happen.
  • chabuka
    Makes you wonder just how the GOP thinks they will garner any votes from anyone..they have completely alienated the Black, Hispanic and now the Woman's vote, even those who want real Health Care reform...I suppose the low information rabid right, who listen to FOX "news" and Rush, will be the only one voting for them...I don't think thats enough to win many elections ....what, a few million?
  • greg789
    I am not surprised that 30 senators voted against the Rape Amendment or that Obama, Democrats and the Pentagon are against it. Contracting is the new spoils]/patronage/revolving door for cronies system of ALL elected officials. Contractors have been accused of mass murder, child sex slavery, rape and not to mention massive fraud and they continue in business. The focus is on defense contracts but contractors are in every agency in government from the VA to the Forest Service. Every contract I ever saw cost 400 percent more, at a minimum, then it formally cost to do in house with civil servants. My guess is that 50 cents on your tax dollar goes to corruption and bribery. Until Americans get outraged and throw both parties out of office, it will continue.
blog comments powered by Disqus