Franken amendment to protect victims of sexual assault passes

[...] fair trial to prosecute her offenders, regardless of the fine print of her employment contract. The Minnesota Independent has written a great short piece on this legislation, and Huffington Post blogger, Howie Klein, [...]

I. Love. Al. Franken.

Why does Jeff Sessions hate women so much he would rather protect Haliburton than a rape victim?

30 Senators voted against this amendment… all Republicans, all men. If there is any justice in this world, this one vote would come back to haunt them at election time… You can bet that if this was ACORN and not KBR, all of them would have been screaming about it.

GMAB!

Great job! I have always respected Al Franken, and this bill is definitely one that is long overdue. Kudos Mr. Franken.

I’d hope to see this vote come back to haunt those 30 Republicans in the next election. Just can’t see any reasonable person opposing this.

So exactly what is the difference between these Repubs voting against women’s rights, and Saudi Arabia caning a woman for receiving bread from a non-relative. These men must have mother’s and sisters and daughters that are so proud of them.
Go Al. You just exposed every sexist in Congress.

[...] the Senate floor, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) spoke against the amendment, calling it “a political attack directed at Halliburton.” Franken responded, “This amendment does not single out a single contractor. This amendment [...]

[...] the Senate floor, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) spoke against the amendment, calling it “a political attack directed at Halliburton.” Franken responded, “This amendment does not single out a single contractor. This [...]

[...] the Senate floor, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) spoke against the amendment, calling it “a political attack directed at Halliburton.” Franken responded, “This amendment does not single out a single contractor. This [...]

[...] the Senate floor, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) spoke against the amendment, calling it “a political attack directed at Halliburton.” Franken responded, “This amendment does not single out a single contractor. This [...]

[...] rape, battery, and discrimination cases to court. Sen. Jeff Sessions covered himself with glory by objecting to the amendment, claiming it was “a political attack directed at Halliburton”. A [...]

[...] the Senate floor, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) spoke against the amendment, calling it “a political attack directed at Halliburton.” Franken responded, “This amendment does not single out a single contractor. This amendment [...]

Did you fail to read the amendment and see what it is attached to people? The no votes were for 2 reasons…this is an amendment attached to a defense spending bill. It has no place there. Secondly, the lady signed a labor contract that prohibits her from suing the company she is employed for. Does a signed contract mean anything anymore? This is a horrible situation that the woman experienced and the laws should possibly be changed. There is a proper channel to pursue in order to change laws. This is not one of them. Have any of you asked any of the people that voted no to this why they voted no? I doubt it. When did you people in Minnesota get to be so stupid? I am actually ashamed to have grown up there now. The people of Minnesota were always a great group of people. What happened to you?

I, for one, John, am glad you left.

Are you listening all you republician women? See how much your party respects you. A woman was gang raped and Sen Sessions ONLY concern was Haliburton.

So John, what was attached to this bill? Also, why would any company hide a provision allowing its employees to rape a fellow employee in the fine print of an employment contract? Weird.
BTW, congress is constitutionally mandated to make laws so what other venue would you propose to change a law?

[...] Jeff Sessions, Republican of Alabama, called Franken’s measure “a political attack directed at {the legally shielded rapists at} [...]

There is a proper channel to pursue in order to change laws. This is not one of them.

Please, John, enlighten us. What is the “proper channel” for changing laws other than by passing legislation in the U.S. Congress.

John writes:

“his is an amendment attached to a defense spending bill. It has no place there.”

This amendment applies to *defense contractors* where else would it be besides a bill to fund defense contracts?

John asks, “the lady signed a labor contract that prohibits her from suing the company she is employed for[sic]. Does a signed contract mean anything anymore?”

Many things are not allowed in a contract in the US. I cannot sell myself to someone as a slave or indentured servant. You and I could sign an agreement wherein I agree to burgle a house for you, good luck getting such a contract enforced in the courts.

John asserts that “There is a proper channel to pursue in order to change laws. This is not one of them.”

Congress is not the “proper channel” to change laws? Ummm, damn that’s asinine, John.

You, sir, are an amazing piece of work. Let’s you and I both hope that we never meet.

[...] It shouldn’t have had 1 vote against it.  Senator Jeff Sessions (R) said the amendment was “a political attack aimed at Haliburton.”  Senator Franken pointed out that no contractor was named in the amendment, not that it [...]

I was so enraged by the idiotic and uninformed response from John that I was ready to write a long and scathing response. Fortunately, the intelligent and articulate readers on this site have done a wonderful job of rebutting each of his ridiculous comments. Bravo!

[...] Minnesota Independent: News. Politics. Media. � Franken amendment to protect victims of sexual assault passes By msuwomenscenter Minnesota Independent: News. Politics. Media. � Franken amendment to protect victims of sexual … [...]

John, I pity you and the women in your life.

[...] the Senate floor, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) spoke against the amendment, calling it “a political attack directed at Halliburton.” Franken responded, “This amendment does not single out a single contractor. This amendment [...]

@Brix : I am willing to bet “John” has no women in his life. People like him belong in Saudi Arabia, not the USA.

Congratulations and thanks (from Florida) Minnesota for electing such a sane and humane person to the U.S. Senate.

John
You’re an idiot. Minnesota is better off without you.

Hey…I’m not from Minnesota, but I thought the Franken bill would make your state proud, no matter what party you’re from. Why is the Minnesota Star-Tribune not covering the story? Are they right wing?

[...] Amendment passed 68-30.  However, some were not happy. On the Senate floor, Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., called it “a political attack directed at [...]

As I am perplexed as to why any senator would intentionally prevent a victim of any crime from being able to prosecute anyone, I believe I have the answer as to why any “nays” existed.

The ammendment also contains a bunch of language in regards to the military strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan. I would not be surprised that these were the reasons persons objected to the ammendment.

This is typical political positioning; add something to your ammendment that if the opposition opposes, you can later scream “rapist”.

“The ammendment also contains a bunch of language in regards to the military strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan. I would not be surprised that these were the reasons persons objected to the ammendment.”

Doug, I would be extremely surprised since all 30 nay’s are white conservative men. If this bill had something to do with ACORN doing the same thing, these guys would’ve been on board for defunding. Congrats to Minnesota for electing a stand up guy…no pun intended!

[...] *sources : :::think progress::: :::huffington post::: :::minnesota idependent::: [...]

These are two things for John — who no doubt will not be reading them, but anyway:

1 – Regarding “Doesn’t A Contract Mean Anything Anymore?”

Yes, contracts do legally stand for an agreement. However, if the contract permits illegal behavior and fraud it is not a valid contract. Disallowing this woman her day in court due to her contract is permitting rape and kidnapping. The argument could be made that this anti-suit provision makes the entire contract invalid. The 10th Circuit basically agreed with that.

2 – What is this doing in Defense Funding legislation?

That’s actually quite obvious. It deals with defense contractors getting their funding revoked unless they abide by certain conditions.

[...] *sources : :::think progress::: :::huffington post::: :::minnesota idependent::: [...]

Doug,

“The ammendment also contains a bunch of language in regards to the military strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan. I would not be surprised that these were the reasons persons objected to the ammendment.”

I’ve read the amendment and found no such language. If you have, please quote the passage in question and point to where the rest of us can find it. Otherwise, we can assume it doesn’t exist. Additionally, had the amendment contained such language, it would have been the responsibility of the objecting parties to point out that language rather than argue (as my senator unfortunately did) about how it was a political attack on Halliburton. It would obviously have been much more politically beneficial for him to do so.

[...] comes just one day after Republicans overwhelmingly refused to support an amendment authored by Sen. Al Franken that denies federal funds to contractors who require rape victims to submit to arbitration rather [...]

[...] the Senate floor, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) spoke against the amendment, calling it “a political attack directed at Halliburton.” Franken responded, “This amendment does not single out a single contractor. This amendment [...]

John said: “this is an amendment attached to a defense spending bill. It has no place there.”

The amendment is about the funding of defense contractors. It is perfectly germaine to the bill.

John: “Secondly, the lady signed a labor contract that prohibits her from suing the company she is employed for.”

The company can still continue to force their employees to sign such clauses. The bill does not make it illegal. It simply prevents companies that do so from receiving defense contracts.

John: “When did you people in Minnesota get to be so stupid?”

I am from and currently live in Minnesota, and am smart enough to see right through your extremely poor reasoning.

[...] amendment, why U.S. Sen. Al Franken introduced it, and what other Minnesota groups supported it: Franken Amendment to Support Victims of Sexual Assault Passes (Minnesota Independent) [...]

As a European watching these proceedings I am saddened that anyone would vote against such an amendment, Al Franken is a credit to your country and a genuine American patriot. Anyone who stands up for the rights of those who have experienced the horrific crime of rape deserves our support and respect. Kudos to the Texas Republican politician, also, who helped the lady in question get out of Iraq.

Minnesota should be very proud today.

[...] Jeff Sessions, Republican of Alabama, called Franken’s measure “a political attack directed at [...]

[...] [...]

[...] by Sen. Al Franken and was added to the defense appropriations bill by a vote of 68 to 30. Franken amendment to protect victims of sexual assault passes Minnesota Independent: News. Politics…. It seems the 30 republicans who voted against it would rather protect Haliburton than a rape [...]

Jen said, “You can bet that if this was ACORN and not KBR, all of them would have been screaming about it.”

The sad part is that ACORN did something drastically LESS than this, and at least 4 of those Republicans that voted against this bill were screaming about it.

[...] Victims: On the Senate floor, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) spoke against the amendment, calling it “a political attack directed at Halliburton.” Franken responded, “This amendment does not single out a single contractor. This amendment [...]

[...] — Ms. Jones says eleven more women have contacted her about similar incidents Huffington Post The Minnesota Independent The Nation — and another KBR rape case. Politico Think Progress — this one has an [...]

The question should be did the companies commit the crime or do the individuals do it.

By the logic that this bill suggests that a company is liable for actions of their employees that are clearly in violation of norms, and are not related to their job duties.

Sure thow the book at the person who committed these horrible crimes, but the company just hired them, and had no way of knowing what they would do.

There are sick individuals in the world, and they make their way into any large organization. When they are caught they should recieve the maximum penalty. But is it the organization’s fault if they have a few bad employees out of thousands?

It is not like a potential rapist is easy to identify at the hireing stage, or such horrible inclinations can all be prevented by a sensitivity training seminar.

Richard Wilkes, the company is not being made liable for the rapes of this woman. The company is not being made to stop using the exact same (illegal) contract she signed. It’s an illegal contract because it required that she cover up details of crimes of rape, kidnapping, unlawful detention, and on and on.

The individuals responsible could not be prosecuted if the company’s rules were followed, because she could not report the crimes, according to her (illegal) contract.

The company is on the hook for the contract requirement that its employees cover up crimes. The company essentially is covering up crimes through intimidating the victims and witnesses into following the rules of their (illegal) contracts.

Rape is not the only crime the contract required victims and witnesses to cover up. The new rule says if they want to continue trying to cover up these crimes using these (illegal) employee contracts, then they cannot get a contract from the U.S. government. It’s their choice. Read up on what exactly was done to this woman, and to those who contacted her after she went public. You will not disagree with Senator Franken’s amendment if you do

sometimes i wanted to kno why i was a republican in my early years. to think one of the men who voted no was going to be our president sickens me. how Mccain no?

dear john no one wants to see you in minn. again and not in florida where i live. i can’t believe this story is not published all over only stupid things make the news. this should be headline in all newspapers questioning the nay votes. Since when is a private company above the law i see only in a republican world i thank the people who passed this bill

@Jen http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r111:1:./temp/~r111whdBn3:e0:

SA 2591 and after is talking about the war. Now, I am in no way siding with Doug, I’m just answering your question, because it appears he hasn’t.

That being said, I am still sickened by the fact that 30 people voted Nay. I could care less what the “fine print” on it is. When it comes to rape, a person should be allowed, if they so choose, to pursue and prosecute their attacker(s).

Rachel, thanks for pointing out where the war language comes into play.

Doug, SA 2591 and after may talk about the war, but the Franken Amendment, SA 2588, says nothing about the war. The 30 individuals who voted against the Franken Amendment voted against very specific language designed to prevent employee abuse. Senator Sessions, who spoke against the amendment, said it was a political attack against Halliburton.

No company is called out in the amendment, and there’s no fine print in the amendment. It’s pretty straightforward.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:SP2588:

[...] [...]

The amendment is appropriate because it addresses how the monies being spent in the defenses appropriations bill can be spent, as others have said. Sorry John.

No bill before the Congress can be directed against an individual, that would be unconstitutional. Though Senator Sessions must realize that the company he was whining about is probably guilty of so many crimes it whould not be eligible to get another red cent from the US treasury under the provisions of this amendment.

These guys are cut from the same cloth as Tom Delay and his actions to protect the slavers in the Marianas and the fools in the Wisconsin Legislature who opposed emergency contraception for rape victims.

I’m too damn angry to be elloquent at this point, so I’ll leave it to cooler heads.

I am Wisconsin native proud to be Al Franken’s neighbor.

[...] most Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) called it “a political attack directed at Halliburton.”  Those southern boys are from another time and place.   Of course, money is more [...]

[...] change, financial reform, not to mention Senator Inouye trying to kill Senator Franken’s sadly necessary bill), we’re involved in two wars, the economy is still in shambles, we’ve discovered novel [...]

That they would all be conservatives doesn’t surprise anyone who studies these kinds of matters and behaviors eg. “It appears that conservatism has pathological dimensions manifested in violence and distorted psycho-sexual development” (Boshier, 1983, p. 159). This is supported by a study conducted by Walker, Rowe, and Quincey (1993) in which there was a direct correlation between authoritarianism and sexually aggressive behavior. An investigation done by Muehlenhard (1988) revealed that rape justification and aggression toward subordinate individuals was much higher in traditional (conservative personality) than non-traditional personalities. It is postulated in this paper that the offender has a conservative personality and, therefore, manifests that violence.”
http://www.doc.state.ok.us/offenders/ocjrc/95/950725C.htm

[...] http://minnesotaindependent.com/46483/franken-amendment-to-protect-victims-of-sexual-assault-passes [...]

Thank goodness for Al Franken and the many rational followers of this paper.

People like John, who can suck my balls for ruining my good name but that’s another story, are in the very scary minority right now.

Imagine a party that thinks that way.
Oh yeah, they’re called the GOP.

I wish I could say the democratic party was the bastion of all that is right in the world, but I surely do hope that all the reasonable republicans and right leaning independent people vote for the right person for the right job like Franken in the future.

We all lose when the GOP gets to select it’s members as has been evident for well over a decade now.

No doubt, this amendment was neccessary. But why would it have to be attachmented to a bill such as defense spending? If it stood alone, the amendment could have passed with a major majority. I don’t understand the votes a lot of times until I read the rest of the story. Now I know.