Pro Rape Politicians

[FOTD]

Full List of Pro-Rape Senators
All Republicans, natch.

Meet The Senators Who Voted Against The Franken Amendment


Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Gregg (R-NH)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Kyl (R-AZ)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/07/meet-the-senators-who-vot_n_312976.html
Why does Al Franken hate America?

[jamesrage]

What exactly is the text of the Franken Amendment? And is there any statements from politicians why they didn't vote for it?

[Breadburner]

How bout Obama's Child rape Czar....I wonder how he would have voted.....

[FOTD]

http://www.feministpeacenetwork.org/2009/10/07/franken-amendment-significant-step-in-ending-military-culture-of-impunity-that-allows-violence-against-women-but-much-more-is-needed/

"Unfortunately, Franken's amendment only addresses a small part of the continuing  blatant disregard for women's human rights as a result of U.S. military actions."

[Conan71]

Reading the Senate record on this, I can't find any logical reason or explaination why 30 Senators voted against this amendment.

http://republican.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=FloorUpdates.Home&Date=01-Oct-09

I think it's a huge reach to assume these Senators are all for the rape of women simply because they voted this down.  However, it would go a long way if the dissenting Senators would issue some sort of statement explaining their vote.

[cannon_fodder]

I call BS. You haven't even looked up the amendment and have no idea what it says.  Do some research before you post blathering nonsense:

Question:  On the Amendment (Franken Amdt. No. 2588 )
Vote Number:    308   Vote Date:    October 6, 2009, 04:37 PM
Required For Majority:    1/2   Vote Result:    Amendment Agreed to
Amendment Number:    S.Amdt. 2588 to H.R. 3326 (Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010)

Statement of Purpose:    To prohibit the use of funds for any Federal contract with Halliburton Company, KBR, Inc., any of their subsidiaries or affiliates, or any other contracting party if such contractor or a subcontractor at any tier under such contract requires that employees or independent contractors sign mandatory arbitration clauses regarding certain claims.

Summary available here:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00308

The full amendment reads:

SA 2588. Mr. FRANKEN (for himself and Ms. Landrieu) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 3326, making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes; as follows:

    On page 245, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:

    Sec. 8104. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used for any existing or new Federal contract if the contractor or a subcontractor at any tier requires that an employee or independent contractor, as a condition of employment, sign a contract that mandates that the employee or independent contractor performing work under the contract or subcontract resolve through arbitration any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention.

[Page: S10070]

    (b) The prohibition in subsection (a) does not apply with respect to employment contracts that may not be enforced in a court of the United States.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r111:./temp/~r111ARNtP4  (with other proposed amendments)

The amendment would forbid U.S. Contractors from requiring arbitration of many things other than rape.   Voting against the amendment doesn't mean they approve of gang raping people and locking people up in shipping containers.  To call a vote against this amendment as "pro-rape" is patently absurd and the lowest form of politics.

Furthermore, this measure has NOTHING to do with criminal prosecution of rape.  It address civil actions against the company in situations which currently allow persons an avenue for compensation through arbitration (faster, cheaper).  That isn't necessarily a bad thing, though I'm sure you could find an anecdotal case that it turned out badly (as I could find one that turned out badly in the courts).  However, if I wanted to avoid arbitration and a man or woman walked in to my office with allegations of rape and a company raised an arbitration provision as a defense, I'd file with the Courts anyway and argue that justice demands such a provision be stricken (50/50 proposition.  If the arbitration is absurd I'd refile).   

If Mr. Smiley was resolute in his effort to ensure that the victim alleging rape have access to civil courts he could have drafted a much more succinct amendment.  Instead he wanted to essentially ban mandatory arbitration in all employment disputes related to any sexual allegation (or negligent hiring, IIED, etc.).  A proposition that predictably drew a vote essentially along party lines.

He did it in an effort to force a broader agenda knowing it would force Republicans to vote no (arbitration is seen as pro business, and/or as a streamline on the process:  particularly in "allegation" torts [rape or consensual, did he say the harassing things or not?  Generally he said she said], things that took place over seas, and where jurisdiction is in dispute) .  Thus allowing the Huffington Post and the Feminist Peace Network (your unbiased source) to waive their arms around and go wharrgarbl.  Put an amendment on there specifying that any allegation of rape that results in a criminal prosecution can not be arbitrated without consent of Plaintiff's counsel and see how the vote goes, I'm guessing it does OK.

Additionally, this is Frankens first amendment.  If it was in favor of daisies and pretty skies the Republicans went have mostly voted against it.  Does that mean that hate daisies and pretty skies or want to pick on the Jr. Democrat Senator?  (the Republicans playing stupid political games)

The classification as "pro rape" is insulting to the intelligence of anyone who actually read the bill and understands the provisions.

/I'm not really concerned about the merit of the amendment, just the classification as "pro rape" and the other crap thrown out by cited unbiased sources.

[Townsend]

I call BS. You haven't even looked up the amendment and have no idea what it says.  The classification as "pro rape" is insulting to the intelligence of anyone who actually read the bill and understands the provisions.

/I'm not really concerned about the merit of the amendment, just the classification as "pro rape" and the other crap thrown out by cited unbiased sources.

I believe the "pro-rape" term is on the same level as "pro-abortion".  It applies to almost no one.

[cannon_fodder]

I didn't get a picture, but I saw a car a few months ago with two bumper stickers:

I Vote Pro Life

and

I Support the Death Penalty
- - -

[Conan71]

I didn't get a picture, but I saw a car a few months ago with two bumper stickers:

I Vote Pro Life

and

I Support the Death Penalty
- - -

Wow...just wow!

[guido911]

I believe the "pro-rape" term is on the same level as "pro-abortion".  It applies to almost no one.

You cannot be serious. You do not see a difference?  One is legal (abortion) and the other is a felony (rape).

[guido911]

I didn't get a picture, but I saw a car a few months ago with two bumper stickers:

I Vote Pro Life

and

I Support the Death Penalty
- - -

I cannot understand those that claim to be "pro life" can also support the death penalty. It's amusing though listening to righties strain to justify how these position are consistent.

[TURobY]

You cannot be serious. You do not see a difference?  One is legal (abortion) and the other is a felony (rape).

Re-read his post. He was saying that the terms "pro-rape" and "pro-abortion" don't apply to anyone.

[Townsend]

You cannot be serious. You do not see a difference?  One is legal (abortion) and the other is a felony (rape).

You need to try harder.

Meaning there should be no one "pro" either.

[guido911]

You need to try harder.

Meaning there should be no one "pro" either.

I shouldn't be pro-life then?  You shouldn't be "pro-Obama"? I guess no one should favor anything then under your thinking.

TU: I do not need to re-read anything. Townsend deliberately interchangeably used "pro-rape" to "pro-abortion" (instead of "pro-life" or "pro choice") as a fallacious straw man.

[Townsend]

I shouldn't be pro-life then?  You shouldn't be "pro-Obama"? I guess no one should favor anything then under your thinking.

TU: I do not need to re-read anything. Townsend deliberately interchangeably used "pro-rape" to "pro-abortion" (instead of "pro-life" or "pro choice") as a fallacious straw man.

Nope, keep trying.  You'll get it sooner or later.