His Anti-rape Bill.
In simple terms this bill would make it so that the government would no longer provide federal funding to federal contractors and civilian contractors that used arbitration as a way to cover up sexual and physical abuse cases involving employees.
Now arbitration's is when a employee signs away the rights to sue a certain company, this would allow the company to settle the manner out of courts and hide away the fact that they ever had a problem in the first place.
Here is Al Franken's speech to congress about the bill:
So this should totally be a no brainier? There could possible be no way that anyone could argue against it! I mean come on, there could not be anyone who would actually think that companies have the right to settle rape clauses privately so no legal repercussions could come to these corporate rapist....
....wait a second. In fact 30 different Republican senators voted against the bill. I present to you the list of the 30 men who thought that an anti-rape bill was pointless and a waste of time. Now this is not to just bash republicans but it is ironic that not only was this protested against the more conservative side but a group of all males who more than likely will never face the cruel realities of rape in their lifetimes.
Richard Shelby (R-AL)
Jon Kyl (R-AZ)
John McCain (R-AZ)
Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)
Johnny Isakson (R-GA)
Mike Crapo (R-ID)
James Risch (R-ID)
Sam Brownback (R-KS)
Pat Roberts (R-KS)
Jim Bunning (R-KY)
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
David Vitter (R-LA)
Thad Cochran (R-MS)
Roger Wicker (R-MS)
Kit Bond (R-MO)
Mike Johanns (R-NE)
John Ensign (R-NV)
Judd Gregg (R-NH)
Richard Burr (R-NC)
Tom Coburn (R-OK)
Jim Inhofe (R-OK)
Jim DeMint (R-SC)
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
John Thune (R-SD)
Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
Bob Corker (R-TN)
John Cornyn (R-TX)
John Barrasso (R-WY)
Mike Enzi (R-WY)
I think it is important to mention this because not only is it pathetic that someone would vote for protecting big business rather than rape victims but do so because it helps protect the "free market" and big business rights.
There are also local examples of this happening, in Maryland it was until the Governor's Gun Violence Act of 1996 that domestic violence offenders were legally required to give up their fire arms. For a long time it was seen that the 2nd amendment right to bear arms was more important than removing guns from violent offenders because it was more crucial to a person's "personal freedoms". While there's nothing wrong with owning your gun but if you are a violent offender why should you be able to purchase a gun? There should be no brainier about have violent convicted offenders give up dangerous weapons that could potentially kill another human being.
In our society we downplay the value of personal freedoms sexuality and up play the need for "free market" and the need to make a buck. Instead of caring about people who are victimized, we value the money that we could be making and saving face as a large corporation. What does this say to women? That they should not go to the authority? That it doesn't matter if they are raped or not? To hide in fear and shame of what someone else put her through? I think these issues reflect the change that is needed.
Now that this disgusting show of patriarchy in our federal government I bring you a bit of satire to help lighten the mood:
Senator Thad Cochran and defending himself as to why he voted no against the bill
And The Daily Show's take on the whole thing:
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Rape-Nuts | ||||
| ||||
I'm glad, at least, that this story got as much buzz/outraged everyone as much as it did. (I haven't seen anyone besides these senators defend these senators.)
ReplyDeleteI think its important that you noted that those who voted against the bill were males and they'll probably never directly deal with rape in their lifetime. Not that their lack of sympathy towards rape victims is justified by it, but it shows that protection from sexual harassment/discrimination isn't a major concern to them-whereas, money definitely is.
The idea that rape victims needs are somehow less important than their financial needs is baffling still. It's just really disgusting to think that they're downplaying such a serious issue as rape. The message it sends is that they just don't care.
I guess its good to know what these senators are looking out for the American people's best interest. :/
I am completely stunned that this is even an issue for anyone. How can this bill even need to be voted on? The republicans think that the government should not interfere with how a private company operates. That has to be the most insane argument I have ever heard. Also the government was not looking to be interfering with the way the companies work. It's not the government’s place to meddle with the policies of private companies and their employees. The government would not forbid companies from having anti-lawsuit clauses in their employment contracts. The government is just saying that they will not offer any contracts to these companies. So technically the government is not interfering, just making a standard. Thirty republicans voted against this bill I am still shocked. I think you are right that they will never experience being a victim. Since some of the government officials saying it is okay to silence people. What about their free speech? Where are the victim’s rights? Aren’t there sexual harassment laws that would protect these women? The government is basically saying if you have enough money to cover up the crimes of employees then your company is above the law.
ReplyDelete