republican, democrat, rape, franken,
You remember the Republicans for rape, right? In case you don't, Senator Franken's first proposed legislation seemed like a slam dunk: stop defense contractors (who get paid with your money) from denying victims of assault- you know, RAPE- the right to bring their case to court.
It seemed like a slam dunk, but apparently, 30 Republicans think defense contractors need more protection than rape victims. However, at the time it seemed that everything would be okay. 30 Republicans voted for rape, but the remaining 70 Senators voted against rape and for the amendment.
Today, the pro-rape Republicans and their defense contractor buddies got a little help:
This is Senator Inouye's contact information. Go to town.
Sen Inouye's Washington phone is
Washington D.C.
722 Hart Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-1102
Phone: 202-224-3934
Honolulu
300 Ala Moana Boulevard
Room 7-212
Honolulu, Hawaii 96850-4975
Phone: 808-541-2542
Fax: 808-541-2549
And if you haven't already, please tell the Republicans for Rape how you feel about them, too. (Keep it civil. The Secret Service does not have a sense of humor.)
You remember the Republicans for rape, right? In case you don't, Senator Franken's first proposed legislation seemed like a slam dunk: stop defense contractors (who get paid with your money) from denying victims of assault- you know, RAPE- the right to bring their case to court.
It seemed like a slam dunk, but apparently, 30 Republicans think defense contractors need more protection than rape victims. However, at the time it seemed that everything would be okay. 30 Republicans voted for rape, but the remaining 70 Senators voted against rape and for the amendment.
Today, the pro-rape Republicans and their defense contractor buddies got a little help:
An amendment that would prevent the government from working with contractors who denied victims of assault the right to bring their case to court is in danger of being watered down or stripped entirely from a larger defense appropriations bill.
Multiple sources have told the Huffington Post that Sen. Dan Inouye, a longtime Democrat from Hawaii, is considering removing or altering the provision, which was offered by Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) and passed by the Senate several weeks ago.
This is Senator Inouye's contact information. Go to town.
Sen Inouye's Washington phone is
Washington D.C.
722 Hart Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-1102
Phone: 202-224-3934
Honolulu
300 Ala Moana Boulevard
Room 7-212
Honolulu, Hawaii 96850-4975
Phone: 808-541-2542
Fax: 808-541-2549
And if you haven't already, please tell the Republicans for Rape how you feel about them, too. (Keep it civil. The Secret Service does not have a sense of humor.)
I wondered what was happening with this story....I wish I hadn't found out now.
ReplyDeleteIf I was a USian I'd be booking a flight to Honolulu right about now...
Well, we all want to go to Honolulu . . .
ReplyDelete;)
ReplyDeleteOpposing that amendment has nothing at all to do with being "pro-rape." It's about opposing a ban on arbitration. Inouye should be congratulated for seeing through left-wing demogogeury and propaganda. He must not be completely in the pocket of trial lawyers like most Democrats.
ReplyDeleteAh, the "trial lawyers ruin everything!" canard.
ReplyDeleteRape is not a dispute. Failure to provide safe working environments that lead to rape is not a dispute either- it's facilitation of a felony. Especially if, having seen that your unsafe working environment has lead to gang rapes in the past, you do nothing to change said environments. At that point, you might as well just admit that rape is a side benefit for your male employees.
Next you'll be telling me that malpractice lawsuits are the real problem with healthcare in this country.
The Obama adminstration's own department of defense opposed the amendment. I guess they are pro-rape too.
ReplyDeleteThis is a sweeping amendment that bans arbitration for any sort of sexual harrassment claim. And yes, they definitely are often in dispute. Arbitration is already non-binding for crimes such as rape. There are several good reasons to oppose the amendment. Some can be found here.
"Next you'll be telling me that malpractice lawsuits are the real problem with healthcare in this country."
They are definitely a real problem, but there is way more than one problem regrading healthcare.
Were these not the same Republicans who wanted to pull Federal funding from ACORN?
ReplyDeleteIs it not essentially the same thing (except, you know, nobody at ACORN got gang raped)?
Is it not essentially the same thing (except, you know, nobody at ACORN got gang raped)?
ReplyDeleteShhhh...
Don't tell. People might notice the hypocrisy.
The complete text of Franken's amendment (my emphasis)
ReplyDelete"SEC. 8104. (a) None of the funds appro-priated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used for any existing or new Fed-eral contract if the contractor or a subcon-tractor 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 sub-contract 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.
(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." (Click the 'next page' link to see subsection (b))
It seems pretty clear to me that the amendment prohibits mandatory arbitration. I don't see anything in it that bans dispute arbitration in general.
If for some reason the links expire or something, I went to here, selected Franken in browse bills by Senator, and followed the links from there.
Near as I can tell, they push the flat-out lie that this is a ban on arbitration because they can't admit the real objection, that employers will be unable to make enough profit if they have to prevent rapes and other abuses by providing security for their employees.
ReplyDeletePretty ironic considering their unbounded fetish for 'security' in other spheres.
The idea of using the arbitration mechanic for management of criminal charges is pure madness. I don't recall reading anywhere in the constitution that corporations have the right to deny their employees access to the criminal justice system in the event of a violent offense.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, if you asked me for my interpretation, I'd go the inverse and declare Arbitration in ANY criminal matter entirely unconstitutional.
I guess I just don't watch enough Fox News to realize how evil human rights are...