JPF Home Page Forums Republicans Oppose Law on Protecting Victims of Gang Rape

Senator Al Franken introduced a bill that would allow people (women) to sue their employers if they are raped on the job. The bill came as a response to a female (Jaimie Lee Jones) who was drugged and gang raped while on the job. She wanted to sue but was told there was an arbitration clause in her contract that said she was not allowed to sue the company if she was raped. Imagine that. Al Franken introduced the bill (or an amendment to) so people like Ms Jones would be allowed to sue, but guess what? The Republicans came out in full force against it. In fact every single nay vote came from a Republican. Nice!

It's also interesting to note that John (Bomb Bomb Iran) McCain is also listed among those who voted to support the gang rape of women like Jaime Lee Jones. Also, see THIS VIDEO just so you will have a better understanding of how sick the republican party really is.

And here is the complete list of Republicans who voted to allow the continued rape of women without allowing them the right to sue their employer.

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)

I believe Rape is illegal under any scenero. Liability laws are probably in place in many places so whatever you are talking about is probably moot as is Al Frankin.

One reason the Health Costs are so high is because of excessive costs to medical professionals and the high cost of liability insurance. Ambulance Chasers are everywhere.

Several years ago Clint Eastwood was building a resturant out west. Even before the resturant was even open some troublemakers came by and asked if there would be handicapped parking. One of the workers told them he didn't think so, so the trouble makers took Eastwood to Court. Of course they lost but that didn't matter to them.

If I ever open a restraunt I will put up a sign: ALL HANDICAPPED WELCOME. AMBULANCE CHASERS CHEERFULLY SHOT, NO QUESTIONS ASKED.

Republicians think you should get off your dead a** and do it yourself. Republicians work hard and make their own way.

What was it Margaret Thatcher said. The trouble with Socialisim is pretty soon you run out of other people's money.

First and foremost, I would hardly consider The Young Turks a reliable news source, however, I read Jamie Leigh* Jone's testimony and all of the presented evidence. It's hard to imagine why anyone would vote against this. I did a little digging and couldn't come up with any definite solid reason for why. Lucky it was passed anyway with a 68-30 vote.

I think it should be noted that 10 Republicans including the four female Reps did vote for it. It's just another case of don't judge the whole party by a few idiots. I thinks it's safe to say that they will have a tough election next go round.

The premise seems to be an easy way to slam the Republican party with pre selected sources. Nothing new from someone with a grudge against Republicans. Ignore the rant and do your own fact check. Ben

just another diversion away from the real problems in America that are detrimental to our existence

Why would you sue the company? That doesn't make as much sense as suing the cops because you got raped, robbed or what ever. Or suing the city because you got raped, robbed etc.

Because in this case, she was allegedly raped by co-workers, locked inside a shipping container and then told by the company she would be fired if she sought medical help.

Duncan has it wrong: it wasn't a bill, it was an amendment to a spending bill.

The amendment states that Halliburton, KBR and others can't get funding for Federal contracts if they require their employees to agree to arbitration clauses that essentially rob them of their day in court if they're sexually assaulted. So if you're KBR and you want Federal money, now you have to take some responsibility for what happens on your watch.

I think it's appalling that someone could be raped on the job by co-workers and then not have any recourse to the law because of some arbitration clause.

"Voted to support the gang-rape of women" {????}

None of those things are sue able things those are criminal things and the bill doesn't deal with that.

While you are making lists, how about listing all the repeat sex offenders etc. and the liberal judges that let them back out on the streets to do it again and again until they finally do enough damage to be considered dangerous. Along with all the parole boards that let them out early, it will make a nice long list. And while we are at it how about listing the rest of the bill? It might very well be they were voting against the bill in general, not this ammendment in particular. There are often good things tagged onto bad bills and bad things tagged onto good bills. Sometimes basically good bills are voted against because of one thing that some of the senators or congresspersons don't like.

Well, you don't really know that. That's for the courts to decide.

Actually she can try to sue the company for failing to maintain a safe working environment -- a pretty common charge. And if there was a cover-up, there could be additional criminal charges.

The point is: the company made it very hard for this woman to sue the individual persons who allegedly assaulted her, because of the arbitration clause in her contract. She had to first file a Federal lawsuit to get the arbitration clause overturned.



I never said otherwise.

Post deleted by The Circle Is Small

Looks like you've come to right place, and yes we go against the grain a little here. I used to belong to a music forum where if you had even a REMOTELY conservative viewpoint you were ripped to pieces.

I surely would have been ripped to pieces. . .

Duncan, I would hardly say that Republicans oppose that law. I guess what I would say is if Franken felt so strongly about it why didn't he actually introduce it as a bill instead of trying to slip it through as an amendment on a defense appropriations bill. Must look at the big picture instead of picking and choosing what fits your argument.
I especially like the fact that your first sentence was...
"Senator Al Franken introduced a BILL that would allow people (women) to sue their employers if they are raped on the job." yet further down in the paragraph you say "Franken introduced the bill (OR AN AMENDMENT TO)" as if there is no difference. I know why because if you would have specified amendment to an unrelated bill in the first sentence your argument isn't as shocking and doesn't make the point you want it to make. (BTW why did you specify that it allows only WOMEN?)

Duncan, as soon as I read your post, I knew something did not make sense. It's just another piece of extremist whackawhaka. I subscribe to neither the left or right and refuse to become a brainwashed sheep or is it sheepi. Free thinking seems to fuse with my musician brain, and in my opinion, the Washington mob of politicos are all bought and paid for by the powers that be and always have been for the last 10,000 years.

AND THE BEAT GOES ON

What a comedian!
Hahaha! He is a very funny guy.
Can you imagine the people who elected him, what were they thinking. Then again, maybe he's found his rightful place, in DC with all the other tricksters and sham artists.

Senator Al Franken - that's an oxymoron isn't it?

I'm on the floor laughing, Jim

I saw someone (I can't recall who it was) speaking about WHY the Reps voted against it. They said it was because they don't think it's right for them to meddle with the defense contracts, which I tend to agree with. I assume I'll probably get lynched for saying this but. . . this would never have been an issue if women weren't allowed in the military. I do applaud them for what they do. . . I'm just saying. . . I don't think it's a woman's place. And judging by this story I'm right. You put yourself at risk when you elect to be one of the few women in the midst of hundreds of stressed out, sexually starved and (some) morally immature men. It's like volunteering to walk into the lion's den.

Now let the lynching commence. . .

This woman wasn't in the military. She was working for KBR/Halliburton, a private company.

She was still housed in an "army style" barracks that was male dominated. You get my point, that type of situation is no place for women, it's just asking for trouble. It's like putting a steak in the middle of a lion cage and daring them not to touch it. Sooner or later it's going to happen.

It's ridiculous for anyone to say these republicans are supporting gang rape.

Those were the good ole' days Bob!

To be fair, she did request to be moved to a female-only barracks, which was denied or delayed for whatever reason. And she was allegedly assaulted by co-workers, not soldiers.

I get your point, but it's like saying women also shouldn't wear heels or leave their homes at night. There are lots of male-dominated professions; should women avoid those too?

Lions are animals and predators to boot; they can't help themselves. Human beings know better -- even the young, sex-starved males should know that rape is a crime. No one should expect to assaulted by their co-workers under any circumstances.

Hi Naomi,

I'm not picking on you, but I have to agree with Scott on this on. I am a man, with all the hormones of my gender, and you can be just that, and hold all those animal instincts in check if you want to. This kind of behavior has no excuse. These "men" should have been prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and if they have any money should have whatever pants they have left sued off them.

I don't disagree that they should be prosecuted. They certainly should. And I have to admit I'm old fashioned, it's the way I was raised. A woman's primary responsibility in my eyes is tending to her family. I guess basically I go along with "A woman's place is in the kitchen" just a less extreme version of that.

There is nothing wrong with old fashioned. The only problem in today's world is most couples need two incomes just to keep their heads above the water. If we limited women to only the old ideas of "Women's work", there would never be enough jobs for them. Of course I am working in a predominately woman's field so I guess I am taking away one myself. I am a pediatric nurse. As long as women have to be out in the workplaces, I feel we need to do all we can to protect them there. Of course that could be my old fashioned male point of view!!! LOL

Well if it's not the #1 "ripee"from the afformentioned forum! {lol} How are ya Don?

Does that mean that Don was One of them there "Right wing crazies?

First, it wasn't an unrelated bill. It was a defense appropriations bill and the amendment clarifies who's qualified to make bids for defense contracts funded by those appropriations.

And the amendment had nothing to do with the rest of the bill passing. The vote on the amendment was whether to attach the requirement to the appropriations bill, not whether to pass the bill with it attached.

No one who cast a vote on this amendment had any reason to consider other than whether they thought it was a good idea.

Naomi: If women would just stay out of the workplace in general, there'd be a lot fewer sexual harrassment suits, I imagine. And if we flogged them if they drank alcohol or required them to always be with a male relative when they left the house, we could cut way down on date rapes, too.
And by golly, let's make them cover their whole bodies except their eyes, the cursed temptresses, lest they corrupt some poor innocent "stressed-out" man into raping them wherever they are.

"Old fashioned." Lordy, what low self-esteem you must have.

Lordy, Now you done it.

Joyboy. I really liked your response and explanation on the vote and the amendment. It was well presented. Cleared up a lot of misunderstandings.
Could you post a source for your "facts" please?
I still think I would have voted against it being attached the the bill but that's just me.

But then you had to go and ruin it with that remark. I thought you were above that kind of thing.

Actually I would like to see this Arbitration Clause that says she could not sue if she was gang raped. I find that very hard to believe.

BTW it looks like the Democrats may have a problem with it as well.


As well as the Democrat sitting in the Oval Office


It seems the problem is not the intent of the amendment but in the wording and the way it is structured. As written the amendment may not be enforceable. That is why it may have been voted against. The white House and the DOD are working on something that would be enforceable.
Voting Yea on a badly written amendment or bill may very well be just as bad as voting Nay.

I'm surprised Franken would write a poorly written amendment. He did, after all, watch a lot of Perry Mason.

And it is of course much more sensational to simply say those sick republicans support Gang Rape.

Donnie's my hero...He was treated like the anti-christ, but he never backed down an inch from em'! That particular "clique" sent many a lesser man scurring away with their tails between their legs...JPF is like a parallel universe to that place.

JoyBoy does it make you feel better to talk down to me because of what I believe. What a big man you are. Grow up [naughty word removed]. Don't take what I say and turn it into an extreme. I simply believe in the fact that a woman should be a mother and a wife first and foremost. If they can balance that with a career then good for them. I also believe that it is a man's job to support his family, to keep a roof over their heads, and keep food on the table. Are you going to find something wrong with that too? I don't demand you think or believe the same things I do, but I do expect a little bit of respect, even for an opinion that isn't shared. It's the way I was raised if you have a problem with it, ignore it. My self-esteem is fine or I wouldn't be posting here in the first place. But I assume yours is much better now that you got that out.

"You get my point, that type of situation is no place for women, it's just asking for trouble. It's like putting a steak in the middle of a lion cage and daring them not to touch it. Sooner or later it's going to happen."

Gee, I'm sorry if I offended you Naomi, and I don't care how you choose to live your life. But this quote just pissed me off enough to try to make you think about it.
I know rape victims personally, and I've talked to a lot of other ones.
This kind of ignorant attitude, implying that women are to blame somehow for being raped, makes it so much harder for victims to heal.

Sex might be expected if men and women are living together. But rape is not sex. "Oh, I'm just so horny because that woman is in my barracks. If she weren't here, I'd be reading the Bible or knitting booties for poor children. But instead, I just have to go rape her. Can't help it." Come on.

Rape is about violence and control. And this kind of nonsense gives rapists control long after the act is over. I knew one woman, an attractive woman who was dressed in a flirty little skirt when she was raped.
The bs attitude that she brought it on by what she was wearing (you never hear that when elderly women are raped) got to her, and she gained 50 pounds and started wearing baggy clothes so she wouldn't be "attractive" anymore.

If you as a woman are willing to accept the blame for what a rapist might do in any situation or pass that blame off to any other woman, I'm sorry but your self-esteem can't be that good either.

Bill. If you read the articles you're posting you can see how much of a red herring the "enforcement" argument is. I don't see this as partisan.
If Republicans or Obama or whoever wants to say that a woman shouldn't have the option of suing her employer in open court if that employer puts her in a dangerous situation and she gets raped, I say let the voter decide.

I'm not saying she is to blame for what happened, and I'm also not saying the men who did it to her shouldn't be held accountable. Get pissed off all you want to it doesn't affect me and my opinion.

No one forced her to drink with them, and no one forced her to take a drink not knowing what was in it. Especially after the comment about ruffees that one man made to her. If I were her I don't care if it was my husband who made that joke, I would have never taken a sip. So that is where her fault lies.

On the other hand.

No one forced those men to have sex with her. They didn't have to take advantage of her while she was passed out and project their violence onto her. That is where their fault lies.

I want to know where the other accounts from the people that were there that night. I can't seem to find anything on what anyone else in the group that she was drinking with had to say about that night. Only how in her testimony she asked the man who was laying in her bunk if they had sex and he told her yes. Right now all anyone knows is her side of the story. And I refuse to be on her side about it just because she's a woman without hearing or reading the rest of the story.

I never said women should stay out of the workplace in general. I said that type of situation. And what goes on over there I guarantee you is completely different than what happens in a conventional workplace in the states.

And just because I got a little snippy with you in my last post does not mean I got offended by the likes of you.

Okey Doakes, no more snippiness...

The reason you can't find out what other people said is because no one has been investigating what happened.

That's the whole point of the amendment in question. If she had been "allowed" by her contract to pursue relief in court, everyone's testimony would have been out there for everyone to see.

Taxpayers would know what's happening within the companies they're hiring.

Until I hear all sides of the story I won't form my opinion on who's at fault.

If there was indeed a rape, the fault is with the rapist. End of story. It doesn't matter if she was drunk, it doesn't matter what she wore, and it doesn't matter about her workplace situation. If she was raped, there is no way she could be at fault.

Any other position is wrong and absolutely indefensible.

There's no such thing as "oh, she was drunk so it's HER fault."

There's no such thing as "oh, all those horny men, she should have known better so it's HER fault."

You might think it was stupid to accept the job, stupid to hang around those men, stupid to drink around them, whatever. Being stupid isn't a crime; rape is.

Like I said I'll make my decision about who's wrong or right if it gets to trial. . . bottom line.

Why doesn't she sue the people that raped her in civil court.
Then shot them.

Ya gotta shoot them not shot them. LOL

Joyboy
I agree it might be a diversion from the issue but if the amendment as written is not fully enforceable what good is it? Now whether the republicans that voted against it did so because of that might be a different story.

If a major contractor does business with the government there should be provisions to protect it's employees. There should also be transparency in all contracts. I agree with this completely. No person should have to worry about their safety.
Those same major contractors subcontract out work to other companies. The amendment would have to cover all those subs as well, many of which may be foreign companies over which we have no control. How do you provide that protection for the employee? Should the major contractor be open for liability for everything it's subcontractors do?
I'm not saying that's the case here but there is a lot more to this than what's on the surface.

As far as this thread goes. The purpose of the thread was to paint all republicans as women haters, people who will allow women to be sexually abused and gang raped in the workplace.
Or as he put it those sick republicans.
The article I posted shows that republicans aren't the only ones who are having a problem with this amendment. It doesn't matter why the democrat might axe it. The fact is he might. It doesn't matter why the democratic white house might axe it. The fact is they might.

So to paint the republicans with this brush without adding the democrats to the same canvas is nothing more than a typical left wing tactic to try to smear all republicans.



So
If you sign a contract that says you won't hold a company liable if you are sexually assaulted on the job it should be void if you actually are?
What if you sign a contract and it says you can't sue them if you chop your finger off with a saw when you are drunk? Should the contract be void if you actually get drunk and chop your finger off? Should there be a congressional amendment for that too?

People are overlooking these people work under contracts. Provisions in those contracts often limit the liabilities of the companies, such as this arbitration clause.
If, and it's a big IF, this lady was under such a contract the lady in question didn't have to go to work for this company. If she was under contract she had to have read the contract. She didn't have to sign the contract. If the provisions of the contract said she would have to use an arbitrator to resolve all sexual harassment or assault complaints she should have looked for another job.
But she didn't. She chose to take the job anyway.

I am not saying that is the case but if it did go down that way she has opted to give up those rights. Now that something has happened she wants to change the rules of the game?

Bill,

It's not about changing the rules of the game.

Here's what happened: she claims she got raped by co-workers. She wanted to sue them. But Halliburton/KBR said she couldn't because it happened on the job. She (and her lawyers) said that's not true, because happened in a barracks on off-hours.

And again, "she should have known better" is not an excuse to allow alleged rapists a free pass.

I agree with Bill. . .

OK Scott
It happened off hours in a barracks? Was this barracks under the control of Haliburton? If so it would be covered under her contract.
If not then it wouldn't be covered under her contract. she should be able to sue.
Which is it?
Or are you now suggesting that Haliburton should be liable for anything that happens to it's employees regardless of where they are or when it happens. Off the job? Off hours? How about on the moon?
Should we be passing this kind of legislation? Make all employers responsible for anything that happens to you regardless of where and when it happens? On or off the job?

If it happened as you say off the job then why did Franken write the amendment. It wouldn't apply to this case. Yet the amendment was supposed to be about this case.

Who said she should have known better? I sure didn't?
That is about the most ignorant thing I think anyone can say about rape.
I said if there was a clause in her contract that said she could not sue if she was sexually assaulted then maybe she should have thought better of signing the contract.
To sign the contract accepting those rules then trying to sue after something happens is changing the rules.
Apparently this has happened before and has happened since, Many times and been publicized, and these people keep signing these contracts. Doesn't make much sense to me. But I bet the money is good.

It kind of goes along with those folks that want to get health insurance to treat cancer AFTER they are diagnosed with cancer. Then blaming the insurance industry when no one will insure them.

I have not read the story. I am not debating whether it was her fault she was raped or whether she should have known better.
I do think women should be aware of the situations they put themselves in but no matter what nothing excuses rape.
That wasn't the intent of this thread.
This thread was started to bash republicans for not supporting what might be a poorly written amendment to a DOD spending Bill. I pointed out that it seems some democrats are having second thoughts as well.

AS for the amendment I think it should be posted somewhere but I can't find it. If it was badly written I think it should be re written to give it sufficient teeth to really protect the women or any victim of any crime. Write it so it can be enforced all the way down the line. Then hang the bastards.

Shot 'em first. Shoot 'em later.

Hey Bob! Good to see you man!

Hi Don,

Nice to meet you. Check out "I'm A Right Wing Crazy" here, and on the lyric 3 forum. I think you'll like it.

There are really two issues.
The Fifth Circuit Court held in September that the assault on Jones' didn't happened as part of her work, so the arbitration clause didn't apply.

Bill, if you think the circumstances didn't warrant a lawsuit againt KBR/Halliburton, well, you're entitled to your opinion. Personally, I think the whole locking her up in a shipping crate and threatening her job if she left Iraq to get medical care sounds actionable.

The second issue is the amendment on defense approptiations that wouldn't allow such arbitration clauses. It's in response to what happened to Jones.

This is the language:
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.
(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.

Bill, if you're buying the "unenforceable" line, explain why it's unenforceable.
The Democrat who's most likely to try to get the amendment removed is Daniel Inoyhe (sp?) of Hawaii. Hawaii -- where there are defense contractors and their lobbyists crawling out of every desk drawer.
Why is it unenforceable?

I agreed with Bill it's not a suing thing. It's a criminal thing and every member of the board should be tried in criminal court for kidnapping etc. Plus every stock holder. But you can't do that because the government is a partner (it's a corp and ever corp has the government as a partner). But this isn't a liability thing it's a criminal thing. Using it as a liability thing is a miss use of the court system.