Vitter Confronted By Rape Victim Over Franken Amendment Vote

Last month, Senator David Vitter (R-LA) opposed a congressional measure to prohibit the government from working with contractors who deny victims of rape or assault the right to bring their cases to court.

And now, the issue isn't going way. Vitter, who was one of only 30 Republicans who actually voted against the amendment, was pilloried in local newspapers, and has also seen the issue become an early focal point of his re-election contest.

At a town hall meeting this past weekend, meanwhile, the Senator was confronted by a constituent who, after recounting her tale of being raped, demanded to know why he opposed Sen. Al Franken's (D-Minn) amendment.

The exchange was contentious, heart wrenching, and potentially damaging.

WOMAN: It meant everything to me that I was able to put the person who attacked me [behind bars]. And what allowed me to do that was our judicial process. I showed up in court every day to make sure that happen

VITTER: And I'm absolutely supportive of any case like that being prosecuted criminally to the full extent of the law.

WOMAN: But there are rape victims who are being kept silent.

WOMAN: But how can you support [a law] that tells a rape victim that she does not have the right to defend herself?

VITTER: Ma'am The language in question did not say that in any way shape or form.

WOMAN: But it is unconstitutional to have a law that says a woman does not have a right to defend herself.

VITTER: You realize Mr. Obama was against that amendment that his administration was against that amendment

WOMAN: But I'm not asking Obama. I'm asking you.

VITTER: Do you think he's in favor in rape?

WOMAN: I'm asking you Senator. What if it was your daughter who was raped? Would you tell her to be quiet and take it? Would you tell your daughter to be silent?

Vitter's excuse here doesn't exactly hold water. While the Obama Defense Department raised concerns about the reach of the Franken amendment, the White House itself said it supported "the intent" and was working to make sure it was "enforceable."

The Senator has yet to pacify constituents with a satisfying explanation. On Monday morning, the Opelousas, La., Daily World published a rather-scathing editorial taking Vitter to task for his vote.

Let's assume Vitter and his [29] colleagues sincerely believe federal intrusion into employment contracts is a dangerous wrong.

Let's assume the Defense Department and the White House sincerely believe that they had no legal way to intervene.

We're still left with the uneasy feeling that a military adventure on which we embarked to protect Americans has resulted in the victimization of at least one.

Comments

[lkatzenberg]

08:32 AM on 12/15/2009

I can't get over that he just up and walked away from her when she was obviously so upset. Or that he kept talking over her, trying to get his political spin in there. Yuck.

[roch20]

12:52 PM on 11/12/2009

This guy (Vitter) makes me puke!

[LeeCalif]

10:04 PM on 11/05/2009

I'm looking forward to this p.i.g.s. defeat.

I'm contributi­ng to the opponent of this man who visits pros ti tutes.

[Wide Stance]

07:11 PM on 11/04/2009

Diap er boy is going down, I just feel it.

[iplaw]

12:26 AM on 11/05/2009

You really overestima­te the intelligen­ce of southerner­s.

[Eris23Skidoo]

07:32 PM on 11/05/2009

Especially Louisiana southerner­s. It was only 17 years ago that they nearly elected David Duke, a former KKK Grand Dragon, as governor. By nearly, I mean avoided by just a few precious percentage points.

[starsnsea]

03:34 PM on 11/04/2009

This woman's determinat­ion and deep courage in confrontin­g Vitter contrasts so vividly with Vitter's obvious cowardice. He turned and ran from her, for pete's sake.

Vitter looks like he cannot bear to actually talk to a woman about that astonishin­g vote in support of rape.

He has shown clearly that he prefers those women he can rent for his pleasure. He was a well-known­, regular customer at houses of prostituti­on in his home district, and he dodged those questions, too.

Even among the many Republican hypocrites­, this guy Vitter really really stinks.

[jhwkr]

05:29 PM on 11/04/2009

What do you expect from a man who has to "hire" women to listen to him. He feels that women are the inferior gender.

[MiniMogul]

01:47 PM on 11/04/2009

Vitter is an all around disgrace and hopefully Louisiana will do the right thing and vote the bum out. Charlie Melancon has a good shot. Google him and make a little campaign donation. Thanks.

[Barandy]

01:02 PM on 11/04/2009

While Vitters is a jerk and I do not understand how he kept his job, he is correct that there was no language in the bill that kept rape victims from seeking justice.

The amendment in question relates to civil penalities­, not criminal justice as the woman believed. The amendment is not an Anti-Rape bill but an Anti-Arbit­ration for all Title VII claims.

"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..­.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.­"

If they wanted to call it an Anti-Rape bill then they should have applied it to rape only, not all Title Vii claims.

More importantl­y, while the bill made it easy to target companies for civil damages, it failed to hold them responsibl­e for hampering the criminal process.

Most of these cases are not prosecuted criminally because the companies lose or mishandle evidence preventing the filing of criminal charges. So while victims may be able to sue civilly, the employers they are allowed to sue are still in complete control of the evidence against them.

[Bogstomper]

06:30 PM on 11/04/2009

"The amendment in question relates to civil penalities­, not criminal justice as the woman believed."

Seeking civil penalties is the ONLY recourse women like Jamie Leigh Jones have in a case like this. It's the only form of justice left, because her rapists haven't even been charged. The Franken amendment is a good change. Voting against it was a vote to protect *actual* workplace rape in order to protect companies like KBR from *potential­* lawsuits.

And yes, it is an anti-rape bill, because companies like KBR will no longer be able to use arbitratio­n to hide the fact that they let their male employees act like animals.

[quinmore]

11:22 AM on 11/05/2009

Jones' argument to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals that the alleged gang rape was not related to her employment and thus, wasn’t covered by the arbitratio­n agreement. The Court agreed, in a 2 to 1 ruling. “We do not hold that, as a matter of law, sexual-ass­ault allegation­s can never ‘relate to’ someone’s employment­,” wrote the court. “For this action, however, Jones’ allegation­s do not ‘touch matters’ related to her employment­, let alone have a ’significa­nt relationsh­ip’ to her employment contract."

My understand­ing is that one of the judges who ruled in her favor, Rhesa Hawkins Barksdale, is a West Point grad, Vietnam vet, and one of the court’s most conservati­ve members, a sign, perhaps, of just how bad the facts are in this case. It’s a big victory, but a bitter one that shows just how insidious mandatory arbitratio­n is. It’s taken Jones three years of litigation just to get to the point where she can finally sue the people who allegedly wronged her. It will be many more years before she has a shot at any real justice'.

This was the issue I (and perhaps the Louisiana Democratic Party strategist­s) had hoped Vitter would feel obliged to address. Ms. Waldrop was, I believe, ill-prepar­ed. She neglected to even ask him what she had stated was her goal - to ask Congressma­n Vitter why he had voted against the Franken amendment.

[perpetualpessimist]

12:00 PM on 11/04/2009

The Times-Pica­yune finally does a story on this on Wed 11/4, 4 days after it happens. Under a mis-leadin­g headline "Vitter responds to rape victim's charges". Same old, same old "Obama opposes it too". The reporter evidently didn't deem it necessary to contact the woman for comment. I guess the people's right to know isn't absolute. The whole story was slanted to favor Vitter.

[Eris23Skidoo]

07:36 PM on 11/05/2009

Did you expect anything else from a media owned by conservati­ves?

[samfan]

11:19 AM on 11/04/2009

What does President Obama have to do with Vitters vote. I guess he doesn't understand the government that he works in. Congress writes legislatio­n, Executive carries out legislatio­n. Some one get him a copy of the constituti­on.

[pottedferne]

11:26 AM on 11/04/2009

it's like greengrann­y said earlier, in Louisiana President Obama's name is used as a negative force...th­ere is hope for Charlie M....his opponent..­.

[pottedferne]

11:10 AM on 11/04/2009

this story if Finally on the Baton Rouge Morning Advocate site.....l­ots of info about the girl who really had been raped....t­hey couldn't ignore it any longer, cuz it has over 100,000 hits on youtube...­.

[suigeneris]

11:07 AM on 11/04/2009

If the GOP were really worried about how the law could be used against business in cases other than rape or violent crimes, etc., then they could've offered an alternativ­e proposal that specified those cases and named it the same thing. But of course, that's not their real goal. Their real goal is protecting business from prosecutio­n in ALL cases.

[Eris23Skidoo]

07:39 PM on 11/05/2009

Not to mention aiding and abetting rapists. That is, in fact, their policy. Encourage rape, discourage abortion. Praise god and pass the campaign cash.

[SouthpawSass]

09:16 AM on 11/04/2009

David Vitter Fights Against Fake Prostituti­on Rings

http://www­.youtube.c­om/watch?v­=QTAbjpeO6­8A

[luziannagirl]

08:38 AM on 11/04/2009

By the way, I've long predicted that given free rein, the Far Right Evangelo-C­hristian "Moral Majority" would take away women's hard-won freedoms.

The freedom to pursue one's sexual assailant in court should be one of any American citizen's most basic.When we start to lose such basic freedoms, one can easily see how citizens begin to lose faith in our judicial system, and begin to take the law into their own hands. Many women now simply refuse to sit back and be demure victims, and most women have male relatives whose need for retributio­n has been largely (with notable exceptions in some segments of America) channeled into "letting the system take care of it".

The need for justice is a hard-wired­, powerful drive common not only to humans, but to other social species, particular­ly some of the higher apes and even canines. There is science now showing that.

So, we can either choose working within the system, or going outside the system, but people will have their justice one way or the other. Those who would remove it simply for private and personal gain ought to remember that.

The veneer of modern American-s­tyle Western democratic civilizati­on is shockingly thin, folks. Anyone who's lived through the breakdown of civil order after Katrina knows that all too well.

[pottedferne]

11:11 AM on 11/04/2009

it will only get worse with Clarence Thomas as a supreme court justice...­..

[gardengranny]

08:37 AM on 11/04/2009

Why would David Vitter, who patronized (es?) prostitute­s and makes his appointmen­ts from his phone while on the floor of the Senate ever get it?

Why would anyone think he cares? He has no respect for women - not his wife, not his daughters, not the women who are employed in the s*x trade.

And don't anyone here tell me that it is a choice to be a prostitute or that this is a victimless crime.

If you truly think that, you need to do some research.

[Eris23Skidoo]

07:53 PM on 11/05/2009

Even so, I would stand by a woman's right to sell her body before standing with those who would seek to control it for their own ends. I'm not going to lump all prostitute­s into one category and say, with equivocati­on, as if I know each and every one of them personally­, and state that NONE of them chose their profession­. You can respond by saying that I too have no respect for women, but I will say that I have enough respect to judge each adult as an individual who makes their own choices and some will choose to do things that I wouldn't choose. But what they choose to do with their own bodies is none of my damn business because it is their body not mine. Maybe some, maybe even the majority, of prostitute­s have no other choices in the whole world than to become prostitute­s. This is even more likely with the increased incidence of human traffickin­g.

[Eris23Skidoo]

07:53 PM on 11/05/2009

(part 2) But that still does not give me the right to claim that no prostitute­, ever in the world or in the history of the world, ever chose that job on purpose over other possible jobs that were actually available. For one, there was a Roman emperor's wife who snuck out the palace where she moonlighte­d in a whore-hous­e. The owner of the establishm­ent wrote that she had been the star employee working extra shifts. She had to be sent home to get her to quit for the day. She enjoyed her job. Maybe she is the only one ever. Most people don't even like their job. She clearly didn't even need a job but she showed up every day. I guess I just hate women. For the record, I think Vitter stinks, and I wrote a very long, nasty letter to Sen. Crapo who also voted against Franken's bill; accusing him of aiding and abetting rapists and offering comfort and encouragem­ent as well as a precedent for future rapists who now only need to get a job with KBR where they can rape all they want without fear of punishment from their friend Mike Crapo.

[tednarcotic]

08:04 AM on 11/04/2009

Before Republican­s were wrested from power they were destroying America and prying opportunit­y from the grasping hands of the people that are the majority. Now that they are the minority party they are staying the course and admitting no mistakes. At least they are consistent­.