Gwen Moore, Wisconsin Congresswoman, Recounts Her Rape Ordeal In House Floor Speech

As part of her floor speech pushing to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) on Wednesday, Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Wis.) told the story of her own history of being sexually assaulted during her childhood and then raped as a young woman.

"Violence against women is as American as apple pie," she told colleagues. "I know, not only as a legislator, but from personal experience. Domestic violence has been a thread throughout my personal life, up to and including being a child repeatedly sexually assaulted, up to and including being an adult who's been raped."

The VAWA has been met with some resistance from Republicans. The bill would renew grants to U.S. domestic violence prevention and survivor support programs, would increase availability of legal assistance to victims and would extend assistance to battered undocumented immigrants and same-sex couples.

The House Judiciary Committee's lack of support for the bill, Moore said, brought up terrible memories for her "of having boys sit in a locker room and sort of bet that I, the egg-head, couldn't be had," she said.

"And then the appointed boy, when he saw that I wasn't going to be so willing, completed a date-rape and then took my underwear to display it to the rest of the boys," she continued. "I mean, this is what American women are facing."

Since Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee have not allowed Democrats to bring up the VAWA as a standalone bill, Democrats tried to attach it to the vote on the GOP budget proposal on Wednesday afternoon. But Republicans voted unanimously to end debate on the budget bill before Democrats could do so.

While some Senate Republicans have pledged their support for reauthorizing the VAWA, others said the bill touches on too many controversial subjects, which distract from the bill's purpose of protecting battered women. For instance, that it creates avenues for battered undocumented immigrants to claim temporary visas and extends domestic violence protections to same-sex couples makes it tough for some conservatives to support.

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), who opposed the latest version last month in the judiciary committee, told The New York Times that he thinks Democrats have politicized the bill on purpose to make the GOP look anti-women.

"I favor the Violence Against Women Act and have supported it at various points over the years, but there are matters put on that bill that almost seem to invite opposition," he said. "You think that's possible? You think they might have put things in there we couldn't support, that maybe then they could accuse you of not being supportive of fighting violence against women?"

Clarification: A previous version of this article stated that Rep. Rob Woodall (R-Ga.) supported VAWA; his spokesman told HuffPost that he supports a debate of the measure on the floor of the House. He has not pledged support for the bill itself.

Make your voice heard:

Comments

[nuppup]

05:57 PM on 04/15/2013

There is also violence against republican get out to vote vehicles but she did not mention that.

[Philcat]

09:01 AM on 11/18/2012

So Is this racist Angry Bird going to Implement Charging Parents for KIds Crimes - I doubt she would agree - if her Kids are criminals doing the same - Rape & Pillage at will.
She already calling other REp of Gov racist.
see- CNSNews.com – Rep. Marcia Fudge & nypost.com

[Kittie King]

05:02 PM on 05/20/2012

such a huge victim mentality growing in this country right now. I see it in these comments.

[Karl Hegbloom]

01:17 PM on 03/30/2012

Actual violence, per se, is obviously criminal. But communication is not violence, per se, and there have been many men sent to jail or even prison for merely answering a text message sent by a woman who had a protective order against him. There are many similar abuses of these laws that need to be addressed. The controversy is not over whether we should protect women from violence. It's over whether these laws are really performing their intended function, or whether they are poorly written and being abused to persecute men who have not really done anything wrong. Google for "domestic violence is the new Jim Crow", and look for blog articles written by lawyers who have represented clients who have suffered the abuses of these protective orders. The law should not be re-enacted in a rush. It needs to be studied first. Changes to it are likely in order. You can not treat domestic relationship disfunction without treating the entire family. Putting a man in jail for writing a text message is not combatting domestic violence. It is persecuting males. Now *that* reeks of exactly the kind of "abusive patriarchial heirarchy" and abuse of authority that woman have complained about for years, right?

[crella]

07:04 PM on 03/29/2012

'As American as apple pie'.. outrageous. America was one of the first countries in the world to have domestic violence law on the books. The state of Maryland was first in the late 1600s. It has never been socially condoned to beat one's wife in America. I'm so sick of the liars.

[pixiepotpie]

10:04 PM on 03/29/2012

And we don't steal or kill here either, cuz, you know, we outlawed that Forever ago. I'm sick of people who live with their heads in a hole.

[crella]

09:01 PM on 03/30/2012

You don't read well, do you? This woman said that .violence against women is as American as apple pie' meaning normal, accepted, part of the culture. It doesn't mean no one commits it. My point is quite clear, read my post again.

[crella]

04:46 AM on 03/31/2012

Are stealing and killing then, as American as apple pie?

[Karl Hegbloom]

01:25 PM on 03/30/2012

And of course it's also not acceptable for a woman to assault her husband or child, and then turn around and claim that the man assaulted her. There needs to be more emphasis upon the presumption of innocence in domestic violence cases...

[john yunker]

05:45 PM on 03/29/2012

My opinion to make this at least acceptable to (The old white rich guy party) would be to remove the illegal immigrant protection, ( they should not have protections as those here legally), and the same sex Partner clause, unless the violence is perpetrated on someone much older FEMALE by younger FEMALE or considerably smaller FEMALE. BY another FEMALE..NOT for effeminate Males !! I think they would allow that as stand alone. If not then they truly just don't give a damn about women at all..>>>.Plus their fear that the law would primarily be used against them..they are after all predominately the religous right and it says in the Bible that a woman should be the submissive to the husband( SARCASM)

[kauna13]

04:22 PM on 03/29/2012

Not supporting a bill of this nature for whatever reason is just unimaginable. I don't care what kind of attachments are added. The cited measures that the conservatives might not like are still anti-violence and pro-support of victims. It's sick that anyone would let politics like this get in the way. Absolutely infuriating.

[MikeFromBC]

05:38 PM on 03/29/2012

What about people who don't support it because of it's exclusion of funding for male victims?

[CognitoErgoSum]

06:34 PM on 03/29/2012

While males are also victimized by domestic violence and sexual assault, they are usually less economically isolated that female victims and are possibly better resourced to leave abusive circumstances than women who are often virtual prisoners in the home, forbidden to seek employment, have access to money, etc.

[Grinling Gibbons]

06:46 PM on 03/29/2012

Almost all battering - the most serious and destructive type of domestic violence - is male on female.

[CarlB6979]

04:03 PM on 03/29/2012

It is not as American as apple pie. It is a scourge on any civilized society. I taught my son at an early age, when he is roughhousing with his sisters and they say to stop, it means he has to stop. I told my girls that no one can hurt them or they are to scream, kick, bite, punch. No young man was allowed to date my child unless I met him and my wife and I basically interrogated him. It is a sad commentary that our daughters are abused at all and I sympathize with the congresswoman, no woman should have to go through that.

[Karl Hegbloom]

01:49 PM on 03/30/2012

So now she's got a way to have power and control. Just scream, and everyone comes to the rescue, regardless of whether any actual harm was being done. She's not getting her way, so she screams and gets him in trouble. You don't teach the boys that... so the girl learns that she can kick, scratch, punch, and verbally abuse the boy with impunity, and that all she has to do is point and say "witch!" and he'll be in trouble. Think that's ok?

You must also teach that "Thou shall not bear false witness." And there's another thing... with her brothers, this works well enough, because they are unlikely to have any true intent to harm her. The same is very likely true of her boyfriends and husband; obviously the vast majority of men don't try to hurt women. We're taught not to. Boys are not supposed to hit girls; but often girls are not taught the similar.

If a woman is in a situation where anyone, male or female, has true intent to do physical harm to her, then by the time she gets her phone out, dials 911, explains her location and situation, and the police finally arrive on the scene, the fight will already be over. And, there will likely have been no witnesses, and so she can tell the story any way she wants. And yes, of course, so can he. Where is the appropriate presumption of innocence?

Project Ki.

[Karl Hegbloom]

02:09 PM on 03/30/2012

... and of course, the same society (?) that is all gung-ho in opposition to "violence" against women thinks it's perfectly Ok to subject infant males to excruciating torture, amputating the most sensitive part of their bodies [1] most often without anesthesia... (and to use anesthesia adds insult to injury --- he'll never feel a thing. No wonder so many marriages fail in the USA!)

Doesn't the Violence Against Women Act mandate that judges attend education classes that teach them about the harmful effects of childhood trauma and how it can lead to criminal and violent behavior later in life? If I'm not mistaken, they are taught that the victims of childhood abuse often grow up to be abusers themselves; at least, without appropriate interventions such as cognitive restructuring therapy.

One class they send offenders to is called "Thinking Errors." One of the thinking errors is called "closing the channel." That's what people do who know they can not win the argument in a forum context free of coercion and where everyone involved in the debate has a fair opportunity to be heard.

I've seen court officials apply it. They ignore evidence. They lock men up, incommunicado, with no presumption of innocence. Judges, in our adversarial court system, are not supposed to be biased by any information about the case until and unless that information is presented by either the prosecution or the defense.

[elzotter]

03:56 PM on 03/29/2012

There seems to be a lot of confusion about the difference between laws that punish the offender and laws that help the victim cope and go on to live a good life.

[usernc]

09:42 PM on 03/29/2012

Great post elzotter! F&F!

[AffableTundra]

02:01 PM on 03/29/2012

I hope telling her story gives others support to tell their stories. What a brave thing.

[yaeyaeyae]

02:01 PM on 03/29/2012

Once again - the government can't just put a program in place to deal with the problem it was supposed to address; it has to be expanded and more money put into it and more government workers employed and paid huge pensions. Things start as a great idea and then just go on and on and on - has this program done anything to diminish the problem, has it been successful in any way - that question is never asked. I don't want to sound hard hearted but I am old enough to remember when private charities did a lot of this type of work without all of the government red tape and expense. Now, we just let the government take over everything, pay double to get things done, and the results are never worth the cost. Every time I deal with a government agency I am reminded that I am not getting my money's worth and nobody cares.

[pixiepotpie]

10:24 PM on 03/29/2012

Perhaps you would find your experience more pleasurable if said governmental agencies weren't operating with a budge that's slashed more and more every year because of cheapskates who not only don't want to pay their fair share for the Various services provided by our tax dollars, but actually think they're Overpaying. Amazing. It is interesting that you don't have a problem laying the burden (and the bill) of "this type of work" on other working people who donated the money to charity, instead of being willing to chip in to help your fellow citizen on an issue our entire society so obviously effects and is affected by. But hey, throwing more money (i.e., Resources) at the problem won't actually help anyway, right?

[Karl Hegbloom]

02:21 PM on 03/30/2012

Money doesn't "conduct the investigation." Time and effort does, right? And whether that "investigation" is actually doing what it alleges to be doing is a matter of whether the government employee --- who performs the actions that an investigation consists of --- is truly diligent or is derelict of duty.

For example, a recent investigation into an alleged violation of a protective order turned up the Petitioner's "Verified Request for Protective Order" from the courthouse records... It was not merely included, but prominently featured in the evidence "discovery" package provided to the deputy district attorney along with the "Affidavit of Probable Cause" and "Information" requesting an arrest warrant.

But conspicuously absent from that "discovery" was the Respondent's "Answer to Verified Request for Protective Order" along with it's associated evidence exhibits, which got unfairly ignored at the hearing by proffer where the protective order was granted. That evidence package included a "nanny cam" video that shows that it was the Petitioner, not the Respondent, who committed domestic violence.

If you want to verify whether that statement is true, you'll need to review the evidence, right? And I seem to recall reading somewhere that "probable cause must be based upon a totality of the evidence." Yet they ignored his testimony and evidence, and biased anyone reading the "discovery" by having not done their job according to "presumption of innocence" and objectivity as a neutral investigator...

[Joyfulantique]

01:59 PM on 03/29/2012

I don't care what party you belong to, this violence against women has GOT TO STOP. Anyone who votes in any way ro stop, shelve, re-direct, add to or delete any legislaion to impede this FOR ANY REASON needs to be horsewhipped and thrown out of office !!!

[john yunker]

07:56 PM on 03/29/2012

Sorry but I don't agree with you. When it comes to same sex couples an effeminate male could some how be snuck into this as a victim, Just because he is the FEMALE in the relationship does not constitute violence against a WOMAN... and that is EXACTLY what this is for. When it comes to illegal immigrants an assault charge or murder is still appropriate. whatever you are against taking from the bill should not provide funding to help place someone who is here ILLEGALLY in a safer environment with taxpayer funds. If they were not here would we provide the funds to them say in Guatamala or Russia or Mexico...NO!!! Violence against a woman is horrible enough crime when perpetrated by a husband or boyfriend or even against your sister because she dishonored your family(ARABS), but to be able to use it in the case of random attack in order to expand the charges as is done with hate crime statutes would be wrong. ..There are laws in place for that now..No additional bureauracracy should be included at taxpayer expense just to further the political careers of those who it can.

[Joyfulantique]

08:30 PM on 03/29/2012

I'm sorry but compared to what we have NOW, it is a vast improvement and ANY improvement is good !

[offcenterlevi]

01:45 PM on 03/29/2012

Why exactly is domestic violence within a same sex relationship okay? For that matter, why is violence against anyone including illegals okay? Republicans claim to support law and order. They also claim to support family values. Most also claim to be Christian. Their actions show them to be mean spirited hypocrites with few if any values. They and their cohorts at the propaganda machine that is Fox News have managed to work their base into a frenzy. When your base is uninformed, all you have to do is throw them a little red meat. These people constitute a solid 35% of the electorate. It saddens me to know that there are so many haters in my country.

[enhancedvibes]

04:24 PM on 03/29/2012

Those are not believed by a lot of conservatives to be real relationships. A lot of them probably once thought (and secretly still do) that rape within marriage is not possible.

[mommy dearest]

01:59 AM on 04/01/2012

Sad but true. Used to work with a guy that said that very thing. " I am entitled to sex when ever I want. It is my right as the husband to take it if she does not submit"

[MikeFromBC]

01:38 PM on 03/29/2012

I'm all for victims of abuse being given proper resources to help them in their recovery. But VAWA as it stands should not be passed until it is made gender neutral. It is discriminatory against men, and should not be passed until fixed.

[john yunker]

08:54 PM on 03/29/2012

What part of the name of the bill dont you understand?? It is called Violence Against WOMEN Act. Making it gender nuetral would make it violence against anyone act...We have a crime for that..it is called ASSAULT..MURDER..ETC If you are from British Columbia why are you even commenting on OUR laws...If you are not, disregard the last statement

[john yunker]

10:07 PM on 03/29/2012

It is called the Violence Against WOMEN Act ! how do you not get that? There are already laws that punish violence, Assault, Offensive touching, Hate crime legislation, Gay bashing laws, manslaughter, and murder among them.. This law is meant to protect the most defenseless among us.. Those stuck in a domestic situation due to threats, abuse and even financial reasons. It is meant to help WOMEN get a safe place to raise their childre away from their abusers..

[Karl Hegbloom]

02:27 PM on 03/30/2012

Assault, battery, rape, mayhem and murder, crimes that are obvious malum in se, are, for obvious reasons, already illegal, should be, and will continue to be regardless of whether this law is re-enacted or not. The issue isn't whether or not all citizens deserve equal protection under the law, or anything...

It's whether this set of laws is truly accomplishing what the straw man claimed it would when it was initially sold to congress.

[califinest18]

01:35 PM on 03/29/2012

i am so sorry to hear that she went thru a horrible childhood and the same thing happened to her as an adult. so happy to see she went on with her life