Did My Senators Really Vote to OK Gang Rape?
Posted On Tuesday, October 13, 2009 at at 5:35 PM by Dan
Dear Senator Johnny Isakson & Senator Saxby Chambliss:
The 2010 Defense Appropriations bill had an amendment introduced by Sen. Al Franken. The amendment was S. Amdt. 2588. Sen. Franken's amendment would ban companies that restrict their employees' ability to take sexual assault cases to court. According to an article on Alternet, Sen. Franken specifically offered this amendment to provide relief for Jamie Leigh Jones. Jones was gang raped by her co-workers at Haliburton while she was in Iraq. She was then threatened if she left Iraq for medical treatment. This is according to ABC News.
Apparently, both Sen. Isakson and Sen. Chambliss voted against this amendment. I'd like to know why. You must have a good reason. Sen. Sessions from Alabama suggested that the amendment would violate the due process clause of the Constitution. Was that your reason? Sen. Franken did a good job of explaining how an amendment, one that does target a specific company but does specify how federal funds are to be spent, is quite constitution. But if that was your reason, why do both you Sen. Isakson and Sen. Chambliss support, nay co-sponsor, an amendment to insure ACORN no longer receives federal money. If a bill that would target a specific organization is not un-Constitutional in your mind, how would a bill that doesn't target a specific company be unconstitutional?
Sen. Chambliss, you said that organizations that "undermine our democratic process should not be eligible for taxpayer dollars." Doesn't raping a woman, covering up the crime, and not allowing her access to the courts count as undermining democracy? Sen. Isakson you signed on to a letter that said, in part, "American taxpayers must be able to trust that their money is being spent responsibly and is not being used to fund criminal enterprises." Why is it that when it comes to ACORN both of you are able to feel such outrage, yet an effort to make sure women have a chance to hold rapists receiving federal funds accountable gets a no vote? Can you explain this to me?
Thanks,
Dan
