Republican Senator David Vitter of Louisiana has been caught on tape being confronted at a town hall meeting by a woman who identified herself as a rape victim. The woman questioned Vitter about why he voted against an amendment that would withhold defense contracts from companies like Halliburton if they restrict their employees from taking workplace sexual assault, battery and discrimination cases to court.
Woman: “How can you support a company that tells a rape victim that she does not have the right to defend herself?”
Sen. Vitter: “Ma’am, the language in question did not say that in any way, shape or form. The President was”—
Woman: “But it’s unconstitutional to have—it’s unconstitutional to have a clause that says a woman does not have the right to defend themselves.”
Sen. Vitter: “Do you realize—do you realize President Obama was against that amendment, and his administration was against that amendment?”
Woman: “But I’m not asking Obama; I’m asking you.”
Sen. Vitter: “Do you think he—do you think he’s in favor of rape? No.”
Woman: “I am asking you, Senator.”
Man: “What about the woman with cancer, Senator?”
Woman: “What if it was your daughter that was raped? Would you tell her to be quiet and take it?”
Man: “What about the woman with cancer, Senator?”
The questioning ended when Senator David Vitter walked away from the woman and left the town hall meeting with his aides.
"The Department of Defense, the prime contractor, and higher tier subcontractors may not be in a position to know about such things. Enforcement would be problematic, especially in cases where privity of contract does not exist between parties within the supply chain that supports a contract," reads the DoD note. "It may be more effective to seek a statutory prohibition of all such arrangements in any business transaction entered into within the jurisdiction of the United States, if these arrangements are deemed to pose an unacceptable method of recourse."
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/19/defense-department-oppose_n_326569.html&cp
basically what the DOD said was that if they have a contract with company A who contracts with company B, they are not privy to employee contracts of company B, so it would be next to impossible to enforce, especially as company A is likely to also contract with companies C, D, E etc. they then said it might be more effective to statutorily outlaw any such clause in a contract made in the US. what Jon Kyl, Vitter, et. al. said was OMG we can't interfere with private contracts OMG SOCIALISM MUSLIM NAZI 9-11! in other words, they would oppose the restrictive statute as well.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2009-11-06 03:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-11-06 05:13 pm (UTC)Here is the link to the back story:
Sen. Vitter Defends Vote on Rape Amendment
Republican Senator David Vitter of Louisiana has been caught on tape being confronted at a town hall meeting by a woman who identified herself as a rape victim. The woman questioned Vitter about why he voted against an amendment that would withhold defense contracts from companies like Halliburton if they restrict their employees from taking workplace sexual assault, battery and discrimination cases to court.
The questioning ended when Senator David Vitter walked away from the woman and left the town hall meeting with his aides.
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/11/3/headlines
no subject
Date: 2009-11-06 05:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-11-06 05:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-11-06 05:47 pm (UTC)Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/19/defense-department-oppose_n_326569.html&cp
basically what the DOD said was that if they have a contract with company A who contracts with company B, they are not privy to employee contracts of company B, so it would be next to impossible to enforce, especially as company A is likely to also contract with companies C, D, E etc. they then said it might be more effective to statutorily outlaw any such clause in a contract made in the US. what Jon Kyl, Vitter, et. al. said was OMG we can't interfere with private contracts OMG SOCIALISM MUSLIM NAZI 9-11! in other words, they would oppose the restrictive statute as well.
no subject
Date: 2009-11-06 07:55 pm (UTC)