Rape Victim Confronts Vitter Over Franken Amendment Vote

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

And currently, the issue isn’t going away. Vitter, who was one of only 30 Republicans who, in fact, voted against the amendment, was ridiculed in local newspapers, and has seen the issue become an early focal point of his re-election contest as well.

At a town hall meeting this past weekend, meanwhile, the senator was confronted by a constituent who, subsequent to telling her story of being raped, wanted to know why he opposed Senator Al FrankenAl Franken’s (D-Minnesota) 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 happened.

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. 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 and 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 brought forth concerns in regard to the scope of the Franken amendment, the White House itself said it supported “the intent” and was working to ensure it was “enforceable.”

The senator has yet to appease constituents with a fulfilling explanation. This morning, the Daily World published a rather scathing editorial taking Vitter to task for his vote.

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

Let’s suppose 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.