by Taylor Marsh
This isn't fiction. It's George Allen's votes against women. Why would a man of good conscience vote against aiding victims of sexual assault?
2004: Allen Voted Against Expanding The Family And Medical Leave Act To Cover Victims of Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault. In 2004, Allen voted against a proposal that would expand the Family and Medical Leave Act to allow victims of domestic violence and sexual assault to take leave from work for up to 30 days. It also would allow victims of domestic violence, stalking or sexual assault to receive unemployment insurance if they have lost their job as a result. The American Association of University Women was for the amendment. [HR 1997, Vote 62, 3/25/04, Failed 46-53, D: 44-3, R: 1-50, I: 1-0]
1988: Allen Opposes Rights of Women Sexually Assaulted in the Workplace. Allen voted against legislation to allow a woman who was sexually assaulted in the workplace to sue her attacker rather than be limited to benefits under workers' compensation. He was one of just twenty members of the House who apparently believe that sexual assault in the workplace is just another job hazard. [HB 137, 1988, passed 79-20]
It's bad enough that Republicans want to tell us what to do with our own bodies. It's heinous Republicans who also want to bar poor women from reproductive counseling, because of some philosophy that the feds shouldn't fund it. Tough luck that you're poor, babe, try abstinence. But it's down right criminal the lengths to which Republicans like George Allen will go to harbor the people who target, assault and demean women, especially in the workplace, where the consequences of speaking out could cause hardship of life threatening proportions.
When a woman has been a victim of sexual assault, harassment or stalking, it is the most traumatic event of her life. It takes time to recover. Why would a man not support policies that help a woman to just that?
Has Allen ever asked an assault victim how it feels? Or doesn't he care?
This isn't some fantasy from which we will wake up on November 8th. It's real life and nothing is more important than getting rid of anyone who votes against women's interests, especially victims of assault.
George Allen is the only incumbent running with a record of voting against women's interests, including the victims of sexual assault. Voting against helping women recover from sexual assault? Voting against expanding the Family and Medical Leave Act to include sexual assault victims? Voting against allowing a woman to sue her attacker? What kind of man does that?
Why would anyone do that? Because it's too expensive to help women? Because taxpayers shouldn't help women; let them do it themselves? Because it will cost his big business cronies money and insurance hikes? BINGO. So much for the common good. So much for helping victims of sexual assault.
Women can't afford to have George Allen sent back to the Senate. Virginia, it's up to you.
UPDATE and comment response: To answer "rutherford's" question, the reason I use the URL above is because it sends people to Jim Webb's site. Excuse me, but DUH. Jim Webb is the better candidate. Now on to the meat of the matter. George Allen voted against an amendment that would "provide for domestic violence prevention." Feingold and Nelson were the only Dems to voted against this and they were wrong too, dead wrong, but they don't have a pattern of voting against women. It's money to "provide for domestic violence prevention." It's unconscionable to vote against this portion, but it's a pattern with George Allen.
Oh, and while we're at it, did you hear the latest scuttlebutt? Did Allen spit on his wife? Read on.
SUPPORT JIM WEBB. As for Webb and women, the video below says it all. Watch it.