On Oct. 6, U.S. Sens. James Inhofe and Tom Coburn, both Republicans from Oklahoma, along with 28 other Republican senators and no Democrats, voted against Democratic Sen. Al Franken’s proposed amendment to the 2010 Defense Appropriations bill; appropriately nicknamed the anti-rape amendment.

Still, the amendment passed 68 to 30.

In 2005, Jamie Jones was an employee of KBR, a subsidiary of Halliburton, which uses tax dollars to do contractor work in Iraq. While working in Baghdad, Jones was drugged by her co-workers, gang-raped, brutally beaten and then locked in a shipping container for more than 24 hours without food or water.

We all recognize the horror of what happened to Jones, but what makes it worse is that this is not an isolated incident.

When Jones returned from Iraq, she learned in the fine print of her KBR contract that she’d signed away her right to sue KBR and those who’d injured her. Arbitration was the only recourse offered by her contract.

KBR almost always won the cases it arbitrated.

This has led to a culture of impunity. KBR employees are not worried about raping women they work with because KBR will protect them with contracts and expensive lawyers.

Sen. Franken’s amendment would deny defense contracts to companies like KBR that prevent their employees from going to civil courts for issues of sexual assault, battery and discrimination. Mind you, the U.S. already has all of these laws to protect its citizens, but corporations like KBR don’t want to be held liable for them outside the country, even when they’re being paid by this country.

I don’t understand why anyone would vote against this, much less three-fourths of the Republican Party, especially our “family first” Oklahoma senators.

So I called Sen. Inhofe’s office and asked. I spoke to three of the senator’s aids. Each told me Inhofe voted against this bill because it’s too broad, especially with the part about discrimination.

The amendment brings up discrimination in terms of Title 7 from the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

I asked what specifically should have been removed from the part about discrimination or the amendment in general; the aid didn’t answer the question.

The aid said the senator didn’t like how Jones was being used to gain support for the amendment.

Jones said the amendment passing the Senate “means the world to me.” She obviously doesn’t have a problem with her story being used to prevent rape. It’s Sen. Inhofe who has a problem with it.

The aid explained how these liberal senators don’t like arbitration; that this amendment is an attack on business arbitration and a line has to be drawn. However, the aid also told me there was no part of this amendment preventing arbitration; it just ensures that is not the only option.

This, obviously, doesn’t make any sense.

Justice for rape, abuse and discrimination are basic family values.

So, how could so many senators who campaign on “family values” vote against this?

I asked. I didn’t get a serious response.

This amendment forced the GOP to choose between two of its favorite things; family values and preventing government interference with business’ interests. Three-fourths of the GOP, both of our senators included, chose business.

In part because of the publicity of Jones’ story, civil courts are now hearing Jones’ case; one of the rapists is on trial. The other rapists have not been identified and are more than likely still working for KBR in Iraq.

Women who work for KBR are in danger, and there is no support from our senators to protect them.

They actually are fighting against this amendment, against their protection.

Our senators don’t want these rapists tried in court.

I have never been so ashamed of the people who are supposed to represent me and my state.