I agree that the out come of the vote was absurd however some Dems voted no as well so to suggest that the Republicans are to blame for this result when the Democrats hold the magic 60 votes in the Senate is a bit intellectually dishonest IMO. They're equally to blame IMO.

No Democrats voted "nay" on this one: All 30 "nay" votes came from Republicans this time. Each senator should explain his "nay" vote on this one; I'd feel the same way no matter which party was involved.

I just checked the votes, none of the Nay votes were from Dems.

And Halliburton is misspelled, and the rape victim is Jamie Leigh Jones

A quick reading of the text reveals that it's not as black and white as some people seem to want to make it.

explain, please

Mind-boggling.

Ah my bad I thought that the Bill did not pass but it did. Okay got it now.

Seems pretty black and white to me:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r111:1:./temp/~r11197m6ty:e165378:

"AMENDMENT NO. 2588

(Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds for any Federal contract with Halliburton Company, KBR, Inc., any of their subsidiaries or affiliates, or any other contracting party if such contractor or a subcontractor at any tier under such contract requires that employees or independent contractors sign mandatory arbitration clauses regarding certain claims)
On page 245, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:

Sec. 8104. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used for any existing or new Federal contract if the contractor or a subcontractor at any tier requires that an employee or independent contractor, as a condition of employment, sign a contract that mandates that the employee or independent contractor performing work under the contract or subcontract resolve through arbitration any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention.

(b) The prohibition in subsection (a) does not apply with respect to employment contracts that may not be enforced in a court of the United States."

Sexual assault and harrassment, check
Assault and battery, check
Intentional infliction of emotional distress, check
False imprisonment, check (they crated the girl after the rape so she couldn't say anything?!)
Negligent hiring, check
Negligent supervision, check
Negligent retention, check

It's disturbing to me the cult of "machoness" or whatever you want to call it that arises out of certain professions, where gang-raping and raping in general is an extracurricular activity, and in this case protected by law.

And Hellishburton $crewed our country too.

Well I hope the people they love never get raped

Did the contracts only effect employer civil suits?!

I can't see how you can contract out of the criminal side of things, or even the personal civil suits.

Well, that's just despicable. Who ever was allowed to put that clause (employees cannot sue if they are raped by co-workers) on the contract in the first place? As a woman, I would never feel safe in a company if I signed that right away.

Have those clauses in the contracts mentioned come up in court? They sound oddly like a type of exemption clause, and courts tend not to like exemption clauses.