Sessions Faces Withering Attack for His Stance on Violence Against Women

Sen. Patrick Leahy delivered the harangue against the attorney general nominee.


Attorney general nominee Jeff Sessions, already criticized by Democrats for his civil rights record and his support of President Donald Trump’s refugee and travel ban, faced a withering attack Tuesday for his stance on another issue: violence against women.

Ahead of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s vote on Sessions’ nomination, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) tore into Sessions for his position on the Violence Against Women Act. Leahy, who until recently was the committee’s ranking Democrat, deviated from his prepared remarks and grew emotional as he addressed his longtime committee colleague.

During Sessions’ confirmation hearing earlier this month and in follow-up written questions, Leahy had pressed Sessions on his position on the Violence Against Women Act, a 1994 law that mandated and funded prosecutions for violent crimes against women and established the Justice Department’s Office of Violence Against Women, as well as on grant programs to provide resources to battered women. As Leahy noted Tuesday, the White House is reportedly using the conservative Heritage Foundation’s budget blueprint, which “calls for eliminating all Violence Against Women Act grants” overseen by DOJ. Sessions voted against the most recent reauthorization of the act, in 2013, which expanded the law’s protections to tribal lands, college students, and LGBT individuals. “I would defend the statute if it’s reasonably defensible,” Sessions told Leahy during his January 10 confirmation hearing.

“I asked Sen. Sessions to commit to stand up for women and preserve these critical programs,” Leahy said in his prepared remarks. “Again, he refused.” 

Then Leahy, a former prosecutor, strayed from his prepared remarks to describe a time before the Violence Against Women Act. “I still have nightmares about some of the crime scenes I went to,” he said with emotion. “How could anybody who is going to be in a position to enforce our laws turn their back on that? Or suggest the law should only apply to certain classes of women?”

WE CAME UP SHORT.

We just wrapped up a shorter-than-normal, urgent-as-ever fundraising drive and we came up about $45,000 short of our $300,000 goal.

That means we're going to have upwards of $350,000, maybe more, to raise in online donations between now and June 30, when our fiscal year ends and we have to get to break-even. And even though there's zero cushion to miss the mark, we won't be all that in your face about our fundraising again until June.

So we urgently need this specific ask, what you're reading right now, to start bringing in more donations than it ever has. The reality, for these next few months and next few years, is that we have to start finding ways to grow our online supporter base in a big way—and we're optimistic we can keep making real headway by being real with you about this.

Because the bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we hope you might consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

payment methods

WE CAME UP SHORT.

We just wrapped up a shorter-than-normal, urgent-as-ever fundraising drive and we came up about $45,000 short of our $300,000 goal.

That means we're going to have upwards of $350,000, maybe more, to raise in online donations between now and June 30, when our fiscal year ends and we have to get to break-even. And even though there's zero cushion to miss the mark, we won't be all that in your face about our fundraising again until June.

So we urgently need this specific ask, what you're reading right now, to start bringing in more donations than it ever has. The reality, for these next few months and next few years, is that we have to start finding ways to grow our online supporter base in a big way—and we're optimistic we can keep making real headway by being real with you about this.

Because the bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we hope you might consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate