Why did key Republicans vote against the Franken Anti-Rape Amendment?

I think it has to be strictly partisan politics or something worse. Republicans protecting private defense contractors.

What parent of a daughter, what brother or son votes to deny their daughter, sister or mother her day in court if she has been raped. These men should be ashamed!

Oh, the pro-rape lobbyist group?

There is one in this case. KBR, Inc. (formerly Kellogg Brown & Root), formerly a subsidiary of Halliburton, Halliburton, private security firm CACI International Inc and Blackwater all opposed Franken's Anti-Rape Amendment.

Females and males alike had no legal recourse if raped because private security firms were basically granted immunity from lawsuits and could not be sued no matter how awful their conduct was.

Funny, republicans howled about the illegal conduct of Acorn and pulled funding but continue to fund these firms that think rape of men, women and children and the murder of civilians is just fine.

remember that my avatar, abe lincoln, was the first republican president. i can perhaps appreciate why demint and graham and ensign and vitter voted against protecting rape victims, as they're too closely allied with sexual improprieties themselves. it's peculiar that women in the us military abroad are protected and any perpetrators can be prosecuted. so, why not us military contractors? it doesn't seem like it ought to be a great stretch in logic here.

the republican party is twisting in circles trying to find itself and, i'm sad to say, it's falling quickly down the hole. representative cantor said yesterday that he opposed grants to small businesses - something that the republican party had fought for 15 years ago.

morality must overcome political objectives.

i'm giving $1,000 to any competitor of any u.s. senator who has voted against frankin's rape amendment.

final attempt to introduce logic - if it was frankin's amendment, he tried to amend what bill with it? perhaps the bill wasn't good? i know ...

Obviously they were manipulated by pro-rape lobbyist groups

They didn't read the amendment, they only saw that it was offered by a democrat, and immediately said "no". Then after it was read, and put out in public, they had egg on there faces!

Because... they've all been paid off by the sleazy contractors that Franken's bill targets? That's the only answer that seems to make any sense to me.

A "knee-jerk" reaction.

Emphasis on "jerk".

ANYTHING that attacks the sacred inviolability of Defense Contractors, will be counterattacked by the best Senators money can buy.

Besides being pro-rape, Republicans are afraid of serving prison time with non-white people.

Probably because it is only going to be law until this appropriations bill is replaced with another one and this is something that needs to be permanent. The amendment covers anybody that right now at this moment has a contract with anybody that has a contract with anybody that has a contract with anybody that has a contract with the US government. It doesn't specify defense contractors, it doesn't specify domestic or overseas contractors it says "...any existing or new Federal contract..."
Depending on how the contract is written this could apply to the guy that replaces the light bulbs in a Ranger station in Yellowstone Park.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd
Sec. 8118. (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.