Mass. bills could protect older teens from sexual assault
The teacher,
Rutledge was never charged with rape. Simon was 16 at the time and in Massachusetts, where the age of consent is 16, there's no law stating that a teenager over 16 can't consent to sexual intercourse.
That would change under a pair of bills sponsored by Representative Leigh Davis, a Democrat of Great Barrington, and state Senator Joan Lovely, a Salem Democrat.
Advertisement
The bills
seek to close the loophole that allowed adults in positions of power to get away with sexually assaulting teenagers who were 16 and older. The bills do not change the age of consent in Massachusetts. But they
specify that when adults are in a position of power in relation to a minor, that student can't give consent. Adults in positions of power are defined broadly in the bills, to include anyone employed, or acting as a volunteer, in private or public schools as tutors, coaches or child-care providers.
Advertisement
'Right now in Massachusetts, a teacher, a coach or a priest can legally have sex with a 16 or 17 year-old in their care and claim it was consensual,' Davis said during a hearing before the Legislature's Joint Committee on the Judiciary. 'That's not consent. It's exploitation.'
In situations where the adult is a coach who is 19, or somewhat close to the age of the minor, the student also would not be able to give consent as per the law, Lovely said.
No matter the age gap, the coach is still in a position of power relative to the student, said Lovely, who has filed bills to close the loophole at least since 2021.
'The legislation ensures that adults cannot use their position of authority or trust to take advantage of students,' Lovely said.
Davis, who was elected to office last year, said she filed her bill after a conversation with Timothy Shugrue, the Berkshire district attorney.
Under the current law, Shugrue's office could not charge Rutledge, despite finding the teacher's actions troubling, he said.
At the hearing, Shugrue said over 39 states have enacted strong legal protections for minors experiencing sexual assault.
'This came out of a local case, but it has widespread impacts,' Davis said, 'Massachusetts is behind in this regard compared to a lot of other states.'
Citizens and legislators gave emotional testimony in support of the bills during the four-hour hearing.
Citizens spoke about a host of other bills dealing with sexual assault victims and human trafficking at Tuesday's meeting as well. To get passed into law, the bills have 60 days from the day they were heard in committee to be reported out, officials said.
Advertisement
Melissa Fares, who graduated from Miss Hall's School in 2010, five years after Simon, said she was also was abused by Rutledge. Fares testified that rape doesn't always involve a violent attack by a stranger in a dark alley. It can also take the form of a trusted authority figure, like a teacher coercing a student behind closed doors in a classroom closet.
'He never asked me if he could kiss me, grope me or penetrate me, 'Fares said. 'He just did it, and nothing in the law stops him from walking into another school and doing it all over again.'
Now 33, Fares said she still has panic attacks, night terrors, waves of depression, and ongoing difficulties with intimacy.
Fares urged the committee to take action on the bills.
'For the . . . survivors silenced by imbalance, confusion and fear, who were robbed of the hope, healing and justice they deserve, the next generation needs the protection we never got,' she said. 'Massachusetts must do better."
Angela Mathew can be reached at
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Atlantic
an hour ago
- Atlantic
Trump Got This One Right
'Why are the wrong people doing the right thing?' Henry Kissinger is supposed to have once asked, in a moment of statesman-like perplexity. That question recurred as Donald Trump, backed by a visibly perturbed vice president and two uneasy Cabinet secretaries, announced that the United States had just bombed three Iranian nuclear sites. It is a matter of consternation for all the right people, who, as Kissinger well knew, are often enough dead wrong. The brute fact is that Trump, more than any other president, Republican or Democrat, has taken decisive action against one of the two most dangerous nuclear programs in the world (the other being North Korea's). The Iranian government has for a generation not only spewed hatred at the United States and Israel, and at the West generally, but committed and abetted terrorism throughout the Middle East and as far as Europe and Latin America. Every day, its drones deliver death to Ukrainian cities. The Iranian government is a deeply hostile regime that has brought misery to many. A nuclear-armed Iran might very well have used a nuclear weapon against Israel, which is, as one former Iranian president repeatedly declared, 'a one-bomb country.' Because Israel might well have attempted to forestall such a blow with a preemptive nuclear strike of its own, the question is more likely when an Iranian bomb would have triggered the use of nuclear weapons, not whether it would have done so. But even without that apocalyptic possibility, a nuclear-armed Iran would have its own umbrella of deterrence to continue the terror and subversion with which it has persecuted its neighbors. There is no reason to think the regime has any desire to moderate those tendencies. In his address to the nation on Saturday night, Trump was right to speak—and to speak with what sounded like unfeigned fury—about the American servicemen and servicewomen maimed and killed by Iranian IEDs in Iraq. It was no less than the truth. Shame on his predecessors for not being willing to say so publicly. When someone is killing your men and women, a commander in chief is supposed to say—and, more important, do—something about it. Trump was also right in making this a precise, limited use of force while holding more in reserve. Israel has done the heavy lifting here, but he has contributed an essential element—and no more. He was right as well (for the strikes were indeed an act of war) to threaten far worse punishment if Iran attempts to retaliate. The rush in many quarters—including right-wing isolationists and anguished progressives—to conjure up prospects of a war that will engulf the Middle East reflected their emotions rather than any analytic judgment. Iran, it cannot be said often enough, is a weak state. Its air defenses no longer exist. Its security apparatus has been thoroughly penetrated by Israeli, American, and other intelligence agencies. Its finances are a wreck and its people are hostile to their rulers. For that matter, anyone who has served in uniform in the Middle East during the past few decades knows that Iran has consistently conducted low-level war against the United States through its proxies. Could Iran attempt to attack shipping in the Persian Gulf and the Straits of Hormuz? Yes—and members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy would die in large numbers in their speedboats or in their bases as they prepared to do so. The United States and its allies have prepared for that scenario for a long time, and Iranian sailors' desire for martyrdom has been overstated. Could Iran try to launch terror attacks abroad? Yes, but the idea that there is a broad silent network of Iranian terrorists just waiting for the signal to strike is chimerical. And remember, Iran's nuclear fangs have been pulled. True enough, not permanently, as many of the president's critics have already earnestly pointed out on television. But so much of that kind of commentary is pseudo-sophistication: Almost no strategic problem gets solved permanently, unless you are Rome dealing with Carthage in the Third Punic War, destroying the city, slaughtering its inhabitants, and sowing the furrows with salt. For some period—five years, maybe 10—Iran will not have a nuclear option. Its key facilities are smashed and its key scientists dead or living in fear of their lives. Similar complaints were made about the Israeli strike on the Iraqi Osirak reactor in 1981. The Israelis expected to delay the Iraqi program by no more than a year or two—but instead, the program was deferred indefinitely. As things go, crushing the facilities at Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan, following a sustained Israeli campaign against similar targets, was a major achievement, and a problem deferred for five years may be deferred forever. As for Iran, in 1988 Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini agreed to 'drink from the poisoned chalice' and accept a cease-fire with Iraq. He did so because the Iraq war was going badly, but also because he believed that the United States was willing to fight Iran: Operation Praying Mantis in 1988, following a mine explosion that damaged an American warship, involved the U.S. Navy sinking Iranian warships and destroying Iran's military installations. In 2003, after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Iran reportedly paused its nuclear program. When American forces in Iraq finally picked up five elite Quds Force members in 2007, the Iranians pulled back from their activities in Iraq as well. The killing of Qassem Soleimani in 2020 elicited only one feeble spasm of violence. The bottom line is that Iran's leaders do not relish the idea of tackling the United States directly, and that is because they are not fools. The president is an easy man to hate. He has done many bad things: undermining the rule of law, sabotaging American universities, inflicting wanton cruelty on illegal immigrants, lying, and engaging in corruption. With his fractured syntax and diction (including the peculiar signature 'Thank you for your attention to this matter' at the end of his more bombastic posts on Truth Social) he is easy to dismiss as a huckster. The sycophancy and boastfulness of his subordinates, including Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth when briefing the attack, are distasteful. But contempt and animosity, justified in some cases, are bad ways of getting into his mind and assessing his actions. Trump has surprised both friends and critics here. The isolationist wing of the MAGA movement was smacked down, although its members probably include the vice president and top media figures such as Tucker Carlson. Trump has confounded the posters of TACO ('Trump always chickens out') memes. He has disproved the notion that he takes his marching orders directly from the Kremlin, for the strikes were not in Russia's interest. He has left prominent progressives, including a dwindling band of Israel supporters, confused, bleating about war-powers resolutions that were deemed unnecessary when the Obama administration began bombing Libya. We live in a dangerous world, and one that is going to get more so—and indeed, in other respects worsened by the president's policies. But Trump got this one right, doing what his predecessors lacked the intestinal fortitude (or, to be fair, the promising opportunity) to do. He spoke with the brutal clarity needed in dealing with a cruel and dangerous regime. The world is a better place for this action and I, for one, applaud him for it.
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Trump ignites debate on presidential authority with Iran strikes and wins praise from Republicans
The instant divisions in the U.S. Congress reflected an already swirling debate over the president's ability to conduct such a consequential action without authorization from the House and Senate on the use of military force. While Trump is hardly the first U.S. president to go it alone, his expansive use of presidential power raised immediate questions about what comes next, and whether he is exceeding the limits of his authority. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'This was a massive gamble by President Trump, and nobody knows yet whether it will pay off,' said Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Advertisement Democrats, and a few Republicans, said the strikes were unconstitutional, and demanded more information in a classified setting. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York said that he received only a 'perfunctory notification' without any details, according to a spokesperson. 'No president should be allowed to unilaterally march this nation into something as consequential as war with erratic threats and no strategy,' Schumer said in a statement. 'Confronting Iran's ruthless campaign of terror, nuclear ambitions, and regional aggression demands strength, resolve, and strategic clarity.' Advertisement House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries said that Trump 'misled the country about his intentions, failed to seek congressional authorization for the use of military force and risks American entanglement in a potentially disastrous war in the Middle East.' The quick GOP endorsements of stepped up U.S. involvement in Iran came after Trump publicly considered the strikes for days and many congressional Republicans had cautiously said they thought he would make the right decision. The party's schism over Iran could complicate the GOP's efforts to boost Pentagon spending as part of a $350 billion national security package in Trump's 'big, beautiful' tax breaks bill, which is speeding toward votes next week. 'We now have very serious choices ahead to provide security for our citizens and our allies,' Wicker posted on X. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Senate Majority Leader John Thune both were briefed ahead of the strikes on Saturday, according to people familiar with the situation and granted anonymity to discuss it. Thune said Saturday evening that 'as we take action tonight to ensure a nuclear weapon remains out of reach for Iran, I stand with President Trump and pray for the American troops and personnel in harm's way.' Johnson said in a statement that the military operations 'should serve as a clear reminder to our adversaries and allies that President Trump means what he says.' House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rick Crawford, R-Ark., said he had also been in touch with the White House and 'I am grateful to the U.S. servicemembers who carried out these precise and successful strikes.' Advertisement Breaking from many of his Democratic colleagues, Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, an outspoken supporter of Israel, also praised the attacks on Iran. 'As I've long maintained, this was the correct move by @POTUS,' he posted. 'Iran is the world's leading sponsor of terrorism and cannot have nuclear capabilities.' Both parties have seen splits in recent days over the prospect of striking Iran, including some of Trump's most ardent supporters who share his criticism of America's 'forever wars.' Republican Rep. Warren Davidson of Ohio posted that 'while President Trump's decision may prove just, it's hard to conceive a rationale that's Constitutional.' Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie, a longtime opponent of U.S. involvement in foreign wars, also posted on X that 'This is not Constitutional.' 'This is not our fight,' said Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia. Most Democrats have maintained that Congress should have a say, even as presidents in both parties have ignored the legislative branch's constitutional authority. The Senate was scheduled to vote soon on a resolution from Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine that would require congressional approval before the U.S. declares war on Iran or takes specific military action. Kaine said the bombings were 'horrible judgment.' 'I will push for all senators to vote on whether they are for this third idiotic Middle East war,' Kaine said. Democratic Rep. Greg Casar, the chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, also called on Congress to immediately pass a war powers resolution. He said politicians had always promised that 'new wars in the Middle East would be quick and easy.' 'Then they sent other people's children to fight and die endlessly,' Casar said. 'Enough.'
Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
Senate GOP slashes megabill's tax costs with new accounting method
Tax legislation recently unveiled by Senate Republicans only costs $441 billion when tallied using a novel accounting method requested by the GOP. The new estimate by the Joint Committee on Taxation, which was released late Saturday night, shows how Senate Republicans were able to slash the costs of sweeping tax legislation set to be included in the GOP's sweeping megabill by using a 'current policy baseline' — a never-before-used technique that wipes out the cost of extending existing tax cuts that are set to expire at year's end. The contrast with the traditional method of fiscal scoring, accounting for tax policy as currently enacted into law, is profound: Similar tax legislation that passed the House in May was estimated by JCT to cost $3.8 trillion under the old method. In defending the revised baseline, Republicans have argued that extending current tax law shouldn't be counted as adding to the deficit because the GOP is merely preventing huge tax increases on individuals and businesses around the country. But critics have derided the measure, asserting that it threatens to blow up long-standing budget rules and disguises the cost of the GOP's marquee legislation. 'Extending the Trump tax cuts prevents a $4 trillion tax increase — this is not a change in current tax policy or tax revenue,' said Senate Finance Chair Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) in a statement on Sunday morning. 'This score more accurately reflects reality by measuring the effects of tax policy changes relative to the status quo.' Democrats have requested JCT release a score under the current-law approach. That will 'show the actual cost of the bill,' said Ryan Carey, a spokesperson for Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, the top Finance Democrat. 'Republicans rigged this score with deceptive math designed to hide the true, multi-trillion dollar cost of their proposals, and they wouldn't need to do this at all if their bill actually paid for itself,' Carey said. The new estimate shows the softened math of large tax cuts from those affecting individuals and families to businesses and companies. Extending basic individual tax rates lowered by Trump's 2017 tax bill, for instance, was estimated by JCT to cost around $2.2 trillion in the House-passed bill. In the Senate bill, under the new baseline, a permanent extension and modification of those rates costs only $83 billion. Likewise, an expansion of the Child Tax Credit in the House-passed bill would cost around $800 billion. In the Senate bill, JCT estimates that Senate Republicans' version of expansions to the family credit would cost only $124 billion. In the House bill, a permanent extension of a key deduction for business would cost around $820 billion. Senate Republicans proposal to make the deduction permanent would cost just $6 billion. Senate Republicans also made deviations to the House Republican plan on a number of the proposed tax cuts. The Senate GOP, for instance, dialed back the cost of President Donald Trump's campaign promises to provide tax relief for tips and overtime work by tens of billions of dollars. The GOP accounting gambit is expected to face a challenge from Senate Democrats, who will argue that the novel baseline does not comply with budget rules governing the filibuster-skirting reconciliation process. Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough is expected to weigh in on legality of the provisions in the GOP tax bill this week. But with Republicans intent on passing their megabill on party lines, they have been laying the groundwork to argue they don't need to heed advice from the parliamentarian on the current policy baseline issue and are preparing to potentially override Democrats' objection on the floor with a simple-majority vote. Fiscal hawks in the House will also likely be watching closely. Under a rule in the House budget set by Rep. Lloyd Smucker (R-Pa.), the amount of tax cuts in the GOP's megabill needs to be offset by a corresponding amount of spending cuts. Senate Majority Leader John Thune has already committed to finding at least $1.5 trillion in spending cuts. But if the total cost of Senate Republicans' tax bill exceeds $4 trillion under current-law accounting, House Republicans will insist that any further tax cuts will need to be matched dollar-for-dollar by further spending cuts.
