This Texas Republican Would Really Prefer You Don’t Ask Him About the Violence Against Women Act

“You still want to keep running this camera, or you want to learn about this?” 

Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas, speaks with reporters as he leaves the House Republican Conference meeting in the Capitol.Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call/AP

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

The Violence Against Women Act, a landmark law passed by Congress in 1994 aimed at protecting women who are victims of domestic abuse and sexual violence, is set to expire on December 7. And while two VAWA-related bills have been introduced in the House, including a long-term extension by Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) and other House Democrats, no Republicans have yet to sign on as co-sponsors.

So at a forum in Dallas on Thursday, a local TV reporter asked Texas Republican Rep. Pete Sessions about voting against VAWA reauthorization five years ago. Sessions, who is in the middle of a contentious reelection campaign against Democrat Colin Allred, a former NFL player turned civil rights attorney, decided to use the opportunity to mansplain to a reporter how Congress works.

A video of the exchange shows Sessions, chair of the House Rules Committee, going back and forth with NBC 5 reporter Laura Harris in an increasingly testy manner. Sessions said he supported the law but eventually told Harris she was “confused” before lecturing her on the difference between policy and appropriations. When Harris pushed him further, Sessions responded, “You still want to keep running this camera, or you want to learn about this?” 

After the clip surfaced, Allred’s campaign manager, Paige Hutchinson, tweeted that Sessions couldn’t defend his voting record, adding it was “time for new leadership.” 

Sessions, who has the backing of President Donald Trump, will greet Vice President Mike Pence and Sen. Ted Cruz next week. A recent New York Times/Siena poll showed that the Sessions-Allred race remains tight, with Sessions up by a mere point. 

Meanwhile, Sessions isn’t the only lawmaker up for reelection whose support for VAWA has come into question lately. In another tight Texas race, Democrat Lizzie Fletcher called on incumbent Rep. John Culberson to support Lee’s bill and criticized him for failing to “stand with the women of Texas in addressing the epidemic of violence against women.” Culberson also voted against VAWA renewal in 2013. 

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist 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 need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist 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 need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

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