The law didn't recognize my sexual assault. Texas lawmakers must fix that
Two years ago, I set off on a journey that would change my life. A journey to heal. To reclaim my story. To take back the night that shattered everything for me as a sophomore at the University of Texas, when I was sexually assaulted. I didn't know then what this path would look like. I just knew I had to do something.
I ended up running 29 marathons across this country. At finish lines, on playgrounds, in quiet moments between interviews — I met survivors. Story after story felt far too similar to mine. The weight of those stories pressed down on me until silence was no longer an option.
I didn't know what to do with that weight at first. So I turned it into something visible. I ran a marathon carrying a mattress — because that's what survivors are forced to carry every single day, the weight of what was done to us, and a world that too often refuses to believe us.
Then I found out the worst night of my life didn't even count as a sexual assault in the eyes of Texas law.
I was assaulted 10 years ago when I went to a fraternity party with a group of my sorority sisters. I was handed a drink that I believe was laced with something, because I have little memory of that night. But I remember the bed. And I remember saying "no" over and over again.
I was clearly targeted. Taken advantage of. Humiliated. One person handed me a drink, and another person took what wasn't his.
I can't remember the worst part of that night, but I do remember this: He laughed. He laughed while explaining what he did.
I've had to ask a question no Texan should ever have to ask: Would it have been better if I was raped in a different state — like Florida or Oklahoma — where at least they would tell me that what happened to me counts?
I can't begin to describe what survivors go through after we survive. I don't have words strong enough to express what it feels like to know that, for many of us, our own state offers loopholes to our rapists while closing the doors of justice to us.
Texas' law fails to properly address sexual assaults that happen when a person is unable to consent because of intoxication or impairment from a substance. The law also fails to recognize it's an assault when sexual activity happens after a person has withdrawn their consent.
House Bill 3073, which passed the House 129-4, would clarify the legal definition of sexual assault in both of those areas. But we're still waiting for the Senate to move forward on this bill to make it clear that no one deserves to be violated, and no one deserves to be disbelieved.
This is not a radical request. Gov. Greg Abbott's Sexual Assault Survivors' Task Force recommended these clarifications to the law. Our representatives overwhelmingly support it. Members of the Texas Senate, don't let silence be your answer.
In February, as I crawled the Austin Marathon for 22 hours, it was the worst pain I've ever known. My knees were shredded. My hands were bruised and bleeding. But I kept crawling because that's what survivors are forced to do. We crawl through pain. Through shame. Through silence.
I still had 13 miles to go to complete the marathon distance. But I made a decision in that moment: I didn't have to stay down anymore. I could stand. I could walk. I could run. I could fight.
And that's what I'm doing now. I'm fighting for every survivor who was silenced, every survivor who wasn't believed, every survivor still carrying the weight.
So Sen. Pete Flores and members of the Senate Criminal Justice Committee: Please don't let Texas be a state where survivors are forced to crawl. Help us stand. Vote HB 3073 out of committee now, before it's too late.
Summer Willis is a Texas-born survivor and founder of Strength Through Strides, a nonprofit that empowers survivors and advocates for policy reforms around sexual assault.
This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: Senate running out of time to close sexual assault loopholes | Opinion
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
25 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Mexican president condemns L.A. violence, calls on Mexicans to act peacefully
MEXICO CITY — As images of chaos in Los Angeles dominated Mexican media, President Claudia Sheinbaum condemned the weekend clashes but refrained from any direct denunciation of Washington's hard-line immigration tactics — while urging Mexican citizens in California to eschew violence. Sheinbaum, who has won widespread acclaim for her deft handling of incendiary pronouncements by President Trump on tariffs, drug smuggling and other issues, again sought to walk a fine line: She called on U.S. authorities to 'respect the human dignity' of 'hard-working' and 'honest' Mexican immigrants, while denouncing unlawful acts. 'Burning patrol cars seems more like an act of provocation than one of resistance,' Sheinbaum said Monday. A day earlier, the president had been more pointed in her critique of U.S. immigration roundups, which have drawn widespread outrage here. 'The immigration phenomenon cannot be dealt with through violence or raids,' Sheinbaum told a crowd Sunday at a hospital ribbon-cutting outside the capital. News reports and social media accounts in Mexico have widely circulated images of U.S. agents in tactical gear facing off against protesters baring Mexican flags. 'We call on the government of the United States to avoid any act of repression and rectify its unjust and arbitrary policy against millions of immigrants,' Gerardo Fernández Noroña, president of the Mexican Senate and a member of Sheinbaum's ruling Morena bloc, told reporters. On the streets in Mexico City, many Mexicans focused not on the protests, but recent raids by immigration agents in Southern California. They assailed what they viewed as unwarranted attacks against compatriots and relatives. 'I have some cousins living in California and they're very worried and frightened about the raids,' said Alejandra Morales, 47, who works in a rehab clinic in the capital. 'They are good people who only seek a better life for their kids. Trump may ruin their lives.' Said Sofía González, 32, a veterinarian: 'I think President Sheinbaum should be very forceful in her protests against Trump. We've had enough of Trump doing crazy things and maltreating Mexicans.' In her comments, Sheinbaum expressed appreciation to Los Angeles for having provided a home for generations of Mexican immigrants and their families. Mexican citizens are the largest immigrant group in the United States, numbering more than 11 million, according to various estimates. Mexican-born immigrants are widely dispersed across the country, though Los Angeles is still seen here as the capital of the Mexican disapora. Los Angeles 'has been generous, and we Mexicans have been generous with this city,' Sheinbaum said. According to the Mexican foreign ministry, 42 Mexican citizens were arrested in the recent raids, 37 men and 5 women. Four had previous removal orders and have already been expelled back to Mexico; two others agreed to return to Mexico voluntarily. Ronald Johnson, the U.S. ambassador in Mexico City, defended the Trump administration crackdown, while also praising Mexico and its people. 'The violent protesters in LA don't represent the Mexican people: dignified and hard-working, that we know and respect,' Johnson wrote in Spanish on X. 'Our actions protect every community and reinforce the rule of law. Mexico is our partner and our nations are profoundly united.' Sheinbaum's reaction to the clashes in Los Angeles is in line with her efforts to avoid disputes with the Trump administration. Her motto has been: 'cooperation, not subjugation.' The president has criticized Trump's mass deportation agenda, but said that Mexico welcomes its deported citizens. To date, Mexican authorities say, deportations from the United States to Mexico have not spiked, despite the Trump administration policies. In recent years, the United States has removed about 200,000 Mexican citizens back to Mexico each year. Special correspondent Cecilia Sánchez Vidal contributed.
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Judge denies Michael Madigan's motion for new trial, setting stage for high-stakes sentencing Friday
A federal judge on Monday denied a motion by former House Speaker Michael Madigan seeking to overturn his recent conviction on bribery and other corruption counts, setting the stage for a high-stakes sentencing hearing later this week. Madigan, 83, was back in the federal courtroom for the first time since a jury convicted him nearly four months ago. But unlike his marathon trial, Monday's hearing was brief. After both sides waived oral arguments on the defense motion, U.S. District Judge John Robert Blakey announced he was denying it, though his ruling, which he said is more than 100 pages long, won't be made public for some time. Madigan sat through the 15-minute hearing without comment and walked out carrying an umbrella. Blakey is holding another hearing Tuesday to go over issues on the sentencing guidelines in Madigan's case, which hinge partly on how much money ComEd stood to gain because of legislation the speaker helped usher through the legislative process. Madigan's attorneys are also asking Blakey to strike language from a prosecution filing last Friday revealing for the first time publicly that Madigan 'has amassed a personal fortune of more than $40 million' — a disclosure reported by the Tribune over the weekend. The defense wrote in a motion filed ahead of Monday's hearing that Madigan served the public as a legislator and lawyer for more than 60 years and 'chose frugality over extravagance, remaining in the same modest home for more than fifty years while making prudent savings and investment choices.' 'The government offers zero evidence—absolutely nothing—to justify broadcasting specific details about his net worth,' the motion stated. 'The government's decision to splash his personal financial information across a public filing represents a gross breach of the rules.' Blakey said he'd take up the issue on Tuesday. Madigan's sentencing, set for Friday afternoon, is one of the most highly anticipated hearings in years at the Dirksen U.S. Courthouse. Prosecutors have asked for a hefty 12 1/2 year prison term and $1.5 million fine, while the defense is seeking probation along with a period of home confinement. Madigan's defense team filed a motion in March arguing for a new trial in his corruption case, saying prosecutors failed to prove the then-powerful Democrat knew about a scheme by ComEd to pay off his associates and alleging Blakey made a series of mistakes in his evidentiary rulings. The 73-page motion alleged those errors tainted the jury with highly prejudicial evidence, and asked Blakey to reverse the jury's verdict on certain guilty counts and grant a new trial on others. Among the missteps that Madigan's legal team says warrants a new trial: letting in a now-infamous FBI wiretap where Madigan tells his longtime confidant, Michael McClain, that some ComEd contractors 'made out like bandits' for little work; allowing the jury to hear prejudicial testimony about sexual harassment allegations; and including a recorded phone call between McClain and the speaker's son, Andrew Madigan, about another public utility, Peoples Gas, being forced to make political hires. The defense filing also argued that despite the jury's guilty verdict, prosecutors failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Madigan knew about any scheme to enrich his friends or that there was a 'this-for-that' agreement to help shepherd ComEd's legislation in Springfield. 'Michael Madigan is not corrupt. He never exchanged his duty to serve his constituents for private benefit — the essence of corruption,' the filing stated. 'For decades, Madigan sought to ensure ComEd did not get away with ripping off consumers in Illinois. Madigan's primary purpose was to work hard for his community and the Democratic party.' Such post-trial motions are routine and rarely granted. But the filing provides a blueprint for a likely appeal to the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Madigan's trial capped one of the most significant political corruption investigations in Chicago's checkered history. It also cemented an extraordinary personal fall for Madigan, the longest-serving state legislative leader in the nation's history who for decades held an iron-tight grip on the House as well as the state Democratic Party. After 11 days of deliberation, the jury's final verdict was mixed. Madigan was convicted of 10 of 23 counts, including marquee allegations that he agreed to squeeze lucrative, do-nothing contracts from ComEd for pals such as former Alds. Frank Olivo and Michael Zalewski and precinct captains Ray Nice and Edward Moody, all while the utility won a series of major legislation victories. Madigan was also convicted on six out of seven counts — including wire fraud and Travel Act violations — regarding a plan to get ex-Ald. Daniel Solis, a key FBI mole who testified at length in the trial, appointed to a state board. Jurors deadlocked on all six counts related to Madigan's co-defendant McClain. jmeisner@
Chicago Tribune
an hour ago
- Chicago Tribune
Judge denies Michael Madigan's motion for new trial, setting stage for high-stakes sentencing Friday
A federal judge on Monday denied a motion by former House Speaker Michael Madigan seeking to overturn his recent conviction on bribery and other corruption counts, setting the stage for a high-stakes sentencing hearing later this week. Madigan, 83, was back in the federal courtroom for the first time since a jury convicted him nearly four months ago. But unlike his marathon trial, Monday's hearing was brief. After both sides waived oral arguments on the defense motion, U.S. District Judge John Robert Blakey announced he was denying it, though his ruling, which he said is more than 100 pages long, won't be made public for some time. Madigan sat through the 15-minute hearing without comment and walked out carrying an umbrella. Blakey is holding another hearing Tuesday to go over issues on the sentencing guidelines in Madigan's case, which hinge partly on how much money ComEd stood to gain because of legislation the speaker helped usher through the legislative process. Madigan's attorneys are also asking Blakey to strike language from a prosecution filing last Friday revealing for the first time publicly that Madigan 'has amassed a personal fortune of more than $40 million' — a disclosure reported by the Tribune over the weekend. The defense wrote in a motion filed ahead of Monday's hearing that Madigan served the public as a legislator and lawyer for more than 60 years and 'chose frugality over extravagance, remaining in the same modest home for more than fifty years while making prudent savings and investment choices.' 'The government offers zero evidence—absolutely nothing—to justify broadcasting specific details about his net worth,' the motion stated. 'The government's decision to splash his personal financial information across a public filing represents a gross breach of the rules.' Blakey said he'd take up the issue on Tuesday. Madigan's sentencing, set for Friday afternoon, is one of the most highly anticipated hearings in years at the Dirksen U.S. Courthouse. Prosecutors have asked for a hefty 12 1/2 year prison term and $1.5 million fine, while the defense is seeking probation along with a period of home confinement. Madigan's defense team filed a motion in March arguing for a new trial in his corruption case, saying prosecutors failed to prove the then-powerful Democrat knew about a scheme by ComEd to pay off his associates and alleging Blakey made a series of mistakes in his evidentiary rulings. The 73-page motion alleged those errors tainted the jury with highly prejudicial evidence, and asked Blakey to reverse the jury's verdict on certain guilty counts and grant a new trial on others. Among the missteps that Madigan's legal team says warrants a new trial: letting in a now-infamous FBI wiretap where Madigan tells his longtime confidant, Michael McClain, that some ComEd contractors 'made out like bandits' for little work; allowing the jury to hear prejudicial testimony about sexual harassment allegations; and including a recorded phone call between McClain and the speaker's son, Andrew Madigan, about another public utility, Peoples Gas, being forced to make political hires. The defense filing also argued that despite the jury's guilty verdict, prosecutors failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Madigan knew about any scheme to enrich his friends or that there was a 'this-for-that' agreement to help shepherd ComEd's legislation in Springfield. 'Michael Madigan is not corrupt. He never exchanged his duty to serve his constituents for private benefit — the essence of corruption,' the filing stated. 'For decades, Madigan sought to ensure ComEd did not get away with ripping off consumers in Illinois. Madigan's primary purpose was to work hard for his community and the Democratic party.' Such post-trial motions are routine and rarely granted. But the filing provides a blueprint for a likely appeal to the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Madigan's trial capped one of the most significant political corruption investigations in Chicago's checkered history. It also cemented an extraordinary personal fall for Madigan, the longest-serving state legislative leader in the nation's history who for decades held an iron-tight grip on the House as well as the state Democratic Party. After 11 days of deliberation, the jury's final verdict was mixed. Madigan was convicted of 10 of 23 counts, including marquee allegations that he agreed to squeeze lucrative, do-nothing contracts from ComEd for pals such as former Alds. Frank Olivo and Michael Zalewski and precinct captains Ray Nice and Edward Moody, all while the utility won a series of major legislation victories. Madigan was also convicted on six out of seven counts — including wire fraud and Travel Act violations — regarding a plan to get ex-Ald. Daniel Solis, a key FBI mole who testified at length in the trial, appointed to a state board. Jurors deadlocked on all six counts related to Madigan's co-defendant McClain.
