Have we reached zero tolerance for sexual misconduct? | Jill Abramson

Have we arrived at a zero tolerance moment for sexual misconduct by powerful men? Al Franken could be the test case.

In 2006, he is alleged to have forcibly kissed a woman. There is also a photo of him posing, like a jackass, appearing to grope her breasts as she slept. The photo, posted by the woman on Twitter, is already a classic of the #MeToo movement.

Still, I see a wide gulf between Harvey Weinstein, facing rape allegations, and Franken’s admitted misconduct. Franken was not yet elected to public office when this photo was taken. He was not the woman’s boss. He has sincerely apologized and called for a Senate ethics investigation of himself.

These are mitigating circumstances.

I worry that zero tolerance does not allow for such distinctions. The immediate calls for Franken to resign, some coming from Democratic progressives and feminist columnists, concerns me.

The historical arc from Anita Hill to now covers a generation. When Hill made her allegations of sexual harassment during Clarence Thomas’ confirmation, sexual harassment was not a familiar term, certainly not in the Senate.

Back then it was progressive Democrats like Edward Kennedy and Joe Biden who failed to protect Hill from having her credibility savaged by the then all-male Senate Judiciary Committee.

Before Hill, it was common for victims to be blamed and shamed. After Hill, inspired by her courage, thousands of women were emboldened to file sexual harassment complaints. More women, but still not nearly enough, were elected to the Senate.

Now we have entered another period: After Harvey. In the new era, Al Franken may be booted from the Senate and Bill Clinton’s sexual misconduct is being reconsidered and denounced anew by women who fought against his impeachment in 1998. After all, he, too has been accused of rape.

If the era of zero tolerance brings positive change, as Hill’s testimony did, I’m all for it. I worry, however, that it may cost women rather than benefit them. And I wish it didn’t come at a point where Republicans, some of whom are guilty of harassment themselves, are so firmly ensconced in power.

In the White House, Donald Trump is laughing in delight at the Franken case. He’s tweeted about how bad that photo is. How can Mr “Grab ‘em by the Pussy” possibly have the gall to throw stones? If we are to re-examine the claims of Clinton’s accusers, surely we should also resurface the claims of the dozen women who accused Donald Trump of sexual misconduct during the 2016 campaign.

On Friday, a group of Republican women in Alabama gathered with Kayla Moore, Roy Moore’s wife, to show their support for him, calling him “an officer and a gentleman.”

Moore was heavily favored to win a Senate seat before the Washington Post revealed women who had been molested by Moore when they were teenagers, one when she was 14-years-old. The New Yorker then revealed that Moore was banned from his local mall for his creepy stalking of girls.

Though some Republicans have called on him to drop out and he currently trails in the polls, a barrage of fake news articles about the women accusers and hatred of the media and political elite in Washington, DC may yet tip Alabama voters back to Moore.

The Senate he could still join is already controlled by Republicans who are out to tear down abortion rights as part of a reactionary anti-women agenda. Moore has an uncomfortably close relationship with activists who advocate violence against abortion providers and is a devout member of the radical “Personhood Movement” which holds that the fetus, from the moment of conception, enjoys the full protection of the Equal Protection Clause.

Various states have passed “anti-fetus homicide” laws advocated by the Movement. If he makes it to the Congress, Moore will join a right-wing cabal determined to set back decades of laws that protect women’s health and abortion rights.

Sexual misconduct is also in the bloodstream of the US supreme court, where Justice Thomas, having been confirmed in 1991 despite Hill’s credible charges, leads the conservative wing. The latter has been made more muscular by the addition of Trump’s nominee, Neil Gorsuch, and the strong possibility of other court openings. Trump has already named a record number of federal appellate judges who are likely to favor curbs on abortion.

Casting out Al Franken, who has been a passionate, zealous defender of women’s rights in a Senate grown ever more hostile to them, could remove an important weapon in the embattled Democratic arsenal.

A reassessment of Bill Clinton’s behavior era could have the same counter-productive effect. His accusers already signed up to help Donald Trump get elected when they appeared with him before one of the presidential debates. They have all made a devil’s bargain with various Republican creeps, including Roger Stone.

One of Trump’s key political advisers recently told me that the appearance of the Clinton accusers with Trump “completely blunted the damage of the Access Hollywood tape. It was a very important turning point in the campaign.” The Clinton accusers helped elect a different sexual predator. And unlike Clinton, who was an ally of the women’s movement, Trump is its mortal enemy.

Some never forgave Hillary Clinton for tacitly condoning her husband’s sexual misconduct. This hurt her campaign. Another lethal blow came because of the sexual crimes of the husband of her closest aide, Huma Abedin, which prompted James Comey to re-open the email investigation that Clinton herself has cited as one of the main reasons she lost. Thank you, Anthony Weiner.

In theory, I’m all for zero tolerance of sexual misconduct. In practice, I worry it could result in a backlash that ends up hurling us to the way things were before Anita Hill. We will need a chastened Al Franken to help make sure this never happens.

• Jill Abramson is a Guardian columnist