Congresswoman Omar's Nay Vote On Life Insurance Payouts Explained

Ilhan Omar, a Democratic congresswoman representing Minnesota's 5th congressional district, has been at the centre of controversy over her comments about the 9/11 attacks and her stance on life insurance payouts to terrorists' families. Omar, one of the first Muslim women in Congress, has faced criticism from Republicans and accusations of anti-Semitism for her remarks, which were deemed offensive to Jewish Americans and downplaying the 9/11 attacks. Amid the backlash, Omar stood by her comments, stating that she would not be silenced.

In 2017, while serving as a state representative, Omar voted against a bill that aimed to limit life insurance payouts to beneficiaries of suspected terrorists. The bill, known as H.F. 1397, was introduced in response to the 2015 San Bernardino shooting, where the perpetrator had taken out substantial life insurance policies before the attack. While the bill passed with overwhelming support, Omar and fellow representative John Lesch dissented, expressing concern that insurance companies could have too much discretion in defining terrorism. This vote, along with her previous comments about Israel and support for the BDS movement, has led to calls for her removal from the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Ilhan Omar's 2017 vote against a bill limiting life insurance payouts to terrorists

In 2017, Ilhan Omar voted against a bill in the Minnesota House of Representatives that sought to limit life insurance payouts to beneficiaries of persons furthering terrorism. The bill, Minnesota House File 1397 (H.F. No. 1397), aimed to allow life insurance companies to deny payouts to beneficiaries "if the insured's death occurs directly or indirectly as a result of the insured's furtherance of terrorism".

Omar was one of only two members of the Minnesota House to vote against the bill, which passed 127-2. The other representative to vote against it, John Lesch, explained that he was concerned the bill's wording gave insurance companies too much discretion over what constitutes terrorism. Lesch clarified that he was not opposed to the idea behind the bill, stating, "Terrorists should not be able to send life insurance benefits to beneficiaries based on bad faith recent policy purchases. I think we can all agree on that."

Omar did not publicly explain her vote against the bill, and her office did not respond to requests for comment. However, this vote, along with other actions she has taken, has led to criticism and calls for her removal from the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Before becoming a U.S. Representative for Minnesota's 5th congressional district in 2019, Omar served in the Minnesota House of Representatives from 2017 to 2019. During her tenure, she authored 38 bills and was an Assistant Minority Leader for the DFL (Democratic–Farmer–Labor) caucus.

The bill's response to Syed Farook's 2015 San Bernardino shooting

On December 2, 2015, Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, a married couple living in the city of Redlands, California, carried out a terrorist attack, consisting of a mass shooting and an attempted bombing, at the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino, California. Fourteen people were killed and 22 others were seriously injured.

In response to the attack, the Minnesota Legislature passed a bill that would give life insurance companies the right to deny payouts to beneficiaries whose loved one died while committing an act of terrorism. The bill, sponsored by Rep. Joe Hoppe (R-Chaska), was passed with a vote of 127-2, with Reps. Ilhan Omar and John Lesch as the only two lawmakers who voted against the measure.

The bill was a response to Syed Farook's shooting rampage in San Bernardino, California, in December 2015, that killed 14 people and injured 22. Authorities suggested that Farook made sure his life insurance policies, worth $275,000, were valid before the incident. After Farook died in a shootout with police, his mother fought to remain the beneficiary of those life insurance policies.

The bill gives insurance companies the right to deny payouts to beneficiaries if the insured was engaged in an act of terrorism at the time of death. Terrorism is defined as a violent felony that involves premeditation and intends to terrorize others or disrupt government, business, or lawful assembly.

Rep. John Lesch, who voted against the bill, raised concerns about an amendment that doesn't require a terrorist conviction in court to limit payment to beneficiaries, saying that insurance companies could use this provision to deny other types of claims. He also argued that the bill allows insurance companies, rather than courts, to decide what constitutes an act of terrorism.

Rep. Ilhan Omar did not publicly explain her vote against the bill. However, she has been accused of making antisemitic comments and has been criticized for her support of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel. She has also been accused of being sympathetic towards Islamic extremism and has called for compassion rather than punishment for those convicted of attempting to join terrorist groups.

Ilhan Omar's lack of comment on her vote

Ilhan Omar, the US representative for Minnesota's 5th congressional district, has been criticised for her refusal to comment on her vote against a bill that would allow life insurance companies to deny payouts to beneficiaries of suspected terrorists. Omar and John Lesch were the only two lawmakers who voted against the measure.

The bill, H.F. 1397, was passed in the Minnesota House in April 2017, with 127 votes for and 2 against. It was sponsored by Republican Joe Hoppe in response to Syed Farook’s shooting rampage in San Bernardino, California, in December 2015. Farook had made sure his life insurance policies were valid before the incident, and after he died in a shootout with police, his mother fought to remain the beneficiary of those policies.

Lesch, who voted against the bill, gave a thorough explanation for his decision, citing concerns about the bill's potential impact on insurance companies' ability to deny claims. However, Omar did not publicly explain why she cast her vote against the bill. This lack of comment has led to criticism and speculation about her motives, with some accusing her of being anti-Semitic and supportive of jihadists.

Omar has faced numerous death threats and has been the target of derogatory comments by political opponents, including former President Donald Trump, due to her background and controversial statements. She has also been accused of making antisemitic remarks and has been criticised for her stance on Israel. In February 2023, the Republican-controlled House voted to remove Omar from her seat on the Foreign Affairs Committee due to her comments about Israel, which were deemed antisemitic.

Despite the controversy surrounding her vote and her lack of public explanation, Omar remains a prominent figure in American politics, known for her progressive views and advocacy for various social and political issues.

John Lesch's concerns about the bill's amendment

John Lesch, a Democrat from St. Paul, raised concerns about an amendment added to the bill that would allow insurance companies to limit life insurance payments to beneficiaries of suspected terrorists. The amendment does not require a terrorist conviction in court to limit payment to beneficiaries, and Lesch argued that insurance companies could use this provision to deny other types of claims. He suggested that insurance companies, motivated by financial incentives, would be allowed to decide what constitutes an act of terrorism under the statute, and that the burden of proof would be lowered. Lesch provided a hypothetical scenario to illustrate his point:

> In a riot after a hockey championship, a group of fans leave the stadium, and some of them throw bottles and block traffic. In the process, a few (not all) of them deface property in a manner that constitutes a felony (over $1000 in damage). A motorist, frustrated with being blocked in traffic by a group of drunk hockey fans, decides he’s tired of waiting and steps on the gas, running through the crowd, killing one of the revelers (who was not doing anything wrong other than picking the wrong crowd to hang out with, but who would likely have been charged with accessory to Criminal Damage to Property had he survived). Did the dead fan commit an act of terrorism? Most reasonable people would say no. But the bill that passed yesterday would allow an insurance company (who has a financial incentive to deny claims) to decide that it falls under the law which would expressly permit the insurer to deny the claim to the deceased’s grieving widow and family.

Lesch's concerns highlight the potential for insurance companies to abuse the amendment by denying legitimate claims and the lack of clarity around what constitutes an "act of terrorism."

Ilhan Omar's 2016 letter asking for leniency for men who tried to join ISIS

In 2016, US Representative Ilhan Omar wrote a letter to US District Court Judge Michael Davis, asking for leniency in the sentencing of nine men convicted of attempting to join ISIS. Omar's letter was sent on behalf of Abdirahman Yasin Daud, one of the nine men, who was facing 30 years in prison for trying to join the terrorist group.

In her letter, Omar argued that decades-long prison sentences for young offenders could fuel radicalization. She wrote:

> "Incarcerating 20-year-old men for 30 or 40 years is essentially a life sentence. Society will have no expectations of the to-be 50- or 60-year-old released prisoners; it will view them with distrust and revulsion. Such punitive measures not only lack efficacy, they inevitably create an environment in which extremism can flourish, aligning with the presupposition of terrorist recruitment: 'Americans do not accept you and continue to trivialize your value. Instead of being a nobody, be a martyr.' The best deterrent to fanaticism is a system of compassion. We must alter our attitude and approach; if we truly want to affect change, we should refocus our efforts on inclusion and rehabilitation. A long-term prison sentence for one who chose violence to combat direct marginalization is a statement that our justice system misunderstands the guilty. A restorative approach to justice assesses the lure of criminality and addresses it."

Omar's letter sparked controversy, with some criticising her for excusing the defendants' actions and aligning herself with would-be terrorists. However, others defended her, arguing that she was advocating for restorative justice and alternatives to incarceration.

Frequently asked questions