Reading the bill as primarily applying to the actions of males, typically the people wearing a condom during intercourse, Rep.Tom Burditt, R-West Rutland, said females can lie about contraceptive use and STD diagnoses, which is “just as much stealthing as removing a condom before sex.”
By Aubrey Weaver | Community News Service
House legislators passed a bill last Friday that would allow victims of “stealthing” — when someone secretly removes or tampers with a condom during sex — to bring a civil case against their assailant.
Despite the resounding 121–12 passage in the full chamber, H.40’s final day in committee, Feb. 28, devolved into a heated debate about whether the bill’s protections would favor one sex over another.
“I have a college-age daughter who could do everything right to protect herself and find herself with a sexually transmitted disease, perhaps something that she would have to deal with for the rest of her life, because stealthing is something that is discussed and laughed about in certain circles,” said Rep. William Notte, D-Rutland, beginning the discussion. “This bill fills a void and what is currently available is legal remedy.”
Quickly, however, talks in the committee room turned contentious when Rep.Tom Burditt, R-West Rutland, shared his complaints about the legislation. Burditt began by agreeing with Notte “100%” but soon drew the line at what he views as the inequitable nature of the legislation.
“I don’t disagree with anything in here, but it doesn’t go far enough,” said Burditt.
Reading the bill as primarily applying to the actions of males, typically the people wearing a condom during intercourse, Burditt said females can lie about contraceptive use and STD diagnoses, which is “just as much stealthing as removing a condom before sex.”
“Because of that,” said Burditt, “I look at this as the most unequal piece of legislation to come out of this room, out of this building.”
Rep. Barbara Rachelson, D-Burlington, who introduced the bill, was quick to respond. She argued that this bill is “incremental not unequal” and said she is “not about just promoting one-sided things.”
Rachelson said she represents a lot of university students in her district, and they are “excited to see this legislation” because stealthing is an emerging problem they see on campus.
“This is a very specific problem that we can address,” Rachelson said. “It’s been addressed in other countries. It’s been addressed in California. It’s time for us to do it.”
Apologizing first for his “bluntness,” Notte gave an impassioned response to Burditt: “If this bill wasn’t equal, if this bill did somehow favor women, I don’t give a rat’s ass.”
That, he said, is because “there’s been a double standard between men and women” regarding sex and “what happens sexually, either consensually or nonconsensually in this country, it has favored men 99.9% of the time.”
Notte added, “If this bill is focused on women, and this bill does something more for women than it does for men, good. And it doesn’t balance the scales at all.”
Rep. Ela Chapin, D-East Montpelier, said she “appreciates the gender differential as well.,”
Chapin said, “While I agree either gender could be held accountable for this tampering, we know largely it is going to ultimately protect more women in a different way than men.”
Rep. Joseph Andriano, D-Orwell, implored his colleagues considering voting no to “just reflect for a moment on how disgusting this is.”
“I personally hope that we can show to our constituents and young people throughout our state that this is disgusting,” he said
Rep. Kenneth Goslant, R-Northfieldn, was not persuaded. “If this wasn’t being voted on so quick, maybe some of us that also think (stealthing) is disgusting might have a difference in opinion,” said Goslant. “But right now, voting on it today, even though it is disgusting, I still can’t get there.”
He continued: “The intent of this bill is good. I have daughters, I have granddaughters. I am not going to support this bill. I support what the bill is about, but I cannot support this bill at this time the way it is.”
Ultimately the bill passed out of committee and, with its passage in the full chamber, now rests in the Senate.
The Community News Service is part of the Reporting and Documentary Storytelling Program at the University of Vermont.
Fair is fair……..
So all divorces should be divided equally, 50% of men getting custody, 50% of women.
Fair is fair…….
Any woman who fakes birth control, who impregnates themselves from oral sex, who gets pregnant by another man and frames her husband or boyfriend for the baby should do the same jail time.
How about this, if a woman gets pregnant without consent of the man, ie married. Then the man is only responsible for the cost of an abortion. He did not consent to bring a child into this world.
Can you see how these arguments on both sides are not about love? Can you see how messed up our leaders are? How they are not departing any wisdom? How they are dividing men and women?
God has a perfect plan, sex is for marriage…..can you see how perfect it is?
Do we have some legislative action here that actually is forcing those involved to acknowledge the existence and the distinction of two biological genders and admit that their safety concerns have to do only with anatomy as opposed to how one identifies? Can we assume that the sponsor, in order to address these safety concerns effectively must be able to define and distinguish between the two genders and offer her definition of a “woman”? And how would one legally distinguish between a deliberate act and a “wardrobe malfunction”? If the encounter only involved 2 persons, it’s one’s word against the other. In the case of multiple participants, I suppose there could be several witnesses to the “stealthing”. The demoprog caucus of the Vermont legislature have become a circus side show of individuals who use it for purposes of virtue signaling and to make a name for themselves by competing on who can propose the most outlandish ideas. When the sponsor uses the justification: “It’s been addressed in California. It’s time for us to do it”, we know that we are in trouble.
My response toH.40 the Sex Stealthing Legislation is,as a Representative from Caledonia #3 is why is this even discussed on the House floor in the name of equity? Have our morals fallen that far and our reasoning so shallow that we discuss what people do in private and try to control morals?
Hey Commiefornia has this law for their perverted population so the sheep under the liberal dome have to have it. Isn’t that reason enough? Monkey see monkey do that’s our brain dead legislature. Their saving the world don’t ‘cha know…
Holy crap, Vermont has way too many issues to solve than wasting time on stuff like this. Vermont is like the Wild, Wild West, everything is up for grabs because there is no one in charge with sense enough to say, “No, we are not wasting time on this, we have much more important things to do”!
Perhaps sex should not be used as a recreational activity?
The risk factors of doing this are growing by the day.. and this is not a new development, things have just gotten that much worse as society falls into lower levels of depravity.
It looks like the government raising kids has not worked out as well as intact traditional family units do.
But hey, lets not get into the real ‘Why’ and ‘How’ we’ve come to needing to trying to solve this issue.
Slapping paint on a rotted house doesn’t do anything but make the house look nice as it falls over.