Lively exchange between GOP, Democratic lawmakers on H40’s gender inequity
Rep. Tom Burditt (R-Rutland Town) and Rep. Bill Notte (D-Rutland City) took opposing sides on the gender fairness of a stealth condom bill.
By Guy Page
A bill singling out sex partners for removing condoms AKA “stealthing” passed out of the House Judiciary Committee Tuesday 8-3 and now goes to the House floor.
“No person shall engage in a sexual act with another person when consent to the sexual act is made with the explicit understanding that a condom would be used and intentionally and without consent remove or tamper with the condom prior to or during the sexual act in a manner likely to render it ineffective for its common purpose,” the bill states.
Condoms, of course, are used by men. The bill doesn’t reference women’s contraception, like pills or IUDs. This omission led Rep. Tom Burditt (R-Rutland Town) in committee discussion to call H.40 “the most unequal piece of legislation that’s ever come out of this room, out of this building.”
Women deceiving men about birth control is “as much stealthing as somebody removing a condom before they have sex,” Burditt said.
With its narrow focus on condoms, and the possibility that the bill would disproportionately benefit women who are victim to stealthing, Rep. Tom Burditt, R-West Rutland, on Tuesday called H.40 before casting his “no” vote.
Rep. Bill Notte (D-Rutland) took exception: “If this bill wasn’t equal, if this bill did somehow favor women, I don’t give a rat’s a – – …..Because you want to look at the history of sexual abuse, you want to look at the history of sexual violence, you want to look at how there’s been a double standard between men and women and what happens sexually — either consensually or non-consensually — in this country, it has favored man 99.9% of the time.
When the bill is taken for second reading today or tomorrow, Rep. Mark Higley (R-Lowell) said he plans to vote no. First, because he agrees with Burditt – both men and women should be held accountable for deceiving their partner about birth control, he said.
But Higley also said the fact that this bill is getting committee and floor attention, while other crucial bills addressing serious civil rights and heath problems are not, reflects poorly on the legislative priorities.
“I would probably be voting no just for the simple fact that so far this Legislature doesn’t have time for very important bills involving conscientious objections by healthcare providers in institutions, and for adverse vaccinations,” Higley said.
Higley is the sponsor of H183, protecting health care providers rights of conscience, and H189, reporting on adverse reactions to immunizations.
Categories: Legislation
Legislators with too much time on their hands evidenced by these B.S laws as if the people of Vermont need more laws………….
Is there anything more important than this bill to work on? Stop wasting tax payer money and get serious about the job we elected you to do.
I’m expecting to see a bill appear any day now that will tell us how often we’re allowed to use the toilet on a daily basis, with a regulated annual gross volume output, and a maximum toilet paper allowance, all based on a graph showing the number of people in the household.
They need the information so they can figure out how to tax us on using the bathroom.
I also enjoy the language of the bill here, “…or tamper with the condom prior to or during the sexual act in a manner likely to render it ineffective for its common purpose.”
It would seem that a woman who takes a used condom and “ tampers with it,” in a “manner likely to render it ineffective,” is off the hook, boys, because she did it not “prior to or during the sexual act,” but rather afterwards. Nice little loophole there, ladies.
And by the way, the NBA had to warn its players about this issue exactly, because women were inseminating themselves via stolen used condoms in order to get huge payouts, and there’s absolutely nothing a man can do in such a case. Perfectly legal, and amounts to rape, followed by 18-22 years of indentured servitude.
Besides the fact that you can legislate this all you want but good luck proving it, it seems obvious to me that a committed relationship built on trust is unlikely to have these problems. That’s the main issue; hookup culture.
I think something is being overlooked here, namely that condoms are about more than contraception. They are also about preventing sexually transmitted infections. While that is almost squarely in man’s court, with the “female condom” being very infrequently even considered, it does exist. So the language is balanced for both sexes by saying “condom.” If someone has consensual sex with another who is supposedly using a condom (which is desired for STI protection), it (and the proposed law) appear to treat both sexes equally, as it should.
To quote Bill Notte, “I don’t give a rat’s a – –“ about promiscuous people getting an STI, it’s consequences for poorly thought out choices. Monogamy doesn’t have that problem. So here is the choice: monogamous relationship built on trust, or promiscuous relationships built on selfish lusts. If you do the math first, it’s easy to deduce the results…and then make your choice, live with the results.
Is this really what our legislatures are working on??? Unbelievable
From the pocketbook to the bedroom, there can never be enough control for these people
Too much time on their hands? Consider the damage they can do if they decide to make themselves full time, professional legislators!
Look what we’ve done. Perhaps we could submit a referendum to have the legislature just go into recess for several years. With the populous running their own lives for awhile we could then consider starting the commonweal over from scratch?
Unfortunately, starting it over is what Woke is trying to do.
This legislation might be important because we don’t want some of these legislators reproducing.
Nice thought, but it’s already beyond doubt that their rules don’t apply to them.
and who gives a rats ass over nothingness, quit wasting our tax dollars
The Progressive/Marxist Vermont Legislators hate, undermine and handcuff law enforcement in anyway they can YET, they can’t pass bills fast enough to satisfy their tyrannical, elitist egos. Does this make any sense?
The only good part of ALL the useless, Unconstitutional Bills the Vermont Legislature passes, is the fact that there are very often no mechanisms for enforcing them.
It is sad to watch as the tyranny and depravity continues to grow in Montpelier with each passing session.