New stealthing legislation doesn’t pass committee quietly

Photo courtesy of Wikimedia commons.

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.