“I am all for protecting women, but we have to protect men too. For that reason I’m voting no on this bill.” — Rep. Michelle Caldier
“Broadening the definition of ‘sexually protective device’ beyond a physical barrier device will open up unintended consequences that can be weaponized against the victims we are trying to protect in this bill.” — Rep. Liz Berry
This year Washington state lawmakers passed a bill that enables someone to sue for civil damages if their sexual partner non-consensually removes or tampers with a sexually protective device they had agreed to use.
The definition of a “sexually protective device” in House Bill 1958 includes “an internal or external condom, spermicide, diaphragm…or any other physical barrier device intended to prevent pregnancy or sexually transmitted infection.” The legislation specifies that the definition does not include intrauterine devices (IUDs) or any hormonal birth control method.
As the bill made its way through the House of Representatives and then the Senate, certain lawmakers tried three times to amend it to add IUDs and hormonal birth control methods to the definition of “sexually protective device”. Each attempt failed.
We made a video showing both sides of the debate on this aspect of Washington’s ‘stealthing’ law, which went into effect on July 1, 2024. With certain lawmakers arguing for “parity” or “equity” for men, this is a worthwhile debate for Washington Initiative for Boys and Men to call attention to in our role as an advocacy journalism platform.
The main spokespersons for expanding the legislation to include IUDs and hormonal birth control were Representatives Michelle Caldier and Jenny Graham, and Senator Lynda Wilson. The main spokespersons against expanding the legislation were Representatives Jamila Taylor and Liz Berry, and Senator Manka Dhingra.
Which side do you think presents the more convincing argument for whether IUDs and hormonal birth control should be included in Washington’s ‘stealthing’ law, RCW 7.7.113?
See also: More dads needed on judicial advisory committees focused on children, families, and gender bias