NEWS
Abortion rights advertising targets ‘extreme’ legislators
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Beth Mueller:
- Voter ID legislation raises Capitol lawmaker tension (March 7, 2008)
- Doyle calls special session to iron out budget woes (March 6, 2008)
- Parisi: Protect reporters (March 5, 2008)
- First daughter to speak in Madison (March 4, 2008)
- Finance reforms facing long road (February 29, 2008)
Related Stories:
- New abortion clinic planned for Madison (October 23, 2002)
- State may foot bill for abortions (September 5, 2007)
- Pro-life group begins 40-day vigil (September 27, 2007)
- Mass protest decries Bush abortion policies (April 26, 2004)
- House says health providers can say no to abortions (September 26, 2002)
by Beth Mueller
Monday, March 10, 2008
A new advertising campaign from two abortion rights groups
drew criticism Friday from one legislator who it “called out” for allegedly
seeking to punish rape victims who obtain abortions.
Rep. Jim Ott, R-Mequon, demanded that NARAL Pro-Choice and
Planned Parenthood pull the campaign, titled “How Much Time Should She Do?”,
calling it “false.”
In the radio versions of the ads, announcers said Ott, or
one of three other representatives, supports Wisconsin’s criminal abortion ban,
under which rape victims who have an abortion could be threatened with prison.
“If state Representative Ott gets his way, abortion would be
illegal even if the woman is a victim of rape,” the announcer says.
Kelda Helen Roys, executive director of NARAL, said Ott was
among the legislators targeted for his “egregious” views.
“We think it’s important to hold these legislators
accountable because their views are so extreme and because they don’t represent
the voters in their districts,” Roys said.
The debate goes back to a conflict in Wisconsin state
statutes. One law, enacted in 1969 before Roe v. Wade guaranteed the right to abortion in 1973, outlines
penalties for women who receive abortions and doctors who perform them.
Another statute enacted in 1985, however, prohibits
prosecuting women for obtaining abortions.
Ott and the three other legislators named in the ads,
including Assembly Speaker Mike Huebsch, R-West Salem, were among a 54-43
majority who voted against repealing the first statute in the early-morning
hours of the long session about two weeks ago.
An amendment under consideration would have removed the 1969
statute as part of a bill banning partial-birth abortion in Wisconsin.
“Any legislator who says that he or she would never support
criminal penalties for a victim of rape should have voted very clearly to pass
that amendment,” Roys said.
Ott said the groups are “flat-out lying” in the ads, and
that he has never suggested that a woman should be punished for having an
abortion.
“The reason we defeated the amendments is because we wanted
our ban to be directly identical to the federal ban on partial-birth abortion,
so we knew it would hold up in court,” Ott said.
Ott added it is highly unlikely for any woman to be
prosecuted for obtaining an abortion because of a 1961 ruling that says if two
conflicting statutes cannot be harmonized, the later one should be followed.
“No prosecutor in their right mind would go and work under a
statute that already was overturned by a Supreme Court decision, and secondly
was directly contradicted by a later statute,” Ott said.
According to Roys, removing the statute punishing women and
doctors from the books would remove all fear that any women would ever be
prosecuted or threatened with prosecution for getting an abortion.
“Only way to guarantee that is to remove the statute,” she
said.
Roys also said it was disappointing to see the
representatives angry with the abortion rights groups for telling their constituents
how they voted and where they stand.
“We’re simply calling them out on that, and I think it’s
shocking for them to be trying to outsmart the voters,” Roys said. “It’s not
going to work, because we’re going to let voters know where they stand.”
Ott said NARAL and Planned Parenthood were using rape
victims to make their ads more inflammatory, as the statute applied to all
women, not just rape victims, and called the tactic “reprehensible.”
“I’m going to vigorously fight them on this tooth and nail,
because they’re being totally immoral,” Ott said. “I can’t find strong enough
words to say what I think about these organizations.”
Anonymous (March 10, 2008 @ 10:39am):
Maybe Mr Ott thinks the founders of NARAL should have been aborted.
Anonymous (March 10, 2008 @ 1:01pm):
Here's a thought. How about doing some actual reporting instead of just copying NARAL's press release.
Anonymous (March 12, 2008 @ 10:30am):
So, Ott voted down an amendment clarifying that rape victims can't be prosecuted for abortions, and his reason was because he wanted to match the federal law? That's weak. A bad law is a bad law, federal or not, and we elect legislators to make good choices for us.
Leaving this issue open for interpretation, regardless of what Ott thinks the odds of prosecution would be, is irresponsible at best and devious at worst. He should be ashamed, and kudos to NARAL etc. for holding him to it. I think he's protesting in large part because he knows he's in the wrong. He should put his votes where his mouth is.
Anonymous (March 14, 2008 @ 7:21pm):
This type advertising campaign, if not all truth in writing, should be censored just as the Pro-Life WI paid ad was censored from the Marquette U paper this past week.
If groups cannot carry on debates in honest manners and truth in material to back it up, whether in print, public television, radio and advertisements, why not just keep shut mouthed.
Kudos to those in our WI Legislature that have what it takes to call to task the truth and prove falsehoods.
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
