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.?