Republican state Sen. Dave Schultheis said he planned to vote against a bill to require HIV tests for pregnant women because the disease “stems from sexual promiscuity” and he didn’t think the Legislature should “remove the negative consequences that take place from poor behavior and unacceptable behavior.” The Colorado Springs lawmaker then proceeded to cast the lone vote against SB 179, which passed 32-1 and moves on to the House.
"I’m going to be a no vote on this. I’m trying to think through what the role of government is here. And I am not convinced that part of the role of government should be to protect individuals from the negative consequences of their actions.
"Sexual promiscuity, we know, causes a lot of problems in our state, one of which, obviously, is the contraction of HIV. And we have other programs that deal with the negative consequences — we put up part of our high schools where we allow students maybe 13 years old who put their child in a small daycare center there.
"We do things continually to remove the negative consequences that take place from poor behavior and unacceptable behavior, quite frankly, and I don’t think that’s the role of this body.
“As a result of that I finally came to the conclusion I would have to be a no vote on this because this stems from sexual promiscuity for the most part, and I just can’t vote on this bill and I wanted to explain to this body why I was going to be a no vote on this.”
and later:
“What I’m hoping is that, yes, that person may have AIDS, have it seriously as a baby and when they grow up, but the mother will begin to feel guilt as a result of that,” he said. “The family will see the negative consequences of that promiscuity and it may make a number of people over the coming years begin to realize that there are negative consequences and maybe they should adjust their behavior.”
“What I’m hoping is that, yes, that person may have AIDS, have it seriously as a baby and when they grow up, but the mother will begin to feel guilt as a result of that,”
I’ve watched this on the news here with quite a bit of puzzlement. I really can’t understand the thought process that leads to this conclusion. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that Sen. Schultheiss is correct that some pregnant, HIV+ women are both pregnant and HIV+ because they are promiscuous. What kind of thought process leads you to the conclusion that not testing pregnant women for HIV is a good thing?
First, what about women who might not be promiscuous, who are in a loving and stable marriage (or other relationship) and become pregnant and may have contracted HIV through other means? Do these women not deserve 1) to know that they have HIV, and 2) an opportunity to begin treatment so that their babies have a chance to avoid being born with HIV or AIDS?
But most importantly, why on earth would you sacrifice an innocent child for the poor judgment of their parents just to teach them a lesson? That’s far too Machiavellian for my tastes.
I am ashamed, (but not surprised, given the location of his district) that someone with this kind of thought process even resides in, much less represents my state. Shame on you, Mr. Schultheiss.
I’ve watched this on the news here with quite a bit of puzzlement. I really can’t understand the thought process that leads to this conclusion.
Well, that’s your problem right there.
Abort a microscopic blastocyst? NEVER! Protect the unborn!!!
Prevent the transmission of a horrifying deadly disease to an innocent child? Not our responsibility.
Allow said innocent child to suffer a life of preventable agony for the sake of teaching someone a lesson? You betcha!
(On the plus side, if Coloradoans ever come to their senses and kick this clown to the curb, he’s likely to find a sizable constituency here in Precambrian South Carolina. One Jim DeMint is never really enough.)
I so wish I could reconcile my core beliefs with the democratic party. That way I could be a member of a political party that has no idiots as members.
Senator Schultheiss has a long history of being quite outspoken and saying controversial things. I suspect this is more a publicity stunt than anything, but I would think he’d be a little more selective about the causes he chooses to oppose. I can’t imagine there are THAT manypeople, even in Colorado Springs that would agree with this position. I mean, positioning this bill encouraging imoral behavor is disingenuous at best, and Schultheiss just doesn’t have the cult of personality to pull off that big of a mindfuck.
I’m sure he also considers her having the baby at all as part of the punishment for “promiscuity.”
Of course, that she might have been being quite monogamous with a husband doesn’t guarantee that the husband wasn’t gettin’ a little sumpin sumpin on the side, but hey… she should have thought of that before marrying him, that slut.
Its this kind of “disease as punishment for bad behavior” thought process that had people ignoring AIDS as a “gay” problem for so long. Generally a rather silly approach, considering the habit of disease to not constrain itself only to the supposedly morally corrupt. Too bad some folk can’t get that through their heads.