Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Archives | Alerts | Electronic edition | Subscribe to the paper
Subscribe to RSS   Add to My Yahoo!

February 25, 2009 1:46 PM

Schultheis opposes testing pregnant women for HIV because it condones poor behavior

For the second time this week, Republican legislators have manned what they view as the morality fortress at the State Capitol.

First it was Sen. Scott Renfroe of Greeley, who lumped homosexuality with murder in the debate over healthcare benefits for same-sex partners.

Now it's Sen. Dave Schultheis of Colorado Springs who opposes testing pregnant women for HIV so their babies can be treated to prevent the transfer of the virus.

Lynn Bartels
reports:

"This stems from sexual promiscuity for the most part and I just can't go there," said Schultheis said. "We do things continually to remove the consequences of poor behavior, unacceptable behavior, quite frankly."

"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."

lobbyists were abuzz today about Schultheis' remarks. And Ari Armstrong, a conservative blogger, said Renfroe should resign or the Republican Party should condemn his comments.

Several GOP lawmakers have privately expressed dismay over Renfroe's and Schultheis' comments, but they have not spoken publicly.

Schultheis later today said accused Democrats of "speaking out of two sides of their mouths."

"They go to extreme lengths to try to protect the fetus," he said. "On the other hand they're willing to pass laws that allow abortions or will not reduce abortions."

Renfroe said today he's not stepping down for exercising his First Amendment rights.

"I don't mean to be hateful. I don't think I'm hateful. People have accused me of that," he said. "I'm just voicing my opinions on what I believe and trying to speak what I think is the truth."

During the debate he quoted two passages in Leviticus, one calling homosexuality "an abomination," and another that said homosexuals "shall surely be put to death."

"I wasn't probably eloquent enough in saying that all people sin and there are many different sins and they are all the same in the eyes of God," he said.

"But to make laws to make sins legal is where I think it crosses the line and we shouldn't go there. That's the destruction of society in my opinion."

Were the Republicans out of line? What do you think of Schulteis' declaration that having a baby with AIDS could make other people adjust their behavior? Should the Bible be the basis of lawmaking? And even so, does homosexuality equate to murder?



Discussion

  • February 25, 2009

    2:30 PM

    JW writes:

    Good god! Who voted for this A$$?

  • February 25, 2009

    2:39 PM

    GladysKravitz writes:

    This is just another case of GOP goyim talking out of their tuchas spreading thier politics of hate. They only do so to make themselves seem relevant at a time when the GOP has suffered badly throughout the past election cycles. They tend to draw from their faith, all the negative stereotypes that go with it, just to gain attention as opposed to helping people and serving us.

    If they want to take biblical law, JEWISH law states that one is forbidden to stand in judgement of a person who is sick, regardless of how a person contracts an illness. It is called "Shetuff Betsa'ar". In fact it is a SIN (Misters Renfroe and Schultheis) in the eyes of God. Best you repent or run for cover. Yutzes!

  • February 25, 2009

    2:49 PM

    KW writes:

    Mandatory testing of pregnant women? I thought most of you were against anyone telling a woman what she can or cannot do with her body.

    I know, I know, she'll have an "opt out" clause. How about giving her an "opt in" clause instead of requiring her to stop the action.

  • February 25, 2009

    2:51 PM

    GladysKravitz writes:

    This is just another case of GOP goyim talking out of their tuchas spreading thier politics of hate. They only do so to make themselves seem relevant at a time when the GOP has suffered badly throughout the past election cycles. They tend to draw from their faith, all the negative stereotypes that go with it, just to gain attention as opposed to helping people and serving us.

    If they want to take biblical law, JEWISH law states that one is forbidden to stand in judgement of a person who is sick, regardless of how a person contracts an illness. It is called "Shetuff Betsa'ar". In fact it is a SIN (Misters Renfroe and Schultheis) in the eyes of God. Best you repent or run for cover. Yutzes!

  • February 25, 2009

    2:51 PM

    GladysKravitz writes:

    This is just another case of GOP goyim talking out of their tuchas spreading thier politics of hate. They only do so to make themselves seem relevant at a time when the GOP has suffered badly throughout the past election cycles. They tend to draw from their faith, all the negative stereotypes that go with it, just to gain attention as opposed to helping people and serving us.

    If they want to take biblical law, JEWISH law states that one is forbidden to stand in judgement of a person who is sick, regardless of how a person contracts an illness. It is called "Shetuff Betsa'ar". In fact it is a SIN (Misters Renfroe and Schultheis) in the eyes of God. Best you repent or run for cover. Yutzes!

  • February 25, 2009

    3:36 PM

    benn writes:

    "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."

    That representative is a piece of shit.

  • February 25, 2009

    3:47 PM

    KW writes:

    Speaking of gaffs:

    Joe Biden on the spending bill...

    How can the public know that the money is allocated correctly? That's the question CBS's Maggie Ordonez asked Joe Biden.

    "We're going to put every bit of this transparently up on a website. You're gonna know. You'll be able to go on a website. Every single bit of this will be on a website," he explained.

    What website?

    "You know, I'm embarrassed. Do you know the website number?" he asked looking offstage. "I should have it in front of me and I don't. I'm actually embarrassed."

    He was able to get the website "number" from someone off camera.

    "Recovery.gov. It's Recovery.gov. It's up and running," he said with newfound confidence.

    Well I don't know about you, but I'm still waiting for him to tell us the website "number."

  • February 25, 2009

    6:16 PM

    Ben- Former Democrat writes:

    We don't need the law. Plain and simple. If a women wants the test so be it. To try and mandate this is Orwellian.

  • February 25, 2009

    6:17 PM

    Tbone writes:

    Well, then, it sounds like Biden is better versed on the "Internets" than bush was. Thanks for clearning that up, kaydub.

  • February 25, 2009

    8:05 PM

    peterpi writes:

    Ben, you made a straightforward, well put, reasonable argument against the bill, made for classical Republican reasons. You and I are going to disagree, and have in the past. But that was nicely made.
    Schultheis could have made that argument. Instead, his health plan's brain surgeon will have to performm a rectal exam.

  • February 25, 2009

    8:11 PM

    peterpi writes:

    Ben, you made a straightforward, well put, reasonable argument against the bill, made for classical Republican reasons. You and I are going to disagree, and have in the past. But that was nicely made.
    Schultheis could have made that argument. Instead, his health plan's brain surgeon will have to performm a rectal exam.

  • February 25, 2009

    10:01 PM

    Steve writes:

    This has got to be the unfortunate influence of evangelical Christians. This guy's warped position would never occur to any other religious or non-religious person because it is against humanity to condemn a baby in this way.

    The people of Colorado should condemn this man and ensure he is not returned to a position where his warped views can infect the lives of others.

  • February 25, 2009

    10:21 PM

    history buff writes:

    Huh? Aids is God's punishment? How about cancer? Heart disease? Vascular lesions? Accidents in the home? Accidents on the road?

    I heard the crash on the highway
    But I didn't hear nobody pray

  • February 27, 2009

    9:30 PM

    eli writes:

    going to miss the News. Watch my father reading the paper as young child then my child watching me read the paper every day.

  • February 27, 2009

    10:18 PM

    GWB writes:

    Heck Im gonna miss the Cartoon pitures
    especially snuffy smith and those funny hillbillies

  • February 28, 2009

    3:17 PM

    Anonymous writes:

    xsfhah

  • February 28, 2009

    3:48 PM

    Independent writes:

    ?Mandatory testing? Why would it be necessary to test women mandatorily? Would not any mother be concerned if she has risk factors for this disease, she would demand to be tested?

    Liberalism is a cruel joke on people. Can't understand why we let politicians turn people into mindless dependent sheeple.

  • March 4, 2009

    2:15 PM

    Uncollated writes:

    So, he would punish the child for the sins of the mother? I'm not sure how that helps anyone.

  • March 4, 2009

    7:13 PM

    Whoosh writes:

    You didn't read the article. Shultheis is arguing against mandatory testing. He wants women to choose whether to be tested or not.

    Mandatory government health testing is another example of the exploding big brother mentality ushered in with the Democratic reign in politics.

  • March 5, 2009

    12:08 PM

    David writes:

    http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/HIV.aspx

    I think not testing is ridiculous, as the definition of HIV states, you can contract the disease in many different ways, not just "poor behavior"

  • March 6, 2009

    5:45 PM

    Laura writes:

    The point is that it is the mother's responsibility to choose to test herself. This is exactly the same logic that is the underpinning of a women's right to choose (abortion). Why would anyone support one and not the other?

    Oh, that's right. If you are a liberal that kind of disconnect is quite natural.

  • March 6, 2009

    8:45 PM

    It's True writes:

    Don't fret Laura. Liberals can entertain the fact that a woman can choose to kill her child through abortion but should not be allowed to decide whether to get a blood test for HIV because of the harm that could come to the child. You are not imagining the paradox.

  • March 8, 2009

    11:12 PM

    HIV Chat writes:

    I think it is a good idea to have expecting mothers tested for HIV (too bad it cannot be anonymous results). I do not agree to force people to get tested, but I do believe all women should get tested before giving birth. If they find out they are HIV positive, they can almost eliminate (less than 1% chance) the chances of baby getting HIV by following the CDC guidelines (C-section birth, 6 weeks of AZT treatment for baby and mother) and making sure the mother doesn't breast feed (HIV virus can be transmitted through breast milk).

  • March 9, 2009

    11:12 PM

    Laura writes:

    By that logic, every person should be tested. And why stop at HIV? Why not have the government pay for testing of all sexually transmitted diseases in all people?

    Where does it stop?

Join the discussion

Required
Required (Will not be published or sold)

Talk to me

Featured today

Today's poll

Search this blog

Recent posts

Chat transcripts

Caption this!