lapsedmodernist: (Default)
[personal profile] lapsedmodernist
State Sen. Dave Schultheis restated his opposition to a bill requiring HIV tests for pregnant women by claiming that infected babies would cause families to “see the negative consequences of that promiscuity.”

The Colorado Springs Republican with a penchant for foot-in-mouth moments tells The Rocky Mountain News in a follow-up story to Wednesday’s Senate floor controversy:

“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.”

Date: 2009-02-27 09:47 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] starkyld.livejournal.com
That is so appalling that I lack the words.

Date: 2009-02-27 09:47 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] anthrokeight.livejournal.com
*blam*

There is nothing else to be said.

Just... *blam*

Date: 2009-02-27 09:51 pm (UTC)
cos: (Default)
From: [personal profile] cos
That's clearly been the underlying model for the Christian right anti-choice (and anti-sex) movement for many years. They just don't usually say it to the general public.

Date: 2009-02-28 01:28 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] khalinche.livejournal.com
oh...my...what?

this man is in elected office?

Date: 2009-02-28 08:34 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] lapsedmodernist.livejournal.com
yes, he is a Republican senator in the Colorado state senate.

Date: 2009-02-28 08:49 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] lapsedmodernist.livejournal.com
I know, this was, like, the accidental logorrhea of truth.

Date: 2009-02-28 08:49 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] lapsedmodernist.livejournal.com
yes.

*blam*

*headdesk*

Date: 2009-02-28 08:51 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] lapsedmodernist.livejournal.com
this almost transcends appalled and is just icky and WTF in the same way as those creepy pictures of Rick Santorum's crying children.

soapbox

Date: 2009-02-28 06:25 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] congogirl.livejournal.com
So he's into sacrificing babies now? I thought they were precious.

I'm conflicted re: ethics of REQUIRING women to be tested. They should be given every opportunity, counseled, encouraged, etc. and part of the reasoning is of course to offer prevention of mother-to-child transmission methods. So I probably would not support any bill with such a requirement.

But his "logic" isn't, you know, logical. Condemn babies to death so the mother feels guilty and stops having sex?

Also, is he talking about unwed mothers or just anyone that got HIV? Like, for example, women whose HUSBANDS brought it home? But it's still the mother's job to feel the guilt?

Date: 2009-02-28 09:52 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] the-macnab.livejournal.com
I assuming (you can't make deductions with this kind of thing) that he thinks that only promiscuous people get AIDS?

...OK, I just checked the original article, and yes.

Apparently having to get our baby treated for AIDS (which, as we all know, doesn't cure it) isn't enough of a negative consequence for people, even if they are promiscuous? I'm baffled.

I'm also certain that he's pro-life. The combination here is just amazing. Didn't Marjane Satrapi include him in a cameo as an ayatollah in Persepolis?

Date: 2009-02-28 10:04 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] lapsedmodernist.livejournal.com
he is pro-life. I read that that his statement confused and appalled even his RW pro-life cronies.

Re: soapbox

Date: 2009-02-28 10:09 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] lapsedmodernist.livejournal.com
Didn't you know that only unwed mothers get HIV?

Re: soapbox

Date: 2009-02-28 11:37 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] congogirl.livejournal.com
ZOMG nobody told me! This will change everything.

Date: 2009-02-28 11:39 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] congogirl.livejournal.com
That's why I am confused as well. It doesn't make any sense.

Date: 2009-03-01 04:16 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] revolution-grrl.livejournal.com
Oh dear god. That just.... Wow.

Date: 2009-03-02 01:36 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] birds-hum.livejournal.com
holy shit. just. jesus.

Re: soapbox

Date: 2009-03-02 01:38 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] birds-hum.livejournal.com
i agree with you. he's making an insanely irrational argument. there are rational reasons to oppose the bill, but guess what, they have to do with a woman's right to control her own body. guess this RWer is sacrificing a sound opinion so he doesn't come close to supporting a woman's right to have control over the medical procedures done to her body.

Re: soapbox

Date: 2009-03-02 10:33 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] congogirl.livejournal.com
If he were smart, he'd rethink his argument. There are smart RW arguments out there. But in some ways, it's good that he's showing his true colors - even those presumably on his side can see what he's made of.
Page generated Feb. 25th, 2026 07:29 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios