yes, he really said that
Feb. 27th, 2009 09:55 pmState 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.”
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.”
no subject
Date: 2009-02-27 09:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-27 09:47 pm (UTC)There is nothing else to be said.
Just... *blam*
no subject
Date: 2009-02-27 09:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-28 01:28 am (UTC)this man is in elected office?
no subject
Date: 2009-02-28 08:34 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-28 08:49 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-28 08:49 am (UTC)*blam*
*headdesk*
no subject
Date: 2009-02-28 08:51 am (UTC)soapbox
Date: 2009-02-28 06:25 pm (UTC)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?
no subject
Date: 2009-02-28 09:52 pm (UTC)...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?
no subject
Date: 2009-02-28 10:04 pm (UTC)Re: soapbox
Date: 2009-02-28 10:09 pm (UTC)Re: soapbox
Date: 2009-02-28 11:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-28 11:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-03-01 04:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-03-02 01:36 am (UTC)Re: soapbox
Date: 2009-03-02 01:38 am (UTC)Re: soapbox
Date: 2009-03-02 10:33 am (UTC)