Is it just me, or are the GOP crazies getting crazier every day? I mean, I always knew there were some nucking futs out there, but it is a story like this that really hammers it home.
Democrats were outraged Wednesday morning when 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 would just love to hear the Republican's take on this. Below is a transcript (done by the Colorado Independent) of this audio clip.
Thank you, Madam President. You know, this was a difficult bill for me. I voted yes in committee on it because of discussions surrounding the fact that — well, let me just basically say this, it basically modifies the communicable disease laws and it requires the health care providers to test pregnant women for HIV unless they opt out. And that’s basically, that’s the main part of this bill. I voted yes on it. I was a little bit troubled with my vote and was just wondering what was bothering me. I woke up the next morning — Thursday morning — at 5 a.m. and I wrestled with this bill for another hour from 5 to 6 and finally came to the conclusion 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.
Also, in a quote coming late in the day is something that is causing me to lose (further) faith in humanity. This was said by a state senator, the same man as above. Please keep that in mind while reading it.
“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.”
I have no words. I really don't. This coming only days after Republican Sen. Scott Renfroe compared homosexuality to murder in a debate over a bill sponsored by Veiga that would expand health benefits to same-sex partners of state employees. Video to his words here, since it doesn't like me and won't embed. Besides that whole "seperation of church and state" nonsense being ignored, how the hell did this man, who seems unable to put a sentence together, get elected?
Crossposted at Via (come visit me!)
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Murder, HIV and Mothers.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/12158
Well, I'm very glad to see that apparently every other state Senator that voted thought he was smoking crack.
The whole thing is so WTF that the only question I can put together is, why does he think we're so interested in his schedule? Going on about what time he woke up and what time he thought about it...eh? And what is this rambling bit about a baby having AIDS seriously? Is there a less serious form AIDS?
Does he know the difference between being HIV+ and having AIDS? Does he even know that an HIV+ mother has an extremely high chance of giving birth to an unaffected baby if the right precautions are taken? Is he seriously saying that he hopes the baby will get it?
Doesn't his description of himself sitting in his room pondering this "difficult" question early in the morning for an hour convince you that he is just so honestly introspective and moral?
It's sick how he feels so self-righteous about being so callous toward other people's lives.
Maybe he needs 24 hours to think about it, like women need to do before getting an abortion.
From Schultheis's website: "All life is precious, from conception to natural death." Just not if your mother is a whore, I guess.
So I can add "I hope you get sick and die if I think you don't live like me" to the Republican philosophies of "you're on your own" and "if you aren't rich you deserve to suffer." Got it.
I used to be a tester counselor, and I provided social services to many women with HIV. A couple found out they had HIV when they were pregnant. They got the disease from their husbands, at least one of whom had also been unaware he had it. Whatever though. I guess the Republicans would just say it sucks to be them.
The diagnosis of HIV allowed the women and their doctors to take precautions, and resulted in the birth of children who were HIV negative, and who brought joy to the lives of people struggling with a huge burden. I guess poor people don't deserve things like healthy children and joy though. Ugh.
Because "Right to Life" doesn't mean we should take preventative measures to keep innocent children from being born with incurable diseases. Uh huh.
Okay... correct me if I'm misunderstanding this. But. This person just wished AIDS on an innocent child.
Is there really anything more that can be said about that?
So, this guy wants to punish "promiscious" women with sick children, so that they can suffer for the rest of their lives. The women, not the children, that is. He doesn't care at all about the children, or I guess he's OK with visiting the sins of the parent upon the child. How did someone that uncaring get elected?
I'm restating from Echidne's comments:
Testing pregnant women for HIV *IS* punishing them. This idiot is backwards in his reasoning but right to vote against such a measure. Pregnant women have rights, including the right to refuse medical tests, and laws like this one take those away.
Such laws also ignore the fact that testing does *NOT* equal treatment. What if a woman finds out she is HIV positive? Is the state of colorado going to pay for the treatment? NO. Are they going to try and prevent transmission to the fetus (which treatment is not 100%)? No! See Blake Scott's book Risky Rhetoric for more. This law (barely) allows women to deny the test, but still.
The wording of the bill is strange, because it says that hospitals are required to test for HIV before the woman gives birth if she hadn't already been tested during the pregnancy. Then it says that the women are allowed to decline the test.
But isn't testing better than not testing? If you get tested and find out, at least you have the option to do something about it. Right? But if you don't think you have the disease, you're not going to get tested and therefore definitely not do anything to prevent infection of the fetus.
And then Sen. Dave Schultheis can feel the joy he feels when a baby is born with HIV!
Since there *is* a way to opt out...Idk. I'd rather have the test myself.
Sure - but the question is whether the state should make such testing mandatory. Not if it is generally better to get tested or not..
We have a similar law in Oregon. What it means here is that testing is automatic, with an opt-out clause, instead of being something you specifically ask for. So women who wouldn't think to ask for it, get it presented by the doctor as a standard test. My doctor presented me with the opt-out form at the same time she told me about it, and there was no pressure at all.
I had a couple of miscarriages before my successful pregnancy, so I got the test the first time, and opted out the next two times. There was no pressure or flak for opting out.
thank you for pointing this out. requirement of testing, particularly when the CDC requires that they get a copy of results and keep records on you(I think this is still true for HIV) not a good thing. particularly if you can't get treatment. I'm all for the state paying for an HIV test. I'm not pro forcing these women to possibly have that stigma attached for the rest of the life.
Such laws also ignore the fact that testing does *NOT* equal treatment. What if a woman finds out she is HIV positive? Is the state of colorado going to pay for the treatment? NO.
We are not talking about the flu here. If someone is infected with HIV, he or she will find out sooner or later. And all of the medical evidence to date suggests that the sooner you know the more choices one has and the better the outcomes.
Of course treatments to reduce the maternal-fetal transmission are not 100%; however, shouldn't this treatment be considered in terms of risk vs benefit as early as possible? And what about the potential risks of breast feeding when HIV+? That's pretty important information to have for a new mom.
Most states have medicaid funding available for low income HIV+ patients (especially kids), including Colorado. Do some folks still fall through the cracks? Sure. But that doesn't make the idea behind the idea less valid.
I have to agree with you.
When I was pregnant with my first child (you know because I was a promiscuous slut even though I was married) I did not have medical insurance so I went through a program from our local hospital that provide free prenatal care.It was MANDATORY that each women get tested for HIV. If we refused then we could not receive care. What is a poor woman to do? I was young then,but I often wonder if I did have HIV could I have received treatment? or if their concern would have been for the fetus only?
Funny,because during my other pregnancies( because I am still promiscuous with my husband)I had awesome insurance and my private doctor ASK if I wanted an HIV test. I was not forced to have one.
His reasoning is really messed up and offensive. But somehow I thought people here would be against forcing tests on pregnant women who don't want them? I'm not sure how I feel about it personally, and I guess its not really forcing if you can opt out, but, hmm...
I thought feminists opposed mandatory HIV testing for pregnant women?
It isn't mandatory. They can decline. I think there is a bill at issue in another state that is actually *requiring* testing for some women, but this is a different bill.
Requiring the state to provide healthcare = good.
Requiring women to submit to state-provided healthcare = bad.
except this isn't, really. it's requiring a test, a test with pretty big uncontrollable consequences. and does it require the state to pay for it, or require the doctor to do it, then bill the woman? another huge difference.
Well, I had been assuming from the senator's huffing about their role in the matter that the state would be paying for it. I definitely could be wrong, but that's the assumption my comment hinged on.
As long as the woman is explicitly told she can opt out, and then not face any flak from opting out as Avogadro said she didn't experience, it's not forcing anything onto someone.
"...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."
So the appropriate "punishment" for a woman's "promiscuity" is to have a baby with HIV and that will hopefully make her adjust her behavior? As if having HIV themselves wouldn't be enough, let's pass the "punishment" on to an innocent child.
Not to mention the awesome job he does of implying, no, essentially saying outright that all women with HIV brought it on themselves and deserve what they get. Because obviously the only way a woman can get HIV is by being a whore. He probably thinks the only way a man can get HIV is by sleeping with a whore.
This guy doesn't consider himself a Christian does he? Because he ain't doing a very good job of representin.
"He probably thinks the only way a man can get HIV is by sleeping with a whore. "
No, no, no, Emmarie. Haven't you learned anything from the staunch right-wingers? The only way a man can get HIV is by being a dirty, dirty gay. And they deserve it too. (That was sarcasm, by the way, in case anyone couldn't hear the tone of my voice just by looking at the text. Better same than sorry.)
I cannot believe that this sort of misconception still exists. The medical community figured out HIV transmission and the evolution of virus to full-blown disease twenty years ago. If this guy hasn't been paying attention to social issues for that long, I have no idea how he got elected.
I'm also curious where the other two members of the Colorado senate stand on the issue. And why they didn't vote at all.
Wait... what?
HIV isn't spread by promiscuity, it's spread by irresponsible sex. There's a big difference there. That's just the tip of the iceberg, but this whole thing is so absurd, I have to let it stew for a few minutes.
No, it is not spread by irresponsible sex. HIV is spread from one person to another through exposure to blood, semen, vaginal secretions, or breastmilk. Sexual transmission is common, and can be reduced through the correct use of condoms. Failure to use a condom is not necessarily irresponsible sex. A woman who does not ask her husband to use a condom is not being irresponsible. Neither are same sex couples who believe that they are in monogamous relationships. A person who is forced or coerced into unprotected sex while unable to give meaningful consent is not being irresponsible. Unprotected sex is not necessarily irresponsible sex.
I realize that you weren't trying to open a can of worms there, but it's good to avoid judgmental frames when addressing issues that have been used to marginalize whole groups of people.
Idk... I live in NY where it's mandatory that newborns be tested for HIV if the mother hasn't been tested during pregnancy, so it's pretty much standard to offer it to all pregnant women as a standard test. My doctor explained the reasoning behind it and let me know I could opt out as easily as saying no, plus I had to sign a form saying that I understood my right to refuse. I think this policy can be implemented without forcing it on anyone. I was tested for HIV with each of my pregnancies because I didn't see having the baby tested and I can see where it could be very beneficial to have that information while pregnant.
While I am somewhat ambivalent about the ethics behind mandatory HIV testing for pregnant women, that last quote about how state Sen. Schultheis hopes that some babies are born and grow up with AIDS so that their mothers will feel guilty literally makes me sick to my stomach. I would put no trust whatsoever in a government official who could say that he hopes some innocent infants are born with AIDS and, thus, die early deaths just to prove a point. He has no compassion.
Whoa whoa whoa... did he just say that he wants slutty women to have babies with HIV/AIDS... so that they will feel guilty for being such sluts? I thought pro-lifers liked babies.
Only before they're born. After that, whatever happens to them is tough shit.
I might get into trouble for this, but I think the guy has done the right thing for the wrong reasons. Listen - if there´s anything that a pro-choice stance characterized it is the conviction that the (patriarchical) state should not interfere with pregnancy against a woman's will. It is her body, and her baby. Making tests mandatory is interfering with a woman's right to bodily autonomy, and, as someone else argued, with her say in whether she wants medical testing and intervention during pregnancy.
of course, the idea that we can avoid babies with HIV being born is great - but I feel we'd be risking a slippery slope effect; or, a medical system in which again and again the rights of the unborn baby are prioritized over a woman's right to bodily autonomy.
I hear you on that, for sure.
I'm not 100% clear on what this law is making mandatory - does the woman HAVE to have the test (and is it at her expense?) in order to receive prenatal care? That seems a bit paternalistic to me. If it's not at her expense, I don't really have a huge problem with it, since it seems like it could just be part of the prenatal care process. But that doesn't make it any less paternalistic. IMO, it wouldn't be significantly different that making ultrasounds mandatory - something like "you must have at least one ultrasound during your pregnancy to make sure that everything is progressing normally." Not a huge deal, actually pretty helpful, but not giving the women's autonomy a high priority.
I'm kind of thinking as I type here, sorry. Anyways, it is a huge benefit for society as a whole to have more healthy babies born than unhealthy ones (which can be but isn't necessarily related to any issues of choice or autonomy). Given that, the government has some responsibility to ensure that any steps that can be taken to ensure healthy babies, are taken whenever possible. Something relatively non-invasive, like an HIV test, could be a great service for women in terms of helping them make educated choices. It doesn't just have to be about protecting fetuses.
However, if this testing is mandatory but still at the patient's expense, I am completely against it no matter what the benefit to society.
Answered my own dumb question by reading the bill. The heath care providers are required to test the patient unless she declines, which she has the option to do. If she declines, a note of that will be made on her permanent health record.
I might get into trouble for this, but I think the guy has done the right thing for the wrong reasons. Listen - if there´s anything that a pro-choice stance characterizes it is the conviction that the (patriarchical) state should not interfere with pregnancy against a woman's will. It is her body, and her baby. Making tests mandatory is interfering with a woman's right to bodily autonomy, and, as someone else argued, with her say in whether she wants medical testing and intervention during pregnancy.
of course, the idea that we can avoid babies with HIV being born is great - but I feel we'd be risking a slippery slope effect; or, a medical system in which again and again the rights of the unborn baby are prioritized over a woman's right to bodily autonomy.
"then proceeded to cast the lone vote"
So in other words he was the only Republican to support this? And the Republican party is getting crazier how??? I guess 1 state senator speaks for the whole party? Which means that next time a Democrat says something similar, I expect feministing.com to post about it, and talk about how that party is 'getting crazier every day'.
So, don't you dare get an abortion, oh no, can't harm the precious baby, but as soon as they're born, well, don't you dare test yourself for AIDS in pregnancy, since your baby deserves to get AIDS because you're a whore.
They really shouldn't be so transparent. They were having some success with the "it's an innocent life" route, but lines like this make it so obvious that the right-wing stance has nothing to do with the health or life of the baby, and everything to do with punishing women.
Also, to everyone above-- the test is OPTIONAL because you can OPT OUT. All this means is the state is obligated to pay for the testing and doctors are obligated to make sure that women know about it, so poor women know they can get a free test and are educated about the risks of HIV. This is a good thing. Free HIV testing that must be offered to everyone (so a doctor can't say, this woman is a whore so let's not test her to punish her) is a good thing.
Don't worry. In a couple of years we will get a simple name change through on a Private Members Bill in the House of Commons. The Civil Rights Act was right at the time because it got the necessary rights to the LGBT community faster than would have otherwise happened. In the typical British fashion we pragmatically fudged the issue bedroom furniture and moved on. All things considered I think the situation over here is better than in California!