You Leave Town For a Few Days, And Everything Goes Haywire

by: David Sirota

Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 12:00


I leave Denver for a few days, and the hardest core wingnuts start making news at the Colorado capitol:

Sen. Dave Schultheis, of Colorado Springs, on Wednesday opposed a bill requiring all pregnant women to be tested for HIV, so that if they are infected their babies can be treated to prevent the transfer of the virus.

"This stems from sexual promiscuity for the most part, and I just can't go there," he said.

"We do things continually to remove the consequences of poor behavior, unacceptable behavior, quite frankly. I'm not convinced that part of the role of government should be to protect individuals from the negative consequences of their actions."

Two days earlier, Sen. Scott Renfroe, of Greeley, used biblical references when he linked murder and homosexuality during a debate on a bill to extend health care benefits to the partners of gay and lesbian state workers.

Colorado has long been a headquarters for Wingnuttia. Though Democrats have been able to win there of late, it doesn't mean the wingnuts aren't still there. They are.
David Sirota :: You Leave Town For a Few Days, And Everything Goes Haywire

Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
You Leave Town For a Few Days, And Everything Goes Haywire | 14 comments
Probably viagra users (0.00 / 0)
!
Wut? (4.00 / 1)
Pro-infant AIDS?!

That trumps being against school lunch by a mile!
Yikes!

vodamusic.com

So "promiscuous" women deserve (4.00 / 4)
for their babies to die.

And Republicans wonder why normal people despise them?

Montani semper liberi

no doubt a pro-lifer as well (4.00 / 2)
So, he's saying to these "promiscuous" women:

1) You must carry this baby to term.

2) It must be exposed to HIV.

vodamusic.com

[ Parent ]
Hmm (0.00 / 0)
"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
John

Yet you say, 'Why should not the son suffer for the iniquity of the father?' When the son has done what is lawful and right, and has been careful to observe all my statutes, he shall surely live. The soul that sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself." - Ezekiel 18:19-20


LOL... (0.00 / 0)
That's more of a paraphrase of John 8:7.

None of the translations actually use those words:

International Standard Version (©2008)
When they persisted in questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "Let the person among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her."

http://bible.cc/john/8-7.htm

And now you know... cause knowing is half the battle... GI Joe!!!

[ Parent ]
You are right (0.00 / 0)
according the King James version:
http://etext.virginia.edu/etcb...
[ Parent ]
I'm more just teasing... (0.00 / 0)
Sorry... If you look at the link it lists the verse in most major bibles... Its kind of like "Play it again, Sam" a line never uttered in Casablanca.
[ Parent ]
What. The. Fuck? (4.00 / 2)
I feel like Maddow on Tuesday night...

WHO IN THEIR FUCKING RIGHT MIND IS AGAINST STOPPING THE SPREAD OF AIDS?   ESPECIALLY THE PARTY WHO CLAIM THAT LIFE STARTS AT CONCEPTION AND ABORTION IS MURDER.  MY GOD.

Their idiotic thinking is reprehensible and exposes them as bigots and fools BUT, I have a problem with the Bill too. (0.00 / 0)
Heres the point I object to:
requiring all pregnant women to be tested for HIV
(emphasis mine)

I support the free, easy availability of the test, and even a requirement that doctors and nurses and clinics etc. offer the test without charge to anyone and everyone, especially if it is accompanied with counselling pretest and after. Mandating medical intervention that cannot be refused is not a hallmark of a free society, and the testing can be one of the most devastating moments in any persons life.

I understand the drive that might suggest it is "for their own good" that its a requirement, but lets remember that for reproductive health, part of the demand is that women stopping having their ability to make free choices about their own bodies questioned.

"Get your damn laws off my body" is a phrase we can all understand. Offering assistence, making care available, informing about risk and choice these things are all good. Requiring the state to test, treat and intervene without personal control: these are things you give up at your peril.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

Not quite... (4.00 / 1)
The bill does have a provision allowing mothers to opt out, which isn't made clear by the article.

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!
[ Parent ]
Good. The devils in the details of course. (4.00 / 1)
I for one, am most supportive of the relationship between a doctor and a woman being enough and complete without the need for other moral agents who need to intervene, as if women might be incapable by themselves from making such decisions.

The recognition and protection of a woman making moral choices is, right at this moment, the proof of life liberty and pursuit of happiness as the basis of America's principles and sacrosanct reason for existing.

I support it for guys too of course, but its normally far from people's minds as a thing that needs to be protected.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
Anybody know what is the stance of the AIDS community in Colorado (4.00 / 1)
on this bill?

In the 90's when this was a big issue in NY, the AIDS community was adamantly against mandatory testing.  
The use of retrovirals later in the decade mooted the controversy to a great degree.

Back then, HIV infection and AIDS were raging, and people with HIV and AIDS were still very much discriminated against in society, once their status became known.  Also there was some evidence that using the retrovirals to help the fetuses may have inhibited the ability of the mothers later to have the retrovirals benefit them. In addition there wasn't a good, quick way to actually identify which babies had the infection ( a small minority), so the practice was to treat all the infants with unnecessary antibiotic therapy which could have long term negative consequences for infants who were born healthy.

I am sure there has been advances on the medical front, which hopefully has also mooted these problems.  But I think it is important to know what AIDS community in Colorado thinks about this bill.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

I can't speak for the local AIDS community, but regarding mandatory HIV testing... (4.00 / 2)
when my wife had surgery at CU med center last year, she signed a consent form to have her blood tested.  IIRC, the form states that the purpose of the test is to ensure that if a person has HIV, they are made aware of the fact, and the test result is kept confidential.

Re: the lunatic fringe in our state government, statements like the ones quoted by David make me think twice about moving too far from the major metro areas.  It's not fair that the most beautiful parts of this beautiful state are populated by people who vote these guys into office.

[ Parent ]
You Leave Town For a Few Days, And Everything Goes Haywire | 14 comments
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox