You Can’t Make This Sh*t Up

Sen. Dave Schultheis of Colorado Springs, expressing his opposition to a bill that would require pregnant women to be tested for HIV so those who test positive could receive treatment that reduces the risk of transferring the virus to the fetus from 25% to 2%:

* What he said during the debate: “This stems from sexual promiscuity for the most part and I just can’t go there. 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.”

* What he said afterward: “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. 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. We can’t keep people from being raped. We can’t keep people from shooting each other. We can’t keep people from jumping off bridges. People drink and drive, and they crash and kill people. Poor behavior has its consequences.”

This poor excuse for a human being hopes that babies of mothers infected with HIV will get AIDS so their mothers will feel guilty.  Take a moment to think about that.

Does he think that babies of mothers who contract the flu virus should be denied preventive treatment too?  Maybe so, if they caught it from kissing.  I’m sure this guy is all about upholding “Christian” values, but apparently he forgot about Jesus repudiating the whole sins-of-the-parents-will-be-visited-on-the-children thing.  (Also, I see a real pattern of victim-blaming throughout his statement; he implies that being raped and committing suicide are consequences of one’s own bad behavior.  Well, hell, I guess that’s easier than addressing a culture that looks down on women and on people suffering from mental illness.  Nice.)

Icing on the crap cake comes from one of Sen. Schultheis’ colleagues, Sen. Scott Renfroe, who opposed a bill that would extend health benefits to same-sex partners of state government employees:

* What he said during the debate: “Leviticus 18:22 says, ‘You shall not lie with a man as one lies with a female. It is an abomination.’ Leviticus 20:13 says, ‘If there is a man who lies with a male as though to lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act, and they shall surely be put to death. … ‘ We are taking sins and making them to be legally OK, and that is wrong. … And I’m not saying that this is the only sin that’s out there. Obviously, we have sin, we have murder, we have all sorts of sin. We have adultery … and we would never think to make murder legal.”

* What he said Wednesday: “I don’t mean to be hateful. I don’t think I’m hateful. People have accused me of that. I’m just voicing my opinions on what I believe and trying to speak what I think is the truth. Our First Amendment allows freedom of speech and I should be allowed to say what I want on any issue. 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. 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 our society.”

This is just BS, pure and simple.  Aside from the fact that plenty of “sins” are legal in our society, Leviticus should not be the basis of our legislative decisions.  Speaking of Leviticus, I have to wonder just how many shrimp cocktails this guy has slurped down over the course of his career.  Hmmm?

h/t aimai at If I Ran the Zoo

6 Responses to “You Can’t Make This Sh*t Up”

  1. bhmhomeboy says:

    I thought republicans were “pro life”?

  2. Del says:

    I wonder if he knows that they also assume every mother might have syphilis and put stuff in their babies’ eyes at birth accordingly to prevent the righteous curse of blindness. Or that they assume an Rh neg married woman might be carrying a baby fathered by someone other than her also-Rh neg husband and insist on giving her an injection of gammaglobulin or whatever the stuff is. (If that last one sounds like personal experience, it is.)

    This particular horse galloped out the barn door long ago. Sorry, Senator, but you’ll have to find another way to punish them Jezebels.

  3. Kathy says:

    I thought republicans were “pro life”?

    Yeah, me too. Who knew at least some of them find punishing sinful women more important?

    It is good to know that this guy is the only Republican who opposes the bill. Perhaps his party will start looking around for someone to oppose him in the next primary.

  4. Bill says:

    OFFS……. (growling noises, thrown things, etc)

  5. GDad says:

    That kind of GOPer is only pro-life from conception to birth.

  6. Yeah, I had a similar reaction to it… I’m willing to bet he’s “pro-life” and against embryonic stem cell research. And folks wonder why I approach the typical “pro-life” abortion stance with a healthy dose of cynicism…

    For the record, I do consider myself to be pro-life, but I’m also a realist. I don’t limit myself to saving the life of the unborn. I look at the human life in general and the quality thereof. Abortions put two lives on the line– not just one. I’m not naive enough to pretend that outlawing is equivalent to elimination, and legalization of an act I abhor will bring with it regulation that at least preserves the life of the mother. I also realize that not every situation is so black and white.

Leave a Reply