State Senator Schultheis: How Can You Suggest AIDS on a Baby?

I’m not a person to want to just curse or fight for no reason, but this guy needs to be cursed out then hit upside his head.

This is one of those you must hear to believe it for yourself. >> Click Here To Listen For Yourself

How is this a difficult bill for you to vote on?

This is absolutely an unbelievable assertion for anyone with a conscience to make such an outrageous statements as State Senator Dave Schultheis (R-CO).

He voted Yes in committee, but when it came up to an official vote on the measure he votes against a bill requiring HIV tests for pregnant women.

Now for those who will immediately say, ‘he has a right to do so’, let me caution you before you start picking sides based on political ideology. I agree he does have the right to vote against it, but this is his reasoning behind it.

Since the disease stems from sexual promiscuity he doesn’t want to see the state doing anything to remove the negative consequences that takes place because poor and unacceptable behavior.” – STATE SENATOR DAVE SCHULTHEIS

Although I think Sen. Schultheis has a narrow-minded view of HIV/Aids similar to what we saw between Former Vice-President Dick Cheney & Former Sen. John Edwards during the 2004 Vice-Presidential Debates when the question was raised in regards of the rise in cases of AIDS among heterosexual Black women. AIDS & HIV is not bound to a single community or specific orientation. There are both cases of Republicans & Democrats, Black, Latino, Native, Asian & White, Women & Men, and yes Gay and Straight people who contract AIDS/HIV. It’s not bound to any one… Never mind. Why am I even trying to explain this to you?

I swear you just give me more reasons each day why I should consider running for a political office, because this sort of ignorance towards readily available information is amazing. This is not a political or ideological question, but health and wellness one that can be answered with a simple YES. But it’s idiots like this on both sides of the political persuasion that irritates me to the point where I don’t need or deserve the constant headache that it would cause.

Let me finish my thought, because it gets worse.

This idiot actually is defending his original outrageous statement with another despicable statement.

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.” Source: Rocky Mountain News – 02/25/09

Now before I start cursing I must say that there were some of his state senate colleagues who were equally outraged over his reasoning. Here’s a few of them.

Sen. Schultheis drew the conclusion that anyone who may have HIV is sexually promiscuous. I find that offensive in the context of this bill and I find it offensive in the context of the gay community.” – State Sen. Jennifer Veiga

What this bill will do and why it’s so important to test the woman when she is pregnant — if she is HIV-positive, treatment is started immediately to protect the baby, the unborn baby.” – State Sen. Thornton, who is also a nurse.

HIV does not just come from sexual promiscuity, it comes from many other things — contaminated blood, for one.” – Sen. Lois Tochtrop

I challenge anyone out there that believes they can defend the State Senator’s statement. I would love to hear it. I don’t care if you’re a Republican or Democrat why is he still in office? If it was me there would have been repeated calls for my resignation.

What a way to start Women’s History Month.

References & Inspirations
Colorado Independent – 02/25/09 “HIV babies are punishment for promiscuous moms
Advertisements

6 thoughts on “State Senator Schultheis: How Can You Suggest AIDS on a Baby?

  1. Schultheis is one of those guys that ends up being videotaped in a downtown porn palace dressed like an elf and performing double glory hole.

    On Sunday.

    With a smile.

  2. So, the government is not allowed to help out people who made bad choices? If someone tosses aside a cigarette and his house catches on fire, the fire department shouldn’t come and put it out? Even if it means endangering the whole community?

    I agree with the senator who spoke after him in the clip that if medicine can intervene to help the baby — who will bear the burden as a result of its mother’s “promiscuity” — then it is ethical to cure it. It would be ironic if he is pro-life (being a Republican, I assume he is), since he would want the baby to be protected in the womb, only to have it be subjected to a horribly weakened immune system after birth.

  3. I couldn’t get the link to load so I didn’t hear his actual words. But from I’ve read, I don’t think there is any real true defense of this guy. HIV/AIDS is not ALWAYS the result of promiscuity. And besides that, even if it is why should the child suffer. He might as well say–anyone who gets a disease from doing something that is considered “wrong” should be allowed to suffer the consequences and not be given help. So, if a person smokes and gets cancer, should we simply allow them to rot and not give them treatment? Is that the way to teach everyone else a lesson? And I bet he calls himself a Christian.

  4. Here we go again. Someone has given an idiot too much power. Tim, you are being called into political office. You may as well put on your boots and get to stepping.

    1. I originally wanted to do something in politics, but I’m all to willing to speak the truth and fairness on the issues. So I would not fit into the standard mode of politics. But you never know what may happen. I know that if I would have been in Colorado State Assembly I would have torn into Schulthesis statement.

Comments are closed.