Who votes for these people?

[Ravi]

SEN. DAVE SCHULTHEIS, R-Colorado Springs, on Wednesday voted againt Senate Bill 179, which requires pregnant women to undergo HIV testing to ensure steps can be taken to reduce transferring the disease to the baby if the mother is infected.

* 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."

GOP lawmakers cringe at colleagues' words on sexuality : Updates : The Rocky Mountain News

 

[rayboyusmc]

This stems from sexual promiscuity

I guess we have never had that before in our nation.

This guy is an asshole. Punish the child for the parent. Actually, sounds sort of bibilica.

 

[editec]

Who votes for people like that?

People for whom sex is dirty, of course.

And not the good kind of dirty that we all like, either.

The kind of frigtened by sex kind dirty that makes you think other people's sexuality is YOUR buiness

 

[xsited1]

SEN. DAVE SCHULTHEIS, R-Colorado Springs, on Wednesday voted againt Senate Bill 179, which requires pregnant women to undergo HIV testing to ensure steps can be taken to reduce transferring the disease to the baby if the mother is infected.

...

You want the government to require pregnant women to undergo HIV testing? Isn't that a bit intrusive? Some might say that violates a person's civil liberties.

 

[Ravi]

You want the government to require pregnant women to undergo HIV testing? Isn't that a bit intrusive? Some might say that violates a person's civil liberties.

That would be a fine argument. What he said isn't.

 

[Valerie]

You want the government to require pregnant women to undergo HIV testing? Isn't that a bit intrusive? Some might say that violates a person's civil liberties.

That would be a fine argument. What he said isn't.

Here's some good info on the subject.

HIV Testing Among Pregnant Women --- United States and Canada, 1998--2001

Since 1994, the availability of increasingly effective antiretroviral drugs for both the prevention of perinatal human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) transmission and maternal treatment has resulted in a greater emphasis on prenatal HIV testing and substantial increases in prenatal testing rates. In 2000, preliminary data indicated that 766 (93%) of 824 HIV-infected women in 25 states knew their HIV status before delivery (CDC, unpublished data, 2002). However, an estimated 280--370 perinatal HIV transmissions continue to occur in the United States each year (1). The primary strategy to prevent perinatal HIV transmission is to maximize prenatal HIV testing of pregnant women. States and Canadian provinces have implemented three different prenatal HIV-testing approaches. To assess their effectiveness, CDC reviewed prenatal HIV-antibody testing rates associated with these approaches. Medical record data suggest that the "opt-in" voluntary testing approach is associated with lower testing rates than either the "opt-out" voluntary testing approach or the mandatory newborn HIV testing approach.

Under the opt-in approach, women typically are provided pre-HIV test counseling and must consent specifically to an HIV-antibody test. Under the opt-out approach, women are notified that an HIV test will be included in a standard battery of prenatal tests and procedures and that they may refuse testing (2). Under mandatory newborn HIV testing, newborns are tested for HIV, with or without the mother's consent, if the mother's HIV status is unknown at delivery.

 

[xsited1]

You want the government to require pregnant women to undergo HIV testing? Isn't that a bit intrusive? Some might say that violates a person's civil liberties.

That would be a fine argument. What he said isn't.

Politicians say stupid things. That's a given. As long as he wants to limit government control, I really don't care what he says.

 

[Ravi]

You want the government to require pregnant women to undergo HIV testing? Isn't that a bit intrusive? Some might say that violates a person's civil liberties.

That would be a fine argument. What he said isn't.

Politicians say stupid things. That's a given. As long as he wants to limit government control, I really don't care what he says.

I'm happy for you. There is stupid and then there is evil. And if what Val posted is correct, he is both.

 

[xsited1]

That would be a fine argument. What he said isn't.

Politicians say stupid things. That's a given. As long as he wants to limit government control, I really don't care what he says.

I'm happy for you. There is stupid and then there is evil. And if what Val posted is correct, he is both.

How does what Val posted make him stupid and evil? Aren't we talking about mandatory testing by the government?

 

[Newby]

Politicians say stupid things. That's a given. As long as he wants to limit government control, I really don't care what he says.

I'm happy for you. There is stupid and then there is evil. And if what Val posted is correct, he is both.

How does what Val posted make him stupid and evil? Aren't we talking about mandatory testing by the government?

Ironic, isn't it? And this same crowd, should you talk about abortion, would be on the complete opposite side of the arguement then. What was that about punishing the child because of the wants of the parent? And he's exactly right, the government just keeps taking away the consequences for irresponsible behavior in their quest to have everyone relying on them for everything, and it's got to stop.

 

[toomuchtime_]

SEN. DAVE SCHULTHEIS, R-Colorado Springs, on Wednesday voted againt Senate Bill 179, which requires pregnant women to undergo HIV testing to ensure steps can be taken to reduce transferring the disease to the baby if the mother is infected.

* 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."

GOP lawmakers cringe at colleagues' words on sexuality : Updates : The Rocky Mountain News

Since Roe v. Wade holds that the fetus is a part of the woman's body and not a separate human being until after delivery, isn't requiring the woman to undergo testing a violation of her right of privacy that is the foundation of Roe v. Wade? Isn't it an implicit recognition of the fetus as a separate human being?

 

[elvis]

SEN. DAVE SCHULTHEIS, R-Colorado Springs, on Wednesday voted againt Senate Bill 179, which requires pregnant women to undergo HIV testing to ensure steps can be taken to reduce transferring the disease to the baby if the mother is infected.

* 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."

GOP lawmakers cringe at colleagues' words on sexuality : Updates : The Rocky Mountain News

Since Roe v. Wade holds that the fetus is a part of the woman's body and not a separate human being until after delivery, isn't requiring the woman to undergo testing a violation of her right of privacy that is the foundation of Roe v. Wade? Isn't it an implicit recognition of the fetus as a separate human being?

That being the case, why was Scott Peterson charged with DOUBLE murder?

 

[Valerie]

SEN. DAVE SCHULTHEIS, R-Colorado Springs, on Wednesday voted againt Senate Bill 179, which requires pregnant women to undergo HIV testing to ensure steps can be taken to reduce transferring the disease to the baby if the mother is infected.

* 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."

GOP lawmakers cringe at colleagues' words on sexuality : Updates : The Rocky Mountain News

I agree with you. When women are given the option to NOT be tested, they are choosing to put a baby that is due to be born six weeks later at a MUCH greater risk. The science says the risk of transmission to the child of an HIV positive woman who is given preventative treatment six weeks prior to delivery, reduces the risk for the child to develop full-blown AIDS from approximately 4 to 1 to approximately 50 to 1.

 

[toomuchtime_]

GOP lawmakers cringe at colleagues' words on sexuality : Updates : The Rocky Mountain News

Since Roe v. Wade holds that the fetus is a part of the woman's body and not a separate human being until after delivery, isn't requiring the woman to undergo testing a violation of her right of privacy that is the foundation of Roe v. Wade? Isn't it an implicit recognition of the fetus as a separate human being?

That being the case, why was Scott Peterson charged with DOUBLE murder?

That suggests that without Roe v. Wada Ca. would limit abortions.

 

[Valerie]

Since Roe v. Wade holds that the fetus is a part of the woman's body and not a separate human being until after delivery, isn't requiring the woman to undergo testing a violation of her right of privacy that is the foundation of Roe v. Wade? Isn't it an implicit recognition of the fetus as a separate human being?

That being the case, why was Scott Peterson charged with DOUBLE murder?

That suggests that without Roe v. Wada Ca. would limit abortions.

First, a woman chooses in the first trimester whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term, then if someone murders her they have taken her life as well as the life of the unborn.

When a woman chooses to carry a baby to term and then also chooses not to have herself tested for HIV in the third trimester, she is putting the child she chose to have, at a much higher risk unnecessarily.

 

[elvis]

That being the case, why was Scott Peterson charged with DOUBLE murder?

That suggests that without Roe v. Wada Ca. would limit abortions.

First, a woman chooses in the first trimester whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term, then if someone murders her they have taken her life as well as the life of the unborn.

When a woman who chooses to carry a baby to term and then also chooses not to have herself tested for HIV in the third trimester, she is putting the child she chose to have, at a much higher risk unnecessarily.

so you'll agree then, that any woman who terminates her pregnancy in the second or third trimester has committed murder?

 

[Red Dawn]

SEN. DAVE SCHULTHEIS, R-Colorado Springs, on Wednesday voted againt Senate Bill 179, which requires pregnant women to undergo HIV testing to ensure steps can be taken to reduce transferring the disease to the baby if the mother is infected.

* 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."

GOP lawmakers cringe at colleagues' words on sexuality : Updates : The Rocky Mountain News

Who votes for these people?

the same people who belive in teaching creation science, outlawing abortion, making women pay for rape kits, and limiting women's access to contraceptive plan B pills.

In short, conservative republicans.

 

[xsited1]

That being the case, why was Scott Peterson charged with DOUBLE murder?

That suggests that without Roe v. Wada Ca. would limit abortions.

First, a woman chooses in the first trimester whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term, then if someone murders her they have taken her life as well as the life of the unborn.

When a woman chooses to carry a baby to term and then also chooses not to have herself tested for HIV in the third trimester, she is putting the child she chose to have, at a much higher risk unnecessarily.

More governmental control over a woman's body to protect the unborn.

 

[Truthmatters]

the Republicans are on a self imposed death march to oblivian.

 

[Valerie]

That suggests that without Roe v. Wada Ca. would limit abortions.

First, a woman chooses in the first trimester whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term, then if someone murders her they have taken her life as well as the life of the unborn.

When a woman who chooses to carry a baby to term and then also chooses not to have herself tested for HIV in the third trimester, she is putting the child she chose to have, at a much higher risk unnecessarily.

so you'll agree then, that any woman who terminates her pregnancy in the second or third trimester has committed murder?

The statistics show that only a very small number of pregnancies are terminated that far along, and I do think late term abortions should be banned unless there is a legitimate medical reason to terminate the pregnancy.