RH Reality Check
Font Size: A |  A |  A

Colorado Legislator: HIV Testing for Pregnant Moms Rewards "Sexual Promiscuity"

By Ernest Luning, New Journalist Fellow

February 25, 2009 - 4:25pm

Ernest Luning's picture

Colorado 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.

"HIV does not just come from sexual promiscuity, it comes from many other things - contaminated blood, for one," fired back one of the bill's sponsors, Sen. Lois Tochtrop, after Schultheis spoke on the Senate floor.

"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," the Thornton Democrat, who is also a nurse, said.

Listen to Schultheis and Tochtrop here.

Reaction to Schultheis' remarks rippled through the Capitol.

"Sen. Schultheis drew the conclusion that anyone who may have HIV is sexually promiscuous," said Sen. Jennifer Veiga, a Denver Democrat and the Legislature's only openly lesbian member. "I find that offensive in the context of this bill and I find it offensive in the context of the gay community."

"I think (Sen. Schultheis) owes the (Legislature) and the public at large an apology," Veiga said.

She castigated the GOP for staying silent when its legislators make outrageous points during debates on bills. "Republicans continue to allow comments like this to go unchecked," she said, referencing statements made Monday when Republican Sen. Scott Renfroe compared homosexuality to murder in a debate over a bill sponsored by Veiga to expand health benefits to same-sex partners of state employees. "They quietly sit by and acquiesce."

The Colorado Republican Party didn't return a call seeking comment on Renfroe's and Schultheis' remarks.

"They absolutely should call Sen. Schultheis on his comments and the inappropriateness of his comments, as they should have done with Sen. Renfroe two days ago," Veiga said. "Even Gov. Owens distanced himself and called to task members of his own party" when they go over the line, Veiga said.

Here's a transcript, prepared by The Colorado Independent, of what Schultheis said:

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.


. . . . .
7 comments
Please login or register to post comments...
What Sen. Schultheis said is deplorable -- he is clearly stating that contracting HIV (and, because this bill target pregnant women, passing HIV on to a newborn) is a fair price to be paid for violating his sexual moral standard. That said, I would oppose this bill too. To force women, or anyone, to undergo medical treatment is battery. This is paternalism similar to anti-choice laws, and will result in similar fetal rights arguments.
Submitted by Emily Douglas on February 25, 2009 - 4:29pm.

Sen. Schultheis' ignorance is stunning not only in his assumption that a pregnant woman is a trollop but that married women are not at risk for contracting HIV through any number of methods. For an avowed and absolutist anti-abortion activist, Sen. Schultheis displays a horrifying disregard for the health of women and children.

 

To your concern Emily about forced testing, the language in SB 179, which addresses a broad spectrum of communicable disease control of HIV/AIDS, TB, STIs and agency definitions, includes an opt-out clause:

Requires health care providers providing care to a pregnant
woman during gestation, or hospitals where a pregnant
woman presents for delivery, to test the woman for HIV if
she has not previously been tested and allows the pregnant
woman to decline to be tested;

Submitted by Wendy Norris, RH Reality Check on February 25, 2009 - 5:36pm.

This is so unbelievable in this day and age that someone in the senate is so ill informed about a subject, and then rants about it blaming women again for everything! I think that women have become the scape goats for everything. We need more female Senators,Congresswomen Govenors (not like Palin) and mayors in this country.

Submitted by Anonymous on February 25, 2009 - 6:34pm.

What I find amazing is how little this Senator is educated on HOW people get HIV. Many people are in what they believe to be monogamous relationships and it's their PARTNER who isn't monogamous. I think we can look too many of our role models in Congress or churches, who are white men who've been caught in sex scandals in the last few years. If they brought home HIV to their wives, does this make their wives sluts???

Submitted by Jamie on February 26, 2009 - 1:13pm.

Gosh - one has to wonder how many hookers this guy has been with. Most medical conditions are a result of our "bad" behavior. Lets get the government out of all medicine then and stop focusing on naughty women. No more government funding for prostate cancer research. Our nations men need to have healthier diets and if they refuse to eat well then let them die early from it.

Submitted by curtis on February 26, 2009 - 7:17pm.

I think it is a good idea to have pregnant mothers tested for HIV. If they find out they are HIV positive, they can almost eliminate (less than 1% chance) the chances of baby getting HIV by following the CDC guidelines (C-section birth, 6 weeks of AZT treatment for baby and mother) and stopping any breast feeding.

Submitted by HIV Chat on March 8, 2009 - 5:58pm.

In my own opinion it is a good idea to have pregnant mothers tested for HIV. If they find out they are HIV positive, they can almost eliminate the chances of baby getting HIV by following the CDC guidelines and stopping any breast-feeding. It’s not that I don’t believe that women are monogamous but let’s be more practical men are sexually active than women so there is possibility that they could infect their wives. Nowadays, it’s really hard to bring back our old ways of standard living. We still are facing up all this economic downturns that result into too much poverty, starvation and unemployment to some of our people. But on the other hand some jobs still exist even in times of hard life. One of this is a Realtor. It is said being Realtor is a good career. A Realtor during a housing boom can rake in the cash, especially if they’re able to work in an expensive market. Take Marin County for instance – Marin County is the county of the North Bay Area around San Francisco. Unfortunately, it is also close to Oakland. However, with the housing market being what it is, you can't get a house for really cheap in California with poor credit, even with a payday loan to help out with a deposit. Still, some in the Realtor trade are resorting to installment loans to keep afloat. Just try to save more and always keep in mind that too many expenses is unwanted at this time of recession.

Submitted by JonathonO on May 7, 2009 - 2:52am.