GOP lawmakers cringe at colleagues' words on sexuality

Promiscuity cited by Schultheis in vote against HIV testing

By Lynn Bartels, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published February 25, 2009 at 1:05 p.m.

Text size

Photo by Darin McGregor © The Rocky

Dave Schultheis, R-Colorado Springs.

Poll

Should two state Republican senators be reprimanded for recent remarks about HIV and homosexuality?

More Colorado Government

Comments

February 25, 2009

1:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cowboy63 writes:

Can't let a little thing like THE TRUTH get in the way of Political Correctness!
February 25, 2009

1:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

JMH writes:

Just can't figure out why the GOP is in the minority? (LOL & a roll of the eyes)

This party of nuts just seems to be losing it's mind more and more since November...
February 25, 2009

1:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

buffsblg writes:

So your version of the "truth" cowboy is that we should let children contract a potentially deadly disease so that they can be an "example" for others? If that is your truth, then I prefer the lies that protect kids.
February 25, 2009

1:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

CaptainObvious writes:

Trace it all the way back to Nancy Reagan telling addicts to "Just Say No" to drugs...they are completely out of touch with the real world. Hopefully, with a few more idiotic statements like this and Renfroe's, the GOP will implode on itself like a dying star.
February 25, 2009

1:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

SheikYurBooty writes:

He's just pandering to his base.
February 25, 2009

1:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

NeilT writes:

The truth?

As usual, Neocons deny reality.

Fact: Babies will be born with this deadly disease.

Fact: With treatment, "the risk of transferring the disease from mother to baby can be reduced from 25 percent to 2 percent with medication"

This doesn't promote promiscuity, it saves lives and prevents suffering. I would think good Christians would be all for it.
February 25, 2009

1:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

Grim_Reefer writes:

Renfroe States: "I don't mean to be hateful. I don't think I'm hateful. People have accused me of that," he said. "I'm just voicing my opinions on what I believe and trying to speak what I think is the truth."

I don;t mean to be hateful, but I am going to be hateful..becuase God wants me to be hateful..he tells me to be hateful, to promote and pass laws that are hateful.

It's in everyone's interest that HIV/AIDS be stopped, prevented, slowed, etc...by nearly any means possible (note the nearly)...

I stand behind many GOP values..but these caulkgobblins Renfroe and Schultheist and others who pimp religous dogma make the GOP unpallatable.
February 25, 2009

1:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

buffsblg writes:

Remember that this is the same guy who called unwed mothers "sl#ts" and who accused a family hurt in a car accident of being illegal, unlicensed and uninsured (none of which was true) just because they had an hispanic name. A general all around judgmental embarrassment.
February 25, 2009

1:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

sheepherder writes:

Although I don't agree with his comments, he does have freedom of speech, no matter how silly. What amazes me is the call for him to resign. If foolish speech was impeachable, I don't think we would have any politicians left in office!
February 25, 2009

1:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

An attempt by Democrats to get the attention off their tax increases on vehicle registrations.
February 25, 2009

1:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

JMH writes:

Schultheist was also on Peter Boyles calling Rep. Diana DeGette - "Virgina DeJette"... Those good ol' family values I suppose...

BTW, Schultheist also voted against the stimulus bill and then when it was passed anyway, he asked for the lion's share of Colorado's piece for the Springs... But I'm sure this is called "conservative values" and not "hypocracy" in NeoCon circles... LOL...

Just can't understand why this party is going downhill though?
February 25, 2009

1:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

Buff4Life writes:

buffsblg - I couldn't have said it better myself.

Here, the kids have done nothing wrong, yet the GOP wants to 'punish' the family for potential promiscuity? ARE YOU FREAKING NUTS?!?! This is wrong on so many levels as promiscuity is not illegal, so no one should be punished and even if it were, punishing an unborn child for the acts of the parent is well, just freaking wrong. I thought you learn this in anti-abortion 101.

I have an idea. Let's punish Colorado Springs Republican lawmakers for every crime comitted in El Paso county because they obvoiusly either didn't pray hard enough for their sins and the sins of their fellow man, or simply aren't pious enough. That will cure all the wrongdoing that others commmit.

Sheesh. This guy is a looney - way out in left field (or right, as it may be). At least you know were the Greeley Bible thumper is coming from.
February 25, 2009

1:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

chickenlittle1234 writes:

Grim_Reefer - good post. I used to be a registered Republican until nitwits like Renfroe and Shultheis commandeered the party and drove it right over the righthand guardrail. As much dirt as I see thrown on the People's Republic of Boulder, I still wonder why similar dirt isn't thrown on the Christian (in name only) Taliban in Colorado Springs.
February 25, 2009

1:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

HankReardon writes:

Hear Hear, NeilT!
"Schultheis later today said accused Democrats of "speaking out of two sides of their mouths.""

Talk about twisting things around. Dave's got it all bassackwards.
February 25, 2009

1:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

GoldenKid writes:

Makes you wonder why the truth offend the Democrats so much? Could it be that they endorse promiscuity and immorality and destructive behaviours. Good for Sen.Schultheis! Now they will try to demonize him. Too bad if the truth offends them and their base. They can lump it! This is another case PC sensorship and of evil being called good and good being called evil.
February 25, 2009

1:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

enough321 writes:

Wow.

And I thought the importation of stupidity from California was limited to Doug Bruce. This guy is his separated-at-birth brother.
February 25, 2009

1:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

barbara2067 writes:

Who is this wacko Shultheis? He would let a baby be born with AIDS and not prevent it because he "hopes the family will see the negative consequences of ...promiscuity". Anyone who would let an AIDS baby suffer because he hopes it will be an object lesson is truly a moron, especially when there is an opportunity to prevent the baby's suffering.
February 25, 2009

1:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

COLibertarian writes:

I really dont give a rats butt about either side especially from the religious side of this story. To each their own but lets take a look at a few things.

First Armstrong from the article states;

""The proper purpose of government is to protect individual rights, not enforce religious dogma, whether or not the majority agrees with it,""

What the hell is this? We the legislators(govt) are passing a LAW to MANDATE/REQUIRE/LEGISLATE that a woman get tested if she is pregnant!!!!!!

Please show me how this fits with the quote above?

Also stating that we are going to do it "whether or not the majority agrees with it" IN the same sentence as to "protect the individual rights"

Cmon people. Wake up and see what our legislators are doing here. It has NOTHING to do with left or right liberal or conservative religous or not.

I personally think EVERYONE should be tested at least once and then if criteria defines further testing, then it should be done. This should be a part of EVERYONEs Health training and education.

If a woman is pregnant, she owes it to her and her family to have not only this test conducted but full blood panels to help create a treatment plan for the pregnancy.

But to legislate is not the answer. Health training and education. Having dealt with this issue a bit, I doubt those that any of those I am dealing with would have complied with this measure, as they did not comply with the many that are out there today for a solid treatment plan for pregnancy!

Spend the money on education and training. Not this!
February 25, 2009

1:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

gopbodybagz writes:

more often than not, behind many of these zealots, is a ted haggard type story.
February 25, 2009

1:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

Beergut writes:

Which is why some of us will never vote Republican in Coloado. Musgrave, Tancredo, Bruce. Nasty, nasty people. Dems have plenty of issues, but accepting and playing nice with others, a must in my book, isn't one of them.
February 25, 2009

1:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

expatman writes:

Why don't the voters in their districts send these clowns to join Marilyn Musgrave in the political unemployment line?
February 25, 2009

1:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

303Centennial writes:

Beergut writes:

Which is why some of us will never vote Republican in Coloado. Musgrave, Tancredo, Bruce. Nasty, nasty people. Dems have plenty of issues, but accepting and playing nice with others, a must in my book, isn't one of them
=======================================

Let the Liberals shine. NOT!!!!
February 25, 2009

1:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

SheikYurBooty writes:

gopbodybaagz - my thoughts exactly. If I were an aspiring reporter, I'd tail this guy. Kiddie porn? Gay sex?? I am not accusing, but just saying I wouldn't be surprised if that ever turned out, based on the Larry Craig, Foley, Haggard, etc sagas.
February 25, 2009

1:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

JoethePlumber writes:

JMH writes:

Schultheist was also on Peter Boyles calling Rep. Diana DeGette - "Virgina DeJette"... Those good ol' family values I suppose...

BTW, Schultheist also voted against the stimulus bill and then when it was passed anyway, he asked for the lion's share of Colorado's piece for the Springs... But I'm sure this is called "conservative values" and not "hypocracy" in NeoCon circles... LOL...

Just can't understand why this party is going downhill though?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How could Schultheis vote against the stimulus bill? He's not a member of Congress.

Once again you prove to not know of what you speak.

I see you still like to use the "Neo-Con" schtick though. At least you're consistent.
February 25, 2009

1:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

MBR693 writes:

JMH writes:

"Just can't figure out why the GOP is in the minority? (LOL & a roll of the eyes)"

No kidding. Imagine being opposed to the government mandating medical screening. I could care less about the congressman's comments. But it doesn't seem to bother too many "liberals" on this forum that the government should have such "control over a woman's body".
February 25, 2009

1:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

gs writes:

Who keeps electing these nuts? I really don't think they need to be in everyone's bedroom. Besides mine would be pretty boring.
February 25, 2009

2:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

Beergut writes:

303Centennial: See you think I'm a liberal, when I'll vote for an fiscal conservative who also is for civil rights for all. I don't why the two are so hard to find in one person. I love my friends and family, and the include one time illegals (a grandfather, who has passed), gays, Mexicans, you name it. We are all Americans, and we need to be treated equally and with respect. As long as the Republicans have people like Schultheis representing their party there is no way I can vote Republican. Even if the Dems want to increase my taxes to 100% and take away my guns they'll get my vote. Because what matter most of all is equality, and the Republicans are blind to that basic issue.
February 25, 2009

2:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

KW writes:

ColoLib - Good post, too bad more here can't rise above partisan name calling. Even Sheik had to drag out Foley and Craig's names again as if only those on the right are ever involved in sexual scandals.

I just can't figure out which is funnier though. Let me know what you think:

"Renfroe should resign or the Republican Party should condemn his comments." --Ari Armstrong

"Schultheist (a state politician) also voted against the stimulus bill (federal legislation)" --JMH

I think I'll vote for the latter.
February 25, 2009

2:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

chickenlittle1234 writes:

Beergut - I've pretty much stopped engaging posters like 303Centennial, because all of their arguments are painted in balck and white, liberal and conservative, etc. etc. They generally can't form an opinion until Flush has spoken, and then they stop polluting the world with that tripe. I'm like you in that I have a very hard time voting for any Republican in this state, which is too bad, because I'm sure some moderates are getting drowned out or pushed aside by nitwits like Shultheis and Renfroe.
February 25, 2009

2:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cel writes:

GoldenKid will burn in hell for his hatred
February 25, 2009

2:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

Jeff writes:

Before apologists for Schultheis bust out the hyperbole about "PC" this and "evil" that and "truth hurts" this other thing, I was wondering if they could define "promiscuity." Please be specific. If we're going to shape public policy on the concept, we have to define a criteria and a threshold, through numbers, of what comprises "promiscuity."
February 25, 2009

2:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

oceanview78382 writes:

What happened to the days of intelligent Republicans like Barry Goldwater who didn't moralize but quietly spoke about principle and personal freedom. What about the GOP that didn't want government inside people's lives?

This legislator is from Colorado Springs and they would elect Hitler if he had the GOP endorsement. Political parties stink- people should have to actually examine those who run for office.
February 25, 2009

2:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

RifleShots writes:

Moderate Republicans may have to form their own separate party (or join the Democrats) if they want a future in Colorado politics. Election results in 2006 and 2009 have shown that voters are not going to suffer the social insults from the extreme Right.
February 25, 2009

2:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

drew writes:

I say encourage more of these nasty, dimwitted righties to bring their bibles to the statehouse & talk as much as possible - their chances of ever making a political comeback are getting slimmer by the day.
February 25, 2009

2:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

Buff4Life writes:

Beergut- although a little haphazardly put, your point is well-taken. However, you don't go far enough. The Republican agenda is based upon unequality for Americans. Their current platform is centered on a class system where business owners pay less taxes than the workers. Look at their most recent Presidential candidate's proposed tax system. Tax the poor. Feed the rich.

I'm not saying that hard-working Americans who are smart and acheive their goals (ie, Bill Gates) should give what they make to everyone else, but the tax loopholes that are generally created by Republicans in favor of multi-millionaires need to stop. Everyone needs to pay their fair share.
February 25, 2009

2:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

Bonji writes:

I suppose the state senator from Colorado Springs thinks burying his head in the sand is better than taking action on issues, even if they are mistakes.

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

What? All pregnant women get pregnant because they are sexually promiscuous?

This is a public health issue, it has nothing to do with people being sexually promiscuous. I wish our elected officials could make a decision without thinking of their political base.
February 25, 2009

2:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

ramblinrose writes:

Matt. 7:1 "Do not judge, or you too will be judged."

John 8:1 "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

What frustrates me is that we throw around the "terms" and "labels" liberals, conservatives, democrats and republicans, with little regard to the fact that we are all people. So long as the "us and them" mentality continues the WE remains divided. Schultheis not only presents himself as ignorant but cruel. He perpetuates division between between people not harmony. Christ's message was of love. Schultheis' is of hate. He is not loving brother, nor sister, he's passing judgment and passing sentence. Brother Schultheis...The Salem Witch Trials are over...The Spanish Inquisition Done...Go back to your Bible visit Matt and John...and leave judgment up to God.
February 25, 2009

2:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

zuropa_man writes:

Homosexuals are gay
February 25, 2009

2:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

Who_Me writes:

Another loose cannon on deck. Is there no end to the stupid things our legislators can come up with? Apparently not. High marks for Colorado Springs, you sure can grow 'em.
February 25, 2009

2:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

enough321 writes:

Clearly COLibertarian and MBR need to read the article, instead of knee-jerking the Republican "freedom from government" arguments. There isn't a mandate of medical screening or a requirement that the pregnant woman get tested...."the bill allows mothers to opt out, and doctors will note that in their records." Thus, the bill ensures that, later on, the mother can be held personally accountable for the child's healthcare, and the doctor can't be sued for not offering the treatment.

Surprise surprise! Republicans oppose personal accountability and protecting doctors from lawsuits.
February 25, 2009

2:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

TruthHurts writes:

Let me get this straight...Republicans do not want to allow abortions but hope the fetus gets AIDs to teach the parents a lesson.......? And they say they are protecting whose rights?
February 25, 2009

2:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

mokey writes:

"zuropa_man writes:

Homosexuals are gay"

First, let me say that this made me laugh.

It ought to be so easy for Republicans to flip at least one house in the 2010 elections AND take back the First Floor of the Capitol, but the ugliness in the party at the moment might make that very difficult.

For example, why is the head of the GOP STILL the head of the GOP? If your team is falling apart (sports analogy) don't you seriously look at getting a new head coach? After all, both houses of the Legislature are in the D category, as is the Governor's Office, as are both Senate seat and as are a majority of Congressional House seats.

The State of the Republican Party in Colorado in the past several years has grown progressively worse and still we have the same leadership.
February 25, 2009

2:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

jjez writes:

They arlready test pregnant women for gonhorrea, measles and various other diseases that can be passed to a fetus at birth causing all sorts of problems. It isn't a difficult stretch to say test for HIV. But because there is such a stigma attached to having HIV, people who are alarmists say "if they know you have it, there'll be all sorts of problems with insurance, blah, blah, blah so don't get tested for it" even though statistics show that those who get treated live longer. And mothers treated during pregnancy very rarely pass it on. But it will, eventually, kill the person who has it. There is no cure, only prevention. What woman in her right mind would WANT to pass this horror onto her children? If I were pregnant, and there was ANY chance of me having it, you bet I'd want to get tested. And treated. Regardless, there is no SOUND reason to say DO NOT test pregnant women for HIV. Only the supposed stigma attached to those who are positive. But what they should sign do is make a law that says an insurance company cannot REFUSE to pay for treatment of anyone with HIV, pregnant or not!
February 25, 2009

2:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

666 writes:

Schultheis and Renfroe. A couple more overgrown children who are more concerned with being popular with their most ignorant and backwards constituents than they are with doing their jobs and making legislative progress. A couple of buffalo chips off the same block that produced Peter Boyles and Ann Coulter, shameless panderers of belligerent ignorance.

Which reminds me...why is it that conservatives only make a serious effort to support freedom of speech when they or their pals are making ignorant dergoatory remarks about minorities or the Democrats? Apparently the most important kind of protected speech, according to the Republican party, is hate speech. That's what will get the drooling hillbillies out in force to vote for them, after all. And that's what's really important to them...not doing what's best for the community as a whole or making common-sense legislation that's fair and just.
February 25, 2009

2:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

mokey writes:

For example, why is the head of the GOP STILL the head of the GOP?

...and by this I mean the State GOP...
February 25, 2009

2:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

COLibertarian writes:

enough321 writes:

Clearly COLibertarian and MBR need to read the article, instead of knee-jerking the Republican "freedom from government" arguments. There isn't a mandate of medical screening or a requirement that the pregnant woman get tested...."the bill allows mothers to opt out, and doctors will note that in their records." Thus, the bill ensures that, later on, the mother can be held personally accountable for the child's healthcare, and the doctor can't be sued for not offering the treatment.

Surprise surprise! Republicans oppose personal accountability and protecting doctors from lawsuits.

---------------------------------------------------

CLEARLY enough should read my Screenname? AND the first line in my sentence.

I did read the article. By your post you show that it is more important to legislate than it is to educate.... Very sad commentary on your part! IT IS STILL LEGISLATION. Start at the beginning with education and training instead of legislating after the fact!

I would rather spend the tax dollars that you, myself and every other taxpaying citizen on the EDUCATION. This creates a more dependent, educated and responsible community! Does it not?

And if those at the highest risk, opt out? After we pay for the problems postscript, how are we to recoup those liabilities through legislation? Jail time? Civil? Good luck with that!
February 25, 2009

2:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

HankReardon writes:

Exactly TruthHurts,
Now the innocent babies are being judged by the sins of the mother and father. Amen.
February 25, 2009

3:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

GladysKravitz writes:

Schultheis certainly doesn't disappoint, and Renfroe is just as much in gooses-step with him. I guess someone has has to wear the Doug Bruce mantel of shame.

This is just another case of GOP goyim talking out of their tuchas spreading thier politics of hate. They only do so to make themselves seem relevant at a time when the GOP has suffered badly throughout the past election cycles. They tend to draw from their faith, all the negative stereotypes that go with it, just to gain attention as opposed to helping people and serving us. God forbid AIDS befalls them, they'd change their tune quick if it did.

If they want to take biblical law, JEWISH law states that one is forbidden to stand in judgement of a person who is sick, regardless of how a person contracts an illness. It is called "Shetuff Betsa'ar". In fact it is a SIN (Misters Renfroe and Schultheis) in the eyes of God.
February 25, 2009

3:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

jlstaud writes:

Hold on just a sec. Let me make sure I'm getting this right. They want to pass a law saying that a woman has to get an HIV test? What happened to a woman's right to choose? It's her body isn't it? If she has HIV and passes it on to a child that's her right, right? After all, she has the choice to terminate her child's life while it is in the womb. I'm seriously confused here. Maybe I don't understand the bill. Can anyone explain? Why would we legislate anything medical for an individual?
February 25, 2009

3:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

forty5ford writes:

oh but you see there isn't promiscuity amongst the GOP cause they're all such pantywaists and pollyanna's... didn't you know that only those sorts of things happen to non-GOP persons. it's easier for them to bury their heads in the sand to deny reasonable protections for innocent newborns than embrace the realities of irresponsible parents in the the world today.
February 25, 2009

3:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

KW writes:

What's next, legislation requiring women to "opt out" of an abortion?
February 25, 2009

3:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

GladysKravitz writes:

Sexual promiscuity.....the Palin's are great examples of FAMILY OF THE YEAR. I would hate to think that Tripp Palin Johnston will have latant birth defects being exposed to his paternal grandmother's Meth lab.
February 25, 2009

3:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

enough321 writes:

jlstaud, for your reading enjoyment...no requirement for the test, just a notation that it was declined...

http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clic...

And COLibertarian, CLEARLY your education-instead-of-legislation ship has already sailed. See above. It's an amendment. Would you rather have judge-made law?, because that's what happens when the legislature doesn't address it.
February 25, 2009

3:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

ATLBorn79 writes:

Beergut writes:

"As long as the Republicans have people like Schultheis representing their party there is no way I can vote Republican. Even if the Dems want to increase my taxes to 100% and take away my guns they'll get my vote."

Why don't you do like I (and many other true conservatives) did and join the Libertarian Party? The LP is the ONLY party out there that TRULY represents small government and liberty. You want proof? This is from their party platform:

"Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the rights of individuals by government, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships."

"Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration."

Those are values the Republican Party USED to stand for.
February 25, 2009

3:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

JoethePlumber writes:

After reading the article again I have a simple question. Are our elected officials actually proposing that every woman in this state that gets pregnant must be tested for HIV? That is ridiculous! Set aside Schulteis' silly comments, the real story here is that once again our government is attempting to intrude into our personal lives. When does it end? So if my wife and I decide to have a child she has to get tested for HIV because of some government mandate? Who proposes this nonsense?

Leave it to the news media to focus more on silly shenanigan politics than the actual issue at hand which is an ever intrusive government.
February 25, 2009

3:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

ThingFish writes:

Sen. Scott Renfroe is definitely a closet homosexual.
February 25, 2009

3:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

benn writes:

"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," he said. "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."

What a piece of shit this guy is
February 25, 2009

3:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

MBR693 writes:

enough321 writes:

"Clearly COLibertarian and MBR need to read the article, instead of knee-jerking the Republican "freedom from government" arguments. There isn't a mandate of medical screening or a requirement that the pregnant woman get tested...."

You're missing the point. The article says, and I quote: "a bill requiring all pregnant women to be tested for HIV". That means that the default is to screen. This is not something the government should be requiring.

When I married (in a different state) there was a requirement for blood screening. Some bogus reason is given for the test, but our doctor, when pushed, admitted it is a venereal disease screening, as I suspected. We were able to opt out, though we had to be pushy about it. The doctor was a bit astonished, but we were both aware of where venereal diseases come from and neither of us was promiscuous.

There was also legislation at the time I was living there pushed by state Dems to make it MANDATORY that girls receive vaccination for HPV, which is transmitted by sexual activity. I'm not sure where that bill ever went.

The problem that you won't admit is that our actions have consequences, and it's a lot easier to be rescued from those consequences rather than adjusting our lifestyles to one of temperance.

There's really no argument here, of course. If we're nothing more than animals, and there is no such thing as absolute right and wrong, then the only recourse to our celebrated liberalism is to demand a bigger safety net from the government.
February 25, 2009

3:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

ATLBorn79 writes:

oceanview78382 writes:

"What happened to the days of intelligent Republicans like Barry Goldwater who didn't moralize but quietly spoke about principle and personal freedom. What about the GOP that didn't want government inside people's lives?"

Exactly. Barry M. Goldwater is my political idol.

What is truly disgusting is that nowadays, "Mr. Conservative" would be called a liberal or worse by Hannity, Rush and all the other neo-con idiots. Check out some things he had to say about mixing religion and government:

"I am a conservative Republican, but I believe in democracy and the separation of church and state. The conservative movement is founded on the simple tenet that people have the right to live life as they please as long as they don't hurt anyone else in the process."

"I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of 'conservatism.'"

"I don't have any respect for the Religious Right. There is no place in this country for practicing religion in politics."

"If they succeed in establishing religion as a basic Republican Party tenet they could do us in. When you say 'radical right' today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye."

"Well, I've spent quite a number of years carrying the flag of the 'Old Conservatism.' And I can say with conviction that the religious issues of these groups have little or nothing to do with conservative or liberal politics. The uncompromising position of these groups is a divisive element that could tear apart the very spirit of our representative system, if they gain sufficient strength."

"The religious factions will go on imposing their will on others unless the decent people connected to them recognize that religion has no place in public policy. They must learn to make their views known without trying to make their views the only alternatives. We have succeeded for 205 years in keeping the affairs of state separate from the uncompromising idealism of religious groups and we mustn't stop now. To retreat from that separation would violate the principles of conservatism and the values upon which the framers built this democratic republic."

It's too bad the GOP no longer represents these principles.
February 25, 2009

3:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

INC writes:

punish the Child for the parents "bad behavior". when sex itself between consenting adults is bad behavior to these prudes...

republicanism itself should disqualify these narrow minded, social domineering, (attempted social engineering) misfits from holding public office.

(eyes rolling)
February 25, 2009

3:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

SoftCopy writes:

His justification for his opinion is a joke. Who in their right mind would prevent an innocent baby from receiving treatment that would make their lives safer and healthier? And more over, why should an innocent child be forced to bear the brunt of his/her mother's actions? He should be lucky that the same logic doesn't apply to him when he's judged.

But the hypocrisy of those who would support this bill and also support abortion rights is the pink elephant in the room. He is exactly right to point out that those who use the "not a person" argument to support abortion can not also use the "innocent baby" argument to support this bill. A baby is either a human being at conception (my opinion) and as a result has rights to its life, or at birth. You can not use the definition that best fits your political agenda depending on the situation. This reminds me of the fervent opposition from "pro-choice" activists to a bill that would have charged someone who killed a pregnant woman with two murders, one for the mother, and one for the baby because it would have set a precedent for the "person at conception" definition.

It's the height of hypocrisy people! A baby is not a baby only when that particular mother says it is, or wants to keep it.
February 25, 2009

3:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

Darwin writes:

Colib; you may be right but the article states "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."

Jlstaud; like you, I picked up on that hypocrisy. A woman has a right to her body until she doesn't.

While I tend to agree that the remarks came across as stupid, I find it interesting that some want him to resign for stupidity. As mentioned by others, based on that criteria, most ALL politicians should resign or be impeached. I assume all who want him to resign also want Burris (U.S. Senator), who has admitted that he "departed from the truth" to resign.

As an unaffiliated voter, I have the luxury to set back and watch you Dems and Repubs spout your vitriol without have to defend "my party" right or wrong. Perhaps a time will come when you realize that neither party is worth squat and you need to start thinking for yourself rather than follow what your "leaders" say. Silly me, no that time will never come.

Oh, and Buff4life, you stated "but the tax loopholes that are generally created by Republicans in favor of multi-millionaires need to stop. Everyone needs to pay their fair share."
Tell that to Geithner, Daschle, et.al. My observation is that Dems don't oppose taxing the wealthy because they don't pay taxes. lol.

Now it's time for all you sheep to attack my remarks. I'm not scared of sheep, they're weak.
February 25, 2009

3:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

O_TRAIN writes:

jlstaud @3:08 - to answer your question - no you're not getting it right. The article states, and has been pointed out by several posters, that the woman has a choice to opt out. Maybe you and JoethePlumber can reread the article again.

kudos to oceanview78382 for the Goldwater reference. The last true conservative Republican.
February 25, 2009

3:44 p.m.

Suggest removal

rage_against_the_stupid writes:

A legislator from Colorado makes a comment about unhealthy sexual practices and the consequences thereof, and somebody is already playing the PALIN card. That's so sad........
February 25, 2009

3:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

the_ripper writes:

As if someone's promiscuity, or lack thereof, is any of this idiot's business.
February 25, 2009

3:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

the_ripper writes:

"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," he said.

"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 society in my opinion."

OH GOODY!!!!
Some bible thumper is here to "save" us.
Hey Sen. Dave Schultheis, concentrate on legislative issues and keep your MYTHS to yourself, thanks.
February 25, 2009

3:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

COLibertarian writes:

Yes Enough321, forget education and training.......its sailed! Judge made law? NO But I would like for us to focus on something rather than punishment after the fact. Especially the financial pieces of this. Much better to punish them after the fact than educate!

Enough said!

And as I stated above but obviously did not read, is the fact that I think it is important for everyone you and I included to be tested..............And if we are not in a high risk category, then we should not have to be tested for awhile. It is yours and my responsibility to manage our health.

You fight for more legislation and Govt CYA. I will fight for more education of our citizens.

Education frees us to be better thinkers, better citizens and more prosperous to help our communities.

And to think you have to label me as the enemy for pushing for something that makes our community better rather than being a CYA for Govt officials. Have a great day Enough321.

It is Treatment Plan 101 for pregnancy.
February 25, 2009

3:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

JMH writes:

Joe the Plummer and KW...

You are right, I confused this clown with Lamborn - basically two peas in a pod. Both Colorado Springs radicals... But you are right, I was wrong... my critism was directed at Lamborn...

But Schulteis was on Peter Boyles complaining about the stimulus and calling DeGette derogitory names and laughing along, then he now has the nerve to cry about "morality". Seems to me that this clown has issues with women based on this story and that one...

But I'll admit I mixed up the radicals from the Springs... but does anyone want to bet that Schulteis hypocritically wont have a problem finding ways to try and spend the money he was SPEAKING out against?

Oh and Joe... you are a WACKED OUT NEOCON... sorry it gets under your skin so! You are not a moderate in anyway...

And it appears YOU don't know what you are talking about with this comment...

"I have seen so farSet aside Schulteis' silly comments, the real story here is that once again our government is attempting to intrude into our personal lives."

If you actually read the story above you would have read this line -"the bill allows mothers to opt out, and doctors will note that in their records."

No one is being forced to do anything... but at least your "spin" is consistant... LOL...
February 25, 2009

3:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

JluvDC writes:

This guy wants babies to get AIDs so their mother's feel a proper amount of guilt? And people are defending him? Wow.
February 25, 2009

4 p.m.

Suggest removal

ATLBorn79 writes:

O_TRAIN writes:

"kudos to oceanview78382 for the Goldwater reference. The last true conservative Republican."

Don't forget about Ron Paul...
February 25, 2009

4 p.m.

Suggest removal

zivo24 writes:

I knew from the headline that this was going to be about Schultheis.

The guy is a epic jerk - a gaping a-hole.
February 25, 2009

4:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

Apphouse50 writes:

What could be better than GOP fundamentalist loons?

These are the same evildoers who, in the guise of "pro-lifer," fight the HPV vaccine on the grounds that it encourages promiscuity among young women.

There truly is a special place in hell for them.

Beware the ones who claim to hold the moral high ground. You can't do business with them. Plus, they're really headed for hell.
February 25, 2009

4:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

GetReal writes:

This sudden feigned concern for babies and corresponding hypocritical outrage is predictable for the Party Of Abortion.

You guys aren't fooling anyone.
February 25, 2009

4:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

mycomment writes:

and he's a good christian man, too, no doubt.

what a perfect example of the ignorance/hate/mouthbreathing @ssholery that is the republican party.
February 25, 2009

4:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

brentmeister writes:

Beergut - Equal in bondage and slavery....Keep your equality, I'll keep the Constitution
February 25, 2009

4:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

zivo24 writes:

It's time to ship all the neo-cons, like Schultheis and Renfroe, to Iran - a government run by religious extremists who believe it is their duty to regulate personal freedoms - they'll fit right in.

Religious nazis - that's all they are.
February 25, 2009

4:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

SlouchingTowardBoulder writes:

"And Ari Armstrong, a conservative blogger, said Renfroe should resign or the Republican Party should condemn his comments."

The only time that Lynn references a "conservative blogger" is when one castigates a Republican. Nice, Lynn. You have 3 more days to dump on the GOP and then it's lights out.
February 25, 2009

4:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

COLibertarian writes:

Another point on this Bill.......

Are we not opening up Pandora's Box if you will regarding HIV testing and the Privacy that is so important in getting people tested voluntarily in our communities? For some it may help the child in not contracting HIV through the mother, but would really like to see and hear from AIDS activists on whether this bill will create more fear in HIV and privacy of testing within our community?

If this nitwit repub was actually a nitwit dem, would it change the views? This bill may have consequences that are negatative in nature and could set us back in Healthcare education and management in the future........
February 25, 2009

4:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

Apphouse50 writes:

COLibertarian:

Every state has strict rules under HIPAA about disclosure. But most if not all states' insurance rules address the informing of the person tested if they test positive. Seems to have worked out pretty well.
February 25, 2009

4:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

JluvDC writes:

All my ob-gyn doctors have asked to do an HIV test with each of my pregnancies even though I wouldn't be considered high risk of having it. I thought it was pretty standard and routine. I imagine they want to make it a law so that insurance companies have to cover the cost of it. No one should be embarrassed to take an HIV test or fear a stigma for doing it, chances are you don't have it. But it is something you should know for sure if you are pregnant because the medication can significantly reduce the chances of the baby getting it.
Once again I am completely baffled as to how any of this relates to abortion, but I think some people are too focused on the one issue to let any article get by without at least one abortion comment.
February 25, 2009

4:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

Apphouse50 writes:

>>You guys aren't fooling anyone.<<

Pretty funny coming from someone who is, presumably, a GOP defender. Ah, GOP, the party of life. Hilarious.
February 25, 2009

4:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

ATLBorn79 writes:

GetReal writes:

"This sudden feigned concern for babies and corresponding hypocritical outrage is predictable for the Party Of Abortion.

You guys aren't fooling anyone."

You want to hear a REAL Republican's thoughts on abortion?

"A lot of so-called conservatives don't know what the word means. They think I've turned liberal because I believe a woman has a right to an abortion. That's a decision that's up to the pregnant woman, not up to the pope or some do-gooders or the Religious Right."

-Barry M. Goldwater
February 25, 2009

4:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

BHS1976 writes:

Lynn, I bet you love sitting back and watching the fools debate. Congrats on a great career at the RMN, if the lights at the RMN do go out your light was one of the ones that burned the brightest, for the longest and will be missed the most. Best of luck.
February 25, 2009

4:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

COLibertarian writes:

Apphouse understand HIPAA very well. This bill could put some unintended loopholes into this in my opinion.....especially if there are litigation after the child is born............. Education is a better tool for this than opening up some things that make testing a bit more of a problem possibly
February 25, 2009

4:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

O_TRAIN writes:

ATLBorn79 - yes, you are correct Ron Paul deserves kudos as a true conservative.

Thanks for the Goldwater quote. Here are two of my favorites;

"When you say "radical right" today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican party and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye." BMG - 1994

"The Republican Party has been taken over by a bunch of kooks" BMG -1989
February 25, 2009

5:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

redwhiteandBLUE writes:

Shultheis and Renfroe keep up the good work!
February 25, 2009

5:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

Apphouse50 writes:

Just did some snooping around out at CDC and Census. In 2005, of the worst 15 states in the country for infant mortality, 11 were red/pink states. 15 GOP senators among those red/pink states, 11 of whom voted against SCHIP.

So tell me again, which party has the biggest commitment to LIFE?
February 25, 2009

5:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

mrwiizrd writes:

How about we let doctors and patients decide what's best for themselves instead our government sticking it's nose where it doesn't belong?

This wouldn't even be an issue.

While I agree this legislation might sound great, I also have no doubt that this bill will have unintended consequences.

At the very least it will artificially increase bureaucratic health care costs, the very thing people are complaining about already.
February 25, 2009

5:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

Apphouse50 writes:

By the way, the link to the infant mortality data is:

http://www.census.gov/compendia/stata...
February 25, 2009

5:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

Apphouse50 writes:

>>At the very least it will artificially increase bureaucratic health care costs<<

What about the health care costs of babies born with HIV?
February 25, 2009

5:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

HisPrinceMichael writes:

GetReal, undoubtedly Truth, offends.
So if I'm understanding many of these posts
A) Protecting babies from A.I.D.S. is imperiative
b) The highest-risk of A.I.D.S. is through homosexual relations
(which is a "beautiful thing" and is an "American" "right")
c) The continued slaughter (45 million and counting) of
unborn babies (in the most sacred place on Earth, it's mothers'
womb) is a "right".
d) No one can legislate a Womans body, but, we can destroy
a baby's body
e) ANYONE who opposes the above, is a "nazi" or "weirdo"

THE Battle, has just BEGUN:
http://www.all4webs.com/q/f/love4yahweh
February 25, 2009

5:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

timothyc writes:

This guy is pathetic.
February 25, 2009

5:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

Apphouse50 writes:

According to Wikipedia, in 2005, the US was in 42nd among 222 countries in infant mortality. Some of the countries that were ahead of us:

Singapore. Slovenia. Macau. And (little drum roll here) Cuba.

Sort of gives the lie to the line about us having the best healthcare system in the world. And at every possible opportunity, the GOP votes against measures that would put us where they like to say we are. How these people keep getting elected is bizarre, but the downtrodden seem to buy into the faux religiosity that they usually spew.

I ask again: who's more pro-life?
February 25, 2009

5:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

jjez writes:

COLib:Our children are "educated" about sex. And that education has done such a good job preventing teen pregnancy! We can educate about this until the cows come home, but then what? What about those who willfully ignore their education? I'm all for less government interference in our lives, but if a simple test prevents a child from dying (because they will, eventually) from a disease like AIDS, then why not? If it helps keep healthcare costs down, why not? If it allows a mother more time with her child before SHE dies, why not? And it would also give her the option of not bringing a life into the world when she won't be able to take care of it! That is, of course, if the mother is a responsible person.
February 25, 2009

5:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

WiseFool writes:

This man is as ridiculous as he is cruel.
February 25, 2009

5:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

angryrepublican writes:

At least we are entertained by the "legislators" from the christian Taliban. Of course no one thinks about the fact that a baby born with HIV will mean far more medicaid (tax dollars) expenditures than a simple test (that the mother can opt out of) that is fairly inexpensive.
February 25, 2009

6 p.m.

Suggest removal

Apphouse50 writes:

jjez, as ineffectual as sex ed seems to be, check this out as to how it stacks up against abstinence-only education:

http://www.siecus.org/index.cfm?fusea...

An example: According to SEICUS figures, Texas received $18,213,472 in 2007 for abstinence-only education from the federal government. Similar amounts in prior years. From 1998 to 2006, their births to unwed mothers rose 7.9%. The picture for other red states is the same.
February 25, 2009

6:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

I would never wish a disease on a child just to teach their parent a lesson.

Is this his stance on treating crack babies, as well?

What about children that live in homes with a single parent where they are abused and neglected? Should they stay there just to curse their parent with a child they obviously don't want or love?

It is scary such a sociopath somehow managed to get elected to office.
February 25, 2009

6:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

BenchBoss writes:

Keep up the great work, Schultheis.

The crazier you (and your cohorts) get, the more votes you drive away. I applaud your ignorance and that of your ilk. Kudos are in order!
February 25, 2009

6:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

Apphouse50 writes:

>>It is scary such a sociopath somehow managed to get elected to office.<<

Your tax dollars at work.
February 25, 2009

6:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

CoLib writes: "If this nitwit repub was actually a nitwit dem, would it change the views? This bill may have consequences that are negatative in nature and could set us back in Healthcare education and management in the future........"

No, it wouldn't change the views. Even other Republicans are expressing shock at the guy's *reasoning* for his opposition.

The reasoning you are using to argue against the bill, which actually raises some questions worth discussing, is not the reasoning this legislator used at all.

I somewhat share your concerns about mandatory testing for diseases, but if AIDS is still a widespread epidemic - and truthfully, I don't know - then we're talking about attempts to curb a real public health danger.

That being said, the bill obviously isn't a true mandatory testing requirement, since apparently the mother can opt out if she chooses.
February 25, 2009

6:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

wow writes:

I'm not convinced that part of the role of government should be to protect individuals from the negative consequences of their actions.">>>>Not re-electable!!!!

Outrageous ignorance, intolerance and hate.
If..
A woman spreads herself out a tad much, her baby deserves AIDS?
A faithful wife has a cheater husband, their baby deserves AIDS?
An accidental transmission of bodily fluid infects a pregnant caregiver or first responder, so the baby deserves AIDS?

We should permit public flogging/stoning for this type of criminally hateful sadist. That is what IS deserved.
February 25, 2009

7:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

gs writes:

Unbelievable, I find myself agreeing with wow, mytwosense, and angryrepublican. Have your say folks. Please. At the state house. It is remarkable avaliable to us if we just follow some simple rules.
February 25, 2009

7:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

COLibertarian writes:

Maybe it would not change your views MTS. But I get into these difference in views when arguing HC rights on both sides of the aisle......just depends on which politician is supporting it..........

I can not see where if a Rep politician was wanting to have mandatory testing for HIV would pass the smell test in the AIDS activist community. I know I would fight it like hell.......... It is a step back to me ......and this has no place for politicians to screw up......

You state:

"That being said, the bill obviously isn't a true mandatory testing requirement, since apparently the mother can opt out if she chooses."

It is not mandatory, but mother could be held responsible if she does not comply....... EVEN if she complies with the testing........she could be held liable based upon complying with the testing.....To make this feasable, it then would have to come to light the Private and Confidential test results.

This is a huge privacy issue and could lead to other issues with Confidential testing in other areas. If results are to be used in this instance, what is to say it could not be used in others......Something that AIDS activists have been fighting for (rightfully so) so that more people will get tested with the guarantee of confidentiality..........

Again I hope that all people, male and female are tested.....and if criteria meets higher risk, then tested more......It is what HC advocates have been fighting for........ I do not see this as a positive in this fight.....
February 25, 2009

7:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

TYoungman writes:

So let me get this straight; the unborn children are guilty of sexual promiscuity? Nice choice, Colorado Springs! This guy will end up getting arrested for pandering, or playing footsie in an airport toilet. Never fails.
February 25, 2009

7:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

peterpi writes:

I'm a liberal, but Barry Goldwater had integrity, and meant what he said about limited government and personal freedom and responsibiity -- in all areas of life. My favorite quote of his, "Government shouldn't care whether soldiers *are* straight, we should only care whether they can *shoot* straight."
Someone asked about AIDS activists. I used to be one. Mandatory testing was opposed when there were few or no decent drugs out there, when AIDS was viewed like leprosy was in Biblical times, when there was real fear of people with AIDS being shunned. Now there are numerous medications on the market, and the public, while leery of AIDS, isn't as likely to act as if you're carrying the Black Plague. Testing women during pregnancy and getting a positive result for HIV allows doctors to put their babies on a very short treatment of drugs after delivery that significantly reduces the babies' chances of getting AIDS.
There libertarian, personal freedom, or fear of Big Brother arguments that can be debated about this bill. They can be made reasonably, without personal atacks on women with AIDS or their babies.
I watched Schultheis for years. Punishing the baby for the alleged "sins" of the mother is right up his alley.
February 25, 2009

7:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

peterpi writes:

Oops. I just realized a sentence could be construed wrong. By "their babies", I meant the women's babies.
February 25, 2009

8 p.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

CoLib writes: "COLibertarian writes:

Maybe it would not change your views MTS. But I get into these difference in views when arguing HC rights on both sides of the aisle......just depends on which politician is supporting it..........

I can not see where if a Rep politician was wanting to have mandatory testing for HIV would pass the smell test in the AIDS activist community. I know I would fight it like hell.......... It is a step back to me ......and this has no place for politicians to screw up......"

Ok, I think I misunderstood your original question. I thought you were asking if folks would still be as outraged if a Democrat had said the same thing Schultheis did.

To answer your actual question, truthfully, I probably would wonder what a Republican's motivation would be to propose such a bill. The reason being they don't usually seem to support health care mandates, in fact, they even oppose adding more children to SCHIP. So yeah, I would wonder why all of a sudden they're concerned about a child's health to the extent they would want to pass a government mandate. No offense to any of the Republicans on this forum, but that is my honest opinion.
February 25, 2009

8:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

Salchak_Toka writes:

Only folks talking out of both sides of their mouths are the Josh Penrys. Cluck-clucking their disappointment with Schultheis and Renfroe in public, patting them on the back and giving them attaboys in private.
February 25, 2009

8:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

HisPrinceMichael writes:

Right, Left. Liberal, Conservative. Man, Woman.
YOU want to save the lives of ALL babies?
I'm on YOUR side. PERIOD.

THE Battle, has just BEGUN:
http://www.all4webs.com/q/f/love4yahweh
February 25, 2009

8:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

Who_Me writes:

I'm guessing he'll get nabbed for child porn. Fits the profile. Self-righteous, morally superior, self-centered, Bible-thumping, kiddie porn fanatic.
February 25, 2009

10:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

fahrender writes:

Schultheis represents those people who believe that innocent children must suffer for what adults have done even when it is possible to take preventive measures to give those children a chance at a better life. The innocent must be punished for the sins of the guilty! Schultheis is a vindictive, petty, small person. Do Coloradans want him to speak for them?
February 25, 2009

10:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

Salchak_Toka writes:

fahrender: I suspect the answer to your question is "yes" -- unfortunately.
February 25, 2009

10:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

OkeeDokee writes:

You can say one thing about Schultheis and Renfroe: "At least, their not hypocrites."
February 26, 2009

1:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

Doughboy writes:

Schultheis's comments are far more repugnant than the other guy's. He's flat-out saying that babies should suffer from AIDS as punishment for the parent's promuscuity. It's unbelievable that this person draws a salary as one of our representatives.
February 26, 2009

6:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

denverrose writes:

Schulthies is exactly right. The truth of the matter is the dems/libs live a life of promiscuity and whatever other perversions (sexual or otherwise) they want to and then ask us (the taxpayer) to ante up to pay for it. Let's just be honest about this. There is no other way they (dems/libs) can be seen as good guys unless they are (compassionately?) rendering aid to the little guy (the immoral one)! They LIVE for disaster and ugliness so they can be perceived to be rescuers. Otherwise they would not have a job, they couldn't control people with promises of hand-outs, etc. Wake up people!! This is what you voted for in November.
February 26, 2009

6:30 a.m.

Suggest removal

Tom writes:

Schulthies said, "...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."

So, the life of the baby is less important than the guilt of the mother?

What kind of whack-job is this guy?
February 26, 2009

7:04 a.m.

Suggest removal

AGHadden writes:

Wow, what tremendous inconsistencies abound. Now, before I get attacked, let me make clear that what this rep said was stupid. But reprimand someone for a stupid opinion? Sorry YOU DO NOT forfeit freedom of speech when you run for office. Yes, there can be consequences, but they aren't having someone else reprimand you. The consequences are losing elections. The other real problem I have with the comments on this post are "Pro-lifers" suddenly want women to have a choice about the health of their baby, and "Pro-choicers" don't care if an unborn is killed--as long as it gets an HIV test first--dead is fine, just not sick. Wow, what strange bedfellows...
February 26, 2009

7:08 a.m.

Suggest removal

ghoax writes:

if you've ever heard the arguments on issues from the left, you have to laugh at the outrage over the debate on the right.

Everything from hurting the trees feelings to the wildlife is too embarrassed to mate, to homosexuals are the enlightened ones, to, the planet will be burned up in 5 years....

So a couple of right wingers present their beliefs and there's outrage? give me a break...

the democrats are outraged...the proper response is so?
February 26, 2009

7:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

vudumom writes:

Most if not all Obgyn's are screening for aids, at least 12 years ago they were. It's the right thing to do. Do we have to legislate everything though?
February 26, 2009

7:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

schnauzer writes:

What I get out of how this story is run, is that "GOP" is the promenant in the lead for the story. Also that this is a REPUBLICAN lawmaker. When lefty writers have to write about a Democrat like the former Illinois Governor they leave out any party mention for as long as they can. I've noticed the Rocky doing this for the last 5 years or so since the lefties have taken over there and put the paper out of business. They have a very active agenda there and want us all to feel sorry for them that folks like me won't pay good money to have this crap delivered to our door!
February 26, 2009

7:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

FlyfishDude52 writes:

This Shultheis guy sounds out in left-field. I sincerely hope that he didn't really mean what his words said cause that would be too much to bear. Maybe he should be on stage at comedy works.

All jokes aside, pregnant women, as standard procedure, are tested for a veritable plethora of ailments adding an HIV test could only result in minimizing the risk to the fetus. That anyone suggests that this needs to be mandated by legislation, obviously, cannot keep their eye on the ball & needs to be out of office--FAST!

"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."

Well apparently this elected official is blind, deaf and dumb! And not good at introspection, I might add. Since when do we think we should allow a$$holes like this and a multiplicity of senators and representatives dictate morality? My vote would be no. We can easily see what kind of morality many, many, many of those who would spend our money, send our children to war, pass legislation of the "spending orgy" type as done recently, "tax the rich, feed the poor, 'til there are no rich no more," (Alvin Lee - Ten Years After) AND have the audacity to suggest that they are moral??? I'm sorry if anyone is confused over the issue but I have found it difficicult, for decades, to believe that there is any speck of morality in Washington, DC, state capitols, bank & corporate America board rooms in existence.
February 26, 2009

7:30 a.m.

Suggest removal

Now_You_Know writes:

The GOP leader is from the AM radio. What a weak and broken party....I love it
February 26, 2009

7:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

Duckster writes:

Nothing like reading comments from a bunch of liberals who moved to Colorado from somewhere else and now cry because there are still a few republicans in office trying to keep Colorado from becoming just like the cesspools that the liberals moved to Colorado to get away from.

I also notice that most liberals post during the daytime, when the rest of us are actually working. Tells you a lot about the typical liberal, doesn't it?
February 26, 2009

8:25 a.m.

Suggest removal

buffsblg writes:

Duckster, my great grandad and grandmother got to Colorado in 1910 and most of my family have been proud Coloradans for those generations. Do not presume to lecture me on what are real Colorado values. Protecting children, even from the poor moral choices of their parents, is a very Colorado value. Preaching that children should get a potentially deadly disease so you can make some abstract right wing moral point is disgusting in any state, at any time to any rational person. And when your post includes no logic or argument but only name calling, you demonstrate that your only value is hatred, which has never been a Colorado Value.
February 26, 2009

8:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

Now_You_Know writes:

Cry baby neocons
If the media that does not say what rush limpball said, it must be liberal media.
Cant be that (R) party is weak and has no real leadership. Then it is the media fault.
Same crap from the same crap Party.....
February 26, 2009

8:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

Salchak_Toka writes:

buffsblg: Sadly, no. Sounds like your folks were the exception rather than the rule. The one "real Colorado value" I've ever witnessed is the libertarian philosophy of "I've got mine; scr*w you."
February 26, 2009

8:37 a.m.

Suggest removal

Salchak_Toka writes:

buffsblg: If hatred "has never been a Colorado Value," how do you explain Amendment 2?
February 26, 2009

8:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

mrwiizrd writes:

"Apphouse50 writes:

What about the health care costs of babies born with HIV?"

No doubt this is definitely a serious concern, but it doesn't change my view that this is an issue that is best left to the physician and patient.

The onus should fall on the physician do determine if the testing is warranted, physicians go to medical school, BUREAUCRATS DO NOT.

If this test is in the best interest of the patient, I'm confident physicians will order the tests.
February 26, 2009

9:02 a.m.

Suggest removal

COLibertarian writes:

MrWizard

Exactly!

And those tests then can be ordered, and accepted by the patient knowing that those results are confidential and not to be used against her at a future time. The thought of using medical records (yes accepting or denying physician recommendations ARE confidential) is going too far and erodes the faith in medical care.
February 26, 2009

9:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

Salchak_Toka writes:

Actually, there's no such thing as medical confidentiality. If you're not treated with total anonymity, your entire health history is known to the entire medical bureaucracy. So I can understand why women may want to opt out of testing.

Since the current bill provides an opt-out option, however, I can't say I find it objectionable.
February 26, 2009

9:09 a.m.

Suggest removal

JMH writes:

You know what is really hysterical about this clown "Schultheis"?

The guy was on Caplis & Silverman yesterday and said that he has had only sexual relations with ONE person in his life - his wife.

Now there isn't anything wrong with that, but then to say that basically AIDS is punishment for "sexual promiscuity for the most part and I just can't go there" IS JUST HYSTERICAL...

I mean this guy is basically the "58 year old virgin" but he is going to preach to us about "sexual promiscuity"? LOL.. .what does he know about "promiscuity"? I guess his definition for "sexual promiscuity" is if you don't marry the first woman you sleep with?

Seems to me he is just angry that most people are getting some... LOL...

Why do those who don't "get any" in the GOP always want to judge the sex lives of others? Seems to be a main reason that "sex" always freaks out the extreme rightwingers in this country... Remember these are the same people who think Clinton's sex life was grounds for impeachment, but that invading a country based on lies that has lead to the deaths of thousands of people is "patriotic".

Maybe we should start a "Get a Republican some lovin' program"... maybe they wouldn't be so bitter, angry and mean if they "got some" once in awhile?
February 26, 2009

9:09 a.m.

Suggest removal

kittyweese writes:

AGHadden. . .actually, the positions taken on abortion in this case make sense. Abortion never has been about the fetus, it is 100% about women. Pro-choicers in this case care about the fetus because the woman wants to have the child and since her rights and wishes are paramount, the fetus should be protected. Pro-lifers on the otherhand, want to punish women for displaying their sexuality outside the control of men, so the fetus in this case is expendable because it will serve the purpose of punishing the woman for daring to make a decision about with whom, when, and how to have sex.
February 26, 2009

9:14 a.m.

Suggest removal

mrwiizrd writes:

"Since the current bill provides an opt-out option, however, I can't say I find it objectionable."

As you point out, the legislation does have an opt-out option, but to me this begs the question as to why we, the taxpayers, should have to have the fruits of our labors wasted by our elected officials on a bill that effectively accomplishes nothing, other than wasting more of our tax dollars?
February 26, 2009

9:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

Salchak_Toka writes:

mrwiizard: As things currently stand, nobody is required to offer pregnant women the option of an HIV test.
February 26, 2009

9:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

mrwiizrd writes:

"Salchak_Toka writes:

mrwiizard: As things currently stand, nobody is required to offer pregnant women the option of an HIV test."

I understand this, but my point is that if the legislation has an opt-out clause, it doesn't require the test either, and thus, effectively accomplishes nothing.
February 26, 2009

9:25 a.m.

Suggest removal

COLibertarian writes:

Salchak

HIPAA is in place to keep patient record confidentiality. Do I think there are holes? It would not surprise me in the least.

You state

mrwiizard: As things currently stand, nobody is required to offer pregnant women the option of an HIV test.

-------------------

Yes the more lawyers and legislators we can have defining treatment plans for physicians is better off for all of us! Not

Bottom line..... When physician and staff work with patients, they ask questions regarding history and habits...... If the criteria meets a defined risk level, then the appropriate tests are recommended.

Pre-Natal panels, chem panels along with HIV testing have been very consistent with Pre-Natal Treatment plans
February 26, 2009

9:29 a.m.

Suggest removal

Salchak_Toka writes:

mrwiizard, COLibertarian: And there we have it. Since I'm not a libertarian, I can't agree with your judgments.

From the State's perspective, the calculus is cold but real: More infected mothers informed of choices = fewer kids born with HIV = less cost to the State in the long run. Certainly you can't disagree with that, although I imagine that your disagreement is more fundamental than that: You don't believe the State should have any responsibility for indigent health care to begin with.
February 26, 2009

9:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

JMH writes:

I'll support Sen. Dave Schultheis if he can find me ONE sexually promiscuous FETUS that deserves AIDS!

I mean, it's a really hard stretch to think that a unborn baby should have to pay for the "sins" of someone else and then call yourself "proLife"...

But if he can find me one sexually active FETUS then I will agree "that part of the role of government shouldn't be to protect individuals from the negative consequences of THEIR actions"... LOL
February 26, 2009

9:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

mrwiizrd writes:

"From the State's perspective, the calculus is cold but real: More infected mothers informed of choices = fewer kids born with HIV = less cost to the State in the long run.Certainly you can't disagree with that"

Actually I can. Where is this calculus? I'm an accountant, so I'd love to see the numbers. Has an empirical study been perfromed to show that this legislation will save the people Colorado money? I would posit that it will very likely cost the people more, these tests aren't free.

And what about the unintended consequences? If the tests are required, what's to stop those doing the testing from raising their prices exponentially because the government effectively created an artificial monopoly overnight? What about the additional time physicians would have to spend reviewing wasteful test results, or filling out more administrative paperwork, resulting in a net loss of care to those who really need it?
February 26, 2009

9:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

COLibertarian writes:

Salchak

From the State's perspective, the calculus is cold but real: More infected mothers informed of choices = fewer kids born with HIV = less cost to the State in the long run. Certainly you can't disagree with that, although I imagine that your disagreement is more fundamental than that: You don't believe the State should have any responsibility for indigent health care to begin with.

The one "real Colorado value" I've ever witnessed is the libertarian philosophy of "I've got mine; scr*w you."

-------------------------------------------------------------------

I have repeatedly stated that this should be under control of the physician and that this Bill could deteriate the Patient Doctor confidentiality and lead patients to opt out in fear of reprocussions. How the hell is this better for the patient and un-born child? How is this good for anyone wanting to have tests conducted that could be used against them in the future? This is a step back in Medical confidentiality and Preventative Health care overall. Yes there will be those that benefit........But there are those that will be hurt from this.

Please show me in the current HIPPA regulations where our Patient Medical Records are not confidential?

You would rather choose to be partisan and prejudge based upon affilliation rather than look at the impacts to Patient confidentiality......... I am not choosing less govt over more. I am choosing to protect Patient Confidentiality for all. Not just in Pre-Natal care. Letting the legislators define Your Treatment plans and have a hold over your Medical records.........that is your choice. I choose to let a physician define the treatment plans for our community.
February 26, 2009

9:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

DUScooter writes:

As a gay republican and former journalist, the comments are valid, yet not at the place they were made. Personal religious opinions are not to be made during a legislative session. Remember we have a separation of Church and State. By making these comments you are bringing your Church into the State's business. This is wrong. This is where I as a voter have an issue. I feel the true issue of the bill and its purpose will now be lost over inappropriate comments made by two uneducated members of my own party.
February 26, 2009

9:55 a.m.

Suggest removal

Salchak_Toka writes:

COLibertarian: It's a pretty weak definition of "confidentiality" that means your medical records are safe with your doctor -- and the millions of other folks in the health care industry who can access that information with a couple of keystrokes.

But whatever floats your boat.

The new bill doesn't compromise patient confidentiality any more than it's already compromised.
February 26, 2009

9:57 a.m.

Suggest removal

Salchak_Toka writes:

JMH: But I thought that everyone was born with Original Sin and therefore deserves hell until baptized. So what's a little HIV to speed the process along?
February 26, 2009

10:01 a.m.

Suggest removal

COLibertarian writes:

Salchak

Please show me proof of that! Show me how HIPAA Fails? What are the mechanisms that further protect Confidentiality as it pertains to the millions of folks.............

You stated it. Back it up. Show me the HIPAA trail if you will?

Yes it does compromise more...... Bill states reprocussions for not following through. How would they enforce this if not being able to compromise

I would really like to hear from the AIDS activists regarding this bill. Not only should they be up in arms at the requirements.......
February 26, 2009

10:04 a.m.

Suggest removal

COLibertarian writes:

Salchak

What part of the HC arena do you work in that you can show all of us how HIPAA regulations are failing and that our records are at risk by you and others in the HC arena?????
February 26, 2009

10:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

JluvDC writes:

The republican's should be concerned about how this makes their party look, especially to its pro-life members. Because the argument I most often hear from people who are pro-life is that the baby should NOT have to pay for its parent's mistakes. This guy just said publicly that they baby SHOULD pay for the parent's mistakes. So I would have expect that pro-life people more then pro-choice should be upset with these comments...unless they are all hypocrites.
February 26, 2009

10:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

gs writes:

the next time these guys are up for election and in these districts I suspect the primary is the only time a real election takes place why don't all the people offended by their comments go walk their district and do your part to get them unelected.
February 26, 2009

10:43 a.m.

Suggest removal

SoftCopy writes:

DUScooter,

The separation of church and state is a myth. The state is designed to represent the people, who, by and large, are religious in some form or another. So to say that an elected official has to check religious views at the door is at the same time saying that the elected official can not represent his/her constituents who use their religion to guide their political viewpoints. Religion is a fact of life, and many people are forced to financially support government programs that they personally find abhorrent (abortions, for example) because of the "separation of church and state".

I'm not defending his comments, they are ignorant, and as many posters have already indicated, are based on hatred, not on sympathy and love. But I get sick and tired of the "separation of church and state" argument whenever an elected official uses a religious belief to support a political point. We are the state, and we are religious, and by definition, the two can not be separated.
February 26, 2009

10:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

CaptainObvious writes:

Please, GOP-ers, keep up your mantra of hate and disgust for the everyman. Just when I thought you idiots couldn't sink any lower than putting Palin on your ticket, you prove me wrong once again! I love it! And America is watching with both eyes wide open!

You don't need Obama and his supporters to ruin you--you are doing a fine job of it by yourselves! Keep up the horrible work!
February 26, 2009

11:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

COLibertarian writes:

Captian you state:

Please, GOP-ers, keep up your mantra of hate and disgust for the everyman. Just when I thought you idiots couldn't sink any lower than putting Palin on your ticket, you prove me wrong once again! I love it! And America is watching with both eyes wide open!

You don't need Obama and his supporters to ruin you--you are doing a fine job of it by yourselves! Keep up the horrible work!
--------------------------------------------------

Captain you are absolutely right about the Reps shooting themselves and making things worse for them and the country

But the sadly ironic fact is that most people are not discussing the reprocussions of this bill, but rather the idiotic comments made by this Rep politician....... You included

What I see now is that the Dems are being given a free pass on bad legislative agendas and they are not contended because the Republicans are doing or saying worse that diverts attention and scrutiny that is needed by ALL citizens.....not just a partisan party bashing.

MTS wrote this to me and she is a very smart lady, but proves my point above

"Ok, I think I misunderstood your original question. I thought you were asking if folks would still be as outraged if a Democrat had said the same thing Schultheis did.

To answer your actual question, truthfully, I probably would wonder what a Republican's motivation would be to propose such a bill. The reason being they don't usually seem to support health care mandates, in fact, they even oppose adding more children to SCHIP. So yeah, I would wonder why all of a sudden they're concerned about a child's health to the extent they would want to pass a government mandate. No offense to any of the Republicans on this forum, but that is my honest opinion."

It is not about what the bill will or will not do for the community on how a bill is viewed, but by the party putting forth the bill. This can and will lead to less Community oversight and greater Power abuses by our Govt. It doesnt matter how bad the bill is, just as long as the other party screws up more!!!!
February 26, 2009

11:13 a.m.

Suggest removal

adamkadmon writes:

Maybe the headline should have been...

STONE AGE REPUBLICANS ATTEMPT TO LEAD PARTY TO POLITICAL SUICIDE !
February 26, 2009

11:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

GladysKravitz writes:

And the GOP wonders why they've lost in the past 2 election cycles? I guess since Doug Bruce left, Schulties and Renfroe have to take up the mantel of bigotry and hate.
February 26, 2009

11:53 a.m.

Suggest removal

Diff writes:

Does Colorado have the least professional legislators in the country? Last year Dougie Bruce and this year this insensitive Bone head - sure he can believe as he wants - and even say what he wants - just consider how this reflects on himself, his party and the state?

"In this country a person has the right to say what they think, even if they cannot think - they can say it" (Kettering)

Ask does he have any "class" or any level of professionalism - or is he just another Buffoon Republican, who thinks a persons worth or stature in deserving help or protection is subject to his ( or the Republicans) strict judgment of morality.

I should think even most republicans would be ashamed to call him there own - not unlike like DB and our previous Pres and V.P. and last years candidate for VP - Take that as a body of evidence and think more about who you might want to vote for next time around!
February 26, 2009

11:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

LOUIE writes:

SOFTCOPY hits it on the head DUSCOOTER, why must I support laws or your lifestyle if I find or believe it is wrong? You don't check your lifestyle or beliefs at the door when you vote, why should I as one who believes in God? Even if a law comes about that legalizes a particular belief, might it be alright if I continue to oppose it if it conflicts with my belief? I don't care for racism, can I stop a member of the Klan from voting or expect him to seperate his views from his vote? My issue is the archbishop speaks for himself as man; but he doesn't represent all catholics especially after all that the church has been responsible for not only today, but throughout it's history. I give money to the church, they help a lot of people when no help is to be found. Your hungry, homeless, without nothing or anybody, usually they feed and try to help people regardless of faith or no faith. It's one of the major reasons I contribute to the catholic church. There are a lot of good priests as well, but they usually were good men to begin with.
February 26, 2009

12:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

LOUIE writes:

WOW, wrong thread, disregard my last comment, my apologies!
February 26, 2009

12:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

the_ripper writes:

Long live TABOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
February 26, 2009

12:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

RightDownTheMiddle writes:

Ahh yes....the good ol' GOP.

Always about protecting the fetus to no end but screwing the actual baby born.

Nothing like allowing a baby to contract HIV in order to tout their high moral ground.

Could the GOP get any more clueless????
February 26, 2009

12:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

COLibertarian writes:

How in the hell is this part of the bill good?

1 demographic group of community is "Required" to provide sample for testing. The individual of this group is allowed to "opt" out but must sign "opt out" document. This information could be used against the individual of this group if it affects others within the community. Also held responsible if it turns down treatment plan based upon a "positive" test.

This test is supposed to be confidential. How will it be held confidential if used against individual in that group?

Why should this group or individuals within this group "expose" themselves to litigation and "provide" proof via the testing they agreed to(which is confidential)?

<INSERT> your group of choice and your test of choice in place of group/individual. See how ugly it could get?

With the negative reprocussions that could be had through failed confidentiality and litigation, it will push preventitive health care back years.

Right now both parties can be blamed for this screw up
February 26, 2009

1:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

Marshdale writes:

CoLibertarian;

I actually agree with you points. I do not however agree with Shultheis' comment or opinion on sex. He's a moron.
February 26, 2009

3 p.m.

Suggest removal

COLibertarian writes:

Marshdale

Thanks I agree 100% with what you said about Shultheis. People are soooo concentrated on what the moron said rather than looking at the proposed bill.

This is becoming a regular thing with our 2 party system and our legislators, local, state, and Fed see this. One side of the aisle is crapping their pants, while blaming the stench on the other side and vise versa..... It is we the people who have to clean up the mess......
February 26, 2009

4:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

CaptainObvious writes:

SoftCopy: "We are the state, and we are religious."

Speak for yourself, dude! And next time, try painting with a narrower brush. Your argument is completely lost on such false generalizations.
February 26, 2009

5:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

eventempered writes:

Here we go, drag the "little ones" out in front of everybody so they feel sympathy, cast a symapthethic vote, and more laws are crammed down the peoples throat. Remember the poor person that was injured by somebody driving while using their cell phone. Paraded out in front of the legislature and everyone feels sorry and passes a bill restricting our rights. Same old recipe.
February 26, 2009

5:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

gregu710 writes:

"Cowboy63 writes:

Can't let a little thing like THE TRUTH get in the way of Political Correctness!"

So Cowboy, how does this fit in with your "Truth"? Girl marries a guy who was a little too promiscuous and is an HIV carrier although not showing symptoms. She then contracts HIV from said husband during the act of procreation. Should we then judge HER for his actions? Yeah, God forbid that the "Truth" isn't always black and white, huh? Typical, engage mouth 5 minutes before turning on brain.

And then, for the rest of you speaking out in the same vein, let's fight tooth and nail to protect every unborn child yet refuse to test for a potentially deadly disease (that may or may not have ANYTHING to do with the alleged promiscuity of the mother!) so that the child is protected long enough to be born so that he or she can then die a painful and horrible death in a matter of years. Absolute, unconceivable stupidity!
February 26, 2009

5:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

gerardmulholland writes:

Let's get this straight.
You report:
'Sen. Dave Schultheis, of Colorado Springs, on Wednesday opposed a bill requiring pregnant women to be tested for HIV so that if they are infected their babies can be treated to prevent the virus's transfer.
"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." '

How on earth does the Senator think that the babies whom this concerns are responsible for the behaviour of adults before they themselves were even conceived?

How dare he damn them as individuals whom the government should not protect from the negative consequences of their actions?

And how dare he damn those adults who are innocent victims of bad blood transfusions or of unfaithful partners just because there are some other adults who engage in conduct of which he personally dissaproves?

Would he damn them for free speech of which he morally disapproves?
By what constitutional authority does he damn them for free behaviour of which he morally disapproves.

This man's moral and political judgement is so poor, he is utterly unfit to hold public office.
February 26, 2009

6:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

Brain writes:

COLibertarian; I agree with you; why is it necessary to put in the chart that a mother refused the test if it will ALWAYS be PHI? Education is the key, a mother doesn't need the government to make them take the test, if they understand the benefit they will willingly take the test.
February 26, 2009

9:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

freemarketworks writes:

Regarding Senate Bill 88, what about pre-existing conditions? Should we require a negative HIV test as a prerequisite to health coverage? In any case, I think the State should go the other way and not provide coverage at all. Why not come up with a program where each employee and his/her dependents and partner are underwritten with individual plans and the State just pays either a fixed rate per person, or a percentage of each person’s health insurance cost?

Individual plans would save the State about 60% on its insurance costs, as well as better fit the needs of each employee and their families. This would also be regardless of whether the coverage is for Adam, Eve and the kids, or Adam and Steve.
February 26, 2009

10:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

falsup writes:

I remember the good old days when these crazies confined themselves to handling snakes. Then the rebublicans decided they needed to swell their numbers and threw them an abortion and gay marriage bone and they went nuts and jumped on the conservative bus all the way to the white house....YEEE HAAA.....Now the republicans are embarassed and wondering what to do with them. The country club republicans are now stuck with these people.
Here's a tip to the country clubbers....put these people back on their leash and get them out of politics.
February 27, 2009

1:38 a.m.

Suggest removal

TYoungman writes:

DenverRose ,

Can't Understand Normal Thinking?
February 27, 2009

5:38 a.m.

Suggest removal

JonBen writes:

Come his next election, please God let's all remember that Sen. Dave Schultheis actually said this in defending his vote against AIDS testing for babies: ""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."

Dear God in heaven. I pray for Dave Schultheis and his soul.
February 27, 2009

7:33 a.m.

Suggest removal

LakotaWoman writes:

OMG - do these people really "believe" this stuff? It scares me to death to think that the Republicans can be so judgemental in their "Christianity"...somehow I must be reading a different bible than they are. As if only gays get Aids...where have they been for the past 20 years? And even if it were true...doesn't EVERY life have meaning to them...or only the "holy" ones? The Republicans need to look in the mirror and be brutally honest with themselves - but I doubt they are capable...why should they if they are the "Chosen" ones? I fear for our nation with these fanatics making decisions that affect all of us. I thought they were supposed to represent their constituencies and NOT their own beliefs. Did I miss something somewhere????
February 27, 2009

7:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

gchc303 writes:

I think when I get old, and can't have any more fun. I am gonna become a Republican. It will easy to judge everyone, when my own piece doesn't work anymore. That will aggravate me further, making me stingy, stubborn, and mean spirited. I will be jealous about others having fun I can't have anymore. I will blame my problems on liberals, women, and immigrants. It doesn't matter if I am descended from immigrants that spoke a foreign language. That was different, than the immigrants today. I think I can be a conservative.
February 27, 2009

8:37 a.m.

Suggest removal

WeCanDoBetter writes:

I'm shocked and appalled by the statements made by Dave Schultheis, but it could be even worse!

What if some politician said we should not force medical tests on people because they have a right to privacy?

Obviously this freedom of thought thing is dangerous and possibly contagious.

Not to worry the Republicans will nip it in the bud.
February 27, 2009

5:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

thevealchop writes:

Does anyone know where this guy's office is located? Do we have his home address? How about his email address and phone number?

Home › Politics › Colorado Government

GOP lawmakers cringe at colleagues' words on sexuality

Promiscuity cited by Schultheis in vote against HIV testing

By Lynn Bartels, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published February 25, 2009 at 1:05 p.m.

Poll

Related Links

More Colorado Government

Share

Comments

Featured

Columns & Blogs