Is there anything crazier than a Republican State Senator?  This week, I'm not so sure.  I've been meaning to post all week about Utah State Senator Chris Buttars whose anti-gay hate speech on the Senate floor has even the Utah GOP rushing to make nice with the LGBT community.  (More on that tomorrow, I promise.) 

But Colorado State Senator Dave Schultheis has managed to upstage, well, all other variations of crazy by publicly opposing a Colorado law that would require HIV testing for pregnant women.  His rationale?  We should let babies contract HIV because any woman who has ended up HIV+ deserves to feel guilty about it.

No really.  This guy isn't kidding:

"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."

People elected this man.  Maybe democracy isn't such a good idea after all.  I'm about to lose my mind on this one, and it's gonna be fun.  More after the jump...
There are so very many things wrong with this line of thought it's almost impossible to even know where to start.  Almost.

Lessons from Sen. Dave Schultheis

1. Being HIV+ means you are (or were) promiscuous! 
You can contract HIV in any number of ways - not all of them sexual.  And even if you did contract HIV through sexual contact, it may well have been in a monogamous relationship.  Why oh why oh why must we continue to perpetuate the terrible stigma that HIV is some sort of cosmic moral judgment sent to punish people for their sins - and that anyone who is HIV+ is therefore morally suspect for having been infected in the first place?

2. You should feel guilty if you are HIV+ 
Um... Or not?  Maybe a person's HIV status isn't their defining characteristic.  Maybe many, many people are living happy and healthy lives even after a positive diagnosis.  Maybe we have no right to judge the circumstances of anyone else's life.  Maybe I want to punch Sen. Schultheis in the face for insulting millions of people living with HIV around the world, including some of my closest friends.

3. You should feel super guilty if your baby contracts HIV during childbirth
Here's the thing: HIV is a preventable disease - and this simple fact is at the heart of the proposed Colorado legislation.  We can prevent mother-to-child transmission of HIV, but doctors need to know the mother's HIV status to do so.  Most moral questions involve shades of grey.  This particular question has a correct answer: If you could stop an infant from contracting HIV, would you?

Livid yet?  Good.  So am I.

Sometimes the magnitude of the global HIV pandemic makes us forget that on a case-by-case basis, it's actually pretty simple to prevent the transmission of this particular virus.  We have the knowledge and the technology to do so, we simply have to do it.  Colorado lawmakers are giving doctors in their state the opportunity to significantly reduce the cases of mother-to-child HIV transmission - but Sen. Dave Schultheis wants to stop them. 

Sen. Schultheis wants to stop women from knowing their own HIV status - critical information, since breast milk is one of the four fluids through which HIV is transmitted.  He wants to stop doctors from having the information necessary to protect a child from needlessly contracting HIV while in the process of being born.  He wants to stop mothers from knowing their Sen. Schultheis also claims to be - and my stomach literally churns at the hypocrisy of this one - "pro-life."

Let's say an infant contracts HIV from its mother during delivery - or afterwards, through breastfeeding.  This is the situation that Sen. Schultheis wants us to think about, so let's follow it to its conclusion, shall we?

Should a woman feel guilty for transmitting HIV to her baby when a) she didn't know she was HIV positive and b) the opportunity for her to be tested was deliberately withheld?  My answer is a resounding no. 

But shouldn't someone feel guilty since HIV is, after all, preventable?   I would sure as hell hope so!  And the nominees are...

Colorado State Senator Dave Schultheis should feel guilty for actively campaigning to infect the citizens of his state with HIV, and unconscionable act made even more incomprehensibly despicable by the fact that his intended victims are infants.

The entire Colorado State Senate should feel guilty for not showing this guy the door.  I realize that we're all a little numb to crazyasallgetout state representatives (See: Sen. Buttars, R-UT) but this one really crosses a line.  He is not only a disgrace to the state of Colorado, but also to his constituents, the Republican Party (which on sexual health issues, is saying a lot).  Who am I kidding, he's a disgrace to the founding fathers and to the very idea of elected democracy!

The citizens of Colorado Springs, CO, should feel guilty for electing him in the first place.  (The fact that it's Colorado Springs, sadly, explains a lot.)  I'm used to disagreeing with people on the issues - sometimes vehemently - but I have a hard time believing that anyone, regardless of their politics, could seriously be proud to have Dave Schultheis representing them at any level of government.

Still, Sen. Schultheis is up for reelection in 2010.  Maybe democracy isn't so bad after all...

I leave you with his full statement from the floor of the Colorado State Senate:

Thank you, Madam President. You know, this was a difficult bill for me. I voted yes in committee on it because of discussions surrounding the fact that — well, let me just basically say this, it basically modifies the communicable disease laws and it requires the health care providers to test pregnant women for HIV unless they opt out. And that’s basically, that’s the main part of this bill. I voted yes on it. I was a little bit troubled with my vote and was just wondering what was bothering me. I woke up the next morning — Thursday morning — at 5 a.m. and I wrestled with this bill for another hour from 5 to 6 and finally came to the conclusion I’m going to be a no vote on this. I’m trying to think through what the role of government is here. And I am not convinced that part of the role of government should be to protect individuals from the negative consequences of their actions.

Sexual promiscuity, we know, causes a lot of problems in our state, one of which, obviously, is the contraction of HIV. And we have other programs that deal with the negative consequences — we put up part of our high schools where we allow students maybe 13 years old who put their child in a small daycare center there.

We do things continually to remove the negative consequences that take place from poor behavior and unacceptable behavior, quite frankly, and I don’t think that’s the role of this body.

As a result of that I finally came to the conclusion I would have to be a no vote on this because this stems from sexual promiscuity for the most part, and I just can’t vote on this bill and I wanted to explain to this body why I was going to be a no vote on this.

My full statement in response.

Stunned silence - with a side helping of righteous rage.