Sins of the parents
Yesterday the Colorado state legislature voted on a bill that would require the health care providers of pregnant women to give them HIV tests (although the women may opt out). The reasons are pretty clear–if the mother is HIV-positive, it helps to know so that the baby can be protected and treated. The measure passed 32-1. The lone dissenter was Republican state Sen. Dave Schultheis. Why did he vote against the bill? According to the Colorado Independent, he claims that HIV “stems from sexual promiscuity” and didn’t want to “remove the negative consequences that take place from poor behavior and unacceptable behavior.”
My first reaction was that it’s not the mother being punished for promiscuity; it’s the child who doesn’t get treated for HIV. I was sure that Schultheis had just failed to think it through because he couldn’t really mean THAT, could he? Apparently he could:
“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.”
I was horrified when I read that. There are many ways to contract HIV besides careless and promiscuous sex–blood transfusions come to mind. But even for someone who believes promiscuity is a sin, it is despicable to advocate that the child suffer for it. It is contrary to our conception of justice. Luckily the thirty-two other legislators agreed.
[...] burns. Jesse at Rant & Reason brings to light the fact that a sole Colorado legislator voted against a bill that would require [...]
This is an actual quote from Senator Schultheis’ website:
“Tolerance is a virtue of a man without convictions.” — G. K. Chesterton, who strongly influenced C.S. Lewis
I am at a loss for words.
Having been provoked by this sorrying news into action, my check of $50.00 to The American Humanist Association is in the mail.
… how is that man allowed to speak in public? Much less be quoted on anything?
I’m really stunned. How has this not gotten more publicity?? I can’t recall another instance of an elected official saying he hopes an innocent person dies for the “sins” of another.
(And I’m not even going to touch his warped view that promiscuity is something that deserves to be punished.)
Well, the important thing is that this somewhat disturbing fellow was 1 against 32, and didn’t get in the way of more sensible and compassionate viewpoints.
The senator’s position is consistent with the idea of reward/punishment meted out to the parent via intergenerational blessings/curses as laid out in the Old Testament. Perhaps his position is consistent with the beliefs of many Christians and Jews about justice… but maybe you didn’t mean to include them in “our”.
Well actually, Andrei, that’s a good point. When someone advocates something vile on religious grounds, I am frequently torn between the following two forms of reply:
(1) “You are twisting the religion unjustifiably to support your own vile cause”
(2) “Yeah, actually that IS a legit interpretation of the religion. Religion sucks.”
… #2 is what I usually believe, but #1 is usually the more productive line of argument.
it is a very sad fact that until now, we still do not have the cure for HIV,*’