OPINION: Let 'em get AIDS
State Sen. Dave Schultheis raised a reasonable issue Wednesday, after casting the lone vote against a bill that would require pregnant women be tested for HIV so their babies could be protected from the virus. Schultheis asserted hypocrisy on the part of Democrats, who unanimously supported the bill.
"They go to extreme lengths to try to protect the fetus," said Schultheis, well known as a pro-life Republican. "On the other hand they're willing to pass laws that allow abortions or will not reduce abortions."
Fair enough. A Senate that almost unanimously votes in favor of protecting the unborn from a virus could seem hypocritical to dismiss proposals to protect those same infants from death by saline or forceps.
Unfortunately, for anyone who favors laws to regulate abortion, Schultheis undermined his case by making a statement so chilling as to make any defender of abortion rights seem compassionate.
Schultheis said he voted against the bill because babies born HIV-positive would teach society about the risks of promiscuous sex.
"This stems from sexual promiscuity for the most part, and I just can't go there. We do things continually to remove the consequences of poor behavior, unacceptable behavior, quite frankly," Schultheis said.
It seemed such an extraordinary statement that Schultheis was asked for clarification.
"If you continue to remove the consequences, you are de facto endorsing the behavior," Schultheis said. "For any behavior, if society begins to see the consequences, they will start to discuss the behavior in those terms. ... In the end, I think people will be like ‘gosh, that's a terrible thing.' They'll say, ‘We don't want that to happen, so we have to tell our daughters, don't be promiscuous, because you could have a baby like that.'"
Well, gosh, Sen. Schultheis. With those phenomenally outrageous statements, you called into question your motive for defending the unborn. Is it because you value and care about them? Or is it because women should endure the consequence of sex, pregnancy, in order to send a message? If it were about concern for the lives of the unborn, it seems you wouldn't want them to suffer from AIDS while roaming the earth as young children.
One can think of several reasons to oppose the HIV testing bill. But nothing could be more asinine and cruel than suggesting an unborn child contract a fatal virus in order to send a message about sex.
Most pro-life politicians and activists, whether one agrees with their agendas or not, aren't motivated by a desire to impose consequences on mothers, or to send messages about choices. Most defend a sincere belief that unborn children are innocent and have rights. That would include the right to not be used as a tragic example of a deadly disease, for political expedience. Schultheis would do all pro-life politicians and activists a giant favor by never again speaking of mothers and their unborn kids. He doesn't understand the pro-life cause he claims to defend.
