Seed Newsvine
A Republican senator's claim that pregnant women should not be provided HIV testing because those who suffer from AIDS must be punished for "sexual promiscuity" set off controversy at the capitol today.
The remarks by Sen. Dave Schultheis, R-Colorado Springs, marks the second time this week that a GOP legislator has shocked colleagues at the podium.
Sen. Scott Renfroe, R-Greeley, compared homosexuality to murder during a debate Monday on another measure that would require the state to allow its employees to designate same-sex domestic partners as beneficiaries under their health insurance policies.
"This stems from sexual promiscuity for the most part, and I just can't go there," Schultheis said on the Senate floor this morning. "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."
Schultheis' comments came during the Senate's discussion of SB 179, which would, among other things, require health care facilities to test all pregant women who do not opt out for the human immunodeficiency virus.
During an interview with the Rocky Mountain News later in the day Schultheis attempted to clarify his comments. He explained that families would learn to avoid "promiscuity" if an HIV-infected baby is born to a woman who has AIDS.
"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," the veteran Colorado Springs legislator told the Rocky. "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."
Sponsoring Sen. Lois Tochtrop, D-Thornton, pointed out during floor debate on the measure this morning that sexual intercourse is not the only way a woman can contract HIV.
Tochtrop also said that treatment of an infected mother can dramatically reduce the likelihood that HIV Is transferred to the developing fetus.
Tochtrop and House sponsor Rep. Sara Gagliardi, D-Arvada, are nurses.
Renfroe's comments came during a debate on a bill to require the state to permit its employees to designate domestic partners as beneficiaries under health insurance policies.
"Leviticus 18:22 says, 'You shall not lie with a man as one lies with a female. It is an abomination,'" Renfroe said during debate on SB 88. "Leviticus 20:13 says, 'If there is a man who lies with a male as though to lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act, and they shall surely be put to death.' We are taking sins and making them to be legally OK, and that is wrong. That is an abomination, according to scripture."
"And I'm not saying that this is the only sin that's out there," Renfroe said. "Obviously we have sin, we have murder, we have all sorts of sin. We have adultery, and we would never think to make murder legal."
Showing posts with label SB 88. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SB 88. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
House Clears Domestic Partnership Bill
A bill that would expand open the door for individuals to name their domestic partners as beneficiaries under a wide variety of state benefit programs, and that also would designate such unmarried partners as eligible to inherit in the absence of a will and sue for wrongful death, gained final approval in the House Tuesday.
HB 1260 does not limit its impact to the unmarried domestic partners designated by individuals. The bill allows any two people, whether related or not and whether or not married, to enter into a "designated beneficiary agreement."
Under current state law, the right to inherit property from a person who died without a will is limited to his or her spouse, children, and other blood relatives. The bill would extend such "intestate succession" rights to unmarried domestic partners.
Similarly, the measure would grant a domestic partner the same right to sue for wrongful death as current law grants a spouse or other blood relative.
It would also, if enacted into law, allow the domestic partner of an ill person to make medical decisions on that person's behalf. Under current law such decision-making authority can be granted by means of a legal document prepared as part of an estate planning process.
Rep. Bob Gardner, R-Colorado Springs, said he is concerned that these provisions might contradict Referendum I, which the voters rejected in 2006.
"It extends rights under workers compensation, under pension funds, it gives standing under wrongful death and so forth," Gardner said. "What I don’t think is appropriate is to take something that looks very much like a domestic partnership or civil union an extending those rights by a contract between two people and just making those law and saying we have to do that without giving the citizens of Colorado a right to vote on it.”
Gardner says he thinks the bill should have been amended to remove its "emergency clause," which prevents it from being the subject of a referendum, before the House approved it.
"I haven’t said that I think it necessarily would be wrong to pass the bill," Gardner said. "I think it’s wrong to pass the bill with a safety clause in it because I don’t think we can make a straight face case that it’s necessary to do what this bill does for the immediate preservation of peace and safety.”
Gardner made clear that he does not oppose the bill because it grants certain legal rights to same-sex domestic partners.
"The fact that same sex partners make that choice, I don’t agree with it but I think in large part it’s not the government’s business,” he said.
Proponents say the bill is not aimed exclusively at gay couples, but instead removes impediments to choices about beneficiaries under pensions, workers compensation policies and estate plans that now exist in the law. They point out that nothing in the measure is specifically limited to same-sex domestic partners.
HB 1260 would not compel the state government, or any local government, to allow employees to designate a same-sex domestic partner as a beneficiary under employee benefit programs.
However, a bill under consideration in the Senate would compel the state government to make the option available to its employees.
That measure, SB 88, gained final approval in the Senate today on a 22-11 vote. Republicans Ken Kester of Las Animas and Al White of Hayden joined majority Democrats in voting "yes."
HB 1260 was approved on a 41-24 vote. Republicans Cheri Gerou of Evergreen, Don Marostica of Loveland, Tom Massey of Poncha Springs, Kevin Priola of Henderson, and Ellen Roberts of Durango joined all but two Democrats in support of the measure.
HB 1260 does not limit its impact to the unmarried domestic partners designated by individuals. The bill allows any two people, whether related or not and whether or not married, to enter into a "designated beneficiary agreement."
Under current state law, the right to inherit property from a person who died without a will is limited to his or her spouse, children, and other blood relatives. The bill would extend such "intestate succession" rights to unmarried domestic partners.
Similarly, the measure would grant a domestic partner the same right to sue for wrongful death as current law grants a spouse or other blood relative.
It would also, if enacted into law, allow the domestic partner of an ill person to make medical decisions on that person's behalf. Under current law such decision-making authority can be granted by means of a legal document prepared as part of an estate planning process.
Rep. Bob Gardner, R-Colorado Springs, said he is concerned that these provisions might contradict Referendum I, which the voters rejected in 2006.
"It extends rights under workers compensation, under pension funds, it gives standing under wrongful death and so forth," Gardner said. "What I don’t think is appropriate is to take something that looks very much like a domestic partnership or civil union an extending those rights by a contract between two people and just making those law and saying we have to do that without giving the citizens of Colorado a right to vote on it.”
Gardner says he thinks the bill should have been amended to remove its "emergency clause," which prevents it from being the subject of a referendum, before the House approved it.
"I haven’t said that I think it necessarily would be wrong to pass the bill," Gardner said. "I think it’s wrong to pass the bill with a safety clause in it because I don’t think we can make a straight face case that it’s necessary to do what this bill does for the immediate preservation of peace and safety.”
Gardner made clear that he does not oppose the bill because it grants certain legal rights to same-sex domestic partners.
"The fact that same sex partners make that choice, I don’t agree with it but I think in large part it’s not the government’s business,” he said.
Proponents say the bill is not aimed exclusively at gay couples, but instead removes impediments to choices about beneficiaries under pensions, workers compensation policies and estate plans that now exist in the law. They point out that nothing in the measure is specifically limited to same-sex domestic partners.
HB 1260 would not compel the state government, or any local government, to allow employees to designate a same-sex domestic partner as a beneficiary under employee benefit programs.
However, a bill under consideration in the Senate would compel the state government to make the option available to its employees.
That measure, SB 88, gained final approval in the Senate today on a 22-11 vote. Republicans Ken Kester of Las Animas and Al White of Hayden joined majority Democrats in voting "yes."
HB 1260 was approved on a 41-24 vote. Republicans Cheri Gerou of Evergreen, Don Marostica of Loveland, Tom Massey of Poncha Springs, Kevin Priola of Henderson, and Ellen Roberts of Durango joined all but two Democrats in support of the measure.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Extension of State Employment Benefits to Domestic Partners Gets OK From Senate Committee
A bill that would require the state to extend coverage under insurance policies to the domestic partners of government employees earned the endorsement of a Senate committee Wednesday.
SB 88 aims to prevent the state government from treating same-sex partners of public employees differently than spouses.
"It is the right policy," Sen. Jennifer Veiga, D-Denver, told committee members. "It is the right time."
Veiga is the only openly gay member of the Senate.
The measure was approved by the Senate Business, Labor and Technology Committee on a 4-3 party-line vote, with all of the committee's Republicans opposed to it.
In 2006 the state's voters rejected Referendum I, which would have recognized domestic partnerships under state law and mandated that the state provide domestic partners coverage under insurance policies held by its employees.
The proposed "Colorado Domestic Partnership Benefits and Responsibilities Act" was defeated by a 53%-47% margin.
According to the Denver Post, Veiga said Wednesday that her bill, if enacted, would not conflict with the voter's decision in 2006 because it is limited to the issue of benefits for state employees with same-sex spouses.
SB 88 will next be considered by the Senate Appropriations Committee.
SB 88 aims to prevent the state government from treating same-sex partners of public employees differently than spouses.
"It is the right policy," Sen. Jennifer Veiga, D-Denver, told committee members. "It is the right time."
Veiga is the only openly gay member of the Senate.
The measure was approved by the Senate Business, Labor and Technology Committee on a 4-3 party-line vote, with all of the committee's Republicans opposed to it.
In 2006 the state's voters rejected Referendum I, which would have recognized domestic partnerships under state law and mandated that the state provide domestic partners coverage under insurance policies held by its employees.
The proposed "Colorado Domestic Partnership Benefits and Responsibilities Act" was defeated by a 53%-47% margin.
According to the Denver Post, Veiga said Wednesday that her bill, if enacted, would not conflict with the voter's decision in 2006 because it is limited to the issue of benefits for state employees with same-sex spouses.
SB 88 will next be considered by the Senate Appropriations Committee.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Teen Tobacco Use Ban Passes Senate
The Senate passed Wednesday a bill that would ban minors from possessing tobacco.
SB 88, which its sponsor calls the "Teen Tobacco Use Prevention Act," does not criminalize the possession or use of tobacco by children under the age of 18. Instead, the bill authorizes law enforcement officers to confiscate cigarettes, cigars, chewing tobacco or any other tobacco product found in a minor's possession.
The bill also forbids tobacco retailers and others from selling or otherwise providing minors with cigarettes or other tobacco products. Violation of those provisions is made a petty offense subject to a fine for each violation. The bill would require tobacco merchants to ask for identification before selling tobacco products.
SB 88 also preserves the right of Colorado municipalities to enact criminal prohibitions against possession of tobacco products by minors.
Sen. Ron Tupa, D-Boulder, sponsored the bill in the Senate, while the House sponsor is Rep. Tom Massey, R-Poncha Springs.
The bill now moves to the House of Representatives.
SB 88, which its sponsor calls the "Teen Tobacco Use Prevention Act," does not criminalize the possession or use of tobacco by children under the age of 18. Instead, the bill authorizes law enforcement officers to confiscate cigarettes, cigars, chewing tobacco or any other tobacco product found in a minor's possession.
The bill also forbids tobacco retailers and others from selling or otherwise providing minors with cigarettes or other tobacco products. Violation of those provisions is made a petty offense subject to a fine for each violation. The bill would require tobacco merchants to ask for identification before selling tobacco products.
SB 88 also preserves the right of Colorado municipalities to enact criminal prohibitions against possession of tobacco products by minors.
Sen. Ron Tupa, D-Boulder, sponsored the bill in the Senate, while the House sponsor is Rep. Tom Massey, R-Poncha Springs.
The bill now moves to the House of Representatives.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Youth Smoking Ban Heads to Senate Floor
A Senate committee approved Monday a bill that would ban minors from possessing cigarettes and other tobacco products throughout the state.
SB 88 would make Colorado the 36th state to forbid minors from possessing tobacco. The bill would not subject youth to criminal penalties; it merely authorizes law enforcement officers to take the contraband.
Supporters of the bill, including several high school students, told the Senate's State, Veterans & Military Affairs Committee that creating a stigma around cigarette and chewing tobacco use could reduce the temptation for teenagers to use tobacco.
Four counties and 47 cities and towns in the state currently ban minors from possessing tobacco products.
The bill is sponsored by Sen. Ron Tupa, D-Boulder.
SB 88 would make Colorado the 36th state to forbid minors from possessing tobacco. The bill would not subject youth to criminal penalties; it merely authorizes law enforcement officers to take the contraband.
Supporters of the bill, including several high school students, told the Senate's State, Veterans & Military Affairs Committee that creating a stigma around cigarette and chewing tobacco use could reduce the temptation for teenagers to use tobacco.
Four counties and 47 cities and towns in the state currently ban minors from possessing tobacco products.
The bill is sponsored by Sen. Ron Tupa, D-Boulder.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Bill Banning Possession of Tobacco by Minors To Get Committee Hearing
A bill that would ban minors from possessing tobacco in Colorado will get a hearing before a Senate committee Monday.
SB 88, sponsored by Sen. Ron Tupa, D-Boulder, and Rep. Tom Massey, R-Poncha Springs, would also forbid the distribution of free tobacco products at public events.
The proposed "Teen Tobacco Use Prevention Act" also has two Republican co-sponsors in the Senate - Sens. Greg Brophy, R-Wray and Steve Johnson, R-Fort Collins - as well as the backing of the Senate president and president pro-tempore.
SB 88, sponsored by Sen. Ron Tupa, D-Boulder, and Rep. Tom Massey, R-Poncha Springs, would also forbid the distribution of free tobacco products at public events.
The proposed "Teen Tobacco Use Prevention Act" also has two Republican co-sponsors in the Senate - Sens. Greg Brophy, R-Wray and Steve Johnson, R-Fort Collins - as well as the backing of the Senate president and president pro-tempore.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)