Requiring Doctors to Test All Pregnant Women for HIV/AIDS (SB09-179)

Much is being made of my comments on the floor of the Colorado Senate on Wednesday, February 25th with regard to Senate Bill 09-179 (as well as additional remarks taken out of context but printed in several media forums).

The proposed bill seeks to require doctors to test all pregnant women for HIV/AIDS, and would allow the woman an opportunity to opt-out.

When I first heard of the bill in the Health and Human Services Committee several days earlier, I was quite moved by testimony as to how such testing could assist an unborn baby, mitigating effects of his or her mother’s HIV/AIDS condition. As a result, I voted “Yes” in supporting the bill along with the rest of the committee.

Subsequent to the committee vote, and prior to my vote of “NO” on the floor, I wrestled with a number of issues regarding the bill. I sought counsel from quite a number of people for whom I have great respect. The primary question and the one I apply whenever any issue is brought up for discussion is: “Is this a proper role of government?”

Long-standing stigmas against out-of-wedlock sexual activity were put in place by societies to slow the spread of disease and deal with challenges of raising children without full family units. Our nation has walked away from those stigmas over the past half century…illegitimate birth rates are through the roof…some argue the true cause of poverty, criminal or substance abuse in our society can be primarily tied to the ills of out-of-wedlock births. It is a serious issue, but, as a caring nation, we try not to impose the mistakes of the parents on their children.

Related to the above, some also think society should remove long-standing stigmas against sexually-transmitted diseases regardless of the damage they inflict… However, sexually-transmitted diseases have devastated global communities for centuries. As a result, in Colorado and the rest of the United States we have set up a network of social and medical services to attempt to mitigate their spread and treat the afflicted.

Now we have HIV/AIDS. It is a very scary disease and has been since cropping up on the social scene over a quarter century ago. Its primary vector has been out-of-wedlock sexual activity. A small segment of our society has acquired the virus and suffers tremendously from it. Unfortunately, treatment of HIV/AIDS infection has been highly politicized and attempts to slow its spread with traditional community healthcare strategies have been compromised for years. I find it curious those who now seek to mandate testing all pregnant females regardless of their potential for infection oppose testing in other circumstances where a real and actual risk exists.

But the question still remains, “Is this a proper role of government?”

If you believe it is right and fitting to require testing for any particular health situation, should we then require it for other conditions or issues? Assuming we should test in all circumstances for HIV/AIDS, perhaps one could argue the legislature should require testing by physicians of any patient for any other variety of issues. How about residual cocaine use? Marijuana? Alcohol? I’m certain some could argue such testing would achieve lofty and compelling societal objectives, enabling doctors, health care providers, and others to know when to prescribe or direct intervention efforts. Should we then share those required test results with Children’s Protective Services? With law enforcement? Insurance companies? Our banks and credit unions? How about requiring testing for other conditions? Pregnancy for any female regardless of age? For cholesterol problems? High blood pressure? DNA testing to create a database to clear any person of alleged crime, or identify perpetrators? Should we use the results of any test to deny health care to patients deemed undeserving under any proposed national health care scheme where rationing takes place because of resource limits?

I find it interesting those who argue endlessly about a right-to-privacy are the first to demagogue on the issue, and seek intrusive testing. Unfortunately, as we have seen in the last election cycle, many think it is a government bureaucrat's role to make all decisions for us. This desire to intrude into our private personal spheres has become increasingly commonplace among lawmakers. Perhaps they think it shows they care about a particular issue more than we.

The conclusion I came to after hours of discussion and contemplation was that requiring testing was indeed an improper role of government.

So SB 179 was the catalyst for an important discussion. For those who take the concept of personal responsibility seriously, and oppose an intrusive government, this issue is important. Unfortunately, I made a comment to a reporter in haste that misspoke my position on this issue. That happens. It’s a risk for all those who work in the public eye.

Some now try to characterize my comments as “I don’t care” what happens to the baby. Nothing could be further from the truth. I want to only pass laws that are within a proper role for government. Nothing more. These tests can be performed now without another government edict. That decision should be made by the mother and her doctor. I would hope doctors offer it to pregnant mothers under their care. Again, this can be done without any need for the passage of SB 179.

Let’s be very clear…no doctor is prevented from administering the HIV/AIDS test today, and no mother is being prevented from the benefit of these tests. The issue here is not the availability or advisability of such a test. Rather, should State Statutes require ALL doctors attempt to administer this test to ALL pregnant mothers in Colorado, especially when the incidence of such HIV/AIDS is extremely low?

As to my comments on the Senate Floor, they were as follows:

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 - basically it modifies the communicable disease control laws, and it requires that health care providers to test pregnant women for HIV, unless they opt out. That's the main part of this bill. I voted “yes” on it. I was a little bit troubled with my vote, and I 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 6a.m.. And I finally came to the conclusion that I'm going to be a "no" vote on this. And I'm trying to think to, what the role of government is here. And I am not convinced that part of the role of government should not be to protect individuals from negative consequences of their actions. Sexual promiscuity as 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 to put their child in a small daycare center there. We do seem 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, and as a result of that I finally came to the conclusion that I have to be a "no" vote. Because this stems from sexual promiscuity for the most part, and I can't vote on this bill, and I wanted to explain to the body why I'm going to be a "no" vote.

The above comments express my beliefs.

In-State Tuition Bill for Illegal Immigrants Skirts Intent of Law

State Senator Chris Romer has proposed a bill, SB09-170, that would grant post-secondary in-state tuition to illegal immigrants. Sen. Romer reasons that it is unfair to punish children for the decisions of adults (their parents) who chose to enter America in direct violation of our immigration laws. The Romer bill is deeply flawed on multiple levels.

For starters, neither is it the fault of the children of tax-paying American citizens that native Mexican adults along with their children have crossed our sovereign borders and taken up illegal residence in the United States. American children are already being negatively impacted (‘punished,’ if you will) by the drain of dollars away from their K-12 education and into the massive accommodations being made for the children of illegals. It now appears that Sen. Romer also wishes to grant to illegal immigrants in-state college tuition benefits that are denied to out-of-state American students.

Public schools from kindergarten through high school are already required by federal law to educate all children, regardless of their immigration status. Higher education, on the other hand, while coveted by some, is not a prerequisite for making a success of oneself in America, although the Higher Education elites such an education as "fact." In fact, many citizens hold only high school degrees or GED’s are business owners or are gainfully employed in essential occupations. Additionally, with colleges and universities placing limits on their enrollments, citizens, who do wish to pursue advanced degrees, will under this bill, have to compete with non-citizens for fewer available slots.

Ten other states have passed similar legislation, and currently find themselves embroiled in lawsuits filed against their respective state governments by citizens, who have every reasonable right to expect that government will work on their behalf. Citizens also have a reasonable right to expect that government will work against any requirement to provide what is tantamount to taxpayer-financed college educations for the grown children of people who illegally crossed U. S. borders.

Handing out in-state tuition to illegal immigrants is a slap in the faces of both legal immigrants and American citizens! For example, in California the average household must contribute at least $1,200 each year to subsidize the deficit between what illegal immigrants cost in services and what they pay in taxes.

Even if a good argument could be made for such poor policy, these ten states are announcing far and wide that illegal immigration is now an American institution replete with numerous benefits! These states have brazenly cast aside the constraints imposed by Congress and the U.S. Constitution, and inevitably, American citizens are challenging state governments over this inequitable law. The result will continue to be extensive and expensive litigation, and of course, taxpayers always foot the bill for court costs.

Should Sen. Romer’s bill pass through the Legislature, Coloradans will also contest bad policy. Additionally, out-of-state U.S. citizens and legal immigrants will rightfully request the same low in-state tuition benefits that are proposed for illegals. Financial resources that are much-needed for state infrastructure will be frittered away inside Colorado court rooms.

Let’s look at some realities:

• Over the past three decades every “compassionate” gesture, designed to help immigrants assimilate—bilingual education, ever-expanding and new state welfare programs, the affirmation of a hyphenated identity, and the radical historical revisionism of southwestern American history—has actually proven to be harmful to the processes of assimilation and economic improvement for large portions of the Mexican-American community.
• After 20 years in the country, even legal Mexican immigrants have double the welfare rates of American citizens. The high school dropout rates of Mexican-Americans (both second and third generation) are two and a half times that of other natives. By age 17 Mexican immigrants are 50 percent more likely to identify themselves as Mexicans, as opposed to Mexican-Americans. By the same token, many Mexicans, who are living in “apartheid” communities across the nation romanticize Mexico—a country which gave them nothing and prompted them to flee—and deprecate the United States, which provided them with sanctuary.
• In Colorado approximately 57 percent of U.S. resident students of Hispanic heritage do not graduate from high school, despite the fact that every child in America, regardless of immigrant status, is guaranteed by law a K-12 education at taxpayer expense. Adding benefit upon benefit appears to have done little, if anything, to assist U.S. residents of Hispanic heritage to assimilate and advance their own cause.
• Neither is it a foregone conclusion that providing in-state tuition benefits to illegal immigrants would result in a revenue advantage for the American economy. Expatriates enrich Mexico’s coffers with the U. S. dollars they earn in America. One study estimated that an approximate $13.3 billion goes south across the U. S.-Mexican border every year. It stands to reason then that much of taxpayers’ investment in higher education for illegals might very well flow into Mexican banks if graduates are able to obtain gainful employment.
• Reputable employers will not violate the law by hiring an illegal alien either with or without a college degree. Of course there are those employers who will place profits above patriotism.

Apologists for such bills contend that illegal immigrants "do the work Americans won’t do." On the other hand, these same supporters of in-state tuition benefits declare it unfair that illegal immigrants are forced to work as unskilled laborers because they lack education. Which is it going to be?

Not only are the premises of this proposed bill contradictory to one another, but the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Section 505, provides that: “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a State (or a political subdivision) for any post secondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit (in no less an amount, duration, and scope) without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident.”

Sen. Romer has craftily worded SB090-170 in such a way that one, if pressed, could argue that his bill can also be applied to citizens in high schools across the U.S. In truth, however, the wording of the bill, requiring a student to attend a Colorado high-school for at least three years, is cleverly designed to make available taxpayer-funded college educations primarily to students, who are illegally residing in Colorado. Romer’s bill is a deliberate evasion of the intent of current law. Legislators, who purposely attempt to sidestep the law, are doing a real disservice to the constituents whom they serve. I would strongly suggest that legislators, who are willing to play fast and loose with the principle of an existing law, reassess their motivations for remaining in office.

Ultimately, giving to illegal immigrants a benefit to which even all American citizens are not entitled, signifies a breach of trust by government--a government that is, first and foremost, duty-bound to extend compassion towards American children and to protect and defend all of her citizens. Weighing down the parents of American children with ever-increasing tax burdens, in order to provide benefits for illegal immigrants, sends a loud and clear message to citizens. Lamentably, that message is neither one of fair play nor compassion.

Why I couldn't vote for "Civility"

Last Friday, I found myself the ONLY Senator who voted against HJR09-1004, the Civility Resolution., a Resolution that has been run annually since 2006. The House voted on this earlier in the session, February 3rd. I was the only one in either the House or Senate who refused to vote for what I considered a senseless Joint Resolution.

Before the Senate vote, I rose and spoke (the only Republican as I recall). Several Democrats gushed over how wonderful it was.

My reasons:

While I mentioned that my perception has been that over the past several decades I have observed that society has become more harsh and less tolerant of one another, yet in my nine years in the legislature (six in the House and three in the Senate, I have not noticed any pervasive or growing lack of civility in either of those bodies. Yes...while there has been an occasional outburst by one member or another, it has usually been followed promptly by an apology at the mic.

During my brief comments made at the Well, I mentioned that in all my nine sessions in the legislature, I have been witness to very few occasions of lack of civility...certainly not enough to require a Resolution to bring this to our attention. I mentioned that in the current legislature, I was

• perhaps the only person who has been screamed at on the floor of the House by the Speaker of his own party, primarily because I wasn't a "team player on a particular bill."
• perhaps the only legislator who has been cussed at, "you gd s.o.b. racist" by a black member of the opposite party who falsely interpreted my views on illegal immigration as being racist.

Yet...while I don't condone such outbursts and lack of civility and respect, I do forgive those legislators who occasionally "lose it." because the pressures sometimes become so great that emotions can temporarily overcome reason and decorum.

Since, it is my belief that man is basically sinful, (an idea held by our founding fathers, but often disparaged today) I realize that there are times one will occasionally "go off." Hopefully, my religious underpinnings will not allow me to respond in kind.

That said...such Resolutions have virtually no real value except to make one feel good.