So, maybe we do need a category just for elected officials. Just to make them stand out from the crowd of ALL of the LaBarbera Award winners.

L. Junius, and where did I say that he wasn’t tested? You know nothing of the situation, but you seem ready to assume my friend and his partner just tossed the condoms out the window without even getting tested. You assume that the deadbeat partner was HIV+ prior to the beginning of the relationship, and that a test would’ve revealed this fact. You assume that if he was tested, and did test positive for HIV that he was honest about his test results. That’s a whole boatload of assumptions.

Or are you making the interesting assertion that a couple that has agreed to monogamy should continue using condoms and or get tested for HIV every six months for the rest of their lives, just in case?

Perhaps create a special tag just for LaBarbera Award winners. Just to make it easier to locate them.

Call it the Elected Official Menace or something like that.

There is no reason to think that Ronald Reagan believed that HIV/AIDS was deserved.

That myth has its basis in insinuations and assertions made by a team of writers for an expose-style docudrama about the Reagans. In their made-for-television story, Ronald Reagans says that “They who live in sin shall die in sin.”

But it has been soundly refuted by those who actually knew knew Reagan and who emphatically stated that the imagined conversation did not occur and absolutely did not reflect the beliefs of the President.

Talk about déjà-vu. Ronald Reagan and Jesse Helms also believed that HIV/AIDS was deserved and the person’s fault, which is why the US Government took little to no action as this virus spread like wild fire in the early 80s. And then Helms fought tooth-and-nail to prevent the education and distribution of safe-sex education and condoms to public schools, basically letting Generation X’ers find out the hard way.

What does Schultheis say to people who might have contracted this from a blood transfusion?

Oh wait… if he thinks that the baby should contract HIV/AIDS to teach the mother a lesson in her evil ways, then I guess logic doesn’t really apply here. So much for the party that’s on the side of life.

The bill includes an opt-out. No force involved.

I don’t want to blame the victim, but it’s well-advised to test yourself and your partner for all sorts of mayhem before you stop using condoms – if you stop at all. You can protect yourself, but you’ve got to bear the inconvenience.

As for this legislator, he’s a contemptible and sickening human being.

So sexual promiscuity is unacceptable behaviour? By what standard?

Can we please try to live in the real world here, folks?

TRiG.