Jenny Flanagan and Lois Tochtrop speaking on a bill to curtail future Pinnacol Assurance travel expenditures

HB 1211 caps governmental entity travel expenditures at 200 percent of the IRS recommended per diem and was set to easily pass the Senate committee Wednesday before being stopped by concerns that 200 percent was still too high. Sen. Linda Newell, D-Littleton, said the IRS per diem was enough for anyone’s travel expenses. Newell said her vote hinged on whether the bill was amended to reduce the allowable expenditures.

The recommended IRS per diem travel expenditure is $207 for Denver.

Sen. Lois Tochtrop, D-Thornton, who is sponsoring the bill in the Senate had said that she would be willing to have it amended on second reading on the House floor but she said she was not seeking an amendment currently because she wasn’t certain it would fly in the House. Chair of the committee Senator Morgan Carroll, D-Aurora, worried the bill might not have support in the House if bill were amended to further reduce the allowable travel expenses and pushed the bill’s vote back to a later date.

Carroll told the Colorado Independent that she needed time to figure out how the amendment would affect the bill’s chances of passing.

Sen. Steve King, R-Grand Junction, said that one of the reasons the bill was laid over was that he too was debating whether he would vote on the bill if it was amended to allow just the IRS recommended per diem amount.

As it stood during committee the bill already had one no vote. Sen. Kevin Lundberg, R-Berthoud, said that disallowing governmental entities like Pinnacol from paying for spouses to go along on company trips was simply too much for him to bear. He said a spouse is critical to an employee’s ability to function on a team.

“If that is where the lines are drawn than I am drawing a “no” on this one,” Lundberg said. “Believe it or not, spouses are about as important to the mix of anyone’s performance as anyone can imagine.”

Tochtrop however, said that that portion of the bill was not one she was willing to amend out.

“I would be appalled if the State of Colorado, or any public entity would [pay for] a spouse to go to a business meeting,” Tochtrop said.

The bill was written to exclude spouses of employees from having trip expenditures paid for by a governmental entity after former Pinnacol Board President Gary Johnson brought his wife, and ethics member Debra Lovejoy brought her fiance on a golf trip to Pebble Beach where everything from massages to pink golf balls were provided by the pseudo-governmental entity. In the end, the 5-day trip cost $318,717.

“We are talking about taxpayer money here. People had a right to know on this and know that everyone is tightening their belts,” Carroll said.

Former Colorado Springs Senator Dave Schultheis is no longer holding forth on bills on the Senate floor in Denver, but he has continued to exert influence this year as the powerful force behind the conservative Republican Study Committee of Colorado. Now that influence may be waning. This week, a third of the RSCC flock quit the committee, rejecting the would-be radical-right revival.

The RSCC claimed 34 Republican members in the state Legislature – 11 in the Senate and 23 in the House – prior to Tuesday. At least 10 legislators quit in the wake of allegations that it was crossing ethics boundaries in influencing lawmaker votes, directing legislative aides and meddling in the race for state GOP chairman.

The committee drew media attention this year for pushing Arizona-style anti-illegal immigration legislation. It held informational hearings that were stacked with anti-immigration witnesses, some with clear ties to white spremacist organizations.

A high-profile surprise rebuke

The committee also took a strong stand in the race to replace Dick Wadhams as head of the Colorado Republican party this month. Schultheis and most conservative study committee members had endorsed RSCC member Senator Ted Harvey, R-Highlands Ranch.

The committee members scrambled on stage last Saturday to nominate Harvey but their “we’ve got it nailed” confidence withered when the Republican Party Central Committee overwhelmingly elected state GOP Legal Counsel Ryan Call on the first ballot with 167.6 votes to Harvey’s 74.4.

As the vote was being read, RSCC Vice Chair Senator Kent Lambert tweeted, “They didn’t buy these ballot boxes at the magic store, did they? ;)”

The committee members and other hard-right Harvey supporters shouldn’t have been so surprised. Wadhams, dogged this year by Tea Partiers as a compromised establishment figure, received an enthusiastic standing ovation at the event. Also, influential RSCC member Senator Shawn Mitchell had seconded Call’s nomination as the kind of leader who could unify a party still reeling from the fractured 2010 Republican primary races for governor and U.S. Senator, offices the GOP lost in the general election.

The rump committee

Gone from the RSCC website membership page are photos and names of House Speaker Frank McNulty, Majority Leader Amy Stephens, Majority Caucus Chair Carole Murray, Majority Whip B.J. Nikkel and Representatives Cindy Acree, Kevin Priola, Ray Scott, Ken Summers, Spencer Swalm and Libby Szabo.

Several legislators recently questioned whether Schultheis and the group had crossed the line between a policy ad-hoc committee and a volunteer lobbyist coalition. They wondered whether the committee compromised a legislative aide who might have breached ethics by disseminating positions on bills and by twittering opinions.

The RSCC produces Senate and House reports – up to 20 pages long – that designate whether a bill “DOES” or “DOES NOT” support conservative values.

For example, an RSCC report evaluated HB 11-1144, which requires health benefit plans to cover medical evaluations of Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders. The disease is preventable by treating the mother during pregnancy.

The bill, sponsored by Democratic Representatives Judy Solano, Edward Casso, Andy Kerr, Nancy Todd and Democratic Senator Lois Tochtrop, passed in both chambers and was signed into law, despite receiving the thumbs down by the RSCC.

The RSCC said the bill “DOES NOT” support the principles of “constitutional limited government, free markets and personal responsibility.”

That judgment sounded eerily familiar to Schultheis in 2009 citing the need for personal responsibility and less government regulation when he voted against a bill to protect fetuses exposed to the HIV virus. In a Rocky Mountain News interview, he reasoned that as an AIDS-afflicted baby grows up, “the mother will begin to feel guilt… The family will see the negative consequences of that promiscuity.”

The Colorado Springs wing

Earlier in this legislative session, Schultheis candidly discussed his role in monitoring bills and votes for the RSCC with the same eagle-eyed scrutiny he once brought to his search for illegal drug runners and undocumented workers on his treks with the group to the Arizona-Mexico border, most recently in August.

Schultheis appears to be going underground. He claimed “he’s not the brains behind the RSCC” and he blocked public access to his Facebook page.

The RSCC operates under the Legislative Support Group, a nonprofit organization registered with the Secretary of State’s office in June 2006. Schultheis registered the RSCC trade name and designated the entity as an “Other Non-Profit… Social Welfare” located at 1250 Golden Hills Road in Colorado Springs.

The base of operations is Schultheis’ $500,000-plus home perched above the canyon community of Pinecliff, where he rises before daybreak each weekday to assess legislative bills, their sponsors, and the votes cast by members of the Colorado House and Senate.

“It’s frustrating. The Republicans are acting like RINOs,” groaned Schultheis in late February. Among the GOP legislators gone rogue and drawing the ire of Schultheis by defying his version of conservative principles is House Speaker McNulty.

Skewing the initiative process to favor liberal ideology

The source of Schultheis’ anxiety was Senate Concurrent Resolution 11-001, sponsored in the Senate by President Brandon Shaffer and Nancy Spence and in the House by Majority Caucus Chair Murray and Minority Caucus Chair Lois Court. McNulty joined the bill’s numerous co-sponsors.

The resolution aims to tighten requirements to amend the state Constitution. It passed third readings in both chambers, and is pending Senate approval of House amendments. If approved, the measure will go before voters on the 2012 general election ballot.

Schultheis opposed SCR11-001 in a Feb. 23 memo dispatched to House State, Affairs Committee Republican Representatives Randy Baumgardner, Don Coram, Larry Liston, Jim Kerr and Mark Waller. The resolution’s numerous co-sponsors also included Baumgardner, Coram and Liston.

“As conservatives and those who advocate their allegiance for TABOR (Taxpayers Bill of Rights), it seems very apparent to me that should the legislature pass this bill, that two very onerous conditions will result,” wrote Schultheis, who asked that the resolution be killed or at least postponed.

If the resolution passes, Schultheis predicts that TABOR would be repealed and that “more liberal Constitutional amendments will be passed.” He said he had analyzed voter-approved initiatives and amendments over the past two decades, particularly those that passed by at least 60 percent of the vote.

“The shocker is that you will notice that all but one that passed placed liberal ideology in the Constitution,” said Schultheis in a memo. “You can verify that in the initiative summary that I’ve asked Lauri (sic) Bratten to provide you.”

Defining lobbying

Some RSCC members bristled at the notion that Schultheis or the RSCC has lobbied for or against legislation. According to Amendment 41 passed by voters in 2006, statewide elected officials cannot become paid lobbyists until two years after leaving office. Schultheis is free to voice opinions as a citizen or volunteer lobbyist although the latter are supposed to register with the House Clerk.

“I don’t consider the [RSCC] as lobbying,” countered Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg, an RSCC member. “They’re just trying to promote Republican ideals and which they stand for. I don’t think they’re lobbying. There’s no difference between the RSCC and Colorado Municipal League or CEA (Colorado Educators Association).”

Both CML and CEA employ registered lobbyists.

More skeptical legislators said Laurie Bratten, referenced in Schultheis’ memo, is dangerously teetering on the ethics line.

Bratten is Director of Communications for RSCC and married to RSCC Executive Director Rich Bratten. She is also the paid legislative aide to RSCC-affiliated Senators Harvey and Scott Renfroe.

The legislators spoke on the condition of anonymity in fear of RSCC members killing their bills or dredging up a primary contender in future re-election bids. They objected to a legislative aide circulating information to influence votes and twittering opinions on bills and politics during committee and floor discussions.

For example, Bratten twittered about Senate Bill 126 that proposed in-state college tuition rates for high school graduates who attended a Colorado school for the three previous years regardless of immigration status. It was introduced and discussed in the Senate on Feb. 2.

On that day, from 1:00 – 1:19 p.m., Bratten pecked several tweets bashing the bill.

“Your kids can’t get a break for tuition in CO but Dems thinks they should give tuition money to illegals,” wrote Bratten.

“CO Dems just CANNOT stay focused on jobs and the economy! Giving an tuition to 4 illegals pressuer NOW.”

“Dem Senator Michael Johnston and the CEA are sponsoring this redistribution to a special class. Be afraid.”

“We have 8.8% unemployment in CO and a 1.5 billion $ deficit & CO Dems want 2 subsidize illegals college degrees?”

The rule governing legislative aides is well known to Schultheis, whose legislative aide Dave Crater testified before the House State Affairs Committee on behalf of the “Dr. Laura” bill in March 2001. The committee rejected Schultheis’ bill to mandate counseling for couples seeking a divorce, and Crater lost his job as a legislative aide.

“We can’t have someone on the state payroll that is advocating for the passage or defeat of a piece of legislation,” then-House Speaker Doug Dean, a conservative Republican, told The Colorado Springs Gazette.

Crater was demoted to an unpaid intern working for Schultheis. The senator, however, admitted that he’d personally padded Crater’s $800-a-month salary to the tune of more than $3,000 a month.

Has Laurie Bratten been inadvertently placed in a similarly compromising position?

“We’re very careful to simply put the legislative analysis in the perspective of whether a bill is consistent or inconsistent with our principles,” said RSCC Executive Director Bratten who refused to comment on his wife’s role. “I suppose that’s a question you will have to ask Senator Harvey.”

“It’s kosher!” laughed Harvey.

Harvey said that the legislative aide’s work on behalf of RSCC is part of her duties for himself and Renfroe, and asserted that other Republican senators’ aides also assist. Legislative aides, he said, follow the directives of their bosses.

Got a tip? Story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

Senate President: Sen. Brandon Shaffer (SD-17, Longmont)

Senate President Pro Tempore: Sen. Betty Boyd (SD-21, Lakewood)

Senate Majority Leader: Sen. John Morse (SD-11, Colorado Springs)

Assistant Senate Majority Leader: Sen. Lois Tochtrop (SD-24, Thornton)

Majority Caucus Chair: Sen. Morgan Carroll (SD-29, Aurora)

Joint Budget Committee Members: Sen. Mary Hodge (SD-25, Brighton), Sen. Pat Steadman (SD-31, Denver)

“The campaigns are over. Now, let’s get to work,” Shaffer said in a release. We need to balance our budget and lead Colorado to economic recovery. I look forward to having the Republicans work with us on Colorado’s most important issues.

“One thing I tried to bring to the Senate last year was collaboration, and I think we succeeded. We’re not going to agree on every issue, but we worked with the Republicans last year and we will continue to do so.”

Boyd echoed Shaffer’s comments regarding bi-partisanism.

“We have created a partnership in leadership,” Boyd said. “I’m proud to continue that work. I look forward to working together as a caucus to get the people’s work done.”

Morse was re-elected by less than 300 votes in his highly contested Colorado Springs district. He was first elected to the seat in 2006, when he became the first openly Democratic candidate to win a seat in the Senate from Colorado Springs in more than 30 years.

“I am honored to continue fulfilling my role as Majority Leader for the State Senate,” Morse said. “We will tackle some tough issues this session and I’m prepared to work with my colleagues to create some innovative and solvent solutions for Colorado.”

“Before November, it’s about politics. After November, it’s about policy. It’s time to get started,” Tochtrop said.

“The budget is our number one responsibility,” Steadman said. “I’m excited to have been selected to serve on this influential and prestigious committee. I look forward to getting down to business and taking on the difficult task of creating a balanced budget that best serves the interests of Coloradans across the state.”

Got a tip? Freelance story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

Even before he introduced the bill in March, Ferrandino knew the battle would be waged in the Senate, where lawmakers have in the past successfully plead the case for non-regulation of the industry. Ferrandino is now cautiously optimistic that the bill that emerged from the Senate Friday remains “good step in the right direction.”

“The bill’s obviously weaker than the original version, but I think it gets us to where I want to be. It is a much more complicated bill now, so the question is Will the industry find loopholes within the law? I think the intent of the bill is clear, but do they find loopholes?

“I think the way the Senate looked at it, and I was part of that discussion, was really to allow the consumer the power to decide how long the loan would be and make sure they don’t get caught inside the cycle of debt. We’ll see by next year if it doesn’t work out as intended.”

Ferrandino has argued since he introduced the controversial bill months ago that the payday loan industry makes its profits by sinking its customers into escalating debt. What has been a good business model for the industry has been bad for its customers, he has said. The short-term credit on offer has been “cheese for a trap” that produces windfall profits on the backs of people often struggling to make it day to day.

Republicans and three Democrats, including Sens. Linda Newell, D-Littleton, and Lois Tochtrop, D-Thornton, fought hard against the original bill, which the industry estimated would have shuttered 70 percent of payday lending operations in the state, which would have cost at least hundreds of jobs.

Sponsored by Sen. Chris Rommer, D-Denver, that version was amended Thursday by Sen. Rollie Heath, D-Boulder, cutting back on the strictest interest and fee regulations. Heath said he was unwilling to support a bill that killed the industry.The amendment passed, basically restructuring the industry into a six-month short term loan business that would allow borrowers to pay in installments.

The bill will cap payday loans at a 45 percent annual percentage rate (APR). Lenders can charge up to $75 installment fees on $500 maximum loan amounts; $20 fees for $100 loans and for first-time $300; and $7.50 for each subsequent $100. In addition, a maintenance fee of $7.50 on each $100 up to $30 can be charged by lenders each month that the loan remains outstanding. If a borrower fails to make any payment before the end of six months, they would pay $335 for a $500 loan. The loan can be rolled over once. As it is now, customers have to pay back their loans in two week or one-month intervals, quickly falling behind and wracking up fees and interest.

Negotiations with the industry according to Heath broke down over whether the monthly fee should be capped at $30 or $60. Payday lenders were asking for $60 at a minimum.

Tochtrop offered her own amendment in support of the industry. She said Heath’s amendment didn’t go far enough to protect payday lenders. “This is not the agreement,” she said, apparently referring to conversations made between the industry and lawmakers, opponents and supporters of the bill. “This is not going to keep payday lenders in business… If this bill passes, we are going to lose jobs. Nobody is putting a gun to the head of a consumer and making them take out a payday loan,” she said.

Most Republicans supported an industry-backed amendment brought forward by Tochtrop that would have restructured the industry to offer installment plans but also would have raised the cap on fees to $60. The amendment was defeated.

“If the industry can’t make it on these new numbers then they are doing something wrong,” Heath said after helping to pass the final vote.

Republicans fighting against the bill made fairly straight ideological arguments against government interference. They said it was not the place of government to regulate industry and effectively destroy it.

“What we are here today to decide is should this industry continue or shall it be put to sleep at the discretion of the Colorado legislature,” said Sen. Al White, R-Hayden.

White said that if lawmakers kill the payday loan industry through regulation, they would be delivering payday customers into the arms of organized crime and their sharks. He said the original version of the bill would have unintended grave consequences for payday customers.

“If we pass this bill, we are inviting organized crime into Colorado…. Organized crime makes these loans and you know how they collect? They send Willie the Enforcer out to your house, and Willie the Enforcer is not satisfied with a post-dated check.”

Heath thought White was being over the top. “This industry is regulated by the general assembly now. It just comes down to whether we [levy] a $30 or a $60 fee.”

Heath said that the industry had convinced him that it couldn’t survive without a fee but that he was not convinced the fee had to be $60.

“Allowing people a longer time to payback the loan will limit the cycle of debt,” Heath said.

Got a tip? Freelance story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

During my years in the Legislature, I have purposely never sought a leadership position, as I believed my role was to stand firmly against every temptation to moderate my conservative views for greater acceptance by the caucus,” he wrote. “As a result, I felt free and unencumbered, to hold high the banner of each and every conservative principle that Republicans say they believe in … and to do so without compromise.

Schultheis has served in the Colorado House and Senate since 2000. In February he outraged Democrats when he said he planned to vote against a bill to require HIV tests for pregnant women because the disease “stems from sexual promiscuity” and he didn’t think the Legislature should “remove the negative consequences that take place from poor behavior and unacceptable behavior.” Schultheis proceeded to cast the lone vote against SB 179, which passed 32-1 and moves on to the House.

State Sen. Dave Schultheis, a Colorado Springs Republican (Photo/Bob Spencer, The Colorado Independent)

“HIV does not just come from sexual promiscuity, it comes from many other things — contaminated blood, for one,” fired back one of the bill’s sponsors, Sen. Lois Tochtrop, after Schultheis spoke on the Senate floor.

“What this bill will do and why it’s so important to test the woman when she is pregnant — if she is HIV-positive, treatment is started immediately to protect the baby, the unborn baby,” the Thornton Democrat, who is also a nurse, said.

Listen to Schultheis and Tochtrop here.

Schultheis last week signed onto a letter with Colorado conservative lawmakers Sens. Scott Renfroe, Kevin Lundberg, Greg Brophy and Rep. Kent Lambert endorsing New York Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman over “liberal Republican” candidate Dede Scozzafava.

The Republican establishment should stop supporting candidates that merely call themselves Republicans to get elected, and whose actions then undermine principled Republican legislation. We should represent our loyal Party members better by heeding their warnings against compromising Republican principles. Unlike Scozzafava’s views, the Republican Party Platform is pro-life, pro-capitalist, and pro-traditional marriage, and is opposed to radical leftist groups like ACORN.

Schultheis Republican primary opponent Tom McDowell was moved to run against Schultheis for the way he said Schultheis’s single-minded focus on abortion was hurting the party, amounting to Republican “fratricide.”

I oppose him, said McDowell, “because he’s too in love with single issue inspired fratricide. I expect that his wing of the party will try to put up someone else, but that candidate will have to carry Schultheis’ fratricidal baggage.’”

The primary might well have echoed the front range 4th Congressional District race last year, where moderate Democrat Betsy Markey unseated social conservative Republican U.S. Rep. Marilyn Musgrave.

Schultheis’s statement:

After considerable deliberation, I have decided to forgo running for my second and final four-year term as a Colorado State Senator representing Senate District 9. I will, however, continue to serve out my current term, which culminates at the end of 2010, concluding ten years of political service for the citizens of Colorado. This has been an extremely difficult decision for me, as I love the challenge of serving the best interests of my constituents on legislative matters, by steadfastly advocating for traditional, conservative values, which I know to be the best overall values for the citizens of Colorado and the nation.

After much prayer and discussion with family members and close friends, I have come to this decision in order to spend more time with family, including my five rapidly-growing grandsons. As is common knowledge, the responsibilities of political office are extremely demanding on one’s time and schedule — often to the detriment of time spent with family and friends.

Having served to the very best of my ability since 2001, first in Colorado’s House of Representatives for six years and now in the Colorado State Senate, I have consistently attempted to uphold Conservative principles to the best of my ability, even when it was difficult to do so. I remain convinced that those principles are essential for a society whose citizens value freedom, liberty and personal responsibility.

The citizens of Senate 9 District deserve a strong, unwavering Conservative to be their Senator; it is an important responsibility that I have taken very seriously. While I have been honored that the voters have had faith in me over these years, it has always been my view that if there were others who could fulfill those duties with the same level of passion for Conservative principles as I, then I could direct my efforts to other areas; there is so much to do to reclaim the vision of our Founding Fathers. There are now individuals standing in the wings who can and will passionately and consistently carry that mantle.

During my years in the Legislature, I have purposely never sought a leadership position, as I believed my role was to stand firmly against every temptation to moderate my conservative views for greater acceptance by the caucus. As a result, I felt free and unencumbered, to hold high the banner of each and every conservative principle that Republicans say they believe in…and to do so without compromise.

It is with a great deal of gratitude to the citizens of Senate District 9, and a strong sense of personal accomplishment that I move forward to meet future challenges.

God bless you, the citizens of Senate District 9 and of Colorado.

Got a tip? Freelance story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

(Photo/magnaram, Flickr)

Sen. Dave Schultheis’ Feb. 25 comments on SB 179 that HIV testing of pregnant women rewards promiscuity and that HIV-positive babies are punishment for their wayward mothers set off a four-day media food fight, with the Colorado Springs Republican eventually blaming Rocky Mountain News reporter Lynn Bartels for the fallout.

Alluding to Schultheis’ remarks, activist Jeff Thormodsgaard of the Colorado Organizations Responding to AIDS, a consortium of 25 health care, GLBT and hospice groups, threw down the gauntlet.

“HIV testing for pregnant women is not a moral issue. … We wanted to testify in a public hearing to address some of the comments made in the Senate about this very issue and speak to the moral issue and the stigma those comments seek to continue.”

Conservative Republican members of the state House Health and Human Services Committee wisely didn’t take the bait. None of the lawmakers asked a question following his prepared testimony.

Thormodsgaard’s activist-accented clobbering of the committee was in sharp contrast to the velvet hammer of a Denver Children’s Hospital registered nurse, Kay Kinzie.

The immune-deficiency program pregnancy coordinator told the committee, “The majority of women living with HIV in the U.S. — either who know they are infected or who are as yet uninformed about their status are — are in their childbearing years.”

However, with recent medical breakthroughs, mother-to-child HIV transmission are preventable and have been reduced to less than 1 percent with appropriate treatment, thus the importance of screening mandates.

Kinzie said in over a decade of working with pregnant HIV-positive women that the treatment benefits are greatly diminished 48 hours or more after birth.

It was the nurse’s softspoken testimony that was a more devastating disassembling of Schultheis’ comment — that infected babies would cause families to “see the negative consequences of that promiscuity” — than any of the other witness statements or the mountains of public recriminations:

Within our program at Children’s Hospital, we are also working with HIV-positive children, most of whom received the infection from mother-to-child transmission. Some of those children are in their mid-twenties now and are living healthy productive lives and choosing to have their own children who are healthy and uninfected. But I think that if you had given any of those kids the opportunity to live with or without this illness they would certainly choose the latter.

“An important gap to close”

The bill, co-sponsored by Sen. Lois Tochtrop, D-Thornton, and Rep. Sara Gagliardi, D-Arvada, seeks to revise eight state laws on testing, treating and defining communicable diseases:

• requires all women to be tested for HIV during their first trimester of pregnancy, or when entering a hospital for delivery if not tested during pregnancy, unless a woman declines the test;
• allows state and local health officers to detain a person diagnosed with tuberculosis without a court order for up to five days and specifies procedures for seeking a court-ordered detention;
• clarifies the prohibition on working in food preparation when affected by an infectious disease;
• allows the State Board of Health to adopt rules for controlling infectious disease;
• creates an exception to the misdemeanor offense for violating a State Board of Health rule concerning infectious disease by allowing certain health professionals to be subject to a civil penalty for such a violation;
• defines “sexually transmitted infection” and replaces out-of-date medical terminology;
• repeals provisions concerning prescriptions for sexually transmitted infections and exemptions for reporting the personal information of research subjects participating in medical research studies on AIDS or HIV; and
• modifies the membership requirements of the HIV/AIDS Prevention Grant Program Advisory Committee.

In addition to Kinzie and Thormodsgaard, each of the other witnesses, all in support of the bill, provided the committee with a sober analysis of the public health threats facing the state, especially for pregnant HIV-positive women.

Dr. Ned Calonge, the state’s chief medical officer, said the bill is an important step forward to move Colorado into modern-day infectious disease and epidemiology practice.

“We know from birth certificate data that up to 15 percent of women in Colorado are not currently being tested for HIV,” said Calonge. “We feel this is an important gap to close with this legislation.” He noted that Colorado law already requires mandatory syphilis testing of pregnant women, which enables early treatment to prevent transmission in the baby.

With early intervention of anti-retroviral treatment infected children can expect normal life spans, said Calonge.

March of Dimes Colorado chapter representative Scott Matthews echoed his support for the bill, reminding committee members that 50 percent of pregnancies are unintended. Matthews explained that any legislation that improves testing and outreach to pregnant mothers dovetails with the group’s charge to prevent birth defects and infant mortality.

Approximately 1,000 HIV-AIDS patients are managed each year by the Denver Public Health Department, according to its director, Dr. Chris Urbina, and of those people, five to 10 are pregnant women. Urbina noted that because of early intervention, the department has had zero cases of infant HIV transmission.

As encouraging as those statistics are, not everyone is on board with mandatory testing.

After bawling out the House committee for the political sins of Schultheis, HIV-AIDS advocate Thormodsgaard noted that some undisclosed CORA members were not supportive of the bill, even after a patient opt-out clause was added in the Senate to soften the testing requirement.

The bill passed 10-0 with no vote by Rep. Cindy Acree, R-Aurora who was absent. SB 179 moves to the House committee of the whole. If it passes the House, it will go to the governor for approval.

State Sen. Dave Schultheis, a Colorado Springs Republican (Photo/Bob Spencer, The Colorado Independent)

Democrats were outraged Wednesday morning when Republican state Sen. Dave Schultheis said he planned to vote against a bill to require HIV tests for pregnant women because the disease “stems from sexual promiscuity” and he didn’t think the Legislature should “remove the negative consequences that take place from poor behavior and unacceptable behavior.” The Colorado Springs lawmaker then proceeded to cast the lone vote against SB 179, which passed 32-1 and moves on to the House.

“HIV does not just come from sexual promiscuity, it comes from many other things — contaminated blood, for one,” fired back one of the bill’s sponsors, Sen. Lois Tochtrop, after Schultheis spoke on the Senate floor.

“What this bill will do and why it’s so important to test the woman when she is pregnant — if she is HIV-positive, treatment is started immediately to protect the baby, the unborn baby,” the Thornton Democrat, who is also a nurse, said.

Listen to Schultheis and Tochtrop here.

Reaction to Schultheis’ remarks rippled through the Capitol.

“Sen. Schultheis drew the conclusion that anyone who may have HIV is sexually promiscuous,” said Sen. Jennifer Veiga, a Denver Democrat and the Legislature’s only openly lesbian member. “I find that offensive in the context of this bill and I find it offensive in the context of the gay community.”

“I think [Schultheis] owes the [Legislature] and the public at large an apology,” Veiga said.

She castigated the GOP for staying silent when its legislators make outrageous statements during debates on bills. “Republicans continue to allow comments like this to go unchecked,” she said, referencing statements made Monday when Republican Sen. Scott Renfroe compared homosexuality to murder in a debate over a bill sponsored by Veiga to expand health benefits to same-sex partners of state employees. “They quietly sit by and acquiesce.”

The Colorado Republican Party didn’t return a call seeking comment on Renfroe’s and Schultheis’ remarks.

“They absolutely should call Sen. Schultheis on his comments and the inappropriateness of his comments, as they should have done with Sen. Renfroe two days ago,” Veiga said. “Even Gov. Owens distanced himself and called to task members of his own party” when they go over the line, Veiga said.

Here’s a transcript, prepared by The Colorado Independent, of what Schultheis said:

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, it basically modifies the communicable disease laws and it requires the health care providers to test pregnant women for HIV unless they opt out. And that’s basically, that’s the main part of this bill. I voted yes on it. I was a little bit troubled with my vote and 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 6 and finally came to the conclusion I’m going to be a no vote on this. I’m trying to think through what the role of government is here. And I am not convinced that part of the role of government should be to protect individuals from the negative consequences of their actions.

Sexual promiscuity, 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 who put their child in a small daycare center there.

We do things 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.

As a result of that I finally came to the conclusion I would have to be a no vote on this because this stems from sexual promiscuity for the most part, and I just can’t vote on this bill and I wanted to explain to this body why I was going to be a no vote on this.

UPDATE: Schultheis restates his opposition to the bill by claiming HIV babies are punishment for promiscuous moms.

That’s according to the most recent disclosure forms filed with the Secretary of State’s office, which show that the Golden-based “free-market think thank” Independence Institute paid for Sen. Tochtrop to attend the group’s annual Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms Party and shoot the breeze. Literally. Sen. Tochtrop received (PDF) $150 from the Independence Institute, precisely the cost for a ticket to the event, where Institute supporters and other like-minded glitterati gather to celebrate the vices supposedly being stomped by so-called “liberal nannies.”

Even more discriminating, it does not appear that the Institute offered the same ticket deal to attendees Sen. Nancy Spence (R-Centennial) or Secretary of State Mike Coffman, meaning that the two VIPs may have had to pay their own money to attend the event.

Hows that for free-market politics?

continued…The most popular Republican co-sponsor in the Senate was Steve Johnson of Fort Collins with 13 bills. Johnson seems to be the go-to Republican for House Democrats looking to reach across the aisle. Eleven of the House bills he carried were sponsored by Democrats, most often Jack Pommer of Boulder and Bernie Buescher of Grand Junction.

House members have fewer Senate bills to co-sponsor, so the go-to representative, Joe Rice, topped the list with just 12 bills. Three others sponsored 10 or more bills: Reps. Pommer, Buescher and Tom Massey of Poncha Springs. As the top Republican co-sponsor in the House, Massey partnered with Dems on nine of the 10 Senate bills he carried.

Read the rest of our legislators’ report card series:
Pass/Fail: Colorado State Legislators’ Final Report Card
Colorado’s
Top 10 Senators
Colorado’s Top 10 Representatives
Colorado’s Least Effective Senators
Colorado’s Least Effective Representatives
The Go-To Republicans
So Many Days, So Few Bills

Earlier in the week Sen. Lois Tochtrop, D-Thornton, announced plans to discard a bill that would have required auto-insurance policies to have $50,000 in additional medical coverage for drivers.

Tochtrop was the sponsor of the measure and said she would later submit a more water downed version of the proposal, after facing pressure and exaggerations from the insurance industry.During a hearing with Senate Local Government committee-the only hearing where the bill was discussed-two representatives from State Farm Insurance spoke in opposition to the bill, with one being a registered lobbyist.

Veteran lobbyist William Imig with Allstate also spoke against the bill, while 7 others spoke in favor of it.

Before that, the Farmers Insurance Employee and Agent Political Action Committee (PAC) gave $400 to Tochtrop’s campaign in September, according to Secretary of State records. 

During the same month, Political Works LLC, a lobbying firm employed by Progressive Auto Insurance, gave $200. Lobbyist Michael Feeley, who represents the Colorado Insurance Coalition, also gave $200.

According to government records, Political Works was actively lobbying against the bill, along with Farmers Insurance and the Colorado Insurance Coalition.