GOP sen. hates women, babies, fetuses

I think any mother who refuses the test and passes HIV on to her child is negligent. Every pregnant woman should be tested so the babies can be protected from the disease.
Originally Posted by Who Me?
I have to disagree, and agree with RCW that I'm against mandatory testing. I absolutely think that pregnant women should be advised of the risk factors for HIV as well as the risks associated with passing it along to their babies, but I think that women/parents should be responsible for making their own healthcare decisions and for their children.

And I hate to turn this into an abortion argument, but I'm curious to see how many people support mandatory HIV-testing but believe a woman should be able to choose to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
Originally Posted by PixieCurl
I don't see a relation between the two at all. Maybe I'm missing something, but why would you think that there is?
Originally Posted by mrspoppers
I don't see how there would be a relation either. I am not for mandatory govt testing, but I am for a woman having the right to choose.
I guess to me, if a woman has a right to choose to end the life of the fetus/baby/child she is carrying, I don't see why she wouldn't have the right to choose whether to consent to a test that would reveal information about her own health and subsequently, her child's.

Maybe it is a stretch, but it makes sense in my mind.
Faith, 3Aish redhead
Mama to two wild superheroes and a curly-headed baby boy
And I hate to turn this into an abortion argument, but I'm curious to see how many people support mandatory HIV-testing but believe a woman should be able to choose to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
Originally Posted by PixieCurl
I don't see a relation between the two at all. Maybe I'm missing something, but why would you think that there is?
Originally Posted by mrspoppers
I don't see how there would be a relation either. I am not for mandatory govt testing, but I am for a woman having the right to choose.
Originally Posted by M2LR
I wasn't sure of the relation either, but I thought maybe Pixie was referring to being given a choice in either matter. The choice of whether or not to be tested, and having the right to choose to terminate a pregnancy or not. I'm not trying to speak for her, but that was my interpretation.

I don't know if I agree with that analogy, though. I think a pregnant woman at risk for HIV should get tested, whether or not she is legally required to. But should a woman who has an unwanted pregnancy have to continue the pregnancy? That's more of a gray area and it's not for me to say.
I don't see a relation between the two at all. Maybe I'm missing something, but why would you think that there is?
Originally Posted by mrspoppers
I don't see how there would be a relation either. I am not for mandatory govt testing, but I am for a woman having the right to choose.
Originally Posted by M2LR
I wasn't sure of the relation either, but I thought maybe Pixie was referring to being given a choice in either matter. The choice of whether or not to be tested, and having the right to choose to terminate a pregnancy or not. I'm not trying to speak for her, but that was my interpretation.

I don't know if I agree with that analogy, though. I think a pregnant woman at risk for HIV should get tested, whether or not she is legally required to. But should a woman who has an unwanted pregnancy have to continue the pregnancy? That's more of a gray area and it's not for me to say.
Originally Posted by sarah42
OK it was a stretch, please ignore my question and continue with the original conversation
As I said, it made sense in my mind.

As to the bolded: I agree with you, but I don't believe that all pregnant women should be required to be tested. Why should a woman who understands the risk factors, and knows her risk level to be very low or nonexistant, be forced to have the test (or allow her baby to be tested?).
Faith, 3Aish redhead
Mama to two wild superheroes and a curly-headed baby boy
I don't see a relation between the two at all. Maybe I'm missing something, but why would you think that there is?
Originally Posted by mrspoppers
I don't see how there would be a relation either. I am not for mandatory govt testing, but I am for a woman having the right to choose.
Originally Posted by M2LR
I wasn't sure of the relation either, but I thought maybe Pixie was referring to being given a choice in either matter. The choice of whether or not to be tested, and having the right to choose to terminate a pregnancy or not. I'm not trying to speak for her, but that was my interpretation.

I don't know if I agree with that analogy, though. I think a pregnant woman at risk for HIV should get tested, whether or not she is legally required to. But should a woman who has an unwanted pregnancy have to continue the pregnancy? That's more of a gray area and it's not for me to say.
Originally Posted by sarah42
I agree with the bolded. If a woman is AT RISK of having HIV, then I think that she should get tested as well, instead of choosing to remain oblivious to the fact that her baby might have HIV. If she IS positive, then there is something that they can do to try and prevent baby from getting it.

If there is a woman who has an unwanted pregnancy, and wants to terminate it, I am still of the belief that the choice should be there for her if she wants it. Who am I to tell someone that they need to KEEP their unwanted pregnancy?
This is another choice issue. I hope that pregnant women (and all women and men, because let's be real, there are a whole lot of people out there who got infected by their supposedly faithful partners) choose to get tested. I agree that it's careless if not downright negligent not to do so, but the law shouldn't force anyone to get tested. And since this bill supposedly allow women to opt-out, it's just a beg waste of time, paper, and tax-payers' money.
Eres o te haces?
nm, I need to rethink my post


confuzzled
This is another choice issue. I hope that pregnant women (and all women and men, because let's be real, there are a whole lot of people out there who got infected by their supposedly faithful partners) choose to get tested. I agree that it's careless if not downright negligent not to do so, but the law shouldn't force anyone to get tested. And since this bill supposedly allow women to opt-out, it's just a beg waste of time, paper, and tax-payers' money.
Originally Posted by legends
YES, to the bolded.

And I am not sure that a woman who is at risk and chooses NOT to get tested and puts her child at risk...well, just seems a bit selfish to me.

Especially when the test is NOT invasive at all, it's a blood test. It's not like an amnio or a CVS test with a significant risk to the fetus.

I was going to compare it to the AFP, but with the rate of false positives, it'd be like comparing apples and oranges.
I agree with those who have said HIV testing shouldn't be mandatory because it could be an invasion of privacy. I see where mandatory testing would be beneficial, from a public health standpoint, but I would weigh that in favor of the individual's rights.

When I was pregnant, I did get tested both times. I knew I was negative because my husband and I are monogamous and had both been tested several times after we were married (they make you do that when you serve in the Peace Corps in sub-saharan Africa....actually, maybe in all Peace Corps countries). The doctor offered it when I went for my pre-natal appointments and I just went along with it because they were doing other blood work at the same time, and I figured it wasn't a big deal.

But getting back to the bill... Is the purpose of it that now doctors have to offer the test to all pregnant women, and they didn't used to be required to offer it? If so, I can support that, but it seems like doctors already offer it to everyone now.
If mom is HIV positive, can't they give her something to prevent it from passing to the baby?

So, she can opt out of the testing, but she can pass on a potentially life threatening illness to her baby (if she chooses to not be tested), either from the pregnancy or from breastfeeding (off the top of my head, I thought HIV/AIDS can be transmitted thru breast milk?)

Maybe I am not thinking this through correctly.
Originally Posted by M2LR
No you are correct. HIV can be passed from mother to child during gestation, deliver, and by breast feeding. When a pregant woman tests HIV positive, starting the mother on anti-viral therapy significantly lowers the chance of the mother passing on the infection during gestation and delivery. I think though that HIV women are still encouraged not to breast feed.

I guess I'm a bit lost....why would a woman choose not to get an HIV test when she finds out she is pregnant? I mean in this day and age, I hope that EVERYONE (married, single, whatever) gets tested at LEAST once a year.
Originally Posted by Nappy_curly_crown
Ridiculous. Why should I as a married woman who is faithful to her husand and her husband is faithful to her undergo this testing?

Besides which NEW HIV cases in non drug using heterosexuals is pretty rare now in my understanding. I'm only talking about the US here. Our blood supply has been secured from what I understand.

I wouldn't want to be tested if I was pregnant, but to keep my baby from having to be tested I would do it, but like medussa said, that sound like mandatory testing to me.
Originally Posted by sdc
Because **** happens.

Uh...what scientific medical journals have you been reading...because the number of HIV cases amoung hetrosexual WOMEN is on the rise...and it is alarmingly high. And it is estimated that 9 out of 10 of those women are in "committed relationships and/or are married" and it is also estimated that almost 60% of new HIV positive women got it from thier partner (and this for women across all socio-economic groups and races). Add to that, the numbers for minority women are even higher.
Wanna talk products? Come Join us here!
http://www.facebook.com/PlatinumPJ

Extremely thick, kinky curls/coils that have a mind of thier own!!!!
_____________________________
I like my men and my hair....KINKY!!!!
_____________________________
Wanna save $10 off your next purchase at vitacost.com? Use my referal code (click the link)!



Created by MyFitnessPal.com - Free Calorie Counter
I don't like that bill, and I don't like the man's reasoning. I hope the GOP puts pressure on him.
Regardless of the semantics, this sounds like mandatory testing to me. If the mother refuses the test, then the baby has to be tested. No matter what, one of the two will be tested.

Pixie, I understood what you're saying and see the connection.
There's no such thing as global warming. Chuck Norris was cold so he turned up the sun.
I can understand if it's mandatory for the doctor to offer the test, but I don't think it should be mandatory for the pregnant woman to have to take the test. I'm for individual rights, though. I think it is a wise decision to go ahead and take it anyways. You want to assume your spouse or partner is faithful, but for the sake of the baby, I'd say go ahead and just get it done. But to make it mandatory. No! And I don't think it's negligent to refuse to take the test...if someone is an IV drug user or has more than one sex partner or they know their sex partner has more than one partner, then yes that is negligent. But many women are naive and really do trust their husbands...and hopefully for good reasons...negligence is too strong of a word. Naive, yes. Negligent, no.

And that senator is a total douchebag in his reasoning. I hope the GOP will call him out on it...or Faux News. I somehow don't think that will happen though. I'm not too shocked that there are still men like that out there. I think if the GOP is really serious about improving their image, they will, for starters, be on top of this and call him out. Hmmm...we'll see. I'm not holding my breath though.
That's right, I said it! I wear scrunchies!!

I am a sulfate washing, cone slabbing, curly lovin' s.o.b. The CG police haven't caught me yet.


3a/3b
Pixie, I understood what you're saying and see the connection.
Originally Posted by cynaminbear
YAY I'm not crazy!!!


And boomygrrl, it saddens me that you think any woman is naive if she trusts that her husband is faithful.
Faith, 3Aish redhead
Mama to two wild superheroes and a curly-headed baby boy
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't part of the reason for testing so that healthcare workers know what they are dealing with? I was tested for TB before giving birth to my son in California and I thought that was the reason.

In any case, I would also be against mandatory testing but would hope that women, all women, take advantage of the test if it is available. I was tested both times, and I additionally asked to be tested for Hepatitis when pregnant with my daughter. I had a blood transfusion after my first delivery and even though I know blood should be safe in the US, like someone said about s*** happens.

Oh, and that guy is a jerk.



No you are correct. HIV can be passed from mother to child during gestation, deliver, and by breast feeding. When a pregant woman tests HIV positive, starting the mother on anti-viral therapy significantly lowers the chance of the mother passing on the infection during gestation and delivery. I think though that HIV women are still encouraged not to breast feed.

I guess I'm a bit lost....why would a woman choose not to get an HIV test when she finds out she is pregnant? I mean in this day and age, I hope that EVERYONE (married, single, whatever) gets tested at LEAST once a year.
Originally Posted by Nappy_curly_crown
Ridiculous. Why should I as a married woman who is faithful to her husand and her husband is faithful to her undergo this testing?

Besides which NEW HIV cases in non drug using heterosexuals is pretty rare now in my understanding. I'm only talking about the US here. Our blood supply has been secured from what I understand.

I wouldn't want to be tested if I was pregnant, but to keep my baby from having to be tested I would do it, but like medussa said, that sound like mandatory testing to me.
Originally Posted by sdc
Because **** happens.

Uh...what scientific medical journals have you been reading...because the number of HIV cases amoung hetrosexual WOMEN is on the rise...and it is alarmingly high. And it is estimated that 9 out of 10 of those women are in "committed relationships and/or are married" and it is also estimated that almost 60% of new HIV positive women got it from thier partner (and this for women across all socio-economic groups and races). Add to that, the numbers for minority women are even higher.
Originally Posted by Nappy_curly_crown
I was a bit antagonistic in my response and there was no reason to be so sorry about that but, I stand by what I said. I don't think most of us need to be tested and certainly not on an annual basis. This is from the CDC website. NOTE that for women they are talking about women who engage in sex with men they either know have HIV or who have high risk of it, but they may not know that. I know for me, and I believe that vast majority of women those situations just don't apply. The number is small to me even with that. While every case is sad, 11,754 diagnosed in one year out of our huge population is not a lot of women (2006 statistics). More people than that die of cancer every day. The table I am referring to for HIV is about half way down the page.

http://www.cdc.gov/HIV/topics/surveillance/basic.htm

This is the cancer death rate for 2008.

http://www.cancer.org/downloads/stt/...8Table_pg4.pdf
Pixie, I understood what you're saying and see the connection.
Originally Posted by cynaminbear

YAY I'm not crazy!!!YAY I'm not crazy!!!


And boomygrrl, it saddens me that you think any woman is naive if she trusts that her husband is faithful.
Originally Posted by PixieCurl
First I see what pixiecurl was originally saying also.

Second, I don't see where boomygrrl said naive, but I get what you are saying here too and I agree in that those of us who are in good marriages to good guys KNOW we can trust them to be faithful to us.

Last edited by sdc; 02-26-2009 at 04:23 PM. Reason: I wasn't clear.
Guano:

Eilwony, what's the story behind your sig?
Originally Posted by ninja dog
It's from the song Bata Motel. This video is really good.

I figured that keeping my sarcastic "feminazi" sig would make it seem like I cared too much about the thread it came from.

(...) I've got 54321
Come on my love, I know you're strong
Push me hard, make me stagger
The pain in my back just doesn't matter
You force-hold me above the ground
I can't get away, my feet are bound
So I'm bound to say
That I'm bound to stay

Well today I look so good
Just like I know I should (...)
I've studied my flaws in your reflection
And put them to rights with savage correction (...)
So come on darling, make me yours
Trip me over, show me the floor
Tease me, tease me, make me stay
In my red high-heels I can't get away
(...)

Last edited by Eilonwy; 02-26-2009 at 04:28 PM.
Pixie, I understood what you're saying and see the connection.
Originally Posted by cynaminbear
YAY I'm not crazy!!!


And boomygrrl, it saddens me that you think any woman is naive if she trusts that her husband is faithful.
Originally Posted by PixieCurl
I dont think a woman is naive, but i think a lot of people (women in particular) sort of put on blinders until its too late on topics like this. They think "oh not me"...my spouse wouldn't/doesn't cheat on me....he/she loves me". In the famous words of Tina Turner "What's love got to do with it"? Cheating usually has very little to do with love...and its usually tied to a whole host of other things.

I liken it to the fact that people tell women that they should have thier own personal checking accounts seperate from thier husbands for "just in case". Its not that people automaticly assume that the husband will leave his wife high and dry, but after having seen so many women have this happen to them, it becomes standard "advice". And most women take it as such. Its not said to be offensive like "oh you know your husband ain't ****, so u better tuck some money away". But...should it happen, you will be protected and in a position to land on your feet and continue on with your life. No one wants to think that thier spouse will cheat on them, but the reality is that a LARGE percentage of people do (both men AND women cheat).

Not to mention, that HIV is a disease that is spread a lot more ways than just sex. If your spouse is a medical worker that comes or has the potential to come into contact with blood or blood contaminated items, you should get tested as well as your spouse (which I'm sure they do because it is apart of thier job). I mean blood transfers can and do happen, freak accidents so happen.

I was reading an article in the Washington Post recently, and this woman had been married 15+ years to her husband. She got sick and couldn't figure out what was going on...so she went to the doctor. The doc ran a battery of tests including an HIV test...it came back positive. So she went home and beat the crap outta her husband (or attempted to) because if she was HIV positive, it was because he had cheated on her...or so she thought. Her husband tested negative. So did thier two children. Turns out, that 16 years ago, she and her husband broke up briefly before they were married...and she slept with a man. That man died 4 years ago from HIV. She never knew that she had been exposed to HIV for all those years, because he never reported her as a sex partner to public health workers that track possible cases of exposure.

I'm trying to find a link to the article, but I'm not having much luck....but it was in the Washington Post maybe 1-2 months ago.
Wanna talk products? Come Join us here!
http://www.facebook.com/PlatinumPJ

Extremely thick, kinky curls/coils that have a mind of thier own!!!!
_____________________________
I like my men and my hair....KINKY!!!!
_____________________________
Wanna save $10 off your next purchase at vitacost.com? Use my referal code (click the link)!



Created by MyFitnessPal.com - Free Calorie Counter
Why do people constantly compare AIDS/HIV to cancer?

ITA with nappycurlycrown and madscientist.

General question: why would it hurt for everyone to be tested for HIV/AIDS? Also, how is it an invasion of privacy?

I think NOT wanting to get tested for HIV/AIDS leads right back to this senator's foolish reasoning and shows we have such a long way to go if we ever want to get a hold on this disease.

"In the depth of winter, I finally learned that within me there lay an invincible summer."

4a, mbl, low porosity, normal thickness, fine hair.
Maybe this is some sort of legislation that is really for insurance companies, disguised as being something helpful. If you test positive for HIV, can't the insurance company drop you and/or refuse to cover your baby?

Hopefully I am just very jaded and this isn't the case.

Trending Topics


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2011 NaturallyCurly.com