GOP sen. hates women, babies, fetuses

THE BILL DOES NOT MAKE HIV TESTING MANDATORY!

Senator Schultheis says that he plans to vote against a bill requiring HIV tests for pregnant women. (The bill would permit women to opt out of the tests). These tests would allow doctors to substantially decrease the risk of babies becoming infected with HIV during birth.

Schultheis believes that HIV "stems from sexual promiscuity," and that the government should not "remove the negative consequences that take place from poor behavior and unacceptable behavior." (Keep in mind that HIV is spread through other channels, including accidental blood contamination and male promiscuity.)

link

EDIT: I used the word "require" because that's the word used in the article. However, it's clear from the article that healthcare providers just have to make the test available to pregnant women, and let them know about it.

Also, the sentence about testing being optional appeared in the first version of this post.

And I'm not freaking out or anything. I just don't want people to get the wrong impression of what happened.

Last edited by Eilonwy; 02-25-2009 at 05:59 PM.
Uh oh. He's sure stepped in it now! Look for a retraction soon.

I was born to be a pessimist. My blood type is B Negative.
Aside from the fact that he's a misogynist, I agree that women should be able to opt-out of HIV testing. I hate to see gov't forced testing.
Aside from the fact that he's a misogynist, I agree that women should be able to opt-out of HIV testing. I hate to see gov't forced testing.
Originally Posted by RedCatWaves
The bill already permits opting out. He's against having the government promote STD testing. Sorry if my summary wasn't clear.
I opted out this time but then decided to get it done last Friday (I'll be getting the test done with my next set of labs, in 8 weeks). It really had nothing to do with the enormous pressure I got from my midwife, but from the idea that my baby would get stuck with a needle instead of me, because I refused the test.

My understanding is that if mom opts out, baby must be tested. Baby doesn't get to opt out. Am I correct? That sounds like mandatory testing to me.
oops

Last edited by Eilonwy; 02-25-2009 at 04:49 PM.
I opted out this time but then decided to get it done last Friday (I'll be getting the test done with my next set of labs, in 8 weeks). It really had nothing to do with the enormous pressure I got from my midwife, but from the idea that my baby would get stuck with a needle instead of me, because I refused the test.

My understanding is that if mom opts out, baby must be tested. Baby doesn't get to opt out. Am I correct? That sounds like mandatory testing to me.
Originally Posted by medussa
That is my understanding as well. It's why I opted not to opt out with my second pregnancy in particular. I was also informed that of something should require me to deliver at the larger hospital with a NICU, they would not release the baby until the test results came back. No thank you.
I'm against mandatory testing under any circumstances, but this guy's reasoning sucks.
I opted out this time but then decided to get it done last Friday (I'll be getting the test done with my next set of labs, in 8 weeks). It really had nothing to do with the enormous pressure I got from my midwife, but from the idea that my baby would get stuck with a needle instead of me, because I refused the test.

My understanding is that if mom opts out, baby must be tested. Baby doesn't get to opt out. Am I correct? That sounds like mandatory testing to me.
Originally Posted by medussa
Did I miss an announcement? If so, congratulations!
Eres o te haces?
I'm against mandatory testing under any circumstances, but this guy's reasoning sucks.
Originally Posted by legends
The bill does not make testing mandatory.
Then I really don't understand the goal of this bill.

Will it require HIV tests on newborns if women refuse?
Eres o te haces?
Then I really don't understand the goal of this bill.

Will it require HIV tests on newborns if women refuse?
Originally Posted by legends

The bill is linked in the article I posted. "Requires health care providers providing care to a pregnant
woman during gestation, or hospitals where a pregnant woman presents for delivery, to test the woman for HIV if she has not previously been tested and allows the pregnant woman to decline to be tested."

The pregnant woman will be asked if she wants the test during her first hospital visit, and when she goes to the hospital for delivery. Opting out is recorded in her medical record. The baby's birth certificate will indicate whether the mother was tested during pregnancy. However the results of a test willl not be indicated.
So...this bill serves absolutely no purpose, then. And I might sound all conspiracy theory here, but I'm really suspicious of the claim that women will actually be able to decline for very long. I'm willing to bet that women won't even be informed that they're allowed to decline, and will just be told that the test is mandatory.

None of that changes the fact that that senator is an ******* and should be called out by the GOP for his comments. Not that it will happen since the party is controlled by social conservative dingbats...
Eres o te haces?
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.
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.
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
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 15,533
Guano:

Eilwony, what's the story behind your sig?
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

I totally agree. Aren't babies mandatory tested for things like PKU, which can be cause serious mental retardation unless there are simple dietary changes? Obviously, parents want to know if there is something simple they can do to prevent a horrible illness in their child. How is the HIV testing of the mother really any different? If it's known that the mother is HIV postive, then steps can be taken to protect the baby during delivery. And yes, HIV can be transmitted through breast milk, so HIV positive women shouldn't breast feed.

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.
"I don't know! I don't know why I did it, I don't know why I enjoyed it, and I don't know why I'll do it again!" -BART SIMPSON
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.
Faith, 3Aish redhead
Mama to two wild superheroes and a curly-headed baby boy
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.
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?
I agree that if there is any risk, a pregnant woman should be willing to get tested. They can give her ARV's (anti-retro-virals) that make it less likely for the baby to contract HIV.

But, I don't think testing should be mandatory. That just seems Big Brotherish and it doesn't sit well with me.

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 06:51 AM.


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