Who votes for these people?

Can anyone think of anything else, medically, that our gvt can force us to do?

To eat what they think is "healthy" .... oops, too late for that.

nope, not forced....

To stop smoking ... oops, that one to.

nope, not forced...taxed heavily, but not forced and that is not something MEDICAL, forced to do....like a vaccination...

Um ... force people to live even when suffering by an extremely painful terminal illness ... damn, they got that one to already.

no one is forced to live when they don't want to under terminal conditions, if in a coma with no Living Will stating you want to be taken off life support under key conditions, they keep you alive....but this is just, imo....unless you have stated otherwise....or firmly stated otherwise to your immediate family....

if you are talking about assisted suicide...the government is preventing you from committing suicide which is against the law....they are not forcing you medically to take something to kill yourself....?


... sorry, just can't think of any off hand.

Oddly I was on your side in the argument, but though they are not forced 100% there are laws in place and more on the way that do.

The point was, it's all or nothing, if you let them tell us how to live even part of our lives they will continue to slowly push the envelope. You also are not to clear on some of those laws that have already been passed or the court rulings that have no hope of being overturned.
 
Politicians say stupid things. That's a given. As long as he wants to limit government control, I really don't care what he says.
I'm happy for you. There is stupid and then there is evil. And if what Val posted is correct, he is both.

:confused: How does what Val posted make him stupid and evil? Aren't we talking about mandatory testing by the government?
I guess I misread it, I only noticed the opt out portion...I thought it meant the woman could opt out but then the newborn would be automatically tested...just like they are for so many other things. That would work for me.

But he's still stupid and evil for thinking and arguing his case the way he did, IMNSHO
 
Politicians say stupid things. That's a given. As long as he wants to limit government control, I really don't care what he says.
I'm happy for you. There is stupid and then there is evil. And if what Val posted is correct, he is both.

:confused: How does what Val posted make him stupid and evil? Aren't we talking about mandatory testing by the government?
I didn't read it wrong. From the article.
Schultheis' remarks came during debate on Senate Bill 179, which makes several changes to state law concerning communicable diseases, including the requirement of the HIV test. Pregnant women can opt out, which goes in their medical records.
But this asshole hopes the babies ARE infected so he can punish the mothers for something, God knows what. He must really have a low opinion of women. 99.99% of women that can afford prenatal care are going to take whatever test their doctor tells them to take...unless they have some religious reason not to. This bill is an effort to help the children of those few wacko's that refuse a test...it is probably an unneeded law, but LIVING CHILDREN deserve special protection as they aren't full citizens.
 
I'm happy for you. There is stupid and then there is evil. And if what Val posted is correct, he is both.

:confused: How does what Val posted make him stupid and evil? Aren't we talking about mandatory testing by the government?
I guess I misread it, I only noticed the opt out portion...I thought it meant the woman could opt out but then the newborn would be automatically tested...just like they are for so many other things. That would work for me.

But he's still stupid and evil for thinking and arguing his case the way he did, IMNSHO

Part of the argument has to do with being able to make testing mandatory at birth vs. being able to make testing mandatory ~ 6 weeks prior. Since there is no question of wanting the baby, why wouldn't a woman want to be tested in order to help the baby GREATLY reduce the risk of full blown aids by means of perinatal preventative treatment?

The odds go down from 4 - 1 to 50 -1 that the child will develop full blown aids.

A small number of women opt out of being tested for privacy reasons. They may be afraid of being discriminated against if they are HIV positive. They might just prefer to have their head in the sand because they're afraid or they might not want to go through the discomfort of the preventative treatment.
 
To eat what they think is "healthy" .... oops, too late for that.

nope, not forced....

To stop smoking ... oops, that one to.

nope, not forced...taxed heavily, but not forced and that is not something MEDICAL, forced to do....like a vaccination...

Um ... force people to live even when suffering by an extremely painful terminal illness ... damn, they got that one to already.

no one is forced to live when they don't want to under terminal conditions, if in a coma with no Living Will stating you want to be taken off life support under key conditions, they keep you alive....but this is just, imo....unless you have stated otherwise....or firmly stated otherwise to your immediate family....

if you are talking about assisted suicide...the government is preventing you from committing suicide which is against the law....they are not forcing you medically to take something to kill yourself....?


... sorry, just can't think of any off hand.

Oddly I was on your side in the argument, but though they are not forced 100% there are laws in place and more on the way that do.

The point was, it's all or nothing, if you let them tell us how to live even part of our lives they will continue to slowly push the envelope. You also are not to clear on some of those laws that have already been passed or the court rulings that have no hope of being overturned.


Generally speaking, I agree with you about protecting individual rights. I think it is a complicated issue and ultimately it is a medical decision where every effort is already made to protect the unborn as well as the mother by informing, educating and encouraging them to have testing and preventative treatment.
 
I'm happy for you. There is stupid and then there is evil. And if what Val posted is correct, he is both.

:confused: How does what Val posted make him stupid and evil? Aren't we talking about mandatory testing by the government?
I guess I misread it, I only noticed the opt out portion...I thought it meant the woman could opt out but then the newborn would be automatically tested...just like they are for so many other things. That would work for me.


If they can make the testing mandatory after birth, then why not 6 weeks prior?

Nobody wants to make the argument because it sets a precedent for the abortion argument and I think that's sad, since they are clearly two different choices.

Women are already tested for strep B and have mandatory preventative treatment.

I'm not sure what the difference is?

Prenatal HIV testing affords the best opportunity for the prevention of perinatal HIV transmission. On the basis of clinical trial data, perinatal HIV-transmission rates among HIV-infected women who begin antiretroviral treatment during pregnancy are as low as <2% (6), compared with 12%--13% early transmission rates among women who do not begin preventive treatment until labor and delivery or after birth (7) and 25% among women who receive no preventive treatment (8).
HIV Testing Among Pregnant Women --- United States and Canada, 1998--2001
 
I don't think the government should be mandating mandatory testing of anything as a requirement of performing a biological function...in this case, giving birth. Again, women getting pre-natal care are going to in most cases do what their doctor recommends.

But we've wondered off topic.
 
I don't think the government should be mandating mandatory testing of anything as a requirement of performing a biological function...in this case, giving birth. Again, women getting pre-natal care are going to in most cases do what their doctor recommends.

But we've wondered off topic.

Well, I don't really think we've wondered off topic at all, unless you're entire point was that the Colorado Senator was an insensitive jerk. I agree. :D

While I certainly understand the aversion of having medical procedures "government mandated", the government doesn't just come down from the mountain and decree mandatory medical treatments. The medical professionals create protocol for a "standard of care" based on medical science and the best interest of the patient.

The law makers defer to the recommendations of the medical professionals while keeping within the rights of the individual. There is a similar legal precedent for parents who refuse chemo treatment for a child diagnosed with cancer, for example. It is the physician's responsibility to the patient to establish the course of treatment that will provide the best opportunity for long-term survival. Not the government.

What's happening is there is also a discrimination law that is in place which provides special protection for patients when it comes to HIV, and this has become an obstacle to protecting babies of at risk mothers. So, the issue is whether or not that law should be trumped and these women should be required to be tested, as recommended by the standard of medical care.

The Senator's ridiculous commentary aside, you actually agree with his vote?

I'm just wondering about the rationale that can reconcile mandatory testing once the baby is born, which in many cases is too late to protect the baby or mandatory testing and treatment for strep B during pregnancy.......but not HIV. :confused:

As far as I can see, the only difference is the HIV discrimination/privacy law that is in place which goes against the medical recommendation for testing and preventative treatment.


SEN. DAVE SCHULTHEIS, R-Colorado Springs, on Wednesday voted againt Senate Bill 179, which requires pregnant women to undergo HIV testing to ensure steps can be taken to reduce transferring the disease to the baby if the mother is infected.

* What he said during the debate: "This stems from sexual promiscuity for the most part and I just can't go there. We do things continually to remove the consequences of poor behavior, unacceptable behavior, quite frankly. I'm not convinced that part of the role of government should be to protect individuals from the negative consequences of their actions."

* What he said afterward: "What I'm hoping is that yes, that person may have AIDS, have it seriously as a baby and when they grow up, but the mother will begin to feel guilt as a result of that. The family will see the negative consequences of that promiscuity and it may make a number of people over the coming years ... begin to realize that there are negative consequences and maybe they should adjust their behavior. We can't keep people from being raped. We can't keep people from shooting each other. We can't keep people from jumping off bridges. People drink and drive, and they crash and kill people. Poor behavior has its consequences."
GOP lawmakers cringe at colleagues' words on sexuality : Updates : The Rocky Mountain News
 
Last edited:
I don't agree with his vote. The law contains language that makes the AIDS test optional for the mother. If the mother refuses then the baby will be tested, with or without her permission. I've got no problem with that whatsoever.

I don't know about the strep thing, please show me what you are talking about.
 
I don't agree with his vote. The law contains language that makes the AIDS test optional for the mother. If the mother refuses then the baby will be tested, with or without her permission. I've got no problem with that whatsoever.

I don't know about the strep thing, please show me what you are talking about.

Sorry, I must have misunderstood your posts. I changed mine to a question. :D

The strep B testing and treatment is standard of care and no one stepped in to ask for a law to protect them over it, like they did with HIV.

So it's the law that has become the obstacle to the standard medical care because of the protected status of regarding HIV in particular. I'm not saying HIV patients shouldn't be protected from discrimination, I just wonder whether that law should be trumped under theses circumstances of a wanted pregnancy.

As you stated most women follow the recommendations of their doctors, but some do not. When the science showed such a huge difference for the baby when the mother received treatment six weeks prior to delivery, there began a huge push for mandatory testing.
 
I don't agree with his vote. The law contains language that makes the AIDS test optional for the mother. If the mother refuses then the baby will be tested, with or without her permission. I've got no problem with that whatsoever.

I don't know about the strep thing, please show me what you are talking about.

Sorry, I must have misunderstood your posts. I changed mine to a question. :D

The strep B testing and treatment is standard of care and no one stepped in to ask for a law to protect them over it, like they did with HIV.

So it's the law that has become the obstacle to the standard medical care because of the protected status of regarding HIV in particular. I'm not saying HIV patients shouldn't be protected from discrimination, I just wonder whether that law should be trumped under theses circumstances of a wanted pregnancy.

As you stated most women follow the recommendations of their doctors, but some do not. When the science showed such a huge difference for the baby when the mother received treatment six weeks prior to delivery, there began a huge push for mandatory testing.
I don't agree with his vote because of the opt out portion, as I stated above.

I think you are wrong about strep

Should all pregnant women be screened for GBS?

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recommend that all pregnant women — with two exceptions — be screened for GBS at 35 to 37 weeks. So if your practitioner doesn't offer the test, be sure to ask for it.
Group B streptococcus screening | BabyCenter

Recommended isn't mandated.

A push for testing is fine. Making it mandatory isn't. I don't think you need a law to make mandatory something that happens so rarely...in this case, a woman refusing a doctor recommended test.
 
I don't agree with his vote. The law contains language that makes the AIDS test optional for the mother. If the mother refuses then the baby will be tested, with or without her permission. I've got no problem with that whatsoever.

I don't know about the strep thing, please show me what you are talking about.

Sorry, I must have misunderstood your posts. I changed mine to a question. :D

The strep B testing and treatment is standard of care and no one stepped in to ask for a law to protect them over it, like they did with HIV.

So it's the law that has become the obstacle to the standard medical care because of the protected status of regarding HIV in particular. I'm not saying HIV patients shouldn't be protected from discrimination, I just wonder whether that law should be trumped under theses circumstances of a wanted pregnancy.

As you stated most women follow the recommendations of their doctors, but some do not. When the science showed such a huge difference for the baby when the mother received treatment six weeks prior to delivery, there began a huge push for mandatory testing.
I don't agree with his vote because of the opt out portion, as I stated above.

I think you are wrong about strep

Should all pregnant women be screened for GBS?

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recommend that all pregnant women — with two exceptions — be screened for GBS at 35 to 37 weeks. So if your practitioner doesn't offer the test, be sure to ask for it.
Group B streptococcus screening | BabyCenter

Recommended isn't mandated.

A push for testing is fine. Making it mandatory isn't. I don't think you need a law to make mandatory something that happens so rarely...in this case, a woman refusing a doctor recommended test.

I am using the example of strep B as a comparison. Screening for it is routine standard of care during pregnancy, a medical recommendation that has never required a legal mandate.

What I am trying to get at is, why do you have no problem mandating the HIV testing of the baby? What's the difference in mandating the HIV test prior to delivery?
 
Sorry, I must have misunderstood your posts. I changed mine to a question. :D

The strep B testing and treatment is standard of care and no one stepped in to ask for a law to protect them over it, like they did with HIV.

So it's the law that has become the obstacle to the standard medical care because of the protected status of regarding HIV in particular. I'm not saying HIV patients shouldn't be protected from discrimination, I just wonder whether that law should be trumped under theses circumstances of a wanted pregnancy.

As you stated most women follow the recommendations of their doctors, but some do not. When the science showed such a huge difference for the baby when the mother received treatment six weeks prior to delivery, there began a huge push for mandatory testing.
I don't agree with his vote because of the opt out portion, as I stated above.

I think you are wrong about strep

Should all pregnant women be screened for GBS?

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recommend that all pregnant women — with two exceptions — be screened for GBS at 35 to 37 weeks. So if your practitioner doesn't offer the test, be sure to ask for it.
Group B streptococcus screening | BabyCenter

Recommended isn't mandated.

A push for testing is fine. Making it mandatory isn't. I don't think you need a law to make mandatory something that happens so rarely...in this case, a woman refusing a doctor recommended test.

I am using the example of strep B as a comparison. Screening for it is routine standard of care during pregnancy, a medical recommendation that has never required a legal mandate.

What I am trying to get at is, why do you have no problem mandating the HIV testing of the baby? What's the difference in mandating the HIV test prior to delivery?
Because the baby, once born, deserves to be treated as a human being that shouldn't be refused reasonable care because of the beliefs of its parent. I also believe parents shouldn't be allowed to refuse their children treatment because of their religious beliefs...to me, once the child is born it is the same thing. Before it is born, it's the mother that is being tested...a legal adult capable of making her own decisions.
 
I don't agree with his vote because of the opt out portion, as I stated above.

I think you are wrong about strep

Group B streptococcus screening | BabyCenter

Recommended isn't mandated.

A push for testing is fine. Making it mandatory isn't. I don't think you need a law to make mandatory something that happens so rarely...in this case, a woman refusing a doctor recommended test.

I am using the example of strep B as a comparison. Screening for it is routine standard of care during pregnancy, a medical recommendation that has never required a legal mandate.

What I am trying to get at is, why do you have no problem mandating the HIV testing of the baby? What's the difference in mandating the HIV test prior to delivery?
Because the baby, once born, deserves to be treated as a human being that shouldn't be refused reasonable care because of the beliefs of its parent. I also believe parents shouldn't be allowed to refuse their children treatment because of their religious beliefs...to me, once the child is born it is the same thing. Before it is born, it's the mother that is being tested...a legal adult capable of making her own decisions.

This is the crux of the matter. Since there is no question of the pregnancy being wanted and there is no question of the science which shows the baby is at MUCH higher risk of contracting HIV during delivery when there is no preventative treatment, it is my opinion that the law should protect that baby and make the testing mandatory.
 
Since Roe v. Wade holds that the fetus is a part of the woman's body and not a separate human being until after delivery, isn't requiring the woman to undergo testing a violation of her right of privacy that is the foundation of Roe v. Wade? Isn't it an implicit recognition of the fetus as a separate human being?

That isn't quite the holding in Roe v Wade as I remember it. The holding in Roe v Wade is that life exists on a continuum and at some point during a woman's pregnancy, the state's interest in protecting the developing life exceed's the woman's interest in making decisions about her own body. While there is a lot of talk about things like viability, etc., that's the very basic short holding of the case.
 
I think Roe, federal protected the woman's control over her own body over and above the growing child, up until 12 weeks gestation only... after this point, it left it up to the states...I believe?

Because i know some states only permit it up until 12 weeks and not after this point while other states like New York might allow up to 24 weeks...?
 

Forum List

Back
Top