Who votes for these people?

[Valerie]

That suggests that without Roe v. Wada Ca. would limit abortions.

First, a woman chooses in the first trimester whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term, then if someone murders her they have taken her life as well as the life of the unborn.

When a woman chooses to carry a baby to term and then also chooses not to have herself tested for HIV in the third trimester, she is putting the child she chose to have, at a much higher risk unnecessarily.

More governmental control over a woman's body to protect the unborn.

Six weeks later the baby is no longer "unborn" -- then what?

I didn't have a chance to comment on the woman who had 8 kids, but I think that doctor should not have allowed it either.

 

[Valerie]

First, a woman chooses in the first trimester whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term, then if someone murders her they have taken her life as well as the life of the unborn.

When a woman chooses to carry a baby to term and then also chooses not to have herself tested for HIV in the third trimester, she is putting the child she chose to have, at a much higher risk unnecessarily.

More governmental control over a woman's body to protect the unborn.

Six weeks later the baby is no longer "unborn" -- then what?

I didn't have a chance to comment on the woman who had 8 kids, but I think that doctor should not have allowed it either.

BTW, that's a tad dramatic, wouldn't you say?

GOVERNMENT CONTROL OVER A WOMAN'S BODY!

It's a simple blood test.

 

[KittenKoder]

Um ... the one thing that's so wrong about this whole story, and I don't think I saw anyone mention this yet:

HIV is not just passed through sexual activity and many who have the disease did not even contract it through sex ... after all this effort and money spent on trying to educate people on AIDs and HIV yet ... some people even still think only gay people can transmit or catch it. This is sad.

 

[xsited1]

First, a woman chooses in the first trimester whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term, then if someone murders her they have taken her life as well as the life of the unborn.

When a woman chooses to carry a baby to term and then also chooses not to have herself tested for HIV in the third trimester, she is putting the child she chose to have, at a much higher risk unnecessarily.

More governmental control over a woman's body to protect the unborn.

Six weeks later the baby is no longer "unborn" -- then what?

I didn't have a chance to comment on the woman who had 8 kids, but I think that doctor should not have allowed it either.

I agree. However, the pro-choice crowd will disagree. And medical technology continues to advance at an incredible rate. Imagine when a baby is no longer "unborn" (i.e., viable) after just a couple months. What then?

This article is about giving the government control over a woman's body. There are nothing but good intentions here from the people who proposed the bill. However, the usual people who slam the politician who voted against it are the same people would slam him if he voted for it because they would say the woman should have the right to choose.

 

[xsited1]

More governmental control over a woman's body to protect the unborn.

Six weeks later the baby is no longer "unborn" -- then what?

I didn't have a chance to comment on the woman who had 8 kids, but I think that doctor should not have allowed it either.

BTW, that's a tad dramatic, wouldn't you say?

GOVERNMENT CONTROL OVER A WOMAN'S BODY!

It's a simple blood test.

Dramatic? You have got to be kidding me. Now the government wants to know if a woman has HIV or not. Why? For the baby, of course. Trust us, we are from the government.

 

[Care4all]

GOP lawmakers cringe at colleagues' words on sexuality : Updates : The Rocky Mountain News

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 being the case, why was Scott Peterson charged with DOUBLE murder?

I think he was charged with double murder under California law, no?

California has a law that states if you kill a pregnant woman, then you can be charged with the murder of the woman and her undelivered baby....

The new federal law....the Lacy and Conner Law is a bit stronger than the California Law.....is my understanding, but i do not believe Scott was charged under the Federal Law but under the California law....I spoke of above...

at least if memory serves me...

care

 

[KittenKoder]

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 being the case, why was Scott Peterson charged with DOUBLE murder?

I think he was charged with double murder under California law, no?

California has a law that states if you kill a pregnant woman, then you can be charged with the murder of the woman and her undelived baby....

The new federal law....the Lacy and Conner Law is a bit stronger than the California Law.....is my understanding, but i do not believe Scott was charged under the Federal Law but under the California law....I spoke of above...

at least if memory serves me...

care

The really odd thing about that part of the argument is that most women who want to keep the child would likely WANT to be tested and do everything to keep the offspring healthy anyway. I doubt if you offered to do it for free anyone who wants to keep the child would say no.

 

[Valerie]

More governmental control over a woman's body to protect the unborn.

Six weeks later the baby is no longer "unborn" -- then what?

I didn't have a chance to comment on the woman who had 8 kids, but I think that doctor should not have allowed it either.

I agree. However, the pro-choice crowd will disagree. And medical technology continues to advance at an incredible rate. Imagine when a baby is no longer "unborn" (i.e., viable) after just a couple months. What then?

This article is about giving the government control over a woman's body. There are nothing but good intentions here from the people who proposed the bill. However, the usual people who slam the politician who voted against it are the same people would slam him if he voted for it because they would say the woman should have the right to choose.

I don't know about that black and white analysis. I am pro-choice, but I support banning late term abortions without legitimate medical reason. Some people go so far as protecting the mother's choice right up to the babies first breath, but I think there is a scientific line to be drawn where the mother's window of choice should be closed. Again, it is a distinction that thankfully only effects a tiny percentage of pregnancies.

 

[Care4all]

That being the case, why was Scott Peterson charged with DOUBLE murder?

I think he was charged with double murder under California law, no?

California has a law that states if you kill a pregnant woman, then you can be charged with the murder of the woman and her undelived baby....

The new federal law....the Lacy and Conner Law is a bit stronger than the California Law.....is my understanding, but i do not believe Scott was charged under the Federal Law but under the California law....I spoke of above...

at least if memory serves me...

care

The really odd thing about that part of the argument is that most women who want to keep the child would likely WANT to be tested and do everything to keep the offspring healthy anyway. I doubt if you offered to do it for free anyone who wants to keep the child would say no.

yes, i believe so...unless they know they have been a drug user or extremely permiscuous...they may just choose the route of ignorance is bliss....sadly.

What Valerie posted said that what they are trying to do is make it a routine test for these pregnant women along with other test needed for the Pregnancy,

and most importantly,

it said that these women can OPT OUT of the test.

It also said that more women tend to take the test this way....than if they had the option of OPTING IN on the testing....

so either way, it doesn't appear that it is mandatory?

Care

 

[Valerie]

I think he was charged with double murder under California law, no?

California has a law that states if you kill a pregnant woman, then you can be charged with the murder of the woman and her undelived baby....

The new federal law....the Lacy and Conner Law is a bit stronger than the California Law.....is my understanding, but i do not believe Scott was charged under the Federal Law but under the California law....I spoke of above...

at least if memory serves me...

care

The really odd thing about that part of the argument is that most women who want to keep the child would likely WANT to be tested and do everything to keep the offspring healthy anyway. I doubt if you offered to do it for free anyone who wants to keep the child would say no.

yes, i believe so...unless they know they have been a drug user or extremely permiscuous...they may just choose the route of ignorance is bliss....sadly.

What Valerie posted said that what they are trying to do is make it a routine test for these pregnant women along with other test needed for the Pregnancy,

and most importantly,

it said that these women can OPT OUT of the test.

It also said that more women tend to take the test this way....than if they had the option of OPTING IN on the testing....

so either way, it doesn't appear that it is mandatory?

Care

Yes, the testing of the newborn is mandatory.

The CDC reports the perinatal opt-out approach works better than the opt-in approach, but the debate is whether or not it should be mandatory. It is beyond me why someone would opt-out at that point?

Again, thankfully we are talking about a tiny percentage of pregnancies.

 

[toomuchtime_]

That being the case, why was Scott Peterson charged with DOUBLE murder?

That suggests that without Roe v. Wade Ca. would limit abortions.

First, a woman chooses in the first trimester whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term, then if someone murders her they have taken her life as well as the life of the unborn.

When a woman chooses to carry a baby to term and then also chooses not to have herself tested for HIV in the third trimester, she is putting the child she chose to have, at a much higher risk unnecessarily.

I agree that HIV testing of the mother is in the best interests of the unborn baby, but is it an unborn baby or just a part of the mother's body? In the third trimester, the most recent rulings of the Supreme Court seem to lean towards calling it an unborn baby by allowing bans on late term abortions to stand in many states.

The point is that if the third trimester fetus is considered an unborn baby, then the state arguably has the right to require HIV testing for the sake of this baby, but then it would also have the right to ban abortions for the sake of this baby. On the other hand, if the third trimester fetus is considered a part of the woman's body and not a separate human being, as Roe v. Wade held, then the state has no right to violate the woman's right to privacy that the Supreme Court has divined from the fourth amendment by requiring HIV testing, but it also has no right to limit abortions.

It gets even more interesting. If the state's interest in protecting the health and welfare of the unborn baby takes precedence over the woman's right to privacy in the instance of requiring HIV testing, then might the state not also prosecute a woman who gets drunk or smokes in the third trimester for endangering the welfare of a child?

Moreover, since the argument the Court used to allow bans on late term abortions stand was that the increasing viability of the fetus strengthens the argument that it is a separate human being and not a part of the woman's body, as technological advances make the fetus viable at earlier and earlier stages, the window for abortions will likely become smaller and smaller, and if this bill passes and withstands the test of constitutionality, won't the state, some states anyway, use it as a justification for requiring pregnant women to do other things, like get regular medical check ups, accept medical treatments they might not want, eat right and exercise, for the sake of the unborn baby's health and welfare and also to limit activities that might be harmful to the health and welfare of the unborn baby?

 

[Care4all]

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

 

[KittenKoder]

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.

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

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

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

 

[Valerie]

That suggests that without Roe v. Wade Ca. would limit abortions.

First, a woman chooses in the first trimester whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term, then if someone murders her they have taken her life as well as the life of the unborn.

When a woman chooses to carry a baby to term and then also chooses not to have herself tested for HIV in the third trimester, she is putting the child she chose to have, at a much higher risk unnecessarily.

I agree that HIV testing of the mother is in the best interests of the unborn baby, but is it an unborn baby or just a part of the mother's body? In the third trimester, the most recent rulings of the Supreme Court seem to lean towards calling it an unborn baby by allowing bans on late term abortions to stand in many states.

The point is that if the third trimester fetus is considered an unborn baby, then the state arguably has the right to require HIV testing for the sake of this baby, but then it would also have the right to ban abortions for the sake of this baby. On the other hand, if the third trimester fetus is considered a part of the woman's body and not a separate human being, as Roe v. Wade held, then the state has no right to violate the woman's right to privacy that the Supreme Court has divined from the fourth amendment by requiring HIV testing, but it also has no right to limit abortions.

It gets even more interesting. If the state's interest in protecting the health and welfare of the unborn baby takes precedence over the woman's right to privacy in the instance of requiring HIV testing, then might the state not also prosecute a woman who gets drunk or smokes in the third trimester for endangering the welfare of a child?

Moreover, since the argument the Court used to allow bans on late term abortions stand was that the increasing viability of the fetus strengthens the argument that it is a separate human being and not a part of the woman's body, as technological advances make the fetus viable at earlier and earlier stages, the window for abortions will likely become smaller and smaller, and if this bill passes and withstands the test of constitutionality, won't the state, some states anyway, use it as a justification for requiring pregnant women to do other things, like get regular medical check ups, accept medical treatments they might not want, eat right and exercise, for the sake of the unborn baby's health and welfare and also to limit activities that might be harmful to the health and welfare of the unborn baby?

It's complicated, isn't it.....? Even the ACLU has trouble with it:

Advances in science have lead many to reconsider. Do the potential benefits of testing in some contexts outweigh the privacy interests? The argument is nowhere more heated than in the context of pregnant women and newborns.

It is now clear that with the proper regimen, beginning in the third trimester of pregnancy, the chances of a newborn contracting its mothers' HIV can be dramatically reduced - from around a one-in-four chance that the newborn will be infected, to as low as around one in fifty. These promising discoveries have led to a rash of proposals for mandatory testing of pregnant women and newborns so that treatment can begin immediately. So far, only the legislatures of New York and Connecticut have enacted mandatory programs that impose HIV tests without consent where pregnant women turn down the ""offer"" of testing.

At first blush, it might seem like there could hardly be a more compelling case for forced testing. Children's lives are at stake. But responding to perinatal testing proposals in a thoughtful way requires a hard look at the science. What that hard look shows is that few of the new proposals - and none that have been enacted into law - advance our ability to stem transmission to infants in a meaningful way.

American Civil Liberties Union : HIV Testing of Pregnant Women and Newborns

So, If they can require the newborn be tested, why not require it six weeks prior?

 

[KittenKoder]

Valerie ... you just stumbled on a concept that I live by:

It is impossible to make any rule or law that will ever accomodate all possible circumstances, variables, situations, people, or events with any accuracy or fairness.

 

[Truthmatters]

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

Immunizations of children and people entering the country.


Its really funny to see these people fight against protecting new borns huh?

 

[Care4all]

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.

 

[Truthmatters]

CDC National Vaccine Program Office: Immunization Laws

 

[Care4all]

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

Immunizations of children and people entering the country.


Its really funny to see these people fight against protecting new borns huh?

yes, as a child of someone in the military, i was forced to get all kinds of immunizations before being shipped overseas, and on return as well.... i forgot about that....

can they force us citizens in the free sector though, to do this...if going overseas or living overseas then returning here.....not immigrants, but citizens?

i'm trying to get the constitutionality aspect covered....



care

 

[toomuchtime_]

First, a woman chooses in the first trimester whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term, then if someone murders her they have taken her life as well as the life of the unborn.

When a woman chooses to carry a baby to term and then also chooses not to have herself tested for HIV in the third trimester, she is putting the child she chose to have, at a much higher risk unnecessarily.

I agree that HIV testing of the mother is in the best interests of the unborn baby, but is it an unborn baby or just a part of the mother's body? In the third trimester, the most recent rulings of the Supreme Court seem to lean towards calling it an unborn baby by allowing bans on late term abortions to stand in many states.

The point is that if the third trimester fetus is considered an unborn baby, then the state arguably has the right to require HIV testing for the sake of this baby, but then it would also have the right to ban abortions for the sake of this baby. On the other hand, if the third trimester fetus is considered a part of the woman's body and not a separate human being, as Roe v. Wade held, then the state has no right to violate the woman's right to privacy that the Supreme Court has divined from the fourth amendment by requiring HIV testing, but it also has no right to limit abortions.

It gets even more interesting. If the state's interest in protecting the health and welfare of the unborn baby takes precedence over the woman's right to privacy in the instance of requiring HIV testing, then might the state not also prosecute a woman who gets drunk or smokes in the third trimester for endangering the welfare of a child?

Moreover, since the argument the Court used to allow bans on late term abortions stand was that the increasing viability of the fetus strengthens the argument that it is a separate human being and not a part of the woman's body, as technological advances make the fetus viable at earlier and earlier stages, the window for abortions will likely become smaller and smaller, and if this bill passes and withstands the test of constitutionality, won't the state, some states anyway, use it as a justification for requiring pregnant women to do other things, like get regular medical check ups, accept medical treatments they might not want, eat right and exercise, for the sake of the unborn baby's health and welfare and also to limit activities that might be harmful to the health and welfare of the unborn baby?

It's complicated, isn't it.....? Even the ACLU has trouble with it:

Advances in science have lead many to reconsider. Do the potential benefits of testing in some contexts outweigh the privacy interests? The argument is nowhere more heated than in the context of pregnant women and newborns.

It is now clear that with the proper regimen, beginning in the third trimester of pregnancy, the chances of a newborn contracting its mothers' HIV can be dramatically reduced - from around a one-in-four chance that the newborn will be infected, to as low as around one in fifty. These promising discoveries have led to a rash of proposals for mandatory testing of pregnant women and newborns so that treatment can begin immediately. So far, only the legislatures of New York and Connecticut have enacted mandatory programs that impose HIV tests without consent where pregnant women turn down the ""offer"" of testing.

At first blush, it might seem like there could hardly be a more compelling case for forced testing. Children's lives are at stake. But responding to perinatal testing proposals in a thoughtful way requires a hard look at the science. What that hard look shows is that few of the new proposals - and none that have been enacted into law - advance our ability to stem transmission to infants in a meaningful way.

American Civil Liberties Union : HIV Testing of Pregnant Women and Newborns

So, If they can require the newborn be tested, why not require it six weeks prior?

Because, according to Roe v. Wade, until the last toe is out, it is still a part of the mother's body and not a separate person, so how does the state have a greater right to require testing of pregnant women than of all citizens? If we use the viability test rather than delivery as the criteria for deciding when the fetus becomes as separate human being, the it could also be used by the state to assign parental responsibilities to the pregnant woman when the fetus/unborn baby is determined to be "sufficiently" viable.