Re: OT/New Jersey Requires H.I.V. Test in Pregnancy

[Guest guest]

Of course what they are not telling anyone is that there has never

been a test for HIV that has been approved by the FDA. Too many false

positives. I know I read somewhere that many pregnant women will test

postive for HIV. This means more horrific antiviral drugs for the

mothers, and of course if they refuse to put their babies on them

when they are born they will be taken by the state. This just makes

me sick to my stomach. More mandated tests by big brother. I just got

a letter from Mass Health stating all children will be screened for

mental illness at their yearly check up. That will be one test I will

not allow.

Peggy

>

> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/27/nyregion/27hiv.html?

_r=1 & ref=nyregion & oref=slogin

>

> New Jersey Requires H.I.V. Test in Pregnancy

>

> By JEREMY W. PETERS

> Published: December 27, 2007

>

> TRENTON — An H.I.V. test is about to become as routine as an

> ultrasound for pregnant women in New Jersey.

>

> Under a bill signed into law on Wednesday, all pregnant women in the

> state will be tested for the virus as part of their prenatal care

> unless they object. The law also requires testing for newborns if

the

> H.I.V. status of the mother is unknown.

>

> The new testing procedures are some of the most aggressive

> H.I.V.-prevention measures in the country for pregnant women and

> newborns, making New Jersey one of just a handful of states with

laws

> requiring some form of prenatal testing.

>

> According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, which researches health

> issues, a dozen states require doctors to offer H.I.V. tests to

their

> pregnant patients. But just three — New York, Connecticut and

Illinois

> — have mandatory testing for newborn babies. Four others — Michigan,

> Arkansas, Texas and Tennessee — have laws similar to New Jersey's

> policy of testing pregnant women.

>

> New Jersey's new law goes into effect in six months.

>

> Prenatal H.I.V. testing laws are meant to help stem the infection of

> newborns. If it is known that a pregnant woman is H.I.V. positive,

> doctors can take steps to prevent infection like prescribing

> antiretroviral drugs and delivering the child through a Caesarian

section.

>

> " Early detection is the key, " Senator Loretta Weinberg, a Democrat

> from Bergen County who sponsored the bill, said in a

statement. " This

> measure is a huge step forward in terms of protecting all babies

while

> helping to educate mothers. "

>

> Under the law, women will be tested early in their pregnancies and

> again in their third trimesters unless they refuse. If a woman

> refuses, it will be noted, and an H.I.V. test will be performed on

the

> newborn unless the mother has religious objections.

>

> According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, in 2001, New Jersey

ranked

> 19th in the nation in the percentage of residents ages 18 to 64 who

> have ever been tested for H.I.V. Nearly 48 percent said they had

been

> tested, compared with a national average of 45.6 percent, the

> foundation said.

>

> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/27/nyregion/27hiv.html?

_r=1 & ref=nyregion & oref=slogin

>

[Guest guest]

I'm one of those moms in TN who got HIV testing 3 times with my 3

girls, I didn't mind it even though I knew I couldn't have it. If the

first test is positive, they are required to do more comprehensive

testing before assuming it was a true positive & giving treatment, at

least in my neck of the woods.

Of course, they won't tell a woman she has a right to refuse a test on

her child, they'll make it feel like it's a forced medical procedure.

Debi