Questions On AIDS, Medicine, & Gay Rights Versus Parental Rights

Two interesting issues in the news recently. One. should a Turkish pop singer with HIV who knowingly had unprotected sex with others and without informing them of her illness be sent to jail? Two, should the treatment for a genetic malformation which, while making surgery unnecessary, also reduces the possiblity that the female infant will grow up to become a lesbian be allowed? Should gay rights trump parental rights and the best interests of the child?

In the first case, this from the BBC:

A singer from German girl band No Angels has admitted to having unprotected sex with several partners without warning them she was HIV-positive.

Nadja Benaissa, 28, was speaking at the opening of her trial in the German city of Darmstadt. . . .

She faces a charge of grievous bodily harm for allegedly infecting one man.

She has also been charged with attempted bodily harm for allegedly having sex with two other men who were not infected.

The charges carry a prison sentence ranging from six months to 10 years.

The issue of whether someone with HIV or AIDS is duty bound, morally and legally, to warn their partners of their infection prior to engaging in sex of any sort, let alone unprotected sex, would seemingly be a no-brainer. Indeed, for the protection of society at large, not merely should there be punishment for such acts, it should be severe indeed. It is a criminally reckless act that portends to destroy innocent people's lives and spread HIV throughout society.

Amazingly, some groups see it otherwise. Earlier this year, the International Planned Parenthood took the position that "each person has a right to a 'fun, happy and sexually fulfilling lives' and that, within the penumbra of that right, those with AIDS or HIV have a right to engage in sex without informing their partner that they are infected. And it would seem that is the tack being taken by at least some AIDS "activists." Back to the case of Ms. Nadja Benaissa, this also from the BBC:

Aids campaigners have been critical of the authorities' handling of Ms Benaissa's case, and warned against a rush to criminalise the transmission of HIV, the BBC's Tristana Moore reports from Berlin.

Edwin Bernard, a writer and advocate specialising in HIV prosecutions, believes that prosecutions and laws on HIV transmission may do more harm than good in terms of reducing the spread of infections.

He told BBC World Service that studies in the US had found that they have had no real impact on new infections.

When the 24 US states which have disclosure laws were compared with those that do not, there was no impact on the rate of transmission or the level of unprotected sex people engage in, he said.

"By singling out HIV, it really promotes fear and stigma," Mr Bernard added.

"Many of these cases, and in particular the media reporting of these cases, perpetuate an awful lot of myths about how HIV is transmitted, as well as things like the life expectancy, which is pretty close to normal now in the developed world."

The campaigner noted that prosecutions were relatively rare compared with the number of HIV transmissions that happen each year.

He estimated that there had been at least 600 prosecutions in more than 40 countries with prison sentences handed down in most cases, ranging from a few months to life.

Very few people, he said, had been prosecuted for intentionally transmitting HIV sexually.

This really is insanity, it seems to me. They are advocating that a person with HIV/AIDS who knowingly engage in sex without telling their partners should be allowed to freely continue that conduct because: they might be stigmatized; it promotes fear, and; with extensive treatment it is not now an automatic death sentence. Hey, its the new common cold. Right?

Oh, and do note, the Obama DOJ is taking a similar position. They are advocating that people with HIV and AIDS be taken out of a special holding facility in South Carolina prisons where they receive daily treatment. The DOJ wants South Carolina to disperse these individuals throughout the general prison population.

What do you think?

In the second case, this from the LA Times about a rare medical condition and a new treatment for the disease that might lessen the child's predisposition to lesbianism:

Each year in the United States, perhaps a few dozen pregnant women learn they are carrying a fetus at risk for a rare disorder known as congenital adrenal hyperplasia. The condition causes an accumulation of male hormones and can, in females, lead to genitals so masculinized that it can be difficult at birth to determine the baby's gender.

A hormonal treatment to prevent ambiguous genitalia can now be offered to women who may be carrying such infants. It's not without health risks, but to its critics those are of small consequence compared with this notable side effect: The treatment might reduce the likelihood that a female with the condition will be homosexual. Further, it seems to increase the chances that she will have what are considered more feminine behavioral traits.

That such a treatment would ever be considered, even to prevent genital abnormalities, has outraged gay and lesbian groups, troubled some doctors and fueled bioethicists' debate about the nature of human sexuality.

The treatment is a step toward "engineering in the womb for sexual orientation," said Alice Dreger, a professor of clinical medical humanities and bioethics at Northwestern University and an outspoken opponent of the treatment.

The ability to chemically steer a child's sexual orientation has become increasingly possible in recent years, with evidence building that homosexuality has biological roots and with advances in the treatment of babies in utero. Prenatal treatment for congenital adrenal hyperplasia is the first to test — unintentionally or not — that potential.

The hormonal treatment "theoretically can influence postnatal behavior, not just genital differentiation," said Ken Zucker, psychologist in chief of the Center for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto, who studies gender identity. "Some people refer to girls with CAH as experiments of nature because you've got this condition and you can take advantage of studying it."

Complicating the situation is the fact that the daily hormone pill does nothing to treat or cure the underlying condition, caused in this case by a defective enzyme in the adrenal gland.

Dreger and critics — which include the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Advocates for Informed Choice (an organization that works to protect the rights of people with intersex conditions), and some pediatric endocrinologists and parents of children with the condition — say far too little is known about the safety of the hormone, the steroid dexamethasone, when used prenatally. They say it should be used sparingly, in closely monitored clinical trials, or not at all. They're even more concerned that some doctors might tell parents that a reduced chance of homosexuality is one of the therapy's benefits. . . .

Congenital adrenal hyperplasia, caused by a defect in an enzyme called 21-hydroxylase, affects about 1 in 15,000 infants, and almost all newborns are screened for it. Undetected, the abnormality can make both male and female infants critically ill within a few weeks of birth because of an associated salt loss through the urine. The defective enzyme also causes a deficiency of the hormone cortisol, which can affect heart function, and an increase in androgens produced by the adrenal glands. . . .

Is anyone else offended by the fact that gay rights groups are weighing in on this medical treatment to advance their own special interests? One, this treatment may prove beneficial to the child. Two, the people who should determine whether to go forward with this treatment seems to me to be solely an issue of parental rights. Lastly, since reducing the tendency towards homosexuality is not an option, but a side effect of this treatment, is there any moral or ethical reason for withholding this information from the parents - besides the facts that it upsets gay rights activists? Should gay rights ever trump parental rights? Those are questions for you. Feel free to weigh in.

Read More...

Summary only...

AIDS & The DOJ

HIV/AIDS is still, ultimately, a death sentence. It is listed as a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO). It is our moden black plague. But it is an issue of "civil rights" and "gay rights" for those on the left of our government - and that includes the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ. They can't or won't enforce laws to insure that our ballot boxes remain inviolate, but they can pursue a policy that will surely condemn numerous people to new HIV infections.

South Carolina has a policy in its prisons to test new prisoners for the HIV virus before placing them in the general prison population. If a person is found infected, they are placed in a special facility for the HIV infected where they can immediatly start receiving treatment and councilling. Approximately 50% of those found infected by the initial screening did not know they were infected.

This policy has been virtually foolproof in stopping the spread of HIV through the South Carolina prison population. In humanitarian terms, it is a policy that has insured that the infected get treatment. The policy actually costs South Carolina approximately $2 million per year.

Yet, according to J. Christian Adams, Obama's DOJ is quite willing to place all of South Carolina's prison population - and ultimately the larger population in South Carolina and its environs - in danger in order to vindicate the "civil rights" of those people infected with AIDS. This from Mr. Adams:

. . . South Carolina received a letter from the now-infamous Civil Rights Division that the policy of keeping infected inmates at a designated facility, instead of scattered across the state in the general prison population, may unfairly stigmatize infected prisoners. To the Obama political appointees in the Civil Rights Division, this constitutes discrimination under the Americans With Disabilities Act.
The Justice Department objects to separate living facilities and specialized medical treatment for the HIV/AIDS prison population. Naturally, DOJ has threatened a lawsuit.

. . . The DOJ is in a lose-lose situation. Even if DOJ wins a lawsuit, sources tell me South Carolina is simply going to cancel all of the special testing, treatment and counseling, thereby saving the state $2 million a year.

Instead, the state will dump infected prisoners into the general population, and nobody will know they have AIDS. Worse, prisoners who come to prison with HIV/AIDS will never know they have the disease and their lives will be shortened because the testing program will end.

Special counseling would end, too. . . .

Justice raises three primary objections to this effective and humane approach. First, it prevents infected prisoners "from participating in activities and jobs of their choosing." Leave it to bureaucrats in Washington to concoct the grievance that prisoners have choices when it comes to activities in the first place.

Second, DOJ claims the South Carolina program is unconstitutional, something the courts have repeatedly rejected. Once again we see the rule of law falling by the wayside when it comes to decisions of this Civil Rights Division. This is the same Civil Rights Division that was sanctioned more than $4 million during the Clinton administration for bringing cases as frivolous as the one against South Carolina prisons.

Third, with all the pragmatism of a sociology lecture at Harvard, DOJ argues that the separation of the HIV/AIDS prisoners "stigmatizes" the prisoners. Ozmint responds, "Prison is a voluntary activity; breaking the law, earning a criminal record, and wearing 'state issue,' all stigmatize. Since one purpose of prison is punishment, this stigmatization is somewhat intentional." How refreshing. . . .

It is one thing to protect the rights of "minorities" from baseless discrimination. But concern about HIV/AIDS is anything but baseless. The Civil Rights division is simply out of control. At a minimum, people in jail have an 8th Amendment Right to be free from "cruel and unusual" punishment which, I am sure most courts would define to include the likelihood of HIV transmission. Adams is right. The Civil Rights Division is out of control. As is virtually the entire Obama administration.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Progressive's Newest Human Right

This is utterly outragous. The progressive's newest human right is one you won't within the text of the Constitution. According to International Planned Parenthood, each person has a right to a "fun, happy and sexually fulfilling lives" and that, within the penumbra of that right, those with AIDS or HIV have a right to engage in sex without informing their partner that they are infected. This from CNS News:

In a guide for young people published by the International Planned Parenthood Federation, the organization says it opposes laws that make it a crime for people not to tell sexual partners they have HIV. The IPPF's “Healthy, Happy and Hot” guide also tells young people who have the virus that they have a right to “fun, happy and sexually fulfilling lives.” . . .

“Some countries have laws that say people living with HIV must tell their sexual partner(s) about their status before having sex, even if they use condoms or only engage in sexual activity with a low risk of giving HIV to someone else,” the guide states. “These laws violate the rights of people living with HIV by forcing them to disclose or face the possibility of criminal charges.”

Under the heading “Sexual Pleasure and Well-Being,” the guide declares that it is a human right and not a criminal issue as to whether a person decides if or when to disclose their HIV status, even if they engage in sexual activities.

“You know best when it is safe for you to disclose your status,” the guide states. “There are many reasons that people do not share their HIV status. They may not want people to know they are living with HIV because of the stigma and discrimination within their community.”

The guide continues: “They may worry that people will find out something else they have kept secret, like that they are using injecting drugs or, having sex outside of marriage or having sex with people of the same gender. People in long-term relationships who find out they are living with HIV sometime fear that their partner will react violently or end the relationship.”

“Young people living with HIV have the right to sexual pleasure,” the guide states under the heading “Sexual Pleasure; Have Fun Explore and Be Yourself.” . . .

I wrote in a post here that when morality becomes unmoored from the Judeo-Christian ethics, then the left is able to invent all sorts of new "rights" based on whatever they choose to define as the greater good. This is a prime example. In this case, the left is elevating the desires of infected individuals above all others, disregarding an innocent partner's right to make an informed choice as to whether or to refuse sex in order to prevent possible transmission of a fatal virus. No person has a "right" to endanger the life of another for their own personal pleasure - unless, of course, you are making up your own morality as you go along.

Read More...

Summary only...