Regardless, of the rape suspect's HIV staus, all victims should take drug cocktail. Tests can be wrong, or the suspect's viral load can be too low to register a positive. I have a hard time believing Mitt Romney is proposing this piece of legislature to help or empower female victims considering his past actions. It's a money saving measure! Women whose assailants have a "negative" result, will be pressured to not take the cocktail which is covered finacially by the state. Don't buy into this load of cr*p! Women will die because of this governor's "caring" actions.

Romney is proposing tests for SUSPECTS, not INNMATES who have already been found guilty.

Testing inmates is fine. Suspects: no. Even if there is DNA proving he did it, The victim has only a 72 hour window in which to start the medictaion, and the DNA tests would take longer than that. There's no way to get evidence substantiated in time.

...those prisoners have been accused/convicted of rape, for the sake of the safety of their fellow inmates and the prison staff. After all, jails are violent environments, and there is a lot of potential for bloodshed (not to mention man-on-man rape).

That much having been said, I feel that it's a good idea to offer a wide range of medical and psychological treatment and follow-up support for all victims of violence, and that all patients being treated for rape should be offered prophylactic courses of antivirals and antibacterials, along with the option of taking a course of hormones as a pregnancy preventative. (The patients, of course, would always have the option to refuse any or all of these drugs, after being informed of all of their medical options.)

This makes no sense at all, because you don't know if the person you've got is the right one at all. Or if you haven't picked anyone up, you'd still have a possible problem. Seems to me every rape victim may simply need to suck it up and take the cocktail. Sounds a damn sight better than the "side effects" of HIV or AIDS...

And in addition to providing that peace of mind, knowing the HIV status of their assailants would also help survivors decide whether to take the monthlong course of anti-AIDS drugs that can help prevent HIV transmission. Because the three-drug cocktail has some yucky side effects, including vomiting and diarrhea, knowing an assailant's status might help motivate survivors to follow through with preventative measures

Medical marijuana happens to be the best remedy available for the yucky side effects of these miracle drugs. It can combat the nausea and the diarrhea and the nerve pain and also the nightmares from the mental trauma of diagnosis.

The Israelis are now testing a marijuana extract for PTSD in soldiers. It will probably also work for the PTSD caused by rape.

But Romney is against that option.

It's ironic that he's willing to assault the Constitution on this issue but he's against fighting the Bush administration by changing the marijuana laws in his state.

It's up to the sick and and dying to force these politicians to make sense.

just in case?

I'm thinking that a course of antivirals like that would be toxic enough to have a teratogenic effect on an embryo. But this guy doesn't want the woman can't have Plan B? So now she winds up not only pregnant as the result of the rape, she winds up pregnant with a child with birth defects. Nice.

It's simply another ploy to destroy rights under the guise of we want to help the women that were raped. Once a precedent is set to test "suspects" for HIV, what other things will the government try to test "suspects" for?

If a woman is raped, she should take Plan B and the anti-viral drugs, yes it sucks and life is unfair but we can't take away rights of the accused because we have sympathy for rape victims.

Gotta disagree with you on this one, Page.

1) Forced testing of a person who is, in the eyes of the law, innocent until proven guilty opens the door to all kinds of invasions -- the same invasions that we've been screaming about for four years now.

2) Rape victims don't need to know the status of the rapists to take the HIV anti-transmission course. They should do it anyway, regardless of side effects. Perhaps the accused assailant has simply not shown a positive, though he has in fact been previously exposed. Or, God forbid, but it happens -- perhaps police have apprehended the wrong man and the victim has made a false identification, in which case, it doesn't matter what the accused's HIV status is -- the actual rapist's status could be positive.

Take the drugs, ladies. I've watched someone die of AIDS. A little vomiting and diarrhea is such a small price to pay, you wouldn't believe me if I told you.

~AS~

the suspect and/or assailant is already infected with HIV, but does not yet test positive? I could be behind in my knowledge, but there used to be a window of time after infection during which a person with HIV could test negative.

Could such a person still spread HIV, despite testing negative?

... is that "suspect" and "assailant" aren't necessarily the same thing. I don't know how to reconcile it, either. I think Romney's right that knowing the HIV status of the subhuman who raped them would be of some comfort to rape survivors, but there's no guarantee that the person arrested is the same person who did it.