Newborns aren't any more the innocent victims of HIV infection than many, many others. Lots of people engage in save preventive behavior and still get sick. So until everyone everywhere is forced to get tested, this is pretty untenable.

Most states ALREADY require testing of new babies for a multitude of infections, diseases or defects, some of them a lot rarer than AIDS. So what's the problem with one more, if it keeps a kid alive?

Most states ALREADY require testing of new babies for a multitude of infections, diseases or defects, some of them a lot rarer than AIDS. So what's the problem with one more, if it keeps a kid alive?

Without testing no one knows if mom and/or newborn has a deadly disease responsible for millions of deaths. It's sexually transmitted, so the baby is proof enough someone's getting laid.

Enough with your sqeamishness. Get tested.

for the sake of the health of the mother and the infant, testing makes sense ... once you are infected, while "save sex" practices change, however, prophylactic safe-sex to avoid infection is -- DUH -- too goddamn late FOR THE MOTHER. Not always for the child. The stress and strain of pregnancy on HIV positive moms is a whole other "ounce of prevention being worth a pound of cure" issue in-and-of-itself.

and as others have pointed out, there are already mandatory testings ... to prevent things as un-life-threatening as blindness, for instance, and developmental delays due to unrecognized deafness/hearing loss.

much as a deaf child's deficit should not go undetected, a child's compromised immune system should not wait 4-6-8 months to receive treatment, not to mention the pain and suffering (and potential catastrophe) that repeated infections, inadequate access to health care, missed diagnoses and "lost to followup" implies.

compassionate conservatism, my ass

is it because they can't vote?

is DNA testing. Every man deserves to know if he is the father of a child. Every child deserves to know who its father is.

We know that gestational diabetes is a problem with some women, so doctors routinely test for it. We routinely test older women to determine if their child has Down Syndrome. With AIDS, we have a disease that can be transmitted from mother to child during childbirth, and we have tests to find out if she has the disease, and we have treatments that can dramatically reduce the liklihood of the child getting the disease if the mother has it. How on earth can we justify not testing for this disease routinely? It's time that AIDS lost it's social stigma and became what it should be - a treatable, but not curable, disease that can be prevented with adequate care. AIDS should not be in a special category all it's own. It's a disease, not a social problem.

In Wisconsin and Minnesota, as well as several states, mother is already tested at 12-14 weeks. I had one for my older child 8 years ago, and one for this pregnancy. It's not a big deal- it's a blood test. This qualifies for the "Big Whoop" award.

If the mother is HIV and it is caught early, you can prevent passage to the newborn. That's a good enough rationale for me. It's not exactly a pressing issue on the "motherhood" boards, either.

We've been through this battle in Illinois. Our compromise is 1) mandatory counseling and offer of testing for all pregnant women at the first pre-natal visit 2) mandatory counseling and offer of testing (using rapid test technology) for all women who show up in labor and delivery without a documented HIV test result in their file, and 3) mandatory newborn testing where the mom's status is still unknown at birth. Even before we added the mandatory newborn testing, we were up past 98% of all moms knowing their status before they left the hospital. The secret wasn't passing the law. The secret was developing systems. Our state health department funded a program to develop tabletop flip charts, create uniform consents, provide hotline support, and train labor and delivery staff at every birthing hospital in the state. It worked.

Mothers, even the most troubled, want healthy babies. The miniscule fraction of mothers who refuse testing may already know their status but don't have the documentation to prove it, or may have a realistic and well-founded fear of domestic violence of homelessness if they test positive. There is no reason to take away from pregnant women the fundamental right to make their own health care decisions.

Ann Fisher

Executive Director

AIDS Legal Council of Chicago

Since the government (i.e. us taxpayers) ultimately ends up paying the costs, it makes sense to use early interventions to screen for problems.

So how about health care for everybody!!

Fo' free! Or at least low cost -

we should mandate that all people be tested. That's a no brainer. As is "mandatory" HPV vaccine. And circumcision as a preventative measure against AIDS.

When people are dying, you don't debate the ethics of the treatment. You save their lives. As quickly as possible, as best you can.

Yes, testing of preganant women would hopefully lead to better treatment to reduce transmission to babies and that would be a good thing. Sadly, because our health care system does not provide any guarantee to health care, health insurance, treatment, etc. I wouldn't want to be tested in such a way that the results were tied to my name/identity. I would be all for anonymous testing and anonymous treatment.

Today there was an article regarding Blue Cross and Blue Shield cancelling insurance for pregnant women and others that ended up sick. BC/BS was fined 1 million dollars.

I'd also be concerned that testing pregnant women for HIV would somehow be held against those women who ended up being HIV positive that they had injured the fetus. If women can be prosecuted for using drugs or alcohol when pregnant what's to stop the crazies from prosecuting woment for getting infected or sick when pregnant.

New York already sends rapid HIV tests on any woman who presents to the hospital in labor, and HIV testing is part of the newborn screen. A "slippery slope" argument is just silly- this requirement has been in place for years, and yet there is no demand for requiring that anyone be tested.

The benefits of testing are clear: vertical transmission (mother-to-baby) of HIV is now extremely rare in New York state.

As an MD who has cared for many teenagers born with HIV who are now dying of AIDS, I believe it is unconscionable to allow squeamishness about privacy result in the unnecessary deaths of children. Also, this issue affects everyone's kids- most of the teenagers with AIDS the I have encountered have adopted a defeated attitude towards life, and are having unprotected sex. We shouldn't let completely unfounded fear about privacy (especially when there are stringent federal regulations to protect patient privacy) prevent us from protecting the health of our children.