Joe Carter of Evangelical Outpost writes:
I don’t like to pitch stories to bloggers, but this is an issue that I think deserves our attention. My sources say that the funding of this program–which funds HIV testing for infants to prevent HIV related infections–was blocked by low-level staffers from the CDC. Why? Who knows? But all too often this is "how things get done" in D.C. Some unelected staffer sneaks in wording that circumvents the will of both the American people and our representatives.
Joe links to a story HERE, which states:
Every year thousands of babies, predominately from poor African-American families, are born at risk of developing HIV. Many of these children develop HIV related infections that could have easily been prevented by prenatal testing and treatment. States that have implemented HIV testing for infants have seen their infections rates drop dramatically. Such success even inspired Congress to pass the Ryan White Early Diagnosis Grant Program. The program authorized $30 million in funding to states with infant HIV testing in order to ensure that these vulnerable children are protected.
The program was created just two months ago yet someone has already included language in the appropriations bill to prohibit funding for the “Baby Aids” program. Section 20613(b) of H.J.Res. 20 states:
(b) None of the funds appropriated by this division may be used to: (1) implement section 2625 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300ff-33; relating to the Ryan White early diagnosis grant program)…
This provision does not save any money but simply prohibits funds to help identify these toddlers. In fact, the funding was already included in President Bush’s FY08 budget request. So why would anyone insert this language into the bill?
Earlier this week, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) attempted to add an amendment to restore the funding. Unfortunately, Democratic Leader Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) never allowed the amendment to be included before the bill reached the Senate floor for a vote.
One would think that protecting sick babies is an issue that both Democrats and Republicans would fully endorse. So who inserted this language? And why wasn’t Sen. Coburn’s amendment added? Every American who cares about children should be asking that question – and demanding that Congress give us an answer.
I do love my Oklahoma senators–they are always on the side of the unborn. And did you know that Senator Coburn is an OB/GYN?
I am a bit confused here. One develops AIDS from catching HIV (the V stands for Virus), just like you develop a cold from catching a virus. Are the mothers screened for HIV? If they don’t have it, the babies won’t either. There are several ways of catching HIV. Drug use (sharing needles), blood transfusions, unprotected sex, but I have never heard of one catching HIV from just being an African American. This funding would have covered HIV screening for African American babies only, if they have HIV then they might develop AIDS, but why should this funding be targeted to only African American babies. They should fund HIV testing for ALL babies no matter what race.
To summarize = You develop Acquired Immune Deficiency from having the Human immunodeficiency virus. You catch the Human immunodeficiency virus from various actions but it is not race specific. If the mother does not have the Human immunodeficiency virus then the baby won’t either, and I am pretty sure that pregnant women get tested for Human immunodeficiency virus as part of normal screening. So the funding is frivolous, and if they want funding for it it should cover all races.
Greg –
I could be having a bad day… but where did you get the idea of RACE being involved here? “…it is not race specific…. it should cover all races….”
Who said it was race specific? Who said it did not cover all races?
I think the only reason for pointing out that these babies are “predominately from poor African-American families” was to give a little background to the politics involved.
You know, “World Destroyed by Comet… Poor Hardest Hit”.
At least in my state (CA), HIV testing is not part of the standard battery of pre-natal blood work. It is offered as an option. Perhaps some mothers who don’t realize they are infected are declining the test. You have to jump through more hoops to decline the alpha-protein test than the HIV test.
Robert Novak’s newest article tells a little more about this.
what do they hope to achieve, apart from more abortions?
I think this has to do with an outrage that came out a few years ago. Scientists discovered that if they treated HIV-Positive, pregnant women that the chance of passing the disease to the baby was greatly diminished. Pro-abortion groups complained and blocked efforts to test for HIV because it would mean giving the unborn babies some legal recognition. When we see things like these I can’t understand how people can’t see the evil behind it.
There was at least one state in which newborns were routinely tested for AIDS — but the mothers weren’t told the results because the effect would have been equivalent to testing _them_ for AIDS. Nevermind that knowledge could save the child’s life.
And I read one social worker’s lament that she could get a child she suspected of syphilis out of the home in hours, but it could take days to get permission to even test a child for HIV.
The history of AIDS has been the determination to fight “stigma” more than death.
IL doesn’t test prenatally for HIV, and I think consent is still required for testing. At my hospital, I’ve noticed a significant decrease in the number of “Special ID” (for “Infectious Disease”) kids we see hospitalized, which for me is gratifying. (I work at a pediatric hospital on an ID inpatient unit.)
Based on Novak’s essay, it’s a shame politics as usual matters more than those higher principles we’d like to believe (sometimes) our elected officials aspire to.