An unfortunate juxtaposition of interests rectified?

Let's hope so...

This is what one might call a too-typical clashing of causes brought about by, well.....just read it.

Civil libertarians against public health
Rich Lowry

February 4, 2005

Do we as a society prefer sick or healthy babies? Do we want babies to be infected with a potentially deadly virus or not? The answers seem obvious, but in a decade-long debate, a host of liberal groups, in effect, came down on the wrong side. Fortunately, in New York City -- once the epicenter of the epidemic of babies born with HIV -- their lunatic obsessions were rejected, and now the scourge of newborns infected with HIV has been all but eliminated.

According to The New York Times, in 1990 there were 321 newborns infected with HIV in New York City. In 2003 there were five. A decade ago many pregnant mothers didn't know they were HIV-positive. They weren't urged to get tested, and so they couldn't take drugs that would make it less likely their babies would be infected. Newborns were tested, but -- incredibly -- in blind tests, meaning the mothers wouldn't be informed of the results. The mother wouldn't know to get treatment for her child or herself.

As AIDS expert Roland Foster points out in a recent study, the most common AIDS-related opportunistic infection is pneumocystis carinii pneumonia. Babies with it generally die in a month. According to a New England Journal of Medicine study in the mid-1990s, two-thirds of children with this infection weren't getting treatment, because no one knew they had HIV. It is hard to imagine a more cruelly negligent public-health policy.

Liberal Democratic New York assemblywoman Nettie Mayersohn was appalled -- as would be anyone with a wit of common sense -- when she learned of the situation. She resolved to pass a law mandating that all newborns be tested and their mothers informed. For this, Mayersohn seemingly bought the enmity of the entire liberal world.

Gay groups, the HIV/AIDS lobby and the American Civil Liberties Union all opposed her on privacy grounds. As if a newborn has a "right" to have his infection kept from his mother so he can potentially die or get sick. Where does it say anything about that in the Bill of Rights? Feminist groups from NOW to NARAL attacked her for supposedly proposing to violate the reproductive rights of women. Her district office was picketed. Opponents argued that pregnant mothers just couldn't handle testing. "I'm sure we are going to see some women completely freaking out, committing suicide and running away from the whole situation," the director of the HIV Law Project predicted.

"Just the opposite has happened," Mayersohn says. After a three-year fight, her bill passed in 1996. It revolutionized public health in New York. "The way they used to do counseling," she says, "they told women, if you get tested and test positive, you will lose your home and lose your job. After the law passed, they told women, your baby is going to get tested anyway, so if you get tested now, you can do something to keep your baby from being born HIV-positive."

More mothers and babies now get care. An HIV-positive mother has roughly a 25 percent chance of delivering a baby infected with HIV. If she takes the right drugs during pregnancy she can drastically diminish those odds. An HIV-positive mother can also pass the infection to her uninfected baby during breast-feeding. If she knows she's infected, she can avoid that. Finally, if a baby is infected with HIV, he can be treated early with drugs that might wipe out the infection.

Then-Rep., now Sen. Tom Coburn pushed legislation similar to Mayersohn's at the federal level in the 1990s, but was frustrated by the same forces that opposed Mayersohn. Consequentially, the testing policy varies from state to state. Nationally, the rate of infants infected with HIV has declined, but it has not been stamped out. California -- where lunatic obsessions still reign supreme -- has resolutely resisted the New York approach. In 2002, the Los Angeles Times reported that cases of HIV among children were actually increasing.

So let's ask one more time: Do we want healthy babies or not?

Does this type of thing happen in the U.K.?

Canada?

Anywhere but here? :huh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley

Having read the article I feel I must make what appears a frivolous comment. I quote from the posted article

"as would be anyone with a wit of common sense"

I assume that the author meant "whit" and that this was corrupted somewhere in the publishing process. Unfortunately this leads me to question the veracity of the whole piece. That's just the kind of guy I am, if they can't get the simple parts right then why should I accept their version of the events.

That aside, I will get back to you re the concept, tho' I am unable to answer the actual question about whether it would happen here (or in Canadia)

---

It is not an issue I have ever seen raised over here. I am sure there must have been instances where HIV mothers have become pregnant - no idea what the rules are. I would guess the NHS would treat them without discussing the matter with anyone else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley

Having read the article I feel I must make what appears a frivolous comment. I quote from the posted article

"as would be anyone with a wit of common sense"

I assume that the author meant "whit" and that this was corrupted somewhere in the publishing process. Unfortunately this leads me to question the veracity of the whole piece. That's just the kind of guy I am, if they can't get the simple parts right then why should I accept their version of the events.

That aside, I will get back to you re the concept, tho' I am unable to answer the actual question about whether it would happen here (or in Canadia)

---

I caught that, too, but I'm willing to chalk it up to the fact that young Lowry is only in his thirties, and that it could also have easily escaped the notice of a similarly afflicted proofer.

Spell-check would have missed it, I think.

The circumstances are real, however.

Wit is also "The natural ability to perceive and understand" so if it had said "the" wit instead of "a" wit...... but in any case i don't really see a problem with either choice.

I see what the liberal groups were trying to get at....AIDS victims may not want to be identified. There has been this fear of folks being labeled a "leper". The groups may think of this being a way of identifying the adult as having AIDS through testing of the child.

Problem for them: This is for the child so privacy is out the window. Children should be tested for everything to ensure their health so fuck the "IhaveAIDSandwanttohideitatanycost".

It's for the kids so if the mom is "outed" as a byproduct so be it.

I would argue that New York City never was the "epicenter of the epidemic of babies born with HIV," as that dubious title would likely be given to numerous places in Africa, but regardless...

Mandatory HIV testing for newborns has never been a hotly debated issue in Canada. It's never really even been an issue raised.

The CMA counselling guidelines state, "[a]s with adults, testing children for HIV requires informed consent, confidentiality, and pre- and post-test counselling." The guidelines continue by saying that, when the issue of testing an infant arises, both the mother and infant will have a test result and that, therefore, "all issues pertaining to the testing of one of these people also apply to the other."

It's strongly advised that pregnant women be tested for HIV, hepititis B, rubella, and syphilis. Various provinces/territories have their own take on it (some state that it must be offered, others have no policies), but none has mandatory.

:shuriken:

W is only 3 inches away from B

"anyone with a bit of common sense" works. also if it was hand written a very slanted B could look like a drunken W

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley

The problem is that, as it stands it doesn't make sense. Neither does it convey what the author appears to have intended.

---

If it was taken in just that sentence then it wouldn't make sense however It does if one takes the whole article thing in context. the author is making one of those "the trouble with liberals" opinions and those tend to be directed at the theory of liberals either not having common sense or, more often not, liberals not being even able to understand the concept of common sense.

to the article.
I see no problem with routine testing of pregnant women for HIV, although it is not needed in the vast majority of cases, if the mother is negative then testing the baby would be futile.
I think the author has probably cherry picked and worded what he thinks the
objections were to make it seem as if the objectors don't care about health of infants. we only have his opinion.

jp

you are not familiar with the author or the conservative blog I take it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley

That is correct.

I base my opinion on the piece alone, with no prior knowledge of the author or the "conservative blog" of which you speak.

---

yes and that is why i am trying to convey that it may have been the intended word, because i am familiar with conservative blogs.
I have not said that whit is wrong i have simply said that he may not be saying what you assumed he said.

jp.
In this story I have to agree with the blogger in that sometimes the "common good" does outweigh personal rights...however the same blogger will on another day be complaining that government interference under any circumstances is wrong. The same blogger will be arguing that he shouldn't have to pay for the tests via "taxation" when it is not his wife and child.
It may well have been a typo however it is not just an opinion about HIV testing. It is an anti "liberal" opinion, which is why I think it is possible that the use of the word "wit" may have been intentional as a derogatory comment on liberal thinking............ because liberals "just don't understand common sense"

now I would have used Ockham's razor instead.

I would like to also raise the point that the author speaks and writes American and not English. The old saying about two countries separated by a common language is often true.

Edit: yes I know it has two acceptable spellings

Vid-

You are arguing a baby/bathwater scenario:

The author is a liberal-baiting louse with whom I am familiar, and he has no coherent message; I recommend his blatherings be rejected on this basis.

I have said many times that, on the occasion I offer a column up for purposes of gathering opinion, it is meant as a stand-alone affair.

I read MANY columns, everyday-there are MANY pundits whose columns I would risk life and limb to read, but the bulk of them are take 'em or leave 'em propositions.

This column struck me, and I offered it fairly, or, at least I thought I did.

Without having really parsed the column, or pronounced upon it, you have (as is your habit) denounced it's legitimacy owing to it's author's questionable (your opinion) ideology.

For someone who swears a regular oath upon the altar of rigorously independent thought, you sure spend a lot of time defending the liberal school of reasoning, and also attacking as conservative people whose opinions you don't like.

J2

quite the opposite.

On this occasion I agreed with the authors opinion on the HIV testing, it was the well from which it flowed that led me to wonder if the usage of the disputed word (wit) was intended. And it was only that which I questioned on this article.
and it was only to convey why i feel it may have been intended that i made any mention of conservative bloggers.


Edit:

It was JP that questioned the legitimacy of this article...not I

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

J2

quite the opposite.

On this occasion I agreed with the authors opinion on the HIV testing, it was the well from which it flowed that led me to wonder if the usage of the disputed word (wit) was intended. And it was only that which I questioned on this article.
and it was only to convey why i feel it may have been intended that i made any mention of conservative bloggers.


Edit:

It was JP that questioned the legitimacy of this article...not I

---

I don't know about all the semantics of this "wit" shit but I agree with you vid.

I agree with the authors opinion of HIV testing but at the same time don't think for a minute I missed, not the wit, but the author's liberal group slamming in conjunction with the topic starter. :dry:

Painfully obvious and propaganda ridden.

J2 Quote:This column struck me, and I offered it fairly, or, at least I thought I did.

**********************************************************

I thought it was interesting, and thanks for sharing it. You are right about the author.

This article pointed out to me that yet another one of our elected officials is ready to step outside their party lines when they feel it is necessary. :)

Also, none of us want to give up any of our rights to privacy. And yet there are times, such as in the HIV testing above, when it can benefit our society to do so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

J2

quite the opposite.

On this occasion I agreed with the authors opinion on the HIV testing, it was the well from which it flowed that led me to wonder if the usage of the disputed word (wit) was intended. And it was only that which I questioned on this article.
and it was only to convey why i feel it may have been intended that i made any mention of conservative bloggers.

---

Ah, the flowing well escape...

Oh, well.

One of these days, vid-one of these days.

'Rose-

As usual, you are the only one to tumble to my intent without questioning my motivation.

Well done.

B-

As you have piled on the same heap as vid, I gather you suffer from the same brand of "independent thought" as he does.

I should think you would quickly grow irritated by the fact of the upper-most strand of barbed wire from the fence upon which you perch slipping, thong-like, into your ass-crack.

Neither of you can pick any side of an issue without giving in to your in-bred urge to attempt to hoist any opinion-giver upon the petard of ideology, as if it were some duty assigned as your birthright.

Funny that neither of you can be bothered to do this when the author is liberal....oh, yeah-I forgot.

Liberal pundits do not exist-either that, or none on their opinions are sufficiently weighty to warrant a cut-and-paste here. :D

J2

If you ever post something that doesn't come from the "the trouble with liberals" or "this is typical of liberal thinking" stable then I won't call it.

It's odd that you can't credit us with actually agreeing with this blog even though it is tainted with the above.

you told me once that you don't join in with criticising Bush even when you don't agree with him because you just didn't want to join "the crowd" then criticise us when we agree with an anti liberal blogger

Quote:

---

Funny that neither of you can be bothered to do this when the author is liberal....oh, yeah-I forgot.
Liberal pundits do not exist-either that, or none on their opinions are sufficiently weighty to warrant a cut-and-paste here

---

we tend to put our own words instead of the words of others


I have read many blogs from both sides of the fence but never take them as being fact as they are purely opinion. As soon as I see the blog turn from opinion into a rant I tend to stop reading. I have yet to see the words "the trouble with conservatives" .... "what conservatives don't understand" when it is the case they do understand...they just disagree..... or "typical conservative thinking"


by rant I mean an opinion that says why someone has that opinion with the need to insult or dismiss the other side as being stupid or misinformed.

if you wish to remove the element of "knowing from where the author resides" perhaps you should put the opinion in your own words

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

J2
I have read many blogs from both sides of the fence but never take them as being fact as they are purely opinion. As soon as I see the blog turn from opinion into a rant I tend to stop reading. I have yet to see the words "the trouble with conservatives" .... "what conservatives don't understand" when it is the case they do understand...they just disagree..... or "typical conservative thinking"

if you wish to remove the element of "knowing from where the author resides" perhaps you should put the opinion in your own words

---

I don't think anyone in this entire forum has spent as much time making use of his/her own words/opinions/reasonings than yours truly.

Please forgive a tired old warrior for laying off some of the load.

BTW-

Your statement about "both sides of the fence" I will take as the best indicator yet of your steadfast positioning athwart the ideological aisle. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Ah, the flowing well escape...

Oh, well.

One of these days, vid-one of these days.

'Rose-

As usual, you are the only one to tumble to my intent without questioning my motivation.

Well done.

B-

As you have piled on the same heap as vid, I gather you suffer from the same brand of "independent thought" as he does.

I should think you would quickly grow irritated by the fact of the upper-most strand of barbed wire from the fence upon which you perch slipping, thong-like, into your ass-crack.

Neither of you can pick any side of an issue without giving in to your in-bred urge to attempt to hoist any opinion-giver upon the petard of ideology, as if it were some duty assigned as your birthright.

Funny that neither of you can be bothered to do this when the author is liberal....oh, yeah-I forgot.

Liberal pundits do not exist-either that, or none on their opinions are sufficiently weighty to warrant a cut-and-paste here. :D

---

Well j2 I am not part of a hive-mind.

I also don't copy and paste much and yes the independent thought is there, bones. Unlike you, I have demonstrated not to be one-sided so I don't get where I should pick a side.

I deal in logic and not your propaganda...both of which made up your copy and paste project.

It's a rarity but I agree with vid and JP for that matter. Logic without the bullshit (except for the "wit" thingie; I couldn't be bothered with the semantics).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

I don't think anyone in this entire forum has spent as much time making use of his/her own words/opinions/reasonings than yours truly.

---

Well...your own words are somewhere in there. To me, you have been becoming somewhat more defined as of late but not definitive.

People know, for instance, where I might stand on an issue because I don't lollygag and pussyfoot around about it. Simple and direct.

For example, my original post only touched on the logic of the article.

Your postings are eye-openers for I might have missed the articles in the paper (or Fox News)...thank you.....
...or as Everose might say, "I try to read differing points of view", which really goes without saying. :dry:

more people might be interetsted in your opinion/article if you didn't post it fucking bright blue text.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley

The "wit" thing is not semantics. The sentence as written simply doesn't make sense, it's that simple.

I find I can agree certain issues with people, whilst totally disagreeing with their general ideology. I once read an article on abortion which I found both insightful and moving. It had been written by Ian Paisley, a man whose politics I find appalling and whose sectarian bile is second to none. Go figure.

---

Well...it was semantics to me. I got the intent and logic behind the article without the "wit" focus so it was rather tertiary or for that matter "totally off my radar". I totally agree with your second paragraph, however. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley

The "wit" thing is not semantics. The sentence as written simply doesn't make sense, it's that simple.

---

perhaps need to widen your international vocabulary :rolleyes:

well if i hammer everything... :unsure:

yes whit is a small amout but the question was did the blogger mean a small amount or was he being more insulting.

wit

1. The natural ability to perceive and understand; intelligence.
2.
1. Keenness and quickness of perception or discernment; ingenuity. Often used in the plural: living by one's wits.
2. wits Sound mental faculties; sanity: scared out of my wits.
3.
1. The ability to perceive and express in an ingeniously humorous manner the relationship between seemingly incongruous or disparate things.
2. One noted for this ability, especially one skilled in repartee.
3. A person of exceptional intelligence.


Much as this will upset J2 and i have repeated so that you can see why it would make sense, it is (even though i agree with the point the blogger made) an anti liberal piece, And as such the intent could have been that liberals don't have the ability to understand the concept of common sense. This has been suggested many many times by many conservative bloggers.

For j2 i will state that those bloggers do a diservice to conservatives and it's just unfortunate that they seem to get lumped in with conservative bloggers that can make their view clear without having to demonise the "other side

"nowt so queer as folk" would not make sense to many here because the usage of the word queer, although having multiple meanings wouldn't make sense. (that and nowt means neat cattle)

Sorry to chime in on these "semantics" but both meanings for whit and wit fit.
However, JP's whit fits better in the article's sentence when looking at past contextual usage of the word.
Still I say, "So the fuck what!!!". I normally see this from JPaul or maybe even manker. Did anyone look at the article's verb conjugation and also spellcheck the motherfucker too!!! :dry:

Onward...

The point of article was basically

"You Liberal Groups Are Dumb Shits And Here's An Example"

It's fairly obvious from the title of the article.

It's funny how j2 says I missed the point when usually "the point" is in an article's title. :lol: :lol:

I suggested it would be preferable to use "the" instead of "a" however again It comes down to it being American and not English, Americans have slang based on location just as the British do.... the use of "t" instead of "the" for example

The American Language although readily understandable is a variant of English.

yeah, a wit doesn't work at, i think a bit sounds too.... common?

i find it hard to believe j2 posted it to really make a point about liberals, it's just an interesting commentary on a rather odd situation where certain groups of liberals seem to lack common sense.

in short, not a real bash at the left wing, more a joke

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheDave

yeah, a wit doesn't work at, i think a bit sounds too.... common?

i find it hard to believe j2 posted it to really make a point about liberals, it's just an interesting commentary on a rather odd situation where certain groups of liberals seem to lack common sense.

---

J2 did not wish to make the anti liberal point...of that i am sure. ;) .. however the blogger certainly does. That is why i suggested J2 put the point in his own words.... Because the blogger had a good point on HIV just a pity it had to be used in an anti liberal context

meh, whatever. its an extraordinary story and it was worth posting

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheDave

meh, whatever. its an extraordinary story and it was worth posting

---

Agreed. It fit with j2 as well.

Call it logical liberal group bashing.

The story was a good one and it still shows those liberal groups in bad light.

Would it have been posted by j2 if it showed conservative groups in a bad light?

I think not. :dry:

Good article but I'm not surprised by the topic starter. I even think, in this instance, that those liberal groups were dumb shits. It's only logical no matter who opened my eyes to it.

Just for amusement jp, this is a quote from the "blog" of Joe Scarborough who is actually not too shoddy a commentator...just to show you where Busy and I are coming from.

feb. 21st 2005

Quote:

---

You may be asking yourself why a former Republican Congressman would be telling Democrats that they can gain power through the power of moderation.

It's because I know their national leaders will be too stupid to take it.

---

:rolleyes:
source

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sparsely

more people might be interetsted in your opinion/article if you didn't post it fucking bright blue text.

---

I'll cop to the blue bit, and brightness is in the eye of the beholder; you supplied the "fucking" all by yourself.

I must learn more about this phenomenon you refer to as "interetsted"; tell me-is this your own invention?

Rolls right trippingly off the tongue, doesn't it? ;)

B-

Describe for me, if you would, this "hive" thingie you mentioned?

Is it that you see me as a "worker", or a subscriber to a herd mentality, or group-think, and, if so, precisely what group, pray?

It seems I am, for the most part (and as usual), alone here-although, to be fair to you all, I am an army of one, and given the variety of forces arrayed against me, I see perfectly well how you might become hostage to misperception. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sparsely

more people might be interetsted in your opinion/article if you didn't post it fucking bright blue text.

---

:lol:

Despite the misspelling still the best post in The Boring Tomb for quite some time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Withcheese

The Boring Tomb

---

:lol: :lol:

Dammit, where were you when they were naming this place?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

I'll cop to the blue bit, and brightness is in the eye of the beholder; you supplied the "fucking" all by yourself.

I must learn more about this phenomenon you refer to as "interetsted"; tell me-is this your own invention?

Rolls right trippingly off the tongue, doesn't it? ;)

B-

Describe for me, if you would, this "hive" thingie you mentioned?

Is it that you see me as a "worker", or a subscriber to a herd mentality, or group-think, and, if so, precisely what group, pray?

It seems I am, for the most part (and as usual), alone here-although, to be fair to you all, I am an army of one, and given the variety of forces arrayed against me, I see perfectly well how you might become hostage to misperception. :)

---

Now what are you on about? :huh:

You say I suffer from the same indepedent thought, which sounds like an oxymoron, and I say I'm not part of a hive-mind. Where did you come into the equation?

You were simply called on something rather simple. If your aim was for us to see the logic in your article...Bravo...we got it. We also saw something else in the article that's undeniably there.

Whoever wants to deny the health of a child due to their privacy is a dipshit. I don't care if it's a conservindeplibergreenwhateverthefuck. :dry:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Sorry to chime in on these "semantics" but both meanings for whit and wit fit.
However, JP's whit fits better in the article's sentence when looking at past contextual usage of the word.
Still I say, "So the fuck what!!!". I normally see this from JPaul or maybe even manker. Did anyone look at the article's verb conjugation and also spellcheck the motherfucker too!!! :dry:

---

:dry:

I rarely make a serious comment on grammar. However, I do like a trivial exchange now and again.

In this case it's clear that the author misused the word wit. The nature of this mistake is such that it is undetectable in the spoken word and would be almost impalpable to all but the most discerning of readers when presented in text - hence the consternation it's caused. It's the grammatical equivilent of chlamydia.

In my opinion JP is quite correct in his first assertion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

:dry:

I rarely make a serious comment on grammar. However, I do like a trivial exchange now and again.

In this case it's clear that the author misused the word wit. The nature of this mistake is such that it is undetectable in the spoken word and would be almost impalpable to all but the most discerning of readers when presented in text - hence the consternation it's caused. It's the grammatical equivilent of chlamydia.

In my opinion JP is quite correct in his first assertion.

---

Yup, that's why I said "maybe even manker". You usually are joshing about it.

Again I must come back to, "So the fuck what!!!", on the "wit" doohicky though.
It's a speck of dust on a continent of an article. :dry: JP was correct about something that was really nothing in context.

The password is:

NITPICKER