Mandatory HV Testing

I’m torn… In New Jersey, the president of the state senate has introduced a bill that would require all pregnant women and newborns to be tested for HIV… again, it would require pregnant women to be tested for HIV. I’m not sure how I feel about this.

If this bill becomes the law of the land in the Garden State, it would be the first of its kind in the country. There are states that require health care providers to give mothers-to-be the choice of being tested, and there are even laws that require the testing unless specifically declined by the would-be-mother. But this would be the first to take the measure this far.

There are valid arguments on both sides of this issue...

First off, of course a woman has dominion over her body, just like any other human being (read: us guys). So my first reaction to this news was to shake my head in disbelief that little by little our civil liberties are being eroded away. No human being should be forced, under the threat of criminal proceedings, to take an HIV test. Completely ridiculous, right?

Not completely… there is the life of the soon-to-be child in the belly for whom this measure is designed to protect. An adult woman has the freedom of association to have consensual sex with any adult male (or female) she chooses… this is the way it is and the way it should be. The act of having sex will sometimes, planned or not, result in the beginning of a new life. The new life inside the belly of the woman does not have the freedom of association of choosing its host to carry it to birth… if it lands in the belly of an HIV infected woman, well… too bad little guy/gal. This measure will help intervene on behalf of that little guy/gal to get help faster to the unborn baby, decreasing the chances of it contracting the virus from the mother. Completely warranted, right?

Not completely… There is still the issue of the woman’s privacy. If she has committed no illegal act, what right does the state have to invade her body for any reason? Doesn’t this fly in the face of the Constitution’s clear ban on unlawful search and seizure? What wrong has the woman done to justify this?

And another thing… why are we ganging up on women? If it takes a man and a woman to create a little guy/gal, then why aren’t we requiring every sexually active male in Jersey to submit to an HIV test unless he signs a written affidavit saying he will never have sex with a woman? Wouldn’t that also help stop the transmission of HIV from mother to baby?

OK… I just made up my mind… while this measure is not completely ridiculous as it is designed with the best of intentions in mind, it is wrong. We must not start down the path of looking for an excuse to invade a woman’s body at every possible opportunity. Not only is this unlawful search, it is also discriminatory toward women… it is not the right thing to do.