hey, judy, wherever you are – the president signed the FDA tobacco bill. i think you’d be pleased with most of it.

miss you.

the colorado senate recently passed a bill, 32 to 1, requiring pregnant women to submit to HIV testing. the lone dissenting vote came from a republican who believes that the measure would “remove the negative consequences that take place from poor behavior and unacceptable behavior.”

apparently the senator believes that living with the consequences of untreated HIV appropriately punishes poor behavior. on the other hand, the rest of the state’s senators apparently believe that a fetus’ medical needs outweigh a woman’s right to privacy. according to one of the bill’s sponsors, “What this bill will do and why it’s so important to test the woman when she is pregnant — if she is HIV-positive, treatment is started immediately to protect the baby, the unborn baby.”

now, don’t get me wrong – i think HIV testing is a good idea. it’s a good idea if you’re sexually active and if there’s a possibility you could be exposed to HIV. it’s a good idea if you’re a pregnant woman who wants to make the most informed choices about health care for yourself and your fetus. so it’s a good idea to require doctors to offer the test, and to either require health insurance to cover it, or to pay for it out of government coffers. but requiring women to get tested – which is the likely outcome of an opt-out system – bothers me. interjecting the government anywhere in a woman’s reproductive health care bothers me, because in this country, it’s a quick jump to measures that limit reproductive choice, and that impinge on a woman’s right to conduct her life as she sees fit.

i believe the wording of the bill is highly problematic, even though it’s basically the existing syphilis law with HIV tacked on:

25-4-201. Pregnant woman to take blood test. (1) Every licensed health care provider authorized to provide care to a pregnant woman in this state for conditions relating to her pregnancy during the period of gestation or at delivery shall take or cause to be taken a sample of blood of the woman at the time of the first professional visit during the first trimester for testing pursuant to this section. The blood specimen obtained shall be submitted to an approved laboratory for standard serological test for syphilis and HIV. Every other person permitted by law to attend pregnant women in this state but not permitted by law to take blood samples shall cause a sample of blood of each pregnant woman to be taken by a licensed health care provider authorized to take blood samples and shall have the sample submitted to an approved laboratory for a standard serological test for syphilis and HIV. A pregnant woman may decline to be tested as specified in this subsection (1), in which case the licensed health care provider shall document that fact in her medical record.

(2) If a pregnant woman entering a hospital for delivery has not been tested for HIV during her pregnancy, the hospital shall notify the woman that she will be tested for HIV unless she objects and declines the test. If the woman declines to be tested, the hospital shall document that fact in the pregnant woman’s medical record.

25-4-203. Birth certificate – blood test. In reporting every birth and stillbirth, physicians and others required to make such reports shall state on the certificate whether a blood test for syphilis and HIV has been made upon a specimen of blood taken from the woman who bore the child for which a birth or stillbirth certificate is filed and the approximate date when the specimen was taken. In no event shall the birth certificate state the result of the test.

first, they’re requiring a sample of blood to be taken for the purposes of the HIV test, whether a woman agrees to be tested or not. then, the bill allows women to opt out, rather than requiring affirmative assent to the procedure, which would provide more protection for the woman. nothing will prevent a provider from taking the blood and “oops!” either “forgetting” to give the woman the option to decline the test, or “losing” any documentation of her refusal. finally, if they do offer her the option to decline, and she does, the fact of her refusal must be documented. why? and how will that information be used down the line? will providers be allowed to refuse to treat women who decline the test? will health insurers refuse coverage to women – or their infants – who have not tested negative? and what is the purpose of recording the fact or absence of the test on the child’s birth certificate?

the legislation is broadly written to cover all providers treating women for “conditions relating to … pregnancy.” this would require that a woman seeking an abortion must go through the HIV rigamarole. and to what end?

while this legislation might have evolved from good intentions, the potential for abuse seems very high, and the rationale behind requiring the testing, flimsy at best. i can only hope the house shows better sense than the senate and defeats it.

earlier this month, the VA state legislature passed what is (IMO) a pretty pathetic compromise clean indoor air bill. perhaps to show they can come up with meaningful legislation, they’ve just passed a bill to expand the death penalty.

you read right. once the ink dries, a whole new category of people will be eligible for capital punishment: those who assist in a murder, but don’t actually kill anyone.

yay richmond.

the news is telling us that the economic stimulus package is expected to receive final approval and head to obama’s desk. few of the news reports have any detail as to what’s actually in the bill, so i headed over to thomas to find out.

what struck me immediately was not so much what’s in it, but what’s been removed from it. (assuming i’m reading the strikes and italics correctly.)

for example:

the entirety of the transparency and oversight requirements. there had been requirements for a whole host of stimulus-package information to be published on the recovery.gov website. information like:

• Each Federal agency shall publish (1) a plan for using funds made available in this Act to the agency; and (2) all announcements for grant competitions, allocations of formula grants, and awards of competitive grants using those funds.
• detailed data on contracts awarded by the Government for purposes of carrying out this Act, including information about the competitiveness of the contracting process, notification of solicitations for contracts to be awarded, and information about the process that was used for the award of contracts.
• printable reports on funds made available in this Act obligated by month to each State and congressional district
• links to and information on how to access job opportunities created at or by entities receiving funding under this Act, including, if possible, links to or information about local employment agencies; state, local and other public agencies receiving funding; and private firms contracted to perform work funded by this Act.

heaven forbid the public is advised of how the money is actually spent, or where it is actually going. i suspect that would just be too dangerous for the congresscritters who are constantly running for re-election, or for the ones who oppose the package, and yet stand to profit tremendously from it (politically).

so that’s a glimpse at what was cut. but what’s still in the bill?

on the health care side, there seems to be more than a billion dollars earmarked for clinical effectiveness research, presumably to guide future government involvement in attempts to reduce health care costs (or perhaps as a precursor to universal coverage); the current language sets out:

the funding appropriated in this paragraph shall be used to accelerate the development and dissemination of research assessing the comparative clinical effectiveness of health care treatments and strategies, including through efforts that: (1) conduct, support, or synthesize research that compares the clinical outcomes, effectiveness, and appropriateness of items, services, and procedures that are used to prevent, diagnose, or treat diseases, disorders, and other health conditions and (2) encourage the development and use of clinical registries, clinical data networks, and other forms of electronic health data that can be used to generate or obtain outcomes data

there’s also $118M for “energy conservation and investment” for military construction projects – something that is sorely needed, as new buildings seem to be going up on bases (at least in this area) without any consideration for green construction or energy efficiency (the new child development center on fort myer is an egregious example of this). $336M for the construction of child development centers, across all services. $481M for warrior transition complexes. (no army funding for barracks, though. interesting.) $1.3B for VA medical facilities, and $145M for VA benefits claims processing.

as i read through this, it’s an awful lot of government spending. i’m not sure how it’s supposed to result in jobs creation, though. food for thought.

i recently blogged about the clean indoor air legislation that seems to be on virginia’s horizon, and on shepherd fairey’s artistic talents. i may have typed too soon on both accounts.

in an otherwise horribly slanted article in today’s post, the reporter notes:

The fight over the ban is far from over in Richmond. Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D) yesterday criticized the bill approved by the House, saying it violated and “weakened” the terms of the deal he worked out with House Speaker William J. Howell (R-Stafford.) In addition to dropping the ventilation requirements for smoking sections, the House version exempts bars that do not serve minors and would allow smoking on outdoor patios. “We need to get the bill back to the deal,” Kaine said.

weakening is what happens when something gets worn down. the house bill pretty much guts any meaningful legislation, although i wasn’t too crazy about the terms of the deal as reported earlier. if you’re passing clean indoor air laws to protect employees, having “separately ventilated smoking areas” isn’t going to cut it. exempting bars is even worse.

and shepherd fairey? well, he’s pre-emptively sued AP over his use of their photo of obama as the source material for his obey “hope” poster, and looks like he’s seeking a declaratory judgment that it’s fair(ey) use. whatever. it’s his previous unattributed use of other artists’ materials that’s bothering me. in those cases, he treated prior works as a clip gallery, not bothering to change them at all before working them into his designs. now, there’s an argument to be made that he’s simply doing the electronic equivalent of collage, but the difference there is that in a traditional collage, it’s obvious what has come from a third party. the computer-assisted design output has no such visual cuing.

anyhoo.