It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Breaking news on HIV

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 03:15 AM
link   
Just heard on my radio in South Africa, Prez Obama has lifted a 20-year ban on HIV-positive people visiting the USA! Yippie, I'm coming to see the pow-wows, and don't worry, you have nothing to fear!




posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 03:26 AM
link   
Obama to end US ban on HIV visitors

The United States is poised to lift a decades-old ban on HIV-positive visitors from abroad that was based on fear and ignorance of the facts, President Barack Obama says.

"Twenty-two years ago, in a decision rooted in fear rather than fact, the United States instituted a travel ban on entry into the country for people living with HIV/AIDS," Obama said on Friday as he signed a bill reauthorising funding for a federal program providing HIV-related healthcare.

"Now, we talk about reducing the stigma of this disease - yet we've treated a visitor living with it as a threat," he said at the signing ceremony of the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act.

"If we want to be the global leader in combating HIV/AIDS, we need to act like it. And that's why on Monday, my administration will publish a final rule that eliminates the travel ban effective just after the New Year," Obama said.

from
news.theage.com.au...



Good for you Halfoldman- hope you enjoy your trip.



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 03:34 AM
link   
20 year ban if they visit?
why not 20 yrs in jail if they are caught giving someone aids or something crazy like not permit them?

we have lots of people with aids anyways.



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 03:39 AM
link   
reply to post by platipus
 


I think you misunderstand the meaning of what was going on.

There has been a ban in PLACE for 20 years, preventing anyone from foreign countries to enter the US, if they are HIV positive.

This would be a good change for a change



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 03:54 AM
link   
reply to post by platipus
 


Deliberately giving someone HIV is covered in almost all penal codes as a serious crime.



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 05:19 AM
link   
I hope its not a sign of an impeding nuclear / biological false flag op.



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 05:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by VitalOverdose
I hope its not a sign of an impeding nuclear / biological false flag op.


You can't be serious. Are you?



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 05:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Skittle
 


Not just based on that report alone. Theres a number of things pointing to the possibility of an impending WMD false flag op at the moment IMO. Think about it..let everyone in with lowered immune systems while they plan to target the country somehow. Would be an effective way to reduce numbers.

[edit on 31-10-2009 by VitalOverdose]



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 05:36 AM
link   
nice when you comin to the USA? HIV is crap anyway! hooey, not like your going to purposefully communicate the disease!



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 05:37 AM
link   
when is this and source please? much appreaciated. i just want to read the article it is stated in



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 05:41 AM
link   
I don't think I would call this "Breaking news".

To me, breaking news would be a discovery of sorts, not a lift on a ban.
This is a weird story, OP. Only reason is because I bet 80% or more people didn't even know there was a ban on people visiting with HIV.



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by havok
 


Hear you with compassion. Life changes when you test HIV-positive, and so does your perspective. For me, and many others IT IS BREAKING NEWS. Recently South Africa had a performer from a dance troupe sent home because he was HIV-positive. He didn't know it was illegal either. For people from sub-saharan Africa it is huge news, because this law was really dated. Today, with so much awareness and treatment, that law was also illogical. Maybe now we can have the next HIV/Aids conference in the US, instead of Canada. The image of the US has just regained some of the old global nobility - well done!
And by the way, HIV-positive people were still travelling to the US, they just had to put ARVs in other pill-holders and stay low-key. Now it can at least be controlled and traced. At least the US is now removed from the Saudi/Red China bigot list.




posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 


Unless its rape, how can you 'delibertly ' give someone AIDS?

A person that consents to having sex has the responsiblity of wearing (or making their partner ) wear protection.



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by ButterCookie
 

Depending on the awareness of a society and their state of denial: it is very possible to mislead someone into "consenting" risky sex.
A very crucial point. HIV-poz partners in discordant situations often find that the other partner is insistent on breaking the safe-sex rules. In the UK, for example I remember a case of a Zimbabwean in the UK who knew his status and infected 5 women. There are sick people out there.
Interestingly, in many countries, if the woman/victim insists that her rapist wears a condom it is no longer considered "rape" (just sexual assault).
Alledgedly, the colonial British penal code only considered it "rape" if one interfered with the reproductive system of a woman. the law was not there so much to protect women, but rather that the husband would not end up raising bastards!



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amanuel
when is this and source please? much appreaciated. i just want to read the article it is stated in


a news source was posted- do a quick search if you're not satisfied with that one

buttercookie- why does it have to be rape? people have unprotected sex and if they dont know the person they're having sex with how could they possibly know the person has HIV unless that person tells them?



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by lifecitizen
 


simple:

You should not be having unprotected sex in the FIRST place.

Having unprotected sex with someone means yuo allow whatever comes with it; HIV, syphliss, herpes, pregnancy, etc.

People don't want to be responisble for their actions.

You should not wait to see if someone is going to disclose their HIV status before having unprotected sex with them....What if they are HIV positive and ae just not aware that they are? It's called UNIVERSAL PRECAUTION...

Just like when you go to tthe hospital or dentist or even a paramedic giving assistance; they use protective gloves anyway.



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ButterCookie
reply to post by lifecitizen
 


simple:

You should not be having unprotected sex in the FIRST place.

Having unprotected sex with someone means yuo allow whatever comes with it; HIV, syphliss, herpes, pregnancy, etc.

People don't want to be responisble for their actions.

You should not wait to see if someone is going to disclose their HIV status before having unprotected sex with them....What if they are HIV positive and ae just not aware that they are? It's called UNIVERSAL PRECAUTION...

Just like when you go to tthe hospital or dentist or even a paramedic giving assistance; they use protective gloves anyway.



I realise people should use protection ButterCookie -in a perfect world everyone would but there are any number of reasons why people don't, ranging from religious beliefs to accidents happening-

So one person could quite easily give another person HIV deliberately and it wouldn't have to be a case of rape- as was your original question.
Unless its rape, how can you 'delibertly ' give someone AIDS?



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by lifecitizen
 


Exactly......people don't always use protection....so that's why they should't be too upset if they wake up with an STD....

there has got to be some repsonsiblity somewhere....

and just because a person is HIV positive does not mean they have to disclose their HIV status to everyone they meet or sleep with....

Sound harsh?

It shouldn't...that HIV positive may chose to use protection or not...just because they decide to have sex with someone does not mean they want to spend the rest of their life ith that person..in that case, why disclose?

The other party can't rely on everyone disclosing their HIV status




top topics



 
0

log in

join