Proposed Kan. bill calls for HIV positive people to be quarantined

page: 1
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Proposed Kan. bill calls for HIV positive people to be quarantined


fox4kc.com

KANSAS CITY, Kan. — In an effort to protect the public from infectious diseases, a proposed bill in Kansas has some feeling ostracized. That’s because the bill allows people with HIV or AIDS to be quarantined.
Right now, if a firefighter or a paramedic in Kansas is exposed to bodily fluids while treating a victim, they need a court order to get that victim’s blood tested for infectious diseases. But lawmakers are close to passing a new law eliminating that court order. Some, though, say the new law discriminates against those who have HIV or AIDS. That’s because lawmakers have written
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.gaystarnews.com




posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 04:59 PM
link   
This is disgusting. I can't believe in this day and age someone would A) propose a bill like this, or B) it would pass.

They claim that the law wouldn't be used to discriminate against HIV/AIDS patients, but somehow I doubt that it would be used "properly" or how it's "supposed" to be used. Cody Patton, Executive Director of sexual health charity Positive Directions, said that the fear is that with Kansas being so conservative, a county employee could use their religious beliefs over their professional responsibilities. I can certainly see that happening quite easily.

fox4kc.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 05:05 PM
link   
It would be used in times of crisis

Like when some criminal idiot spits at an Officer/Guard/EMT

Or when a rescue worker is covered in blood trying to cut people out of a wreck

Or in domestic violence, where an arrest was made, but there is fluids.

It is a messy affair, trying to Police, Rescue, treat the wounded, ect.

Putting them away or in quarantine, probably as a last resort, in cases where an inmate is spraying HIV on other detainee's.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


The Fox Link doesn't work. Not surprising that they bailed on the story.
Here's another link to the story.

www.rawstory.com...


The bill was passed by the Republican-controlled state Senate last Thursday by a vote of 29 to 11. It breezed through the Republican-controlled state House earlier this month, 122 to 1. Both the House and Senate appointed members of a conference committee earlier this week to finalize the bill before it goes to Gov. Sam Brownback’s (R) desk to be signed into law.


It seems as if the GOP is trying to alienate as many people as possible and give some solid talking points to the libs. Imo the GOP will continue to lose elections with this type of BS. This style of hard core conservatism won't win many converts from the ranks of thinking independents. It's as if they want to stay the underdog and throw elections away.

When this story hits the MSM; watch the Kansas republicans backpedal away from this BS.
edit on 27-3-2013 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by lnfideI
 


I can see where when used properly, it's not a bad idea. The problem comes when someone that's really religious decides that someone that is living a "wrong lifestyle" and they should be quarantined "for the public good". It's too open, and too easy to abuse, especially in an ultra conservative state like Kansas.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Zaphod, I can see both points here. Anyone who would consider using a blood borne infection as a weapon is a massive risk, and if that risk has become reality on enough occasions to warrant such a thing, then I can understand the imposition of a quarantine.

However, any legislature allowing such a thing must have NO backdoors, loopholes, or special circumstances that could lead to a mass ghettoisation of people with such infections. In the main, people with horrific blood borne, potentially lethal infections, have enough to worry about, enough on thier plates, without the risk of being summarily rounded up and institutionalised.

And the problem with any legislature that could come about to allow any quarantine, is that when one considers the quality of modern legal thinking, the chances are that such backdoors would be left wide open by shoddy work, an unwillingness on the part of legislators to actually do the work for which they are paid.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 06:15 PM
link   
I wonder who will be the contractor to build and maintain the "AIDS/HIV Ghetto" ?

Halliburton? Corrections Corp. of America?

FEMA camps?
edit on 27-3-2013 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 06:16 PM
link   
This is where political correctness bites us in the hind parts yet again. It is a disease, not a social issue. It should be treated as the communicable, incurable disease that it is. If we would have done quarantines decades ago, it might have died out or at least be much less prevalent. Africa might not be heading for total depopulation the way it is currently. It is a deadly, incurable, communicable disease. It should be treated as such.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 06:51 PM
link   
Having read the article and the law as it is proposed, the following can be stated:

This law is going to be used to control the population at large and not just hit those who are infected with HIV and AIDS. While the language of the law is very specific, as it not only names HIV and AIDS as part of the law, but also stated any communicable disease. And think about it, any disease that is transmitted via airborn or by bodily fluid is communicable.

Have the flu, well it could be grounds to go into quarantine. Child has say Chicken pox, well the entire family now has to be seperated from the rest of the community at large.

In this time, when conspiracies run rampant about Fema camps and other draconian laws being passed, this is one door that once open should be challenged and ultimately go through the court system to be defeated.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
Having read the article and the law as it is proposed, the following can be stated:

This law is going to be used to control the population at large and not just hit those who are infected with HIV and AIDS. While the language of the law is very specific, as it not only names HIV and AIDS as part of the law, but also stated any communicable disease. And think about it, any disease that is transmitted via airborn or by bodily fluid is communicable.

Have the flu, well it could be grounds to go into quarantine. Child has say Chicken pox, well the entire family now has to be seperated from the rest of the community at large.

In this time, when conspiracies run rampant about Fema camps and other draconian laws being passed, this is one door that once open should be challenged and ultimately go through the court system to be defeated.
Fear monger much?


The secretary of health and environment is authorized to issue such orders and adopt rules and regulations as may be necessary to prevent the spread and dissemination of diseases injurious to the public health, including, but not limited to, providing for the testing for such diseases and the isolation and quarantine of persons afflicted with or exposed to such diseases.
It must not only be communicable, it must also be "injurious to the public health". I don't think cold, flu or chicken pox would qualify.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by DarthMuerte
 

Actually no, it is not fear mongering. The reality is that the flu can be lethal against those who are senior citizens, and the very young. Chicken pox has shown to be lethal among those who are from Puerto Rico descent and some Native American Tribes.

It was merely to point out that if the authorities deemed that a disease was contagious and communicable, then it would extend beyond just HIV/AIDS. In fact the language of the law is very clear, that any and ALL communicable diseases would be treated as equal. That means if a person were to come down with say Hepatitus A, they would endure the same quarantine procedure as someone else. It is a door, careful of what is opened up.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 08:16 PM
link   
Yeah,. kinda like another government idiot that said people that ride bikes increase the carbon output cause the breath too much,..

how do these people even get elected



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by sdcigarpig
 


I'm sorry but comparing the flu or chicken pox to HIV/AIDS is like comparing apples to bananas. The first two are almost non lethal where the last two are almost a certain death sentence.

On topic: I think that only aggressive or at risk individuals with the disease(s) should be quarantined. You never know when somebody will get mad and spit or spray any bodily fluids on food at the grocery store or purposely taint something with infected fluids of any kind.
edit on 27-3-2013 by kimish because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Fear mongering aside (not to mention a blatant attempt to mislead the people by the sensational headline from the gaystar news source) I support the bill based on its actual intent.

As a law enforcement officer in Missouri, If I am exposed to a communicable disease via my job, absent the person in question giving consent, I am screwed. We have to obtain a court order in order to force a blood draw in these instances.

The bill does not lock anyone up. It deals solely with exposure and the ability of medical personnel to deal with the issue at hand right in front of them and to offer protection against infection by dropping the warrant requirement based on an exigent circumstance. A lot of communicable disease, including HIV/AIDS, can be prevented if medication is taken in the first 24 hours (give or take).

It could conceivably take longer than those 24 hours to get a warrant and until that time, there are no grounds to hold a person. This means the person who was possibly communicable is long gone prior to finding out what the disease was and what treatment course is needed.

Please people, exercise some common sense on this one.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


I agree with what the bill is attempting to do too. But the problem comes in when you have a group of very conservative religious people enforcing the law. What happens when their religion comes into conflict with the law? Which wins out? This kind of law needs to be worded very carefully, and enforced even more carefully.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


I agree with what the bill is attempting to do too. But the problem comes in when you have a group of very conservative religious people enforcing the law. What happens when their religion comes into conflict with the law? Which wins out? This kind of law needs to be worded very carefully, and enforced even more carefully.


In a case like that we have the courts and law enforcement. If the health department, legal under Kansas law according to the article, doesn't meet its burden when ordering a quarantine, the action is illegal. It then moves into the realm of criminal and civil actions (denial of civil rights).

What these groups need to be doing is to read the entire bill, understand it, talk to the sponsors / authors of the bill. Make sure the bill cannot be interpreted in a manner that is inconsistent with established law and then educate the groups you represent.

Screaming the sky is falling when in facts its just the sun setting helps no one and only causes confusion as we move forward.

There is nothing preventing these groups from asking for meetings or to propose select language that address their concerns. They need to stop fear mongering and screaming discrimination and should spend more time educating people on the topic.

Granted you wont reach everyone however it would be a hell of a lot more productive on both sides than what they are doing now.

** I forgot to answer your religious conflict question **
To my knowledge there are no religious groups who object to the testing of their blood. I know there are groups who refuse blood transfusions as well as medical intervention when a life is in danger.

In this case the life that is in danger is that of the person who was exposed.

Your rights stop the moment they interfere with the rights of others.
edit on 27-3-2013 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


My problem with that is that the courts and law enforcement have failed us so many times lately that it isn't even funny. How many horror stories have we heard about someone getting thrown in jail for decades, for something minor? Or law enforcement kicking down a grandmother's door because they got the wrong information? Or worse?

I'm not trying to fear monger, I just see, yet again, so much potential for abuse or mistakes, or worse to happen with this. Instead of leaving huge loopholes in it, let's work to close them, instead of letting an abuse happen and the courts have to get involved, and take years to work on closing them. Write something that makes sense and works to begin with, instead of something that leaves room for fear or abuse.

It isn't the testing of the blood that I can see a problem with. It's that ultraconservative making the decisions on what needs to be on the quarantine list. What if they have a problem with, since this article mentions HIV, we'll go with homosexuality. They decide, on their own, that since homosexuality is against the bible, it's harmful to society, and HIV/AIDS originally was seen as a homosexual's disease. Therefore, it can harm society, and needs to be quarantined. Now we have a religious/law conflict happening. Some conservatives will go with the law, some will go with their religion, depending on which is stronger in their family/upbringing. Yes, it's against the law, and will eventually be sorted out, but what happens during the time it's being sorted? See what I mean about abuse? The loopholes need to be closed BEFORE this goes into being a law.

I think the original premise is a good one, and it should be a law. But close the loopholes, and take any potential religious/law conflict out of the bill.
edit on 3/27/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by kimish
 

Here is the language that you should be concerned with:

Communicable disease" means HIV, including AIDS,
hepatitis in any form, meningococcal disease, tuberculosis, measles,
mumps, varicella disease, pneumonic plague, viral hemorrhagic fevers,
rabies, cutaneous anthrax, pertussis, rubella, severe acute respiratory
syndrome (SARS-CoV), smallpox, vaccinia and other selected agents as
the secretary may define by rule and regulation.

So as you can see, HIV including aids is only transmitted by either direct sexual contact or by blood. All Hepatitis is also by blood. Meningococcal is through saliva. Tuberculosis is airborn, as is mumps, measles, rubella, SARS, smallpox, anthrax and pneumomia. Rabies you have to be bit. Vaccinia you have to be in contact with the actual fluid. Viral Hemorrhagic fevers, well lets just say that is via air and fluid.

But what is most disturbing, and this is something that you should look at is the last bit: and other selected agents as the secretary may define by rule and regulation. That means if the secretary defines say Flu as an agent, then it would require that a person be quarintined till they are better.

What many fail to see is if they go by standards of quarintine, then the question should be asked at what level of quarintine would a person be placed under. There are currently 4 levels of biosafety that is standard and used by the CDC and any other research facility. So this should give you pause and thought, that if the are covering all 4 levels with what is stated here, that means that any sickness could be declared for such.

Here is the break down as per the CDC and the biohazard levels:


Hepatitius, small pox, Vaccinia, Mumps, measles, rubella and pneumonia, meningoccal and HIV is considered to be level 2.
Rabies, TB, Anthrax, and SARS is level 3.
Small pox, some of the Vaccina, and Viral Hemorrahgic fevers are considered to be level 4.

So there you have it, if the secretary determines that a disease is say at a biolevel 2 or greater, then he/she could determine that such would require a quarintine. And Chickenpox is a level 2 disease, as is the influenze virus.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by sdcigarpig
 


That's a lot to take in. Thank you. I can see your point on how this is discriminatory.
So what are you suggesting? That some protocols/standards need to be re evaluated/labeled?
edit on 27-3-2013 by kimish because: (no reason given)
edit on 27-3-2013 by kimish because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


They have a law on the books from the 1980s that make it illegal to quarantine people with HIV/AIDS. So that loophole is non existent in this current law.

Kansas Legislature - House Bill 2183

The link above is to the actual overview page for 2183. You will note there are various pdf files that can be accessed, including amended versions.

I encourage people to take the time to read the bills and see what the proposal is all about. Then people can make up their own minds on what this bill does and does not do.

Why take 2 articles, both preaching the opposite, and attempt to draw a conclusion? If people want to object to the bill and its contents, then they should research the bill on their own and draw their own conclusions.

It is no longer enough to complain about something. People MUST go beyond that and get involved in government. Contact your elected officials, speak your mind and be heard.

Just my 1/2 cent (adjusted for inflation).





new topics
top topics
 
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join