Interesting new legislation being proposed...

<http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/2002/bills/intro/H-707.HTM>

You have to be tested for tuberculosis and Hepatitis C BEFORE being granted a marriage certificate?

WHY?????

Anyone know anything further on this?

All My Love,
Menolly

Menolly, I don't mean to be mean, but your headline here sounds rather chicken little like. Or I am misunderstanding why you are saying. I would think if one was trying to hide the fact of HCV, then this is good. No one should be lied to about your potential partner's health. When I was found to have HCV, I notified my first wife and all of my sex partners since the date I calculated that I might have contracted the disease. It was only fair to them. The number was small, I was married for over ten years with the virus and used all sorts of birth control and the first wife has not contracted the disease, neither did my second wife with no birth control, I have had a vasectomy, so we didn't need to prevent pregancy, and my numbers for sex partners is relatively small. They aren't saying you CANNOT get hitched, they are only making it known that you have HCV. Now what is done with that info is another story. I think this is only for the protection of the partner who might not have been told the total truth. That is my take on this law. Enlighten me if I have this wrong. But please don't make something of nothing. It's not sweeps week here is it? LOL Smile Menolly!!! The headline does sound like the newscasts of those infamous sweeps weeks for local news programs that always tells us thet we will die if we breathe. No harm meant here with this posting, I'm only debating that headline. Ok?

Sigh, once again.

I was NOT writing a sensationalist headline, because I have a number of FACTS related to the WHYS of this legislation.

But since I have been told repeatedly to NOT write "long, educational" posts here, I just posted a fact, and the proof (the link to the legislation) and WAITED to see if anyone else would have something to say about it, or ask me "Why does this legislation alarm you?"

But if I am once again "acting chicken-little like" and "making something out of nothing" and trying for points "during sweeps week" so be it.

I will respect your opinion also, and add "The repercussions and detriments of getting married in Vermont" to my list of 47 other topics I'm asked not to talk about.

I'm sorry I offended you, also, Goose Bumps. But I NEVER voice an opinion without facts behind it.

Menolly

I also apologize to you Goose Bumps for starting an argument here with you, for yours TRULY is a post that is worded respectfully. The legislation is NOT to expose a lie to a potential marriage partner! It is for other reasons, that I won't argue further with you about, since you think I am just being sensationalistic.

Mr. G. B. Please be reassured that I am not upset with YOU, per se. I am just being PUMMELLED lately with requests to not speak BEFORE people say "I don't understand. Please explain." But of course, because the request to stop talking came BEFORE anything, I cannot explain or defend anything.

So I'm trapped, and always look like the bad guy!

If I try to explain IN DEFIANCE of the request to not speak ON A TOPIC, I am arguing (as I am guilty of here with you).

If I try to explain IN DEFIANCE to a person who has asked me not to speak TO THEM, well then I am guilty of criminal harrassment. And that's 2 years or 5 years in prison up here in Canada (depending on which section of the legislation is invoked). And when it comes to me going to prison, oh yeah, here you are absolutely right. I am a more than merely "chicken-little". I am a chicken-****!

I am overwhelmed these days, Mr. G. B. by all these requests to not speak. I so wish people would say "Please explain" BEFORE they say "Do not speak" (BOTH "on this topic", or "TO ME".)

Forgive this argument. I truly am sorry. Because you are facing hurt that should not be directed towards you, and that is grossly unfair of me.

All My Love,
Menolly

Menolly, I am sorry. I was trying to go with a bit of tongue in cheek about the chicken little comment. I am by no means trying to attack or cause ANY grief. I aplogize of it seemed that way. I don't want to make any enemies here at all, I am a new comer trying to talk with you. I am not trying to quiet you at all. I guess I wanted to know what was the reason for your words "Forget marriage in Vermont if you have HCV", I should have kept the insensitive editorializing of mine to myself and asked the direct question. Please accept this apology for any offense taken, ok? I am a HCV survivor myself, so I am aware of some of the prejudices out there about this. But this article just didn't have that, at least not what I saw. I sometimes think I suffer from ADD so maybe I missed a key point in it. So what do you say, can you accept my apology?

I know you are a survivor, my dear. And I know you have dealt with that "leper mentality". Heck, I've been working with AIDS patients for 22 YEARS, and you'd be surprised how many people that has scared off, even though I am tested every few months, and do NOT have anything contagious.

Funny you mention ADD... Someone just told me I have it also!

Of course, dear sir, ANY apology is accepted! It is a sign of a big man, in my books!

I bow in peace to your soul, sir!

Megwi'itch, (I'm Algonkin! That's a sacred word, to us Natives.)
Menolly

Thank you, Menolly. I'm very interested in this word you wrote, can you tell me about it? I have always been in awe of american indians, for lack of a better term, maybe native indians? would be a better term? Help me here, please, and please enlighten me about this word you wrote, thanks you in advance, Menolly.

I'm not sure whether or not N.C. still requires blood tests before marriage. It used to be a requirement here. (I didn't get married here, so I have no idea what the laws are now.) I'm guessing the objective was to provide information to the uninfected person and to help contain the spread of STD's. I would assume that is the intent of the Vermont legislation, although I wonder why they include TB and not HIV. Can you imagine marrying someone who KNOWS they are infected and are putting you at risk, but they don't tell you?! Of course, with the federal privacy laws, I wonder if the results of the test can even be disclosed to the intended spouse without the consent of the infected person. And, I wonder if a marriage license can be denied if one person is infected and refuses to tell his/her intended mate. Any thoughts?

With premarital sex being the norm rather than the exception these days, the legislation does seem a bit outdated. I can understand how important it might have been before the sexual revolution and the passing of strict privacy laws. Although I think I understand the intent, I'm not sure how practical it is in today's world.

The purpose of this legislation IS NOT to inform the potential spouse. In fact, the fiancée is NOT given the info.

We have the same legislation in Ontario, and they have it in California, also.

Ask Ken Connor! When he got his diagnosis, the doctor told me I WAS NOT ALLOWED INTO THE ROOM! for that would violate "Ken's patient confidentiality". Ken and I argued in the hall with the doc. Ken was saying "But she's my wife." And the doc said, "Sorry. She CANNOT have this information." So I said, "Ken, it's o.k. Go in alone, and let him tell you. I'll wait right here outside the door, and as soon as you know, CALL ME into the room."

Well, less than a minute later, the DOC called me into the room, because Ken was in shock! I totally ignored the doc for a good 5 to 10 minutes, and talked and talked and talked to Ken!

Then a week later, Ken got his "official letter" from the government...

The INTENT of ALL SUCH LEGISLATION has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the fiancée's protection! Nor is it for society's protection against STD's. It is for other purposes!

It is so hard to live by this rule of "If we want your opinion, we'll ask for it." when no one asks for it!

Twenty-two years now, I've been helping AIDS patients deal with these types of legislation. And, of course with my husband who died in 1999, also.

~~~~~~~~~~

Do any of you know the "Reportable Disease" list for your state? (Every state has one.) Do any of you know WHERE that info goes? Do you know WHO CAN BUY that info from the government? Do you know the EFFECTS it can have on your life? I DO, from both a professional capacity, and from personal experience.

~~~~~~~~~
Just for "fun", here's the legislated list Ken has to live with. He's on these lists TWICE!

The California Code of Regulations, Title 17, Section 2500.

<http://www.ochealthinfo.com/epi/report-diseases.htm>

Do you want to see what Ken's Morbidity Report Forms look like? Look at the questions on it. What RACE is he? Do you wonder who has access to these forms?

<http://www.ochealthinfo.com/docs/forms/morbidrep.pdf>

And people wondered why Ken and I were thinking of moving to Oregon!!!

Ken, dear, I'm sorry! You can YELL at me, for this.

I'm sure you'll feel I'm revealing personal info about you here. I am trying NOT TO!

Once again, it's high time I SHUT UP, isn't it?

Good to see you back, Menolly!

Val