Former Stephen Bennett guest Linda Harvey of Ohio-based Mission America had this to say on AlainsNewsletter.com:
| Before… | and After |
 |
 |
| (Permission to distribute and repost is granted.) | |
The Cleveland center website also states, regarding Ohio law:
A minor can consent to – or refuse – an HIV test for AIDS without parental permission.
Well, this may be the law, but it needs to be changed. Is it better to offer anonymous testing for minors – or to encourage better child-parent relationships? Which do we think has the longer-range potential of helping more kids, more of the time? The HIV rates aren’t going down and kids are clearly being encouraged, even seduced into having high-risk sex. Something is clearly not working.
What in the world are we doing exposing kids to opportunities to get involved in practices that are spreading an epidemic disease? How can we let kids make such huge health-care decisions, interact with health professionals, receive “counseling” and figure out what all this means, without the guidance of a parent or guardian?
Even though this consent by minors is becoming very common and is even upheld by law, there’s no excuse for putting kids in this position. It’s certainly feeding the problem of sexually transmitted diseases and sexual activity among America’s youth. [emphasis added]
Harvey offers absolutely no evidence whatsoever the restriction of access to HIV testing will have any effect on the spread of the epidemic. None.
Since Linda Harvey’s article appears on Alain’s Newsletter (which google classifies as hate speech) I thought a little graphic was in order. Alain has this spiffy little banner ad of Howard Dean which inspired mine of Linda Harvey.
Is it just me, or does Linda Harvey look a little like Jackie Kennedy?
Anyway, that’s the same thing as the FRC being against HPV vaccination because that would remove the risk of disease and such encourage sex. In their objection of medically sensible measures, they constitute a public health hazard and thus must be removed from society.
I went back to the article and noted that Harvey used the old idea that homosexuals are all interested in children. She asked the question why aren’t they required to report if a 12, 13, 14 year old is having sex with someone 30 or 40 (something like that question). Doesn’t she realize that it is a requirement to report underage children having sex, consensual or not, with adults for health professionals. Who is a mandatory reporter may differ from state to state, but her idea that teenagers having sex with an older adult goes unreported because of anonymous testing is just another myth promulgated by so-called protectors of children.
Oh my. . .is Linda Harvey still plying her religiously/conservatively correct nonsense at the Wingnut Daily? I keep wondering why, being a woman after all, she doesn’t take traditional roles more seriously – after all, she’s not supposed to be involved in public discourse.
Don’t you all get it?! We can offer AIDS testing or we can encourage better parent-child relationships. WE CAN’T DO BOTH!!!!
I’m not a big advocate for kids being sexualized too early. I think there is a lot of value in waiting for the right person and am concerned that much of our media trivializes sexuality and portrays it as meaningless.
However, we have to look at reality. Kids are having sex. Straight kids and gay kids. And some of them need to be tested for HIV.
So to answer Linda’s question: “Is it better to offer anonymous testing for minors – or to encourage better child-parent relationships?”
I guess that would depend on the parent and how they would respond to the following statement:
“Mom, Dad, I’m gay”
Because many times the reponse is “Get out of my house! I never want to see you again!”
An estimated 25-40% of homeless youth are gay kids and up to 26% of gay adolescent males were forced to leave home as a result of their sexual orientation.
https://www.safeschoolscoalition.org/RG-homeless.html
Linda isn’t spouting this nonsense because she really care about “the children”. Linda doesn’t care that some 17 year old gay kid may be concerned about HIV and would have to choose between testing and having a roof over his head.
Someone needs to tell Linda that false compassion is like cheap perfume. You may think it makes you seem sweeter but it really just makes others gag.
Timothy says, “And some of them need to be tested for HIV.”
I would say ALL sexually active teenagers need to be tested for HIV. Regardless of sexual orientation, teen sex tends to be of higher risk for a number of reasons (ranging from lack of education to no access to condoms).
We can offer AIDS testing or we can encourage better parent-child relationships. WE CAN’T DO BOTH!!!!
Are you being ironic or do you actually believe this? How about something like
“You really should discuss your concerns with a parent or guardian but we want you to have the information so here is the test. If you require counseling, I’m sure something could be arranged so that the results can be discussed with your parents in a safe environment.”
Hey, look!!! The person got the test AND ALSO got encouragement to develop better relationships with his parents or guardian. Maybe it really IS possible to do both.
Robis at May 2, 2006 04:58 PM
“I would say ALL sexually active teenagers need to be tested for HIV.”
Those opposed to testing could argue that two virgin kids who fool around together (gay or straight) probably wouldn’t need an HIV test.
But wait.. those opposed to testing also like to suggest that any sexual activity whatsoever outside of marriage will automatically result in horrible horrible disease and death by 42.
But I you and I can agree that all sexually active kids should have ACCESS to HIV testing even if the sexual activity in which they engaged is not likely to result in HIV transmission.
“two virgin kids who fool around together (gay or straight) probably wouldn’t need an HIV test.”
In ideal world, perhaps. In the real world, teens need to be taught to be wary, and that sometimes their peers may be afraid to reveal that they have been sexually active.
Bottom line, even if they’re not yet sexually active, teens need to be given a picture of what healthy, responsible sexuality looks like, including the full spectrum of options (abstinence, monogamy, safer sex, STD awareness, and disclosure to partners).
I wonder if any data is out there showing that kids who are well-informed about STDs remain abstinent longer than those given abstinece-type sex-is-scary hype…
Bill- yes, I was being ironical. She presents it as an either/or situation which it simply isn’t. Do I want to eat chicken for dinner or watch tv afterwards because OBVIOUSLY I CAN’T DO BOTH!!!!!
Am I missing something? I don’t understand the infographic…
I don’t understand the info graphic because — what the heck is “don’t tread on me” doing in there? I mean. Isn’t the whole hate-speechifyin’ anti-civil liberties crowd all about “treading.” I mean I’ve never felt more tread on then when I read their crap.
Hmmmm…. The infographic pokes more fun at XGW than at the AFA-aided hate site.
Which would be my fault, since I helped Dan with a key portion of the parody. I think I’m souring on this site’s strategy somewhat. Ready to venture in some different directions.
The graphic is well done, but I have absolutely no idea what it means 🙁
Bill said:
You really should discuss your concerns with a parent or guardian but we want you to have the information so here is the test. If you require counseling, I’m sure something could be arranged so that the results can be discussed with your parents in a safe environment.
This sounds logical but I wonder if it would really go that way? It would be helpful to have some pilot programs to see how they go. In general, I think any sexually active teen should have testing available for HIV and all the other STD’s. I am mindful, however, of those who wouldn’t want what could potentially be a 12 year old dealing with such an important issue without their parents. And yes, the parents could react very badly so there is no clear answer. Perhaps the advent of OTC HIV detection kits will help but then there would be no counseling in place. Definitely a difficult situation.
In the end, what Bill suggests might be the best compromise, especially since we are talking about saving lives.
David
The most sickening thingof Ms. Kennedy’s “Godly” Prose is that she cannot resist trying to make people think that all homosexuals cannot resist recruiting teenage boys. When will these people learn that ALL kids (“gay” AND straight) ARE going to have sex and that pushing them to think of themselves as defective is the greater harm than anonymous HIV-testing?
I don’t mind discussion of what I’ve written…but just for the record, I am not ex-homosexual.
Linda Harvey
Are you coming out to us Linda?
Linda,
I’m glad you’ve approved us discussing your public statement. I must admit that we all did feel a little unsure about doing that without your permission. Thanks.
And nobody thinks you’re an ex-homosexual.
Many, however, do retain some very firm opinions about what you actually, currently, are.
Comes with your job I guess.
Linda,
I, for one, never thought you were a homosexual, former or not. Clearly someone who has so little knowledge about gay people could not be gay herself.
Your biases and assumptions are so far removed from reality that they often make me laugh. There is no way whatsoever that you could have any practical knowledge so your ignorance clearly demonstrates that you are not a former homosexual.
But thanks for clearing it up for us, anyway.
Timothy, you may get a kick out of this. We did show a 1997/8? photo of Linda to a dear friend of the Sapphic persuasion….
“Is she a newsreader? If yes, ooooh yes.”
To the best of my knowledge Linda is not a newsreader. But there was once something about that hair… apparently. The hair. ????