tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2058188035264594577.post1285140083940758887..comments2023-09-29T05:16:37.208-04:00Comments on PragmaticIdealists: This is What Incompassionate Conservatism Looks Likemike3550http://www.blogger.com/profile/09621465191508532187noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2058188035264594577.post-35019305772755458612009-02-27T00:54:00.000-05:002009-02-27T00:54:00.000-05:00Those state senators need to be challenged in the ...Those state senators need to be challenged in the next election, and I will start a PAC for your uncle Larry, but I find myself conflicted about this proposed law. I feel that women often get marginalized by public policy decisions that apply only to them in a biology-related way, like regulations having to do with going through the dangerous and scary pregnancy process (abortion, etc). And when laws are passed that require women to do things that only they can do, I get all libertarian. I mean, will presumably often single mothers have to pay for this test, or will the state? If, heaven forbid, the test is positive, who pays for the treatment? And shoot, if we're passing that law, shouldn't men have to get tested before they even have sex with women, something that can obviously lead to an HIV-infected baby? (Because if a woman was infected through sex with a man, he might still be out there impregnating other women.) Don't get me wrong, I think preventing the spread of HIV to babies is a really important goal, but this is kind of like closing the barn door afterwards - and just like birth control and rape prevention, the only person society holds responsible for the whole thing is the woman.E.https://www.blogger.com/profile/14161410481139111077noreply@blogger.com