The Los Angeles Times, Times Mirror Square, Los Angeles, CA - Thursday, May 2, 1996
Janet Hook, Times Staff Writer

The bill, which passed the House on a 402-4 vote, was a compromise with the Senate that broke a months-long deadlock over legislation to extend the Ryan White Act, the principal source of federal funds for AIDS treatment.

The measure requires that states carry out existing government guidelines calling for routine HIV counseling and voluntary testing of pregnant women to qualify for assistance.

Opponents of efforts to require immediate testing hailed the compromise because it postponed mandatory testing until after a five-year effort to promote voluntary testing of pregnant women, which they argue is a more effective way to stem transmission of HIV.

"It was critical to focus our federal resources on voluntary testing of mothers rather than testing newborns when it would be too late to try to prevent most HIV transmission," said Sen. Nancy Landon Kassebaum (R-Kan.), leading Senate architect of the compromise.

But others were distressed at the inclusion of even a watered-down mandatory testing requirement, which critics say violates the privacy rights of women and may discourage them from seeking prenatal care.

"This proposal starts in the right place and veers off in the wrong direction," said Alexander Robinson, a lobbyist for the American Civil Liberties Union's AIDS Project. "The spread of HIV is most effectively controlled by cooperative, rather than coercive measures."

The compromise is expected to clear the Senate--perhaps as early as today--and be signed by President Clinton.

The Ryan White program, for which Congress provided $738 million this year, provides money for medical care and support services for people with AIDS or who are infected with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.

The bill requires the secretary of health and human services in 1998 to determine whether HIV testing of newborns had become a standard medical practice. If that is the case, states would qualify for Ryan White funds only if they could show that the number of infected newborns had dropped by at least 50% by the year 2000, or that 95% of pregnant women were being tested. If neither of those goals had been achieved, states would have to require testing of all newborns born to women who have not been tested to qualify.

Copyright 1996/The Times Mirror Company. Reproduced with permission. Reproduction of this article (other than one copy for personal reference) must be cleared through the Permissions Desk, The Los Angeles Times, Times Mirror Square, Los Angeles, CA 90053.

960502
LT960502

Always watch for outdated information. This article first appeared in 1996. This material is designed to support, not replace, the relationship that exists between you and your doctor.

AEGiS presents published material, reprinted with permission and neither endorses nor opposes any material. All information contained on this website, including information relating to health conditions, products, and treatments, is for informational purposes only. It is often presented in summary or aggregate form. It is not meant to be a substitute for the advice provided by your own physician or other medical professionals. Always discuss treatment options with a doctor who specializes in treating HIV.

Copyright ©1980, 1996. AEGiS. All materials appearing on AEGiS are protected by copyright as a collective work or compilation under U.S. copyright and other laws and are the property of AEGiS, or the party credited as the provider of the content. .