Posted on 08/29/2022 7:22:56 AM PDT by fwdude
The right-wing movement is really having a moment right now, from stripping the federal right to abortion to the prohibition of gender-affirming care in some states. Now, in the shadow of Roe v. Wade being overturned in June, the architect of a controversial Texas abortion law — a man who has already targeted marriage equality — is setting his sights on preventative HIV care. If he gets his way, Texans and other Americans could lose access to PrEP, leaving tens of thousands susceptible to a diagnosis and opening the door to the denial of HIV care.
After serving as Texas state solicitor general from 2010 to 2015, Jonathan Mitchell founded a Texas law firm in 2018 with the goal of challenging decades-old Supreme Court rulings. Mitchell helped draft Texas’s Senate Bill 8, the restrictive 2021 abortion law that made everyday people bounty hunters who could sue anybody they believed may have been involved with the procedure.
Mitchell now represents several clients who oppose the Affordable Care Act’s mandate that insurance companies cover PrEP medications, among other things, in Braidwood Management v. Becerra, filed in federal court in the northern district of Texas in 2020.
(Excerpt) Read more at hivplusmag.com ...
"PrEP Access" - access to our wallets to compensate for other's reckless, high-risk behaviors.
"Bounty hunters" - People who report violations of the law when they have personal information of such crimes.
"Far-Right" - anyone who does not grovel in slobbering obeisance before sodomites.
Anyway, this Mitchell guy sounds like the king of legislator I'd like a congress full of.
“PrEp access” means having other people pay for the consequences of catching a well-known disease from having buttseks with scores of random strangers.
Does PrEP Lead to Riskier Behavior?
...Public health experts are concerned that men using pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) will stop using condoms and may thereby actually increase their risk of HIV infection.1 This type of adaptation—taking more risks after adopting an effective prevention method—is called risk compensation....
It’s already been proven that the rollout and strong marketing of PrEP has lead to the astronomical spike in all other sexually transmitted diseases, particularly among homosexual men. The past 5 years have seen record high rates in this population. And these disease are more and more becoming drug resistant.
It’s ‘radical’ to not allow the left to turn our lives upside down, oppress and impose their degenerate morality on us.
Yep. Surreal, isn't it.
"Pay for my expensive PrEP and/or HIV drugs so I can go to wanton orgies every weekend.
"No."
"Stop imposing your morality on me!!!"
Rates of condom-less anal intercourse among MSM have been on the rise since 2000, years before PrEP was available, and experts say we might see a greater increase as more MSM begin to use PrEP. Increased risk compensation could diminish the prevention benefits of PrEP on a population level, especially if it overlaps with poor adherence to PrEP—that is, if you have more MSM on PrEP but not fully protected against HIV due to suboptimal dosing and more of these men are engaging in more condom-less anal intercourse. Risk compensation could also begin to have a negative impact on the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of PrEP, if the potential benefits of PrEP are significantly offset by higher infection rates, leading to a higher number needed to treat in order to avert a single infection.
It seems that the incidence of widespread, effective HIV treatments has also had the "risk compensation" effect on these men. If HIV/AIDS is just "a pill a day" consequence, then why fear it so much? (And then they complain about the pill a day as being so onerous.)
I liken this whole issue to people who like to play Russian roulette, either to get a rush or to benefit financially on bets. Add about 20 chambers to the revolver cylinder and you reduce the risk of "losing" substantially. But should you even be playing still, even if you add 100 extra chambers?
Reality:
There is nothing like “federal rights to abortion” in the constitution, and “gender affirming care” is nothing but mutilation and cutting off of a human's God given sexual parts.
“gender-affirming care”
These guys have PhD in Orwellian speak.
So genital mutilation is now “gender-affirming care”.
“Those who control the language control the culture”
It's even worst than that. They screech that "the right to abortion was taken away from us," when the fact of the case is that it never existed - Roe was decided WRONGLY.
So, ex post facto law requires going after every abortionist in states which formerly banned abortion (Texas) and try them for crimes.
Morality isnt at the center of it. Limited government intrusion and states right are.
I'd disagree with you somewhat. Everything boils down to moral issues. The left knows this but libertarians like to pretend that the two can be separated.
What is his justification for opposing preventive care?
Morality is important but we’ve been pulled so far away from moral foundations that asserting right and wrong in many cases is demonized has hate. The left are terrified of accountability and personal responsibility. Their efforts are aimed at promotion of “if it feels good, do it” without regard to objective criteria. They are masters of manipulation and excuse providing. How else can we explain somehow as ridiculous as the puff piece on the school principle single mom of two, with Masters and PhD, from Los Angeles wanting her $200,000+ in student loans canceled because she’s a disadvantaged black woman and needs to save for her kid’s education. Really? She even admitted to staying in school and taking on even more student debt because she couldn’t afford to pay off her undergrad loans. Make it make sense! Yet her position is presented by the media as perfectly reasonable. Let’s not forget she’s got her kids in on her crusade as well. Can’t reason with anyone so narcissistic.
First, it's debatable whether encouraging and subsidizing highly risky behavior is "preventative" at all. We still have HIV/AIDS at high epidemic levels after all we know about it and after decades of advances in treatment.
Second, these PrEP treatments are extremely expensive ($13,000 per year at the low end) to the ultimate payer (insurance companies, US through taxation, etc.)
Third, the population at which this strategy is aimed is extremely careless and irresponsible, and effective adherence to the required drug regimen is rarely realized. There have been "fall back" strategies suggested as a result, such as "PrEP on demand" where a larger does is taken just in the vague vicinity of a risky sexual encounter (either before or after), instead of every day. This results in a greatly reduced level of efficacy. Also suggested are long-acting injectables. But if a daily regimen is too hard to manage, why would an infrequent injection schedule be any easier to track and manage?
PrEP may work in a perfect world, but the world is far from perfect and least of all those in this population, who subject themselves to hazardous risks at far more frequency than the general public. It's on the order of giving your 11-year-old birth control pills because you just KNOW that she is going to be having sex.
It is Orwellian to call castration “gender-affirming care”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.