PrEP offers 100% protection against HIV.
It’s heavily subsidized through public health channels, manufacturer rebate programs to help with high deductibles for insured people, and grant organizations like the PAN Foundation. Truvada has a generic now. Plus, in 2019 the federal government designated it as a preventative therapy that ~all insurance plans must cover without copay or deductible [0].
Now, it’s true that not everybody is insured (though people who are economically vulnerable tend to qualify for heavily subsidized insurance under the ACA or Medicaid). Still, the costs of Prep specifically in the US, while very high, don’t tend to be borne by the patients directly.
[0] [PDF] https://nastad.org/sites/default/files/2021-12/PDF-PrEP-Cove...
I really hate in US everything has to be political. Other countries are not like that.
A relevant quote:
> Many of these state laws, then and now, criminalize actions that cannot transmit HIV – such as biting or spitting – and apply regardless of actual transmission, or intent. After more than 40 years of HIV research and significant biomedical advancements to treat and prevent HIV transmission, many state laws are now outdated and do not reflect our current understanding of HIV. In many cases, this same standard is not applied to other infectious, treatable diseases. Further, these laws have been shown to increase stigma, exacerbate disparities, and may discourage HIV testing.
Got I hate this cultural war so much!
Well, it could still fit under consent and rape. Not disclosing such important information before unprotected sex is kind of rapey!
> Generally, the best practice would be for states to reform these laws to eliminate HIV- specific criminal penalties except in two distinct circumstances. First, states may wish to retain criminal liability when a person who knows he/she is HIV positive commits a (non-HIV specific) sex crime where there is a risk of transmission (e.g., rape or other sexual assault). The second circumstance is where the individual knows he/she is HIV positive and the evidence clearly demonstrates that individual’s intent was to transmit the virus and that the behavior engaged in had a significant risk of transmission, whether or not transmission actually occurred.
> For states that choose to retain HIV-specific criminal laws or penalty enhancements beyond these two limited circumstances, the best practice would be to reform and modernize them so that they accurately reflect the current science of risk and modes of transmission, the quality of life and life span of individuals who are living with HIV, account for circumstances where the failure to disclose is directly related to intimate partner violence, and ensure they are the desired vehicle to achieve the states’ intended purpose in enacting them initially or retaining them in modernized form.
[The document continues with specific, scientifically backed advice that would help inform HIV-specific statutes.]
1: https://www.hivlawandpolicy.org/sites/default/files/DOj-HIV-...
---
As for you in particular, I'm not sure who's culture warring here. Maybe this discussion would be more interesting if you provided a tangible argument based in health or science rather than vague political gesturing.
https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/blog/laws/do-i-have-to-tell-a-s...
> A defendant might be negligent for infecting a partner with HIV if:
The defendant knew he or she had AIDS or was HIV-positive;
The defendant was negligent in not disclosing his/her status and/or not using a condom or dental dam; and
As a result of that negligence, the plaintiff acquired the disease through the transmission of HIV and suffered damages (such as medical bills and/or pain and suffering).It might still be a tort, but anything can be a tort.
The connection between marriage and abortion isn't what you think it is.
77% of abortions done by people who are not married and 46% done by women who are not married and not even cohabiting.
Abortion is a symptom of a problem which is the lack of marriage and the highly promiscuous lifestyle that is sold to us. Married people when there is a child on the way (planned or unplanned), there is little to no reason to get an abortion. Sleeping around lifestyle, of course the first thing that happens when pregnant, abortion...
And you realize that people of every age group are having less sex than any time in the last 30 years, right? It's almost like this "promiscuous lifestyle" you're so terrified of doesn't exist.
To make more women married, we would have to roll back the clock on all those hard won freedoms. Let's not do that, let's maybe just make birth control more accessible, effective and affordable. Boom! Abortion problem solved.
The person I was responding to initially clearly does not want to solve abortion this way.
They believe they are the only sane men and women in a world of shadows and madness because that's the only way they can continue to function. There is no reasoning with someone who's gone that far. The veneer of egalitarianism that politics in the U.S. has prevents anyone from actually doing anything to stop this increasingly volatile group lest the intervening mediators be seen by their peers both within the volatile group and without as aggressive savages who would subvert well established conventions. The potential mediators must let themselves be stabbed and reply with "That is quite impolite" or else they lose all trust from said peers.
Virtually every cultural subgroup in history had their birthrates plummet once they reached a certain amount of wealth. Evidence indicates that if anything, poverty is good for population growth.
I never see poor people collectively failing to have children.
I only ever see wealthy people complain they aren't wealthy enough to have children and once they have more money that's when they'll have children.
It doesn't actually take very much money at all to have a child if you have no standards.
And all it cost us was western civilization committing suicide!
Not providing a society the cultivates the families that create and cultivate children has. Providing a system that helps parents raise children rather than be wage slaves makes people want to have kids.
Cool, I take it you'll join my anti-immigration and anti-women-in-the-workforce rally then? It's my simple solution to raise wages so that families are affordable on a single income.
I don't think your simple solution is quite so simple.
Are you really trying to imply that a "prudish lifestyle" where people actually have long-term relationships and marry is bad for birthrates, and more casual sex is good?
And so are birthrates, as a result.
Not sure if I'd recommend doing that, but people will find a way to screw if they can.
1: Getting off prep, in which case kidney/bones should return to normal.
2: Switching to a newer version of prep called Descovy (in the US), which is has less of the aforementioned side effects, but is more expensive because there is no generic for it yet, and may not be covered by some insurances.
Although technically not sanctioned in the US (IIRC), the 2-1-1 method can also be an option for planned encounters: 2 pills 24hrs before the encounter, and 1/day for 2 days after the encounter.