|
Volume 3, Number 25
June 3, 2002
In this edition:
California Assembly Unanimously Passes Bill
Requiring Routine HIV Tests of Pregnant Women
California Assemblyman Rod Wright, a Democrat who represents
South-Central Los Angeles, asked his colleagues last week
to imagine visiting the maternity ward at Los Angeles County-USC
Medical Center. Look in the nursery, he said, and see the
infant born infected with the HIV virus. Understand that she
can be expected to die at age 10 or 12. And know that, had
the child’s mother been tested for HIV infection, doctors
would have had a 100 percent chance of preventing the disease
from being transmitted to the baby.
Blessedly, the chances of finding such an infant are substantially
lower than they were a decade ago. The rate of HIV infection
among infants dropped by 66 percent during the ‘90s.
In California, the number of infant AIDS cases dropped from
48 in 1995 to 6 in 1999. Still, those babies who are infected
are most likely to be found in hospitals in places such as
South-Central Los Angeles. According to the Centers for Disease
Control, 62 percent of HIV-infected children in the United
States are African-American.
"AIDS is the Number 1 killer in my community," said
Wright. "It’s not gang fights, it’s not drive-by
shootings."
Last week, the Assembly by a 70-0 vote approved a bill by
Wright that would make HIV testing a routine, ordinary component
of prenatal care. Under the bill, HIV testing would become
another in a number of routine blood tests given pregnant
women. They would be advised that HIV screening is part of
the test, and given the opportunity to say no if they choose.
The issue, said Wright, ought to be "a no-brainer."
Until now, it has been anything but. For years, AIDS advocacy
groups have almost universally opposed any move toward routine
testing of any group. Their political power in California
has been extraordinary.
The state does not have an HIV reporting system by name. Instead,
a secret identifier system will be used, so that public health
officials cannot know the names of individuals who test HIV-positive
in their communities. (The state does, however, require cases
of AIDS—the end stage of HIV infection—to be reported
by name.) They are helpless to notify sex partners and urge
them to be tested.
For the past several years, any effort to expand HIV testing
has been bottled up in the Assembly Appropriations Committee,
which was chaired by Assemblywoman Carole Migden, whose political
base is San Francisco’s gay community. Migden is termed
out this year and is running for the Board of Equalization,
and has stepped down as chairwoman of Appropriations.
This year, three AIDS-related bills, all by Wright, have
made it out of the committee. One is the prenatal testing
proposal. Another would allow for routine screening of inmates.
The third would require a study to determine whether the state's
secret-identifier reporting system might jeopardize its ability
to receive future federal AIDS funding.
The most persistent voice on behalf of these bills has been
that of a group called Beyond AIDS, centered in Ventura County
under the leadership of Dr. Cary Savitch. "Because of
Cary Savitch, there are hundreds of people in Ventura County
who have been active and involved," said Dr. Ronald Hattis
of San Bernardino, who is leading the group’s lobbying.
Hattis is optimistic the prenatal testing bill will be signed
into law this year.
Two years ago, when a watered-down prenatal testing bill
did make it through the Legislature, it was vetoed by Governor
Gray Davis. Since that time, the Centers for Disease Control
has changed its guidelines, calling for routine, simplified
testing that allows for both informed consent and the opportunity
for doctors to counsel against refusal to be tested. The American
College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends testing
that is "routine and unexceptional."
The science is stronger now than it was two years ago, Hattis
said, and so is the political dynamic. In 2000, the bill was
carried by a Republican assemblyman. "We now have a black
Democratic author who’s concerned about his community,"
Hattis said. "He’s very knowledgeable about AIDS
issues and some of the political barriers." Most importantly,
some AIDS groups have decided that the benefits of prenatal
testing outweigh concerns that the confidentiality of testing
results on the mother might be breached. "There is no
solid opposition," Hattis said. "We’re very
grateful for the vote."
[Ventura County Star, 5/29/02]
Gay Newspaper Says Exposing Others to HIV
Ought to be a Crime
The following editorial—entitled “Sometimes gay
sex ought to be a crime”-- was published by the Washington
Blade. The author, Chris Crain, is executive editor of the
Blade and can be reached at ccrain@washblade.com.
“I can still remember the moment three years ago when
my best friend gave me the painful news. The doctor’s
office had called him with the test results; he was HIV-positive.
My friend, we’ll call him ‘Stan,’ was in
his late-30s, old enough to remember the darkest days of AIDS,
and extremely active in gay rights work and involved in HIV
fund-raising. How could it have happened?
“Well, he went home with someone he barely knew and
had unprotected sex, and in a bitterly ironic twist, Stan
the pitcher decided that night to play catcher. When we first
learned the news, we were both caught up in ironies like that,
and the fact that he would never have even visited the bar
where he met the man who infected him if the electricity hadn’t
gone out in an earlier club he visited that fateful evening.
But in a matter of days, the story of his infection took a
more sinister turn, and began appearing to me to be not so
much a weird twist of fate as an utterly preventable crime--
yes, a crime.
“Even before Stan recovered from the shock of the
news, he mustered up his courage and called ‘Roland,’
his sex partner from that night, out of concern for that man’s
health. The news he had to deliver was something of a triple
whammy: that he had tested positive and that Roland ought
to be tested immediately. And since Roland had been playing
around on his boyfriend, both of them ought to be tested as
well, especially since Roland had said before topping Stan
that he was HIV-negative.
“My friend wasn’t prepared for the response
he got: ‘Oh, OK.’ That was all Roland had to say,
and in a flat monotone, without surprise at news that should
have been startling. Clearly, this guy already knew he was
carrying the HIV virus, had lied about it, and had insertive
anal sex, "topping" my friend, without a condom
or so much as a word of warning.
"There ought to be a law," was my first reaction.
As it turns out, there is, at least in most parts of the United
States. Intentionally exposing someone else to the virus that
causes AIDS is a crime in most jurisdictions, ranging from
a misdemeanor in some (like Maryland), to a felony in others
(like Virginia), punishable by some serious jail time.
“Right now, a gay couple in South Dakota is facing those
serious consequences-- to the tune of 45 to 90 years in prison
each-- after they were indicted for having sex with three
other men each, without revealing that they were HIV-positive.
Attorneys representing the two men say they plan to argue
that the couple’s sex partners should have known that
both men were HIV-positive.
“Until the case goes to trial, we won’t get
answers to some important questions: Did any of the couple’s
sex partners actually become infected with HIV? So far, the
answer appears to be no. How risky was the sex? Oral sex,
or even passive anal sex, don’t pose enough risk of
infection to justify prosecution, though the lessened risk
doesn’t relieve the moral responsibility of those who
know they carry the HIV virus from telling their sex partners.
Was the couple asked about their HIV status? If they lied
like Roland did, then criminal punishment seems even more
appropriate. But if they weren’t asked, should that
really relieve the couple from criminal culpability?
“All too often, when it comes to HIV infection, we
worry so much about the all-important "prevention message"--
Protect Yourself!-- that we end up blaming the victim, and
not those who knowingly infect others. If an attractive young
woman walks alone through a crime-ridden neighborhood and
is raped, we wouldn’t dream of blaming her for the attack,
even though she clearly could have done more to reasonably
protect herself.
“The same holds true for the HIV-negative man who has
unprotected sex with another man without asking his partner’s
HIV status. Yes, he could protect himself by asking his partner’s
HIV status. Yes, he could protect himself even better by assuming
all sex partners are HIV-positive and asking his partner to
wear a condom. If both men honestly believe they are negative,
then the fault can be more fairly shared, though it is worth
asking how recently each was tested for the presence of the
AIDS virus. But if the man on top knows he is HIV-positive,
then it shouldn’t matter-- at least if we’re talking
about moral and criminal responsibility-- whether his HIV-negative
partner followed the CDC guidelines for ‘safer sex.’
“HIV-negative men deserve protection from HIV-positive
tops who knowingly expose them to a deadly virus, for which
there is no cure. And if the HIV-negative man actually gets
infected, under that scenario, then it ought to be a crime,
and it ought to be enforced a lot more often than it is today.
“Anytime sex gets criminalized, there are of course
real dangers, and those dangers multiply when it’s gay
sex facing prosecution. If it turns out that the gay couple
in South Dakota alerted their sex partners to their HIV status,
or only engaged in oral sex, or even if they did not actually
infect their partners, then they should not be prosecuted,
and if they can, the law has been written too broadly. And
even if all the factors weigh in favor of the couple’s
criminality, a prison sentence that size is greatly out of
proportion with the crime.
“To be sure, finding out the truth about sex is difficult
enough, but especially in a court of law. Was HIV status discussed,
or not? What type of sex actually occurred?
Thorny questions, dangerously subject to games of "he
said, he said." But the same can be said, again, of rape
cases, which often turn on questions of consent and whether
intercourse actually occurred. Like rape laws, or any criminal
statutes, criminalizing this one area of gay sex, when one
man intentionally exposes another to the HIV virus, is more
about protection than prosecution. We cannot let our legitimate
fears around sodomy laws prevent us from doing what we can
to protect our own. And, like rape laws, criminalizing the
intentional exposure of HIV will also go a long way toward
protecting women. The epidemic of HIV infection among American
women, especially ethnic minorities, is often the result of
closeted men who have sex with women to establish their own
masculinity, or to reassure themselves that they aren’t
gay. These women, unlike my friend Stan and gay men like him,
aren’t even aware usually that their sex partner is
a member of a higher risk category.
“When it comes to the crime of HIV infection, it’s
time we put aside the political correctness. Of course we
should not be in the business of ranking the relative innocence
of those who acquire HIV, any more than we should relieve
individuals of their responsibility to protect themselves
from HIV infection. Anyone living with the AIDS virus, no
matter how they contracted it, deserves our compassion and
our unyielding efforts to find better treatments and, ultimately,
a cure. But that doesn’t mean we are hamstrung from
acting when some gay men recklessly disregard the health of
others, putting lives and health at risk. There ought to be
a law against that, and except for a few places like Washington,
D.C., thankfully there is.”
[The Washington Blade, 5/24/02]
Louisiana Man Arrested for Exposing Woman
to HIV
A Metairie, Louisiana man faces charges in East Baton Rouge
Parish for having unprotected sex with a woman without telling
her he was HIV positive. Darryl K. Womac, 38, was arrested
at his New Orleans office Thursday and booked with one count
of intentional exposure to HIV. He is free on $15,000 bond.
The alleged victim, who lives in Zachary, told police she
met Womac in Destin, Florida, last summer and that a five-month
relationship ensued. Prosecutors in Baton Rouge will decide
whether to charge Womac, a computer programmer for the U.S.
Department of Agriculture. The exposure charge carries a prison
term of up to 10 years upon conviction. Womac’s medical
records show he tested HIV positive in 1998, police said.
Louisiana law bans anyone from exposing someone to the virus
through sexual contact without consent.
[The Times-Picayune (New Orleans), 5/25/02]
Louisiana Man with HIV Sentenced to Life for
Raping Teen-age Girl
An HIV-positive Louisiana man convicted of raping a teen-age
girl in the back seat of his car last fall and exposing her
to HIV was sentenced to life in prison Thursday. Johnnie J.
Roberts, 31, of Marrero, was convicted of forcible rape, kidnapping
and intentional exposure to HIV in March and faced a maximum
sentence of 90 years. But prosecutors sought a life sentence
for Roberts under the state’s repeat offender law because
he has prior convictions for armed robbery, HIV exposure,
battery of a correctional officer and possession of stolen
property. Criminal Court Judge Dennis Waldron sentenced Roberts
to life on the rape charge, plus 40 years for kidnapping and
the maximum 10 years for intentional exposure to HIV.
The victim, who was 17 at the time of the assault, told
the jury that Roberts forced her into the back of his Cadillac
about midnight September 18 in Terrytown and drove her to
an Algiers park, where he repeatedly raped her. While she
was being raped in the car, the teen spotted Roberts’
temporary license tag for the 1989 Cadillac Eldorado, complete
with his name and address. She eventually broke free from
Roberts and ran into the dark streets, knocking on doors until
someone answered and called police.
Roberts denied raping the teen-ager, with his defense attorney
Robert Jenkins arguing any sex that took place that night
was consensual.
Prosecutors said the victim has not tested positive for
HIV but continues to get tests regularly. It may take a person
infected with HIV four to six months to test positive for
the disease, experts say.
Roberts had been released from prison about three months
before the rape. In a Cottonport prison during April 1998,
he bit another inmate on the ear, arm and finger during a
fight and later pleaded guilty to exposing him to HIV. In
the same incident, Roberts also tossed a correctional officer
over a bed and was charged with battery. He received an extra
two years for the HIV charge.
Louisiana law makes it a crime to expose another person
to HIV through sexual or other contact without the victim’s
consent.
[The Times-Picayune (New Orleans), 5/31/02]
Long Island Man Pleads Guilty to Infecting
Ex-wife with HIV
Morris Lindenbaum made a good first impression eight years
ago at a singles club, his former wife said. He was kind.
He seemed honest. And when she asked him whether he carried
HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, he insisted he was clean.
"He lied and said he was negative," said the woman,
64, now of Florida, who is HIV-positive but spoke on the condition
that she not be identified. "He knew he was positive
in 1988."
Lindenbaum, 49, of Glen Head, New York, finally admitted
the truth last Tuesday in a Riverhead courtroom when he pleaded
guilty to attempted reckless endangerment for knowingly infecting
her with the virus. Lindenbaum admitted having unprotected
sex with his then-wife at a time that he knew he was infected
with HIV and not informing her of the infection.
As part of a plea deal, Suffolk County Court Judge James
Hudson will sentence him to 5 years of probation, said Bob
Clifford, spokesman for the Suffolk district attorney’s
office.
Lindenbaum, owner of a trucking company, originally had
been charged with assault, but Clifford said that knowingly
infecting someone with a fatal disease does not rise to the
level of an assault charge as the law is currently written.
He said District Attorney Thomas Spota has asked the legislature
to change that. "The district attorney would like to
see a statute that would establish penalties commensurate
with a violent felony," Clifford said.
Lindenbaum’s ex-wife, who has a civil suit pending
against him, said she was disappointed he won’t serve
time in jail, but was otherwise satisfied with the deal. She
credited Assistant District Attorney Ming Liu Parson with
getting Lindenbaum to admit what he did to her. Though the
woman said her health is relatively good now, she said it’s
been a struggle to keep the infection in check. "It’s
very stressful," she said. "I’m fighting it
every day of my life. I don’t want to die." With
three grown children and a grandchild, she said she still
has plenty to live for. She said she married Lindenbaum in
1996, two years after they met, and began to get sick shortly
afterward. The following year, she found out he was HIV-positive.
Until he pleaded guilty, she said he never told her the truth
about his condition. "That was kind of the end of our
marriage," she said. The plea deal allows her to put
the episode behind her as much as she can, she said. "This
is a good thing," she said. "He did do it. I’m
pleased that justice is finally going to be done with this
man."
[Newsday (New York, NY), 5/24/02]
HIV-positive Mississippi Man Sentenced to
Seven Years for Raping 12-year-old Girl
An HIV-positive Mississippi man convicted of sexually assaulting
a 12-year-old girl who has since given birth to his child
has been sentenced to seven years in prison. Hinds County
Circuit Judge Swan Yerger on Friday sentenced Tony L. Kelly,
36, of Clinton, to 20 years in prison with 13 years suspended
after Kelly pleaded guilty to statutory rape. His plea came
after DNA evidence confirmed he was the father of the girl’s
baby, born last summer. Kelly gave up all parental rights
to the child he fathered. Also, under state law, he must register
as a sex offender. Prosecutors said the mother of child agreed
to the recommended sentence. The maximum sentence for statutory
rape is 20 years to life.
Prosecutors said the girl was 11 when the first assault
occurred on September 20, 2000. They said the girl was visiting
her father at an apartment complex in Clinton. Hinds County
Sheriff’s Department investigators said the girl had
left her father’s apartment to visit a friend on the
third floor when she was allegedly assaulted in the complex
by Kelly. The girl said she was assaulted again in October,
November and December and again in January 2001 and February
2001 at the apartment complex.
It wasn’t until the girl’s mother questioned
her in March 2001 about her enlarging stomach that she told
of the attacks, investigators said. She identified Kelly in
a photo lineup.
[Associated Press, 6/1/02]
Gay Men Accused of Exposing Others to HIV
Claim Innocence, Say Being Gay “Inferred” They
Had HIV
Two gay men in South Dakota are facing 45 to 90 years in
prison after being separately indicted this month for intentionally
exposing several sexual partners to HIV. A grand jury indicted
Aberdeen resident William Kenneth Jenigen on six counts of
intentional exposure to HIV, a felony in South Dakota. The
grand jury indicted his partner, Jay Lee Woods, on three counts
of intentional exposure to HIV.
"Our investigation indicates there were numerous individuals
who had sexual contact with one or both individuals,"
said Mark McNeary, the state’s attorney in Brown County,
South Dakota, where Aberdeen is located. "[Jenigen and
Woods] knew they were HIV-positive and knew this for an extended
period of time," McNeary said. "And they failed
to inform the victims prior to contact."
Each case involves three alleged victims, and Jenigen and
Woods have pleaded not guilty. The state of South Dakota has
a two-year-old law making it a felony to intentionally expose
someone to HIV infection by, among other actions, engaging
in sexual intercourse or other intimate physical contact.
An "affirmative defense" in such a case can be made,
however, if a defendant convinces the jury that the person
exposed to HIV knew the sexual partner had the virus and consented
to sexual intimacy with that knowledge.
Judge Eugene Dobberpuhl said Jenigen and Woods would not have
to prove their defense "beyond a reasonable doubt"
but would only have to convince the jury about what happened,
the Aberdeen News reported.
Public defender Scott Kuck, who is representing Jenigen,
said he plans to argue that his client’s alleged sexual
partners knew of his HIV status, even though he did not tell
them about it. Jenigen, 35, and Woods, 41, each face up to
15 years in prison and/or a $15,000 fine for each charge.
Both men have requested jury trials but trial dates have not
been set.
The alleged sexual incidents took place between April 2001
and February 2002. Both men were released this month from
Brown County Jail on $25,000 personal recognizance bonds.
Kuck said Jenigen plans to testify at his trial. "My
client will say that these people knew [Jenigen and Woods]
were HIV-positive," Kuck said, in part because the gay
community in Aberdeen is small and tight-knit.
Jenigen previously said the men he had sex with knew he
was HIV-positive and still agreed to have sex with him, the
Aberdeen News reported May 17. Adrian Pratt, publisher of
the Aberdeen News, is married to Jenigen’s sister, Amy.
Kuck told the Washington Blade May 21 that Jenigen did not
tell any of his sexual partners in Aberdeen about his HIV
status.
McNeary said the cases against Jenigen and Woods began after
an unidentified individual contacted him about the two men.
Based on the information this individual provided, McNeary
began an investigation that eventually led to the grand jury
indictments of Jenigen and Woods. Though Jenigen did not tell
any of his sexual partners about his health status, Kuck said
he will argue either that someone else told them, they heard
rumors, or that they could infer that his client might be
HIV-positive because HIV/AIDS rates generally are higher among
gay men.
South Dakota health officials have said that none of the
31 area residents tested for HIV as a result of the Jenigen
and Woods cases have been determined to be infected, the Aberdeen
News reported. They will be retested for the next six months,
however, because the virus can have a long incubation period.
The South Dakota law about this issue states, however, that
actual transmission of HIV is not required for criminal exposure.
In an unrelated case in April, law enforcement officials
in South Dakota charged an HIV-positive college student in
Huron with exposing others to the virus. The student, Nikko
Biteramos, is 18. More than 200 people, most of whom had sex
with Biteramos’s alleged sexual partners, have been
tested for HIV in the Huron area as a result of the case.
Three of the people there have tested HIV-positive. Biteramos’
trial is scheduled to take place this summer.
[The Washington Blade, 5/24/02]
California Senate Passes Bill to Allow Drug
Addicts to Purchase Needles without a Prescription
Adults in California could buy up to 30 hypodermic needles
at pharmacies without a doctor’s prescription under
a bill approved Thursday by the state Senate. Although peace
officer groups opposed the bill, supporters were able to convince
enough senators that more clean needles made available more
easily would reduce the spread of diseases like HIV and hepatitis
among drug users. The 40-member Senate approved the bill on
a 21-to-12 vote.
The bill’s author, Senator John Vasconcellos, D-Santa
Clara said "The bill just recognizes addicts are going
to shoot up.” Forty-four other states allow pharmacies
to sell needles and syringes without a prescription, Vasconcellos
said. California now requires a prescription to buy needles
unless they are used to inject adrenaline or insulin.
Vasconcellos’ bill would let licensed pharmacies sell
up to 30 clean needles to anyone over 18 years of age. Proponents
claim that allowing needles to be sold at pharmacies compliments
existing needle exchange programs, which operate in the state’s
largest cities.
Senator Bill Morrow, R-Oceanside, said that sharing needles
was "part of the drug culture" and that addicts
would continue doing so, regardless of how easy it is to get
clean needles. "This bill allows addicts who share needles
to have more needles to share," Morrow said. "There
will only be a proliferation of disease." Another opponent
of the bill, the Committee on Moral Concerns, claimed that
making clean needles more readily available would encourage
children to try injection drug use.
The California Narcotics Officers Association said it objected
to the bill because it allowed unfettered distribution of
needles-- unlike needle-exchange programs, which have local
oversight.
Vasconcellos’ biggest challenge comes in the Assembly,
where his bill is now headed. A similar measure was killed
in the lower house’s health committee. Governor Gray
Davis has yet to take a position on the measure.
The bill, SB1785, is available online at www.senate.ca.gov
[The San Francisco Chronicle, 5/24/02]
Illinois House Passes Bill to Study the Connection
Between Needle Availability and Disease Prevention
A measure pushed by Illinois state Representative Sara Feigenholtz
(D-Chicago) to study possible changes in Illinois’ laws
regarding hypodermic syringes cleared the Illinois House of
Representatives May 9. Passed by the Senate April 18, the
measure awaits the signature of Governor George Ryan (R).
The bill would establish the Commission on Medical Instruments
to review the connection between the availability of sterile
hypodermic needles and disease prevention. Illinois is one
of five states that require prescriptions to purchase syringes
and needles. Most states have relaxed such laws. Feigenholtz—who
supports increased access to needles for addicts-- said the
commission, working under the Illinois Department of Public
Health, will review the available medical studies on the issue
and make recommendations to state legislators.
[Chicago Free Press, 5/22/02]
Hepatitis C May be Transmitted Through Use
of Contaminated ‘Household Items’
Hepatitis C may be spread through toothbrushes and other
"common household items," according to research
presented during an annual meeting of gastroenterologists.
A study presented at Digestive Disease Week examined 30 individuals
infected with hepatitis C to see whether the virus was present
on their used toothbrushes. Researchers collected saliva samples
from volunteers before and after they brushed their teeth.
After brushing, toothbrushes were rinsed in salt water and
inspected for the presence of hepatitis C genetic material.
The scientists discovered that 30 percent of volunteers’
saliva tested positive for hepatitis C before brushing and
38 percent tested positive after brushing. In addition, 40
percent of the toothbrush rinsing water tested positive for
hepatitis C, and the participants whose water tested positive
"were not significantly different in their oral hygiene
or disease severity" than patients whose water did not
contain the virus.
Study co-author Dr. Claus Hellerbrand of the internal medicine
department at the University of Regensburg in Germany said
that it is not known whether the traces of the virus on the
toothbrush could infect another individual, but noted that
infection "was not impossible." He said that it
is probably difficult to transmit the virus via toothbrush
but urged people to be careful with household objects. "This
study strengthens the evidence to advise patients with hepatitis
C to not shar possibly infected household objects," Hellerbrand
said.
The study authors said that certain "publicly used
objects" such as barbershop razors should be regulated
by health officials. Although hepatitis C is most often transmitted
through blood and needles, between 10 percent and 40 percent
of individuals diagnosed with hepatitis C have "no obvious
risk factor or known mechanism" for contracting the disease.
[Kaiser Daily HIV/AIDS Report, 5/23/02; Reuters
Health, 5/22/02]
“Sharp Rise” in Syphilis in Sonoma
County, California
Sonoma County, California health officials have seen a sharp
rise in the number of infectious syphilis cases, according
to the Department of Health Services. Public health officer
Dr. Mary Maddux-Gonzalez said officials are concerned because
infectious syphilis is a highly contagious form of syphilis.
She said most of the cases involve men who have had sex with
other men, who have had multiple partners or have engaged
in anonymous sex. Only one syphilis case was reported in 2000,
but 19 were reported in 2001, with two of them being infectious
syphilis. Already this year, five of the six new cases involve
infectious syphilis. Syphilis is transmitted by direct contact
with skin lesions or mucous membranes of infected individuals.
[The Press Democrat (Santa Rosa, CA), 5/28/02]
Infant Deaths in the U.S. from Syphilis Has
Not Changed Over the Past Decade
Although fewer U.S. children are born infected with syphilis,
the rate of fetal and infant deaths associated with the disease
has not changed, researchers from the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC) report. A baby can be born with
syphilis, meaning he or she has congenital syphilis, if the
mother has the STD and is untreated or receives inadequate
treatment. Babies with congenital syphilis can suffer hearing
loss, bone deformities and seizures, and they may die during
or after birth.
In the May online issue of Pediatrics (2002;109;5:e79),
Dr. Deborah A. Gust and colleagues report their analysis of
CDC data on congenital syphilis from 1992 to 1998. During
these years, 14,627 cases of congenital syphilis were reported,
and there were 942 deaths, including 760 stillbirths. This
translates to a fatality rate of 6.4 percent, the report indicates.
Most of these fatalities (96.2 percent) resulted from congenital
syphilis that went untreated, was inadequately treated or
went without documented treatment.
Gust’s team found that infant mortality from congenital
syphilis decreased as the number of prenatal health care visits
rose. Compared with women who had 10 prenatal care visits
or more, women who had no prenatal care were almost eight
times more likely to deliver a stillborn or an infant who
died.
[Reuters, 5/29/02]
The HIV Update is a weekly report of articles, studies and
other information related to HIV/AIDS, sexually transmitted
diseases and related risk behaviors compiled from various
news sources by the Children’s AIDS Fund.
The Children’s AIDS Fund is a non-profit, non-partisan
organization dedicated to
helping limit the suffering of HIV-impacted children through
direct assistance and resources, as well as through technical
assistance for their parents and care-givers.
For additional information, call (703) 471-7350.
|
P.O.
Box 16433 
