HIV testing needed to protect infants and their mothers

The Sun's report on a study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study on AIDS transmission from pregnant women to their babies is welcome news indeed ("Study finds transmission of AIDS to infants cut 67%," Aug. 11).

The researchers credit AZT drug treatment of HIV-infected pregnant women and their newborns with this dramatic reduction and promise virtual elimination of maternal infant transmission of HIV with the use of newer drugs and Caesarean deliveries.

Unfortunately, the study fails to stress the importance of HIV-testing pregnant or pre-pregnant women to assure early treatment that protects the fetus.

In past studies, 45 percent of women giving birth to HIV-infected babies did not know they were HIV positive and reported they did not know the source of their infection -- which was usually intravenous drugs or a drug-using or otherwise HIV-infected sexual partner.

Action is needed. All pregnant or pre-pregnant women must be informed about HIV risk, offered HIV testing with counseling and given the required AZT treatment to protect their unborn.

Physicians need continuing education and enough time to counsel women and their partners about HIV risk.

Protecting HIV-test confidentiality must be weighed against expediting life-saving care for mother and fetus. Mandatory testing of pregnant women, now done for syphilis, must be seriously considered for HIV.

Anything less ignores the importance of this study to the health of mothers and babies and its implications for medical practice.

Dr. Eric M. Fine

Baltimore

The writer is chairman of the Council on Public Health of MedChi, the Maryland state medical society.

Bipartisanship is not Gov. Glendening's style

The Sun's article about Gov. Parris N. Glendening's election as vice chairman of the National Governors' Association notes that Mr. Glendening, "speaks with pride of his efforts at bipartisanship" ("Glendening positioned to lead governors' group," Aug. 7).

However, the only reason Mr. Glendening was picked as vice chairman of the governors' association is that the post is rotated between Democrats and Republicans. He didn't need the support of his Republican colleagues.

Mr. Glendening's style as governor is hardly bipartisan. His executive and judicial appointments are almost uniformly Democratic. His budgets have lavished spending on Democratic constituencies, while penalizing areas such as Carroll County that vote Republican.

Mr. Glendening is the most fiercely partisan governor in recent history. The professor from College Park should remember that he is governor of Maryland, not just the Democratic Party.

I expect that Mr. Glendening will use his new post to promote Democrats in 2000, not to bring together Republicans and Democrats together.

David S. Marks

Perry Hall

Uncle Sam's been soaking his rich uncle: the taxpayer

The analogy of the dying rich uncle in The Sun's editorial "Taking the long view on debt" (Aug. 12) was flawed.

A better analogy: Your rich uncle (the taxpayers) has been paying all of your expenses for years, increasing the amount he sends each year. Having gotten accustomed to his largess, you have not paid much attention to how you have spent it.

And you have run up considerable debt, figuring that uncle will pay it, too.

You suddenly find that if he continues to increase his contribution you will have much more than you reasonably need.

You have two choices. You can do as the Republicans propose -- use two-thirds of the excess to pay off the mortgage and car loan, then tell uncle that he need not send as much the next 10 years.

Or you can do as the president proposes -- use two-thirds to pay off debts, spend the remaining $1 trillion on new programs and then tell the uncle that you will need an additional $100 billion over the next 10 years.

And if your rich uncle has anything left when he does die, the president will expect anywhere from 37 to 55 percent of that also.

John F. Billing

Ocean Pines

National debt must be paid before anyone gets a refund

In his recent letter, George Pfeiffer wonders whether any local business could get away "holding" a "surplus" like the U.S. government has ("A taxpayer who wants a refund," Aug. 13).

I wonder what local business could get away maintaining a debt of nearly $5 trillion -- without its bankers taking a lien on what's owed, before any taxpayer is "refunded" his or her "overpaid" money?

We must pay off our national credit card debt before anyone gets a tax cut.

Stephen L. Sprecher

Catonsville

Boy Scouts have the right to define their moral code

How can Andrew Ratner be against the right of the Boy Scouts of America to determine its own code of conduct ("Boy Scouts wrong to keep policy that bars gays," Aug. 12)?

Participation in the Boy Scouts is purely voluntary; the organization doesn't force anything on anyone. Most of the scouts are younger than 18, and they generally start scouting around age 10 or 11.

One of scouting's principles is that sexual activity among these boys is not consistent with their oath to remain clean or morally straight; neither is extramarital sex by the organization's leaders.

This attitude is consistent with the beliefs of many Americans -- and many Scouts' parents -- who find scouting's moral stance attractive.

They don't want the Boy Scouts to endorse sexual activity of any kind for their boys.

Not only does Mr. Ratner accuse the Boy Scouts organization of being prejudiced and bigoted for this, he evidently thinks it should have to endorse activities that the organization regards as anathema.

If you don't agree with the Scouts, if the principles are beneath you, just leave the group alone.

Steve Metzbower

Ellicott City

I admit that I don't know much about the history of the Boy Scouts of America. But I do know the group has always stood for God and country.

Why don't the Boy Scouts have a God-given right to keep out people who don't meet the organization's moral code?

Tim Wright

Pasadena

To conserve water supply, raise price and stop waste

So far, the governor has made the right moves on our water crisis, but it's not enough. Maryland needs a great deal of rain over the next six months to end the crisis. So the chance that the crisis will end soon is very small unless unless we conserve more.

What else can we do? The price of water in the Baltimore area should be at least tripled.

We can afford it because Baltimore-area water is now very cheap. A price hike is the best way to promote conservation of water -- and it would reduce the need for the police to enforce water rules.

Our police are already stretched pretty thin. How can they stop people from, say, topping off their pools at night?

Let's raise the price of water now. After the crisis ends, the rates should go back to normal.

Mason Olcott Jr.

Pikesville

The ban on some water usage during the current shortage has helped me to find out that we really can conserve -- that we are really wasteful human beings.

We can survive using our resources more sparingly, even when the ban is lifted.

Let's be mindful that a water shortage can happen again. Let's not take our resources for granted.

Vonzella Miller Murray

Baltimore

To our readers

The Sun welcomes letters from readers. They should be no longer than 200 words and should include the name and address of the writer, along with day and evening telephone numbers.

Send letters to Letters to the Editor, The Sun, P.O. Box 1377, Baltimore 21278-0001. Our fax number for letters is 410-332-6977. The e-mail address is letters@baltsun.com.

All letters are subject to editing.