Category: health issues

More proof that child marriage is sanctioned in Islam (if you needed proof!)

~ Ann Corcoran ~ Leave a comment

Yesterday we told you about a UN discussion on the practice, sanctioned by the Islamic ‘faith’, of child marriage that was cut short because critics from Pakistan, Egypt and Iran forced into silence the UN Human Rights Council. 

Now, comes a report from Liveleak in which a Saudi cleric assures listeners that since Mohammad married a child, so could Muslim men today marry a child.  (Hat tip: Bill)

The Prophet Muhammad is the model we follow. He took ‘Aisha to be his wife when she was six, but he had sex with her only when she was nine.

Read the text and see the film clip here.

Spencer: Islamists killing free speech at UN

~ Ann Corcoran ~ Leave a comment

Robert Spencer (Jihad Watch), an authority on Islam,  writing today at Frontpage magazine reports that a discussion about practices sanctioned by Sharia law, such as female genital mutilation, child marriage and stoning as punishment for adultery, was squelched at a recent meeting of the UN Human Rights Council. 

As more Muslim immigrants enter the US through refugee resettlement and other immigration programs we have been fearful that brutal practices such as these may creep into America—indeed may already be here!

We have written often about polygamy and honor killings being practiced among immigrants from Islamic countries as well.  See our categories, health issues and women’s issues, for more on all these affronts to human dignity.

Spencer begins: 

The war against free speech is advancing rapidly: Associated Press reported Thursday that “Muslim countries have won a battle to prevent Islam from being criticised during debates by the UN Human Rights Council.” Council President Doru-Romulus Costea explained that religious issues can be “very complex, very sensitive and very intense…This council is not prepared to discuss religious matters in depth, consequently we should not do it.” Henceforth only religious scholars would be permitted to broach them.

“While Costea’s ban applies to all religions,” AP explained, “it was prompted by Muslim countries complaining about references to Islam.” The ban came after a heated session on Monday, when the representative of the Association for World Education (AWE), in a joint statement with the International Humanist and Ethical Union, denounced female genital mutilation, the penalty of stoning for adultery and child marriage as sanctioned by Islamic law. Egypt, Pakistan and Iran angrily protested, interrupting the AWE speaker, David Littman, with no less than 16 points of order, and succeeding in getting the Council’s proceedings suspended for over half an hour. In the course of this contentious discussion, the representatives from the Islamic countries made numerous revealing statements – statements that are well worth examining as Islamic nations and organizations call with increasing insistence for restrictions on free speech in the West.

Imran Ahmed Siddiqui, the representative from Pakistan, echoed the ever-echoing refrain of all Islamic apologists in the West, when he complained that Littman’s initiative on genital mutilation, stoning and child marriage amounted to an “out-of-context, selective discussion on the Sharia law.”

Read the whole Frontpage article here.

Journal of American Medical Association reports high cost of vaccinating refugees in the US

~ Ann Corcoran ~ Leave a comment

A report in the most recent Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) says that our practice of allowing refugees to enter the US unvaccinated is costing the US taxpayer a bundle and possibly resulting in the introduction of preventable diseases.

I was surprised to learn that refugees can wait a year to be vaccinated.  

Since 2000, approximately 50,000 refugees have entered the United States each year from various regions of the world. Although persons with immigrant status are legally required to be vaccinated before entering the United States, this requirement does not extend to U.S.-bound persons with refugee status. After 1 year in the United States, refugees can apply for a change of status to that of legal permanent resident, at which time they are required to be fully vaccinated in accordance with recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). A potentially less costly alternative might be to vaccinate U.S.-bound refugees overseas routinely, before they depart from refugee camps. To compare the cost of vaccinating refugees overseas versus after their arrival in the United States, CDC analyzed 2005 data on the number of refugees, cost of vaccine, and cost of vaccine administration. This report summarizes the results of that analysis, which suggested that, in 2005, vaccinating 50,787 refugees overseas would have cost an estimated $7.7 million, less than one third of the estimated $26.0 million cost of vaccinating in the United States. Costs were calculated from the perspective of the U.S. health-care system. To achieve public health cost savings, routine overseas vaccination of U.S.-bound refugees should be considered.  

They also suggest that preventable diseases may enter the country due to this practice.

In addition to cost savings, vaccination of refugees overseas has the potential to reduce importation of diseases into the United States and reduce costs associated with response to outbreaks. Refugees often come from areas where vaccine-preventable diseases are endemic (e.g., measles in Africa). During 2004-2007, CDC responded to 19 outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases that occurred in overseas camps housing U.S.-bound refugees.

One thing JAMA did not mention, and maybe they don’t know, is that refugees can ‘disappear into the woodwork’ of America within the first few months of their arrival and no one even knows if they are vaccinated because the volags do not keep track of refugees they resettle. 

See our entire “health” category to learn more about other health issues related to refugees.

And, sorry for the lousy font in the quotes.  Either I’m incompetent or sometimes it seems Wordpress has a mind of its own when it comes to moving text to our blog.

HIV and refugees: A reader answers my question

~ Ann Corcoran ~ Leave a comment

Before reading this post go back and read my post yesterday in which I asked how do HIV positive refugees get into the US.   A reader has kindly given us the information:

I hope I can shed a little light on refugees/HIV.

US immigration has certain conditions that are considered ” excludabilities”, such as certain crimes and certain medical conditions, particularly “Class A” medical conditions.

A “Class A” condition is something that is presently communicable and a threat to the public health in its present status.

For example, active TB is a Class A Condition, that prevents entry to the country. However, after treatment, the TB becomes “inactive” and is reclassified ” Class B” , which allows entry to the country provided that follow-up treatment is ensured so that the condition does not become active. That is a responsibility that the Volags must assume to ensure that class B refugees receive follow up treatment.

Some Class A conditions (of which HIV is one …and that status never changes) require a ” waiver”.

A waiver requires that other requirements be met, depending on the condition and application for waiver must be submitted prior to approval of an entry visa.

For HIV, the requirements are that a known medical provider must be named who will provide follow up care for the applicant, and a number of other requirements.

Several years ago, the waiver process was very complex and lengthy, and , in fact, many applicants died prior to the waivers being granted.

For other (non-refugee) immigrants, that old process is still in place, thus, most family based immigrant applicants are not able to complete the process since sponsoring relatives are usually not able to provide the financial means for their applicant relatives (who are usually not eligible for public medical assistance but require private insurance).

Since refugees are eligible for public medical assistance, this is not seen as a barrier, and the federal government has vastly streamlined the waiver process for refugees with HIV. (It’s important to note that the HIV status of refugee applicants is only discovered after their processing and initial approval under other criteria).

At present, the process simply requires that the prospective Volag accept the case and provide the contact information of an HIV medical provider who has agreed to provide care and follow-up and that contracted overseas entities provide counseling sessions to the applicant.

Approved refugees supposedly receive an orientation to their condition and counseling in prevention and other issues surrounding living with the virus.

In reality, there are problems. The overseas counseling seems to vary greatly. From personal experience, many refugees have a very spotty knowledge of HIV , how it is transmitted, etc. and are often in denial that they even have the virus. While they are required to sign forms stating that they are fully aware, the simple fact is that many are NOT aware . Additionally, because of confidentiality regulations, no one else is informed, INCLUDING SPOUSES, of the condition. (Obviously the sponsoring Volag is aware, but regulations again prevent them from sharing ANY information with anyone except directly to the medical provider).

In my experiences, it is very rare for HIV infected persons to inform their spouses (or other partners) of the conditions (state laws vary about disclosure, however. But in my state, it prevents disclosure to spouses without the HIV client’s written consent… and you can imagine that it’s rare for consent to be given).

Also, many refugees come from cultures where ” safe sex” practices are unheard of and would cause alarm to their partner if introduced, thus there is a lot of unsafe sex which can transmit the virus to their partners.

The confidentiality regs are so strong that it also prevents the medical provider from informing the Volag of any problems, thus preventing them from providing any specific counseling to the client. (Example…. An HIV positive man has not informed his wife, and continues to have unprotected sex with his wife….. he may tell the HIV counselor but the counselor cannot inform the Volag or the wife). This happens a LOT.

On the other hand, if left in their country of asylum (at least for most refugees), HIV is still truly a death sentence. That is no longer the case in the US and persons with HIV can lead long and productive lives. (I have a friend who is an HIV specialist MD and he sees it for most people as a lifelong condition much akin to TB, high blood pressure, Hep B or other diseases for which we fortunately have treatments to control it). I am thinking in particular of one woman who became infected through a rape and who was devasted and distraught for the longest time, but who is now in good health and functioning very well.

I could go on and on, and there really are a lot of problems and concerns, but at least I hope to have cleared up how refugees with HIV are allowed to enter the US.

 

What is the truth about HIV and refugees?

~ Ann Corcoran ~ Leave a comment

Yesterday the Washington Post published an opinion piece by Andrew Sullivan who says that all immigrants with HIV aids are barred from the US.     He begins “Phobia at the Gates”:

Twelve countries ban HIV-positive visitors, nonimmigrants and immigrants from their territory: Armenia, Brunei, Iraq, Libya, Moldova, Oman, Qatar, the Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Sudan and . . . the United States. China recently acted to remove its ban on HIV-positive visitors because it feared embarrassment ahead of the Olympics. But America’s ban remains.

It seems unthinkable that the country that has been the most generous in helping people with HIV should legally ban all non-Americans who are HIV-positive. But it’s true: The leading center of public and private HIV research discriminates against those with HIV.

HIV is the only medical condition permanently designated in law — in the Immigration and Nationality Act — as grounds for inadmissibility to the United States. Even leprosy and tuberculosis are left to the discretion of the secretary of health and human services. 

I am sure that last fall when we had our September Forum (see our whole category) in Hagerstown, MD about refugee resettlement that the State Department representatives told us the ban on refugees with HIV had been lifted by the Clinton administration.    Here is a post in which I mentioned the supposed lifting of the ban.   Now I’m wondering if it isn’t really lifted but just ignored by those admitting refugees to the US.

By the way, one of the flaws in Sullivan’s argument involves who pays for HIV treatment of immigrants.  He says they should be required to carry private health insurance.  That is not going to happen with refugees who get medical care gratus from local governments.

Take a look at the problems some county health departments are having with the cost of health treatment for refugees.  Ft. Wayne, IN (Allen County) comes immediately to mind.

Would treating HIV like any other medical condition cost the United States if such visitors or immigrants at some point became public dependents? It’s possible — but all legal immigrants and their sponsors are required to prove that they can provide their own health insurance for at least 10 years after being admitted. Making private health insurance a condition of visiting or immigrating with HIV prevents any serious government costs, and the tax dollars that would be contributed by many of the otherwise qualified immigrants would be a net gain for the government — by some estimates, in the tens of millions of dollars.

Sullivan does mention that immigrants with all other diseases including leprosy and tuberculosis are not legally banned.   A Somali refugee died of TB in a Tyson’s meatpacking plant in Emporia, KS last year—funny you never heard that reported in the mainstream media.

I would really like to know what is the truth about refugees with HIV.