This speaks to fairness; we must test virgins, faithful married coupes, celebites, etc. It is only fair.

So much for 15 years of telling school kids that behavior making them over 50 times more likely to contract HIV is ´normal and healthy´, eh?

One wonders where the ´U.S. Preventive Services Task Force´ fell off the ´tolerance and diversity´ train...

The Democrats will fight this for the same reasons they are against photo ID. I think America already knows who the main AIDs carriers are.

The likelihood of me being a carrier of the AIDS virus is approximately .000001%. Please explain again why I need to be tested?

AIDS among white, heterosexual non-drug users is largely a myth. The incidence is almost zilch. More evidence that ObamaCare will politicize even medicine.

So people who choose to live their lives in a decent and responsible manner have to take a test so those who choose to live indecently and irresponsibly don´t have to be embarrassed. No thanks.

I think OP is correct. It is a way to get our DNA.

Saw a commercial today that said "we are all at risk from AIDS." I looked at the TV and said "I´m not!!" And statistically I am at 0% risk being a happily married monogamous hetero female non IV drug user.

AIDs will be there new push as if we aren´t wasting enough money on an almost completely preventable disease.... as opposed to many other illnesses which languish with little to no research because their victims aren´t sexy enough. Makes me sick!!

I have never had a blood transfusion, I do not do drugs, I can´t remember the last time I had sex (or wanted to have sex) so just how high am I on the risk-factor meter? I don´t believe that I even register.

"fearing they would be seen as immoral" Heck, today it´s a badge of honor to be a druggie or engage in one form of weird sex or another. The real reason is that they would be denied medical and life insurance.

"The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force"

Didn´t know I was paying for such a thing.
I´m sure Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, et al, had this kind of government in mind when they risked everything to bequeath this republic to us.

I have no difficulty with everyone being tested but there will probably be more false positives than there will be actual cases detected in populations that are not at risk. Early detection of HIV infection does produce a better long term outcome. If the test is routine and inexpensive this is a good thing.

Politically correct epidemiology. Everybody knows what causes AIDS, who is likely to get it, and how it can be prevented. AIDS is overwhelmingly a disease of promiscuous homosexual males who engage in unprotected anal intercourse with a number of partners that would be simply unbelievable if not corroborated by numerous studies. We are talking hundreds of partners per year. Intravenous drug abusers are a distant second. Hetereosexuals who are not promiscuous are a still more distant third. All of these people took their chances and lost. The ones to feel sorry for are innocent victims of blood transfusions and accidental needle sticks. Unbelievably, some homosexuals are demanding the "right" to donate blood even though they are the highest possible risk group. There has been tremendous progress in testing of blood and blood products for HIV - but no test is foolproof and human error is always a risk. The very idea that someone would knowingly add to the risk of a transfusion recipient, however slight, is reprehensible beyond words. Everyone does NOT need to be tested for HIV, any more than everyone needs to be tested for syphilis. This is politically correct public health gone mad. It should be stopped before it gets started.

Follow the money! Which Democrat donors have a business or connections to make big bucks from a gov´t contract for this testing?

Think of the tens of thousands of people who died unnecessarily because the GLBT activists treated AIDS as a civil rights issue rather than a health issue. They have tens of thousands of people´s blood on their hands.

No, this does NOT fall under Public Health epidemic. First of all, it would be almost impossible for me to have AIDs, but even if I did get it from long, long ago (though I did already test since then) it would be impossible for me to pass it on to anyone anyway. I don´t engage in any behavior that would connect me with another person´s fluids one way or another.

As others have said, this is not about AIDs at all...this is about getting our DNA to track us and control us. That is why they started taking DNA from everyone convicted of crimes (even petty stuff like being under the influence or having a nickel´s worth of controlled substance on them). It is their way to control everyone...Big Brother and Enemy of the State all rolled into one.
So, this would be an invasion of privacy and it is worse than an infringement on our 4th Amendment.

There is no such thing as a high-risk group when it comes to AIDS. There is high-risk behavior but no high-risk group.

The reason why the liberal mainstream media loves the label "high-risk group" is because it fits into the liberal notion of identity politics. Once you entrench identity politics into the mainstream way of thinking, it also entrenches the notion that certain groups must receive privileges, whether it be in the way of taxpayer funds or some other special treatment.

The other point is this: why should monogamous, faithful people have to test for it? There´s no reason that such people should have to test for it at all. However, it is in the interests of the liberal mainstream media to make you think that you should be tested. It´s about changing your mindset so that you accept that you are just as bad as everybody else.

It´s the ultimate form of socialism - ie we are all equal and thus must be tested. My response is this: no, we´re not all equal. Some of us are better than others in how we choose to behave.

In Africa, the more times you´ve been jabbed the likelier you are to have AIDS, and there is evidence suggesting that AIDS in Africa took off as an epidemic (rather than a kind of isolated thing) as an accidental outcome of a campaign against sleeping sickness when everybody in Cameroon got jabs. Now they want to jab all of us. ... you know, they never study the dirty needle angle in re AIDS in Africa because it would compromise the Trust people have in health care )) Plus which I think western aid agencies have an obsession with condom distribution in Africa, and dirty needle transmission wouldn´t lead to that preferred outcome. Anyway, if they jab all of us they can maybe get a real epidemic going here too. untrustworthy people.

I´ve been donating blood every 8 weeks since 1977, so my blood has been tested for HIV several times a year for most of that time. But that has been voluntary.

I´m a 60 year old female who has been married for over 30 years. My risk level is 0%.

Isn´t this a huge invasion of that famed "right to privacy" which the Supremes discovered in Roe v Wade? OP is right - zippy wants our DNA. I shudder to think why.

How would we publicly identify those who are HIV positive ? Would a tattooed {A+} on the forehead, like a {D} after a politician´s name be enough to warn the public to stay far away. One spreads a terminal STD and the other spreads lies and liberal brain rot.

You go first USPSTF.