HIV-Positive Chilean Mothers Claim To Be Forcibly Sterilized, Abused In Hospitals (VIDEO)

As nations around the world commemorate World AIDS Day, a group of HIV-positive women in Chile has come forward with more sobering news, claiming they were forcibly sterilized after giving birth.

A new report by the Center for Reproductive Rights, "Dignity Denied: Violations of the Rights of HIV-Positive Women in Chilean Health Facilities" examined the allegations of 27 HIV-positive women living in Chile. Researchers found that the Chilean women were routinely denied care, verbally abused, and pressured to agree to sterilization -- or sterilized without their consent.

"We are not animals, we are human beings and we deserve some respect," said one woman. Though her baby was not HIV-positive, she claims she was told if she refused to be sterilized, the child would be given up for adoption. "Even hospital personnel discriminate against us."

Watch Al-Jazeera's full report on the Chilean women's claims here:

Comments

[caringstd66]

10:11 PM on 12/19/2010

not sure how many people infected hiv in Chile. according to the report on the largest and most trusted HIV health support and safe dating community Positivemate,,com Over 70 million people are living with STDs in the U.S. alone, as well as an estimated 400 million people worldwide. every one should take this issue seriously, not only moms. gay.. or whatever.

[bkterre]

11:54 AM on 12/16/2010

And let me add that if you are a gay man and sticking your penis into another man's behind then you deserve AIDS because that is nasty and everyone knows that. The behind is where feces come from.

[CuteAndVicious]

04:04 AM on 12/17/2010

Tell your mom that she should have left you in the toilet then...

[bkterre]

11:52 AM on 12/16/2010

My Father has type 2 Diabetes and my Grandfather did as well. Neither were ever overweight.My Grandfather is deceased from complications that ultimately resulted from Diabetes. Both lived a very healthy lifestyle as far as diet and excersice were concerned. Explain that one... it's not just a disease for obese people.

[HannaSchmitz]

09:13 AM on 12/16/2010

It's a different country and they will not be treated like Americans. I do believe if they are HIV positive, then they should not have children. It's too risky to pass it onto the baby and expensive to support both baby and mom. I"m sure these women have no insurance in Chile.

[Charles L King]

07:11 PM on 12/15/2010

It would be amusing if it wasn't so grim, that we are so hung up on sexual matters that we never notice that 7% of the population of the USA has diabetes, a disease that is no less preventable than AIDS. Diabetes is the number 3 cause of death in the USA, but AIDS attracts many times more attention than diabetes. Makes no sense. Furthermore the incidence of diabetes continues to RISE in the USA while the incidence of HIV infection continues to fall. Finally, there are more people going around with undiagnosed diabetes than the number of people going around with undiagnosed HIV. Both are worrisome situations nevertheless.

[HannaSchmitz]

09:15 AM on 12/16/2010

Because type 2 diabetes of what obese people get. And people don't care about obese people. We do care about AIDS/HIV because Hollywood says to. If my friend is obese and stays that way and gets type 2 diabetes, I won't feel sorry for her. If my friend gets HIV from a blood transfusion, then I would feel sorry for them or if they caught it from their husbands. I would not feel sorry for the husbands.

[Charles L King]

04:40 PM on 12/16/2010

You do realize, of course, that type 2 diabetes is many times more expensive to the country as a whole and the government in particular than HIV, don't you? Don't you care about that, Hanna?

[Ayrial GentryHoffman]

11:32 AM on 12/15/2010

I think that less people should be able to ignorantly procreate. I agree with sterilizing anyone with HIV, whether they've had children yet or not, men and women. As well I think that welfare recipients should be on mandatory birth control until they are out of the welfare system. Anyone who cannot afford to take care of a child should not have one, but obviously if you already do and you have a major life change and need help, you could get help for those you already have, but why create more?

[sunnybunny]

02:22 PM on 12/08/2010

Wouldn't anyone with common sense want to get their tubes tied (or a vasectomy) if they found out they had HIV? Any resulting pregnancy would be very high risk. On the other hand, that sort of thing should never be forced on someone without their consent under any circumstances. I don't however see any problem with "pressuring them to agree to it" if that means strongly recommending that as the most responsible choice. I think that is a good idea for just about anyone with a serious medical condition that would make pregnancy very dangerous to either mother or child. There is a big difference between strongly recommending something that is a responsible choice, and forcing it on someone.

[Charles L King]

06:49 PM on 12/15/2010

The MODERN facts are that getting pregnant whilst having HIV is no more risky to the baby than getting pregnant whilst you have diabetes. Furthermore, more people die every year from diabetes related conditions than from AIDS. Now you see the entrance to the slippery slope that everyone is talking about. Well, maybe you can't.

[HannaSchmitz]

09:16 AM on 12/16/2010

Type 2 is what fat people get. Is that what you are talking about?

[DMSmith]

04:15 AM on 12/03/2010

Let's start with you, just to be sure!

[Hollywooddeed]

09:08 AM on 12/03/2010

And who decides that? You? No thanks.

[Manny Peddy]

06:02 PM on 12/02/2010

One reason this gives me pause is that there might be a cure for AIDS around the corner.

And we do know lots about how to prevent transmission from mother to infant, and this video gave two examples of women that gave birth to healthy babies.

[HannaSchmitz]

09:19 AM on 12/16/2010

But how did they get it? That's important. Hookers, iv drugs users.

[ForemostPanda]

03:38 PM on 12/02/2010

progressives use to support forced sterilizations. how do they feel now?

[ambrecel]

03:43 PM on 12/02/2010

When?

[Manny Peddy]

06:00 PM on 12/02/2010

100 years ago in the US. It was commonplace. Look at the history of Planned Parenthood and other progressive organizations.

It might have continued even later than that.

[Laurel Elise Ava]

04:32 PM on 12/02/2010

Conservatives used to support racial segregation. How do they feel now?

The point is: you can't claim that being "progressive" (whatever that means to you) is wrong just because *some* people *labeled* "progressive" in the past believed in something despicable.

The word "progressive" doesn't even have a real meaning. When you think progressive and I think progressive, we are thinking of different ideas. Just as when you think conservative and I think conservative, we are thinking different things. Just as the words change, so do the people, and so do ideas.

You are essentially saying that anyone you label ''progressive'' has bad ideas because of other people labeled "progressive" in the past. It makes no sense logically.

[Daisytoo]

05:41 PM on 12/02/2010

Actually, that would be Democrats who supported institutionalized racism; Lincoln and others after Lincoln interested in conserving the Republic, have stood four square for freedom for all. We call this group Republicans.

As for progressivism, the term has the same core belief system as always. Today there are self proclaimed 'progressives' in both major party persuasions.

Even though some of the focus has changed re: issues (for instance, concern over 'climate change' as the latest gambit to grow govt. to gargantuan proportions) eugenics and its attendant population 'control' (leaving only those who 'know best' after culling various undesirables) remain core issues for Progressives. Both Hitler and his American cohort, Margaret Sanger, were Progressives bent on 'improving' others through total government. At the heart of Obamacare lies the same destructive progressive ideology: Government Knows Best.

[Supersteel]

03:29 PM on 12/02/2010

You can't favor forced sterlization. It's barbaric.
 
HIV positive people shouldn't be getting pregnant in the future once their status is known because they shouldn't be having unprotected sex.
 
But you can't force sterilzation. it's too much.

[neighborhoodmole]

04:00 PM on 12/02/2010

I guess they could get artificially inseminated to protect their partner, but this is still a risk to the child. Too bad they don't just adopt if they still want to take care of kids so bad. Even then, is it fair to be a mother to anyone when your lifespan is probably going to be shorter? Maybe if treatments continue to improve and this becomes a chronic but manigable illness then it might be OK, but right now, the stress of pregnancy and childcare is going to hurt their health.

[sunnybunny]

11:16 AM on 12/09/2010

Couldn't they have unprotected sex with other HIV positive people? That wouldn't spread anything. (As long as the pregnancy risk were out of the way)

[ambrecel]

03:10 PM on 12/02/2010

What a complex issue to think about.

I do want to say, sorry that the ladies are HIV positive.

[DawnK]

02:29 PM on 12/02/2010

I do not agree with forced steralization but I wish some women wouldn't be so selfish with their reporductive decisions. If you are clinically depressed is that fair to put that kind of a life on your child? If you have HIV why would you take the risk of passing that along to an innocent child? These women have the right to make whatever decision they want (pro-choice) I sometimes just think their choices are selfish and not thought through.

[anitaj]

05:31 PM on 12/02/2010

Some women do not learn that they are HIV+ after learning that they are pregnant. With proper medication the risk of transmitting the virus to the child is very low.

[Krisgi]

05:50 PM on 12/02/2010

Oh, thank you. Someone with real, hard facts in the midst of a mindless discussion.

[chanceofrainne]

05:30 PM on 12/14/2010

How dare you bring facts and logic into this discussion.

[Christian Figueroa]

10:06 PM on 12/02/2010

are you saying people with a disease aren't innocent? please don't have any children.

[DawnK]

01:53 PM on 12/03/2010

I didn't say the mothers aren't innocent. Your anger is twisting my words. I'm saying that there are women in the world (believe or not) that have children because they can and they really want to. Just because you can and you want to doesn't always mean you should.

[GeorgieMark]

01:52 PM on 12/02/2010

I can't believe this!

I am reading through the comments and people are infact condoning to the practise of sterilisation!!!!!
Horrified beyond words (and this is a first for me)

[Daisytoo]

02:48 PM on 12/02/2010

Eugenics is a basic platform of the ideology of Progressivism. Doubt me? Take a look at one of the leaders of the modern era progressives, Margaret Sanger. The Nazis admired her ideology - found it inspirational. Apparently, so does Chavez: http://saynsumthn.wordpress.com/2010/09/16/planned-parenthood-attempts-to-celebrate-hispanics-despite-board-member-connections-to-eugenic-and-anti-immigration-groups/

[DandaPanda]

02:57 PM on 12/02/2010

so did Justice Holmes...

[Laurel Elise Ava]

04:18 PM on 12/02/2010

what argument are you trying to make?

[MsVella]

01:39 PM on 12/02/2010

I'm blown away by the incredibly ignorant comments left here!!

A woman who is HIV positive has every right to give birth.

[GeorgieMark]

01:55 PM on 12/02/2010

as do people with other genetically transmitted diseases!

[anitaj]

05:33 PM on 12/02/2010

HIV is a virus, not a genetic condition. With proper medication the chance of transmitting the virus to a child is very low. That said, HIV+ individuals having unprotected sex endangers the health of their partners.

[steveswife]

02:42 PM on 12/02/2010

So does she also have the right to have unprotected sex? Because that is what you are saying.

[Daisytoo]

02:49 PM on 12/02/2010

Yes, she actually does have the right to have unprotected sex. What next? The Progressive sex police?

[samilli3]

03:12 PM on 12/02/2010

Steveswife, that is a very ignorant comment