Letters in VIEW : Other Prenuptial Tests
- Share via
Attorney Behourz Shafie is quoted as saying, “The danger of having one’s constitutional rights violated is worse than the danger of giving AIDS to somebody else” (in “Public Reaction Mixed to Prenuptial AIDS Test,” by Beth Ann Krier, Feb. 4). A woman should think twice about marrying a man with that opinion.
I wonder what Mr. Shafie’s opinion is about the long-standing (and, so far as I know, uncontested) requirement for a prenuptial blood test for venereal disease and rubella. Does he also think this is a violation of constitutional rights? Is it less important to have a test for a usually treatable disease than for a disease which could be a death sentence?
I believe our country must do everything possible to attempt to stop the spread of this terrible disease. Everything. If prenuptial tests help, in any way, then let’s have prenuptial tests and not nitpick about constitutional rights, unless those rights protect the innocent. That’s what the prenuptial test would do--protect the innocent.
LOUISE HAUTER
La Canada
Sign up for Essential California
The most important California stories and recommendations in your inbox every morning.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
