"Remember the children. One child is too many, especially if that child is ours," Mary Kirby of People Against AIDS told the Senate Public Health Committee. Protection of children was only one of many arguments made for passage of legislation aimed at preventing the spread of AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome). But committee testimony and floor debate on how best to respond to the epidemic divided lawmakers. One group argued that Illinois must protect society by testing for the disease and by tracing carriers, while another wanted more money spent on education and research. The testers and tracers passed their bills. The educators and researchers did too. The result was an array of AIDS legislation on Gov. James R. Thompson's desk. But no new money to implement the programs arrived with it.

Last year only two bills on AIDS were introduced in the General Assembly. Neither passed. This year 69 bills were introduced. Fifteen passed. Although most of them passed overwhelmingly, they were not approved until after full debate. The most controversial would implement tracing of sexual partners of AIDS victims and testing of couples to be married, prison inmates, anyone who needs hospital blood tests and convicted sex offenders. Other bills that passed establish a registry of AIDS cases in Illinois, permit quarantine of those who knowingly spread the disease, and require notification of a school superintendent of any pupils who test positive for the AIDS virus.

Rep. Penny Pullen (R-55, Park Ridge) and Sen. Aldo A. DeAngelis (R-40,Olympia Fields) sponsored and passed seperate bills requiring mandatory tracing of sexual partners. Pullen believes her approach offers a moderate and reasonable first step in dealing with the problem. "My concern this year was that if we ended up doing nothing or doing very little, that down the road there would be both the need and the public demand for stronger measures," Pullen says.

Others think contact tracing is the wrong approach. Rep. Ellis Levin (D-5, Chicago) opposes tracing, arguing that it produces the opposite of its intended effect. He thinks the legislature has gone overboard. "There is a total and absolute panic in the legislature. They are willing to pass everything. Constituents aren't nearly as panicked as they are," Levin says. The cost of such a program concerns Levin. He thinks that the money could be better spent on research to combat AIDS. Rep. Jesse White (D-8, Chicago), chair of the House Human Services Committee and subcommittee on AIDS, agrees with Levin: "We could very easily spend more money on research, education and treatment."

Both contact-tracing bills require the state Department of Public Health to conduct the program, but leave participation voluntary. Rep. Jane Barnes (R-38, Palos Park), House sponsor of the DeAngelis contact-tracing bill, called the General Assembly's action "the most comprehensive effort to protect the public." Barnes contended that contact tracing is not new. At least five other states now use the procedure.

Opponents of contact tracing listed the prohibitive cost, violation of privacy, the small number of people to be reached by testing or tracing and the false sense of security given by tracing. Sen. Dawn Clark Netsch (D-4, Chicago) explained, "The real problem is it's a misdirection of resources. Everyone agrees it will produce almost no results." In short, she believes contact tracing is bad public policy. To trace the carriers the state must find out who has AIDS, so testing for the AIDS virus is linked to contact tracing. Bills passed by the House and the Senate call for widespread testing. One bill provides that all people admitted to a hospital, age 13-55, would be tested if they had to have other blood tests anyway. Other provisions that passed require testing of prison inmates upon entering state institutions and at regular medical examinations. Amendment sponsor Pullen believes, "It is the responsibility of the Department of Corrections and the state to find out who tests positive and to protect uninfected inmates from those who are infected." Another provision requires that prisoners be tested no later than 60 days prior to their release, a measure Pullen believes is necessary to protect society. Organ, blood and semen donors would also be tested under other bills passed by the legislature.

Another bill sent to the governor would require premarital testing. Couples would pay for the test, required 60 days before the wedding. If one or both tested positive, a marriage license would be issued, but the couple would be counseled by the Department of Public Health. Rep. White doubts the effectiveness of premarital testing: "In this day and age, the test for AIDS is a little after the fact," White says.

Agreement between the houses was not reached without argument. Senate President Philip J. Rock (D-8, Oak Park) urged the Senate to reject House amendments that broadened one contact-tracing bill. "I'm sick and tired of the House irresponsibility. This is nutty, nutty, nutty," he said. Sen. Netsch echoed Rock's concerns in debate. She urged other members to "Stop, look, and listen to what we're doing." Netsch said that such measures are not a proper investment of funds. "We don't know what we're doing; we're not thinking it through," she warned.

Whether to emphasize testing and tracing, educating and research, both or neither was left to Thompson. Both sides hope for the best. Rep. Pullen wants to see her bills signed. "I'd like to see the governor sign these bills and then see how they're working to see whether we need to do anything more," she says. Rep. White doesn't expect all the bills to be signed: "Gov. Thompson would be foolhardy not to follow the recommendations of those people on the AIDS Council."

Rep. Levin emphasizes the impact these bills could have on society. "It's important for the governor to hear not only from those he's been hearing from up to now but from other voices who need to speak out. The implications for society are so great." At the beginning of August gubernatorial action was said by Thompson staffers to be a month away. The only bill he had said he would sign was for premarital testing. A factor in his decision, an aide said, would be the cost of the various proposals in a year when money is tight.

Deborah L. Gertz