Once upon a time, in a far off land, a boy and a girl courted and fell in love. Although they lived in the big city, they decided to tie the knot in Montana, where the boy’s parents live. But before the state would recognize their union, the girl had to have a blood test.
Pre-marital blood tests came into vogue in the mid-1900s as a way to stem the dramatic increase in syphilis. But by the 1980s, however, they had lost their appeal. Many states found that they weren’t cost effective. The number of cases detected was minuscule compared to the money being shelled out to test all the excited young lovers hoping to wed. When Massachusetts repealed its blood test requirement in 2005, officials said the test was outdated and an economic burden to the state and to couples, according to the Associated Press.
Today, only two states require blood tests before marriage: Mississippi and Montana.
The issue was not one I had thought about much (or at all), until a couple of months ago, when my boyfriend and I decided to get married next summer in Montana. It didn’t take much research to uncover the antiquated law. In Montana, however, the issue isn’t syphilis; it’s rubella.
“Each female applicant, unless exempted on medical grounds by rule of the department of public health and human services or as provided in subsection (2), shall file with the license issuer a medical certificate from a physician who is licensed to practice medicine and surgery in any state or United States territory or from any other person authorized by rule of the department to issue a medical certificate. The certificate must state that the applicant has been given a blood test for rubella immunity, that the report of the test results has been shown to the applicant tested, and that the other party to the proposed marriage contract has examined the report.”
Did you get that? The woman needs to get a test. The man doesn’t. I was outraged. But there is some solid scientific reasoning behind it. Rubella, also known as “German measles,” is caused by a virus. The disease isn’t particularly serious. About half of the people who contract it never develop any symptoms. The other half might develop a fever and a rash that lasts for two to three days. The problem occurs when pregnant women contract rubella. The virus can lead to miscarriage, stillbirth, or serious birth defects such as blindness, deafness, and heart damage.
The goal of the Montana blood test is to catch women of child-bearing age who aren’t yet immune to the disease (because of past exposure or vaccination). Fortunately, there aren’t many of those women left. The vaccine (measles, mumps, and rubella – MMR) has been incredibly effective in wiping out rubella since it was licensed in 1969. The yearly number of cases has been nearly nil since about the mid-1980s. In 2009, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported just four cases of the disease. So why is Montana stubbornly sticking to its guns? Good question.
To be fair, I am no longer absolutely required to take the blood test to obtain a marriage license in Montana. Since 2007, the state has had a provision allowing brides to opt out, providing the groom also signs off. Still, the idea that Montana views me as nothing more than a womb — and a potentially deadly one at that — irks.
So I’m taking revenge. I will teach my babies (should there be any) all the derogatory Montana jokes that I learned growing up in North Dakota. Take that, Big Sky Country.
**
Image credit: CDC