@MyNewtBoobs and @JLeslie Could I just ask that you each read the entire article?
If IUDs were offered without an exchange of any sort and the full health consequences for women with HIV who live in their specific part(s) of Kenya were FULLY explained without coercion or money changing hands, and if it was explained that the IUD is solely for birth control and will not keep the woman safe from other STDs and variants of HIV that can make her get sick and die sooner—I am good with it. I want the women to have an informed choice rather than treating them like rabid dogs that might hurt someone else (baby).
The women should be screened for STDs before inserting the IUD (not happening in this scenario).
Use of IUDs can result in an inflammatory response in the endometrium and the resultant increase in lymphocytes and macrophages may provide targets for HIV replication. It is unclear what type of ongoing monitoring will be provided for the women who get IUDs (e.g., dealing with ectopic pregnancy, incidence of PID, concerns about anemia). The adverse events may not happen, but the women should know that they could.
I am also completely in favor of the incubator type businesses. This should not be in exchange for the IUDs. These are separate concepts.
I get that @JLeslie is focused on birth control. I am focused on the health of the women. These do not have to be mutually exclusive, but I don’t see how focusing on birth control at the potential expense of the health of the woman is in any way helpful.