http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGA0Z9B0R6D.html

Once again Puritans who don't want to talk about sex (especially gay sex) will be responsible for further HIV infections and deaths - it is sad.

Maybe it's harsh or an imperfect analogy, but this administration is looking more and more like a murderer who gets off free because nobody likes the way the victim conducts his/her sex life.

Condoms can save lives, imperfect as they may be.
If a people can not abstain from cheap oil how can they be expected to abstain from something as attractive as sex.

[ May 08, 2004, 06:57 PM: Message edited by: sportinlife ]

"Beneath contempt" is the apt phrase for the Appointed One's AIDS policy in this and other areas. But this appeal to the Falwell Model of "morality" has been the GOP's m.o. for 22 years, who can be surprised?

I heard, in the House gallery last week, Big-Time ass**** Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Calif.) say in response to David Obey's stinging remarks that Dubya had no desire to fund the Education budget humanely: "This is a caring president... He's brought a dignity that wasn't there before... Isn't it good to hear a president say 'I love you' to his wife and mean it?"

You could hear the not-quite stifled gasps of disgust on the floor and the gallery. This crowd has a hypocritical script to stick to, and there isn't enough time for all of them to meet with career-ending accidents...

Oh, please. I suppose you guys think that federally-funded groups should face no accountability or oversight at all, lest they fancy themselves the target of a witch hunt.

Other than the fact that the government is performing audits of taxpayer-funded groups, this whole article is just a lot of "This group says" and "That group believes", and all of these groups have an agenda against the Bush Administration and, perhaps more importantly, an agenda of keeping their federal funding no matter what. So big shock that they're trying to smear Bush.

Those awful awful groups! They want to keep their federal funding in order to promote safe sex, HIV prevention, and safety awareness. What awful groups - imagine trying to save lives, especially young lives! That'll never work with this administration: either you're abstinent or you're a liberal.

The Bush administration is slowly turning the vice grip on blunt sexual talk when it comes to safety and HIV prevention. They're worried about these groups promoting SEX? Therein lies the problem. No one has to promote sex: the fact is people have it. All we can do is promote safety awareness and disease prevention.

I was at the U.S. Conference on AIDS last week in California. For entirely political reasons that have nothing at all to do with HIV/AIDS, the U.S. gov't denied visas to a contigent from Cuba who wanted to participate in the conference. I'm an HIV educator for a community based organization that receives federal funding (among other funding streams). I am continually baffled, even frustrated by the hostile political landscape that inhibits our work even in the most basic manner.

Apparently Mr. Helms and his cronies managed to get wording in AIDS prevention legislation that prevents any "promotion" of sex (or maybe it's only promotion of homosexual sex). Therefore, a strict interpretation would say that even acknowledging that sex can be done safely is "promotion."

The reality is that it was safe sex campaigns, most of which began before government funding was even available, that led to the dramatic drop in AIDS cases in the early 90's. Now when there is a resurgance (in part because we got pretty good at managing the disease and making it less frightening), these same programs are faced with "oversight" that drains their limited resources and diverts their attention from the fight. When those "oversight" audits are requested simply to harass the programs by anti-gay and anti-sex bigots in Congress, that is an outrage.

Hey anzbutch. I was there too along with my partner. Was wondering what your overall impression was? My partner said he thought alot of it was totally unorganized....In one instance an Instructor didn't even show up.

hey Puckman1, I thought the conference was worthwhile, a little too large and sprawling, but overall a good thing. It was great to be able to feel like a part of a larger team and a bigger cause. I was troubled however (as I've already stated in other posts) by the hostile participation of federal officals. I mean, why did Joseph O'Neil (W's new appointee in AIDS policy) even bother? He got up in front of nearly 3,000 people and called us "wrongheaded" (for advocating needle exchange) and basically threatened us with more federal audits.

anz: I heard about the nice little greeting he got.

Just a sidenote: the distinguished medical educator Thomas B. Turner, former dean of the Johns Hopkins University Medical School, just passed away. Here's an interesting, similar commentary from Anahad O'Connor's NY Times obituary of Turner about the belief that doing the right thing would "promote" promiscuity:

"In World War II, Dr. Turner briefly left his professorship to lead the Army's syphilis eradication program. Toward the end of the war, he became alarmed by the high rates of venereal disease among American troops, particularly those who had been stationed in Central Europe.

"Hoping to curb the spread of the disease, he urged the Army to undertake a large-scale advertising campaigns encouraging people to reduce their risks of infections, but he had to fight widespread opposition from those who believed his programs encouraged sexual promiscuity.

"'Some elements would have us discontinue the advocation of prophylaxis, which appears a little like removing the brakes from motor cars to prevent speeding," Dr. Turner said in an interview in 1945. He said it was important "to see clearly the fundamental difference between moral order, on the one hand, and venereal disease control on the other.'"

It occurred to me this weekend after watching the news and reading in the paper about a massive Abortion rights march, that "W's" policy on abortion is much in line with his HIV/AIDS stance. There is now a complete ban on funding any international group that conducts abortions, or even mentions pro-choice options. Huummrrpphh. These policies, along with "abstinence only" HIV policies serve to punish, even endanger those it supposes to protect. Women in the "developing" world are not given reproductive rights, and/or access to contraceptives, while at the same time are subject to commonplace sexual assault and intimidation?
A grave fact is that "W" will more than likely be in posotion to appoint at least one, maybe more Supreme Court nominees soon. No doubt the chosen one(s) will be foes of pro-choice and harm reduction.