Bush AIDS Advisor: Leviticus holds the cure for HIV

While I don't diary very often, I am an avid daily consumer of the great work of SusanHu, Mary Scott, PlutoniumPage & so many others here.  The common theme in many recent diaries is the BushCo inability to deal with a 'reality-based' world.  This shows up in multiple dimensions on every issue from Iraq, the economy and the "war on terror."

But in the area of public health, and HIV, the administration is more than divorced from reality - it appears as if Bush and Company have been granted an annulment.  

This was all too apparent at the recent 27th Quarterly Meeting of the President's Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS. Among the 'money' quotes:  Gay and Lesbian rights lead to the HIV/AIDS epidemic, and The Bible and Leviticus are the basis for sound Public Health policy.

More insanity follows ....

A summary of the meeting is available at the AIDS Action website.  I am avoiding a direct link to this meeting summary because the site tends to move things around internally, and I would encourage anybody interested in this issue to "go through the front door" as AIDS Action [so to speak] rather than linking to an internal document and having people bypass the other important content at the site.

Two 'reports' at this meeting were particularly disturbing.  First, the anti-condom crusaders had their say:

1.  Positive Youth Development

Wade Horn, PhD, assistant secretary of Children and Families for the Department of Health and Human Services, discussed strategies for dealing with HIV prevention in youth, ages 13-24. He posed the question, "How can we spur behavior change in young people?"  He believes the answer is found in the clear and consistent message of abstaining from sex until marriage or at least until "out of high school." He also believes that when parents or organizations provide young people with condoms it sends a "confused message"--here is a condom to have safe sex, but I don't want you to have sex--and "when messages become confused, so does behavior." Dr. Horn recommends instead that parents "send a clear and consistent message that abstinence is the only way to be 100 percent safe from STIs [sexually transmitted infections]."

Absolutely no basis in public health science for this.  I guess "Positive Youth Development" means the development of increasing numbers of HIV-positive youth .... 'cause that's the strategy to do it!

Then the Christofascist homophobes, not willing to be outdone, joined in:

3.  Model Health Laws

Edward P. Richards, JD, MPH, who is the director of Program in Law, Science and Public Health at Louisiana State University's Paul M. Hebert Law Center proved the final presentation in the Prevention Subcommittee's report.

Tracing the origin of public health laws and practices to The Bible and the Old Testament book of Leviticus, Mr. Richards recounted the history of their development. As part of this historical review, he described the origins of many common public health practices and interventions; from Roman water and sewer works to the forty-day "cooling off" period for ships in early renaissance Venice (leading to the word and concept of quarantine), when and where breaking quarantine often meant death from a communicable disease. 

Fast forwarding to contemporary America (1850 to 1970), he said public health law in this time period was shaped by the best public health practices: food inspection, housing codes, working conditions, separate water and sewer systems, vaccinations and disease investigation, and mandatory reporting of cases and control. However, according to Mr. Richards, the arrival of AIDS and the rise in power of the gay and lesbian community (1968 to 1990) led to a breakdown in traditional public health laws and practices. In other words, traditional public health laws and practices were not applied to HIV prevention because many individuals within the gay and lesbian community argued that they were either inappropriate or discriminatory when applied to the prevention of HIV. Mr. Richards termed resulting breakdown "AIDS exceptionalism." He then suggested that since the 1990s, the state's ability to use traditional public health measures to prevent the spread and control of the HIV epidemic has been weakened in all areas.

If this were not the case, Mr. Richards continued, gay bathhouses (venues for sex, where the number of sexual contacts is high and, according to Mr. Richards, condoms are often not available. HIV infection spreads quickly in the mid-80s and early-90s) would have been closed permanently; HIV testing would be routine; there would be an end to anonymous testing; contact tracing and partner notification would be a requirement for funding; and there would be uniform HIV reporting in every state and territory. Mr. Richards concluded, "Since the federal government shapes state disease control through its funding, it must change its priorities to encourage proper disease control for HIV."  

The "AIDS Exceptionalism" argument is a Gingrich-era strategy to justify applying the right-wing agenda to HIV policy.  It failed at the time, and luckily, given the fact this administration is imploding as we all watch, seems destined to fail again.

Or am I being optimistic?  What is the appropriate response to this type of 'denial' behavior, other than more outrage?

I'm sadened, not surprised ... but clearly at a loss.

•  Most of this isn't about public health.

  It's about a public smackdown of LGBT folks.  If they insisted that all STDs be treated the same, I would agree with it.  In fact, some STDs are excellent indicators of unhealthy behavior like illegal drug use.  Partner the STD tracking program with addiction treatment programs to get more bang for your bucks.

  But publically branding LGBT folks as being disease riddled plague rats is ridiculous and untrue.  I think the stats now show that HIV infection rate is always high in IV drug users and the fastest growing HIV+ population is young African-American women.  But if they really tracked the disease, they might not like the results they would find.

  But this whole public health versus privacy issues is bogus.  I can think of more effective statistics to track than HIV infections.  Why don't we publicize obesity statistics instead?  That is the nations current health risk.

  by Fabian on Mon Jun 27, 2005 at 07:55:10 AM PDT

•  These people running the show

  are the reason why AIDS rates are going back up, or one of the reasons, because of their spreading fear and hatred, and because deep down they want gays to get AIDS and die because it gets rid of an "undesireable".

  And the gay community has no major figures to combat this hate. Instead we have "heroes" like Andrew Sullivan, who can't stop talking about how WONDERFUL HIV is, and Larry Kramer, who has spent 30 years defaming and spitting on gay men all to sell his crap books and make a profile for himself.

  by JamesB3 on Mon Jun 27, 2005 at 07:57:55 AM PDT

•  politics, denial, hatred, ignorance

  More signs of a theocratic America.  I keep hoping this "home of the brave" will soon show up.  Hiding your head away from facts will bring on trouble.  

  by Yankee in exile on Mon Jun 27, 2005 at 08:09:19 AM PDT

•  If it hadn't been for the Gay and Lesbian

  community there wouldn't have been any HIV / AIDS policies.

  Does this dumbs..t understand that if it weren't for out people then the infection rates would be much higher than they are. After all if you can't be out, how in the hell are you going to go to the doctor and discuss this STD? People would be dying in thier closets. That and we know how supportive all these straight people were when AIDS struck down so many people. They had no plan at all. If it hadn't been for the Lesbian and Gay community our government wouldn't had any plan to treat those heterosexual people who had contracted the disease.

  by p a roberson on Mon Jun 27, 2005 at 08:58:32 AM PDT

•  Interesting

  "Tracing the origin of public health laws and practices to The Bible and the Old Testament book of Leviticus..."

  Now, I have only this summary to go on, but as someone with a little background in the Hebrew Bible, I find this interesting.

  First off, because to ascribe the origins of health laws to Leviticus is, from a historical point-of-view, a rather ideological and facile understanding of the text.  To be sure, Leviticus describes a great number of situations in which bathing and cleaning is involved; but they are not so much interested in public health as in ritual purity.  And in that respect, they are not so much concerned with the "public" as with separating the levitical class off from the normal people:

  "[Lev.10:10] You [i.e. Aaron, the progenitor of the priestly caste] are to distinguish between the holy and the common, and between the unclean and the clean."

  This is not to say that according to the Priestly writer (how scholars usually refer to the author of this book) has no sense of purity for the non-priestly caste, but he has in his mind a definite hierarchy of purity (and political power) that revolves around the priests.

  Second, because from what I can glean from this paragraph, this is indeed a highly condensed, and not particularly nuanced-looking history of "public health."  It follows a rather predictable westward course, giving the present and the U.S. the telelogical pride of place.  Such summaries always lead me to question what rhetorical and/or ideological purposes lie beneath.

  I might suggest that the reason this guy chose to start his history with Leviticus is precisely the reason I would be suspicious of it: it is a text in which public health is, if anything, a tertiary concern.  However, it is a great example of the way the biblical texts fuse ritual, moral, and socio-political concerns together under the all-encompassing rubric of holiness.  That is to say, it is a text which leads quite easily to the equation of physical health and illness to moral health and purity.  And underneath the notion of morality lies a social hierarchy, which preserves at its top a select few whose role it is to interpret and play arbiter for the rest of the "tribe."

  In other words (and I apologize for waxing academic in the previous paragraph), Leviticus is a perfect "proof text" for those who want to say that disease is still the result of disobeying God; and by disobeying God, we mean disobeying the cultural and political elite.  

  And considering the (rather specious) connection that the speaker later makes between the AIDS epidemic and the (supposedly alarming -- but definitely subversive) growth of the gay rights movement, this Iron Age world-view sits quite comfortably with him.

  by freedtoread on Mon Jun 27, 2005 at 09:18:17 AM PDT

  •  Wax on, grasshopper

    I, for one, greatly appreciate the occasional waxing academic.

    You seem to have a facility for explaining this subject; might want to consider a diary on it...

    by Maryscott OConnor on Mon Jun 27, 2005 at 10:21:41 AM PDT