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.