Govt. Restrictions for AIDS Prevention Money

69forever

Incorrigible
Joined
Apr 19, 2003
Posts
28,777
Govt Puts New Restrictions on AIDS Funding

By JUAN-CARLOS RODRIGUEZ
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- U.S. groups fighting AIDS overseas are being given an ultimatum by the government: Pledge your opposition to sex trafficking and prostitution or do without federal funds.

The new rule has created confusion among health groups that wonder how it will affect them, and has drawn criticism from others that say it infringes on free speech rights and could do more harm than good.

It will affect about $2.2 billion in AIDS grants and contracts this year, according to Kent Hill, acting administrator for global health at the U.S. Agency for International Development, which recently issued a policy directive outlining the regulation.

Hill said the pledge is a way for the United States to take a stand against a life he called degrading and debilitating. "Prostitution is not a positive for the people who are involved in it," Hill said. "The vast majority of people, globally, do not find themselves there by choice."

One of those troubled by the free speech issues the pledge requirement raises is Terri Bartlett, vice president for public policy at Population Action International, a health advocacy group for women's issues.

"There's a litmus test of issues and organizations' positions on those issues, and regardless of their ability, they will be judged by that position," Bartlett said.

Bartlett said while she agreed with the pledge requirement's premise that prostitution is a harmful occupation, it may have the unintended effect of deterring prostitutes from seeking help by unnecessarily singling them out.

"We want to build trust and reduce stigma," Bartlett said of dealing with the high-risk population of prostitutes. "This policy flies in the face of what we know works."

Congress passed a bill containing the pledge requirement in 2003. It was immediately applied to foreign aid recipients, but the Justice Department questioned the constitutionality of applying it to domestic organizations. Last fall, the department finally gave the all-clear for the government to implement the requirement here.

The rule now affects private U.S. groups conducting AIDS programs overseas. If a group is looking for a federal grant or contract, it must first adopt a statement saying it opposes prostitution and sex trafficking. Then it must sign a form for the government promising it has the policy. Only then is the organization eligible for funding.

Michael Wiest, vice president of Catholic Relief Services, a recipient of USAID funds, said it would take a lot of time and money to make sure his organization wasn't working with any foreign partner groups that violated the pledge. He said that would be wasted energy because "the idea that one of our partners would be pro-prostitution is ... off the charts."

Although the bill that contained the funding restrictions passed with broad bipartisan support, David Olson, a spokesman for Population Services International, said he is worried that the rules will be used against groups that use methods with which conservatives don't agree.

"This administration has made no secret that they want new partners for AIDS work," Olson said.

He said conservatives favor AIDS prevention programs that focus on abstinence and monogamy, rather than ones that endorse condom use and safe sex.

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., made statements to that effect in a letter he wrote to President Bush regarding AIDS programs last month. He specifically criticized USAID for funding Olson's group, which has programs aimed at educating prostitutes and their clients in nightclubs and at bingo-type games where the two groups traditionally mix.

"There is something seriously askew at USAID when the agency's response to a dehumanizing and abusive practice that exploits women and young girls is parties and games." Coburn's letter said.

The anti-prostitution pledge rule is a continuation of conservative policy shifts the Bush administration has implemented for non-governmental organizations.

On Bush's first day in office in 2001, he reinstated the "Mexico City policy," which prohibits private, foreign groups that receive federal family planning money from advising or even discussing the possibility of abortions for clients.

The policy, called the "global gag rule" by critics, originated during President Reagan's era but was dropped during President Clinton's.

Besides the pledge, the new rules require AIDS groups to inform clients of condom failure rates. Another requirement is that the federal government must now give equal opportunity to funding applicants that have "a religious or moral objection" to a particular AIDS prevention method or treatment program, such as condoms or needle exchanges.
 
erm... semi-rant here. :catgrin:

69forever said:
Bartlett said while she agreed with the pledge requirement's premise that prostitution is a harmful occupation, it may have the unintended effect of deterring prostitutes from seeking help by unnecessarily singling them out.

"We want to build trust and reduce stigma," Bartlett said of dealing with the high-risk population of prostitutes. "This policy flies in the face of what we know works."

But its not a question of what works. Its a matter of punishing people for having sex. If the government can vilify and shame prostitutes, they will be less likely to seek help with HIV prevention. This has the dual effect of putting prostitutes at greater risk for HIV but also their clients. Its a two-for-one deal!

This approach is similar to the ABC approach of Abstinence, Be faithful, and Condoms - with the condoms really, really downplayed. Don't have sex until you are married (and gays shouldn't be allowed to marry), have sex with only one partner and maybe we will give you condoms. This approach is also consistent with the sex = death philosophy that the Bush administration favors.
 
It's the same thing with the resistance to needle exchange programs for addicts.
Instead of seeing it as preventing the spread of HIV they see it as promoting drug usage. Junkies are going to use no matter what. The question is if we can at least give them a chance to realize they need help and get it or be infected.

Of course it could be planned genocide as well.....but then the powers that be would "never" resort to that, would they? :rolleyes:
 
"Of course it could be planned genocide as well.....but then the powers that be would "never" resort to that, would they?"

Ive thought that population control was at the center of desease control since I was a kid....
 
Well, I think we should steer clear of conspiracy thinking.

I have heard more than one person react to my mention of the problems of HIV or malaria (globally killing 8000 people and 5000 people per day) with the comment "Good, there is too many people being born in the third world anyways".

But its one thing for ignoramuses to make such a comment, and quite a different thing for it to be government policy.

But I do agree about resistance to needle exchange. Officially opponents say that it will encourage drug use, but I think there is a also a healthy dose of "HIV as God's punishment for using drugs" in their thinking.
 
And the good old religion doesn't adhere to the philosophy that "HIV is Gods punishment and plague on the queers"???

Whether it's drugs or HIV it wasn't a problem until it crossed class lines from the minority ghetto or queer community to middle class Amerika. If that's not a planned form of genocide I don't know what is.

As far as HIV running rampant in Africa, I think there are two schools of thought for the ruling class. One says that if half or more of the population is decimated it will be a snap for us to waltz in and grab the natural resourses. The other see's their potential markets for our goods being wiped out. Either way it's money and not compassion that drive our official response. That is genocide.
 
69forever said:
Either way it's money and not compassion that drive our official response. That is genocide.

U.S. foreign policy has always treated Africa as a backwater that isn't worth fussing over. I remember doing library research 12 years ago and realizing how bad the HIV problem was in Africa. I asked friends and family - "how come no one is talking about this?" (Of course, there was no acceptable answer).

I don't like Bush and the ideological content of his HIV programs only worsens the problem. But I do give him credit for focusing some attention on Africa (unlike previous Presidents). What he does isn't nearly enough but at least it is something.
 
Ive thought that population control was at the center of desease control since I was a kid....[/QUOTE]

Oh no...I never thought it was a good thing.....I think people dying for any reason is terrible..sorry if it sounded that way
 
Back
Top