"Conservatives Interfere With Health and Research"

To avoid AIDS, one must avoid contamination with human body fluids, which are contaminated with the virus. How this fluid transmittance is to be avoided is of course, one's own choice.

An interesting observation, very recently reported in the medical literature
is the transmittance of the rabies virus, through human organ transplantation. Who would have guessed that rabies could be transferred via a cornea transplant?

Cor blimey!!!!!

Not to mention those damned prions!

Portal Star wrote:

"For example, all those anti-drug ads our tax dollars have been paying for (And yesteryear's DARE campaigns which have now been abandoned) have both shown to increase drug use in teens."


Hmmmm - have they? Be interesting to see how you respond to Craven's challenge, Portal.

That is an interesting thing. Here, mainstream drug education and treatment is generally NOT centred on abstinence - but on harm minimization. (Some christian and so forth places have their own models) Of course, if folk want to abstain - or need to - they are helped - but that is not the focus - because they want the users to USE the service and not be put off - and they want to keep them well until they are ready to stop.

This focus - which the drug folk tell me is based on sound research - has been maintained even in the face of very conservative governments - who have actually not really tried to interfere.

They are very fierce re their educational material - will not try to scare folk off drugs with sensational information.

This causes troubles sometimes - eg the mental health people want them to warn young people that psychosis is a risk of marijuana use - fairly strongly. They do mention it as a possible effect for SUSCEPTIBLE people - but will not feature it much, cos they do not consider it well enough proven. They are extremely keen for their info to be seen as absolutely kosher by their clientele. For good reason. This is why hysterical anti-drug messages are not useful - they are seen as inaccurate - and there are fears that kids will then ignore reality-based warnings as being equally wrong.

In the USA are government drug programs abstinence focused?

Do you have free needle exchange programs?

Free water handed out at big concerts and such - to try to stop damage from ecstasy and similar drugs?

We are just beginning to have supervised shooting-up rooms, too. Because of the number of folk dying from overdose. Still very controversial.

Prions? Indeed. What else is out there?

In the U.S. the focus is primarily 'don't do drugs' period. Most of the methadone treatment, free needle exchange, etc. is handled by private agencies though some government grant money is available.

There is always the larger question. Is it more compassionate to make it easy and safer for people to destroy their lives or be ready to rescue them and thereby encourage more to experiment and take the risk? Or is it more compassionate to require people to face the consequences of the choices they make? You will find very good people standing on both sides of that.

The methadone treatment for US vets is handled through the VA hospital/ambulatory system. All transport of methadone is performed under armed guard. Every ml of liquid must be accounted for, used or lost. Accounting for this drug can become very tedious, to say the least.

That's true. The VA does provide this service to vets. The problem we're running into now though is addition to the methadone adminisered by the free clinics elsewhere.

But then in our area, addiction to prescription drugs is at least as much a problem as addiction to illegal drugs.

dlowan,

I am still curious as to what PC statement you think I have adopted.

I come to my views through personal consideration.

In the current climate, abstinence is politically incorrect. Yet, I believe it is useful, and should be a part of sexual health counselling. "A part..."

But Sofia, do you not agree that conservatives sometimes reject any program in which it does not constitute the whole?

Well put it this way, if you do, I'll not only bring the examples to your attention, but will bring examples of when it has already been brought to your attention to this thread.

But, Craven, what does your quote 'conservatives sometimes reject any program in which it does not constitute the whole?' have to do with the issue?

And, yes, I disagree with such a blanket statement. Broad brushing, and all. There are very socially liberal conservatives. Georgia is reporting most of our conservatives are pro-choice. The days of accuracy in lumping are over.
"I" am a conservative--and see the need for condoms, AS WELL AS abstinence teaching.

Are you saying because of some archaic notion that 'all conservatives' are dumb enough to put ideology over effectiveness, when trying to save lives--that it is ipsofacto an appealing idea for liberals to do the same?

Isn't this the same as our (assumed) agreement that the gun lobby and abortion rights advocates screw up by demanding "all"--when "some" would be sensible, and most effective?

There is a small and dwindling, but vocal group of hard-headed Religious Rights that may want to deny people condoms. They aren't winning anything. They exist, and have a right to voice their views, but no one with any sense will listen to their views on reproductive rights, and AIDS prevention.

dlowan and others represent the far left close-mindedness of the Religious Right, IMO. The RR seems to be afraid of condoms, and the FL seems to be afraid of abstinence. What is the harm in promoting both?

(I have to admit I don't understand your last post. If you think I am wrong, or you have something to show me--by all means, do so.)

I read the title of this thread and think it topical.



That "conservatives sometimes"....?



This would presumably be the difference between sometimes and always.

Tell you what, I'll toss in an extra "some" for good measure:

Some conservatives sometimes reject any program in which it does not constitute the whole.

Thing is, for the purpose of accuracy I'll also toss in an "always".

Some conservatives always reject any program in which it does not constitute the whole.

Either way, since one of the socially retarded ones is in power and because most of the more progressive conservatives still support him, I think conservative interference on this issue is important.



But you still plan to support one of the backward ones who does not. So in other words, you say this, but vote against it.

Ultimately, regardless of what you say here, you vote for people who are exactly the problem we are talking about.

I understand that you probably do so based on other issues, but that does not change that when it comes to really speaking with a vote you will be speaking for the position you disown here.



I don't understand the question, but since it starts with "are you saying" maybe I should just clarify what I am saying.

I am saying that some conservatives are an impediment insofar as the subject of this thread is concerned.

And I'm saying that you are perfectly willing to vote for them.



I had not said all.



And you vote for them.



Can you substantiate this? I can substantiate it's converse.



Bull. Complete bull. One such socially backward individual is the president of the USA.

And you have been provided examples of when he has interfered with health issues in the past.

He has also been willing to get behind policy that admittedly will result in people dying for corporate interests.



Ask Bush, the person you voted for and will vote for.



My last post was very understandable. But I can try to expound. You expressed a position in which you want abstinence to be a part of the sexual education and I am here to inform you that despite what you post to message boards your vote goes elsewhere.

Craven--

Bush's AIDS policy is Abstinence, and Condoms.

I've seen a quote recently, wherein he admits the need for condoms to combat AIDS.

How can you saddle him with a notion he doesn't subscribe to?

I would not be arguing for his policy if he was against condoms.

I'll find the quote.

I know the quote Sofia and have it memorized. He said it for the first time within the last few weeks.

"We can learn from the experiences of other countries when it comes to a good program to prevent the spread of AIDS, like the nation of Uganda. They've started what they call the ABC approach to prevention of this deadly disease. That stands for: Abstain, be faithful in marriage, and, when appropriate, use condoms."

This was in response to the severe criticism of his position, which is nothing at all like that quote. When saying so, he subsequently went back to an emphasis on abstinence and his policy (not his PR) reflects the preference heavily.

Kerry replied:

"It is long past time for empty rhetoric on this issue. It is time for real resources and a real commitment that is based on science - not politics - to fight this epidemic."

Sorry I lied, it was at least the second time as I remember him saying something last year about it:

I found this about a condom reference from last July.

"I can't believe the president actually used the C-word," said Amy Coen, the president of Population Action International, which backs birth control and AIDS prevention in the third world.

"That's not one that comes easily to him. But it's one thing to use the word and another thing to actually fund it."

When it comes to mentioning the "C-word" Bush has done so, this has not in any way been reflected in his policy and his agressive fight against entities that actually practice what he gave a passing nod too.

Bush, at signing--

(...)
We see hope in the actions of African governments that are acting responsibly and aggressively to fight AIDS. The nation of Uganda is pursuing a successful strategy of prevention, emphasizing abstinence and marital fidelity, as well as the responsible use of condoms to prevent HIV transmission. The results in Uganda have been remarkable. The AIDS infection rate has fallen sharply since 1990, and in some places the percentage of pregnant women with HIV has been cut in half. The Uganda plan is proving that major progress is possible.

And now we must spread that progress to suffering nations throughout the world. By the legislation I will sign today, the United States of America will take the side of individuals and groups and governments fighting HIV/AIDS in Africa and other parts of the world. We'll provide unprecedented resources to the effort. And we will keep our commitment until we have turned the tide against AIDS. (Applause.)

Under this legislation, America will provide additional money for the Global Fund for AIDS Relief, and additional funding for our efforts in many countries to prevent mother-to-child transmission of the disease. And we will focus our efforts on 12 African and two Caribbean countries where HIV/AIDS is heavily concentrated.

We will purchase low-cost anti-retroviral medications and other drugs that are needed to save lives. We will set up a broad and efficient network to deliver drugs to the farthest reaches of Africa. Even by motorcycle, or bicycle. We will train doctors and nurses and other health care professionals so they can treat HIV/AIDS patients. We will renovate and, where necessary, build and equip clinics and laboratories. We will support the care of AIDS orphans by training and hiring child care workers. We'll provide home-based care to ease the suffering of people living with AIDS.

We'll provide HIV testing throughout all regions of the targeted countries. We'll support abstinence-based prevention education for young people in schools and churches and community centers. We will assist faith-based and community organizations to provide treatment prevention and support services in communities affected by HIV/AIDS. We are developing a system to monitor and evaluate this entire program, so we can truly say to people, we care more about results than words. We're interested in lives saved. And lives will be saved. (Applause.)

This comprehensive program has the potential in this decade to prevent 7 million new HIV infections, provide life-extending drugs to at least 2 million infected people, give humane care to 10 million HIV sufferers and AIDS orphans. This is a massive undertaking, and the dedicated men and women of the United States government are eager to get started.

To coordinate this effort, I will soon nominate a global AIDS coordinator who will have the rank of ambassador. This coordinator will work closely with the Departments of State and Health and Human Services, as well as with USAID and the Centers for Disease Control, to direct the efforts in the worldwide fight against AIDS.

I'm going to Europe here at the end of this week, and I will challenge our partners and our friends to follow our lead and to make a similar commitment made by the United States of America so we can save even more lives. (Applause.)

I will remind them that time is not on our side. Every day of delay means 8,000 more AIDS deaths in Africa and 14,000 more infections -- every day, 14,000 more people will be infected. I'll urge our European partners and Japan and Canada to join this great mission of rescue, to match their good intentions with real resources.

The suffering in Africa is great. The suffering in the Caribbean is great. The United States of America has the power and we have the moral duty to help. And I'm proud that our blessed and generous nation is fulfilling that duty. (Applause.)
----
I don't know how anyone can sneer at this.

Will still find the recent quote. I can only load one at a time, and thought this should be seen.

Interesting! I googled Bush AIDS condoms necessary, and nimh's Uganda thread here at ole' A2K was #5! Weeze famous.

Going back for pertinent quote.

Well, he DID fund it, and discussed it in the SOTU! I don'tknow what this man has to do to get credit he deserves. He has backed condom use,and funded it more than anyone else in the world. The US provides more condoms to the world than any other country.
----------
Washington -- In a move that dismayed some of his ardent conservative supporters, President Bush on Tuesday publicly embraced a plan for his $15 billion global AIDS initiative that includes money for groups that promote birth control and abortion.

Since the Reagan administration, anti-abortion forces have supported the so- called Global Gag Rule, which prohibits federal money from being spent overseas on such activities. But Bush, who unexpectedly made a strong pitch for the five-year AIDS relief program in his State of the Union address in January, called Tuesday for swift congressional passage of a plan that would triple the government's international AIDS spending and

includes money for condom distribution.

"Time is not on our side, so I ask Congress to move forward with the speed this crisis requires," Bush told an audience in the White House East Room that included bipartisan congressional leaders, longtime advocates of wide-ranging birth control and AIDS prevention efforts and such conservative religious leaders as the Rev. Franklin Graham and Charles Colson, the Watergate figure who now heads the Prison Fellowship Ministries.

"Fighting AIDS on a global scale is a massive and complicated undertaking, but this cause is rooted in the simplest of moral duties: When we see this kind of preventable suffering, when we see a plague leaving graves and orphans across a continent, we must act," Bush said.

Legislation for the AIDS plan has passed the House International Relations Committee.

By an overwhelming vote on April 2, the panel turned back anti- abortion forces' bid to put the gag rule in place or to place emphasis on efforts to promote abstinence as an AIDS prevention tool. Instead, the committee adopted wording by Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, that doesn't give preference to -- nor ban -- any prevention method.

House conservatives are expected to try again to insert their language on the House floor, perhaps as early as today.

Bush, who said he wants to sign the AIDS prevention and treatment legislation before Memorial Day, favors a three-part strategy that the Ugandan government has used for years to fight HIV and AIDS. The "ABC" strategy calls for abstinence, being faithful to one's partner and the use of condoms.

"Congress should make the Ugandan approach the model for our prevention efforts under the emergency plan," Bush said in promoting his effort to help 12 African nations, Haiti and Guyana. In sub-Saharan Africa, 30 million people have HIV or AIDS, he said.

The president's stand drew a rare rebuke from the Family Research Council, a group that has supported Bush on most issues but said the president has sold out his principles on the AIDS bill.

"The bill, in its present form, would throw taxpayer money at condom handout schemes in Africa," said Ken Connor, the group's president, in a statement.

"It appears again the White House is so eager for the photo op of a Rose Garden bill-signing ceremony that it will accept deeply flawed legislation even though it does not embody the principles the president himself laid out," Connor added.

***But Bush made it clear that condom distribution is a vital part of his AIDS effort in Africa.***

"In Uganda President (Yoweri) Museveni has begun a comprehensive program in 1986 with a prevention strategy emphasizing abstinence and marital fidelity, as well as condoms, to prevent HIV transmission," Bush said.

***Ugandan Ambassador Edith Ssempala said the three parts of her country's strategy were co-equal. "It has to be comprehensive. You can't choose one part, " she said after attending the White House ceremony. ***

Groups that get the money would not be able to use it for abortion services, ***but could still participate in the AIDS programs by keeping detailed accounts of how the money is spent.***

Longtime campaigners in the fight against AIDS saluted the president and asked Congress not to tinker with the bill passed by the House committee.

***"We call on the House to pass this bill on the floor in its current form and for the Senate to redouble its efforts to reach a consensus on a bipartisan bill," said Kate Carr, president of the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation based in Santa Monica. ***

Lee, who has long pushed for more AIDS funding for poor nations, said she is "cautiously optimistic the bill will be intact after it leaves the floor."

***She agreed with Bush on the Uganda program's efficacy. "Uganda is the model country. What we believe will work is a replication of the Ugandan model." ***

Rep. Tom Lantos, D-San Mateo, the International Relations Committee's ranking Democrat, predicted that House Democrats will unite behind the bill, along with a majority of Republicans, and pass the bill this week by a 3-to-1 ratio.

The Senate will then take up the legislation. The bipartisan leaders of the Foreign Relations Committee, Republican Chairman Richard Lugar of Indiana and ranking Democrat Joseph Biden of Delaware, sat side by side in the East Room as Bush appealed to Congress to pass the bill.
--------
Who can find fault with Bush's plan?

Sofia,

I'm reading your copy and paste of speeches and quite frankly I do not see anything substantative that contradicts Bush's well-documented history of actions starting way back in Texas.

Can you provide that? Because the copy and paste of speeches contain nothing of the sort.

Furthermore, I challenge you on the issue itself:

There is not a single shred of scientific evidence that the "abstinence only" programs that Bush has supported in his long history of sex education policy work.

Can you provide any?

Here is quote from a letter from a Republican to Bush:

'There is no scientific evidence that "abstinence-only until marriage" programmes work,' wrote James Greenwood, a Republican representative, to the President. Greenwood is co-sponsor of legislation to rival the President's programme, seeking $100m for mixed education that 'teaches both abstinence and contraception from both a values and a public health perspective'.

Let's compare a few words (delivered while still arguing for abstinence as the primary focus) with his actions:

Bush has introduced laws against the morning-after pill.

Bush has halted funding for international charities that counsel on abortion.

Bush and the Vatican have pushed the UN to only fund programs that preach abstinence outside of marriage.

Bush funded a 'no sex is safe sex' campaign with millions while revoking the funding of others for their *gasp* non-abstinence education.

As governor of Texas Bush introduced an "abstinence only" policy and spent 10 million on "anstinence only" programs that did not reduce Texas's teenage pregnancy rates (Texas ranked dead last during Bush's tenure for the reduction of teenage pregnancy) and teenage contraction of STDs increased during his tenure.

Not surprisingly Bush made moves against tracking those kinds of results and tracking "attitudes" which obscures the inefficiency of such programs. Basically, he required the CDC to track attendance and "attitudes" which in the polling reflected well for things like "virgin pledges" but do not show whether it can reduce disease or pregnancy.

The Bush administration forced CDC to discontinue "Programs that Work" because the programs recommended were not "abtinence only" programs and the CDC was forced to remove all mention of those programs from their website.

Bush's administration required scientists from the CDC to attend seminars on the "science of abstinence" (not conducted by any scientists, of course).

Bush vowed to raise "abstinence only' funding from 33 million to 135 million. Then recommended 270 million, all while cutting the funding of a host of other health programs. Much of this money goes to groups like "Youth for Christ" and others that preach condoms are "russian roulette".

Bush has strongly supported "virgin pledges" programs in Texas.

Bush's academic support for these positions comes from people who brand non-abstinece education as "academic paedophiles" and "very evil".

Bush appointed abstinence advocate Dr. Joe McIlhaney, a man with a published distain for condoms to government advisory panels (for example, the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS). He is a Bush friend from Texas who heads an abstinence-only group and is credited for shaping much of Bush's policy. This is a man who was reprimanded by the Texas Department of Health for spreading false information about sexually transmitted diseases and condoms' ineffectiveness.

Craven--

You are waaay off task. I don't think I've ever seen you step so far away from the topic at hand.

We're not talking about what Bush did in Texas, or what he said then...

We are talking about his AIDS policy. NOW. The morning after pill is not pertinent, nor is abortion.

From my paste jobs--sorry about length of them--but they were on issue.
--------
In a move that dismayed some of his ardent conservative supporters, President Bush on Tuesday publicly embraced a plan for his $15 billion global AIDS initiative that includes money for groups that promote birth control and abortion.
---------
He signed it, and funded it.
-------------
Since the Reagan administration, anti-abortion forces have supported the so- called Global Gag Rule, which prohibits federal money from being spent overseas on such activities. But Bush, who unexpectedly made a strong pitch for the five-year AIDS relief program in his State of the Union address in January, called Tuesday for swift congressional passage of a plan that would triple the government's international AIDS spending and
includes money for condom distribution.
----------
includes money for condom distribution.
---------

The opponents have said it doesn't include money for condoms. It does.

They said "It won't be funded." It was.
--------

Despite any and everything Bush did and said BEFORE this, he has now copied the most successful program in AIDS prevention (Uganda's) and heavily funded it. Period.

Why refuse to admit it, and give him due credit? Anybody?

Birth control and abortion and morning after pills are another issue, which I will join, if you desire, after dispatching THIS issue.

Yes he did fund an impressive AIDS program.

His funding circumvents many international health organizations and is considered by many to be an attempt to reintroduce Regan's "Mexico City Policy" and attack the funding for groups that councel on things like abortion while giving some lip service to condoms bourne of necessity.

Simply put nobody is going to agree with a Bush plan to spend billions preaching abstinence to other countries.



He gives lip service to condom use and his funding historically focuses on abstinence preaching. Funding the AIDS program at all would not be possible without condoms as he'd continue to be laughed at. That condoms will be funded is a result of all the people fighting so hard against Bush's abstinence obsession.

In the funding for the program he is taking measures to take care of his abstinence plans by circumventing health organizations and negotiating with countries with pressure on the abstinence front.



This "Global Gag Rule" is another name for the "Mexico City Policy" I mention above, and Bush's policies are, in fact, closer to reinstating them than running against them by the manner in which the funding is meted out.

I challenge this editorial commentary you copy and paste as inaccurate. The fight against the Global gag Rule was won by people other than Bush and by people who considered Bush one of the obstacles they had to overcome.



I applaud the AIDS plan very much, and am very happy that sane people who have long fought against the groups Bush has funded will make it very different from Bush's "abstinence only" policies.

I also applaud Bush's slight shift last month in rhetoric on this and hope that it represents future change in his actions.