AIDS Action Committee’s Blog

Last week was a bad week for the Bush administration’s abstinence-only-until-marriage programs.  Abstinence-only proponents were still reeling from the ab-only doesn’t work Mathematica bomb when it was announced that the ACLU, SIECUS and Advocates for Youth had sent a nine-page letter to the Secretary of HHS, Mike Leavitt, demanding the medical inaccuracies in abstinence-only-until-marriage programs (ala the Waxman report) be corrected within 30 days or HHS will face legal action.

Friday was even worse:   more than 65 organizations signed on to letters to the Chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education calling for the end of abstinence only until marriage grants for community based programs and for the government to begin allocating dollars for comprehensive sex education.   Friday also saw the resignation of Randall L.Tobias, the former ab-only guru for the Bush administration, after it was widely reported that he had hired an “escort.”  The Randall development underscores not only a good dose of hypocrisy but more importantly that the standards of behavior that the Bush administration has laid out as expected and acceptable is unrealistic for even the most ardent adult supporters.

Yesterday I wrote about how abstinence-only-until-marriage (AOUM) programming is religious indoctrination masquerading as sex ed. Unsurprisingly, it doesn’t stop there. These curricula dangerously isolate and stigmatize GLBT kids-a group already prone to higher rates of depression and suicide. The guidelines of AOUM programs explicitly state that “expected standard of sexual activity” is a mutually monogamous relationship between a man and a woman. Moreover, many AOUM programs either show a clear bias against homosexuality or omit the topic altogether. One program, CLUE 2000 equates homosexuality with incest or pedophilia.

That’s right kids, the fact that you have a crush on someone of the same gender means you are one step away from sleeping with your siblings or molesting babies. Just in case you missed all the memos – you’re already not living up to the expected (read: acceptable) standards of society. Awesome!

It doesn’t end there. Throughout the AOUM curriculum, marriage must be defined as a legal union between one man and one woman. It doesn’t matter if you live in Gay Marriage Babylon Massachusetts. Our state’s laws don’t matter and those marriages don’t exist in AOUM class.

Just so we’re on the same page, what does this mean? These programs teach children-our children-that

1. gay people are criminals in the making.
2. gay people don’t ever get to have sex because they can never really be married.
3. same sex relationships should be non-existent or invisible.
4. same sex relationships are permanently outside of marriage and are therefore permanently outside being acceptable.
5. gay people will never be as happy or successful as straight people.

GLBT kids already face tremendous challenges and difficulties in adolescence and school. AOUM reinforce the most damaging messages about homosexuality all the while questioning the efficacy of scientifically proven safe-sex practices. Those facts alone should have all people - the GLBT community of course - demanding that AOUM programming be history in Massachusetts.

Yesterday, the Globe ran a story about Governor Patrick rightly rejecting abstinence-only-until- marriage federal funding in his budget. Predictably, ab-only proponents immediately cried that the Governor wants to give up federal grants that are merely used to teach students about abstinence. They want people to believe that the Governor doesn’t believe in abstinence and wants kids to go around “doing it” as much as possible.

This is standard fare for proponents of ab-only. They want people to believe that without abstinence-only-until-marriage programming, abstinence isn’t valued and won’t even get a quick mention in typical sex education classes. They are (gasp!) wrong. Quite the contrary, comprehensive sex education curricula are abstinence-based, emphasizing that delaying sexual activity is a great choice for young people and not having sex is the only sure fire way to avoid pregnancy or disease.

Comprehensive sex education doesn’t stop there; it also provides information about contraception and safer sex. The goal of comprehensive sex education is to avoid unplanned pregnancies and the transmission of disease. It recognizes the fact that most young people become sexually active before leaving high school and many need information. Abstinence-only-until-marriage programs may not discuss contraception or condoms except to emphasize their failure rates.

So, what is the goal of abstinence-only-until-marriage programming? The federal guidelines governing this funding require, among many things, that students be taught that the “expected standard of sexual activity” is abstaining from sex outside of a “mutually faithful monogamous relationship within the context of marriage.” (More on these guidelines and gay kids tomorrow)

Moreover sexual activity is defined “as any type of genital contact or sexual stimulation between two persons including but not limited to sexual intercourse.” No sexual stimulation between two persons? Let’s be honest, if you’re over-the-moon gaga for someone at fifteen, sexual stimulation doesn’t take much – it could be holding hands or a hug. The above definition isn’t abstinence – it is chastity, a religious virtue more appropriately taught in a private religious institution, and an entirely inappropriate goal in a public school class.

Activists rallied on Thursday in support of CORI reform. CORI stands for Criminal Offender Record Information, and it’s a record compiled by the state of all criminal charges brought against an individual. It includes charges that were either dismissed or resulted in acquittal, it can go back several decades and it can frequently include misinformation. It’s a difficult document to read, and many of the people who are making decisions based on viewing them don’t always understand what they’re looking at. A CORI can be seen by criminal justice and government agencies statewide, but also by public housing authorities, schools and private employers. Applicants are frequently required to consent to a CORI check when applying for subsidized housing, schooling and many types of jobs.

AAC’s housing advocates frequently see how current CORI regulations affect the populations we work with. Clients who have spent several years on subsidized housing authority waiting lists learn that the housing authority has rejected their application due to CORI activity, frequently for charges from many years prior, and for charges that are non-violent or substance abuse related. Housing advocates help AAC clients navigate the complicated process of appealing CORI-related rejections, but it’s not easy, and while their appeals are being processed, many of these clients remain without housing. These types of regulations seemingly ignore the link between chronic homelessness, poverty and criminal activity. Denying low-income people subsidized housing because of previous mistakes discourages those who are trying to make positive and stabilizing changes in their lives.

Currently legislation is pending to reform the CORI process in Massachusetts. Proposed changes would continue to make information available to law enforcement, but also make it easier for people who have made a commitment to reform and rehabilitation to get access to jobs, housing and education. Now it’s critical to support a move toward a system that’s rehabilitative, not punitive, and one that helps the people we know need it the most.

For more information on CORI reform, check out Massachusetts Alliance to Reform CORI.

Today, the Somerville News published an article blaming a rise in incidences of used syringes being found on the street on the Pharmacy Access Law passed last year which made it legal for anyone to purchase syringes in pharmacies without a prescription. Before the passage of this bill, Massachusetts was one of only three states where the over-the-counter sale of syringes was illegal. When we crafted Massachusetts’ law, we recognized that syringe disposal was an issue in the Commonwealth, which is why we required a statewide disposal system to be part of the new law.

Unfortunately, conversations about whether drug users would use safer disposal options are premature. The harsh reality is that there are few disposal options for anyone who uses a needle outside of a medical facility. Although the Department of Public Health under Governor Romney was directed to compile a list of disposal options, create a program, and issue regulations no later than 90 days after the passage of the Act, DPH did nothing. Ironic given that the Romney administration’s objection to, and veto of the bill was supposedly based on the improper disposal of needles.

Fortunately, John Auerbach, the new commissioner of DPH under Governor Patrick understands the disposal problem and is committed to fixing it. Although syringe disposal is a genuine concern, it does not negate the Pharmacy Access Law’s ability to halt the spread of HIV among some of the Commonwealth’s most at-risk populations.

Talk about perspective.  Right now, you can get a thoughtful view HIV counseling from someone who’s been in both the HIV counselor’s chair and in the client’s, being told of an HIV positive diagnosis.  Stewart Landers, JD, MCP, a long-time expert on issues of HIV/AIDS, LGBTI health and substance treatment, selflessly peels away the surface and takes time to share his experienced lens.  Read the full piece on LifeLube.org’s Blog.

—Diego

I think it’s not a coincidence that the move to reduce or eliminate counseling as part of HIV testing comes at the same time many are pushing for “routine” or other forms of expanded HIV testing.

The main barrier to widespread HIV testing has been providers’ discomfort or lack of willingness to “go there.” That is many do not want to talk to their patients about a stigmatized disease that may suggest behaviors they (the provider) are uncomfortable discussing or providing counseling or other information about.

Getting a positive test result for HIV is still a shocking piece of news for most people. It changes the course of their lives - how they think about partnering, parenting, sexuality, survival, work and much more. While I’m all for the mainstreaming of AIDS care and the de-stigmatization of the illness, I often find myself in a quandary about how we do that and still acknowledge all the life changing aspects of the illness.

—Stewart  (read full post)

Thanks to AIDS Action’s Public Policy All Stars, you probably already know that the Massachusetts Department of Public Health recently switched to names-based system for reporting new HIV cases. Between 1999 and 2006, Massachusetts reported on its HIV cases using unique identifier codes to maintain confidentiality. Starting January 1, 2007, health care professionals are required to report on the names of all people who test positive for HIV infection.

(To read more about this issue, and how it affects people living with HIV/AIDS and the organizations that serve them, check out Denise McWilliams’ written testimony opposing the adoption of names-based reporting in Massachusetts.)

Recently, it was reported that Vermont, Maryland and Hawaii, the last three states to track new HIV infections using unique identifier codes, will be switching to a system of names-based reporting by the end of 2007. Despite the real and continued concerns that names-based reports are vulnerable to security breaches and could discourage people from getting tested, the states are making this switch because beginning this fiscal year, federal funding via the Ryan White CARE Act is going to be tied to names-based reports of new HIV infections. States that don’t submit names-based reports risk a reduction in their allocation of CARE Act funding.

So that’s the old bad news. What’s the new bad news? This article on the switch mentions toward the end that the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is considering using names-based HIV case reports to drive its funding allocation, proposing to Congress that this change take effect in the 2008 fiscal year. HUD’s Office of HIV/AIDS Housing manages several programs that assist people living with HIV/AIDS, including Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS (HOPWA). AIDS Action Committee receives HOPWA funding to administer its Rental Assistance, Housing Advocacy and ROOF (Roofs Over Our Families) programs. Programs like these recognize that people living with HIV/AIDS are more likely to receive stable medical care if they have stable living situations and that housing is one of the main concerns of the population that we serve. Tying HOPWA funds to names-based reporting means that existing concerns of confidentiality and under-reporting could soon apply to this funding source as well, jeopardizing programs that link housing to health care.

If you’re interested in learning more about issues relating to HIV/AIDS public policy and advocacy, you can join our CyberAction Network.