Today, the Obama administration is meeting with HIV/AIDS advocates and leaders in Atlanta to discuss the prevalence of AIDS in the U.S. and how the White House Office of National AIDS Policy (ONAP) can work on new strategies towards HIV prevention. I don't doubt many advocates are coming into these debates with much fervor considering Obama's recent reversal on AIDS policy.
And in coordinance with the administration's community discussions this week, RH Reality Check is doing a series in partnership with HIV Prevention Justice Alliance, the Community HIV/AIDS Mobilization Project (CHAMP), AIDS Foundation of Chicago, the Center for HIV Law and Policy, and others. Some pieces to check out:
- The AIDS Crisis in the United States: Will the Obama Administration Meet the Challenge? Julie Davids and David Ernesto Munar
- Community Engagement in HIV Policy: Are Townhalls Meaningful Enough? By Catherine Hanssens
- AIDS 50 Times Higher in Gay/Bi Men Than Other Groups, an analysis and critique by Walt Senterfitt of new CDC data presented this week in Atlanta
- Coming out HIV Positive, 14-year old LaShaun Brown reveals her HIV status for the first time and discusses her hopes and fears for the future.
Don't miss it.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: How will Obama address the AIDS crisis?.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/15670
The CDC is talking about using circumcisions to combat AIDS. This is right out of the anti-choice handbook. It's brought to you by the same people who brought you the "abortions cause cancer" and "birth control causes abortion" lies. I have a feeling Obama is going to fail hard on this subject.
Wow, what a weird comment. I would be interested to hear how you think these things are connected.
Everyone in my very pro-life family and friends circle thinks routine circumcision is nutty in and of itself; not to mention using it to curb the spread of HIV/AIDS which, as you can imagine, is a concern because it de-emphasizes individual behavioral choices.
Well, all this talk about circumcision and HIV rests mostly on one large study done in sub-Saharan Africa. The first sing of something fishy is that, in this study, the control group wasn't given condoms, they were given abstinence-only sex "education" instead. This is glaring given that all studies of abstinence-only has shown it to increase STIs.
Some of the researchers involved have connections to the AO movement. Albeit, there are usually two or three degrees of separation (a researcher worked for a think tank that was funded mostly by one of Focus on The Family's secondary organs or some such). Similar tactics were seen in the research that came out "proving" that the pill caused abortions or that abortions caused cancer.
The main motivating factor behind the push is to provide leverage when conservatives try and quash initiatives to subsidize condoms to fight HIV. It's all of the tropes we've seem from the right before when it comes to reproductive health. The don't like condoms because they both prevent pregnancy and disease. The right wants sex to carry as much punishment as possible, particularly for women. It's why they oppose HPV vaccination. It's why they oppose oral contraceptives. It's why they oppose abortion. It's why they back abstinence only sex education.
It's been made blatantly clear that we cannot idle in response to HIV. However, that is the natural response of the right. To provide cover for their morally-bankrupt policies, the right turned to circumcision as an alternative to condoms. The fact that it won't work isn't a bug, it's a feature.
Also check out Kai Wright's piece on the fact that the HIV/AIDS crisis is growing among African-Americans and in the South.
I would be interested in hearing some more commentary about the CDC's desire to investigate routine infant circumcision to combat AIDS.
From what I can tell, there is absolutely no data that supports the use of circumcision to slow down male-to- male transmission, and thus making a medical policy based on the statistical likelihood that a baby's future sexual encounters will all be hetero...that strikes me as extremely strange.
I recommend reading Dana Goldstein on this subject.