Thursday, June 24, 2004
Bush/AIDS
Sully has a post on this today, which I think is for the most part right on. Bush's record is actually good on AIDS - but when he gives a speech on AIDS and talks about AIDS in the United States, he doesn't mention the one group most affected: gay men. Then, he argues that AIDS can be prevented with his ABC approach - abstain, be faithful in marriage and (much to Bush's credit) when appropriate use condoms.
Fine. So why does Bush oppose marriage rights for the one group most affected by AIDS in this country?
(This is exactly the point Sullivan makes - I really added nothing to the blogosphere with this post.)
GOLDBERG ADDENDUM: I wrote this in the comments, but it was really too long for that, so I'm putting it here:
ABC is basically a prevention method used in Africa and other nations where AIDS is a heterosexual epidemic. In the U.S., where it did threaten to become a heterosexual epidemic, it did not (for whatever reason). However, new subcultures, like the (predominately African-American male) subculture of the "DL") still mean that it HIV could yet become a widespread heterosexual problem here.
As for the homosexual AIDS crisis in America, I believe (but am not sure), that transmission rates dropped greatly in the 1990s, but have either leveled off or are back on the uptick. ABC is clearly not a wise prophylactic prescription for the U.S. gay community, as the "A" and the "B" aren't really options. The key is (and this word is lame but I'll use it anyway) awareness that the crisis has not gone away, condom use, and requiring prospective partners to be tested before any intercourse.
As a worldwide problem, however, AIDS in America is not a big deal, and most efforts should be made towards Sub-Saharan Africa and certain parts of Asia/Indian subcontinent. This is especially true for pharmaceutical assistance, esp. drugs like AZT that can dramatically reduce mother-child transmission, which is a HUGE problem in Africa. Other public/private/NGO partnerships are needed to get drugs to the third world. AIDS in America just pales in comparison to these problems.
UPDATE: EDITed, thanks to Goldberg's cousin, to change effected to affected.
|
Fine. So why does Bush oppose marriage rights for the one group most affected by AIDS in this country?
(This is exactly the point Sullivan makes - I really added nothing to the blogosphere with this post.)
GOLDBERG ADDENDUM: I wrote this in the comments, but it was really too long for that, so I'm putting it here:
ABC is basically a prevention method used in Africa and other nations where AIDS is a heterosexual epidemic. In the U.S., where it did threaten to become a heterosexual epidemic, it did not (for whatever reason). However, new subcultures, like the (predominately African-American male) subculture of the "DL") still mean that it HIV could yet become a widespread heterosexual problem here.
As for the homosexual AIDS crisis in America, I believe (but am not sure), that transmission rates dropped greatly in the 1990s, but have either leveled off or are back on the uptick. ABC is clearly not a wise prophylactic prescription for the U.S. gay community, as the "A" and the "B" aren't really options. The key is (and this word is lame but I'll use it anyway) awareness that the crisis has not gone away, condom use, and requiring prospective partners to be tested before any intercourse.
As a worldwide problem, however, AIDS in America is not a big deal, and most efforts should be made towards Sub-Saharan Africa and certain parts of Asia/Indian subcontinent. This is especially true for pharmaceutical assistance, esp. drugs like AZT that can dramatically reduce mother-child transmission, which is a HUGE problem in Africa. Other public/private/NGO partnerships are needed to get drugs to the third world. AIDS in America just pales in comparison to these problems.
UPDATE: EDITed, thanks to Goldberg's cousin, to change effected to affected.
Comments:
Post a Comment
