Europe, led by the UK, last night signalled a major split with the United States over curbing the Aids pandemic in a statement that tacitly urged African governments not to heed the abstinence-focused agenda of the Bush administration.
The statement, released for World Aids Day today, emphasises the fundamental importance of condoms, sex education and access to reproductive health services. “We are profoundly concerned about the resurgence of partial or incomplete messages on HIV prevention which are not grounded in evidence and have limited effectiveness,” it says.
The US has pledged $15bn (£8.6bn) over five years to fight the disease, most of which is channelled through the President’s Emergency Plan for Aids Relief (Pepfar). Pepfar grants come with conditions, however – two thirds of the money has to go to pro-abstinence programmes, and it is not available to any organisations with clinics that offer abortion services or even counselling. The US is also opposed to the provision of needles and syringes to drug users on the grounds that it could be construed as encouraging their habit.
This is about as corrupt and backwards as everything the world has come to expect from the White House. Pity the career foreign service and American aid workers who have to apologize for this crap.
I cannot believe some of these outlandish comments I’ve heard over a policy that for once puts some restrictions on how are money gets wasted and simply requires some education on the benefits of abstinence as a viable alternative to the way they’ve been doing it now. Clearly that wasn’t working too well now was it?
A more important question to ask is “how are the U.S. taxpayers supposed to pay for this along with everything else?”
Donkey: tax and spend
Elephant: borrow and spend
U.S. Citizen: wtf just happened?
Hey Teyecoon,
Just thought I’d point out that Insurance companies factor insurance rates based on the risks people take, so there is something to that.
Anyway, you are correct that smoking and drinking can fall under the abstinence category. Eating, however, is a little different. Smoking, drinking, sex, and illegal drugs are all common in that they are not essential to sustain life. If need be, they can be abstained from indefinitely. Eating obviously is bit more necessary, however, you can certainly abstain from unhealthy foods and eat healthy foods instead, especially if you are prone to obesity (or diabetic). Like I said before, it’s just good old-fashioned common sense: Take care of yourself.
As for your allegation that I’m suggesting we don’t help people who take risks, I don’t believe I said that.
The money in this case is going to programs that teach people about abstinence, in the same way that money is spent on A.A. meetings, drug rehab, smoker support groups, and nutrition programs, as well as materials educating people as to the various pros and cons of each habit. No one is forcing people to be abstinent, just like we don’t force people to quit smoking. But if we can get people to not smoke, not do drugs, eat healthier, etc. before they even start taking the “risks” then we’ve started to eliminate the problem and save lives before they’re in danger. In fact, that’s exactly the strategy behind the “condom eductation” programs the EU wants to continue, the only difference being that using a condom means you’re trying to mitigate the risk in progress instead of avoiding it entirely. In my mind that’s like trying to put a filter in your trachea to mitigate the effect on your lungs when you smoke. You’re still more than likely to cancer somewhere else, so just avoid the risk and stop smoking.
If always find it interesting that people are willing to educate people about condoms and not abstinence. They both perform the same task, but only one is guarenteed to work. I guess people just don’t want to give up their risky sex.
Later.
Only an elitist in his ivory tower would characterize $15 Billion to fight the AIDS pandemic in Africa as “backwards” and “corrupt.”
Two-thirds of the money must go to programs that include pro-abstinance as PART of their approach. It is disingenuous to suggest that the US (Bush Administration) is against the use of condoms, sex education and access to reproductive health services. On the contrary, it has done far more than Europe to facilitate exactly those things.
Indeed, this is more than any previous administration has ever done to combat this tragedy, but you call it “crap” because it requires the INCLUSION of absitinence and the EXCLUSION of killing the children you pretend to care about.
Tyecoon wrote: “Good ideas people. Maybe we should take these ideas a step farther and refuse medical treatment to any potentially obese people that consume any sugar as it is risky behavior.”
No one ever suggested REFUSING MEDICAL TREATMENT.
On the contrary, Bush is spending $15 Billion dollars to provide treatment. He simply put conditions on some of that money, so that instead of handing out condoms, needles, and abortions, the programs actually educate people about how to effectively combat this disease. That is to say: avoid intravenous drug use and indiscriminate sexual activity.
Of course, you would prefer enabling people to continue the most hazardous behavior… or encourage them to abort their children… or perhaps not spending this money at all. I wonder, if the citizens in question were overwhelmingly white instead of black, if you would have the same position.
After two decades of supporting and participating in activism on behalf of AIDS victims, it’s never surprising to be attacked by someone who cares more about politics than accomplishing something positive. If anyone cares to examine a thoroughgoing report detailing the deceit of politicians offering a missionary crusade under the guise of public health, I’d suggest the following document as a start:
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/medicalinfo/abortion/report-030702-AIDS.pdf
It’s quite long and well-documented. Worth examining if you care to reflect on more than religious slogans and slander.
It really is hard to believe the lack of personal education expressed by some of the commenters to this entry.
News flash! Abstinence can’t be taught. If there was a chance for it to be taught, it would occur with people who actually had enough of an education to be able to read and write, unfortunately, it doesn’t work there either. Any random idiot should be able to put that together on their own, but I apparently assume too much.
Texas had one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in 2000, governed by our idiot in chief’s careful abstinence policy, while Massachussettes had one of the lowest (I’m guessing they took the safe sex approach).
The wingnuts can talk themselves blue in the face trying to subscribe to the pseudo-religious doctrine which has no connection to reality whatsoever. But they sure as hell shouldn’t say that abstinence education is effective. Abstinence is effective… but it can’t be taught… deall with that… it is a fact.
Hey John ,
How about a feature where we can strikethrough the superfluous and ad hominem parts of people’s comments, just like you were doing with the P.R. releases. It makes reading them and getting to the kernel of the argument (or lack thereof) a lot easier. [interesting copy editing by-product: see Usage Note http://tinyurl.com/a3onz ]
Like this:
It really is hard to believe the lack of personal education expressed by some of the commenters to this entry.Any random idiot should be able to put that together on their own, but I apparently assume too much.while Massachussettes had one of the lowest (I’m guessing they took the safe sex approach)[You should leave the parenthetical part out, because it completely undermines your argument. And its superfluous: If you don't include a source for statements like this, we'll just assume you're pulling it out of your ass anyway. Now you may have a smart ass like me, which says a lot of mostly accurate but smelly things (i.e. it sounds correct, but its kinda fishy), but we'll evaluate that from the context. ]Do a google search for teen pregnancy rates in the US. I’m sure you can handle that.
To poster number 3 — the 29 year old “vergen:”
I think you need to get some pal. it will either improve your spelling or free up your other hand so you can type better.
Peace…
Mike T
Texas vs. Massachusetts isn’t about the type of school curriculum, but the overall culture. Read ‘Black Rednecks and White Liberals’. New England is better educated ever since people settled there, while the people who settled in the South had a more violent, less educated, and more sexually corrupt culture. Teen pregancies and shotgun weddings were always very common hundreds of years before schools had any sort of sex education.