District 202 in Danger of Closing

Now that I'm feeling more caught up with work and school, I thought I'd share some news about HIV/AIDS locally. Even if World AIDS Day was last week, I'll try and follow this theme for this week.

District 202 may close as soon as next year. This bad news comes during a difficult time for the youth of District 202, as one of them was shot 5 times recently as a result of transphobia. [Google cache of Lavender Magazine. I really wish they'd add archives for the bloggers]

District 202 Executive Director Laura Ayers: "We are an amazing organization, and the positive impact of this community center in young GLBT people's lives is tremendous. We are changing the way the center operates so we have a stronger chance of weathering the new economic realities. If we don't change, and if the community does not support us, then we would face having to close late next year."

For those who don't know what District 202 does:

"Founded twelve years ago by activist GLBT youth and adults, District 202 provides meeting space, peer counseling, mental health and housing referrals, safer sex education and other services to GLBT youth 21 and under. Located above GLBT-friendly Nicollet Village Video, District 202 is a large space with a rainbow-colored floor, quietly humming with activity during the day and occasionally pulsing with dance music at night. The nonprofit has seen a steady rise in demand for its services over the years. About 2000 youth have visited District 202 so far this year, with a large percentage of those being first-time visits."

And here's the World AIDS Day tie-in: "These are life and death matters," says District 202 Executive Director Laura Ayers, referring to funding cuts to her organization's HIV and STD prevention program. "Three years ago, we had an application to the Minnesota Department of Health approved, but state funding comes from the federal level and this year [the state] ran out of money before they reached us," Ayers said. The program can no longer afford to purchase condoms, lube, or dental dams for its safer sex education programs.

Via Pulse of the Twin Cities. It's a great article about the fate of the Minnesota non-profit sector.

The Debate and HIV/AIDS

Last night, both VP Cheney and candidate Edwards has a chance to address HIV/AIDS in the US, particularly the rising rates of HIV among African American women. They both failed miserably. [via the Empty Closet - New York]

Today, the National Association of People With AIDS (NAPWA) issued a press release scolding Cheney:

"We are shocked the Vice President said he is unaware of the disproportionately high rate of HIV infection among Black women in the U.S. The incidence of HIV infection among African-American women has far exceeded HIV cases among White women for at least a decade. And while the number of people living with HIV in America continues to grow with an ever-increasing proportion of us poor, people of color, women and youth, funding provided by the federal government for care, treatment and housing has not increased in any meaningful or appropriate amount."

It's a long one, more in extended entry...

They were also harsh towards Edwards who essentially dodged the question:

"We are disappointed Senator Edwards lost an important opportunity to discuss how HIV affects African American women. It was an opportunity missed to talk about the increasing demands for funding HIV care, treatment, prevention and housing while discretionary spending has remained flat. While NAPWA supports efforts to extend health insurance coverage to more Americans, last night was the moment to focus on the need for substantial increases for the Ryan White CARE Act, for the Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS program and for HIV prevention activities."

Despite the failure of both Cheney and Edwards, neither side of the debate spin has even addressed this topic. AIDS is among the top three causes of death for African-American men ages 25-54 and African-American women ages 35-44. You'd think it would be a hot topic. I mean, AIDS kills more people than terrorists each year and we're relentlessly obsessed with that topic. I wonder what the deal is?

The Debate and HIV/AIDS

Last night, both VP Cheney and candidate Edwards has a chance to address HIV/AIDS in the US, particularly the rising rates of HIV among African American women. They both failed miserably. [via the Empty Closet - New York]

Today, the National Association of People With AIDS (NAPWA) issued a press release scolding Cheney:

"We are shocked the Vice President said he is unaware of the disproportionately high rate of HIV infection among Black women in the U.S. The incidence of HIV infection among African-American women has far exceeded HIV cases among White women for at least a decade. And while the number of people living with HIV in America continues to grow with an ever-increasing proportion of us poor, people of color, women and youth, funding provided by the federal government for care, treatment and housing has not increased in any meaningful or appropriate amount."

It's a long one, more in extended entry...

They were also harsh towards Edwards who essentially dodged the question:

"We are disappointed Senator Edwards lost an important opportunity to discuss how HIV affects African American women. It was an opportunity missed to talk about the increasing demands for funding HIV care, treatment, prevention and housing while discretionary spending has remained flat. While NAPWA supports efforts to extend health insurance coverage to more Americans, last night was the moment to focus on the need for substantial increases for the Ryan White CARE Act, for the Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS program and for HIV prevention activities."

Despite the failure of both Cheney and Edwards, neither side of the debate spin has even addressed this topic. AIDS is among the top three causes of death for African-American men ages 25-54 and African-American women ages 35-44. You'd think it would be a hot topic. I mean, AIDS kills more people than terrorists each year and we're relentlessly obsessed with that topic. I wonder what the deal is?

No Dick, No Bush: New CDC policies will cripple HIV Prevention

Check out the new CDC guidelines for community HIV prevention programs on the Federal Register. If the legal jargon is too much for you, then check out Doug Ireland's article at LA Weekly.

Some snippets from the new policy include:

"This section states, in part, that ``education materials * * * that are specifically designed to address sexually transmitted diseases * * * shall contain medically accurate information regarding the effectiveness or lack of effectiveness of condoms in preventing the sexually transmitted disease the materials are designed to address.''" Condoms are extremely efficient at preventing many STDs. The controversy lately over condoms came from anti-gay and anti-abortion groups over HPV. I wrote about this idiotic policy here in April. Please check it out for context.

"All programs of education and information receiving funds under this title shall include information about the harmful effects of promiscuous sexual activity." This is an obvious move toward awarding HIV prevention funding to abstinence-only programs. I have brief comments on their effectiveness here.

"None of the funds appropriated to carry out this title may be used to provide education or information designed to promote or encourage, directly, homosexual or heterosexual sexual activity or intravenous substance abuse." We can all thank Jesse Helms for preventing everyone from talking about sex when discussing sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy.

I have to be at work shortly, but this is serious stuff. More to come later.

I fall into the Reagan hype

I've been avoiding the Reagan thing, because it's too predictable, and really in poor taste. I've never really had good taste to begin with though, and in the course of doing my daily reading, I came across Deroy Murdock's piece "The Homophobe Myth: The facts about Ronald Reagan" at the National Review Online. Murdock works very hard to defend Ronald Reagan and presents a lot of facts, quotes, and anecdotes to argue that Reagan liked gays and was very concerned about AIDS. It is, like, totally the liberal media attacking Reagan unfaily, or so Murdock says.

I did enjoy the anecdote about the Reagan's inviting the White House's interior designer and his partner over for dinner. How stereotypically quaint and patronizing. Some of my best friends are [fill in the blank with some 'other' people], so don't call me [insert -ism, -phobia, etc].

Murdock does point to some important facts and does indeed refute some of the details in the debate over Reagan's AIDS legacy. For instance, Reagan did allocate money for the emerging epidemic. It would have been negligent not to do so. However, while he may have earmarked funds for AIDS research and prevention, many other closely related areas were seeing huge cuts.

Republican Sen. Lowell Weicker in 1987:

Speaking to reporters following the president's speech Wednesday, Weicker said, ''The most damaging piece of deception as far as the president is concerned is that he says, 'I'm asking for $100 million more in AIDS research.'

''That sounds very good until you hear that he is asking for a $600 million cut in the funds to go to the National Institutes of Health for basic biomedical research. The net of all that is he has cut $500 million for AIDS.''

Of course, these cuts were occurring across the board. It was a horrible strain on social agencies and health departments dealing with a new and deadly disease.

But that aspect of republican politics was not the only critical flaw in Reagan's response to AIDS. Reagan may well have been tolerant of the GLBT community, but political ties to the rise of religious conservatism compromised his ability to react and contributed greatly to his lackluster performance on AIDS.

Michael Bronski in the Advocate:

Reagan understood that a great deal of his power resided in a broad base of born-again Christian Republican conservatives who embraced a deeply reactionary social agenda of which a virulent, demonizing homophobia was a central tenet. In the media men such as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell articulated these sentiments that portrayed gay people as diseased sinners and promoted the idea that AIDS was a punishment from God and that the gay rights movement had to be stopped. In the Republican Party zealous right-wingers such as Rep. William Dannemeyer of California and Sen. Jesse Helms of North Carolina hammered home this message. In the Reagan White House, people such as Secretary of Education William Bennett and Gary Bauer, Reagan’s domestic policy adviser, worked to enact it in the Administration’s policies.

Reagan neglected to speak out against these statements. Further, the most damaging aspect of his connection to religious fundamentalists come in the form of legislation to prevent effective HIV prevention

Again from Bronski:

When health and support groups in the gay community were beginning to initiate education and prevention programs, they were denied federal funding. In October 1987, Helms amended a federal appropriations bill to prohibit AIDS education efforts that “encourage or promote homosexual activity”—that is, efforts that tell gay men how to have safe sex.

That rediculous amendment still stands today for any HIV program or health department that recieves federal funding. It's also just vague enough that interpretion rests on whichever policital wind is blowing.

My real point tonight is this: Who gives a fuck when Reagan actually said the acronym "AIDS"? And his personal experiences with homosexuals weren't going to translate into any kind of effective AIDS policy. And providing funding for research and prevention is all well and good but, what's the point if every government agency around them is collapsing?

The problems with Reagan's AIDS policies aren't in the details; step back and look at the bigger picture.

Is the US serious about HIV/AIDS at home?

Much positive and negative attention has been paid to Bush's global AIDS initiative. But what's happening on the home front?

Many state's are seeing an increase in people with an HIV diagnosis, but funding to help those living with HIV is drying up.

Alabama is seeing this scenario played out as it's share of the AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP) doesn't meet the needs of it's population.

The cost to provide HIV treatment to a low-income patient through the program costs about $10,500 annually. However, when an HIV-positive person is left untreated, that person would be forced to seek emergency room care... According to an Empire Blue Cross/Blue Shield estimate, each untreated individual would cost the state $100,000 each year.

In the south, where recent outbreaks of HIV have been reported among college students, money for incresed testing is non-existent.

Additionally, in New Orleans, people with HIV are seeing a further decrease in support services.

What is even more distressing is the CDC's current push to increase HIV testing and the Bush administration's lack of corresponding increase in funding for care and support for people with HIV. Rep. Henry Waxman details the concern in his February letter to the Dept. of Health and Human Services (PDF).

Bush Administration to "wipe-out HIV/AIDS," not really

This is a funny, not really related to HIV/AIDS spoof. The reality is, as much money as we spend on military stuff, we probably could end the AIDS epidemic or at least find effective treatments or a cure.