|
Los Angeles Times (USA), March
20, 2005
EDITORIAL: A
Misguided Anti-Vice Pledge
Social conservatives in Congress, backed by the
Catholic Church and the Christian right, are
on a new foray to dictate sexual mores to the
rest of the world, at the expense of public
health. This time it's an oath being foisted
on U.S. groups working to combat the HIV/AIDS
epidemic. They will soon be asked to comply
with a 2-year-old law dictating that they have
"a policy explicitly opposing prostitution
and sex trafficking" before they will
be considered for federal grants to provide
health services overseas.
The pledge is reminiscent of other Bush administration
efforts including the re-imposition of the
so-called global gag rule, which bans international
family planning groups that receive U.S. funds
from performing or even discussing abortion.
It is as unproductive as pushing the United
Nations to withdraw support for needle-exchange
programs. Such policies do little to stem HIV,
and contribute to the deaths of women forced
to seek illegal and unsafe abortions.
AIDS experts agree almost uniformly that the
anti-prostitution pledge could have the opposite
of its intended effect, making it tougher for
aid groups to reach the women who most need
their help -- and who play a major role in
the spread of the disease.
The pledge has its origins in a law passed by
Congress in 2003 but not used as a litmus test
for funding until now. At stake is the entire
$3.2 billion the Bush administration has asked
Congress to set aside for global efforts to
curb AIDS and HIV next year.
It's absurd to suppose that any of the groups
working to combat HIV in the Third World --
like Save the Children, Doctors Without Borders
and Oxfam -- are in favor of prostitution.
But a big part of fighting HIV/AIDS necessarily
involves working with prostitutes and building
trust so that they're willing to seek treatment
and counseling.
The pledge will not prevent groups from giving
condoms or antiretroviral drugs to prostitutes.
But it might stand in the way in other cases,
with highly damaging effects.
For instance, aid workers in Bangladesh sometimes
pass out shoes to brothel workers who are forced
by local custom to go barefoot. That might
not seem like a way to stem AIDS, but it helps
gain their trust and gives them a measure of
self-respect -- without which they are unlikely
to change their behavior. Would these handouts,
or counseling sessions for sex workers on personal
hygiene, be considered a violation of the anti-prostitution
pledge? Its vague wording leaves that unclear.
What is apparent is that it could easily be
used to deny funding to groups that legislators
don't like.
Last year, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist
(R-Tenn.) helped delay efforts to apply the
2003 law to U.S. groups working overseas. This
year he has stood on the sidelines. Frist --
who regularly travels to Africa to do pro bono
work as a physician -- knows the situation
on the ground far better than most of his colleagues.
He should stand up to his fellow conservatives
and speak out against the pledge. U.S. groups
working overseas should also refuse to sign
it. These groups fully understand why prostitution
is a public health disaster in the developing
world. They are working hard to give women
better options, not through coercion or moralizing,
but through venereal disease counseling, domestic
violence prevention, literacy programs, job
training and other social support. They shouldn't
be forced to prove their sincerity by signing
a pledge that could be used cavalierly against
them.
If conservatives want to go after prostitution
in the Third World, they can fund religious
groups to proselytize against it. Interfering
in the fight against HIV is a misguided policy
that could cost lives.
<< Los Angeles Times -- 3/20/05 >>
Send this page to a
friend!
Home About
Us Newsletters News
Archives Donate
|