Vital exchange
Dear Sens. Durbin and Kirk:
As members of the Illinois General Assembly, our voices in Congress, we urge you to prioritize the health and lives of Illinoisans and permit the use of federal funds to support life-saving syringe-exchange programs (SEPs).
As the appropriations process begins for FY 2013, we ask you to provide renewed leadership to repeal the federal ban on federal funding for SEPs. We are dismayed and disappointed that the Senate gave in to pressure from the House on this issue. This is not the time to take steps backward in the fight against HIV and viral hepatitis. Federal restrictions on SEP funding are an immediate threat to the health and safety of U.S. families, and will cost the nation's taxpayers money in medical expenses to treat preventable infections for years to come.
As the U.S. surgeon general determined in 2011, SEPs promote entry and retention in drug treatment, and reduce HIV, hepatitis and drug use. Under previous federal policy that your actions overturned, local communities, in consultation with law enforcement and public health officials, decided how to use federal funds for SEPs. This flexibility ensured that the funding was used to best meet local needs, priorities, and values.
Seven federally commissioned research reports demonstrate that SEPs are among the most effective strategies available to reduce injection-drug-related HIV and hepatitis infections. They promote health-seeking behaviors among high-risk individuals, keeping themselves and their partner's safe without increasing drug use. SEPs are proven to be highly effective and cost saving, and they need the financial resources necessary to continue in these successes.
We have much to be proud of in Illinois. Our state has made tremendous progress in reducing new injection-drug-related HIV infection. From 2001-2009, the state saw a 62-percent decrease in new HIV/AIDS cases related to injection drug use, which is the largest decline of any risk group. This decline meant 650 HIV infections were averted, saving the state over $200 million in lifetime medical costs.
Illinois has invested in SEPs, passed the non-prescription syringe purchase law, and most recently passed legislation to prevent opiate overdoses. Each of these advances enables Illinoisans to remain healthy, but to sustain this infection decline it is essential that local jurisdictions be permitted to decide how to invest federal dollars without restriction.
Please consider the substantial progress Illinois has made in stemming injection drug related HIV and hepatitis infections through investing in SEPs. An estimated 45,000 of the 1.1 million people in the United States living with HIV/AIDS are right here in Illinois, and we cannot allow that number to grow.
We urge you to reverse this misguided funding restriction in FY 2013, and restore decision-making on SEP funding to its rightful place at the local level.
Sincerely,
Melissa Janiszewski
Policy & Community Education Coordinator
AIDS Foundation of Chicago
Obama's commitment in question
To the Editor:
Although it's nice to know that Barack Obama now supports marriage rights for LGBT couples, we question his sincerity and doubt he will fight hard to effect a genuine change in policy in the corridors of power in Washington.
Why should we believe him now?
Obama has been a chameleon on the marriage issue. He backed it before he opposed it and now he backs it again. In 1996, as a candidate for the Illinois state Senate, Obama "unequivocally" supported gay marriage. By the time of his U.S. Senate race in 2004, he had flipped. Now, in the race for a second term as president, he's for it again.
Furthermore, in a typical have-it-both-ways ploy under-reported by the media, Obama said that the states ought to decide marriage policy, not the federal government. Just as North Carolina, thank you, did the day before Obama's announcement when it banned marriage equality, the president would leave gay-marriage rights to the tender mercies of anti-gay hate-mongers across the nation. To his credit, U.S. Rep. James Clyburn from South Carolina disagreed with the president by asserting that marriage is a civil right that ought to be protected by federal law and not be put to popular referenda.
And speaking of federal law, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) prohibits the federal government from recognizing a same-sex marriage and reciprocity for gays married in states where it is legal. This odious act was signed into law by Democratic President Bill Clinton in 1996 after bowing to the will of a reactionary Congress and remains the law of the land despite Obama's having Democratic control of both houses of Congress for the first two years of his administration. In short, Obama never opposed DOMA when he could have done something about it and now when he says he does oppose it he's ineffective, with the House in control of the Republicans. This is how our president fights for our rights.
Finally, in April this year, President Obama had the opportunity, at no cost to himself, to sign an executive order that would have prohibited federal contractors from discriminating against LGBT employees. He refused. Rather than having purely symbolic value like his tepid support of gay marriage, this executive order would have meant real and immediate support for the material rights of LGBT people.
So don't be misled for a moment. Obama's "commitment" to LGBT rights is worth about as much as his promises to support union organizing and tax the rich.
We need to keep up the direct action pressure for LGBT marriage rights no matter who's in the White House. It's the only way to deliver the goods.
Roger Fraser
Bob Schwartz
Gay Liberation Network
Ex education
Dear Editor:
Blair Mishleau proposes a "dialog" with the "ex-gay" community (WCT, 5/2/12). He says everyone wants "love" in their lives and that "the end goal is to look beyond the political issue and see real people."
Mishleau's proposal would be harmless enough were we to enjoy full equality. But since we are far from that goal, his misguided efforts at dialog play right into the hands of the enemies of LGBT people and our struggle for equal rights. If so-called "ex-gays" wanted to play fair they would adopt a live-and-let-live attitude toward us and support marriage for same sex couples, equal treatment in employment and housing access, etc. But, they do not. The public face of the "ex-gay" movement is closely allied with antigay hate mongering and discrimination.
Mishleau appears to have either missed or ignored the sharp criticism directed at the so-called "reparative therapy" of the ex-gay movement by the professional helping community. "Pray the gay away" has been denounced by the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, and the association of pediatric physicians. These organizations are clear in their identification of homophobia as being at the heart of lack of self-acceptance on the part of those gays who end up in ex-gay "ministries."
By many indications, the ex-gay movement is on the ropes. So, why toss a life buoy to people who want to see us back in the closet, or worse?
Bob Schwartz
Gay Liberation Network
Bad medicine
Dear Editor:
Last week the United States Department of Justice announced settlements in two cases involving HIV discrimination.
In the first case, a podiatrist at Mercy Medical Group Midtown Clinic in Sacramento, Calif., incorrectly told his HIV-positive patient that he could not perform a needed surgery on the man's foot. The surgeon was afraid he'd contract HIV from the patient during surgery. In the second case, the Knoxville Chiropractic Clinic North in Knoxville, Tenn., turned away an HIV-positive man who'd been approved for 24 chiropractic treatments after being in a car accident. He was told the clinic doctors could not treat people "like him."
Prejudice is always ugly, but it's especially abhorrent in these cases because the people who discriminated were medical professionals—the very people we'd expect to know better. The worst of it is that medical professionals who discriminate against people with HIV create the perfect conditions for HIV to spread.
When medical providers let irrational fear guide their decisions—rather than scientific fact—it's not only unjust, it's terrible public health. Ample evidence shows that when people with HIV stay in care long-term, successfully tolerating and adhering to antiretroviral medication regimens, the "community viral load" is greatly reduced and new HIV infections dramatically decrease. Securing access to health care for people with HIV turns out to be a critical part of stopping the epidemic in its tracks.
The Public Health Service knows this. In the last few years it has directed an increasing share of resources and funds toward keeping people with HIV connected to medical care. At AIDS Legal Council of Chicago, we work every day to make sure people with HIV can access medical care, helping our clients fight through the labyrinthine bureaucracies of public and private insurance systems to ensure they have adequate coverage to get the medical treatment they need. In fact, securing access to medical care makes up the bulk of the council's daily work.
But even free comprehensive health insurance coverage for every person in America wouldn't be enough to guarantee that people with HIV will stay in care. First, they have to trust that the medical system cares about them, wants to help them stay healthy and will treat them with respect.
So as public health officials continue their admirable crusade to connect HIV-positive people to life-saving medical care, let's remember that no public-health plan works if people aren't willing to stay engaged with the medical system. Fighting stigma and protecting the legal rights of people with HIV is an integral part of preventing the spread of HIV.
Ann Hilton Fisher, Esq.
Executive Director
AIDS Legal Council of Chicago
