No, Kevin, it's because lives are being lost while conservatives like Coburn play games about funding set-asides and conservatives like you cheer them on.

Posted by: I and I | June 6, 2008 5:07 PM

Rest assured, my state of Michigan has a lot of bumpkins too. Some folks probably consider me one, too, for whatever reasons. I don't lose sleep over it.

Kevin, one question: do you agree lives are being lost because of this delay, or not?

Posted by: I and I | June 6, 2008 5:37 PM

The Coburn Seven want to kill the proposed legislation and renew the 'President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief' (PEPFAR), which was passed in 2003 by the Republican rubber stamp congress.

Some background from Wikipedia:

Public health experts and nonprofit organizations have questioned the tactics and effectiveness of PEPFAR programs, including requirements mandating that one-third of prevention spending be directed towards abstinence-only programs.

According to its critics, PEPFAR is influenced too heavily by American political and social groups with "moral" rather than public health agendas. PEPFAR Watch, a website run by the 'Center for Health' and 'Gender Equity and Health GAP', notes that the legislation behind PEPFAR “contains several restrictions, including those on funding for prevention activities and on organizations working with commercial sex workers.” PEPFAR has also refused to fund effective yet “taboo” safe needle exchange programs to prevent HIV transmission among drug users.

On July 2, 2003, President George W. Bush selected former Eli Lilly and Company chief executive Randall L. Tobias as the Global AIDS Coordinator in charge of PEPFAR.

"This decision is another deeply disturbing sign that the president may not be prepared to fulfill his pledge to take emergency action on AIDS," noted Paul Zeitz, executive director of the Global AIDS Alliance. "It raises serious questions of conflict of interest and the priorities of the White House." Several said they feared that Tobias would be "the fox in charge of the henhouse," as Kate Krauss of the AIDS Policy Project put it. Ambassador Mark Dybul replaced Tobias as U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator on August 11, 2006.

Bush's AIDS project under Tobias has been called "extremely flawed" by critics. Tobias later become the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), where he held the rank of Ambassador.

Tobias, a proponent of abstinence as Global AIDS Coordinator, ironically resigned from the United States Department of State over a pay for sex scandal in April 2007.

Another early criticism was that PEPFAR initially supported only branded antiretroviral drugs instead of cheaper generic versions; this has become less of an issue since distribution of generic drugs began in late 2005.

Of course, Coburn doesn't mention any of this in his pathetic response to Gerson's piece.

I and I is right - it's all about 'pro life' ideology at the expense of human lives.

Posted by: justintime | June 6, 2008 6:17 PM

The Magnificent Seven Knucklehead Senators
Tom Coburn (OK), Jim DeMint (SC), Jeff Sessions (AL), Saxby Chambliss (GA), David Vitter (LA), Jim Bunning (KY), Richard Burr (NC)
....
Tom Coburn opened a medical practice in Muskogee, Oklahoma, and served as a deacon in a Southern Baptist Church. Coburn is one of only two licensed doctors currently serving in the US Senate. During his career in obstetrics, he has treated over 15,000 patients and delivered 4,000 babies and was subject to one malpractice lawsuit.
....
Jim DeMint asserted on May 29, 2007 that WMDs are only yet to be found in Iraq.
He then went on to blame troop deaths on Democrats, saying, "I believe a lot of the casualties can be laid at the feet of all the talk in Congress about how we've got to get out, we've got to cut and run."
Jim DeMint was ranked in 2007 and 2008 by National Journal as the most conservative United States Senator in their March conservative/liberal rankings.
DeMint would require all illegal immigrants currently in the United States to return to their home countries to apply for legal reinstatement.
DeMint favors banning all forms of abortion.
DeMint believes openly gay individuals and single mothers should not teach in public schools.
Senator DeMint was a vocal supporter of Louisiana Senator David Vitter during the time when his prostitution scandal became public, and has been said to be a strong behind-the-scenes supporter of Idaho Senator Larry Craig
....
When Jeffrey Beauregard Sessions III was nominated to Federal court, it was revealed that Sessions had once labeled the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) "un-American," "Communist-inspired," and had said that they "forced civil rights down the throats of people." At his confirmation hearings, Sessions said that the groups could be un-American when "they involve themselves in un-American positions" in foreign policy. Sessions also stated about the Ku Klux Klan, "I used to think they're OK," until he learned that some Klan members were "pot smokers". Sessions had unsuccessfully prosecuted three civil rights workers (including Albert Turner, a former aide to Martin Luther King, Jr), on a case of election fraud for the 1984 election. Sessions spent hours interrogating black voters in predominantly black counties, finding only 14 allegedly tampered ballots out of the more than 1.7 million ballots cast. The three civil rights workers were acquitted after four hours of jury deliberation.
Sessions was one of only nine opponents of Senator John McCain's anti-torture amendment. Sessions supports Vice President Dick Cheney's proposal to exempt the CIA from any ban on torture. Sessions has advocated the extension of FISA legislation to legalize the Bush Administration's wiretapping techniques.
....
Clarence Saxby Chamblis ran for the Senate in 2002 and won a close race, defeating the Democratic incumbent, Max Cleland,. His campaign was based on themes of national defense and security, but drew criticism for television ads that paired images of Cleland and Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, and for questioning the commitment to homeland security of his opponent, a triple amputee and decorated Vietnam veteran. Chambliss was criticized for remarks he made during a November 19, 2001 meeting with emergency responders in Valdosta, Georgia, where he said that they should "turn the sheriff loose and arrest every Muslim that crosses the state line." Chambliss received 0 percent ratings from Republicans for Environmental Protection and the League of Conservation Voters ("REP") environmental scorecard.
Issues in which Senator Chambliss voted anti-environment were: all amendments to the Energy Policy Act proposed in 2005, the issue of authorizing drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, and fuel economy standards for vehicles. energy conference report, renewable energy, farm conservation programs,global warming, natural gas facilities, undermining fuel economy, increasing fuel economy, and various other issues.
Chambliss's son, Bo, is a registered lobbyist with the Chicago Mercantile Exchange and lobbies on commodity futures trading issues that are directly under the purview of his father, who chairs the Senate Agriculture Committee.
In 2006, under mounting pressure, Chambliss was among several Senate Republicans that returned monetary gifts from convicted criminal Jack Abramoff.
....
Richard Burr won the Republican primary in July 2004, to seek the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Democrat John Edwards. He faced Democrat Erskine Bowles and Libertarian Tom Bailey.
Thanks to Karl Rove Burr won the election by five percentage points.
Bowles's and Burr's combined campaign expenditures totaled over 26 million dollars, making it one of the most expensive Senate races in the country. Burr raised more money from political action committees, $2.8 million, than any other Senate candidate in 2004, primarily from the business community.
Of the 100 largest companies in America, at least 72 contributed to Burr.
Those included the PACs for such corporations as Wal-Mart, Exxon Mobil, General Motors, Ford, General Electric and ChevronTexaco.

Jim Bunning, a former major league baseball pitcher, was selected by Time in April 2006 as one of "America's Five Worst Senators." The magazine dubbed him The Underperformer for his "lackluster performance", noting he "shows little interest in policy unless it involves baseball", and criticized his hostility towards staff and fellow Senators and his "bizarre behavior" during his 2004 campaign.
....
David Bruce Vitter is a staunch supporter of conservative political views. His legislative agenda includes positions ranging from pro-life to pro-gun rights. He legislates against gambling, same-sex marriage, funding for abortion providers, increases in the State Children's Health Insurance Program, the United Nations, and amnesty for illegal immigrants.
In July 2007, Vitter was identified as a client of "D.C. Madam" Deborah Jeane Palfrey's prostitution service in Washington, D.C.

Conservatives in the Bible belt should be ashamed of sending them to Congress.
Surely there must be qualified, competent, honorable, ethical and moral candidates in these states to run for the US Senate, wouldn't you think?

Posted by: justintime | June 6, 2008 8:54 PM

What are the flaws in PEPFAR?
Here's an essay from the Columbia Political Review explaining why PEPFAR's 'pro-life' features hinder its effectiveness:

Reevaluating PEPFAR: America’s AIDS Policy
By Andrew Colvin and Colin Felsman

http://www.cpreview.org/issues/1207/reevaluatingpepfar.html

...certain aspects of the Emergency Plan continue to draw heavy criticism. Most noted is the ambiguity of the “ABC” approach to HIV/AIDS prevention. The “ABC” strategy, which distributes one-third of its funding to each element, emphasizes (A) abstinence for youth or a delay of sexual activities until marriage, (B) being tested for HIV and being faithful to your sexual partner, and (C) correct and consistent use of condoms.

The failure to convert priorities into understandable or even realistic terms prevents their successful application. According to Hayley Hathaway, Grassroots Coordinator for the Student Global AIDS Alliance, “a focus on abstinence is unrealistic when the vast majority of new HIV cases internationally (estimated 80%) are among married women or women in monogamous relationships.”

Presumably the “C” clause does promote the use of contraception. But lack of availability limits PEPFAR effectiveness.
This reality exposes PEPFAR to charges that its missionary methods hinder not only prevention efforts but also, by extension, expand the need for treatment and care.

Engaging the Emergency Plan’s flaws will earn the President not only a rare check in the “success column” but also a true, sustainable boost to the fight against HIV/AIDS.

Unfortunately, Bush has not "engaged the Emergency Plan's flaws".
The 'Magnificent Seven' Knucklehead Republican Senators are uncompromising in their support of the flawed PEPFAR, while blocking proposed legislation to address these flaws.

Posted by: justintime | June 7, 2008 11:26 AM

The 'lil boy from Seattle is back,
in an attemp to show conservatives are on crack,
He calls them names,
their motives he flames,
but everyone knows it's his policies that are wack.

He's had posts deleted by Sojo,
His nasty demeanor is a no-go.
Reagan is at fault for AIDS,
His dislike for Southerners cascades,
Respect for others, he does not show.

He thinks himself quite smart,
but little new does he impart.
He loves his darling Wiki,
it's selective facts are quite tricky,
But most people wonder, what is governing his heart?

Posted by: Poetess | June 7, 2008 1:07 PM

Ted Kennedy – Supports abortion on demand. He’s most infamous for driving a car with Mary Jo Kopechne a bridge into a channel near Chappaquiddick Island. He swam to safety leaving her to drown. Kennedy left the scene and did not call authorities until after Kopechne's body was discovered the following day. He pled guilty to leaving the scene of an accident and was sentenced to two months in jail. He supports renewable energy only when it’s not where he sails his yachts. He has amassed great family wealth, lives a lavish lifestyle, and keeps most of it in investments instead of using it to help those in need. He is a key supporter of the No Child Left Behind Act, which requires teachers to waste valuable class time on testing. He also supports the bloated, pork-filled Farm Bill.

Joe Biden - He supported Bush’s Iraq War.
He supports the bloated, pork-filled Farm Bill.
He supports the Patriot Act.
He supports abortion on demand.
He admitted to giving a speech plagarized from Neil Kinnock.
He has a history of making racial insensitive.
He supports the death penalty.

Diane Feinstein – She has a net worth of $26 million and uses it to live a lavish lifestyle instead of helping those in need. Feinstein's support of policies that benefit her husband raise the appearance of a conflict of interest. Feinstein's husband holds large investments in companies that have won large government contracts without competitive bidding. As of December 2006, according to SEC filings and Fedspending.org, three corporations in which her husband’s financial entities own a total of $1 billion in stock won considerable favor from the budgets of the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs. In 1985, at a press conference, she revealed details about the hunt for Richard Ramírez, otherwise known as the Night Stalker, and in so doing angered detectives by giving away details of his crimes, including displaying actual evidence at the press conference. These revelations subverted their investigation and Ramirez left the San Francisco area to commit another murder before he was finally captured in the Los Angeles area. In 1992, she was fined $190,000 for failure to properly report campaign contributions and expenditures. She supported Bush’s was in Iraq and then voted to cut off funding for the troops. She supports abortion on demand, the Patriot Act, expanding wiretaps, Bush’s tax cuts, and to give legal immunity to telecommucations firms that helped Bush spy on Americans. She also supports the bloated, pork-filled Farm Bill.

Tom Harkin - He’s the key Democrat behind the Farm Bill which wastes money on wealthy farmers, starves farmers in the third world, and encourages environmental destruction at home. He supported the Patriot Act and Bush’s Iraq War. He supports abortion on demand. He falsely claimed to have been in combat in Vietnam. He’s held fundraisers with Jack Abramoff in which he can’t account for tens of thousands of dollars he raised. He defends Hugo Chavez. He questioned McCain’s fitness for being President because he’s served in the military. He’s one of the reigning kings of pork, spending millions of taxpayer dollars on worthless projects in Iowa.

Liberals everywhere should be ashamed of sending them to Congress. Surely there must be qualified, competent, honorable, ethical and moral candidates in these states to run for the US Senate, wouldn't you think?

Posted by: Uh huh | June 7, 2008 2:33 PM

Good point, Vicky.

America needs to take a good, long, honest look in the mirror.
But for most Americans to become politically aware will require an objective and honest media.
Alas, our corporate media skips over the truth and dumbs down the message to suit corporate special interests.
This is what got America into the desperate situation we're in right now.

America needs to take the media away from corporate special interests in order to hold corporate America responsible.
We the people own the airwaves, we can change the FCC rules for broadcast licensing and we can break up the corporate media monopoly.

If we wipe our mirror clean we will be able to see ourselves for who we are and how the rest of the planet perceives us.
Then it will be possible for us to heal America.

Posted by: justintime | June 7, 2008 3:43 PM

"Methinks it might have something to do with the fact that condoms might be involved (gasp!) or various assumptions about how women and children contract the disease or even the ethnicity of the victims."

Perhaps Mr I and I the real problem is your pre determined belief the Americans are racist in those states ? Before adopting any faith, the agendas of the people attempting to impose it, along with the beliefs held by them and their disciples, should be considered.

Al Gore said President Bush betrayed his country. Al Sharpton compared President Bush to a gang leader. Senator Byrd compared Republicans to Nazis. Senator Kennedy said the war in Iraq was a fraud. Howard Dean suggested that President Bush had prior knowledge of the attacks on September 11, 2001. This is just a small sample of statements made by liberals against conservatives that had no intellectual value but to promote fear and hatred . . From the stand point of this blog , the view is highlighted on those who have made decisions counter to their liberal beliefs .

Gore and his disciples will still be living in their big houses, driving gas-guzzling cars and flying in private jets that leave carbon footprints as large as Bigfoot's, while most of folks in Africa live in the huts common to the Third World.
But hypocrisy is just one of many traits we all live with and ALSO displayed by secular fundamentalists like the democrats who opposed the Coburn 7 in their Senate races.
The same folks who support taking babies by the head and splitting their heads open , this of course is a choice . The Coburn 7 of course may wrong here from the facts as I see them . But then again comparing them as a worse choice then the political party of perversion and death is just silly .

Posted by: HuH | June 8, 2008 6:23 AM

Reagan's AIDS Legacy

"In the history of the AIDS epidemic, President Reagan's legacy is one of silence," Michael Cover, former associate executive director for public affairs at Whitman-Walker Clinic, the groundbreaking AIDS health-care organization in Washington. "It is the silence of tens of thousands who died alone and unacknowledged, stigmatized by our government under his administration."

When Rock Hudson, a friend and colleague of the Reagans, was diagnosed with AIDS and died in 1985 (one of the 20,740 cases reported that year), Reagan still did not speak out as president.

When family friend William F. Buckley, in a March 18, 1986, New York Times opinion article, called for mandatory testing for HIV and said that HIV-positive gay men should have this information forcibly tattooed on their buttocks (and IV-drug users on their arms) Reagan said nothing.

... at the 1986 centenary rededication of the Statue of Liberty.
The Reagans were there sitting next to French President Francois Mitterand and his wife, Danielle.
Bob Hope was on stage entertaining the all-star audience.
In the middle of a series of one-liners Hope quipped,
"I just heard that the Statue of Liberty has AIDS but she doesn't know if she got it from the mouth of the Hudson or the Staten Island Fairy."
As the television camera panned the audience, the Mitterands looked appalled.
The Reagans were laughing.
By the end of 1989 and the Reagan years, 115,786 women and men had been diagnosed with AIDS in the United States, and more than 70,000 of them had died.

Posted by: justintime | June 8, 2008 3:31 PM

Justintime,
Saying that the worldwide AIDS epidemic could have been "stopped in San Francisco" had Reagan done more is ridiculous and shows a complete lack of perspective.

AIDS didn't even start in San Fran. AIDS started in Africa and traveled to the U.S. Even if Reagan had waived a magic wand and cured all AIDS patients in the U.S. millions would still be dying in Africa and other parts of the globe today. It's a tragedy, but trying to pin this tragedy on Reagan is, as I said, ridiculous.

Even if you substituted the word "American" for "global" you'd still be making an over-the-top argument to blame it all on Reagan personally.

Posted by: Ryan | June 8, 2008 5:11 PM

How did AIDS get started?

AIDS was first reported June 5, 1981, when the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recorded a cluster of Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (now still classified as PCP but known to be caused by Pneumocystis jirovecii) in five homosexual men in Los Angeles.

In the beginning, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) did not have an official name for the disease, often referring to it by way of the diseases that were associated with it, for example, lymphadenopathy, the disease after which the discoverers of HIV originally named the virus.
They also used Kaposi's Sarcoma and Opportunistic Infections, the name by which a task force had been set up in 1981.

In the general press, the term GRID, which stood for Gay-related immune deficiency, had been coined.
However, after determining that AIDS was not isolated to the homosexual community, the term GRID became misleading and AIDS was introduced at a meeting in July 1982.
By September 1982 the CDC started using the name AIDS, and properly defined the illness.

A more controversial theory known as the OPV AIDS hypothesis suggests that the AIDS epidemic was inadvertently started in the late 1950s in the Belgian Congo by Hilary Koprowski's research into a poliomyelitis vaccine.
According to scientific consensus, this scenario is not supported by the available evidence.

A recent study states that HIV probably moved from Africa to Haiti and then entered the United States around 1969.
________________________________________

What I've laid out above are the facts.

Theories, rumors, hypotheses, speculations, spin, tall tales, slander and outright dirty lies are all in circulation at any given time.
(I never heard the one about Reagan's concentration camps for homosexuals before.)

The facts speak for themselves and you don't get to choose your own facts.
________________________________________

In some unfortunate regions on the planet, sex education is critical to survival.

Untold human misery could have been avoided if life saving information and methods for controlling the HIV/AIDS epidemic had been disseminated and distributed in a timely manner.

Is there any question about this?

Social conservatives on the Christian Right are responsible for blocking the dissemination of life saving information and methods for controlling the HIV/AIDS epidemic.

Blocking the dissemination of information critical to human survival is a criminal act, in my humble opinion.

You can fill in the blanks.

Posted by: justintime | June 8, 2008 5:55 PM

"Gore and his disciples will still be living in their big houses, driving gas-guzzling cars and flying in private jets that leave carbon footprints as large as Bigfoot's, while most of folks in Africa live in the huts common to the Third World.
But hypocrisy is just one of many traits we all live with and ALSO displayed by secular fundamentalists like the democrats who opposed the Coburn 7 in their Senate races.
The same folks who support taking babies by the head and splitting their heads open , this of course is a choice . The Coburn 7 of course may wrong here from the facts as I see them . But then again comparing them as a worse choice then the political party of perversion and death is just silly .

HuH?

Posted by: justintime | June 8, 2008 7:34 PM

I think you may be missing the point.
These Senators are just doing the same things that have been done before and for much the same reason.
The effect will be the same also.

It also appears these Seven Senators have a very bad habit of doing this kind of thing in other areas also. They work against any compromise and insist on a very restrictive and heavy handed approaches to many of todays problems. Their doctrinaire approach leaves us divided and unable to provide any help at all or to even move in any helpful direction. Their actions are mean spirited and ill advised.
It is better to do some good than to do nothing just because you insist on being right all the time. These men seem to want the whole world to convert to their way of thinking before any good deed can be attempted.
Even the Law of Moses allowed for divorce, (though God Hates divorce), because of the condition of our collective hearts. It seems that God himself is not as "doctrinaire" as these seven men. We should stop insisting that people become "moral" before we can help them at all. It makes no sense.
Congress continues to be hampered and deadlocked because of the actions of such men.
It is time that we called on them to stop.

Posted by: wayne | June 9, 2008 12:28 PM

1. What does abortion have to do with this story?

2. Has anyone posting here ever met a "wealthy farmer"?

3. Since when is it more cost effective to treat disease than to prevent disease? If that's true, why does my insurance provider keep pushing the issue of prevention down my throat?

4. How exactly does putting a hold on legislation affect any particular outcome besides the end result of, well, putting a hold on legislation?

5. Prevention slows the number of people dying of these diseases. Delaying this legislation slows prevention which could otherwise slow mortality. Therefore, lives are being lost because of the delay. Right?

Posted by: Duh | June 9, 2008 12:42 PM

According to the Washington Post, Coburn is one of McCain campaign's health advisors...

Posted by: Joe | June 9, 2008 1:00 PM

Duh: 1. What does abortion have to do with this story?

Good question for Gerson and maybe Lum since they introduced the analogy through th article in the Post.

2. Has anyone posting here ever met a "wealthy farmer"?

Texas is full of them, just look at Bush's homies in the Lone Star state they either have oil or cow manure on their hands.

5. Prevention slows the number of people dying of these diseases. Delaying this legislation slows prevention which could otherwise slow mortality. Therefore, lives are being lost because of the delay. Right?

They've not ran out of money yet folks! PEPFAR is still being funded in 2008 the same allotment it has recieved the last four years. The new reauthorization passed the house at a whopping $50 BILLION which is $20 BILLION more than Bush was asking. And it is $32 BILLION more than the original bill in 2003. The hold up issue lies with the fact that the re-up does away with the stipulated percentages of the money being spent on prevention versus treatment - simple as that (lots more money - lots less input as to how the money is spent). No one is dying of AIDS today in Africa because of the lobbying that is going on by these seven senators. Maybe if there had been seven conscience-minded senators with enough influence and brass ones to have taken the same slow down approach to authorizing the undeclared War in Iraq-just maybe.

And speaking of political rhetoric: Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Fla.), the ranking Republican on the committee, said on the House floor that the bill "strengthens our national security" because AIDS is destabilizing governments and societies" in entire regions around the world.

"It strengthens our national security" has become the litmus test for right-wing poitical hog-wash.

Posted by: d.e.sharp | June 9, 2008 1:47 PM

To justintime:

Totally with you. Sorry for the confusion over "wealthy farmers." Uh huh had commented about elected officials that we liberals ought to be ashamed about. One was Tom Harkin who supports the Farm Bill which "wastes money on wealthy farmers." It doesn't have much to do with AIDS, but speaks volumes about arrogance.

Posted by: Duh | June 9, 2008 3:31 PM

To your point, tackling AIDS in Africa is one small piece of the pie. In this case, prevention requires a a change of ethos that we are not in a position to bring about. Given our limited access to African governmental systems, treatment is going to be more cost efficient.

Hogwash, Kevin.

3. Since when is it more cost effective to treat disease than to prevent disease?

There are a number of diseases for which this is true.

Name one.

I would note that the argument is not one of treatment vs. prevention. It's dealing with AIDS patients vs. overhead, or money for unrelated programs. Without the 55% parameter, money could be used to fund just about anything.

Kevin recycles the talking points used by the Seven Great Pretenders, who are blocking the new AIDS for the real reason that it conflicts with religious taboos held by social conservatives on the Christian Right.

4. How exactly does putting a hold on legislation affect any particular outcome besides the end result of, well, putting a hold on legislation?

It forces the parties involved with crafting the legislation to rework it. Or, if you are a Democrat, it gives you the opportunity to pretend that seven senators hate people with AIDS and shoot press releases to the Kevin Lum's of the world so that they can parrot your talking points.

The Seven Great Pretenders are offering no alternate legislation other than renewal of the flawed PEPFAR.
If the new AIDS legislation gets to the floor, the Seven will have the opportunity of offering amendments.
Unlike the Republican rubber stamp Congress, which would pass legislation in the dead of night, allowing no participation by Democratic Senators, the new Democratic majority Congress is open to contributions from the minority Republican Senators.

"5. Prevention slows the number of people dying of these diseases. Delaying this legislation slows prevention which could otherwise slow mortality. Therefore, lives are being lost because of the delay. Right?"

No, because the amount spent on PEPFAR is finite,

This makes no sense, Kevin.

and because we are working on reauthorization in advance of enactment.

Who is "we" Kevin?
You, the Christian Right and the Seven Great Pretenders?

The Seven Great Pretenders block the new AIDS legislation because it conflicts with religious taboos held by social conservatives of the Christian Right -- not for their stated reason of cost effectiveness.

Provisions in the new Bill, designed to correct the flaws in PEPFAR:

1. The new legislation allows for realistic sex education policy -- beyond the PEPFAR ‘missionary’ message of abstinence.

2. It recognizes that the distribution of condoms is an effective method of reducing the spread of AIDS and provides funding for this.

3. It identifies the sex trade as a major vector in the spread of the AIDS epidemic and allows AIDS workers to reach out to sex workers with an expanded education program.

4. It identifies intravenous drug abusers as another major vector in the spread of the AIDS epidemic and provides for sterile needle distribution to drug addicts.

These are all prevention methods proven to be effective in reducing the spread of AIDS around the real world in all cultures.
But unfortunately, they conflict with religious taboos held on the Christian Right.

The Seven Great Pretenders pretend their obstruction tactics are aimed at saving money.
But the real reason they obstruct corrections to the flawed PEPFAR and the implementation of proven effective methods of fighting the AIDS epidemic is because the new AIDS Bill violates their religious taboos.

Kevin pretends not to recognize this as the real reason for the obstruction of life saving AIDS policy.
But AIDS victims do not pretend to die -- they really do die.

I find the intransigence of the Christian Right on AIDS policy is irresponsible, medically unethical, immoral and a crime against humanity.

Posted by: justintime | June 9, 2008 5:11 PM

The fact that no one really knows where the world-wide AIDS epidemic started proves that Reagan could not have possibly stopped the world epidemic by focusing on San Francisco. You can’t stop an epidemic if you don’t even know where it’s breaking out. Yes, it was in San Fran, but it was also in many other cities and areas of the world, it just wasn’t as evident.
You wrote "If Reagan had provided timely leadership, could the global HIV/AIDS epidemic have been stopped in San Francisco?
Many think so."

Ryan, did you miss this comment:

It is true that many think this.
I agree with you this is unlikely but because of the misguided and lackluster response by the Reagan administration, it's understandable why this kind of speculation exists.

But that is not a point I'm trying to make.

Posted by: justintime | June 9, 2008 5:27 PM

I think you hit the nail on the head, justintime. I don't see any other compelling reasons for the delay. Coburn and friends want to put a majority of the funds into treatment. Notice that hardly anyone dies of TB in the USA anymore? It's not because of expensive treatments. It's because of preventive measures that are causing no complaints about cost. Notice that the threat of AIDS in the USA doesn't have as sharp an edge as it used to? It's mostly because people have become informed about how it spreads... and also because of some VERY expensive treatments. Again, prevention is far more cost effective than treatment. Given the unsubstantial reasons for the delay (which will make it harder to get G8 support next month), it seems there's more to it than money. It certainly looks like judgement and sentence on the perceived immorality that spreads AIDS.

And a P.S. to Ryan on our little digression: There's a big difference between agribusiness investors and the family farmers out here in the heartland. The farmers I know and am related to may have a lot of assets as well as government payments, but they've also got a mountain of debt and more investment risk than you or I would be willing to take on. Let's just say that choosing to be a farmer isn't exactly the fast track to Easy Street.

Posted by: Duh | June 9, 2008 6:38 PM

I know not everyone likes to talk specifics here but lets look at a couple of statistics.

Kenya which has a population of somewhere around 38 million people with approximately 6% infected with HIV or AIDS receives around $370 million dollars in PEPFAR assistance.

Compare that to say Algeria which has around 34 million people (only 4million less) with 15-18% of its population infected (three times higher) yet this country recieves under $1 million dollars under the current PEPFAR program and only 4.8million through the World Funding program.

Another case in point Ethiopia which has a population of nearly 78 million (almost twice as many people as Kenya)has a infected rate of 10-14% (double thjat of Kenya)yet recieves more than $240 million dollars through PEPFAR (about 2/3 of the money Kenya gets)and anothr appx. $60 million through World Funding. Yet still compare this to Congo which has a whopping 66 1/2 million people (again twice as many as Kenya) with a comparable 10% infection rate (appx. 40% more than Kenya)yet only gets $10 million dollars in aid from the U.S(compared to the $370 million Kenya gets).

Going a little further we see that Zimbabwee has an infection rate of about 20% within its 12.4 million people and only gets roughly $25 million from PEPFAR. South Africa on the other hand has somewhere around 44million people with HIV/AIDS rate of about 17% yet receives - get this $398 million dollars. Compare those numbers to Congo or Algeria.

We can go on and on and look at countries like Botszana, Lesotho, and Swaziland as well - which are the countries with the highest rates of infected population (all over 20%)and see how disproportional their assistance is through PEPFAR as to, say Nigeria which get more than $300 million in funds with an infected rate somewhere between 7-9%.

My point is this, politics is playing as big of a part in this program as any other bill yet where are those that cry out for equality in care for all peoples when the subject is discussed? They are merely caught up in party politics pointing fingers at this person or that which for whatever reason doesn't just fall in line.

The reappropriation bill passed by the House ups the total funding to appx. $50 million versus the $30 million proposed by Bush, and the $18 million of the original bill. So guess what, the disproportionalism will increase as well.

Please understand this - there has been no new cases of deaths from AIDS or related issues in Africa because the Senate is debating the use of these funds - because the orginal bill is still in existence.

Maybe we should all just take a step back and really look at what is going on here and quit villianizing seven of our elected officals.

Posted by: d.e.sharp | June 9, 2008 8:55 PM

Please understand this - there has been no new cases of deaths from AIDS or related issues in Africa because the Senate is debating the use of these funds - because the orginal bill is still in existence.

I've been trying to tell you, Sharp, that AIDS control experts have pointed out the flaws in PEPFAR and confirmed the effectiveness of the four methods listed above. The new legislation incorporates these four methods.

If it weren't for social conservatives on the Christian Right, their sacred taboos, and their intransigence, these policies would have been implemented decades ago and millions of lives could have been saved.

I suspect some of the conservatives on this site are pretending to be dumb on AIDS policy so they won't have to debate the real issues.

Maybe we should all just take a step back and really look at what is going on here and quit villianizing seven of our elected officals.

You're missing the point again, Sharp.

Maybe you should step back and look at the big picture of the AIDS epidemic and the efforts being used to bring it under control, Sharp.

We have a right to expect our political leaders to carefully consider the big picture instead of the picture framed by special interests -- in this case, the Christian Right.

When our leaders refuse to look at the big picture because of personal religious taboos, and if their personal religious taboos are in conflict with their performance as representatives of all the people, we as citizens have a right to criticize them and if warranted, the responsibility to impeach them or vote them out of office for their negligence or incompetence.

Posted by: justintime | June 9, 2008 10:19 PM

justintime, maybe you're missing my point here. In Lum's opening paragraph he states that; " Seven senators -- known as the “Coburn Seven” -- are playing politics with the lives of millions of people affected by deadly diseases by blocking the reauthorization of the Global AIDS, Malaria and Tuberculosis bill."

My comment addresses the fact that there are much greater areas of issue here which is indeed affecting millions of lives and not simply delaying the reauthorizing of a bill that is still in affect this fiscal year - none more greater than the disproportional funding process. Why are we turning our backs on some people and not others when all need our help. Is this not politics at it's worse? Those that want to pound their chest as they try and take the high road politically on the passing of the reauthorization out of some sort of moral justification should be more willing to spend time insuring those affected with HIV are being properly care for, as much as if feasible anyway. We have folks that get into great debates over the nuances of the "prevention" stipulations of the bill yet when in reality very little is actually changing. The 33 percent abstinence-only earmark is being eliminated, but in its place is a requirement that 50 percent of funds for preventing sexual transmission be spent on "behavior change," defined as abstinence, delay of sexual debut, monogamy and fidelity. The bill puts in place a system that requires local public health officials to report if they are not going to comply with the provision. Which is the same honor- system, self-reporting as the orginal program.

Here is one characterization of this provision, The PEPFAR administrator is to provide balanced funding for prevention activities for sexual behavior and prevention of HIV/AIDS, funded in a meaningful and equitable way in the strategy for each host country based on objective epidemiological evidence. If this strategy provides less than 50 percent of such sexual transmission funds for behavior change programs, the Coordinator shall report to the appropriate Congressional committees the justification for this decision.

We spend way too much time focusing on the distractions and not on the real issues all because someone declares the distraction to be the issue. Maybe you can keep your eye on the ball here just for a minute as you suggest that I do.

You are correct, this issue isn't about how much money is sent to Africa yet how effectively it is utilized. My view is to look at the fairness of how it is distributed to those that need the assistance and your's obviously is to look at the details of how the money is distributed from a program activity standpoint. When in my opinion there isn't going to be a significant veering from the prevention education efforts so the discussion is a moot point.

If you want to here rhetoric listen to this; Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Fla.), the ranking Republican on the committee, said on the House floor that the bill "strengthens our national security" because AIDS is "destabilizing governments and societies" in entire regions around the world.

"strengthens our national security" has become sysnonymous with right-wing hogwash.

But here's a question for you: If a pregnant woman (in one of the areas where the funding is being distributed) fetus is diagnoised as carrying the HIV infection would an abortion program
(or planned-parenthood as they say) be an acceptable use of funding if the ultimate goal is send money to help effectively minimize the number of cases???

Posted by: d.e.sharp | June 10, 2008 8:04 AM

Attention d.e.sharp

Quick comment

Unless I mistaken your comment re AIDS positive mother to be, poses a less frequent problem. The foetus can become infected in the womb but it would seem that a significant proportion have not.

see http://the-aids-pandemic.blogspot.com/2006/12/mother-to-child-transmission-of-hiv.html

Following the right processes and having the right drugs to suppress the virus in the mother and then are careful during the delivery the child is can OK. This is where the funds /skills are needed and the price of the drugs needs to be as low as possible - non of the USA drug companies super profits, please even on products under patent.

However the future of the child may be at risk if drugs are not sufficient to keep the mother alive for the next 15-20 years with out infecting the child.

Posted by: johnH | June 10, 2008 9:25 AM

JohnH, according to Avert International an infected pregnant woman can pass the virus on to her unborn baby either before or during birth. HIV can also be passed on during breastfeeding.

If a woman knows that she is infected with HIV, there are drugs that she can take to greatly reduce the chances of her child becoming infected.

Around 2 million children in sub-Saharan Africa were living with HIV at the end of 2007. They represent more than 85% of all children living with HIV worldwide.6 The vast majority of these children will have become infected with HIV during pregnancy or through breastfeeding when they are babies, as a result of their mother being HIV-positive.

peace,

Posted by: d.e.sharp | June 10, 2008 10:49 AM

Kevin S: Why are you ignoring the debate that has taken place to date?

Yes indeed, Kevin S., Why areyou ignoring the central issue of the debate that is taking place on this thread?

AIDS workers around the world have become convinced from years of in-the field experience that the following methods:

1. realistic sex education policy -- beyond the PEPFAR ‘missionary’ message of abstinence.

2. the distribution of condoms is an effective method of reducing the spread of AIDS and the new legislation acknowledges this fact and provides funding for condom distribution.

3. the sex trade is a major vector in the spread of the AIDS epidemic and the new legislation allows AIDS workers to reach out to sex workers with an expanded education program.

4. intravenous drug abusers represent another major vector in the spread of the AIDS epidemic and the new legislation provides for sterile needle distribution to drug addicts.

If it weren't for social conservatives on the Christian Right, their sacred taboos, and their intransigence, these policies would have been implemented decades ago and millions of lives could have been saved.

Posted by: justintime | June 10, 2008 11:52 AM

And Kevin, you never have answered the "charges" that these Republican senators are delaying this bill because of their Christian Right convictions. You don't have to, of course; you're not on trial here. But your failure to even address that piece of this debate, along with your dust-throwing arguments, cannot help but make one wonder why you're not addressing these things. You seem to want to spend a lot of time and energy on this argument--why won't you talk about the central issues (as raised by this blog and many of the comments thereafter)?

Posted by: JEM | June 10, 2008 2:35 PM

Politics entering into disease prevention/treatment is never pretty.

It can get really ugly when religion enters into disease prevention/treatment policy.

Posted by: justintime | June 10, 2008 4:02 PM

Yeah, you really wouldn't want those ugly Christian notions of compassion, caring for the sick, love for the downtrodden to get in the way of AIDS treatment and prevention policy would we justintime. No way...let secular values take care of it all.

Posted by: Sad | June 12, 2008 11:26 AM