Jessica

Vozel

Read Jessica's bio and previous columns here

February 18, 2008

Bush AIDS Program Laudable, But Abstinence-Only Insistence is Wrong

President Bush may not be popular here in his home country, but he hopes to retain his more favorable status in the African countries he plans to visit in the next six days. After he spoke to Tanzania’s president, Jakaya Kikwete on Sunday, the leader said of Bush, “People may have different views about you and your administration and your legacy. But we in Tanzania . . . know for sure that you, Mr. President, and your administration, have been good friends of our country.”

Specifically, Tanzania is thankful for the funding that the United States has offered for HIV and AIDS relief - $18 billion so far, the largest sum offered by any developed nation to an undeveloped one for infectious disease relief.

These funds are part of PEPFAR, or the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief – a plan that is set to expire this year along with Bush’s presidency. President Bush wished to assure the people of Africa that although the plan is expiring, the U.S. will not turn its back on their concerns.  To prove this, Bush proposed to Congress a renewal of the program and funds that will bring $30 billion to Africa for AIDS relief over the next five years.

So far so good, right? It’s difficult to find fault with President Bush’s dedication to stopping the spread of HIV in Africa. But there is a glitch in the program that is causing some Democrats, as well as aid workers, to question the renewal Bush proposes: Approximately one-third of prevention funding must go to abstinence-until-marriage programs. 

There’s no denying that Bush’s program has helped people. With $18 billion, one would hope that positive changes would have been realized in Africa. Because of this relative success, President Bush fervently defends leaving the abstinence-only clause in the proposed extension, even against the suggestions of aid workers who say that abstinence-only sends a dangerous message and sucks up funds that could be used for more successful prevention and treatment.  

Studies show that forcing the abstinence-only message on American youth is a problem in itself, but when that faulty ideology spreads to an area of the world where survival is a primary concern, it becomes even more problematic. For example, married people in Africa are not immune to contracting the disease. Obviously, for abstinence-until-marriage to be effective, both partners have to be virgins upon marriage and remain monogamous. Not only is this ideal situation rarely a reality, but many Africans become infected by their marriage partners who are unaware of their HIV status when they enter into the marriage. 

In fact, as statistics suggest, the spread of HIV is much more likely when an HIV-positive person is engaging in regular sexual activity with a HIV-negative person, as opposed to a one-time encounter. Yet U.S. policy mandates that condoms only be distributed to prostitutes and lorry drivers – those who may be having plenty of one-time encounters – and not married or monogamous couples who are at a much greater risk of spreading the disease if one partner is infected. Bush’s plan shows either a fundamental misunderstanding of how the disease works, or a refusal to budge for the sake of religious-based ideology. Or, even worse, a dangerous mix of both. 

Not surprisingly, Bush is attempting during his African visit to paint Democrats in Congress as callous for their threat to overturn the extension if the abstinence-only clause is still in place. As with troop funding and health care for American children, if Democrats wish to challenge some aspect of one of Bush’s faulty proposals, they are heartless ideologues who put the children/troops/African nations in danger for the sake of their liberal beliefs.

Never does Bush consider that perhaps he is the one who puts these groups in danger by stubbornly refusing to consider an alternative that may actually work better. At his visit with President Kikwete, he said “One of the main reasons I want to make sure the American people know that the program is successful is because I want this program to continue to be funded,” as if Congress will deny funding altogether if they deem the current plan unsuccessful. 

Funding will continue because both Democrats and Republicans thankfully find it to be necessary. It just may not be in the form that President Bush demands. I guess as far as Bush is concerned, if it’s not on his terms, it might as well not exist at all.

© 2008 North Star Writers Group. May not be republished without permission.

Click here to talk to our writers and editors about this column and others in our discussion forum.

To e-mail feedback about this column, click here. If you enjoy this writer's work, please contact your local newspapers editors and ask them to carry it.

This is Column # JV045. Request permission to publish here.