The Legacy of PEPFAR
Bush has made HIV/AIDS relief a priority, but he’s thwarted his own efforts by relying on unsound abstinence-only education.By Stephanie Gross
August 20, 2008
After speaking on his efforts to fight HIV/AIDS, President Bush hoists 4-year-old Baron Mosima Loyiso Tantoh. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
As President George W. Bush’s tenure draws to a close, it’s still unclear what his enduring legacy will be. It could be the complete fiasco of the Iraq war or the high levels of corruption in the Justice Department. But some point to a more positive effort: Bush’s pledge to fight HIV/AIDS around the world with the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). Congress has approved $19 billion in PEPFAR funding over the past five years, and this summer Congress approved a budget of over $48 billion more for the next five. But although Bush undoubtedly has played a major role in addressing the world’s deadliest sexually transmitted infection (STI), his emphasis on abstinence-only programs in PEPFAR could tarnish his legacy. Abstinence-only programs are at best ineffective and at worst putting millions of people at risk around the world.
What do we mean by abstinence-only programs?
Since their inception through legislation passed by Congress in 1981, abstinence-only programs have taught that abstinence until marriage is the only acceptable means of protection from pregnancy and STIs. Abstinence-only programs intentionally withhold any information that might be of use to those who have sex before marriage, have no control over sex within marriage, or cannot marry. Abstinence-only programs do not include information on how to use any form of contraception, like condoms or the birth control pill. In fact, to receive federal funding, such programs can only mention contraceptives like condoms to discuss their failure rates. This effectively discourages teens from using them. Studies show that preaching abstinence until marriage is unrealistic—more than nine out of ten Americans have sex before marriage.
What’s almost more alarming than the information these programs leave out is what they do include—biased or entirely inaccurate information. A 2004 study prepared for Congressman Henry Waxman (PDF), chair of the House Government Oversight Committee, found mistakes in a number of the most widely used abstinence-only programs funded by the federal government. For example, several curricula cited a bogus study from 1993 which states that condoms only reduce the rate of HIV infection by 69 percent. The study was discredited back in the late 1990s by both the Center for Disease Control and the Food and Drug Administration.
Moreover, a report by the advocacy group Legal Momentum found that many of these programs promote harmful gender stereotypes (PDF). For example, the report found one curriculum that outlined the following stereotype as fact: “Because girls are usually more talkative, make eye contact more often than men, and love to dress in eye-catching ways, they may appear to be coming on to a guy when in reality they are just being friendly.”
What does this have to do with PEPFAR?
Through restrictions on the use of PEPFAR funds, the United States is failing to provide at-risk men and women around the world with the tools they need to prevent HIV infection. In the past, the bulk of PEPFAR money has been spent on HIV/AIDS treatment, while only 20 percent targeted prevention. Of that money, a third had to be spent on programs that promote abstinence until marriage. An audit by the Institute for Medicine told Congress last year that this was one of the main factors keeping PEPFAR from further efficacy, especially since this restriction applies even in countries where HIV is mainly transmitted within marriage or through shared needles, rather than via extramarital sexual behavior.
Do abstinence-only programs work?
A 2007 report from a private research company, commissioned and funded by the federal government, found no differences among students who had participated in abstinence-only programs and those who had not in STI rates, rates of sexual activity, age at first sexual experience, likelihood of being abstinent, or pregnancy rates. In fact, one of the only differences it found was that students from the abstinence-only programs had a poorer understanding of the effectiveness of birth control and of condoms in preventing pregnancy and STIs.
Some policymakers are finally starting to take notice. California, Massachusetts, Ohio, Arizona, and Iowa recently joined the ranks of states rejecting federal funding for abstinence-only programming. Now 25 states (PDF) have abstinence-only funding for the upcoming fiscal year. These states are giving up a lot of money: The federal government matches $4 for every $3 a state spends on abstinence-only programs. This money comes from Title V, one of the major federal sources for such programs.
To qualify for Title V funds, the programs must exclude any information on contraceptives and focus on sex within marriage as the “expected standard for all school-age children.” Now, rather than using state funds to meet the federal match for programs known to be ineffective, policymakers and educators across the country have rejected these stifling restrictions and chosen instead to teach sex education with a more comprehensive definition of sexual health.
What’s next for abstinence-only?
Congress has already approved a large share of next year’s domestic abstinence-only funding. A lot is at stake—in 2008, the federal government allocated about $175 million for all the abstinence-only programs it supports. The money is divided into three major funding streams, including Title V as well as two programs that bypass state governments, channeling money directly to community and faith-based organizations. This money goes through huge appropriations bills for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
The Bush administration, though, is seeking to protect these programs from any attacks or budget cuts they might receive in the years to come. A leaked document from HHS reveals a proposed change that would allow states to retain Title V funding for five years, from 2009 to 2013, waiving the requirement that they reapply each year. Whether or not Bush succeeds at keeping states’ abstinence-only programs immune from losing funding, these efforts represent a dangerous step backwards.
In July 2008, PEPFAR was renewed after much scrutiny and debate. New changes to the legislation attempted to soften the rigid rules dictating that a third of a country’s prevention funding be used for abstinence-only programs. This provision wasn’t included in the renewed PEPFAR funding guidelines, though a program coordinator must provide an explanation if funding for abstinence-only programs falls below half of prevention spending in countries with AIDS epidemics. Ultimately, this rule could increase the amount of abstinence-only programming in a country, even where it might be inappropriate to meet that country’s prevention needs.
Despite the mounting evidence against abstinence-only, its proponents still hold a lot of sway. Earlier this year, the National Abstinence Education Association launched a massive campaign promoting abstinence-only with the help of CRC Public Relations, the same firm that produced the Swift Boat ad campaign. And though Congressman Waxman held a congressional hearing about the effects (or lack thereof) of abstinence-only programs earlier this year, it is still unlikely that these misguided programs will disappear anytime soon.
Stephanie Gross is a Domestic Policy intern in the Women’s Health and Rights Program at the Center for American Progress and a senior at Northwestern University.
Social Bookmarking
--------
Comments
THE CURE for HIV/AIDS.......AMBUSH
THE IDEA that AMBUSH cures AIDS is being proven by the more than 400 individuals who have taken a dose of 60 ml three times daily for 21 days. The result is that AMBUSH ‘KILLS’ the virus by causing the protein envelope to rupture and the viral particles are discarded by the white blood cells. AMBUSH is able to ‘KILL’ the virus that are ‘hiding’ in the lymph system by its ‘natural radioactive’ properties. This process allows the body to ‘return to normal health’ with a corresponding immunity to that or those strains of the virus. What is AMBUSH ? AMBUSH is a radioactive isotope of uranium that is found in the ‘palm’ plant of which there are more than 3000 species. When ingested, AMBUSH causes the body temperature in the trunk area to rise to about 102 degrees when the individual is sleeping. The preparation takes four hours per batch, which is then given to the individuals for consumption 60 ml three times daily for 21 days. AMBUSH is a herbal preparation in this form but it contains an active ingredient which is a ‘NEW’ crystalline substance, a drug from the ‘palm plant’ similarly to ASPIRIN originating from the willow tree bark RESULTS: After 21 days on AMBUSH, ALL the individuals experienced a decrease in viral load to undetectable, an increase in cd4, increase in RBC, an improvement in general health such as more color to the face, decrease in Buffalo hump, an increase in gluteal muscles, a decrease to having no joint pains whereby individuals can bend to touch their toes, and walk up steps are but a few examples. There is also a dramatic increase in their sexual appetite beginning after the first week of therapy DISCUSSION: In any plant concoction such as percolated ‘tea’, there are 30-40,000 compounds, whi ch would take the scientific community twenty years to isolate one particular ingredient if they knew what they were looking for. The LORD GOD has given me seven steps to isolate the active ingredient, which is soft and metallic in nature and has a carbon- uranium-sulfur-(classified)-phentolamine configuration or structure. This is similar to Federick Kekule and the discovery of the benzene ring where he dreamt the structure. As an antiviral and ‘natural radioactivity’ producing agent, AMBUSH is also effective against leukemia, lupus and HPV. Here I am saying that I have ‘GIVEN’ AMBUSH in the same ‘strength’ and dosage to patients with leukemia, lupus and HPV. A 35 year old male with HIV found it difficult to impossible to urinate was put on ‘green tea’ and water while the doctors contemplated prostrate surgery. One of the doctors gave him my number , I sent him a supply of AMBUSH an d he has not been given any more ARV’s, since taking AMBUSH 18 months ago, is in ‘good’ health and has expressed a willingness to be examined by HIV investigators like many others who have taken AMBUSH. I have sent this ‘IDEA’ to most HIV research agencies, scientist of the field, universities, hospitals, clinics, politicians and news agencies to which it is REJECTED because the name of THE LORD GOD is mentioned. He has steered me scientifically through the processes such as which plant and how to produce the active ingredient. What are the odds of a Florida Pharmacist picking a plant would contain the CURE for HIV/AIDS ? I have never charged any of the people for their supply of AMBUSH but a life saving has been spent on the project with NO renumeration from any sources because AMBUSH falls outside the walls of modern medicine and research.PROPOSAL:
My proposal is that I PROVE that AMBUSH CURES HIV/AIDS by giving it to a number of END-STAGE or DRUG-RESISTANT people and the scientific community watches their recovery. This proposal addresses the problem in that I have already outlaid the results to be obtained.
This IDEA is unconventional in that the scientific community has rejected AMBUSH because I say it is GOD given. Secondly if I wrote it according to certain standards, then it might be peer reviewed. However, THE LORD GOD has also shown me that there are five enzyme systems associated with the virus, reverse transcriptase, protease, fusion and two more of which causes the virus to be AIRBOURNE. This means that without DIVINE intervention mankind and ALL warm- blooded mammals will be extinct in a number of years. The PROOF of what I am saying is found in scientific papers wherein it is found that when the protease cuts the viral strands, it cuts it at DIFFERENT lengths EVERY time, to which it should always be a valine at the end but is a different amino acid every time. This is why it is IMPOSSIBLE to produce a VACCINE. Since this is NOT a hypothesis but there are about 400 individuals who have taken AMBUSH, here lies a vast area in which to check, recheck and confirm that AMBUSH CURES AIDS. Let it be mentioned that during the HIV reproductive cycle, reverse transcriptase converts viral RNA into DNA compatible to human genetic materials. Thus the human DNA has been ‘hijacked’ and since each person has a DIFFERENT DNA, then the new viral copy is unique to that person which shows that each individual has a DIFFERENT STRAIN of the virus. Consider two HIV positive people swapping viral strains and increasing its complexity with multiple partners. It can also be proposed that they be revisited as proof that the strain or strains that they had were ‘killed’ at the time of taking AMBUSH considering that a person can catch as many different strains as there are people who are infected by HIV. I am also willing to work with the scientific community in identifying those individuals who took AMBUSH and wish to be identified with this process notwithstanding that some are stigmatized while others are jubilant, Once AMBUSH is verified as being able to accomplish that which is aforementioned then the next stage might be the natural and artificial synthesis of the substance. Finally, if this is accepted or not, believed or not, THE LORD GOD always wins and this is the heavenly truth to which AMBUSH was divinely given to mankind for the CURE of HIV/AIDS and it will be here forever. Apostle Shada Mishe.Here is a video taped presentation that I gave at t he Martin Luther King library in Washington
www.youtube.com/watc…
— Apostle Shada Mishe - Aug 20, 02:44 PM - #www.youtube.com/watc…
www.youtube.com/watc…
www.youtube.com/watc…
www.youtube.com/watc…
www.youtube.com/watc…
www.youtube.com/watc…
How do I get a hold of this stuff?
— Dude Zulu - Aug 26, 01:37 AM - #