New policy just announced yesterday:
U.S. groups fighting AIDS overseas are being given an ultimatum by the government: Pledge your opposition to sex trafficking and prostitution or do without federal funds.
So what does this mean exactly, this ultimatum to NGO’s to condemn prostitution or lose federal funds to fight AIDS overseas? It couldn’t possibly mean Bush wants poor women who have been forced into prostitution to not receive treatment for AIDS, and/or information on how to prevent them from contracting AIDS in the first place?
Or could it . . . ?
[The new federal rule will] affect about $2.2 billion in AIDS grants and contracts this year, according to Kent Hill, acting administrator for global health at the U.S. Agency for International Development, which recently issued a policy directive outlining the regulation.
$2.2 billion is a lot of scratch, even by this administration’s standards. And when you look at funds that they are willing to spend to combat social issues in general, it looms even larger. This is one of the the few social initiatives they seek to get credit for: the global fight against the AIDS epidemic. So why the new rule?
[Acting administrator for global health at the U.S. Agency for International Development] Hill said the pledge is a tool the United States can use to make sure none of its money goes to support a practice he called degrading and debilitating.
“Prostitution worldwide has always been connected to human rights violations, dehumanization, and organized crime,” Hill said. “The vast majority of people, globally, do not find themselves there by choice.”
Well that seem like a good practice. We all condemn human rights violations, and yes, prostitution is degrading and often linked to sexual slavery and crime. So why am I troubled by this rule?
Terri Bartlett, vice president for public policy at Population Action International, a health advocacy group for women’s issues, said while she agrees with the idea behind the pledge, she thinks the government is infringing on health organizations’ free speech rights by requiring it.
“There’s a litmus test of issues and organizations’ positions on those issues, and regardless of their ability, they will be judged by that position,” Bartlett said.
Bartlett said that while she agreed with the pledge requirement’s premise that prostitution is a harmful occupation, it may have the unintended effect of deterring prostitutes from seeking help by unnecessarily singling them out.
“We want to build trust and reduce stigma,” Bartlett said of dealing with the high-risk population of prostitutes. “This policy flies in the face of what we know works.”
I actually disagree with Ms. Bartlett. I think that deterring prostitutes from seeking help isn’t an unintended consequence at all. I think it is the actual intended purpose of the Bush administration to deter treatment of prostitutes even though that would prove counterproductive to making headway against the spread of AIDS.
This is another example of the Christian Right hijacking policy coming out of the White House. The fundamentalist right’s concern about the immorality of prostitution trumps any concern they might have for the women, and their children, who suffer from the spread of this terrible blight.
There are many ways one could attack the “debilitating and degrading” practice of prostitution and its attendent criminal activity. One would be to commit more money and resources to combatting the criminal gangs that operate these sexual slave networks, and also dedicate more funds to defeating criminal enterprises that rely on prostitution. That would require a level of international cooperation the Bush administration isn’t always willing to undertake, but if you really want to put a dent in this traffic in human beings that is the best approach to take.
Another way would be to take action to spur economic growth and opportunity in the developing world. In essence, make it possible for poor women to find other jobs to feed their families which don’t require them to put their health and lives at risk.
But that isn’t the Bush and Christian Right’s agenda. They would rather punish the women at the bottom of the heap than find ways to make a dent in the world-wide sex for hire enterprise. Bush, instead would rather score cheap political points with his core supporters rather than pursue policies that encourage poor prostitues in 3rd world countries to seek treatment and knowledge about disease prevention.
Don’t believe me? Read further:
Michael Wiest, vice president of Catholic Relief Services, a recipient of USAID funds, said it would take a lot of time and money to make sure his organization wasn’t working with any foreign partner groups that violated the pledge. He said that would be wasted energy because “the idea that one of our partners would be pro-prostitution is … off the charts.”
. . . “This administration has made no secret that they want new partners for AIDS work,” Olson said.
He said conservatives favor AIDS prevention programs that focus on abstinence and monogamy, rather than ones that endorse condom use and safe sex.
Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., made statements to that effect in a letter he wrote to President Bush regarding AIDS programs last month. He specifically criticized USAID for funding Olson’s group, which has programs aimed at educating prostitutes and their clients in nightclubs and at bingo-type games where the two groups traditionally mix.
. . . Besides the pledge, the new rules require AIDS groups to inform clients of condom failure rates. Another requirement is that the federal government must now give equal opportunity to funding applicants that have “a religious or moral objection” to a particular AIDS prevention method or treatment program, such as condoms or needle exchanges.
These people who claim to support a “Culture of Life” would rather see people die if they are prostitutes, or the clients of prostitutes or the innocent children of either. Their desire to condemn both the practice of “immoral sex” and the individuals who engae in it, outweighs any compassion they feel for these living, suffering human beings. So much so that they are willing to see more people contract this terrible disease, and more people die, rather than support programs that we know are effective in limiting the spread of AIDS.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is worthy of our loud and frequent condemnation.
