In some poor nations of the world, a dollar spent trying to prevent HIV/AIDS by preaching abstinence is a dollar wasted. But that reality has not deterred the Bush administration from stressing abstinence and fidelity more than Congress intended in conjunction with Bush’s $15 billion global AIDS initiative, according to Congress’ Government Accountability Office. Experts like the plan’s “ABC” approach — abstinence, fidelity and condoms. But to de-emphasize condoms for domestic political reasons is to deny the reality that they save lives.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/23
- donndublin on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- XXX on Open thread 11/23
- donndublin on Open thread 11/23
- donndublin on Open thread 11/23
11 Comments
Should the Bush administration formula be:
Politics = Policy
or
Politics > Policy ?
I believe the latter Politics is greater then Policy
Neither, if I understand correctly.
I would hope that any President would follow a his/her principles and set policy accordingly.
So, if I understand correctly, my answer would be that Policy–>Politics, or policy is determined by principles and politics follows accordingly. In other words, policy implies politics.
I think that President Bush agrees, and I think this is his one remaining considerable strength – the last strength that I for one would consider significant from a “what’s best for all Americans” viewpoint. I don’t think that even the staunchest opponent of President Bush would disagree that he fights very hard for what he believes in.
Unfortunately, President Bush is an incompetent leader, a president who richly deserves to be fired forthwith. I agree with many of his principles, but his means to his ends are utterly, morally corrupt, and nearly every outcome has proven to be outside both his vision and his control.
$0.02
In the article Rhonda linked there was criticism that the emphasis on abstinence was meant as a bone (maybe a bad choice of words :)) thrown to the religious base of the Republican party. The effectiveness (or lack thereof) of this endeavor was a secondary consideration. Hence politics being equal or trumping effective policy.
This is an important problem. People die from these diseases, so chosing to support political aims over lives, is not an especially good thing in my view.
$0.03
After re-reading the linked article, it sounds like there is a lot of quibbling about what is working, and what is not. Good policy would involve having evaluation mechanisms in place, so that these questions were answered. That does not appear to be the case now.
Yes, DD, you and Rhonda sketch another case where President Bush’s ends are not justified by his means.
In fact, this sketch is one of the more horrific examples of a situation where President Bush means, “abstinence,” are morally corrupt when measured against the weight of his end, f’<0 for the curve defined by AIDS diagnoses over time.
President Bush’s vision is limited, and the outcome will be outside his policy’s control.
What do you want here, $0.01?
If so, you got it from me.
Bush doesnt know his ABC’s – thats funny. Actually it kinda makes me mad.
I recall reading a while ago that one of the reasons that HIV/AIDS was transmitted to such a large extent in Africa was because the cultural practices of their extra-marital affairs. The extra-marital partnerships occur over long periods of time. This has made HIV/AIDS more likely to be transmitted.
So, it is possible that intervening effectively and actually promoting fidelity would be a good idea in obtaining a good outcome. As I indicate in my last post, it’s my impression that it is not clear at this time what is working, or is not, in this important and expensive program.
I would have to think that it would be more effective and cost-efficient to hand out and promote the use of condoms. This just reflects my skepticism about influencing people’s sexual behavior and cultural practices.
I believe that, in certain parts of Africa (especially those parts south of the equator), the Western phrase “extra-marital” holds little if no meaning.
You might want to realign your cultural expectations accordingly if accuracy in your expectations and validity in your opinion, with respect to that of Africans with whom you may hold relevant conversations, is important to you.
There are major cultural differences.
Either way, condoms as prophylactic is wise, imo (and that of the WHO).
Just saying.
$0.02
Of course, the Bush “players” are not living abstinence. Neil gave his wife (ex-wife) herpes from Hong Kong hookers, GW’s girlfriend had an illegal abortion, party-hearty Jenna and Barb have probably been on the pill since they were 12 . . .
But abstinence is perfectly fine for all the “little people,” you know the “extra chromosone” Christians has Bush insiders call them . . .