In Wednesday's Commentarium, reader Kate is bothered by the Bush administration's focus on abstinence as a method of AIDS prevention, which doesn't have a snowball's chance in a microwave of doing anything for Africans.
And she should be. This very issue came up at Monday's White House press briefing. As a follow-up on the now-tanked nomination of Jerry "Gay Plague" Thacker to the White House AIDS Panel, Press Secretary Fleischer was asked the following:
Q: Ari, the Associated Press reports that in reaction to what they termed your stern rebuke of Jerry Thacker, a group called Human Rights Campaign said that while this was a positive development, the Bush administration's "obsessive focus on abstinence as the solitary mechanism to prevent the transmission of HIV is not based on sound science."
And my question is, what is the Bush administration's response to this charge that you are obsessive and unscientific?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think from the President's point of view he has long made the case that abstinence is more than sound science, it's a sound practice, that abstinence has a proven track record of working. Now, this is part of an approach that includes, under the budget the President has submitted, other approaches as well, not just one approach or another approach.
But the President has indicated that he thinks that we need to have more of a focus in our school system on abstinence as an option for young people.
Q: The AP also reports that after you gave Thacker the stern rebuke, he withdrew his name from a presidential advisory commission. And my question is, do you include this -- in this rebuke the many, many millions who voted for Bush who agree with Mr. Thacker as well as the medical profession, who originally called AIDS "GRID," or Gay Related Immunodeficiency?
MR. FLEISCHER: Lester, I'm in no position to make any judgments about other people's connections to a statement made by Mr. Thacker. I can only give you the President's judgment about what Mr. Thacker said, and I shared that with you last week.
So. Although there are "other approaches" in the budget, abstinence is good enough for our fine, horny American boys and girls.
I wonder what these "other approaches" are?
And I wonder if the administration really thinks it can convince the men and women of the dozens of different African cultures of the "proven track record" of abstinence?
I'm starting to agree with Arthur Silber on this one. I don't particularly want 10 billion dollars of our money pissed away into the hot sand of a distant continent on programs that will be ineffective and increasingly expensive.
Looks like I've been hornswoggled by rhetoric!
