[TAN] Republicans move to promote AIDS

Post by David Chapman
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/31/news-ireland.php

Short form: We're fucked.

And without a condom, to boot.

--
Thinker, Fighter, Will "scifantasy" Frank
Reader, Writer, ***@stwing.upenn.edu
Artist, Gamer, http://www.stwing.upenn.edu/~wmfrank
Modern-Day Geek. AIM: scifanta42

Billy Todd

2004-08-12 02:41:08 UTC

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 22:48:31 +0100, "David Chapman"

Post by David Chapman
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/31/news-ireland.php
All I can say is, "What the *fuck*?" Anyone wishing to make a more reasoned
argument, please do.

From the article regarding new CDC policy:

-------------
This demented exigency flies in the face of every competent medical bodys
judgment that, in the absence of an HIV-preventing vaccine, the condom is
the single most effective tool available to protect someone from getting or
spreading the AIDS virus.
--------------

Besides, of course, self-restraint.

That said, it's stupid not to teach that condom use does decrease the risk
of inherently risky behavior.

--
Billy Todd ***@Spambegone.please.comporium.net
"Libertarianism, 99 times out of 100, is intellectual
cover for assholery." - Mike Kozlowski, r.a.sf.w.r-j

David Chapman

2004-08-12 15:18:14 UTC

Post by Billy Todd
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 22:48:31 +0100, "David Chapman"

Post by David Chapman
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/31/news-ireland.php
All I can say is, "What the *fuck*?"

it's stupid not to teach that condom use does decrease the risk
of inherently risky behavior.

It's even stupider to teach the exact opposite. From the para you quoted:

"And they demand that all such materials include information on the "lack of
effectiveness of condom use" in preventing the spread of HIV and other
STDs - in other words, the Bush administration wants AIDS fighters to tell
people: Condoms don't work."

Jesus wept.

--
Twelve points to ... SLOVENIA!

erikrr

2004-08-12 19:08:18 UTC

Post by Billy Todd
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 22:48:31 +0100, "David Chapman"

Post by David Chapman
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/31/news-ireland.php
All I can say is, "What the *fuck*?" Anyone wishing to make a more reasoned
argument, please do.

-------------
This demented exigency flies in the face of every competent medical body?s
judgment that, in the absence of an HIV-preventing vaccine, the condom is
the single most effective tool available to protect someone from getting or
spreading the AIDS virus.
--------------
Besides, of course, self-restraint.
That said, it's stupid not to teach that condom use does decrease the risk
of inherently risky behavior.

This is not a news article, as suggested, it is an opinion piece with
an agenda -- billing itself as news cheapens the argument it then
tries to make.

I mean, the first sentence reads: "Lethal new regulations from
President Bush's Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in
Atlanta, quietly issued with no fanfare last week, complete the
right-wing Republicans' goal of gutting HIV-prevention education in
the United States." Yeah, like that doesn't scream "Agenda!"

So, if you want to spend 10 minutes reading through the actual
guidelines and see how terrible the reporting is, go here to the
source:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/od/content_guidelines/04-13553.htm

If you still have a problem with what is a very down-to-earth, logical
guideline, reply to CDC with a comment, that's what the public comment
period is for.

But to rebut the most egregious points LAWeekly bills as facts:

* LAW writes: "And they demand that all such materials include
information on the "lack of effectiveness of condom use" in preventing
the spread of HIV and other STDs - in other words, the Bush
administration wants AIDS fighters to tell people: Condoms don't
work."

-- But the reg actually states: "educational material shall contain
medically accurate information regarding the effectiveness or lack of
effectiveness of condoms in preventing the sexually transmitted
disease the materials are designed to address." So, what it actually
says is give the facts. LAW is trying to convince its readers that
Bush is against fighting AIDS by taking selective quotes from the
regs.

* LAW writes: "They require all such "content" to eliminate anything
even vaguely "sexually suggestive" or "obscene" ... in other words,
the Bush administration wants AIDS fighters to tell people: Condoms
don't work. This demented exigency flies in the face of every
competent medical body's judgment that, in the absence of an
HIV-preventing vaccine, the condom is the single most effective tool
available to protect someone from getting or spreading the AIDS
virus."

-- This is ridiculous. Look at sections 3) and 6) of the reg --
you'll see a very logical definition of "obscenity," and that the
ultimate arbiters are "state and local health officials."
Furthermore, section 3 lays out how to select a panel of local people
to make these decisions. So yeah, if you don't like local control,
and you think the federal gov't needs to make decisions on what
pamphlets will best work in your community, then you won't like this
reg. Though in the same breath, LAW makes the argument that Bush
Administration politicos are going to embed a new, prudish definition
of obscenity -- when it's very clear the decision will be local. It
makes no sense.

There are a dozen other things wrong with this article, and I'm as
tired of responding as you probably are of reading, but to call the
CDC demented and lacking competent medical judgment is uninformed and
wrong. The CDC is staffed by people of intelligent minds and serious
intent to protect us from outbreaks deadly diseases. Some of the
world's foremost experts on HIV/AIDS and how to stop/slow its spread
are housed at the CDC and these kind of blanket attacks by illogical,
unfair, uninformed "journalists" are destructive and sickening.

The LAW is a rag for printing this, and please don't believe
information from such a poor outlet.

--Erik

Rast

2004-08-12 22:28:35 UTC

Post by erikrr

Post by Billy Todd
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 22:48:31 +0100, "David Chapman"

Post by David Chapman
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/31/news-ireland.php

So, if you want to spend 10 minutes reading through the actual
guidelines and see how terrible the reporting is, go here to the
http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/od/content_guidelines/04-13553.htm

404

Post by erikrr
If you still have a problem with what is a very down-to-earth, logical
guideline, reply to CDC with a comment, that's what the public comment
period is for.

Interestingly, the LA Weekly piece gives the public comment email (
***@cdc.gov ), but not a link to the guidelines which its readers
will supposedly be commenting on.

--
And he shall make all, both little and great, rich and poor, freemen and
bondmen, to have a character in their right hand, or on their foreheads.
And that no man might buy or sell, but he that hath the character, or
the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

erikrr

2004-08-13 13:51:48 UTC

Post by Rast

Post by erikrr

Post by Billy Todd
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 22:48:31 +0100, "David Chapman"

Post by David Chapman
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/31/news-ireland.php

So, if you want to spend 10 minutes reading through the actual
guidelines and see how terrible the reporting is, go here to the
http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/od/content_guidelines/04-13553.htm

404

Huh, sorry, don't know why that didn't work. I'll paste the full reg
at the bottom of this post.

Post by Rast

Post by erikrr
If you still have a problem with what is a very down-to-earth, logical
guideline, reply to CDC with a comment, that's what the public comment
period is for.

Interestingly, the LA Weekly piece gives the public comment email (
will supposedly be commenting on.

Yeah, and unsurprisingly.

Here's the full text of the reg (warning: pretty dry)

[Federal Register: June 16, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 115)]
[Notices]
[Page 33823-33826]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr16jn04-106]

[[Page 33823]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part V

Department of Health and Human Services

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Revision of Interim HIV Content Guidelines for AIDS-Related
Materials, Pictorials, Audiovisuals, Questionnaires, Survey
Instruments, Marketing, Advertising and Web site Materials, and
Educational Sessions in CDC Regional, State, Territorial, Local, and
Community Assistance Programs; Notice

Interim HIV Content Guidelines for AIDS-Related Materials, Pictorials,
Audiovisuals, Questionnaires, Survey Instruments, Marketing,
Advertising and Web site Materials, and Educational Sessions in CDC
School-Based Assistance Programs; Notice

[[Page 33824]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Proposed Revision of Interim HIV Content Guidelines for AIDS-
Related Materials, Pictorials, Audiovisuals, Questionnaires, Survey
Instruments, Marketing, Advertising and Web Site Materials, and
Educational Sessions in CDC Regional, State, Territorial, Local, and
Community Assistance Programs

AGENCY: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department
of
Health and Human Services (DHHS).

ACTION: Notice for public comment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The purpose of this document is to seek public comment on
proposed revision of the Interim HIV Content Guidelines, entitled
``Content of AIDS-Related written materials, pictorials, audiovisuals,
questionnaires, survey instruments, and educational sessions in CDC
assistance programs'' and to seek public comment on the proposed
revisions. The HIV Content Guidelines were last revised in 1992. The
purpose of these revisions are to (1) address advances in technology
(mainly the advent of the Internet and the World Wide Web); (2)
increase grantee accountability; (3) be consistent with new public
law;
and (4) improve clarity. Additionally, CDC has developed a separate
guidance document for school-based assistance programs.

DATES: Submit comments on or before August 16, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Address all comments concerning this notice to HIV Content
Guidelines Comments, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600
Clifton Road, NE., Mailstop E56, Atlanta, Georgia 30333. Comments may
be e-mailed to ***@cdc.gov or faxed to (404) 639-3125.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Hale, Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, National Center for HIV, STD, and TB
Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road, NE., Mailstop E07, Atlanta, Georgia
30333. Telephone: (404) 639-8008.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) has provided funds for HIV prevention programs since
1985. Since then, CDC, as part of the terms and conditions for
receiving these funds, has required that all HIV educational and
related materials must be reviewed by a Program Review Panel (PRP)
designated by the recipient. The purpose of this requirement is to
ensure a careful consideration of the content and intended audience of
the materials and programs because education about preventing HIV
transmission involves effectively presenting information appropriate
for the specific audience. On June 15, 1992, CDC published in the
Federal Register (57 FR 26742) a guidance document for this review
entitled ``Content of AIDS-related written materials, pictorial,
audiovisuals, questionnaires, survey instruments, and educational
sessions in Centers for Disease Control assistance programs''. These
guidelines are currently in effect.
In this notice, CDC is proposing to revise the 1992 HIV Content
Guidelines. The purpose of these revisions are to (1) Address advances
in technology (mainly the advent of the Internet and the World Wide
Web); (2) increase grantee accountability; (3) be consistent with new
public law; and (4) improve clarity. CDC anticipates publishing a
Final
Guidance document within 120 days after the conclusion of the comment
period. Additionally, CDC has developed a separate guidance document
for school-based assistance programs.

Summary and Explanation of Revisions for Regional, State, Territorial,
or Local, and Community Assistance Programs

The proposed HIV Content Guidelines now:
(1) Require review and approval of HIV/AIDS educational materials
placed on an organization's Web site. When the requirements were
developed for local review of HIV/AIDS education materials, the
Internet and World Wide Web were not used by the general public as a
major source of information as it is today. As a result, CDC is
proposing revisions to the Guidelines to require that HIV/AIDS
educational materials placed on a grantee's Web site be reviewed and
approved by the organization's designated Program Review Panel (PRP).
This requirement will not apply to materials developed by the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services.
(2) Require that funded recipients ensure the PRP has determined
that the materials comply with Section 317P of the Public Health
Service Act. Section 317P was added to the Public Health Service Act
in
2000. This Section states, in part, that ``education materials * * *
that are specifically designed to address sexually transmitted
diseases
* * * shall contain medically accurate information regarding the
effectiveness or lack of effectiveness of condoms in preventing the
sexually transmitted disease the materials are designed to address.''
(3) Clarify the requirement of the PRP by requiring identification
of a PRP of no less than five persons who represent a reasonable
cross-
section of the jurisdiction in which the program is based to ensure
better representation of the community to be served. The current
Guidelines require the identification of a PRP of no less than five
persons who represent a reasonable cross-section of the general
population. The proposed Guidelines require the identification of a
PRP
of no less than five persons who represent a reasonable cross-section
of the jurisdiction in which the program is based. This clarification
should ensure better representation of the community to be served.
(4) Require each recipient to identify at least one PRP,
established by a state, territory, or local health department or
educational agency from the jurisdiction of the recipient. This
revision provides jurisdictions with the flexibility to establish the
number of PRPs to meet demand.
(5) Require PRPs to ensure that the title of materials developed
and submitted for review reflects the content of the activity or
program. This revision will ensure that materials and their contents
are clearly stated to the audience.
(6) Require funded recipients to include a certification that
accountable state, territorial or local health officials have
independently reviewed educational materials for compliance with
Sections 2500 and 317P of the Public Health Service Act. This is a new
requirement in the revised Guidelines and follows the same rationale
of
Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 93 S.Ct. 2607 (1973) that defines
``obscenity'' by looking to the average person, applying contemporary
community standards, as a way to ensure that material would be judged
by its impact on an average person, rather than a particularly
susceptible or sensitive person, or a totally insensitive one. The
review responsibility, in the proposed Guidelines, is placed at the
state and local level, specifically with state and local health
officials.
(7) Develop a separate guidance document for school-based
assistance programs. The current Guidelines apply to school-based
assistance programs as well as regional, state, territorial, local,
and
community assistance programs. The proposed Guidelines separate the
guidance into two documents for ease of use and clarity.

[[Page 33825]]

Summary and Explanation of Revision Applicable Only to Community-Based
Programs

(8) Require funded community-based organizations to identify a
program review panel established by a state or local health
department.
While the current Guidelines allow CDC-funded organizations to
establish their own PRP, they are encouraged to use a PRP established
by a health department or another CDC-funded organization. The
proposed
Guidelines will no longer permit organizations to establish their own
PRP. Instead, recipients of HIV/AIDS funds are required to identify a
PRP established by a state or local health department within their
state's jurisdiction.

Dated: June 7, 2004.
James D. Seligman,
Associate Director for Program Support, Centers for Disease Control
and
Prevention.

Interim HIV Content Guidelines for AIDS-Related Written Materials,
Pictorials, Audiovisuals, Questionnaires, Survey Instruments, and
Educational Sessions for CDC Assistance Programs

I. Basic Principles

Controlling the spread of HIV infection and the occurrence of AIDS
requires the promotion of individual behaviors that eliminate or
reduce
the risk of acquiring and spreading the virus. Messages must be
provided to the public that emphasize the ways by which individuals
can
protect themselves from acquiring the virus. These methods include
abstinence from illegal use of IV drugs as well as from sexual
intercourse except in a mutually monogamous relationship with an
uninfected partner.
For those individuals who do not or cannot cease risky behavior,
methods of reducing their risk of acquiring or spreading the virus
must
also be communicated. Such messages are often controversial. The
principles contained in this document are intended to provide guidance
for the development and use of HIV/AIDS-related educational materials
developed or acquired in whole or in part using CDC HIV prevention
funds, and to require the establishment of at least one Program Review
Panel by state and local health departments, to consider the
appropriateness of messages designed to communicate with various
groups. State and local health departments may, if they deem it
appropriate, establish multiple Program Review Panels to consider the
appropriateness of messages designed to communicate with various
groups.
A. Written materials (e.g., pamphlets, brochures, curricula,
fliers), audiovisual materials (e.g., motion pictures and videotapes),
pictorials (e.g., posters and similar educational materials using
photographs, slides, drawings, or paintings) and marketing,
advertising, Web site-based HIV/AIDS educational materials,
questionnaires or survey instruments should use terms, descriptors, or
displays necessary for the intended audience to understand dangerous
behaviors and explain practices that eliminate or reduce the risk of
HIV transmission.
B. Written materials, audiovisual materials, pictorials, and
marketing, advertising, Web site-based HIV/AIDS educational materials,
questionnaires or survey instruments should be reviewed by a Program
Review Panel established by a state or local health department,
consistent with the provisions of section 2500(b), (c), and (d) of the
Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 300ee(b), (c), and (d),
as
follows:

``SEC. 2500. USE OF FUNDS.
(b) Contents of Programs.--All programs of education and
information receiving funds under this title shall include
information about the harmful effects of promiscuous sexual activity
and intravenous substance abuse, and the benefits of abstaining from
such activities.
(c) Limitation.--None of the funds appropriated to carry out
this title may be used to provide education or information designed
to promote or encourage, directly, homosexual or heterosexual sexual
activity or intravenous substance abuse.
(d) Construction.--Subsection (c) may not be construed to
restrict the ability of an educational program that includes the
information required in subsection (b) to provide accurate
information about various means to reduce an individual's risk of
exposure to, or to transmission of, the etiologic agent for acquired
immune deficiency syndrome, provided that any informational
materials used are not obscene.''

C. Educational sessions should not include activities in which
attendees participate in sexually suggestive physical contact or
actual
sexual practices.
D. Program Review Panels must ensure that the title of materials
developed and submitted for review reflects the content of the
activity
or program.
E. When HIV materials include a discussion of condoms, the
materials must comply with Section 317P of the Public Health Service
Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 247b-17, which states in pertinent part:

``educational materials * * * that are specifically designed to
address STDs * * * shall contain medically accurate information
regarding the effectiveness or lack of effectiveness of condoms in
preventing the STD the materials are designed to address.''

II. Program Review Panel

Each recipient will be required to identify at least one Program
Review Panel, established by a state or local health department from
the jurisdiction of the recipient. These Program Review Panels will
review and approve all written materials, pictorials, audiovisuals,
marketing, advertising, and Web site materials, questionnaires or
survey instruments (except questionnaires or survey instruments
previously reviewed by an Institutional Review Board--these
questionnaires or survey instruments are limited to use in the
designated research project). The requirement applies regardless of
whether the applicant plans to conduct the total program activities or
plans to have part of them conducted through other organization(s) and
whether program activities involve creating unique materials or using/
distributing modified or intact materials already developed by others.
Materials developed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services
do not need to be reviewed by a panel. Members of a Program Review
Panel should understand how HIV is and is not transmitted and
understand the epidemiology and extent of the HIV/AIDS problem in the
local population and the specific audiences for which materials are
intended.
A. The Program Review Panel will be guided by the CDC Basic
Principles (see Section I above) in conducting such reviews. The panel
is authorized to review materials only and is not empowered either to
evaluate the proposal as a whole or to replace any internal review
panel or procedure of the recipient organization or local governmental
jurisdiction.
B. Applicants for CDC assistance will be required to include in
their applications the following:
1. Identification of at least one panel, established by a state or
local health department, of no less than five persons who represent a
reasonable cross-section of the jurisdiction in which the program is
based. Since Program Review Panels review materials for many intended
audiences, no single intended audience shall dominate the composition
of the Program Review Panel, except as provided in subsection d below.
In addition:
a. Panels that review materials intended for a specific audience
should draw upon the expertise of individuals who can represent
cultural sensitivities

[[Page 33826]]

and language of the intended audience, either through representation
on
the panel or as consultants to the panels.
b. Panels must ensure that the title of materials developed and
submitted for review reflect the content of the activity or program.
c. The composition of Program Review Panels must include an
employee of a state or local health department with appropriate
expertise in the area under consideration, who is designated by the
health department to represent the department on the panel.
d. Panels reviewing materials intended for racial and ethnic
minority populations must comply with the terms of a-c above. However,
membership of the Program Review Panel may be drawn predominantly from
such racial and ethnic populations.
2. A letter or memorandum to the applicant from the state or local
health department, which includes:
a. Concurrence with this guidance and assurance that its
provisions
will be observed.
b. The identity of members of the Program Review Panel, including
their names, occupations, and any organizational affiliations that
were
considered in their selection for the panel.
C. When a cooperative agreement/grant is awarded and periodically
thereafter, the recipient will:
1. Present for the assessment of the appropriately identified
Program Review Panel(s) established by a state or local health
department, copies of written materials, pictorials, audiovisuals, and
marketing, advertising, Web site HIV/AIDS educational materials,
questionnaires, and surveys proposed to be used. The Program Review
Panel shall pay particular attention to ensure that none of the above
materials violate the provisions of Sections 2500 and 317P of the
Public Health Service Act.
2. Provide for assessment by the appropriately identified Program
Review Panel(s) established by a state or local health department, the
text, scripts, or detailed descriptions for written materials,
pictorials, audiovisuals, and marketing, advertising, and Web site
materials that are under development.
3. Prior to expenditure of funds related to the ultimate program
use of these materials, assure that its project files contain a
statement(s) signed by the chairperson of the appropriately identified
Program Review Panel(s) established by a state or local health
department, specifying the vote for approval or disapproval for each
proposed item submitted to the panel.
4. Include a certification that accountable state or local health
officials have independently reviewed written materials, pictorials,
audiovisuals, and marketing, advertising, and Web site materials for
compliance with Section 2500 and 317P of the Public Health Service Act
and approved the use of such materials in their jurisdiction for
directly and indirectly funded community-based organizations.
5. As required in the notice of grant award, provide to CDC in
regular progress reports, signed statement(s) of the chairperson of
the
Program Review Panel(s) specifying the vote for approval or
disapproval
for each proposed item that is subject to this guidance.
D. CDC-funded organizations, which are national or regional
(multi-
state) in scope, or that plan to distribute materials as described
above to other organizations on a national or regional basis, must
identify a single Program Review Panel to fulfill this requirement.
Those guidelines identified in Sections I.A. through I.D. and II.A.
through II.C. outlined above also apply. In addition, such national/
regional panels must include, as a member, an employee of a state or
local health department.

[FR Doc. 04-13553 Filed 6-15-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4163-18-P

David Chapman

2004-08-13 17:34:53 UTC

Post by erikrr
Here's the full text of the reg (warning: pretty dry)
Controlling the spread of HIV infection and the occurrence of AIDS
requires the promotion of individual behaviors that eliminate or
reduce the risk of acquiring and spreading the virus. Messages must be
provided to the public that emphasize the ways by which individuals
can protect themselves from acquiring the virus. These methods include
abstinence from illegal use of IV drugs as well as from sexual
intercourse except in a mutually monogamous relationship with an
uninfected partner.

Translation: "You must teach that not having sex outside marriage is the
only safe sex."

Post by erikrr
``SEC. 2500. USE OF FUNDS.
(b) Contents of Programs.--All programs of education and
information receiving funds under this title shall include
information about the harmful effects of promiscuous sexual activity
and intravenous substance abuse, and the benefits of abstaining from
such activities.

Translation: "Fail to tell the kids that sex outside marriage is bad, and
you will lose all funding."

Post by erikrr
(c) Limitation.--None of the funds appropriated to carry out
this title may be used to provide education or information designed
to promote or encourage, directly, homosexual or heterosexual sexual
activity or intravenous substance abuse.

Translation: "Teach anything that may encourage kids to believe that any
form of sex other than that inside marriage can be safe, and you will lose
all funding."

Post by erikrr
(d) Construction.--Subsection (c) may not be construed to
restrict the ability of an educational program that includes the
information required in subsection (b) to provide accurate
information about various means to reduce an individual's risk of
exposure to, or to transmission of, the etiologic agent for acquired
immune deficiency syndrome, provided that any informational
materials used are not obscene.''

Translation: "You are not permitted to teach students how to correctly use a
condom in the course of telling them the methods of reducing risk in sex."

--
Twelve points to ... SLOVENIA!

James Thaxton

2004-08-13 18:33:25 UTC

Funny how assumptions can change how one interprets a paragraph.

Translation: "You must teach that not having sex outside marriage is the
only safe sex."

"These methods include" Does it say this is 100% of what is included? No.
Since condoms are not 100% effective, the safest way is to not risk
needle-infection and to only have sex with one person who is uninfected. Is
that the only "safe" way? It does not say that. This is promoted because
it is the safest way. There are degrees of safety. Think about other
regulations or suggestions you've seen. Do all of them provide the same
degree of risk reduction?

Translation: "Fail to tell the kids that sex outside marriage is bad, and
you will lose all funding."

Marriage? Where does it say anything about marriage? Promiscous is defined
as "Having casual sexual relations frequently with different partners;
indiscriminate in the choice of sexual partners." Just because you're not
married doesn't mean you're having sex with lots of different people,
without care for if they are a disease carrier or not.

Translation: "Teach anything that may encourage kids to believe that any
form of sex other than that inside marriage can be safe, and you will lose
all funding."

Again, where does it say marriage? This is saying do not promote or
encourage sexual activity at all. Just because something is not promoted or
encouraged doesn't make it wrong, but can you imagine a sex ed teacher
encouraging sexual activity? Discouraging and not encouraging are two very
different things.

Translation: "You are not permitted to teach students how to correctly use a
condom in the course of telling them the methods of reducing risk in sex."

Show me again where it says the methods at the top were all inclusive?

David Chapman

2004-08-13 22:44:24 UTC

Post by James Thaxton
Funny how assumptions can change how one interprets a paragraph.

Translation: "You must teach that not having sex outside marriage is the
only safe sex."

"These methods include" Does it say this is 100% of what is included?
No.

Wrong. It says that you should include drugs as a risk factor *as well as*
sex not within marriage. That's directly stating that all sex outside a
monogamous relationship is unsafe, so the only other risk factors you need
to mention specifically are those unrelated to sex.

Translation: "Fail to tell the kids that sex outside marriage is bad, and
you will lose all funding."

Marriage? Where does it say anything about marriage?

It's implicit in the use of the word "monogamous" as opposed to "exclusive".
Monogamy literally means "only breeding with one mate", but in practice it
means "only having one spouse".

Translation: "You are not permitted to teach students how to correctly
use a condom in the course of telling them the methods of reducing risk
in sex."

Show me again where it says the methods at the top were all inclusive?

When it uses the phrase "as well as". For those of us who speak English,
that tells us that the list of instructions before the phrase is the
complete list of instructions to be performed in addition to the list of
instructions after it. If there was anything not included in one list that
was meant to be done, it would not be included in the other.

--
Twelve points to ... SLOVENIA!

Peter Reid

2004-08-14 00:38:36 UTC

Post by James Thaxton
Funny how assumptions can change how one interprets a paragraph.

Translation: "You must teach that not having sex outside marriage is the
only safe sex."

"These methods include" Does it say this is 100% of what is included?
No.

So are you actually saying that having sex only within the confines of a
monogamous relationship is actually _not_ safer than having sex with
multiple partners?? If not, then what's your problem with the earlier
statement? It is a fact that if you have sex only with a person who is
not infected with AIDS, you _won't_ get AIDS from them. On the other
hand, if you have multiple partners, then if only one of them has or
gets AIDS, you are at risk. They're saying that to _protect_ yourself
the most, avoid having sex promiscuously.

And if not, at least use a condom.

What's your beef with this recommendation?

Translation: "Fail to tell the kids that sex outside marriage is bad, and
you will lose all funding."

Marriage? Where does it say anything about marriage?

It's implicit in the use of the word "monogamous" as opposed to "exclusive".
Monogamy literally means "only breeding with one mate", but in practice it
means "only having one spouse".

Monogamy != marriage. Many people are monogamous and remain unmarried.
They're saying that if you're having sex with multiple people during
the same period of time, you're at greater risk than if you don't.

Translation: "You are not permitted to teach students how to correctly
use a condom in the course of telling them the methods of reducing risk
in sex."

Show me again where it says the methods at the top were all inclusive?

You're full of crap on this one. They're listing two of the methods
they're recommending. "As well as" only means you're adding something
new to the list, it doesn't mean you're adding something and saying the
list is final.

--
Peter

David Chapman

2004-08-14 07:26:34 UTC

Post by David Chapman
Wrong. It says that you should include drugs as a risk factor *as well
as* sex not within marriage. That's directly stating that all sex
outside a monogamous relationship is unsafe, so the only other risk
factors you need to mention specifically are those unrelated to sex.

Because it's not teaching that sex not fitting that bill is less safe; it's
teaching that it's not safe at all.

Post by David Chapman
It's implicit in the use of the word "monogamous" as opposed to
"exclusive". Monogamy literally means "only breeding with one mate", but
in practice it means "only having one spouse".

I have three definitions from medical dictionaries available, and every
single one lists "marriage to one spouse" as the main definition - as, for
that matter, does Webster's Unabridged. In fact, I can only find one
dictionary of any kind that does not.

Finagle all you like; the intent is painfully obvious.

Post by David Chapman
When it uses the phrase "as well as". For those of us who speak English,
that tells us that the list of instructions before the phrase is the
complete list of instructions to be performed in addition to the list of
instructions after it. If there was anything not included in one list
that was meant to be done, it would not be included in the other.

You're full of crap on this one. They're listing two of the methods
they're recommending.

Yes - in a document detailing the methods you *must* use to receive funding.
Does that suggest anything to you?

--
Twelve points to ... SLOVENIA!

Clayton_T

2004-08-18 17:44:15 UTC

Post by David Chapman
I have three definitions from medical dictionaries available, and every
single one lists "marriage to one spouse" as the main definition - as, for
that matter, does Webster's Unabridged. In fact, I can only find one
dictionary of any kind that does not.
Finagle all you like; the intent is painfully obvious.

You're full of crap on this one. They're listing two of the methods
they're recommending.

Yes - in a document detailing the methods you *must* use to receive funding.
Does that suggest anything to you?

David, you are so far out there on this. Are you claiming that the
CDC is part of your and Michael Moore's vast right-wing conspiracy?
The evil Republicans have brainwashed the doctors at CDC like so many
Manchurian Candidates into promoting harsh Puritan social views? This
is your contention? George W Bush & Co., whom you claim are utterly
moronic, are secretly evil masterminds? You have to be kidding here,
right?

And is this any departure from existing teaching about AIDS? When you
went to school did your Health/Sex Ed teachers recommend promiscuity?
Of course not. The guidelines re-printed in this chain sound like the
exact words spoken by the public-school Health teachers I had growing
up: line of defense #1 is abstinence - that has been the party line
through Republican and Democratic administrations; line of defense #2
is monogomy w/ your chosen partner; line of defense #3, which can
still be used w/ #2, is condom usage. WTF? Where is the hidden
agenda here?

David Chapman

2004-08-18 23:18:20 UTC

Post by Clayton_T

Post by Peter Reid
You're full of crap on this one. They're listing two of the methods
they're recommending.

Yes - in a document detailing the methods you *must* use to receive
funding. Does that suggest anything to you?

David, you are so far out there on this. Are you claiming that the
CDC is part of your and Michael Moore's vast right-wing conspiracy?

Don't be stupid, if that's at all possible. There is no "vast conspiracy".
There is just the Bush administration, bullying everyone.

Post by Clayton_T
The evil Republicans have brainwashed the doctors at CDC like so many
Manchurian Candidates into promoting harsh Puritan social views?

Try "blackmailed" instead.

This

Post by Clayton_T
is your contention? George W Bush & Co., whom you claim are utterly
moronic, are secretly evil masterminds? You have to be kidding here,
right?

I've never claimed that Bush's cabinet are stupid. *Bush* is stupid.

Post by Clayton_T
And is this any departure from existing teaching about AIDS? When you
went to school did your Health/Sex Ed teachers recommend promiscuity?
Of course not.

Did they teach how to use a condom? Hell, yes.

Post by Clayton_T
The guidelines re-printed in this chain sound like the
exact words spoken by the public-school Health teachers I had growing
up: line of defense #1 is abstinence - that has been the party line
through Republican and Democratic administrations; line of defense #2
is monogomy w/ your chosen partner; line of defense #3, which can
still be used w/ #2, is condom usage. WTF? Where is the hidden
agenda here?

Taking out line #3.

--
Twelve points to ... SLOVENIA!

AcornArmy

2004-09-02 02:05:51 UTC

Post by Clayton_T

Post by Peter Reid
You're full of crap on this one. They're listing two of the
methods they're recommending.

Yes - in a document detailing the methods you *must* use to receive
funding. Does that suggest anything to you?

David, you are so far out there on this. Are you claiming that the
CDC is part of your and Michael Moore's vast right-wing conspiracy?

Don't be stupid, if that's at all possible. There is no "vast
conspiracy". There is just the Bush administration, bullying everyone.

Post by Clayton_T
The evil Republicans have brainwashed the doctors at CDC like so many
Manchurian Candidates into promoting harsh Puritan social views?

Try "blackmailed" instead.
This

Post by Clayton_T
is your contention? George W Bush & Co., whom you claim are utterly
moronic, are secretly evil masterminds? You have to be kidding here,
right?

I've never claimed that Bush's cabinet are stupid. *Bush* is stupid.

Post by Clayton_T
And is this any departure from existing teaching about AIDS? When
you went to school did your Health/Sex Ed teachers recommend
promiscuity? Of course not.

Did they teach how to use a condom? Hell, yes.

Taking out line #3.
--
Twelve points to ... SLOVENIA!

The fact that these new guidelines came out at all, entailing the things
that they did, clearly implies that they are intended to discourage faith
in condoms and encourage faith that abstinence or monogamy(which I, also,
believe is just a poor disguise for the word "marriage") is the only way
to be safe from HIV. So, no faith in condoms equals fear of sex with
people whom you don't know for certain to be safe. The only way to be
(mostly) certain that someone remains safe, and that you, too, remain
safe, is to be in a monogamous relationship with them.

Although these points are true individually, people don't operate by
logic, so the changes as a whole will have a detrimental effect. People
are going to have sex, with other people whom they can't be sure are
safe. If these kids, or even adults, don't have faith in condoms, then
they simply won't USE condoms, and this will lead to an increase in HIV
infections. Even if they do use them, they may have no idea how to do it
properly, which will largely void any usefulness that the condoms may
have.

The new guidelines are puritanical and stupid, and they're slipping in
under the guise of statistical accuracy.

erikrr

2004-09-02 17:22:02 UTC

AcornArmy <***@nopsam.yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<***@63.223.5.244>...

snip

Post by AcornArmy

Taking out line #3.
--
Twelve points to ... SLOVENIA!

The fact that these new guidelines came out at all, entailing the things
that they did, clearly implies that they are intended to discourage faith
in condoms and encourage faith that abstinence or monogamy(which I, also,
believe is just a poor disguise for the word "marriage") is the only way
to be safe from HIV. So, no faith in condoms equals fear of sex with
people whom you don't know for certain to be safe. The only way to be
(mostly) certain that someone remains safe, and that you, too, remain
safe, is to be in a monogamous relationship with them.
Although these points are true individually, people don't operate by
logic, so the changes as a whole will have a detrimental effect. People
are going to have sex, with other people whom they can't be sure are
safe. If these kids, or even adults, don't have faith in condoms, then
they simply won't USE condoms, and this will lead to an increase in HIV
infections. Even if they do use them, they may have no idea how to do it
properly, which will largely void any usefulness that the condoms may
have.
The new guidelines are puritanical and stupid, and they're slipping in
under the guise of statistical accuracy.

???

I really don't get it. I thought reading the full regs would make
things crystal clear, but apparently people can find nefarious motives
anywhere if you think they exist here. Look, I work with the people
who wrote these regs, and people who will implement them. They will
not stop teaching kids about condoms. Nothing in the regs say they
will, and if they do, they will be held accountable by we feds who
give them the money.

No sex is the surest way to avoid AIDS, monogomy is the next safest,
condoms is the next safest. And condoms will be taught. What's the
problem with the facts? And each locality gets to decide the most
effective way to present them to their kids (who they know best).
What would you change about this?

-Erik

AcornArmy

2004-09-05 17:12:36 UTC

Post by erikrr
I really don't get it. I thought reading the full regs would make
things crystal clear, but apparently people can find nefarious motives
anywhere if you think they exist here. Look, I work with the people
who wrote these regs, and people who will implement them. They will
not stop teaching kids about condoms. Nothing in the regs say they
will, and if they do, they will be held accountable by we feds who
give them the money.
No sex is the surest way to avoid AIDS, monogomy is the next safest,
condoms is the next safest. And condoms will be taught. What's the
problem with the facts? And each locality gets to decide the most
effective way to present them to their kids (who they know best).
What would you change about this?
-Erik

The regs stately repeatedly that the content will now be determined at
the state and local level by a review panel, which will determine what
goes in and what doesn't based on whether or not they consider it to be
obscene. I've read the regulations, and, as far as I can see, the only
thing that's specifically stated that HAS to be taught about condoms is
the statistical information, which shows condoms to be less effective
than abstinence or monogamy in preventing HIV infection. I don't see
anything that indicates that people will be taught the proper use of
condoms, or that condoms are a damn sight better than nothing at all.

The root of my problem with the new regs, though, is that the content is
now placed in the hands of a local PRP, which will allow or disallow
information based on what they consider "obscene". I live in the Bible
Belt, in Tennessee, and I know damn well what's going to be considered
"obscene" around here. This panel will be made up of people like my
parents, God love 'em, who still won't watch a movie if it has much
cursing in it, and who are downright appalled by scenes with nudity. Any
pictures of cucumbers with condoms on them are gonna go right out the
window, and I wouldn't be surprised if the words "penis" or "vagina"
disappear altogether, as well.

In fact, most of the emphasis of these new regulations is on the new PRPs
and obscenity. They're discussed repeatedly, all through the regs. And it
seems to me that, when you're dealing with a disease like HIV, which is
basically a slow death sentence, the emphasis should be on what MUST be
taught to the public rather than what must NOT be. And, while you might
say that the regs specifically state that medical statistics must be
shown, those seem very much to be in aid of telling people that they're
not safe if they use condoms. Which is true, sure, but they're still
quite a bit safer than they would be if they -didn't- use a condom.

Steve Craig

2004-09-06 19:03:26 UTC

Post by erikrr
snip

Post by AcornArmy

Taking out line #3.

The fact that these new guidelines came out at all, entailing the things
that they did, clearly implies that they are intended to discourage faith
in condoms and encourage faith that abstinence or monogamy(which I, also,
believe is just a poor disguise for the word "marriage") is the only way
to be safe from HIV. So, no faith in condoms equals fear of sex with
people whom you don't know for certain to be safe. The only way to be
(mostly) certain that someone remains safe, and that you, too, remain
safe, is to be in a monogamous relationship with them.
Although these points are true individually, people don't operate by
logic, so the changes as a whole will have a detrimental effect. People
are going to have sex, with other people whom they can't be sure are
safe. If these kids, or even adults, don't have faith in condoms, then
they simply won't USE condoms, and this will lead to an increase in HIV
infections. Even if they do use them, they may have no idea how to do it
properly, which will largely void any usefulness that the condoms may
have.
The new guidelines are puritanical and stupid, and they're slipping in
under the guise of statistical accuracy.

The concern is that with these regs there is an way for certain things
that some people might consider offensive to be omitted, regardless if
they are required or not. If the PRP for a certain region finds the
teaching of proper condom usage is obscene then it could be removed
from certain aspects of sexual edcuation in that region. The fact
that the definiation of "obscene" isn't standard, and is regional
instead, can cause certain places to place much stricter restrictions
on what is taught in that region.

I agree that the author of the original news article was an obvious
alarmist, but some of his points are vaild, espicially assuming that
his comments about the Bush administration's leaning to Faith Based
Initiative's are true (I honestly don't know if they are true or not).
Also given the Bush administration's tendancy to simply ignore the
scientific community this could be cause for alarm. Probably not as
much alarm as the author portrayed, but alarm none-the-less.

What set the author of was the ambiguity of the language of the regs,
and of some of Acts that were cited in the regs. This ambiguity makes
for a really great conspiracy theory, and as we all know, there are
plenty of those popping up all over the place with this
administration. I, personally, don't think there is any grand
conspiracy, but I do think that the regs, as they were posted to this
thread, allow for certain aspects, like religion, and politics, to
creep into a matter that should, idealy, be treated scientifically
only. I gathered it not to be a big problem as I thought that the
posted regs weren't the final draft and that was still forth coming.
I might be mistaken on that part though.

Post by erikrr
Nothing in the regs say they
will, and if they do, they will be held accountable by we feds who
give them the money.
No sex is the surest way to avoid AIDS, monogomy is the next safest,
condoms is the next safest. And condoms will be taught. What's the
problem with the facts?

Agreed. But certain facts can be omitted if the PRP deems it too
obscene.

Post by erikrr
And each locality gets to decide the most
effective way to present them to their kids (who they know best).
What would you change about this?

Make the guidlines for what is obscene standard on the federal level.
I know this is pretty much an impossibility, but it is a good idea in
theory.

Steve

Steve Craig

2004-08-20 21:53:00 UTC

I've got a feeling that I am in way over my head here, as I have been
in many other cases on this little group, but what the hey. I will do
my best to be try and contribute something that isn't completely
inanne. Pardon me if I come off as ignorant, and above all pardon my
poor grammer and spelling.

Post by Clayton_T

Post by David Chapman
Yes - in a document detailing the methods you *must* use to receive funding.
Does that suggest anything to you?

David, you are so far out there on this. Are you claiming that the
CDC is part of your and Michael Moore's vast right-wing conspiracy?
The evil Republicans have brainwashed the doctors at CDC like so many
Manchurian Candidates into promoting harsh Puritan social views? This
is your contention? George W Bush & Co., whom you claim are utterly
moronic, are secretly evil masterminds? You have to be kidding here,
right?
And is this any departure from existing teaching about AIDS? When you
went to school did your Health/Sex Ed teachers recommend promiscuity?
Of course not. The guidelines re-printed in this chain sound like the
exact words spoken by the public-school Health teachers I had growing
up: line of defense #1 is abstinence - that has been the party line
through Republican and Democratic administrations; line of defense #2
is monogomy w/ your chosen partner; line of defense #3, which can
still be used w/ #2, is condom usage. WTF? Where is the hidden
agenda here?

From the previously posted guidelines from the CDC,

" I. Basic Principles

Controlling the spread of HIV infection and the occurrence of
AIDS requires the promotion of individual behaviors that eliminate or
reduce the risk of acquiring and spreading the virus. Messages must be
provided to the public that emphasize the ways by which individuals
can protect themselves from acquiring the virus. These methods include
abstinence from illegal use of IV drugs as well as from sexual
intercourse except in a mutually monogamous relationship with an
uninfected partner."

I don't see "#3" here, but thats an aside from the point I want to
make. I think its the absensce of "#3" in the first paragraph of
"Basic Principles" that can be enough to set off a lot of people.

" ``SEC. 2500. USE OF FUNDS.
(b) Contents of Programs.--All programs of education and
information receiving funds under this title shall include information
about the harmful effects of promiscuous sexual activity and
intravenous substance abuse, and the benefits of abstaining from
such activities.

(c) Limitation.--None of the funds appropriated to carry out this
title may be used to provide education or information designed to
promote or encourage, directly, homosexual or heterosexual sexual
activity or intravenous substance abuse.

(d) Construction.--Subsection (c) may not be construed to restrict
the ability of an educational program that includes the information
required in subsection (b) to provide accurate information about
various means to reduce an individual's risk of exposure to, or to
transmission of, the etiologic agent for acquired immune deficiency
syndrome, provided that any informational
materials used are not obscene.''"

I think the author of the LAWeekly aritcle was a bit of an alarmist,
but there is something disturbing about section 2500. While, on the
surface sub-section (d) seems like it should eleviate any of Mr.
Chapman's apprehension, it actually makes the makes the waters that
much more murky.

It seemed the first time I read this that subsection (d) could be used
to argue that condom demonstrations, for example, were allowed in
public AIDS prevention edcuation, be it written, visual, etc. The
fact of the matter, though, is that the defination of "Obscene" as
laid out by the Miller v. California case, while reasonable, can allow
political and religious motives some sway in this matter. I don't
know much about it except for what is printed in the CDC guidelines.

"This is a new requirement in the revised Guidelines and follows the
same rationale of Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 93 S.Ct.
2607(1973) that defines ``obscenity'' by looking to the average
person, applying contemporary community standards, as a way to ensure
that material would be judged by its impact on an average person,
rather than a particularly susceptible or sensitive person, or a
totally insensitive one."

This means that the defination of "obscene" is passed on to every
Lawyer's closest friend, the ever elusive, "Reasonable Guy."
Reasonable Guy in this case comes in the form of the opinion of the
Public Review Panel (PRP). Now...

" The proposed HIV Content Guidelines now:

(8) Require funded community-based organizations to identify
aprogram review panel established by a state or local
healthdepartment. While the current Guidelines allow CDC-funded
organizations to establish their own PRP, they are encouraged to use a
PRP established by a health department or another CDC-funded
organization. Theproposed Guidelines will no longer permit
organizations to establish their own PRP. Instead, recipients of
HIV/AIDS funds are required toidentify a PRP established by a state or
local health department within
their state's jurisdiction."

Basically, what I gathered from this is that while you were only
"encouraged" to seek a PRP estabilshed by a previously CDC-funded
organization, you are no longer allowed outside these bounds. While
the PRP has to be the minimum of five people, and what not, it also
has to be estabilshed by an organization that is already CDC funded.
While not explicitly saying it, thi does allow a lenient avenue for
the "Faith based inititives" to creep in, without anyone aside from
the CDC having a sayin the matter. Where is it the CDC get their
funding again? Who appointed the head of the CDC?

So, say group A would like to show condom demonstrations to children
ages 13+. (You may think this young, you may not, I don't know, this
is just when it was taught to me, and at the time I was just getting
over my deep seeded fear of cooties.) While it is going to be taught
that abstenance is the only 100% effective way of preventing the
spread of AIDS it will be taight that condoms will decrease risk, if
you are going to have sex. So Group A teaches its various students to
properly put on a condom, a trick everyone should know, because doing
it wrong can lead to much fear and loathing.

Person B complains about his/her child learning this and complains,
the practise goes to the PRP, which gets its funding from the CDC,
which gets its funding from the Bush administration which is activily
trying to persue an agenda of Abstenance-only programs, which
"researchers say actually increase the risk of contracting AIDS and
other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs)." according the the
article's author. Assuming that the rest of the article about Bush's
awarding of funding to various faith based initatives (I found the
part about Islamic and Jewish initives recieving no funds quite
disturbing.) is true, this is a great cause for alarm, to me anyway.

While subsection 317P is valid, it seems to have too much focus in the
CDC guidelines and one has to acknowledge that the wording of
subsection 317P is ambigious at best.

"Section 317P was added to the Public Health Service Actin 2000. This
Section states, in part, that ``education materials * * * that are
specifically designed to address sexually transmitted diseases * * *
shall contain medically accurate information regarding the
effectiveness or lack of effectiveness of condoms in preventing the
sexually transmitted disease the materials are designed to address.''"

A change to say "..medically accurate information regarding the
effectivness AND lack of effectivness..." would be much more suited
and would remove the ability to create abstenince only edcution.
Right now, it can be intrepreted that you may teach that condoms
aren't effective, which is what Mr. Chapman and Mr. Ireland (as well
as myself) are concerned about. So now you have kids who are going to
have sex anyway, regardless of what you teach them about anything,
regardless of what kind of video games they play, regardless of how
much you beat abstenace into their heads, who, not so much think that
condoms don't work and won't wear them, because "She's on the pill,
why do I need a condom?" This scares the shit out of me. Anyone who
thinks you can convince teenagers to stop having sex completely is
leaving in a world of dreams. SO, why not tell the ones that are
going to have sex anyway, "Hey, use a condom, you may live an extra 50
years or so as a result."

This isn't a conspiracy theory. I don't mean it to be, anyway. I'm
simply trying to point out that the author, while over reacting makes
a very good point. These new CDC funding guidlines allow for
political and religious motivations to interfer where they should,
_ideally_, have no place. I stress ideally because, of course
teaching children sex ed. has some social ramifacations that need to
be adressed.

Now, I'm writing this through Google, so pardon the lack of formatting
espicially for the quotations. ANd, as you can tell, I'm far from a
talented writer, and your critisism, if tactful, is most welcome.

Steve

s***@gmail.com

2012-10-23 20:52:36 UTC