Blogs Comment On Economic Stimulus Package, U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator Position

Main Category: Sexual Health / STDs
Also Included In: Women's Health / Gynecology;  Abortion;  HIV / AIDS
Article Date: 04 Feb 2009 - 2:00 PDT

email to a friend   printer friendly   opinions  

The following summarizes recent women's health-related blog entries.

~ "Let's Talk About Jobs, Baby," Johnathon Briggs, Huffington Post blogs: Conservative critics of a $400 million provision for sexually transmitted infection prevention previously included in the Senate version of a proposed economic stimulus package attempted to frame the measure as "objectionable and arguably unrelated to economic stimulus;" however, these opponents "just don't get" the fact that "disease prevention is a job," Briggs writes. According to Briggs, although federal health data indicate that "there's plenty of prevention work for Americans to do," critics "fail to mention" that most of the proposed funding would "go to jobs and workers that prevent HIV, hepatitis C and [tuberculosis] -- some of the most common, costly and controllable infectious diseases." Briggs writes that the "truth is that the majority of stimulus funding would be used to support state and local health departments and communities," which are "experiencing budget shortfalls and are being forced to reduce staff and provide fewer public health services." In addition, the funding "would be used to retain and hire thousands of workers in a broad range of fields," including nurses, aides, community health workers, counselors, technicians, engineers and clerical workers, Briggs writes, adding that these jobs "have the potential to be performed in every community across this nation." He asks, "Is it any wonder that most Republican governors have broken with their GOP colleagues in Congress and are now pushing" for the bill? He writes, "Perhaps the governors finally realize what health care advocates have said all along: improving the health care infrastructure of our country is a job" and that "the access to health care created by this potential public health army could reduce absenteeism and raise productivity at other jobs throughout the nation." Briggs concludes, "Simply put, Congress should approve the $400 million in prevention funding so that we can stop talking about sex and start improving the health of all Americans -- not just the ones we morally agree with" (Briggs, Huffington Post blogs, 2/2).

~ "Two Victories in the Senate," Kirsten Suhr, Blog for Choice: "On the heels" of President Obama's recent repeal of the "global gag rule," also known as the "Mexico City" policy, two proposed antiabortion amendments to the State Children's Health Insurance Program reauthorization (S. 275), "flopped" in the Senate, Suhr, associate director of communications for online strategies at NARAL Pro-Choice America, writes. According to Suhr, "anti-choice Senators thought" debate over the SCHIP bill "would be a great place to advance their agenda" by promoting the two provisions. The first amendment would have reinstated the global gag rule and "enshrined the anti-choice Bush policy into permanent law," she writes, adding that "the Senate backed our new president" and voted 60-37 against the measure. Suhr continues that the second amendment, proposed by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), "would have codified an old Bush regulation, making an embryo or fetus eligible for SCHIP." By granting eligibility to the embryo or fetus, and "not the pregnant woman," this proposal was "a thinly veiled attempt ... to chip away at a woman's right to choose by giving a fetus rights separate from the woman," Suhr writes, adding that the Senate voted 59-39 against this measure. Suhr writes, "[T]wo big cheers for the Senate for rejecting these awful amendments!" However, she concludes that these events "should also serve as a reminder to pro-choice Americans that anti-choice lawmakers aren't just going to go into hiding now that we have a pro-choice president. We need to stay vigilant" (Suhr, Blog for Choice, 1/30).

~ "Time To Select U.S. AIDS Leader," Josh Ruxin, New York Times' On the Ground: Because the U.S. global AIDS coordinator has "the extraordinarily important job of setting U.S. AIDS policy and indentifying spending priorities," the position must be filled by someone "with the knowledge, credibility and leadership to head up what is America's largest global public health initiative," Ruxin writes in reaction to the recent resignation of U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator Mark Dybul. Ruxin writes that the "right choice now is critical," adding, "Most people working on HIV/AIDS overseas recognize that with President Obama, we finally have an opportunity to scale up supporting interventions -- particularly in prevention -- along with treatment." He writes that in moving forward, HIV/AIDS efforts "need not be characterized by a blanket approach any longer; tailoring treatment programs to fit the patient and his/her community are more effective and should be a focus going forward." According to Ruxin, "We need an" Office of the Global AIDS Coordinator "leader who will think more holistically, more scientifically, and who will be guided more by patient health and less by ideology." He adds that Secretary Clinton is on the verge of making a "personal choice" that "may not serve the office well." He urges the Obama administration to "get smart about appointing the right leaders for the ongoing wars that cost billions, but save millions of lives," concluding, "At a time when AIDS treatment is still nowhere close to keeping pace with new infections, the administration should choose wisely and by consensus" (Ruxin, New York Times' On the Ground, 2/2).

~ "Abortion Still Divides, But Condoms, Sex Education Are Widely Supported," Bonnie Erbe, U.S. News and World Report 's Thomas Jefferson Street: A new survey by the YWCA and the National Women's Law Center shows that U.S. residents, while still divided over the issue of abortion rights, are "less divided than one might expect on issues such as contraception, access to it for low-income Americans and on sex education," Erbe writes. The survey of 1,000 self-identified Republican and independent voters found that 72% of respondents would favor legislation to expand access to contraception for people at all income levels and that 70% would favor legislation to increase birth control affordability. In addition, the survey found that 8% of Republicans and independents believe that the government should support abstinence-only sex education. By contrast, 62% of Republicans and 76% of independents surveyed said they support comprehensive sex education programs that include information about contraception, sexually transmitted infections and abstinence. Erbe concludes, "Incoming GOP Chair Michael Steele ... should take note and move the party forward accordingly" (Erbe, U.S. News and World Report's Thomas Jefferson Street blog, 2/2).

~ "The $200 Million Dollar Question," Cristina Page, Birth Control Watch: Policy experts have been "searching for any mention" of the recently removed family planning provision in the economic stimulus bill, but "it turns out there never was a $200 million budget request for contraception included," Page writes. The provision "was not a budget allocation but instead a proposal to insert more government efficiency into the process," Page writes, adding that the figure "refers to the projected cost savings to the states in five years." According to Page, it is a "[g]ood thing the package didn't include mention of the $700 million it was projected to save states in 10 years. One could only imagine the outrage then." She concludes, "It remains to be seen whether the shock media still perpetuating the story will become as apoplectic about being misled" (Page, Birth Control Watch, 1/30).

~ "Why Contraception Saves Money and Prevents Abortion," Peter Klatsky, Huffington Post blogs: "One cannot help but wonder whether congressional Republicans actually want to maintain the current rates of abortion, teen pregnancy, unnecessary public spending or decreased productivity," Klatsky writes, adding, "Their policy on contraception suggests that they do." The refusal of House Republicans to support the recently removed family planning provision from the economic stimulus bill "will lead to more unplanned pregnancies (with the associated abortions) and will block billions of dollars in savings," Klatsky writes. Although Klatsky writes that he "respect[s] the opinions of those who oppose abortion," he says that he does not "understand why those same leaders would oppose policies proven to reduce abortion." Klatsky writes, "While I appreciate [Obama's] attempt to find a bipartisan compromise [by removing the provision] and show goodwill, only evidence-based health policies should be supported. Access to contraception is proven to decrease unintended pregnancies, abortions and reduce overall health expenditures." He concludes, "Now that House Republicans rejected the stimulus bill, I hope President Obama and congressional leaders will consider writing this provision back into the bill. It makes economic, social and public health sense" (Klatsky, Huffington Post blogs, 1/30).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women's Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women's Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

• Additional
• References
• Citations