Showing posts with label AIDS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label AIDS. Show all posts

Friday, June 21, 2013

Supreme Court "prostitution pledge" decision opens door to more abortions, funding for pro-prostitution, pro-abortion groups

Esteemed colleagues who focus on religious liberty issues are uncharacteristically divided regarding the Supreme Court's decision yesterday that struck down as unconstitutional a government requirement that recipients of grants to fight human trafficking and AIDS provide assurance that they oppose prostitution, which spreads AIDS and human trafficking.
Some legal advocates who focus on religious liberty issues had filed briefs opposing the "prostitution pledge" provision. They reasoned that its allowance would let the government unconstitutionally dictate the ideological views of any organization that receives government funding. These groups understandably feared strengthening the Obama administration's attacks on religious liberty, buttressing local governments' attacks on pregnancy centers through speech requirements, and squeezing out campus student groups that decline to conform to university dogma on social issues. The groups reasoned that even the tax exemption status of charitable groups, seen (oddly) as a form of government subsidy, could be jeopardized if groups opposed the social policies of the government.
Other religious liberty advocates, such as the American Center for Law and Justice, reasoned--rightly, in my view--that requiring grantees to supply proof of opposition to prostitution was an eminently reasonable requirement to further the goals of a government health program that hinges on stopping prostitution. The anti-prostitution requirement, in this view, does not restrict the free speech of anyone--it just keeps the government from paying for speech opposed to the goals of this particular program, which provides funding on a completely voluntary basis. Justices Scalia and Thomas agreed in their dissent:

But here a central part of the Government’s HIV/AIDS strategy is the suppression of prostitution, by which HIV is transmitted. It is entirely reasonable to admit to participation in the program only those who believe in that goal.
In a comment relevant to the funneling of government funds to groups that support prostitution, abortion and other evils, the dissenting Justices noted,

Money is fungible. The economic reality is that when NGOs can conduct their AIDS work on the Government’s dime, they can expend greater resources on policies that undercut the Leadership Act. 

Whatever one might conclude regarding the theoretical impact of this case on religious liberty, what remains undeniable and real are the immediate harms, from a pro-life, anti-trafficking and anti-AIDS perspective, that result from this ruling:

  • more money to groups that see prostitution as legitimate "sex work" rather than as an evil to be eradicated--including pro-abortion and pornography (see CATW footnote below) groups;
  • a blow to efforts to eradicate prostitution, along with prostitution's threat to public health and its degradation of and violence against women and children;
  • the prospect of yet more forced and elective abortions, resulting from relying on condom distribution programs and unionization of prostituted women and children rather than rescuing them out of sex trafficking and other forms of prostitution.

Following are a few examples that illustrate the real-world implications of striking down the anti-prostitution requirement:

Coalition Against Trafficking of Women (CATW) - Supreme Court brief

E.   Sections 7631(e) and (f) were enacted in the wake of specific abuses documented prior to the passage of the Leadership Act. The requirement of a “policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking” was enacted, not in a vacuum, but in the wake of specific abuses by certain organizations that have used HIV/AIDSprevention funds to support their own efforts to promote legalization of prostitution and acceptance of prostitution as legitimate employment for poor women. The requirement in Section 7631(f) is justified as a way to ensure that HIV/AIDS-prevention funds are used to support programs that distribute condoms and provide health services, while seeking to eliminate prostitution rather than perpetuate it.
A vivid example of such an abuse is an organization in South Africa called SWEAT (Sex Workers Education and Advocacy Taskforce), in which the pro-prostitution “advocates” and the sex industry have been one and the same. SWEAT received funding to do HIV/AIDS-prevention work in AIDS-ravaged South Africa and used the funds not only to distribute condoms but to advocate decriminalization and legalization of the sex industry. 69 In 1995, SWEAT distributed a pamphlet whose goal was to “assist you in your career in the [sex] industry.”70 Funded with HIV/AIDS-prevention monies, SWEAT offered training in “sexual massage.”71
The Tab Bazar brothel in Bangladesh is another example of an organization that perhaps helped prostituted persons in some small measure, but in reality, perpetuated the sex slavery of vulnerable women and children.72 The brothel does in fact provide services for prostituted persons: condoms, HIV treatment, postnatal checkups, and gynecological care. 73 Yet the brothel, the largest in Bangladesh, locks women and their children inside, “constantly available for purchase but out of public view.”74
Against this backdrop, it is even clearer that the United States has compelling reasons to adopt a policy that requires organizations combating HIV/AIDS through work with prostituted persons, to oppose prostitution and sex trafficking . 75 Organizations advocating the legalization of prostitution are promoting the interests of the commercial sex industry and, in cases such as the ones cited above, are the sex industry.
The United States has an interest in ensuring that federal money is spent on organizations that, while addressing HIV/AIDS’s harm, will simultaneously attack the source of that harm, not defend it. In light of the extensive evidence of the devastation caused by prostitution and sex trafficking, this interest is truly a compelling one.
69  Farley, Prostitution Harms Women, supra note 27, at 1113.
70  Id.
71  Id.
72  Id. at 1114.
73  Id.
74  Id.
75  Indeed, in an action filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, in which the plaintiff’s claims are similar to the ones at issue here, the plaintiff is DKT International. DKT International’s president is Phil Harvey, who runs a multi-million dollar pornography business. Complaint at 10-11, DKT Int’l, Inc. v. U.S. Agency for Int’l Dev. et al., 435 F. Supp 2d 5 (D.D.C. 2005) (No. 05-01604); U.S. Man’s Porn Sales Helping Fight AIDS Overseas, Associated Press, Oct. 10, 2005,
http://ww1.aegis.org/news/ap/2005/ AP051016.html.

Pregnancy in Prostituted Children

Willis, B.M., Levy, B.S. Child Prostitution: Global Health Burden, Research Needs, and Interventions. Lancet 2002; 359: 1417-22.
The following consequences of pregnancy in prostituted children have been estimated to occur each year based upon 9 million prostituted girls:
•     Maternal deaths - 4752
•     Induced abortions - 1,224,000
•     Abortion related complications - 367,200
•     Abortion related deaths - 710

The Reality of Human Trafficking: One Woman’s Story

I was transported to Florida, and one of the bosses told me I would be working in a brothel as a prostitute. I told him he was mistaken and that I was going to be working in a restaurant. He said I owed him a smuggling debt, and the sooner I paid it off the sooner I could leave. I was constantly guarded and abused. If any of the girls refused to be with a customer, we were beaten. If we adamantly refused, the bosses would show us a lesson by raping us brutally. We worked six days a week, 12 hours a day. Our bodies were sore and swollen. If anyone became pregnant we were forced to have abortions. The cost of the abortion was added to the smuggling debt. I was enslaved for several months; other women were enslaved for up to a year.  Our enslavement finally ended when law enforcement  raided he brothels and rescued us.”

Girl testifies she had abortion at 12

Published: Feb. 21, 2013 at 12:20 AM
LONDON, Feb. 21 (UPI) -- A witness testified Wednesday at the London trial of an alleged sex trafficking ring she was recruited at 11 and endured an abortion when she was 12.

'Pattern Emerges' Of Abortionists Covering For Child Sex-Traffickers

3 more Planned Parenthood locations caught aiding 'child prostitution ring'
Published: 02/04/2011 at 9:55 PM

Three more undercover videos taken at separate Planned Parenthood clinics have been released by an organization called Live Action, which claims it’s finding “alarming patterns” of abortion providers willing to aid and abet underage sex-trafficking.

“Live Action has previously released more than a dozen hidden camera videos from ten states,” Live Action asserted in a statement. “This body of visual evidence shows several alarming patterns of illegal Planned Parenthood activities including cover-up of sexual abuse of minors, the skirting of parental consent laws, citing unscientific and fabricated medical information to manipulate women to have abortions, and Planned Parenthood’s willingness to accept donations earmarked to abort African-American babies.”

As WND reported earlier this week, the Live Action team, posing as the leaders of an underage prostitution ring in Richmond, Va., discovered a Planned Parenthood worker assuring them they’d find “no judgment, no sharing of information, like, uh, nothing here,” at the clinic and explaining how they could go about getting a “judicial bypass” of abortion laws for girls as young as 14 or 15.

Modern-day slaves, hostage to abortion

Set aside politics to help Catholic groups that fight human trafficking
New York Daily News
By Steve Wagner And Kim Daniels
Some contend that Catholics are simply trying to impose their beliefs regarding abortion and contraception on others. Those who make this argument particularly ignore the context here: When abortion or contraception is provided to trafficking victims who remain under the control of those who exploit them, it’s the trafficker who benefits, continuing to exploit his victim without interruption.
In fact, with its edict, the government is imposing an ideological position without regard to the welfare of the victim. There is no possibility of a victim providing informed consent for abortion, sterilization or contraception, whatever the trafficker considers convenient; this is referred to as “modern-day slavery” for a reason.

Alveda King speaks on Human Trafficking

And in this sense, human trafficking does not stand alone as a separate issue.  It’s part of a greater over-arching problem plaguing our world since the beginning of time – our selfish tendency to dehumanize those whose humanity is in the way of what we want.
Then there’s the case of Karnamaya Mongar.  Mrs. Mongar was forced to leave her tiny Himilayan nation of Bhutan because of internal strife.  Discrimination in her country had led to the loss of livelihood, loss of rights, and even loss of life.  Tens of thousands, including Mrs. Mongar and her family, fled Bhutan and lived in refugee camps in nearby Nepal.  Mrs. Mongar had been dehumanized by her government.
After spending 18 years in a hut in a refugee camp with no real home and no real hope, Mrs. Mongar was allowed to come to the United States with her family.   It was here, though, that her lack of hope and trust caused her to seek out an abortionist when she became pregnant.  Mrs. Mongar’s grown daughter had urged her to keep the child, but Mrs. Mongar didn’t share her daughter’s optimism.
Her desperation led her to Kermit Gosnell, a human trafficker if ever there was one.



Friday, January 4, 2013

White House AIDS meeting pairs unlikely partners

Sec. Sebelius at White House AIDS event

The odds of pro-life, faith-based  representatives attending separate meetings with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius in the same day--and actually agreeing on something-- may seem astronomical.
Yet that's exactly what happened on the recent World AIDS Day, when I joined several other faith-based organization representatives to attend meetings at the White House and at the State Department that included presentations by both women on one of the very few goals we share in common--ending AIDS.
The reasons that political opponents with such vastly divergent worldviews even landed in the same room together are simple and pragmatic. In places like sub-Saharan Africa, a World Health Organization survey found that faith-based organizations provide up to 70 percent of the health care, and a Gallup survey of 19 countries in this region found that Africans trust religious institutions the most.
That means no government can achieve its AIDS-related health goals in such countries without engaging the faith community.
Key officials in the Obama administration have been quietly reaching out to a number of faith-based groups working with AIDS patients overseas. We have enjoyed candid and civil discussions with administration officials including Ambassador Goosby, Global Health Initiative Executive Director Lois Quam, and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) Administrator Rajiv Shah, abo­­ut how to join together to combat AIDS and how religious liberty and conscience rights impact faith-based health care. Such conversations recently resulted in the development of a new written USAID policy to help protect conscience rights to insure competition without discrimination for government funding for AIDS projects.
I have explained during these conversations that faith-based professionals and institutions cannot separate the faith motivation that compels them to make incredible sacrifices to care for the needy and marginalized from the faith motivation that compels them to provide care according to biblical and Church standards. Evangelical and Catholic groups provide significant and compassionate care to AIDS patients in the U.S. and overseas, and the government can multiply the benefits of those efforts with grants to help achieve worldwide health goals such as the new blueprint for an AIDS-free generation.
Such efforts may come as a surprise to some AIDS activists and LGBT individuals who view the faith community as an adversary rather than as a partner. Some of this wariness may be warranted, of course, if an individual has experienced judgment or stigma from someone within the faith community.
Yet negative perceptions about the faith community can also arise from the same kind of stereotyping and misinformation that AIDS activists and LGBT individuals themselves fight to counter. Automatically labeling as homophobic anyone who holds faith-based or traditional values regarding sex and marriage is like labeling anyone who opposes human cloning as technophobic. It is entirely possible to deem certain actions morally or ethically impermissible--as we all do--and still accept, serve and love individuals who engage in these actions.
As our society becomes more sharply divided on social issues, we all need to embrace more civil dialogue. Otherwise, our democracy will morph into a form of totalitarianism, with whoever has political power eliminating all opposition by fiat. Given our history and current trends, the faith community should be among the first to recognize and resist such threats to freedom and tolerance.
We all share the same human frailties and harmful inclinations, and we will each answer individually to our God. Meanwhile, we can accentuate our commonalities, engage each other respectfully on our differences and work hard to find those areas in which we can work together.
Laboring together for an AIDS-free generation is a good starting point.

Thursday, July 26, 2012

Bizarre White House meeting undermines faith-based outreach


I recently experienced what was by far the most disturbing and bizarre of dozens of White House meetings and events that I've attended--the White House Forum for Faith Leaders in conjunction with the International AIDS Conference 2012.
I should have followed the example of Joshua DuBois, Executive Director of the Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, who welcomed the gathering of about 150 AIDS activists by bringing greetings from President Obama--and then quietly ducked out a side door. He missed the subsequent three-hour-long show, which included blaming the faith community for discouraging AIDS funding and spewing hatred, demonizing pharmaceutical companies and turning sacred hymns into secular mantras.
First, to be fair, some speakers at the event offered glimpses of sanity and civility.
Gayle Smith, Senior Director for Democracy and Development, National Security Staff at the White House, for example, allowed that "We've been very privileged to come into office with an extraordinary foundation built by President George Bush."
President Bush launched the effective and well-respected (if grudgingly by his opponents) President's Emergency Program for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). The Obama administration, however, has been slashing funding for the U.S.-run PEPFAR program in favor of the multinational Global Fund, which not long ago was wracked by scandal and mismanagement.
Dr. Ariel Pablos-Mendez, Assistant Administrator, USAID Bureau of Global Health, effectively encapsulated the mission of faith-based organizations by saying, "In the end it's about love. It's your core competency--your motor, your driver. You understand the communities, you lead, engage, care for these communities."
Other speakers, however, seemed scarcely able to disguise their disdain for faith-based organizations, even as they grudgingly acknowledged the unmatched reach of such organizations.
The World Health Organization, for example, has released a report that "estimates that between 30% and 70% of the health infrastructure in Africa is currently owned by faith-based organizations." The Gallup World Poll asked sub-Saharan Africans in 19 countries about their confidence in eight social and political institutions. Overall across the continent, they were most likely to say they were confident in the religious organizations (76%) in their countries. I know of many medical missionaries and faith-based medical institutions who make tremendous sacrifices to reach out in love and compassion to those afflicted with AIDS.
One speaker who seemed particularly wary of faith-based organizations was Anne-Birgitte Albrectsen, Deputy Executive Director of the UNFPA. In 2002, the U.S. State Department deemed the U.N. population agency ineligible for U.S. funding because of its involvement with the Chinese government's notorious one-child policy, which the Chinese enforce through coerced abortions. The Chinese government's policy of forcibly aborting babies considered undesirable by the state apparently comports with the dark side of the UNFPA slogan--"to ensure that every pregnancy is wanted."
Ms. Albrectsen first allowed that "the faith leaders in this room [the vast and vocal majority of whom seemed to enthusiastically toe the Obama party line] are critical agents of change," and conceded that "16,000 health centers on African continent are operated by Catholic Church."
Then, however, the UNFPA official darkly asserted, "Ignorance and corruption can assume the mantle of religion. They suppress accurate information and they whip up stigma and even violence."
She offered no specific examples.
Ms. Albrectsen also incredibly blamed faith-based organizations for discouraging donations to  AIDS work.
"The plain fact is that the funders with those resources ... if they perceive that dogma holds back our work, they'll find other places to put their funds. Some faith-based spokespeople have [advocated] a restrictive approach to condom distribution, [which] is unlikely to provoke sympathy among those who choose to spend their meager resources on the fight against HIV and AIDS."
Reinforcing a decidedly aggressive agenda of the Obama administration, Ms. Albrectsen admonished the audience to "work for empowerment of women…work for better information and services directed specifically to girls and women…and show zero tolerance for violence against women and girls."
Many people regardless of political or religious persuasion appreciate concerns related to women and girls. However, when it comes to AIDS--the supposed focus of this White House meeting--the CDC has estimated that roughly three of four adults and adolescents living with an AIDS diagnosis in the U.S. are men; worldwide, estimates of adults living with HIV/AIDS split the percentages roughly equally between men and women.
Other speakers amplified the content of their ideological screeds with a verbal volume unmatched in any White House meeting I've attended. This seemed to delight many in the audience, who seemed to think we were in the secular equivalent of a gospel revival meeting. Almost raucous shout-outs from the audience punctuated the often rhythmical pontifications of the speakers. The louder the speaker and the shriller the message, the more the audience seemed to respond with enthusiastic approval.
One speaker in particular illustrated the substitution of secular dogma for religious values. When the time came for his presentation, the Ugandan representative of an organization called the "International Network of Religious Leaders living with or personally affected by HIV (INERELA+), stood up and sang. Dressed in religious garb, he smiled as he replaced the refrain of a sacred hymn, "Nothing but the blood of Jesus," with the secular mantra, "Nothing but a comprehensive approach."
His song apparently delighted those who advocate a "comprehensive" approach to AIDS emphasize condom distribution and disdain the "ABc" policy that stresses sexual risk avoidance and faithfulness in marriage as a primary strategy and condom use as a secondary strategy. The offensiveness of perverting the message of the sacred hymn did not seem to occur to him or to many others in the audience, who laughed with approval.
A speaker from Bolivia launched her presentation first by chiding her hosts for not inviting more leaders from Latin America and then by railing against U.S. pharmaceutical companies--she named Merck and Johnson and Johnson--for not making their medicines available at little or no cost. She literally demonized pharmaceutical companies by joking--at least I hope she was joking--that pharmaceutical companies have "demons."
The idea that free-market profit encourages innovation and the development of new medicines, and that decreasing or eliminating that motivation would only serve to stifle pharmaceutical development, seems not to have crossed her mind.
Not to be outdone by the first singing act, the last speaker instructed all of us in the audience to stand up and hold hands. She then led everyone in a rendition of a song sung by Diana Ross, "Reach out and touch someone." When the song mercifully concluded, she instructed us all to give a "full-body hug" to those next to us.
Really.
I left the White House never so glad to leave it behind me. As I exited the building, I turned to face a horde of protestors from the AIDS 2012 conference marching down Pennsylvania Avenue. They chanted slogans and waved signs demanding that pharmaceutical companies give up their medicines.
I wanted to direct them right into the White House auditorium; they would have fit right in.

Friday, November 11, 2011

Administration wants faith-based organizations' help, but where's the help for faith-based organizations?



Due to a conflicting meeting, I had to decline an invitation to attend Sec. Hillary Clinton's recent speech at the National Institutes of Health. While I appreciated the invitation to a faith-based organization (fbo) like the Christian Medical Association, I've also come to realize that some within the administration tend to see fbo's as more of a tool than a partner. 
Prior to the public unveiling of Clinton's speech, President Obama's AIDS ambassador, who heads the U.S. PEPFAR program to fight AIDS, hosted a number of fbo leaders in what turned out to be a meeting to coordinate publicity for the speech. The administration apparently expected fbo's to help the administration create a "buzz" for the Secretary's speech. 
We learned during that meeting that the administration's theme would be "Turning the Tide Together."
I noted to our host that the "together" part of that message is often lost when it comes to working with fbo's. I suggested that it would be very helpful for administration officials to send a message to the public and the AIDS community about how fbo's are accomplishing effective work and why it's important for all to respect conscience rights.
Based on Secretary Clinton's speech, an observer would not have a clue that fbo's are doing much of anything to help AIDS patients. Yet according to the WHO, fbo's provide up to 70 percent of health care in sub-Saharan Africa, and that in the same region, fbo's also are the most trusted institution, according to Gallup.
It can be fairly argued, of course, that highlighting fbo's was not the purpose of the Secretary's speech. But at some point, if this administration wants to maximize the benefit of fbo's in fighting AIDS, it will have to take a much more positive stance toward fbo's, both in public statements and more importantly, in public policy--such as the protection of conscience rights. So far the administration's record in that respect has been nothing short of dismal--gutting the only federal regulation protecting conscience, mandating the provision of controversial contraceptives with virtually no conscience exemption, and writing grant stipulations that effectively block conscientious faith-based groups from funding.
That may not be the public relations message the administration was hoping for, but it's a message that needs to be addressed.

Featured Post

The Equality Act would trample on doctors' religious freedom

Published in The Washington Examiner by Jonathan Imbody  | March 29, 2021 Imagine you are a family physician who entered medical school mot...