the incompetence of our leaders: December 2009 Archives

Senate voted today to table the Nelson-Hatch amendment, effectively killing the Amendment.  The vote was 54:45, which was not the landslide victory everyone reported.  Although Democrats only needed 51 votes to defeat the Amendment, I think it's a sad state that they only managed to get 3 others to vote for tabling the amendment.  Two of those votes were from Republicans, Snow and Collins (both from Maine).  

It should also be noted that several Democrats voted against tabling the Amendment and spoke in favor of the amendment during the floor debate.  Senator Casey (D-Pa) comes to mind with his awful 10 minute speech about why the Nelson-Hatch amendment was such a wonderful thing and why we should all be sucking Hatch's dick.  

You can see who voted for and against tabling (remember, for tabling= good) here.

But, if you can't wait to click and see, here's the down and dirty on the Democrats who were fine with Nelson-Hatch Amendment and voted against tabling:

Bayh (IN)
Casey (PA)
Conrad (ND)
Dorgan (ND)
Kauffman (DE)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor (AR)

Special thanks to those Democratic Senators who made some brilliant and impassioned arguments on the floor:

Boxer (CA)
Cardin (MD)
Menendez (NJ)
and Feinstein (CA) (who did not become involved until the very end, but as the saying goes "better late than never")

Of course, as much as I liked the fact that these particular senators raised good arguments, I am still disappointed that no one came out against the Hyde Amendment.  The rhetoric from both sides of the debate was that the Hyde Amendment is well settled policy.  Hmm, that's interesting: the Hyde Amendment was particularly controversial in 1977, and many organizations think the Hyde Amendment is horrible policy.  Where is this idea that it is well settled policy? 

And let me add one final thought: the Democrats have a super-majority.  There is no reason why the party should be bowing to Republican or conservative rhetoric.  Oh, but wait, I forgot-- there are lots of Democrats now that side with Republicans.  Does anyone else see a mythical creature emerging-- one with a donkey's head and an elephant's behind?    

This past Wednesday, Time Magazine published this article  that portrayed Obama as scaling back Bush's AIDS initiative.  Now before I start on my rant about how incorrect this article is, I have to admit that PEPfAR was a pretty neat thing; a commitment to spend more than $15 billion to combat HIV/AIDS over five years is great.  But I refuse to ooze thanks to former President Bush like most world leaders did at the time-- I do not feel the need to congratulate our former President in the same way I would give a high-five to a two year old for eating without getting peas in his hair.  PEPfAR was a long time coming, and it was the least he could do after screwing our nation in his eight years of presidency.     

In our world today, over 33.4 million are HIV positive, but only 4 million have access to HIV or AIDS treatment. In the U.S. alone, it is estimated that 1 million people are HIV positive, but that only a third of those individuals actually know their diagnosis.  In fact, between 2001-2005, HIV transmission rate increased 17% in people ages 50 and older.  Although black and Hispanic women represent 24% of all women in the United States, these two groups account for 82% (almost 9 million) of the estimated total AIDS diagnoses for women in 2005.

Knowing these facts, let's take a look at what former President Bush did for our nation.  Oh that's right, one of his first acts in office was to institute the Global Gag Rule, a policy that prohibited federal funding for abortion services.  Although it was limited to abortions, the Global Gag Rule effectively shut down many family planning operations worldwide, as many family planning clinics were in some way associated with providing for abortion care.  Result? Most women in developing nations who relied on U.S. funded family planning programs had nowhere to go-- no maternal health, no reproductive health screening or treatment, and yes, no access to STD or HIV/AIDS treatment or testing. 

Then there was also the infamous birth of Title V, an Act that would ensure that federal dollars only be used for abstinence-only education.  I can easily create a whole new blog on abstinence-only education, so I'll make this short: abstinence-only education is ineffective through and through.  Telling youth to save themselves for marriage is not a a life-long message.  First, this mantra seems to forget that even when you are married, you can get STDs/HIV-- as far as I know, marriage does not equal fidelity. (*cough* Sen. Mark Sanford (R-SC) *cough*) Second, it only preaches to those, who at the time, identify as heterosexual.  Sadly, same-sex marriage has not been accepted in many states.  And, finally, abstinence-only education has been criticized for giving incorrect information to our youth; for instance, informing school children that condoms are more ineffective than they are effective. 

During his presidency, Bush also blocked federal funding from needle-exchange programs.  It wasn't until 2008 when Democrats reached a super majority that federally funding was restored to needle-exchange programs. 

Yay President Bush-- you destroyed so many worthwhile programs, but made up for it by creating PEPfAR!  It's like you're curious George: you always come through in the end.  Oh, and P.S., good job for also getting through that sentence without stumbling!

Now let's look at our current President.  One of Obama's first acts in office was repealing the Global Gag Rule.  Then he abolished Title V in an effort to put federal funding back into comprehensive sexual health education (although Sen. Hatch (R-UT) was able to pass an amendment through the Senate finance committee that would restore $50 million to abstinence-only education).  Next, he lifted the travel ban for HIV positive individuals, so that the U.S. could be an integral player in the fight against HIV/AIDS.  And finally, this past month, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services recommended that Medicare coverage extend to cover HIV screening and treatment.  The coverage was extended in early November, which will provide HIV screening and coverage for youth, pregnant women and individuals over age age of 65.  

So, Time, I just have to ask-- what were you thinking when you published that article?

A commitment to end HIV/AIDS is a political movement.  It means acknowledging that people are sexual beings and openly discussing sexuality in a way that would encourage healthy sexual activity and create treatments for those who have been infected with STDs.  It means not blaming someone for engaging in "risky" sexual activity, or blaming someone for addiction to intervenous drugs.  It means that we are looking for equality in the most basic human function: the right to livelihood. 

In addition, when you commit to combating AIDS, it means that are asking for universal healthcare for anyone regardless of age, race, gender or sexuality.  It means that you are asking that individuals receive the treatment necessary to survive, or that they receive the education they need so that they can make well-informed decisions.  You are asking for an overhaul of our private healthcare system and our educational initiatives.  This is not a feel good movement-- this should be something that makes you upset that in 2009, almost a good 20 years after our government began to recognize the AIDS epidemic, that only bare minimum has been done to combat this infectious disease.

I fully believe that if Bush had not been our president, we could have shaved 8 years off of that 20 year mark.  Instead, Obama now has to make up for Bush's horrible policies and then some.  Let's credit Obama for what he's doing to combat the HIV/AIDS epidemic...and then demand that he do even more.