The Bay Area Reporter - August 24, 2000
Katie Szymanski

Will predominately gay groups remain silent on the issue, or even support the measure, in order to acquire their portion of federal AIDS dollars?

Two weeks ago, the AIDS Legal Referral Panel issued a statement that opposed adoption of the "financial incentives for mandatory testing" clause in the reauthorization act, introduced by Representative Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma) to amend the CARE Act to include these conditions. ALRP was joined by several minority and women's groups and a handful of AIDS organizations such as Project Inform, but the coalition "had a hard time making this provision a priority during negotiations," according to Eileen Hansen, former policy director for ALRP.

Many AIDS advocates -- most notably those lobbyists in Washington, D.C. that worked out this "compromise" with Coburn -- seem fine with mandatory testing so long as the discrimination does not affect the gay community. As it stands, the CARE Act reauthorization legislation has two versions -- one in the House, and one in the Senate. Coburn's House version contains the mandatory testing provision, while the Senate version does not. Congress is expected to revisit the issue after Labor Day in order to pass the most agreeable form of the bill. And with little gay opposition to the testing provision, mandatory testing could well be on its way to becoming a condition of federal funding.

Locally, our own community, for the most part, has not vehemently opposed the mandatory testing provision.

Michael Petrelis, who has worked with Coburn on AIDS service organization accountability issues, told the Bay Area Reporter last week that he in fact supported mandatory newborn testing.

"The answer is yes. Y-E-S," said Petrelis, who noted that the incidence of pediatric AIDS cases in San Francisco was small.

Petrelis last week accused Hansen of using ALRP CARE Act money for lobbying against the bill and for her own campaign for San Francisco supervisor. Coburn jumped on the bandwagon, sending statements around the country that questioned whether ALRP even existed because the organization's phones were down on the day it moved its offices across town. And when Hansen resigned from ALRP last week to pursue her candidacy, Petrelis said it reeked of scandal. ALRP has already sent its financial records to Coburn for investigation and the group noted that Hansen's departure was planned long before Coburn's accusations. Furthermore, Hansen will ask for a public apology for Coburn's bogus crusade.

ACT UP/San Francisco, usually identified as a Petrelis ally, made a point to call the B.A.R. last week to denounce Petrelis's position on mandatory testing.

"To say this is not our community's concern is just ignorant," Michael Bellefountaine of ACT UP/SF told the B.A.R. "With all the false positives [test results], and all the discrimination around HIV, we should be able to talk about this whether you're from the AIDS orthodoxy or not. The religious right just needs to latch onto a couple of Petrelis's quotes to say the gay community supports this when that's not the case."

Survive AIDS -- formerly ACT UP/Golden Gate -- has yet to take a position on the matter, according to Jeff Getty.

"We haven't really looked at it. There are a lot of things we like in the bill, such as the accountability aspect. Of course there are a lot of ugly things in there as well," said Getty.

Survive AIDS, like many HIV/AIDS organizations, advocates for treatment access. There is a valid school of thought that if HIV testing came with guaranteed health care, the discussion would take a different shape. But rarely does HIV legislation tie in treatment access, and the CARE Act is no exception.

"It's testing for testing's sake. There's nothing in here that says if the mother or infant is positive then health care or even prevention education will be provided," said Hansen. "For many of the folks behind the bill, the atmosphere is one of criminalization that says we have to know who the positives are because they cannot be trusted."

For Hansen the question is how far the HIV community will be willing to go to oppose mandatory testing.

"The CARE Act is critical. Are we going to send pregnant women and newborns down the river for the sake of our funding, or are we going to reject the CARE Act and say this is not acceptable?" said Hansen.

"Five years ago," she added, "there was only a handful of us willing to do that."
000824
BR000809

Always watch for outdated information. This article first appeared in 2000. This material is designed to support, not replace, the relationship that exists between you and your doctor.

AEGiS presents published material, reprinted with permission and neither endorses nor opposes any material. All information contained on this website, including information relating to health conditions, products, and treatments, is for informational purposes only. It is often presented in summary or aggregate form. It is not meant to be a substitute for the advice provided by your own physician or other medical professionals. Always discuss treatment options with a doctor who specializes in treating HIV.

Copyright ©1980, 2000. AEGiS. All materials appearing on AEGiS are protected by copyright as a collective work or compilation under U.S. copyright and other laws and are the property of AEGiS, or the party credited as the provider of the content. .