A sound strategy or silence? Bush's cautious approach to AIDS policy creates frustration on both sides

August 19, 1992|By Douglas Birch | Douglas Birch,Staff Writer

In confronting the nation's AIDS epidemic, President Bush has tried to follow the path of least political resistance -- retreating from policies that seem likely to provoke a hostile response. But this cautious road has proved bumpy, earning him scorn rather than praise from some conservatives, medical specialists and AIDS activists.

On one hand, many AIDS groups are frustrated by the White House's refusal to promote safe sex and the use of condoms, authorize the distribution of clean needles to drug addicts and repeal a ban on immigration by AIDS victims.

On the other, self-styled conservative champions of family values criticize Mr. Bush for not requiring the reporting of AIDS infections to health authorities, the notification of sexual partners and mandatory AIDS tests for surgeons, dentists and other health care workers.

The president's search for a middle ground on AIDS is, perhaps, reflected in plans for Mary Fisher, a 44-year-old Florida woman with the virus, to address the GOP convention tonight.

Ms. Fisher, a mother of two, contracted the virus in a way acceptable even to social conservatives -- through sex with her husband.

But she represents a minority. Of the 226,281 AIDS cases reported to the federal Centers for Disease Control by June 30, 196,786 or 87 percent acquired it through homosexual contact or intravenous drug use.

Only 14,045, or 6 percent, contracted the disease through heterosexual sex.

However it is transmitted, AIDS is one of the most serious public health issues facing the United States. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control reports that by June 30 the disease had claimed the lives of 152,153 people in the United States, a disproportionate number of them young adults.

That's more than 2 1/2 times the number of Americans killed in the Vietnam war.

Mr. Bush wins general praise for supporting the Americans with Disabilities Act, which affords people with the virus some protection from discrimination.

And the president's defenders point out that there has been a steady increase in spending on AIDS research and other programs since 1988.

But AIDS groups give Mr. Bush little or none of the credit on the budget issue.

"The Congress has been responsible for the increases over the past four years, not the president," said Carisa Cunningham, a spokesman for the Washington-based AIDS Action Council.

Even the non-partisan National Commission on Aids, appointed jointly by the White House and Congress, is unhappy. Several members complained in June that it took eight months for the Department of Health and Human Services to respond to a list of recommendations for action -- including their call for a national strategy to attack the disease.

All the suggestions for new programs were rejected, said Dr. June E. Osborn, chairman of the commission. "I personally feel quite disappointed about the nature and the level of response in prevention and planning," she said in an interview this week.

A few weeks ago, former Los Angeles Laker Earvin "Magic" Johnson, who is infected with the virus, threatened to quit the commission. He was appointed by President Bush.

"Every time we ask for more funding or adequate funding, we get shot down or turned down by the president," Mr. Johnson told CNN. "Whether it's care, hospice, housing or whatever, we just can't get the funding. We have the plan, but we can't implement the plan because we don't have the funding, so it's really frustrating."

One of the president's defenders is Karen Czarnecki, deputy director of the conservative Heritage Foundation. "I think they've got a pretty good track record on aids prevention, research eduction and overall funding," she said. Maybe too good, in fact.

The federal government spends $110,280 per victim on AIDS research, education and prevention, she said. "When you compare that with the $288 per person with heart disease, $2,608 per person with someone with cancer, perhaps we are spending a little too much," she said. "You can attribute that to the very vocal stance of the AIDS lobby."

But AIDS activists said over the past four years, they have had little influence in the White House. Instead, they say, the president has repeatedly caved in to political pressures from the right.

One example: In 1991, Health and Human Services Secretary Louis W. Sullivan canceled a planned $18 million National Institutes of Health study of teen-age sexual practices after two conservative leaders on Capitol Hill, Rep. William E. Dannemeyer, R-Calif., and Sen. Jesse Helms, D-N.C., threatened to fight it.

At the urging of the National Commission on AIDS, the administration relented and permitted people infected with AIDS to visit the United States for medical treatment or to attend conferences.

But the White House also overruled the commission on a related issue, barring any immigrants infected with the virus on the theory that additional AIDS cases would further strain the nation's health care system.

Baltimore Sun Articles
Please note the green-lined linked article text has been applied commercially without any involvement from our newsroom editors, reporters or any other editorial staff.