For example, in the United Kingdom, the Coroners and Justice Bill 2009 was introduced to the House of Commons in January 2009 and, subsequently, the House of Lords in March. The bill "aims to deliver more effective, transparent and responsive justice and coroner services for victims, witnesses, bereaved families and the wider public." It has sparked considerable controversy and outrage among religious conservatives over one of the provisions which expands protections for persons based on sexual orientation.
In one such instance, the UK-based organizations, Christian Concern for our Nation and the Christian Legal Centre, launched a campaign to challenge the proposed change. The sample letter to lawmakers the groups disseminated as part of their advocacy kit clearly outlines their concerns:
If the clause is removed, such words would be likely to prompt the police to investigate their speaker, even if the speaker was a pastor who had criticised homosexual conduct in the context of an address to believers. Whilst Christians do not believe that hatred should be stirred up against people on the grounds of sexual orientation, it is reasonable to allow debate on the subject of Biblical texts and sexual ethics without those who oppose homosexual practice being made to feel that they cannot criticise it without infringing the criminal law. This is the "chilling effect" on free speech that is likely to result from the removal of the free speech clause. The free speech clause is needed to protect orthodox, traditional Christian beliefs on sexual ethics not to mention the freedom of speech of other raditionalists.
In the United States, newly introduced federal hate crime legislation and a recently released report from the Department of Homeland Security have elicited cries that freedom of speech, among other liberties, is under threat. On April 7, 2009 the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) sent a memo to law enforcement offices entitled "Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment." The report identifies extremists that may be hate-oriented, anti-government, against those of a particular race, religion or ethnicity, or those dedicated to single issue such as abortion. This last item has the opposition to sexual and reproductive health and rights up in arms.
Within days, The Thomas Moore Law Center filed a complaint against DHS Secretary, Janet Napolitano and U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder, on behalf of several plaintiffs, including Gregg Cunningham, executive director to the anti-choice organization, Center for Bio-ethical Reform.
Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center stated:
This is not an intelligence report but a diatribe against those who oppose the policies of the Obama administration. It is a declaration of war against the American people and our constitution. It is a prelude to extreme gun control legislation and hate speech laws targeting Christian churches and others who oppose abortion and same sex marriage.
Secretary Napolitano countered the charge, stating that:
At the very edge are the extremist groups that have committed violent crimes. They've committed bombings and the like. And that is where you cross from constitutionally protected free speech, freedom of assembly, all the rights we cherish, into homeland security and law enforcement.
However, such outrage from the right only continued in the U.S. following the introduction of the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 by Michigan Congressman, John Conyers on April 22, 2009. If passed into law, this bill would authorize the Department of Justice to investigate and prosecute a specific set of hate crimes motivated by a real or perceived sexual orientation, gender, gender-identity, or disability. This builds on the existing jurisdiction of hate crimes legislation that provide protections based on race, color, religion and national origin. Opposition to this bill is mounting from those who fear presents opportunity for religious persecution. For example, the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission calls laws against hate crimes "one of the gravest threats to religious liberty and freedom of speech," and the Commission and other organizations are organizing the opposition.
The sensationalist rhetoric continues to reach laughable and hyperbolic heights. "Your pastor could be prosecuted for conspiracy to commit a hate crime if it passes and become [sic] law," cried Andrea Lafferty, Executive Director of the extreme right-wing Traditional Values Coalition. "This so-called 'hate crimes' bill will be used to lay the legal foundation and framework to investigate, prosecute, and persecute pastors, business owners, Bible teachers, Sunday School teachers, youth pastors -- you name it -- or anyone else whose actions are based upon and reflect the truth found in the Bible."
Too busy fear-mongering about infringement of free speech and religious freedom, the many right-wing voices are ignoring the grave injustices, resulting in injury and, in some cases, death which are the core target of these hate crime laws. Their sensationalist and overinflated claims of persecution draw the focus away from the any genuine dialogue about free speech. In truth, the distinction between expressing dissent and inciting harm is clear. It is our job as advocates to bring the focus away from any false claims and back to those communities that are most vulnerable to hate-based attacks.
]]>
SIECUS has long been critical
of the prevention paradigm in the Bush Administration's global HIV/AIDS
efforts and at the end of this month, will release Making Prevention
Work: Lessons from Zambia on Reshaping
the U.S. Response to the Global HIV/AIDS Epidemic.
This report is based on interviews and on-the-ground research by SIECUS
staff that traveled to Zambia one of the countries hardest hit by
the HIV/AIDS epidemic in Sub-Saharan Africa and, therefore, the world.
For those of us who closely follow the global HIV/AIDS epidemic, the numbers of new infections coming out of Zambia confirms in real life, the findings of the Stanford report: without the right policies and adequate resources, the HIV/AIDS epidemic continues to wreak havoc. No single government or organization, international or otherwise, is solely responsible for the current situation in Zambia. Rather, it is the result of a failure to integrate sound, responsible policies at the international level while prioritizing effective execution of strategies on the ground. In other words, where none are to blame, all are to blame.
Making Prevention Work
will not only shine a spotlight on, and give a better understanding
of, the realities faced by those struggling against the HIV/AIDS epidemic,
but also provide sound, evidence-based policy recommendations designed
to improve the response. While those of us in the U.S. can never
presume to put ourselves in the shoes of the dedicated workers and volunteers
who are doing their best in Zambia every day, we can take care of business
on our side - strengthening the largest source of money on earth to
fight HIV/AIDS, the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR).
While PEPFAR does a great deal of good now, particularly in the areas
of treatment and care, the prevention portfolio must be reshaped
and fine-tuned into a tool to turn the tide in this global conflict
against HIV/AIDS. This is the focus of our recommendations.
For those of us who focus on domestic issues, the numbers and crisis facing Zambia and Sub-Saharan Africa can seem daunting and almost incomprehensible. For example, the HIV prevalence rate in Zambia is 15.2%. But what does that look like? What does that number represent? Think about it this way: imagine if the entire population of the state of Oregon were HIV positive. Think of the national outcry and response of the federal government to what would obviously be an enormous national crisis. Now, see if you can handle this. In fact, 15.2% of the U.S. population would not only constitute the population of Oregon, but also add to this the equivalent of every man, woman, and child in Oklahoma, Connecticut, Iowa, Mississippi, Arkansas, Kansas, Utah, Nevada, New Mexico, West Virginia, Nebraska, Idaho, Maine, New Hampshire, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Montana, Delaware, South Dakota, Alaska, North Dakota, Vermont, Washington, D.C., and Wyoming.
That is the scale of the crisis Zambia is facing.
Not all is lost, however. During the last 20 or so years, our knowledge about HIV/AIDS treatment and prevention has come light years, and there is no reason why we cannot lower rates of transmission and ensure access to treatment if we finally take the steps that are necessary to show that we are serious in our fight.
With new leadership at the helm, now is the time to take a close and introspective look at our global HIV/AIDS efforts and make an informed and deliberate choice about how to proceed. Zambia is a case study on our nation's success and failures in helping this amazing country deal with the moral crisis of our time. We here at SIECUS hope the report will be received in that spirit and it will make seven concrete recommendations for moving forward. Until then, our previous postings on lessons from Zambia can be found here:
]]>It is no surprise then that on the second morning of negotiations during the 42nd session of the CPD, which took place March 30-April 3, sexual and reproductive health and rights advocates were on our way to the hall outside of the negotiation room. However, when we arrived every bench immediately in front on the negotiation room was commandeered by none other than the representatives from conservative Family Watch International (FWI) and Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM). There weren't many of them, but they had spread themselves out as to not leave one seat available. And, while this may seem like a minute and trivial detail, as we all know from West Side Story, turf is important.
Little did the FWI and C-FAM folks know, the tide was about to change. Not long after we arrived, delegates began to stream out of the negotiation room. While the representatives from FWI and C-FAM stuck to their positions, the rest of us followed the herd. When we arrived at what was to be the new negotiation room, there were benches aplenty, and we promptly arranged seating and set up shop. While the issues we were there to advocate on behalf of were certainly serious, this humorous scene mirrored the proceeding inside: you never know where you will end up in the end.
This story is a children's ride compared to the rollercoaster that was going on inside the negotiation room. Luckily, the delegates were able to come to a resolution, but only after plenty of ups and downs. Per the direction of this year's theme for the CPD, delegates were tasked with assessing "The contribution of the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development to the internationally agreed development goals, including the Millennium Development Goals." The CPD serves to inform and advise the UN's Economic and Social Council, offering its recommendations in the final Resolution of the meeting.
While the Conference debated issues such as the status of civil society organizations in relationship to governments and perceptions of international migration's impact generated some controversy, the most contentious issues by far related to sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR). Unequivocal in their position on SRHR, the Holy See, as represented by Permanent Observer of the Holy See, Archbishop Celestino Migliore, accused "the very institution which launched the MDGs...[of] giving priority to population control and getting the poor to accept these arrangements rather than primarily focusing on [the MDGs] commitments to addressing education, health care, access to water, sanitation and employment." Such claims of championing the rights of others, while dismissing attention to their sexual and reproductive health needs as merely "population control," represent a dogmatic adherence to ideology rather than a call to fulfill their human rights.
Even the phrase "sexual and reproductive health and rights" aroused passionate debate. Family Watch International, whose mission is to "preserve and promote the family, based on marriage between a man and a woman as the societal unit that provides the best outcome for men, women and children" has attempted to confuse the issue by claiming that "sexual rights," could be used to "promote abortion, homosexuality, transsexuality, prostitution, pedophilia, pornography etc." This "slippery slope" fallacy is meaningless and offensive, and, while such fearmongering might generate a few additional donations among their followers, it clearly would not stand up in legitimate negotiations. While the draft Resolution during the final plenary include the phrase "sexual and reproductive health and rights" and appeared to have consensus, in the final hour the delegation from Iran refuted the inclusion of "sexual and reproductive health and rights" stating that there is not agreed upon language on the definition of "sexual rights." In the end it was replaced with the language, "sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights."
While the final Resolution presented some problematic language regarding adolescents, there were clearly some breakthroughs. The Resolution incorporated key language from the Platform for Action from the Fourth World Conference on Women, stating that women have the right "to have control over and decide freely and responsibly on matters related to their sexuality, including sexual and reproductive health, free of coercion, discrimination and violence." It is simply amazing how such few words embrace such an expansive notion as free will, responsibility and self-determination. Regardless of how divisive right-wing factions can be in such matters, whether as part of country delegations or NGOs jockeying on the sidelines, their arguments that SRHR are outside of the human rights framework, at the most extreme, or that they are somehow subjugated in a false hierarchy of rights, ultimately find a dead end. Picking and choosing parts of the wide range of human needs, and placing them in competition with one another, directly violates the foundation of human rights, which recognizes the "equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family." ]]>The CPD is an annual meeting, which historically has a more technical emphasis rather than political one, unlike, for example the Commission on the Status of Women. However, because it is the 15 year anniversary of the adoption of the PoA, the meeting has a mixed tone, focusing both on measuring specific outcomes and expressing political will. Discussion topics include population economic development, gender equality, empowerment of women, family, sexual and reproductive health, reproductive rights, maternal and child health, migration, and education. And, with only five years left to fulfill the agreements laid out in the PoA, governments and advocates alike are feeling the crunch.
Maria Antonieta Alcalde, Deputy
Director of Public Affairs with International Planned Parenthood/Western
Hemisphere Region, describes the PoA as an agenda, not just for governments,
but for non-governmental organizations (NGO) as well. The presence
here of many NGOs who advocate for sexual and reproductive health and
rights (SRHR) and ensured delivery and access to services attests to
the spirit of cooperation. Advocates bring their technical expertise
to educating members of the commission, making themselves available
to the delegates, and offering technical assistance. Some delegations
even include NGO representatives as part of their team.
While the overwhelming majority
of the NGOs present at the CPD represent SRHR advocates and program
implementers, there is a small contingency of right-wing organizations.
Organizations such as United Families International, Family Watch International,
World Youth Alliance, Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, and
the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children have submitted statements
and attended the Commission proceedings and side events and reaching
out to country delegates. Of particular interest to these organizations
seems to be the delegation from the United States and the shift in U.S.
priorities under the Administration of President Obama.
The last eight years have been
marked by a U.S. presence at the United Nations that was mostly unfavorable
to SRHR, often aligning with some of the most conservative governments
on SRHR related issues. The new Administration, however, has demonstrated
a renewed commitment to upholding many of the goals expressed in the
ICPD Program of Action. Margaret Pollock, Acting Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Population, Refugees and Migration, Department of State
and head of the U.S. delegation, delivered the much anticipated U.S.
statement to the Commission on March 31. The statement expressed the
commitment of the United States government to "ensuring safe and voluntary
family planning," delivering "comprehensive and accurate information
on sexuality," linking "HIV/AIDS and voluntary family planning programs,"
and to moving towards ratification of the Convention on the Elimination
of all Forms of Discrimination against Women. Pollock also discussed
the recent reinstatement of UNFPA funding to the tune of $50 million
annually, the reversal of the Mexico City Policy, as well as the U.S.
government's endorsement of the United Nations Declaration on Human
Rights, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity.
Austin Ruse, President of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, sees such accomplishments at the United Nations as President Obama "paying his debts to the hard left on abortion, [and] homosexual marriage" and warns of the push for more "radical" policies.
The Commission's first two days of statements, informal negotiations and keynote addresses have laid the groundwork for the final stretch of negotiations on the resolution to come out of the 42nd session. If the response to the call of "all hands on deck" demonstrated by the presence and engagement of the many SRHR advocates is any indicator of the direction these negotiations will take, we will see a strong outcome at this year's CPD session. Stay tuned...
]]>
What follows is a snapshot of some
of the right-wing organizations who were present and what they were
up to over the course of the two weeks during the Commission session.
United Families International (UFI)
United Families International was founded
by Susan Roylance, who wrote Mothers and Fathers Defending Marriage
and Family in the Halls of the U.N., a well known and regarded book
in pro-family circles. UFI promotes the "natural family" which
- for those who are unversed in such terminology - means one man and
one woman, joined in marriage with oodles of children.
UFI has embraced new media with vigor
and established a special "CSW 2009" blog with coverage of their involvement during
the 53rd session. They recounted sitting vigil outside
of negotiation rooms late into the night in solidarity with delegates
from "pro-family" nations like Qatar and Yemen against the "hostile
forces." Their postings were rife with their disappointment in the
United States delegation, and spoke to their diminished sense of pride
in the United States resulting from the U.S. delegation's position.
UFI also spoke rather disparagingly
of delegates observed at the CSW: "We saw many delegates abandon the
principles of their country and ... fawning over the EU and the US in
an attempt to gain favor and money from them by supporting their ideas."
Family Watch International (FWI)
Family Watch International, whose mission is to "preserve and promote the family, based on marriage between a man and a woman as the societal unit that provides the best outcome for men, women and children" has made the United Nations a central site for advocacy, so it is no surprise that they were engaged in this year's CSW.
FWI called this year's theme "ridiculous," saying that "The equal sharing of responsibilities between women and men, including caregiving in the context of HIV/AIDS" indicated that the "UN wants to dictate how men and women share household responsibilities!" FWI clearly missed the point on that one...
FWI updated their base in periodic emails, and called for action in an "urgent alert" with the headline "Demand U.S. Stop Supporting Same-Sex Marriage and Worse at the UN" sent out during the final stages of negotiation for the agreed conclusions on Friday March 13th. FWI president Sharon Slater called for their supporters to contact the United States UN Mission and the White House to express their concerns about the "anti family provisions [endorsing] a position legalizing same-sex marriage." Within hours of that alert, FWI declared the CSW a success announcing that the "anti family" provisions had been pulled from the final draft of the agreed conclusions.
Endeavor Forum Inc.
The Australian based group, Endeavor
Forum Inc., believes that "men and women are equal but different not
equal and the same" and that sexual and reproductive health and rights
in the context of UN negotiations means "lesbian rights and free access
to abortion on demand, contraception and sterilisation." Endeavor
played a role once again in what Endeavor's former CSW representative
called the "annual feminist Mecca" and sponsored several side events
including a repeat performance session on breast cancer risks and prevention,
which turned out to be a foil for an anti-abortion scare-tactic rally.
Catholic Women's League of Australia Inc. (CWLA)
CWLA has consultative status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and attends the CSW annually. This year they co-sponsored several side events, including a session on the promotion of the Billings method of natural family planning. Ironically, one representative from UFI attended and later commented that even though they had hoped to enjoy the session, the ideas espoused were not quite up to par. She expressed disappointment that "it had nothing to say about the value that there is in abstinence, and nothing to say about a pro-life stance if the method should fail... overall [she] left feeling slightly deceived." I guess you can't please everyone.
Perhaps most, notable about CWLA is
their agreement with conservative Catholic teachings on the "theology
of the body." These teachings promote a narrow ideology of sexuality
and build upon institutional Catholic Church teaching that suggests
the sexes are not equal but complementary, that men and women fulfill
different societal roles which further exacerbates gender inequality.
These are just a handful of the right-wing organizations at work during this year's Commission on the Status of Women. Though they may put up the façade of fighting for family and children's rights, it is only on their terms. While organizations like FWI and UFI may have claimed victory, their inability to embrace the fullest complexity of a human rights framework undermines the integrity of their message in the end.
]]>
Michele Moloney-Kitts, Assistant
Global AIDS Coordinator, explained PEPFAR's five strategies for gender
inclusivity, including reducing violence and coercion against women
and addressing male norms and behaviors that may worsen the epidemic.
Moloney-Kitts indicated that the future approach to PEPFAR-funded programming
might rely more heavily on effectiveness data rather than simply following
what program implementers gut feelings or value judgments about the
programs. While the Office of the Global AIDS Coordinator has
always promoted the idea that it supports "evidence based" interventions,
this idea seems a small nod towards what the reality has actually been.
The next panelist, Jacqueline Ogega, director of the women-mobilization program of Religions for Peace, drew on her experience building PEPFAR-funded "women of faith" groups in Tanzania and Ethiopia. She pointed to these communities of faith as important constituencies given that they have historically regarded HIV and AIDS as resulting from "sinful behavior." She went on to explain that women are carrying a disproportionate share of the burden in the fight against HIV/AIDS, often volunteering without compensation. She discussed how some of PEPFAR's structural requirements, such as the intense financial reporting and record-keeping relating to "targets reached," are not workable for many locally based organizations. As a result, they cannot directly access and benefit from PEPFAR's resources. In addition to the obstacles to local organizations, she went on to describe the difficulty of adhering to quantitative prevention indicators within a specified reporting cycle to measure qualitative factors, such as the empowerment of a woman or girl. Such results often take shape over a longer period of time than an ordinary funding cycle.
The final panelist was Faith
Meitiaki, a dynamic youth representative with Anglican Women's Empowerment-Anglican
Consultative Council in Kenya, who captivated the room. Ms. Meitiaki
stressed the importance of "going local" in determining appropriate
strategies for responding to the HIV/AIDS epidemic, by recognizing individual,
regional, and cultural diversities. Meitiaki's comments rang
with truth and authority as she herself had escaped from attempted female
circumcision to pursue an education. She also emphasized that
prevention messages needed to provide options aside from just abstinence,
asking "if they can't abstain, what should they do? Die of AIDS?"
Abortion and sexual orientation are inextricably interconnected in the minds of individuals from right-wing organizations like Family Watch International, Concerned Women for America and United Families International. According to these groups, "sexual rights" is code for "homosexuality" and "reproductive health" is code for "abortion" and the advocates for sexual and reproductive health and rights are all "radical feminists" and "homosexual activists."
I attended two CSW parallel
events sponsored by Endeavor Forum Inc., an Australian organization
established to "counter feminism, defend the unborn and the traditional
family," and Concerned Women for America, which seeks to "promote
Biblical values among all ...thereby reversing the decline in moral
values in our nation." They come to meetings like this not only
to influence the outcome of the Commission's "agreed conclusions"
relating to the priority themes, but also for the opportunity to reach
out to the members of civil society present for the CSW.
Their goal is to cultivate ambassadors for their messages - offering refreshments and gifts of baby clothes, among other things, to establish a feeling of good will. The most bizarre example of the "freebies" distributed at the parallel events was recounted to me by a colleague from Panama. She attended a session sponsored by Human Life International where organizers handed out rubber fetus dolls in peach and brown tones, holding up the latter and crying out cheerfully that they had "chocolate ones for the Africans!" Honestly, you couldn't make up something this patently bizarre and offensive.
The titles of two of the parallel events I attended, "Breast Cancer Risk Reduction," and "Link Between Mental Health and Reproductive Issues" indicated that they would be addressing separate issues, but the core message was the same: abortion destroys women's lives.
The "Breast Cancer Risk Reduction" session featured Angela LaFranchi, a breast cancer surgeon and Clinical Assistant Professor of surgery at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School who believes that terminating or deferring a pregnancy heightened a woman's risk of breast cancer. She cited that a woman who gave birth at age 18 to a child carried full term had 50-75% less risk of developing breast cancer than a woman who did so at age 30. She then claimed that a woman who terminated her pregnancy before it was carried to full term actually had an increased risk of developing breast cancer, and women who had had multiple abortions faced even higher risk. She even expressed her hope that attendees could counsel a teenager to carry a pregnancy, even an unwanted one, in order to prevent breast cancer! When she closed by stating that the difference between having an abortion and carrying a child to term was the difference between "dead and dismembered or intact and alive," whatever credibility she had left went out the window.
The "Link Between Mental
Health and Reproductive Issues" session featured stories from several
women about the immense pain and trauma they experience as a result
of their decision to have an abortion. Many spoke of being pressured
by family or partners to have an abortion against their will, and counseled
against having an abortion for any reason. There is no question
that the entire session was designed as a scare tactic to deter women
from exercising their own choices based on their conscience.
There is no doubt that PEPFAR provides assistance for care and treatment in countries most devastated by the HIV/AIDS pandemic. But that admission does not require us to turn a blind eye toward its destruction of a comprehensive prevention agenda - the third part of the emergency response - in the focus countries.
When PEPFAR was reauthorized
earlier this year, the popular press and advocates of a "more money
whatever the cost" approach failed to recognize what our new updates
continue to show: the ideological underpinnings in PEPFAR's prevention
portfolio stand in the way of a good program from being a great program.
The various restrictions and
limitations in PEPFAR's prevention portfolio are well known to many,
and include the disproportionate emphasis on Abstinence-only and "Be-faithful"
programs (AB) while downplaying the importance of correct and consistent
condom use (C). The original law also required 1/3 of prevention
funding to go to AB programs while the reauthorized law strongly suggests
focus countries not to fall below a 50% threshold for AB.
The impact of this particular silliness is entirely serious on the ground.
Tanzania is a disturbing example. Just over 6% of people ages 15- 49 in Tanzania are HIV-positive and about 80% of infections occur through heterosexual sex. The country's own strategy, laid out in what is known as their National Multi-Sectoral Strategic Framework, embraces a comprehensive approach to prevention and recognizes the key role of condoms. (And, just so it's clear that they have their work cut out for them, only about 40% of males and 45% of females in Tanzania could correctly indentify ways to prevent HIV transmission and reject misconceptions about how the virus is spread.)
Nonetheless, in responding to Tanzania's epidemic, PEPFAR prevention funding misses the mark. According to the country's operational plan for 2007, a total of 25 programs received funding, but only three of these were reported to be promoting correct and consistent condom use. Making matters still worse, one of these reported that it only reached 70 people (in a country of more than 38 million people).
A similar disconnectedness
can be observed in Botswana. Botswana is, a country with an HIV prevalence
of nearly 24% (the second highest in the world), and while 25 organizations
received PEPFAR funding to prevent sexual transmission of HIV in 2007,
only two promoted correct and consistent condom use.
Botswana also exemplifies the open-door policy of PEPFAR to faith-based organizations that allows them to withhold any information they deem contrary to faith teachings. So who is getting PEPFAR funding in Botswana? True Love Waits - a program whose central pillar is a virginity pledge that has been disproved as an effective intervention. Moreover, this particular program instructs people that safe sex is wrong and that condoms have defects in them. This, in a country where nearly one in four people carry the virus. True Love Waits also received PEPFAR funding in Kenya and in South Africa.
There is additional, disturbing
evidence about what certain faith-based grantees are doing with
U.S. tax-payer money. For example, in South Africa, a country with about 18% HIV prevalence,
one grantee, called Scripture Union, describes its vision "to introduce
young people to Jesus" and ensure a "commitment to Jesus and also
to abstinence, whichever comes first." To be sure, this is a
missionary organization that uses PEPFAR funding to proselytize and,
in 2007, they received nearly $1 million of U.S. money to do that.
These are just a few of the issues that surfaced in our extensive research and lead us to offer seven policy recommendations. We call for: 1) an end to disproportionate emphasis for ineffective abstinence-only programs; 2) increased transparency of how funds are actually being used; 3) increased oversight to combat proselytizing, to prevent faith-based organizations from exempting themselves from discussing information on condoms/contraception, and to review the influence of the U.S. government in the development of country plans on prevention; 4) an end to the war on prevention efforts for sex workers; 5) increased focus on integration of HIV/AIDS and reproductive health care services; 6) increased investment in indigenous prevention program providers; and 7) an end to legalized discrimination in the program that allows grantees to deny care, treatment and prevention services to whomever they choose based on moral beliefs.
The
2008 Updates contain much useful information, but what was so striking
to us at SIECUS was one consistent theme that emerged in nearly every
country: the way in which the HIV epidemic targets the most vulnerable
members of society. In country after country, young women, commercial
sex workers, injecting drug users, and men who have sex with men disproportionately
suffer from the HIV/AIDS. These are the people who are most in
need of help and medical interventions, but who often slip through the
cracks. As we face the challenges of reaching out to traditionally
underserved communities, we need PEPFAR to be more open and less blindly
moralistic in the way it distributes its resources.
SIECUS has developed updates for all 15 of the focus countries: Botswana, Côte d'Ivoire, Ethiopia, Guyana, Haiti, Kenya, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Rwanda, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda, Viet Nam, and Zambia.
]]>To see both the 2008 PEPFAR Country Profile Updates and the 2005 PEPFAR Country Profiles, go to www.siecus.org/countryprofiles.
Julia Kim, from the School of Public Health at the University of Witwatersrand, discussed HIV prevention oriented towards structural determinants, such as gender-based violence, and how to measure an intervention's impact. Inherent in this model is a shift away from the individual level to that of the population. Her research focused on women who received training in gender inequalities and HIV while also participating in a microfinance program. This allowed for prolonged and consistent contact with the research group, more so than in a clinical setting. The research demonstrated that change in a factor such as gender-based violence, which is often deemed to be "too culturally entrenched and resistant to change," is not only possible but measurable.
The widespread impact of such interventions occurs through scale-up to a broader base of people. Ashokh Alexander, Director of Avahan India AIDS Initiative, added how the integration of business models aided in crafting research to scale from the outset, and she emphasized the importance of designing, managing, and evaluating to scale. Building research into program implementation allows for service users to be data gatherers as well, which panelist Jeffrey O'Malley of United Nations Development Programme echoed, and allows for more immediate assessment of program impact to identify areas in need of modification.
Tom Coates, Associate Director of the UCLA AIDS Institute, cautioned that not all forms of information are equally useful, and that we can neither rely exclusively on randomized controlled testing nor on self-reported data to measure the impact of prevention technologies and interventions.
Such HIV research has long posed unique challenges since the data is often difficult to quantify. The panelists briefly reviewed the evolution in the framing and conceptualization of that research which has led to better planning and design of interventions.
]]>This caucus was convened by the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM), Family Watch International (FWI), National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) and Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality (JONAH). Lynn Allred, Communications Director for Family Watch International, framed the purpose of the discussion in her opening statements: to uphold religious freedom and parental rights and to defend the beliefs that marriage can only exist between a man and a woman and that "the family is the foundational unit of society." After Allred's introduction, we knew what was in store: good old-fashioned right wing propaganda. But the Right has learned a thing or two in recent years that has greatly influenced their advocacy approach. Old-fashioned propaganda comes with a very new spin.
First, the Right has learned the importance of tailoring messages to a specific audience. Sensationalized defamation and name-calling may play well when preaching to supporters, but doing so in a setting such as the High Level Meeting undermines their legitimacy. Using human rights language and creating arguments which can stand up to some logical inquiry, however, is less likely to alienate those who find sensational rhetoric offensive or unreasonable. When Sharon Slater, President of Family Watch International asked, "Is stigmatizing high risk behavior the same as stigmatizing an individual with HIV?" this was not an innocent question, but a careful calculation on how to undermine sexual rights while seeming to appear fair-minded.
Later in the discussion, Slater told the audience that she has a very good friend who smokes and that she frequently talks to this friend about how she can get help. She stressed that in these conversations, she addressed the behavior not the individual. This is classic homosexual conversion rhetoric, which came as no surprise given the presence of Arthur A. Goldberg, Board member of NARTH, Co-Director of JONAH, and President of Positive Alternatives to Homosexuality (PATH). He argued that many people experience unwanted same-sex attraction for which treatment is available, stressing that the focus is on the rooting out the behavior and not attacking the person. I was unconvinced. He followed this statement with a discussion of a scientific study conducted by homosexual researchers (he made sure we took note of this fact) that demonstrated that no homosexual relationship is 100% monogamous. Goldberg argued that the conclusion to take away from this study was that all homosexual relationships were promiscuous and high risk. He emphasized the fact that these researchers were homosexuals who conducted this study of their own people so they had no ulterior motive. He concluded that "we're not promoting religious values -- we're staying in the secular, scientific and evidence based." Can those of us advocating for sexual and reproductive health and rights can count that as a win -- that the "evidence-based" argument has been so successful that it has been co-opted by the right? It's a bittersweet victory.
Another key lesson learned by right-wing advocates is to have a seat at the table, or at least close to the table. The mandates of organizations like C-FAM and Family Watch International include participating in proceedings and meetings at the international level. C-FAM’s mission is “[t]o defend life and family at international institutions and to publicize the debate,” carried out through their vision, which is “[t]he preservation of international law by discrediting socially radical policies at the United Nations and other international institutions.”
Austin Ruse, President and Founder of C-FAM had this to say at the 1999 World Congress of Families meeting in Geneva:
We have arrived at a perilous moment in the life of the family. Long under attack by her enemies, the family seems now to be disintegrating all around us. In every country of the developed world, families are breaking up under a plethora of pernicious pathologies. The roots of the attack, and their result are easily enumerated by most of the current social science data. But I will focus on one institution with which I am most familiar, the United Nations, an institution that is increasingly at the forefront of the attack on the family.
Piero A. Tozzi, Executive Vice President and General Counsel of C-FAM, stated in the caucus meeting that organizations like C-FAM are present to support countries who believe that families play an important role in society. They do so by convening small, closed meetings with country delegates as well as calling open meetings such as the Family Rights Caucus which can draw anyone present. In the June 25 edition of the Family Watch International newsletter, Slater reported that "caucus meeting allowed [them] to identify new allies in several countries, including an official UN delegate representing Kenya, who pleaded with [them] to come to Kenya as soon as possible to launch an African movement for the family." Their successes come not only in influencing language and content of negotiated documents, but in the relationships forged to further spread their messages. The organizations represented in this caucus meeting are increasingly committed to their mission of engaging in international advocacy. It will serve us well to continue to keep watch on where they go and how they get there.
]]>In recent years there has been a proliferation of organizations—both in the United States and around the globe—that exist to limit individuals' access to sexual and reproductive health information, education, and services. SIECUS believes that it is vital for advocates of sexual health and reproductive rights (SRHR) to stay up-to-date on the goals, thoughts, and activities of these organizations. To help advocates around the world, we monitor right-wing organizations and news sources and compile a digest of their articles on topics such as abortion, family planning, sexuality education, and sexual orientation each month. If you are interested in subscribing to our International Right Wing Watch please fill out this form.
This absence of sexuality education from the battery of information needed to equip individuals is precisely why the High Level Meeting on AIDS side event, Overcoming Barriers to Educating Young People about Sex and HIV, was so important. The Joint United Nations Programme on AIDS (UNAIDS) Secretariat, the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), and the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) organized this luncheon on the first official day of the High Level Meeting on AIDS in New York. They assembled ministers of health, ambassadors to the UN and members of civil society. The session started off with a panel presentation featuring Sanyiyoko Hoilett, a peer educator from Jamaica; Dr. Jose Angel Cordova-Villalobos, Minister of Health from Mexico; and Michel Sidibe, UNAIDS Deputy Executive Director, Programme.
Then there was a shift, and
we, the invited guests, got down to work. No free lunch here!
The seating assignments at each table were strategic, much like the
breakdown of the panel: high level government officials and representatives,
youth leaders and other members of civil society. Each table set
out to answer two important questions: "What are the barriers to educating
young people about sex and HIV in your countries?" and "What promising
approaches or solutions can you recommend to overcome these barriers?"
Some of the barriers that my table identified were religious opposition, "moral panic," cultural taboos around talking about sexuality, inadequate training for teachers, no available curriculum for youth in school, and lack of access to youth who are not in school. Some of the successful approaches that we identified were advocating for change at local levels of governance, using evidence on effectiveness of sexuality education and HIV prevention to compel policy makers to make changes, educating religious leaders to garner their support, and creating demand among the target populations. Such a rich discussion and interaction in the land of formal statements, declarations and negotiated texts!
Do we know whether this discussion
will influence the Ministers of Health and ambassadors to the UN in
attendance? We have no explicit way to measure this outcome.
I do, however, think that the organizers of this event were on to something:
bringing key stakeholders, who normally do not all sit at the same table,
literally and figuratively, together to talk shop.
On the first day, I attended a session entitled "Full Enjoyment of Human Rights by All: Vulnerable Groups Social Exclusion and Progress towards Universal Access." This was co-organized by amFAR, the Global Forum on MSM and HIV, UNDP, and the UNAIDS Secretariat.
The title made me think about the word "all". Obviously, we want human rights for all, for everyone - and it seems like we use this word as a euphemism at times to express that inclusivity. Like those progressive religious congregations that use it to subtly let LGBT individuals know they are welcome. While it's a far cry from the loud rallying of the early LGBT movement's "We're here. We're queer. Get used to it," it can be necessary to open doors, start conversations, and reach those individuals such as those who identify as MSM (men who have sex with men) who may not identify as LGBT.
The problem is that in many countries around the world, these groups get swept up into the all, becoming invisible in and of themselves, and we end up not knowing nearly enough about them.
And so, visibility of men who have sex with men and other LGBT individuals emerged as the central and reverberating theme of the session. Despite the astounding prevalence rates of HIV among MSM, gay men, and transgender individuals as compared to general adult populations around the world, they remain glaringly invisible. Invisible in the epidemiological data, in government gathered national HIV/AIDS surveillance data, in the country progress reports to the U.N. high level meeting, and in so many countries, cultures, towns, and families.
The end result is that we don't know enough about how many individuals need prevention, care, and treatment services. We don't know how many have been reached by these services. We don't know what types of programs and services work best.
We just don't know enough.
Stigma fuels this invisibility, allowing these individuals to be easily dismissed or forgotten. At the same time, the invisibility fuels the stigma because solid policies and programs must be based on evidence. In the absence of evidence the response can never be as robust or effective as it must be, and policies and programs are more vulnerable to influence from ideology and hypermoralism.
Surveillance data must be disaggregated, epidemiological studies of MSM, gay and transgender populations must be conducted with the same rigor as any other populations, and governments must include surveillance criteria regarding percentages of MSM, gay, and transgender populations reached.
When we say all, we should mean it, and we should have the data to back it up.