Roundup: HIV Infection Rate, Pro-Choice Tom Ridge, Paycheck Fairness Act, More on HHS Regs

US HIV Infection Rate 40% Higher than Previously Reported

At the International AIDS Conference in Mexico City on Saturday, CDC officials released new data on the HIV infection rate in the US, showing that 56,300 people are infected each year, instead of the 40,000 previously estimated. The CDC's Dr. Julie Gerberding says that it's impossible to tell whether the new numbers reflect an actual yearly increase in number of new HIV infections or simply vastly-improved reporting methodology. Judith Graham at the Chicago Sun-Times points out that the new numbers show over a third of the new infections are occurring the 13-to-29-year-old age group.

The only good news to come lately on HIV is that PEPFAR will include repealing the travel ban on HIV positive foreign nationals.

House Passes Paycheck Fairness Act

On Thursday, the House of Representatives passed the Paycheck Fairness Act, which strengthens the 1977 Equal Pay Act and closes loopholes that allow employers to "avoid responsibility for discriminatory pay," says Speaker Nancy Pelosi's blog. Why do we need a Paycheck Fairness Act? The US Census Bureau has found that women earn 77 cents for every dollar earned by men. Even so, Bush is sure to veto.

Tom Ridge May Be Pro-Choice, But that Shouldn't Disqualify Him from the GOP Veepstakes

Over the weekend Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge reaffirmed his pro-choice stance on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos," but suggested that wouldn't pose a problem for John McCain - or not big enough of a problem to disqualify Ridge from the running for vice-presidential pick. Could having a pro-choice politician on the ticket turn off the Republican base? If the embrace of a pro-choice leader came from the top, maybe not, Ridge speculated: "I think, at the end of the day, I think the party would be comfortable with someone Sen. McCain was comfortable with. And that is ultimately his decision."

Local Papers Editorialize Against Proposed New HHS Regulations

The Minneapolis-St. Paul Star-Tribune is the latest local newspaper to editorialize against the proposed new HHS regulations that would define certain forms of birth control as abortion. Calling the new regs a "Trojan horse of a proposal," the paper concludes,

The real intent of the proposed policy rapidly becomes clear to anyone who reads a draft leaked recently to the news media. It appears that federal officials invited in the most extreme elements of the prolife coalition and said, "Bring your wish list.'' The result is a hamhanded, 40-page document that limits women's health care by vastly expanding the opportunities for medical staff to refuse to provide care or information because of their abortion views.

The Washington Post's Maria Cocco argues that the new regs demonstrate Bush administration is using the "conscience clause" to keep basic birth control out of the hands of American women because it has failed to do so through an "open political process":

And so, having failed to keep American women from having access to basic birth control, the right is trying to use the guise of an existing "conscience" requirement to achieve what it cannot accomplish through an open political process. You could, if you were taken to an emergency room after being raped, be told by a worker invoking the conscience clause that you cannot have a drug to prevent a possible pregnancy.

What kind of real world effects would the new regulations have? One example: they would supersede Oregon law that guarantees rape survivors access to emergency contraception, the AP/Oregonian reports.