Government Should Focus on HIV Prevention, Not Promoting One Set of Religious Beliefs
It's admirable that the federal government provides money to help victims of human trafficking in the United States get their lives back through the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. Unfortunately, many trafficking victims have been raped, or forced into prostitution, and are at increased risk of HIV disease as a result.
In fact, a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in August 2007 expressly linked trafficking and HIV.
So why does the federal government allow the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops to deny reimbursement with our tax dollars when victims' groups try to provide contraception, including condoms? Because the Conference, which was awarded a multi-million dollar contract to distribute government funds to organizations that are helping trafficking victims, asked the government to allow it to impose its religious criteria in deciding what services are eligible for reimbursement. And the government said yes.
We at the ACLU AIDS Project are a part of this lawsuit because of the devastating health impact of denying access to condoms for victims of trafficking. This isn't a case about whether or not the Catholic Church itself should provide condoms to people at increased risk of HIV disease. It's about whether our government is allowed to impose one set of religious beliefs on the organizations that are working to help victims of human trafficking, including limiting access to vital HIV prevention methods, like condoms. We think the answer is clearly no.
Jan 22nd, 2009 at 12:40am
You people at the ACLU are so stupid it stuns me that you are even able to maintain your vital functions. These of trafficking were raped or forced to become prostitutes before they enter into the Trafficking Victims Protection program, therefore condoms and contraceptive measures are not necessary. I for one will not allow for my tax dollars to be wasted upon something as unnecessary as condoms. You “watchdog” organizations, who make-believe that you are actually helping people, by complaining about how others perform services to help the poor and needy are so pathetic. Maybe its time you all take a page out the Catholic Church’s book and hit the streets and help some people in need, instead of applauding your own invisible efforts to improve our nation. So stop bloviating about your organization and do the right thing, not the one that appears the most politically correct. You all disgust me.
Jan 22nd, 2009 at 12:42am
Go ahead; remove my comment because it is truthful and forthcoming. Your organization is despicable
Feb 6th, 2009 at 3:40pm
king - notice that your comment was not removed. That is because the moderator did not find that violated the standards set forth at the top of the section.
That aside, I ask for your help to understand your post. Why aren't contraceptives and viral barriers necessary for people in the program? Do you presume they will give up their sex lives when they enter the program?
Separately, I have noticed many posters who assume that the ACLU will not post any comments that disagree with ACLU positions. I am curious to know why that is and hope some of you might give me some insights. Thank you in advance.
Mar 19th, 2009 at 12:49pm
I can't understand why legislators, most of them being lawyers, allow religious openings without the speaker saying a disclaimer.If Jim Cramer needs one, I believe an expert on religious belief should also need a disclaimer.Too often they come across as if they know there is a God when it is a fact that a God has yet to be proven. Since atheists and others with different beliefs would also have to cite a disclaimer, it might behoove their being invited to say something if they so wish as further proof to the world the value of free speech in a democracy. If we could practice citing a disclaimer in all our state-supported institutions like churches,synagogues, and madrasses, we might prevent the making of brain-washed religious killings and suicide bombings in a religious war, for example. As a science teacher, my disclaimer was explaining and using the definition of a theory when speaking about such things as the Big Bang and Darwinism when comparing them to a fact such as 2 plus 2 is 4 in Base 5.
Post new comment