Let's Make HIV/AIDS History Act

[windjammer]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Blair

[Blair]

Thanks for opening this Mr Speaker, this is a issue I feel very strongly about and I hope the senate can come round to supporting it. As we all know HIV/AIDS is an issue where's there's been a great deal of evolution over the last 40 years-we were slow to approach it in the 1980's, and even when we have tackled it we've been quite slow in doing so. I'll give a quick run through of this bill, and hopefully show the Senate why we need action now.

Firstly the big problem is education-many people have frankly rather bigoted views about HIV/AIDs-mainly that you have to be gay to get it which is simply untrue. Likewise 40% of people believe you can get HIV from simply touching or hugging someone else with the disease. This is really the first boundary to treating it (much like with Mental Illness) We have over 1 million people living with HIV in Atlasia, and many of them luckily live long successful lives-we need to ensure they live these in peace. Likewise improved education at all levels will help reduce the likelihood of catching it-it's much cheaper to produce a 10 minute video rather than pay $25,000 for anti-viral drugs. Basically the trump for education spending is that it's much cheaper in the long term.

Abstinence education should be defunded (IIRC Obama tried to do that) Basically it's used in the south and more religious states (Like Indiana who have had an HIV problem). They teach that you shouldn't have sex until marriage, and that's the best way to protect against HIV. We all know that teens A) Don't listen to that advice B) It's better to promote safe sex, education and regular testing rather than saying 'don't have sex'

Section 2 is the beef of this bill, and I'm sure the funding will face restrictions from the Senate but I really urge that we keep these numbers because we need investment. Basically the idea is to target high risk areas-African-Americans, Rural, LGBT communities, poorer inner city communities. These are the people most at risk-you're 1/4 more likely to have HIV if you live in a poor rural area, likewise 44% of recent HIV cases are African-Americans. Basically we need to target these demographics as they are the most high risk-if we can get testing centres that's a very good start along with education/campaigns.

Someone can help me here, do we have a clean needle scheme? Basically having clean needles really helps to decrease the risk of getting HIV-in Russia only 7% of people have access to clean needles and they're facing a massive HIV crisis as a result.

The drug fund is basically targeted to get anti-viral drugs for all people because the coverage is still quite patchy, however new drugs like Truvada have the potential to greatly reduce the risk of HIV. If we can give funding to these drugs then we can make a real difference.

Lastly the global solidarity fund is the the beating heart of this bill, it's a commitment by the Senate to recognize that this isn't simply a problem that faces us. We need to make public healthcare a global issue, and there's been lots of good work in the past (2005 commitment to tackle HIV/AIDS whilst cancelling debt) I'm not proposing vasts sums of money but I feel it could make a difference especially when these are nations that have a lot less treatment options than us.

I feel very strongly about this, if the senate has any questions fire away 

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

This is an issue I've been personally active with for many years and I'm glad it's back before the Senate.

[TNF]

I strongly support this bill.

[bore]

A few thoughts:

1. I would have thought that all antiviral drugs are covered for atlasians, so I'm not sure the 5 billion is necessary.
2. I think the abstinence clause needs to be more clearly defined and expanded upon. Because, I certainly hope that every Sex Ed class in atlasia does point out the simple fact that abstinence does, in fact work, while also pointing out that so do condoms. I don't think this would be banned by this line, but it's difficult to be sure. I'm also not entirely sure what defunded means, because I don't think the government funds specific classes (like, a certain amount for Geography and a certain amount for Maths), and, here, we also run into the federalism problem. I'm also fairly certain that a lot of the abstinence programmes will run in private schools which we can't simply defund.

[Talleyrand]

Maybe he meant that the funds from this bill won't go to any abstinence program but instead to the sort of education he elaborated in 1A? So a school could include abstinence as part of its sex ed curriculum, but the federal grant or whatever would only cover HIV/AIDs awareness.

[Blair]

A few thoughts:

1. I would have thought that all antiviral drugs are covered for atlasians, so I'm not sure the 5 billion is necessary.
2. I think the abstinence clause needs to be more clearly defined and expanded upon. Because, I certainly hope that every Sex Ed class in atlasia does point out the simple fact that abstinence does, in fact work, while also pointing out that so do condoms. I don't think this would be banned by this line, but it's difficult to be sure. I'm also not entirely sure what defunded means, because I don't think the government funds specific classes (like, a certain amount for Geography and a certain amount for Maths), and, here, we also run into the federalism problem. I'm also fairly certain that a lot of the abstinence programmes will run in private schools which we can't simply defund.

Yeah I was unsure of the availability. I should of expanded it away from anti-viral drugs and opened it up to several other drugs that have been said to reduce the risk. For example Truvada is a drug that can be taken by HIV negative patients who are high risk to reduce said risk-it's really got massive potenial but the role out has taken ages

 http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/feb/24/daily-pill-truvada-cuts-spread-of-hiv-by-86-study-shows

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/18/truvada-mircle-pill-prevent-hiv-controversy

Sorry-I meant abstinence only programs, like these



In regards to abstinence it simply doesn't work as a strategy. Teaching teens that not having sex will stop them getting aids is pretty self defeating because they're gonna have sexual activity within the next 10 years. It's important to see the resources going to other areas.

Likewise abstinence doesn't teach you to avoid sex-it teaches you to not have sex until your married. What if your married partner has HIV? What if your partner injects drugs? What if your partner is high risk? Abstinence only education doesn't work

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The actual political side of its murky-Clinton's damned 1996 workfare reform bill gave it funding, and Bush pushed through increased funding for abstinence only funding. Obama tried to get rid of it in 2009 but it died. So I think we could follow his reform-which would mean defending it from this bill-along with other measures either through a budget or through the Office of Internal Affairs

[windjammer]

Well,
I don't understand why abstinence programs should be defunded??? I do agree that this is important to teach people about contraceptives etc etc. But why abstinence programs are considered as evil exactly???

[Blair]

Well,
I don't understand why abstinence programs should be defunded??? I do agree that this is important to teach people about contraceptives etc etc. But why abstinence programs are considered as evil exactly???

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The evidence shows that abstinence only education simply doesn't work-it's often bound by religious ideas that already sees sex outside marriage as sinful

Look at this snippet http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/publications-a-z/409-the-truth-about-abstinence-only-programs

You must be logged in to read this quote.

 

[Blair]

I'm amending to to change my mistype in regards to abstinence related educated-I'm opposed to abstinence only education

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Blair
[/quote]

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I support the Blair amendment to reduce the ban to just "abstinence only" instead of abstinence in general. No contraception is 100% and whilst we should encourage condom use and such forth, there is still a risk to sexual activity and therefore it is advisable to discourage those practices. Just as we would discourage hard drug use even whilst we provide needle exchanges, for the same purpose as this naturally (not that I am in anyway equating of sexual activity in all its usual safety when done responsibily to the use of such drugs. )

One question, this bill seems to ignore the issue of research and thus I am left to question what the current situation is in regards to such and whether or not such should also be includied likewise in this bill?

[Blair]

I support the Blair amendment to reduce the ban to just "abstinence only" instead of abstinence in general. No contraception is 100% and whilst we should encourage condom use and such forth, there is still a risk to sexual activity and therefore it is advisable to discourage those practices. Just as we would discourage hard drug use even whilst we provide needle exchanges, for the same purpose as this naturally (not that I am in anyway equating of sexual activity in all its usual safety when done responsibily to the use of such drugs. )

One question, this bill seems to ignore the issue of research and thus I am left to question what the current situation is in regards to such and whether or not such should also be included likewise in this bill?

I'll do so research on the research situation-luckily I've got an exam about public health coming up so this is good revision.

The $5 billion fund for anti-viral drugs was meant for research purposes as well- I could clean that up with an amendment. Basically as I said before there are several new drugs that are coming onto the market that could reduce the change of getting HIV (anti-viral drugs merely offset the more harmful effects) So for example with TRUVADA if you're a MSM you could take it every morning and it reduces the chance of getting HIV by 83%. So these new drugs can make a difference.

But yeahh I'll add a research option

[Cranberry]

This bill seems in general very sensible to me, and I intend to support the measures proposed by Senator Blair.

[Talleyrand]

Yeah, I'm on board now too, and I look forward to the addition of the research section.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I'm supportive.

Some will call me a deficit hawk, and it's not completely true, but do we actually need this much money to accomplish the goals of the bill? I've put forward legislation that will hopefully reform every public school's health curriculum in the country, and I figured it would cost much less than this.

Let's just zero in on 2(A). $2 billion will buy you two thousand luxury homes. Except we're only interested in mobile testing centres, which I assume (maybe wrongly) will cost much less than a million a piece. Is $2 billion really necessary? And then we've got other billions all over the place too.

I want to reiterate that I like the bill. I just think the numbers are off. If they were too small I'd say we need more money. So it's not even about the deficit... it's about being realistic. This bill is half a Pacific Stimulus package.

[bore]

I'm not entirely convinced that any of the 5 billion is necessary for drugs, as I think any clinically necessary drugs will be covered by us already. If we can put a bit of this to research, and also save a bit from the mobile testing centre and the campaign, then I'd like to see us put a bit more into the international section while also cutting the cost overall.

[Blair]

The original numbers I offered where too high, so I've pulled the down following advice of other Senators. How does this look for everyone?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[bore]

I think, even if 2 billion is too much, that 800 dollars is too little

[Blair]

Fixed- 800 would of been at least 800 more than Russia spends

[Senator Cris]

I'm on board now too. I'm supporting the first amendment presented by Senator Blair.
It looks a sensible act and it will have my support.

[windjammer]

The original numbers I offered where too high, so I've pulled the down following advice of other Senators. How does this look for everyone?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Senators have 36 hours to object.

[Blair]

I'm happy this bill has good widespread support, has anyone got any issues/stuff they want to iron out with it?

Otherwise I'm happy to push for a vote on Saturday or Sunday to let other stuff onto the Senate floor

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The global solidarity fund? Who will be administering this program?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

What are the funding windows? One year, five years, forever?

[Cranberry]

I would think something on the likes of five years with a possibility of prolongation would be most sensible, but the Sponsor sure has to say something on that.