Connect with us

National

Time running short for ending ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’

Activists pressure Senators to end ban during lame duck session

Published

on

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs rankled LGBT advocates after he failed to mention ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ repeal when asked about legislative priorities in the lame duck session of Congress. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Supporters of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal are pushing the Senate to end the law in the lame duck session of Congress amid questions about whether sufficient support exists to complete the task by year’s end.

One Democratic aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told the Blade that Senate passage of major defense budget legislation to which “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal is attached would require “all the stars aligning” as well as active support from President Obama and Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

Asked this week whether those elements were coming into alignment as the lame duck session approaches, the aide said, “Hell no. We ain’t anywhere near alignment.”

Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Carl Levin (D-Mich.) told reporters on Tuesday that passing the fiscal year 2011 defense authorization bill with the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal language presents challenges.

“We’re trying to get both things accomplished, and we just don’t know if we can,” Levin said, according to the Grand Rapids Press.

“Republicans have filibustered the whole defense bill because of that [‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’] provision. There’s some people who say that unless the defense bill has that provision, that we shouldn’t pass it,” he continued. “My position is, we should try to get both things done some way or another.”

Media reports circulated this week that Levin was engaged in talks with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) to advance the defense authorization bill after stripping it of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal language.

But while some see challenges in moving forward with legislative repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” others see a path forward if certain conditions are met.

Winnie Stachelberg, senior vice president for external relations at the Center for American Progress Action Fund, said Tuesday in a conference call with reporters that advocates are in a “solid position” to see legislative repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” before year’s end.

Stachelberg cited recent public statements from the White House, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Gates to back that assertion.

“The administration’s really strong statement [Monday], Sen. Reid’s statement saying they are not going to stand for a defense authorization bill that strips out the repeal measure are really strong signals that people are moving to a phase where it’s about procedures, not about the will to get this done,” Stachelberg said.

In the statement on Monday, Pfeiffer said the White House “opposes any effort to strip ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ from the National Defense Authorization Act.”

On Sunday, Gates made news when he told reporters that he supports legislative repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” but isn’t sure of the likelihood of that happening. Previously, he said waiting for the Pentagon working group report on the issue, due Dec. 1, would be the best approach for congressional action.

“I would like to see the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ but I’m not sure what the prospects for that are,” Gates said. “And we’ll just have to see.”

Jim Manley, a Reid spokesperson, said the senator wants to see passage of the defense authorization in lame duck, but added an agreement with Republicans is necessary to move forward.

“Like Defense Secretary Gates, Sen. Reid strongly supports the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ to help strengthen our volunteer force and is continuing to work toward passing the repeal this year,” Manley said. “He, of course, can’t do it alone. The senator needs Republicans to at least agree to have a debate on this issue — a debate he firmly believes the Senate should have.”

In a joint statement on Tuesday, senators known for supporting repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” called for legislative action before the year’s end. Sens. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and Mark Udall (D-Colo.) said the Senate “should act immediately to debate and pass” the defense authorization bill along the with the repeal language in the lame duck session.

“The Senate has passed a defense bill for forty-eight consecutive years,” the senators said. “We should not fail to meet that responsibility now, especially while our nation is at war. We must also act to put an end to the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy that not only discriminates against but also dishonors the service of gay and lesbian service members.”

The senators said a failure to act legislatively on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal could mean “a federal judge may do so unilaterally in a way that is disruptive to our troops and ongoing military efforts.” Last month, U.S. District Court Judge Virginia Phillips issued an injunction against enforcing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” that confirmed her earlier ruling striking down the statute, but her decision was stayed by a higher court upon appeal.

“It is important that ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ be dealt with this year, and it appears that the only way that can happen is if it’s on the defense bill,” the senators concluded.

Influencing moderate senators who may have voted “no” when the defense bill previously came before the Senate in September to change their votes a second time around is seen as essential for moving forward.

On Tuesday, the Human Rights Campaign announced that it deployed field organizers to eight states — Alaska, Arkansas, Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Ohio, Virginia and West Virginia — to persuade senators there to vote in favor of the defense authorization bill and “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal. According to HRC, the efforts include mobilizing veterans to speak out, holding public events and blanketing local media with pro-repeal messages.

In a statement, Joe Solmonese, HRC’s president, said lawmakers have “one last chance” in the 111th Congress to “follow the advice of the president and top military leaders by sending ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ to the dustbin of history.”

“It would be a travesty for a small group of senators to continue to hold hostage a bill with critical military equipment and pay raises just because some senators don’t want to even debate repeal,” Solmonese said.

The time limit for acting on legislative repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in the lame duck session is among the challenges in getting it passed. Most repeal supporters say the Senate would need two weeks to debate and vote on the defense authorization bill, and more time is needed to conference the legislation with the U.S. House.

One Republican aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the problem with passing the defense authorization bill isn’t having insufficient votes; it’s having insufficient time. The aide said waiting for a vote on defense authorization bill until December would mean repeal won’t happen this year.

“If Reid is serious about bringing this up, he needs to bring it up next week, he needs to cancel Thanksgiving recess and he needs to get it off the floor and into conference that first week of December,” the aide said.

But Stachelberg said she thinks Congress would stay in session for longer than what many Capitol Hill observers are expecting and would have more time to act on the defense authorization bill.

“Congress has to pass a [continuing resolution] and deal with expiring tax cuts,” Stachelberg said. “We anticipate that these issues will take longer than most people anticipate. A longer lame duck increases the likelihood of passing the defense authorization bill with ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ in it.”

Even with a longer lame duck session, whether “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is a priority for the administration remains in question.

Last week, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs didn’t mention repeal when asked during a news conference about legislative priorities in the lame duck session of Congress. Instead, Gibbs mentioned extending tax cuts to middle-class Americans and ratification of the START treaty, a nuclear arms reduction agreement with Russia.

Alex Nicholson, executive director of Servicemembers United, criticized the remarks and said the administration needs to make clear that it’ll push for repeal during lame duck.

“These omissions stand in stark contrast to what the president and his staff are saying elsewhere,” Nicholson said. “Mr. President, either your administration is with us or it’s against us, and a mediocre level of public advocacy from your White House is not standing with us.”

Stachelberg said she thinks Dan Pfeiffer’s statement on Monday offers a better sense of what the White House is thinking as opposed to Gibbs’ comments.

“Rather than looking earlier in the day from Gibbs’ comments … I would look to the later comments from Dan Pfeiffer showing that the administration really does care that this gets done and that they’ll stand firm on the defense authorization bill in ensuring that it includes ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ repeal,” she said.

Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, said he’s “very concerned” Gibbs didn’t list the defense authorization bill as a priority for the lame duck session, but said he doesn’t think in that instance the White House press secretary “was speaking for the president.”

“The president has made it clear to some of us that he wants to get this done in the lame duck and I believe the president will be good on his word on this,” Sarvis said.

Another possible game changer for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal is the completion of the Pentagon working group study on implementing an end to the law. The group has a deadline of Dec. 1 to deliver its report to the defense secretary, but one source said a draft copy is already circulating within the Pentagon.

Sarvis mentioned the circulation of the draft copy and said his understanding is Levin has asked the Pentagon for a report on the status of the Pentagon working group’s recommendations.

“It’s appropriate that he do so when we know that a draft of that report is being circulated and that a draft of that report is in the hands of each one of the service chiefs,” Sarvis said.

Last weekend, Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos, who assumed his position as service chief last month, said now isn’t the time for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal and that he’s trying to determine how to “measure that risk” of ending the law.

On Monday, the general’s comments were rebuked by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen, who said he was “surprised” by Amos’ remarks and surprised he said them publicly.

Sarvis said he thinks what he called Amos’ “tirade” is related to “his being disappointed in what he saw in that report.” Media reports have stated the report will reveal that a majority of U.S. troops don’t care if gays are serving openly in the U.S. armed forces.

Could the report bolster legislative efforts to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”? Stachelberg said the Dec. 1 deadline for the report gives senators ample time to review the findings and take action in lame duck.

“Gates’ comments over the weekend, I think, suggest that this study — in alignment with the legislative process — will be positive,” she said.

The Center for American Progress has identified 10 senators who’ve said they want to see the Pentagon study to help inform their decision on lifting the military’s gay ban.

Among them are Sens. Scott Brown (R-Mass.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), McCain, Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), George Voinovich (R-Ohio) and Jim Webb (D-Va.). The newly elected senators who, because of state election laws, are expected to take their seats during lame duck — Mark Kirk of Illinois and Joe Manchin of West Virginia — have also made statements along these lines.

“Some of these had opportunities to vote for or against repeal in either the House or Senate Armed Services Armed Committee, but each of them took the opportunity to say that — notwithstanding their ‘no’ votes — they wanted to see the complete assessment before Congress moves forward,” Stachelberg said. “We believe this gives them an opportunity to do so.”

Sarvis said he thinks the completion of this report, as well as Gates’ comments saying he wants congressional action on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” will be helpful in moving moderate senators to support repeal.

“I believe the report is going to satisfy a number of those senators who said they didn’t want to vote until that report was finished and they didn’t want to vote until they heard from Secretary Gates,” Sarvis said. “Well, they heard from Secretary Gates and they’re going to have the report shortly.”

The election of Kirk in Illinois has been nettlesome to many supporters of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” because he voted against a repeal measure as a U.S. House member, and, upon taking his seat in lame duck, would replace Sen. Roland Burris (D-Ill.), among the strongest supporters of repeal.

Sarvis said Kirk’s position is “not entirely clear,” but emphasized that the newly elected wouldn’t even be in the Senate if Reid schedules the defense authorization bill for a vote early in the lame session.

“If the Senate moves to lay the bill down the week of the 15th when they come back, and we have the critical vote to proceed in November, Sen. Burris will still be in the Senate,” Sarvis said. “The secretary of state of Illinois has indicated that there will not be any certification [to seat Kirk] until December.”

Among those senators identified by the Center for American Progress, McCain has opposed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal even before the Pentagon announced its intention to end the law. Repeal advocates have said they believe McCain will continue to oppose an end to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” no matter the results of the report.

But Stachelberg said the completion of the report may prompt McCain to at least drop his objection to moving the defense authorization bill as a whole to the Senate floor.

“I think he will continue to vote ‘no’ on repeal,” she said. “I think it’s a question about whether he will obstruct and stand in the way of passage of a defense authorization bill — a bill that he has cared about for years.”

After the completion of the Pentagon study, it’s possible that members of the Senate Armed Services Committee would call for hearings to examine the working group’s findings. Having to wait for hearings could delay congressional action on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

But Rudy DeLeon, senior vice president of national security and international policy for the Center for American Progress Action Fund, said the Senate can take action to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” before holding hearings on the issue.

DeLeon noted that the legislation pending before Congress has a 60-day waiting period from the time that repeal is certified to the time that an end to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is enacted.

“There really is a clock that will give the military a full voice, give the military a seat at the table, so the Joint Chiefs and the combatant commanders will certainly be able to offer their views on the implementation of the repeal,” he said.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Michigan

Progressives score victory as El-Sayed wins Mich. Senate primary

Democratic newcomer will face Rogers in November

Published

on

Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed (Screen capture via MS NOW/YouTube)

Michigan held its primary on Tuesday, allowing the two major political parties to select their nominees to go head-to-head for the state’s U.S. Senate seat.

NBC News called the Democratic race early, giving the victory to physician Abdul El-Sayed over incumbent U.S. Rep. Haley Stevens (D-Mich.) in an extremely close primary. El-Sayed won 48.5 percent of the primary vote, with Stevens trailing by just one percentage point at 47.5 percent.

Both candidates have campagined on supporting the LGBTQ community through different avenues— for El-Sayed he focused on his past promoting HIV and PrEP funding and research. Stevens focused on her legislative history working to support transgender rights in the state.

This is a major win for progressive Democrats, who have been bearing the brunt of political attacks from President Donald Trump, the Republican Party, and centrist Democrats.

El-Sayed, a former health director in Detroit, ran his campaign largely on making life in the Great Lakes State more affordable amid rising costs. His policies include promoting “Medicare for All,” pushing health policy that targets the regressive efforts of the Trump-Vance administration that rolls back funding for both Women and LGBTQ people, minimizing the growing amount of money in politics, and he was very vocal in his criticism of Stevens for supporting aid to Israel. He was endorsed by two major progressives — U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (D-N.Y.).

Stevens, the four-term congresswoman, is much closer to establishment Democrats on policy than El-Sayed.

During her time in the federal government, she has consistently supported the Equality Act, which would add sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. She has also emphasized supporting local manufacturing and lowering housing costs in the state.

She was named to Advocates for Trans Equality’s 118th Congressional Champions list for her pro-trans policies and was endorsed by establishment heavy hitters Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.).

The contentious race boiled down not only to Michigan affairs but also extended to international conflicts — namely Palestine. (South Africa has filed a case in the International Court of Justice in The Hague that accuses Israel of committing genocide in the Gaza Strip after Oct. 7.) This primary also acted as one of the first major races that pushed back against AIPAC, a lobbying group that works to promote pro-Israel candidates in U.S. elections. The group has been involved in domestic politics since 1954.

AIPAC devoted a massive amount of money to this race.

The Associated Press reported that the pro-Israel lobbying group spent more than $30 million on ads against El-Sayed because of his vocal denunciation of Israel and his continued criticism of its policies towards Palestine.

Michigan has a large Muslim and Arab American population, which could, in part, explain how El-Sayed was able to win.

The Republican side was far less competitive. Former U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) ran unopposed and clinched the GOP nomination. He has consistently held anti-LGBTQ positions, going as far as voting multiple times for a federal constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, voting against repealing the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, and supporting efforts to directly target the attempted expansion of Title IX protections to include trans people.

El-Sayed will face off against Rogers in November for Michigan’s Senate seat — one that could have lasting impacts not only on the state’s politics but also on the Republicans’ narrow Senate majority and Trump’s political agenda.

Continue Reading

National

White House orders warning signs at Smithsonian over gender identity exhibits

Administration criticizes National Museum of American History

Published

on

Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum is expected to install warning signs outside the National Museum of American History warning visitors of supposedly anti-American content. (Photo courtesy of the Office of the Governor of North Dakota)

The Trump administration will install temporary warning signs outside the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History after releasing a report accusing the museum of promoting what it calls “radical” gender ideology and other politically biased content.

According to the Executive Order, “For purposes of policy formulation under EO 14253, this review of the National Museum of American History concludes that NMAH, by the intention and at the direction of current Museum and Smithsonian leadership, has become subject to institutional capture by a radical, activist ideology that is fundamentally opposed to telling the noble, honest story of the great country we know and love.”

Executive Order 14253 refers to what the White House has deemed the “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History” order. Therefore, the Trump administration has said it will take all available steps to ensure that the issues in the report are addressed and rectified.

Without specifying, the White House has stated that warnings will be posted along NMAH to alert visitors to sections of the museum it has deemed are in violation according to the report.

“The Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Director of the National Park Service (NPS) and in coordination with the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, shall install temporary signage along the NPS-maintained sidewalks and walkways used by the public to access the Museum, informing visitors of the findings of the Report and of the policy set forth in section 1 of this order,” the Executive Order states.

The warnings were raised in a 162-page report issued by the Domestic Policy Council. The report detailed ways in which the National Museum of American History (NMAH) has “poorly” portrayed American history and insufficiently highlighted the founding story during America 250th celebrations.

The report outlined key findings of the NMAH. One of these findings was the Center for Restorative History within the museum, which has stated its purpose is to “encourage systemic change” by highlighting diverse groups. However, the report states that it highlights every group of Americans except for straight and white Americans.

The Domestic Policy Council accused the museum of engaging in “transgender activism.” According to the report, examples include referring to “biological men” as women or girls, displaying what it describes as sexually suggestive content, and incorporating discussions of gender fluidity, gender identity, and gender nonconformity into the museum’s educational curriculum, “Becoming US.”

The report also criticizes the curriculum for using the term “transgender” when discussing gender-nonconforming people and encouraging individuals to ask a person’s pronouns when meeting them. It further objects to exhibits stating that “transgender, nonbinary, and cisgender female athletes” continue to struggle for and demand equality.

It also condemns what it refers to as explicit content in an exhibition, “Girlhood (It’s Complicated)”, such as chest binders, questioning gender testing in women’s sports, and referring to biological females as “people inhabiting female bodies.”

Additionally, the report accuses the museum of no longer participating in flag-celebrating ceremonies because it was “too busy” preparing for June Pride and WorldPride events. It states, “As Director Hartig explained in a June 2024 presentation, all her attention was focused on flying the Smithsonian Pride Alliance’s ‘intersexual pride flag during June’ in 2023 and 2024.”

On July 9, the American Historical Association issued a statement rejecting the report’s findings.

In regard to the report, it states, “Its anonymous authors overlook a central lesson of the nation’s founding: the United States was forged by finding common purpose amid intense divisions, conflicts, and disagreements.” They argue that only “honest history” can tell the true history of the nation.

House Republicans led a subcommittee hearing that questioned Smithsonian Director Hartig extensively. A main focus of the questions was on the exhibits related to gender identity and whether they were appropriate. In the hearing, Rep. Nancy Mace asked: “When was your gender revealed to you, Dr. Hartig?”

In response to questioning, Hartig stated that the institution is nonpartisan and does not push a specific agenda.

Hartig published a two-page statement ahead of her hearing outlining her thoughts on the situation. In the report, she states that the institution is always open to criticism and will continue to look for ways to improve, but she sees the report as misleading.

“I can attest that the report does not fairly characterize the full body of work at this museum. I am familiar with the depth and breadth of our collections, exhibits, and programming. And while I recognize there is always room for improvement, I also know the beauty, inspiration, and expertise that exists in our museum,” Hartig wrote.

Democrats created their own 16-page report as a rebuttal to the Domestic Policy Council’s report. It argued that the attacks by the current Trump administration are another example of its attempt to rewrite history. Additionally, the report states that no policy changes were included in the Executive Order, as that is beyond the President’s role. “The Report recommends nothing. That is no accident. To recommend an action, the Report would need to identify who is legally empowered to take it, and its own opening chapter concedes the President’s only power is to ‘urge’,” House Democrats wrote.

It is still unclear when the temporary warnings will be installed or what form they will take beyond the requirements outlined in the executive order.

An exhibit at the Smithsonian. (Washington Blade photo by Landon Shackelford)

Continue Reading

National

Trump ends direct HIV prevention funding to community groups

Advocates say transfer of funds to states may disrupt local programs

Published

on

The Trump administration will discontinue direct federal funding of community-based organizations that provide HIV prevention services. (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

A decision by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) at the request of the Trump administration to discontinue direct federal funding of community-based organizations and clinics that provide HIV prevention services has raised concern among community health advocates, including LGBTQ advocates.

 News surfaced earlier this month that the OMB informed the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that it would not renew $46 million in funding for 96 community-based organizations that provide HIV testing, referrals to medical care, and arrangements for obtaining pre-exposure HIV prevention medication known as PrEP that has been shown to be 99 percent effective in preventing HIV infection.

Under the new policy arranged by OMB, the funds will be redirected to the states to be allocated to state and local health departments. The policy calls for states to encourage but not require their respective state and local health departments to allocate some of those funds for community-based organizations. Under the new policy, the funding is scheduled to last until May of 2027, before a renewal decision is made.

Some political observers have speculated that the decision to end direct federal funding to community-based organizations could be motivated by the Trump administration’s hostility to diversity, equity, and inclusion or DEI programs and organizations that promote those programs, with the belief that some of the groups receiving the federal HIV prevention funds are promoting DEI.

Carl Schmid, executive director of the D.C.-based HIV+ Hepatitis Policy Institute, is among the leaders of many AIDS advocacy organizations expressing strong opposition to the OMB action. Schmid said that in places like D.C. and some states, local officials will be willing to redirect the federal funds to local community-based organizations.

A list of the 96 community-based organizations across the country that are currently receiving the federal AIDS funds includes the D.C.-based Whitman-Walker Health, which has a long history of healthcare support for the LGBTQ community, and La Clinica del Pueblo, which reaches out to the Latino community.

 Schmid said Whitman-Walker and La Clinica del Pueblo have longstanding good relationships with the local D.C. government.

“But other states and jurisdictions don’t have that relationship with the community-based organizations,” Schmid said. “It depends on the state,” he said, adding, “Not all states send their money to the communities that really need it most. And not all states are fast in getting money to the community-based organizations.” 

Spokespersons for Whitman-Walker and La Clinica del Pueblo couldn’t immediately be reached for comment on whether they think the Trump administration’s latest action related to funding will adversely impact their respective organizations.  

 Schmid said under the current federal grant program slated to be discontinued, which has been in effect for at least five years, HIV-related health organizations receiving the federal grant funds were eligible for an existing federal policy enabling them to purchase HIV-related medication, including the PrEP prevention medication, at a significant discount from pharmaceutical companies. With the ending of the direct federal HIV funds to community-based organizations, Schmid said it was unclear whether problems may surface in obtaining drug discounts.

“They could still qualify as a sub-grantee from a state,”  Schmid said. “But what if they don’t get that grant again? They would not be able to qualify to obtain the drugs” at the discounted price, he said.

Among the organizations expressing strong concern over the decision to discontinue the direct HIV prevention funding to community-based organizations has been the Federal AIDS Policy Institute and its subgroup called the HIV Prevention Action Coalition.

In a July 22 letter bearing the names of 71 community-based organizations from throughout the country sent to U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Acting Director Jay Bhattacharya, the group called for the Trump administration to “reconsider” ending the current funding policy.  

 “Ending this program without a clear plan for what comes next would dismantle prevention infrastructure that has taken more than three decades of federal investment to build and do so just as that long record of measurable returns is accelerating,” the letter states.

It says the initiative by President Trump in his first term as president to end the HIV epidemic and reduce new HIV infections by 90 percent by 2030 was moving ahead by the funding program for community-based organizations that the administration now wants to end. 

“Discontinuing this program would also cost far more than it saves,” the letter says. “Every HIV transmission prevented avoids an estimated lifetime treatment cost of roughly half a million dollars per person to the healthcare system – costs that fall heavily on taxpayer-funded programs, including Medicaid, Medicare, and the Ryan White HIV/AIDS program,” the letter continues.

“The choice before the administration is straightforward: a modest, targeted investment in prevention now, or far greater public expense for treatment later,” the letter concludes. 

Spokespersons for the OMB and the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the CDC, have not immediately responded to news media requests for comment on the opposition to the funding change policy.

Continue Reading

Popular