Connect with us

Opinions

Hillary’s Arkansas HIV history = Nancy Reagan’s silence

A closer look at first lady’s record in early days of epidemic

Published

on

Hillary Clinton, gay news, Washington Blade
Hillary Clinton, gay news, Washington Blade, Hillary Clinton AIDS

Hillary Clinton recently criticized HIV disclosure laws, but she was silent when her husband signed one. (Photo by Gino Santa Maria; courtesy Bigstock)

It cannot be said that during her nine years as first lady of Arkansas that Hillary Clinton started a local conversation about AIDS — her advocacy had such a low-key volume that no one heard it.

Now that the dust-up over her grossly uninformed statement about Nancy Reagan starting a national discussion about AIDS has subsided, it’s relevant to examine her HIV record, such as it is, from her Little Rock years.

Remarkably, during the 1980s when their husbands held power and the AIDS epidemic created crises at every level of government, as thousands of gay men and others suffered and died, neither first lady left a paper trail of actions or statements addressing the grief, tremendous fear and stigma we lived with.

As a member of the ACT UP/Presidential Project from late 1991 to the November 1992 election, I kept thick files on Gov. Bill Clinton’s campaign and reporting on his HIV record. Nothing in my archive includes any reference to Hillary’s HIV record and online searches fail to locate any relevant source materials.

If she took action or spoke up prior to campaigning against George H. W. Bush, it went unreported or duly noted.

Hillary held no elective office while her husband served as governor but she was no shrinking violet when it came to injecting herself into public policy matters and state government, and fighting for causes she believed in.

In 1977, then-attorney general Bill Clinton endorsed modernization of the state’s homosexual and bestial anti-sodomy statute and as governor made no public comments calling for repeal of the law. Same goes for Hillary. When in 1991 courageous local Democratic politician Vic Snyder, who eventually served as a representative in Congress, attempted to erase the law from the books, neither Clinton offered him support.

Newspaper accounts from 1991 offer details on how police entrapped men cruising for sex at highway rest stops and other locations, and after they were arrested and charged under the sodomy law, their names and home addresses were published for all to read.

Arkansas’s sodomy statue was in effect until the Supreme Court struck down such laws across the land, but while it was on the books it was vigorously used by prosecutors against LGBT persons.

Compounding the stigma and fear of gays and our sexual relations, and the added burden of HIV transmission stemming from outrageous neglect of prevention and education programs, Gov. Clinton in November 1989 signed one of the worst criminal transmission laws in the nation.

The law made it a Class A felony for a poz person to have penetrative sex with another person without first disclosing their HIV status. If convicted, sentences required no less than six years and a maximum of 30 years in prison.

This law is still on the books and an unknown number of persons convicted under it currently are inmates in penitentiaries serving time.

Public records obtained from Arkansas prosecutors by advocates affiliated with Sero, a nonprofit of HIV poz folks and allies fighting stigma and injustice, while limited in scope because several prosecutors refused to release responsive records citing state sunshine law allowing officials to deny access to public records if the requester lives out of state.

The Sero organization is based in Pennsylvania.

Of caseloads made public for about a dozen persons, the average sentence meted out was 10 years and three people got 20 years while only one received six years in prison. I believe these cases represent a mere fraction of all convictions in Arkansas.

After extensive searching, I’ve come across nothing showing Hillary opposed the HIV criminalization law before her husband signed it or after going into effect.

Over the course of their final nine years of holding the reins of power in Little Rock and of widespread HIV and sodomy criminal enforcement, Hillary expended no political capital on us or our concerns.

Just how missing-in-action on AIDS were the Clintons up to September 1990?

An extended editorial at the time in Little Rock’s alternative weekly The Spectrum headlined “Time For An AIDS Policy” completely omits the Clintons, indicating they weren’t known for doing the right thing on HIV matters.

It noted: “The incidence of reported AIDS in Arkansas is up 158 percent over last year … by the end of September, there will be 147 cases on the books as compared to 57 this same time last year. … The Department of Health Services just completely cut Medicaid benefits to 10 of 13 Arkansans who take AZT … The Arkansas Department of Corrections simply failed to reapply for its grants that paid for a full-time AIDS education coordinator … Blacks in Arkansas have an alarmingly disproportionate incidence of AIDS; about 23 percent of AIDS cases are among blacks who make up 16.3 percent of the population.”

With primaries underway, the Clinton for President Committee in early March 1992 issued a one-page position paper on AIDS that is noteworthy because it lacks any compelling achievement on his part directly assisting people with AIDS or those at-risk.

It reads: “As chairman of the National Governor’s Association, he formed the first working group of governors to develop a policy on AIDS … In 1986, under Governor Clinton’s leadership, the Arkansas State Board of Education adoption a resolution calling for the ‘development of AIDS educations skills … to be integrated into the Health Education Course Content Guide’. “

Granted, a panel and a resolution connected to Bill during the first five years of the plague are something, they’re exceedingly underwhelming and pitiful and force me to wonder where was Hillary and did she do a damn thing about HIV in Little Rock?

In her apology after her erroneous Nancy Reagan comment generated pain, Hillary wrote:

“I’ve always tried to do my part in the fight against this disease, and the stigma and pain that accompanies it. At the 1992 Democratic National Convention, when my husband accepted the nomination for president, we marked a break with the past by having two HIV-positive speakers — the first time that ever happened at a national convention.”

Echoes of Bill’s 1992 campaign AIDS position paper — long on platitudes, short on substance. Given how abysmal her HIV Arkansas record is, Hillary’s apology omitting anything she may have done prior to the presidential campaign is quite telling.

A four-page policy assessment paper from the Arkansas Gay and Lesbian Task Force in February 1992 to the Human Rights Campaign about the state’s AIDS legislation and response to the epidemic offers more on the issue.

On top of the bad laws, sodomy arrests and prosecutions and lack of initiative from the Clintons, the task force shed light regarding no state funds appropriated for AIDS: “[O]nly federal money was spent here until 1991 [when three HIV educators for community-based organizations for the entire state were hired] . . . $30,000 in 1992 was money to be used for testing and counseling that the federal government quit sending and it came from the Governor’s Emergency Release Fund.”

Most galling, Hillary said: “We should call on states to reform outdated and stigmatizing HIV criminalization laws.”

If only Bill hadn’t signed Arkansas’s criminalization law she would have one less state to call on to amend, maybe even repeal, these lock-’em-up laws.

What’s needed now, just as we’ve weighed Mrs. Reagan’s HIV resume, is to apply the same degree of accountability to Mrs. Clinton especially during her Little Rock years.

Michael Petrelis is a longtime San Francisco-based blogger focused on AIDS and LGBT issues.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Opinions

Confronting homophobia at school

Queer students should feel comfortable and safe in the classroom

Published

on

(Screen capture via DC News Now/YouTube)

A couple weeks ago, I was walking into my school’s cafeteria, about to get lunch. As I navigated around groups of students, I heard a student shouting “ fa**ot!” over and over again at one of his friends, as some kind of joke or playful insult. How do I know it was a joke? Because I’ve seen countless amounts of people at my school call each other this slur, or other homophobic language while bantering with their friends. The prevalence of homophobia in my school, even if it’s not directed at queer people, is troubling.

As an openly queer student, I’ve experienced homophobia in school since middle school. During middle school, I was teased, bullied, and ostracized just because I tried to live as my authentic self. My classmates knowingly asked me uncomfortable and invasive questions about my sexuality, and I was called all types of dehumanizing names. The bullying was so bad that I would frequently isolate myself during school, just so I could get a break from all of the harassment I went through. I felt like I was an outcast, so I’d constantly hide myself behind books or my computer. I started to develop depressive and suicidal thoughts, and every day I had to go to school was a nightmare for me. 

When I eventually graduated middle school and started high school, I was elated to discover that there were many more queer students at my school, some of whom I’d eventually get to know and become friends with. However, the homophobia I faced did not go away, but instead took a new form. Instead of hearing homophobic slurs directed at me, they’re now used as if they were another insult, like “stupid” or “idiot,” despite the fact that they carry much more weight. I still have to face the effects of the normalization of homophobia and homophobic language in schools, and it isn’t just my school that has this problem.

According to the District of Columbia Public Schools Panorama Survey, only 45 percent of gay and lesbian students, 37 percent of bisexual students, and 39 percent of transgender or nonbinary students in DCPS schools say that students in their school show them respect. Across the entire district, over half of LGBTQ students feel as if they are not respected in school which is both heartbreaking, yet not surprising to see as a queer student myself. And this is a consistent trend across all of America. According to Glisten’s 2025 National School Climate Survey, which polls LGBTQ youth about their school climate, two-thirds of LGBTQ students said they felt unsafe at school due to their sexual orientation or gender identity. In addition, 63 percent of students reported hearing homophobic remarks from peers, and 62 percent and 68 percent of participants experienced harassment or assault based on sexual orientation or gender identity respectively. 

School should be a place where queer students should feel comfortable and safe, a place where they can learn and prosper. Instead, so many are mistreated and abused, and feel as if they’re an outsider in their own community. Teachers and administrators should be striving to create a LGBTQ+ friendly space where all kinds of students can work toward their goals in an environment where they feel accepted and loved. 

(This work is part of a partnership between the Washington Blade Foundation and Youthcast Media Group, funded through the FY26 Community Development Grant from the Office of D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser. Quinn McPherson is a rising sophomore at Benjamin Banneker Academic High School, one of Youthcast Media Group’s journalism class partners. YMG founder, former USA Today health policy reporter Jayne O’Donnell, contributed to this report.)

Continue Reading

Opinions

There is no Pride in detention

LGBTQ refugees, asylum seekers in detention struggle to survive

Published

on

The American flag flies outside the Adams County Correctional Center, a privately-run U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention facility in Natchez, Miss., in 2020. (Washington Blade photo by Yariel Valdés González)

“There Is No Pride in Detention” is the name of a campaign led by Rainbow Migration, the British organization to which I contribute as part of an advisory panel.

The campaign, launched during Pride Month, highlights the fact that an unknown number of LGBTQ people are held in immigration detention in the UK. They are detained without courts or judges, in prison-like conditions, often for an unlimited amount of time.

Although detention is officially meant to be used only when someone is about to be removed from the UK, in practice most detainees are eventually released. Their detention serves no meaningful purpose other than isolation and trauma.

The campaign made me think about LGBTQ refugees in other Western countries, especially the U.S. Immigration enforcement there, particularly under Trump-era and broader MAGA-aligned politics, has become increasingly brutal toward LGBTQ refugees. The UK has its own problems, but still a very different and less problematic system in tone and practice from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

British policing, for all its flaws, is generally far more restrained than many other systems I have encountered. UK police tend to be procedural, British policemen are generally polite, and reluctant to use force compared to what is common elsewhere. Most British policemen don’t even carry weapons if they are not dealing with a specific danger case. ICE, by contrast, has a well-documented record of brutality, aggressive attacks in detention settings and immigration facilities.

ICE does not meaningfully distinguish between queer refugees, asylum seekers, or people labelled in official rhetoric as “illegal aliens,” “drug dealers,” or “gang members.” In practice, they are all treated as deportable and faced the same level of brutality. Human rights organisations have documented widespread abuse, medical neglect, and high levels of physical and sexual violence in detention facilities, as well as verbal and physical abuse that was homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, or racist in nature. Transgender detainees are especially vulnerable due to systemic transphobia and lack of protection.

There is a real risk that people like me — trans refugees — could end up in these systems. I am a refugee in the UK, having arrived in 2018, but the U.S. was originally the country I most wanted to reach. I have idealized the U.S. since I was a child. I was obsessed with American mass culture as a kid, followed American politics closely as a teen, and as a young adult had more American friends than local ones, and tried to understand post-Soviet politics through American diplomatic literature, including Henry Kissinger.

In 2018, I was invited to speak at a disability rights conference in the U.S. about queer autistic people in the post-USSR. At the time, I was under pressure from Russian authorities, and my hometown of Donetsk in Ukraine was already under occupation. So, of course, I intended to apply for asylum in the U.S.

Ironically, I am now grateful my visa was denied and I never made it to that conference. I was devastated at the time, but in hindsight it may have saved me from something far worse. There is an old joke: if you are late for a trip, don’t worry, you might just be late for the Titanic.

I don’t doubt I would have been able to adapt socially in the U.S. more than I adapt to Ukraine and Russia. But it doesn’t matter, because it doesn’t protect people from ICE. No one deserves the brutality reported in detention facilities, no matter how governments choose to frame them.

One example is Andry José Hernández Romero, a 31-year-old gay makeup artist who fled persecution in Venezuela. He was detained by ICE in March 2025 and deported to a maximum-security prison in El Salvador under allegations of gang affiliation. These claims were based largely on his nationality and the fact that he had tattoos, despite experts — from a criminology professor to a Venezuelan journalist who wrote a book about the gang — noting there is no reliable evidence that the Tren de Aragua gang uses identifiable tattoos. Hernández’s case seemed like something from a dark campy movie, because his “gang” tattoos were just ordinary tattoos on his hands that read “mom” and “dad.”

There’re too many other documented cases of abuse in U.S. immigration detention centers, including forced labor. 

At the South Louisiana ICE Processing Center in Basile, La., detainees reported being recruited into work programs where they were paid as little as 1$ per day. Others describe harassment, sexual violence, physical abuse, and separation of same-sex families. In some cases, people attending legal asylum appointments were detained and placed into deportation proceedings.

While the UK remains comparatively more protective in some respects, recent political shifts that became obvious after the local elections in May, are deeply worrying. The rise of far-right politics, combined with increasingly restrictive immigration policies, suggests a broader global trend.

The UK Home Office has also introduced visa restrictions affecting certain countries, including Afghanistan. This has had a severe impact on Afghan women, including lesbians and bisexual women, for whom study or work visas were often the only realistic escape from Taliban rule.

This creates a situation where some of the most vulnerable people are blocked from safety pathways before they can even reach asylum systems.

Meanwhile, in both the UK and the U.S., Pride Month is increasingly marked by symbolic gestures: councils scaling back support for events, corporations quietly stepping away from visible engagement. But for LGBTQ refugees and asylum seekers, the reality is far darker.

For those in detention — or at risk of detention — Pride is not a celebration even if all corporate support and all pride parades were in place. For them, this month would be just another month to survive anyway, with or without rainbow flags on a street. And maybe we need to concentrate on their problems more than we’re concentrating on the lack of rainbow corporation logos.

Because there is no Pride in detention.

Continue Reading

Opinions

Why I’m supporting Gary Goodweather for D.C. mayor

In a word, longtime local resident has the character for the job

Published

on

Gary Goodweather (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Hey fellow LGBTQ+ Democrats, this is worth reading! Especially if you’re a voter in Washington, D.C. who’s planning to cast a ballot for the nomination of local candidates in the District of Columbia in 2026.

Because next Tuesday June 16 is a really Big Deal for D.C. Democrats. It’s the first time in two decades that the doors to filling the crucially important job of mayor are wide open because no incumbent is on the ballot. 

That is, Mayor Muriel Bowser is not running for election. Instead she will — at last, and after three terms in office — symbolically ride off into the political sunset. And to considerable and well deserved applause. Because she’s been rightly lauded for many important accomplishments, including her well documented record of supporting the many diverse issues concerning the LGBTQ+ community. 

But she’s been equally derided for her far too spineless a record recently, of (not) effectively opposing President Donald Trump and his outrageous stationing of outsider National Guard armed troops all across D.C. This despicably sad state of affairs has been a grim statement that Washington, D.C. (not being a state) is subject to the Donald’s feral instincts for nastily mean-spirited retributions. But she’s been meek and mild, and even actively complicit with Trump, when other mayors have told Trump to buzz off. And they succeeded.

But enough about Mayor Bowser. Her “sell by date” fast approaches. The old order changes. And a new day dawns. 

Next Tuesday, two candidates of this old (and by now seriously outmoded) order seek to win the coveted Democratic nomination for mayor on June 16.  First, there’s Janeese Lewis George, who’s a great first or second choice by any measure. And (ahem) then there’s Kenyan McDuffie.

But this is Ranked Choice Voting and it’s brand new. It’s not “either/or” binary, just like we now appreciate that sexual orientation and identity are also non-binary.  

My first choice is clear because I know him. His name is Gary Goodweather. But so, who is this outsider candidate for mayor anyway?

It goes like this. First, together with his remarkable wife, successful D.C. Realtor Meredith Margolis, Gary and their two college age kids are all 20-year residents of Dupont Circle.  I actually first met Gary and Meredith a year ago at a BBQ event, when he was a speaker at the historic, progressive, feminist Woman’s National Democratic Club. 

So once again, who’s this Gary Goodweather? And why should you seriously consider him for your personal first or second or even third choice?

Here’s why.  He’s new to politics in the conventional old paradigm of “politics.” But he knows Washington, D.C. forwards and backwards and inside and out. Because he’s been involved for many years in successful local private sector business investments, including the development of neighborhood-based BIDs, or Business Improvement Districts including the one in NoMa.

And his thinking is typically “out-of-the box.” For example, he’s currently an actual active advocate for establishing agriculture in our densely populated urban environment —  through so-called “tiered gardens.” Yes, D.C., trust me, this is an actual thing. And yes, it requires street smarts to deal with challenging zoning issues; but it’s a real example of what fresh blood and new thinking and real imagination can bring to our hogtied and often over-regulated city.

Gary was in the U.S. Army and the National Guard for four years as a captain in the armored command.  He earned his MBA in finance from Johns Hopkins University in night school. 

If elected, Gary would be D.C.’s first Jewish mayor. (His is Reform Judaism. Repair the breach!)

He’s become my friend and I admire his intelligence and diligence and imagination and in a word his character. 

Here’s what he said to me about what he calls his political North Star: “All D.C. residents should be protected, regardless of who they love. Love is love. Love who you want. Identify how you choose to be.”

Look, it’s always time for good weather in our city. Maybe it’s time for Gary Goodweather as mayor too. First choice or second choice. Then let’s all see what happens next.


David Hoffman is a freelance writer and retired federal government civil servant. He is a longtime resident of the H Street Northeast corridor. He is a member of both the Woman’s National Democratic Club and DSA, Democratic Socialists of America Metro DC chapter. 

Continue Reading

Popular