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

Commentary

Washington Blade responds to concerns over White House pool duties

Inaccurate media reports create confusion but we stand with our colleagues

Published

on

A photo from inside the White House on Monday. (Washington Blade photo by Joe Reberkenny)

Last week, President Trump announced his unconstitutional ban of CNN, MSNow, and Politico from the White House. Coincidentally, on Monday, it was the Washington Blade’s turn to serve as the print pool reporter on duty covering the president’s actions that day. This important responsibility is shared and rotated among the print members with each serving roughly once per month. The Blade is the only LGBTQ outlet with a seat in the briefing room, a slot in the pool rotation, and membership in the White House Correspondents’ Association, something we fought for decades to secure after enduring years of discrimination, ridicule, and resistance to openly queer journalists working inside the White House. We take our responsibilities there seriously. 

There are two pools that cover the president: broadcast and print. The other four members of the broadcast pool — ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox News — agreed to boycott their pool duties. There has been no boycott among the print pool, which is a separate entity. I called the president of the White House Correspondents’ Association on Monday to confirm that no outlets in the print pool were boycotting. 

A boycott by the Blade would set us back and lead to our expulsion from the pool and briefing room and our replacement by a right-wing outlet sympathetic to President Trump’s approach to attacking the media. The LGBTQ community is far better served with the Blade in the room than a far-right blogger taking our seat.

Let’s be clear: the Blade stands for diversity, equity, and inclusion and we stand for the First Amendment and freedom of the press. In solidarity with the broadcast pool, we made two important decisions on Monday — the first day anyone had to think about any of this. First, we refused to take or share any videos or still photos of the president, which would have undermined the broadcast boycott. Second, when Politico’s turn comes up for pool duty in mid-October, the Blade will not fill in and cover for them while they are banned. Politico must be readmitted and allowed to do their job. 

After a rough day navigating and reporting on all of this, the Advocate published a reckless and inaccurate story suggesting that the Blade had crossed a picket line. Not true, as there is no print pool boycott. They claimed that I wouldn’t talk to their reporter. Also not true. I called their reporter within 90 minutes of receiving his message and he didn’t take the call or call me back. Their story named me and our White House reporter, immediately exposing us to public criticism and worse. The environment in D.C. is so toxic and even violent these days that subjecting our staff to unfair and false accusations like this invites harassment, doxxing, and worse. To do that without even talking to us is next level irresponsible and the antithesis of journalism.

On Tuesday, I talked to two reporters and an editor at the Advocate but they refused to retract anything in their inaccurate story. If the reporter had returned my call, I could have explained all of this but they are more concerned with clickbait and sensational headlines, a dangerous practice in these troubled times. 

Back to the pool. The Blade was in the briefing room in the Reagan era, when Press Secretary Larry Speakes made jokes about AIDS and the reporters in the room laughed out loud. We endured all of that abuse and worse for decades, always standing in the back of the room and never being called on. The Blade’s journalists persevered. When President George W. Bush was re-elected in 2004, the Blade’s White House credentials were revoked amid an earlier press crackdown. Notably, no one boycotted or stood up for us. When Barack Obama won election in 2008, I received an email from his communications director informing me that effective midnight on Jan. 20, 2009, the Blade’s credentials would be restored. 

So we have had quite a ride navigating administrations and their changing requirements for gaining access but always playing the long game. As Barney Frank used to say, “If you’re not at the table, then you’re probably on the menu.” The Blade is at the table and we do our best to ensure the LGBTQ community’s issues are addressed by both parties. 

Thanks for reading and supporting the Blade’s work. If you have questions about our approach, you can reach me at [email protected].  


Kevin Naff is editor of the Washington Blade. Reach him at [email protected].

Continue Reading

Opinions

Young people should know history of the fight for human rights

Trump is working to erase contributions of marginalized people

Published

on

From left, Rep. Bella Abzug (D-N.Y), Frank Kameny and Rep. Shirley Chisholm (D-N.Y.). (Photos of Abzug and Chisholm public domain; Washington Blade archive photo of Kameny)

When talking with otherwise really smart young people, I am amazed how little knowledge many of them have about the fight for human rights in the United States. Our country was founded by white men, who didn’t think about giving full rights to Black Americans, women, the LGBTQ community (what they knew of it, or called it). They wrote in the Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” But that referred to all white men, and intentionally didn’t mention women. For 250 years, the country has been trying to make up for that, and making progress in fits and starts. We have yet to fully succeed. Today the felon, and his fascist aides, in the White House, are working daily to take us backwards. 

For that reason alone, it is important for younger generations to understand the fight for human rights, know who was fighting for those rights, and understand it is an ongoing fight. Often, when listening to some millennials speak, one would think the world began with them. They either forgot, or never learned, about all those who fought for the rights they now have. I realize this was true for previous generations as well. In 2016 I co-hosted a fundraiser for Pete Buttigieg during his run for president. He is an undeniably brilliant guy. Yet when he spoke of marriage equality, he just thanked Justice Kennedy for it. I reminded him after he spoke, while it’s nice to thank Kennedy for his vote, it shouldn’t be done without acknowledging the many activists who worked for decades, to get to the point that allowed Kennedy to cast that vote. In the same way it was clear to me during the Hillary Clinton campaign for president, many young women didn’t understand the work many of their own mothers had done, to fight for their right to control their own healthcare, and women’s rights in general. They took for granted the rights they had. Now, after losing some of them, many will realize the fight for their rights is never-ending. 

When I speak to younger members of the LGBTQ community, I am amazed how many don’t know the history of the AIDS epidemic, many thinking it was always a disease you could deal with by taking medication. They don’t understand the work so many activists did to bring attention to this devastating disease, and get the healthcare so many needed. Those like Cleve Jones, Larry Kramer, Dr. Anthony Fauci, and so many others. Recently, I realized how many young women don’t know the names of Gloria Steinem, Betty Friedan, Shirley Chisholm, Bella Abzug — women who fought for their rights. And this is just recent history, no less knowing about the Suffragettes, the strong women who fought for their right to vote. I’ve met young women who don’t know what the ERA is, and others who think it passed. Many don’t know the nation couldn’t get 38 states to approve an amendment to include them in the Constitution. The same for young members of the LGBTQ community who don’t know what the Equality Act is. Others think it passed, and are shocked when told it didn’t and in 27 states, they can be married on Sunday, and kicked out of their home, and fired from their job, on Monday. They don’t know names like Frank Kameny, Harvey Milk, Barney Frank, or the history of the Mattachine Society, or the Stonewall Riots.

Our current president is trying to wipe out all this history, and reverse any progress that has been made. Knowing this, it makes it even more important for school systems across the nation to fight to educate our children. We should ensure no child can graduate high school, without taking a course called “The 250-year fight for human rights in the United States.” They need to understand the history, and learn about the people who fought for their rights. They need to know how far we have come in 250 years, and understand, as we begin the next 250, how far we still have to go, to ensure real, full equality, for all.


Peter Rosenstein is a longtime LGBTQ rights and Democratic Party activist.

Continue Reading

Opinions

How emerging drone tech can support LGBTQ workplace inclusion

Employers should establish clear policies governing data access

Published

on

(Photo by kadmy/Bigstock)

Workplace inclusion is increasingly becoming part of a broader conversation about employee safety, dignity, and equal access to secure working environments. For LGBTQ employees, an inclusive workplace is not simply one that communicates supportive values it is one where policies, infrastructure, and technology work together to help people feel protected and respected.

As organizations explore emerging technologies to strengthen workplace operations, drones are becoming a valuable tool for improving physical safety, situational awareness, and emergency preparedness. When deployed responsibly and with appropriate privacy safeguards, drone technology can contribute to safer workplaces without singling out employees based on identity.

Key Benefits of Drone Technology for Safety 

  • Reduced Employee Exposure to Hazards: Drones can inspect difficult or potentially dangerous areas without unnecessarily placing employees at risk.
  • Faster Emergency Awareness: Aerial visibility can help safety teams assess incidents and make informed decisions more quickly.
  • More Consistent Safety Coverage: Drones can support inspections across large workplaces, campuses, warehouses, and remote facilities.
  • Safer, More Inclusive Environments: Technology can help organizations improve physical safety measures that protect employees equally, including LGBTQ team members.
  • Privacy-Conscious Safety Practices: With responsible policies, drones can support workplace security without profiling individuals based on gender identity, sexual orientation, or other personal characteristics.

Improving Physical Workplace Safety

A clear application of drone technology lies in the inspection of facilities and infrastructure. Inspection of rooftops, industrial machines, construction zones, warehouses, remote locations, and other risky areas can be achieved using drones fitted with cameras and other sensors.

Such use of drone technology may help in reducing the risk of forcing employees to access such risky areas unnecessarily. Moreover, any technological advances in terms of improving workplace safety are equally beneficial to all workers irrespective of their sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression.

Supporting Emergency Preparedness and Response

An emergency can reveal flaws in your workplace safety program. In big settings like industrial campuses, warehouses, or outdoor workplaces, it might take security personnel longer to respond. Drones might supply better aerial visibility in several types of incidents. They make it possible to see circumstances rapidly, locate blocked paths, examine out- of-the-way or damaged areas and direct needed aid. 

Enhanced situational awareness provides better answers while limiting exposure to risks. In a perfect safety world, all employees are served with dignity and attention while emergency actions are created with diversity in mind.

Creating Safer Shared Environments

Workplace safety also involves creating physical environments where employees can move through facilities confidently. Drone-based inspections can help organizations identify infrastructure concerns such as damaged lighting, inaccessible areas, perimeter issues, or other physical conditions that could create safety risks.

The technology does not need to identify who an employee is to provide value. Instead, organizations can use drones to evaluate spaces and infrastructure while maintaining clear boundaries around personal privacy.

This distinction is particularly important when discussing LGBTQ workplace inclusion. Technology designed for safety should protect employees rather than create an environment in which individuals feel watched, profiled, or treated differently.

Privacy Must Remain a Priority

The potential benefits of drones also come with important responsibilities. Cameras, sensors, and data collection capabilities can raise legitimate privacy concerns if organizations deploy them without transparent rules.

Employers considering workplace drone programs should establish clear policies governing where drones may operate, what information may be collected, who can access that information, and how long data is retained. Employees should also understand the purpose and boundaries of workplace drone operations.

Drone technology should never be used to infer, monitor, or profile an employee’s sexual orientation, gender identity, personal relationships, or other sensitive characteristics. Inclusion depends on trust, and responsible technology policies are essential to preserving that trust.

Technology Is Only Part of an Inclusive Workplace

No drone platform can create an inclusive workplace on its own. Meaningful LGBTQ inclusion still depends on organizational culture, anti-discrimination policies, fair employment practices, accessible reporting channels, employee education, and leadership accountability.

Technology can support these efforts by improving the physical conditions in which employees work. For example, drones may help reduce exposure to hazardous tasks or improve visibility during emergencies, while organizational policies ensure that these benefits are available fairly and respectfully.

Building Safety and Inclusion Together

As drone technologies continue to develop, there is a chance for businesses to expand their minds on what innovation should seek to achieve. Efficiency and increased operational intelligence are vital, but technology can equally play a part in creating safe and inclusive environments that show dignity to employees.

When it comes to LGBTQ employees, along with the workforce in general, the most effective approach to technology is one that enhances safety without threatening privacy and equality. Consequently, the future of workplace innovation should take into account not only what technology is capable of but also how wisely it is applied. By combining cutting-edge technologies like drones with responsible business practices, businesses can make strides in both areas at once.


Andrew Mabry is a technology researcher and analyst specializing in UAV and drone technology, AI, and emerging digital technologies.

Continue Reading

Popular