Opinions
Hillary’s Arkansas HIV history = Nancy Reagan’s silence
A closer look at first lady’s record in early days of epidemic

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.
Opinions
D.C. is the place for the Democratic Socialists of America
Our endorsed candidates hold their affiliation as a badge of honor
D.C. is the place for the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). We believe in a District where everyone can live a happy and dignified life. That means housing, healthcare, transit, education, and safety are treated as guarantees rather than privileges reserved for the wealthy and well-connected.
Our endorsed candidates do not hide what they believe. They engage in the democratic process openly, explain their politics clearly, and ask their fellow members to spend long nights and weekends doing the hard work of campaigning. And as the last six years of local elections have shown, including three successful D.C. Council campaigns and the overwhelming passage of Initiative 82, D.C. voters are often a great deal more interested in the endorsement of Metro DC DSA than in the handwringing of the Washington Post editorial board.
That is what makes Peter Rosenstein’s April 2 op-ed in the Blade so revealing. His piece was not just wrong. It was smug, unserious, and politically disconnected from the actual lives of queer people in this city. Worse, he used the platform of our local LGBTQ outlet to disregard Palestinian humanity while scolding democratic socialists for refusing to join him in that moral failure. Put plainly, Rosenstein has been publishing crank op-eds for years, and this one was no exception.
My name is Hayden Gise. I am a transgender, lesbian, Jewish, Democratic Socialist, and I am a union organizer. I do not speak on behalf of the national DSA organization, the local chapter, or any campaign. But I will not sit quietly while Rosenstein wraps himself in the mantle of queer Jewishness to sell the lie that anti-Zionism is antisemitism.
He packages that lie in the same kind of pinkwashing rhetoric used by Benjamin Netanyahu, who mocked solidarity with Palestinians by saying, “Some of these protesters hold up signs proclaiming ‘Gays for Gaza.’ They might as well hold up signs saying ‘Chickens for KFC.’” Rosenstein’s liberal Zionism is not thoughtful, brave, or nuanced. It is just a more polished way of telling Palestinians their lives matter less and telling queer people we should be grateful for the empire so long as it flies a rainbow flag. Which, by the way, is showing itself to be a losing strategy.
The ongoing genocide in Gaza is not some tragic deviation from the history of an otherwise peaceful Israel. The Nakba was the mass expulsion and displacement of Palestinians during Israel’s establishment in 1947–49, when hundreds of thousands were driven from their homes. My Jewish values tell me that is wrong. Rosenstein’s politics treat anti-Zionist Jews like me as illegible. No serious person should treat that accusation as an argument.
But the deeper problem with Rosenstein’s piece is that he has no real understanding of why Democratic Socialism resonates here. For queer people in D.C., Democratic Socialism is not an abstract theory. It is rent that does not consume half your paycheck, a union on your job, childcare you can actually afford, public transit that works, and a city where working-class Black and brown queer people are not displaced so developers and donors can cash in. Queer politics is not only about recognition. It is also about whether ordinary people can afford to survive.
That is why D.C. is fertile ground for Democratic Socialism. In the race for mayor, one of the leading candidates is Kenyan McDuffie, whose campaign already looks like a focus-grouped merger of Andrew Cuomo’s slogan and Donald Trump’s graphic design instincts, backed by big business interests and the super PAC money that follows them. The other has the endorsement of the major labor unions in the District. Who has a cohesive vision to make D.C. more affordable and childcare universal. Who puts people over profit and human rights over political expediency. Our next mayor, and our first Democratic Socialist Mayor: Janeese Lewis George.
D.C. is exactly the kind of city where Democratic Socialism should grow: working-class, queer, tenant-heavy, union-minded, and tired of being told that dignity is too expensive. Which side are you on? I know what side the queer people of the District of Columbia will be on.
Hayden Gise is a union organizer in Washington, D.C.
For half a century, the arc of LGBTQ progress in America has bent—slowly, imperfectly—toward justice. We fought for visibility, for legal protections, for the right to marry, serve openly, and live with dignity. Each generation built on the courage of the last.
And yet today, that progress is in peril. Across the country, lawmakers are rolling back protections, demonizing LGBTQ people for political gain, and trying to erase us from public life.
Opponents of our equality are working to erase us from the Constitution, and indeed, public life. In moments like this, based on my personal involvement working with one of the most effective leaders for LGBTQ rights I find myself asking a simple question: What would Jeffrey do?
Jeffrey Montgomery—the focus of a new documentary “America You Kill Me” and a long time Michigan activist and founder of the Triangle Foundation—was never content with quiet advocacy or compromise. He was a rabble-rouser, a strategist, and a relentless thorn in the side of powerful bigots. When politicians tried to marginalize LGBTQ people, Jeffrey didn’t politely ask for scraps. He forced the issue.
Jeffrey Montgomery started with his own determined voice and turned it into a movement. His story is living proof that personal courage can spark national conversations about justice and inclusion.
At a moment when the LGBTQ movement again faces hostility and regression, Jeffrey’s playbook offers lessons we would be wise to remember.
First, Jeffrey understood the importance of punching above our weight. In the early days of LGBTQ organizing, our movement was small, underfunded, and politically marginalized. But Jeffrey refused to let opponents see us that way. Through visibility, media savvy, and relentless organizing, he made LGBTQ advocates appear larger, stronger, and more unified than our numbers alone might suggest.
That perception mattered. Political opponents think twice before attacking a movement that looks organized, energized, and capable of mobilizing public pressure. Jeffrey knew that power is partly about reality—but also about what your opponent believes your power to be.
Second, Jeffrey never compromised on the value of our lives. Movements make compromises all the time. Politics often requires it. But Jeffrey understood that some things are not negotiable. The basic humanity of LGBTQ people is one of them. You can’t put our basic rights on the ballot. You don’t tell people to wait their turn. There are no turns. It’s now. It’s always now.
Too often, our opponents frame equality as something to be bargained over—as if the dignity and safety of queer people were a policy preference rather than a fundamental right. Jeffrey rejected that premise entirely.
You can negotiate strategy. You can negotiate timelines. But you cannot negotiate the worth of human lives.
And finally, Jeffrey understood the power of coalition. Today, one of the most effective tactics used against marginalized communities is division. If LGBTQ people can be fractured—by identity, ideology, generation, or strategy—our collective strength weakens.
Jeffrey instinctively resisted that trap. He worked with civil rights groups, labor leaders, faith communities, civic leaders and allies across movements. He understood that the fight for LGBTQ equality was never isolated from the broader fight for justice.
When opponents try to divide us, the answer is not retreat into smaller camps. The answer is to build broader ones.
If Jeffrey Montgomery were here today, he would not be discouraged by the backlash we are seeing. He would recognize it for what it is: the predictable response of those who feel their power slipping away.
And he would remind us that progress has never been linear. It has always required courage, persistence, and a willingness to challenge power directly.
So, when the moment feels uncertain, when the political winds shift against us, and when our opponents try to make us feel small, the question remains a useful one: What would Jeffrey do?
If history is any guide, the answer would be simple. He would make some noise. And making noise, today, means refusing to let fear, fatigue, or false unity quiet us when our lives are on the line.
Sean Kosofsky was director of policy at the Triangle Foundation.
Opinions
D.C. not the place for antisemitic Democratic Socialists of America
Candidates like Janeese Lewis George should reject its endorsement
D.C. is not the place for the antisemitic Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), who advocate for the end of the State of Israel from the ‘river to the sea.’ The candidates they endorse agree to their platform, which includes not talking to any Zionist organizations. Being a Zionist simply means supporting the existence of the State of Israel. It does not mean supporting the war criminal who heads the government, or what he is doing, including murdering innocent Palestinians, or bombing civilians in Iran and Lebanon. As Ron Halber, CEO of the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Washington, wrote in a column in DC Jewish Week, the views of the DSA are totally unacceptable.
The Council is non-political, but I am not. I can say one candidate for mayor, Janeese Lewis George, has asked for, and received, the endorsement of the DSA, and by doing so agrees to its antisemitic platform. After her endorsement became public, George tried to ‘privately apologize’ saying she didn’t see the questionnaire submitted by her campaign, rather it was submitted by a staffer. Now George says she is both not antisemitic, and supports Palestinians. Well, that sounds good. But she, and anyone else who accepts the DSA endorsement, has to answer a series of questions: 1. Are you for a two-state solution and the continued existence of the State of Israel, contrary to the position of the DSA? 2. Do you support BDS? 3. What is your definition of a Zionist? 4. What is your acceptable definition of antisemitism? 5. Will you meet with Zionist groups in DC?
Then, we must recognize if one candidate, like George, can go after and accept an endorsement from an antisemitic organization, it gives tacit permission for others to do the same with organizations that might be Islamophobic, racist, homophobic, sexist, or anti-immigrant. All unacceptable. I urge D.C. voters to reject any candidate, for any office, who has the endorsement of the DSA. That is not what we want the leaders of our government to represent.
Thankfully, there are many choices in this year’s Democratic primary elections for every office. There is a race for mayor, congressional delegate, attorney general, Council chair, two D.C. Council at-large seats, additional Council seats, Democratic State Committee seats and ANCs. D.C. political leadership will look very different after this election.
I urge voters to whittle down their choices by first rejecting anyone endorsed by the DSA. The DSA’s platform, aside from being antisemitic, also includes suggestions to ‘Defund the Police.’ That is a slogan some of the candidates running adopted a few years ago, thinking the people wanted it. They quickly found the people of D.C. didn’t want fewer police, they wanted their police better trained, with better community oversight. They wanted to be sure the police were here to protect them, not to harass them. People should know the DSA at one point even withdrew its endorsement from Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) as she wasn’t strident enough in her opposition to Israel and actually met with a Zionist organization. There are many Zionists like me — a gay, Jewish man — who support the existence of the State of Israel, yet want to see Netanyahu, a war criminal, a murderer, tried for his crimes and in jail, and his government replaced. Zionists who support Palestinians and want them to have their own free state.
As you decide who gets your vote, one way to find out about a candidate is looking at their website. I would suggest you reject any candidate who doesn’t have a strong issues section. The least you can expect of a candidate is to tell you in detail what they intend to do if you elect them. That includes our delegate to Congress, even if they won’t have a vote. If Democrats take back the House of Representatives, we can expect our delegate to once again get a vote in committee, and that can be very important.
In the next couple of weeks, I will make some endorsements and share them with you in the Blade, for anyone who might be interested. They will detail why I endorse a particular candidate. I will not suggest second, third, fourth, or fifth choices. That is for you to decide. No matter who you give your first vote to, even with ranked choice voting, you can still vote for only one person. If you decide to list more choices, make sure the views of your second, and other choices, coincide with those of your first choice.
So here is to an honest election season, one in which we end up with candidates winning who really care about our city, who have proven track records, and who will make us proud. Your job is to VOTE, and I hope everyone will.
Peter Rosenstein is a longtime LGBTQ rights and Democratic Party activist.
-
The White House4 days agoVIDEO: Gay journalist detained for booing Trumps at ‘Chicago’ opening night
-
Movies5 days agoTrans-driven ‘Serpent’s Skin’ delivers campy sapphic horror
-
Opinions5 days agoD.C. not the place for antisemitic Democratic Socialists of America
-
The White House4 days agoPam Bondi ousted as attorney general
