Connect with us

News

HIV/AIDS returning to the spotlight?

Following victories on marriage, advocates say decades-old issue will get renewed look

Published

on

Act Up, Silence = Death, AIDS, HIV, gay news, Washington Blade, HIV/AIDS
Act Up, Silence = Death, AIDS, HIV, gay news, Washington Blade, HIV/AIDS

(Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

After years of being overshadowed by other issues like marriage equality and “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” an issue that decades ago was at the center of the gay rights movement is once again moving to the forefront.

Following hard-fought victories for marriage rights at the Supreme Court, in states throughout the country and across the globe, the persistence of HIV/AIDS is grabbing new attention as recent news stories have documented progress toward a cure and the disease’s continuing impact on gay youth and people of color.

Sean Strub, founder of POZ magazine, said LGBT leadership is taking a renewed look at the issue in response to community pressure and stubbornly high infection rates among young gay men — particularly men of color — which he said are “skyrocketing and simply impossible to ignore.”

In the past week, two separate articles in the mainstream media were published following World AIDS Day that documented the persistence of the HIV/AIDS epidemic among gay and bisexual men.

One article, which appeared on the front page of the New York Times, reported the disease is “rapidly becoming concentrated” among poor, black and Latino men who have sex with men.

Jonathan Mermin, director of HIV prevention at the Centers for Disease Control, is quoted as saying reaching these men is “the Holy Grail” in confronting HIV/AIDS.

Although his agency has granted millions of dollars to local health departments, Mermin reportedly couldn’t identify any city or state that has succeeded in lowering infection rates among young men of color.

An op-ed published on CNN.com written by Perry Halkitis, associate dean of New York University’s Global Institute of Public Health, raised the question of whether there’s a “gay generation gap” with regard to the perception of HIV. Halkitis points to the growing rate with which young gay men have unprotected sex now that the disease is perceived as chronic, but not fatal.

“The disease may not be front and center — it may not be the primary presenting problem faced by young gay men, as it was for me at age 18 in 1981 — but it is a concern,” Halkitis writes. “However, it’s a concern that must be spoken about and dealt with differently for this ‘new’ AIDS generation.”

According to data from the Centers for Disease Control, gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men remain the most profoundly affected by HIV.

In 2010, an estimated 29,800 men were infected with HIV after having sex with another man  — a 12 percent increase from the 26,700 new infections among this group in 2008. In 2010, men who have sex with men accounted for 63 percent of all new HIV infections nationwide.

At the same time as the disease gets renewed attention from the gay community, Strub said young gay men infected with HIV face new challenges — even though the disease is no longer a death sentence — because of the lack of solidarity with other gay men.

“People with HIV no longer inspire a sympathetic response from the public, especially not the gay public, but are more often seen and defined — particularly by the public health and criminal justice systems — as potential threats,” Strub said. “We’re living longer so we’re around to infect longer, viral vectors, potential infectors, an inherent risk to society.”

Meanwhile, advocates working on HIV/AIDS contend the issue has always belonged to the gay community, but is rising again in prominence for various reasons.

Richard Socarides, a gay New York Democratic activist, was among those predicting HIV/AIDS will “emerge as a major issue for the gay community.”

“Especially now, as a whole new generation of young gay men face issues relating to safe sex head on for the first time,” Socarides said. “But now in a context where ‘silence’ may not equal death but instead, a long-term chronic but treatable disease.”

Mark Mazzone, a spokesperson for the LGBT military group SPART*A, said he thinks HIV will come to forefront for advocates working on LGBT military issues in the wake of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal and the Supreme Court ruling against the Defense of Marriage Act.

“I think this will return as an LGBT military issue simply because of the lack of education given to our service members and the high risk behaviors mostly younger LGB men engage in, which need to be mitigated through a comprehensive training and prevention program,” Mazzone said.

Mazzone said service members become non-deployable once they’re discovered to have HIV; can’t commission as an officer or warrant officer; can’t fly aircraft or work in any jobs requiring a flight physical; are restricted to stateside duty assignments (with the exception of the Navy); and are not eligible for special schools such as Ranger, Special Forces or other special ops jobs.

And the nation’s largest LGBT group says that it continues to make a priority efforts to bring the HIV/AIDS epidemic to an end.

Fred Sainz, vice president of communications for the Human Rights Campaign, said HIV/AIDS has been and continues to be at the forefront for LGBT groups like HRC.

“Until the scourge is gone, fighting HIV/AIDS has, is and will remain a top priority for the LGBT civil rights movement,” Sainz said.

Strub said in recent months he’s seen HRC devote more attention to HIV/AIDS.

“I am heartened by HRC’s outreach to HIV advocates in the last several months and am cautiously optimistic we will see a greater commitment from them in 2014, on HIV issues, than we have seen in recent years,” Strub said.

One HIV/AIDS issue that has particularly risen in prominence is the HIV criminalization laws in some states. Under such laws, an HIV-positive person can face criminal charges for failing to disclose their HIV status before engaging in sex.

LGBT and HIV/AIDS advocates have railed against the laws, saying they send an inaccurate message regarding prevention responsibility, create a disincentive to receiving testing and may discourage disclosure of HIV status. According to Lambda Legal, 39 states have HIV-specific criminal statutes or have brought HIV-related criminal charges, which have resulted in more than 160 prosecutions in the United States in the last four years.

Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) introduced on Tuesday legislation in the Senate known as the Repeal Existing Policies that Encourage and Allow Legal (“REPEAL”) HIV Discrimination Act, which would require an interagency review of federal and state laws that criminalize certain actions by people living with HIV.

“A disturbing number of state and local criminal laws pertaining to individuals with HIV/AIDS are rooted not in science, but in outdated fear,” Coons said in a statement. “They run counter to effective public health strategies, discourage HIV testing, and perpetuate unfair stigma and discrimination against people living with HIV/AIDS – people who are our friends, family, and neighbors.”

In May, Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) introduced the House version of the legislation along with Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.). According to the Library of Congress, the bill has 37 sponsors, although Ros-Lehtinen is the only Republican co-sponsor.

In Iowa, the punishment for being found guilty of violating Code 709C can be imprisonment for up to 25 years and registration as a sex offender.

Donna Red Wing, executive director of the LGBT group One Iowa, said in the wake of securing marriage equality in her state, working with local HIV groups to repeal her state’s HIV criminalization law has become the No. 1 legislative priority for the organization.

“Over the years, I’ve been troubled that as the face of AIDS changes, fewer and fewer LGBT organizations are engaging in this struggle,” Red Wing said. “It seems like the right thing to do, you know? Because in the early days, if it wasn’t for our people, if it wasn’t for the LGBT communities, we would not be where we are today.”

Although the Iowa Legislature is no longer in session, Red Wing said efforts are underway to move forward legislation with lawmaker reconvene in January.

“We already have laws that deal with communicable diseases, and the fact that HIV/AIDS gets this special treatment and these enhanced sentences is so draconian,” Red Wing said. “A communicable disease is a communicable disease is a communicable disease, and there should be nothing special and no enhanced sentences for people living with AIDS/HIV.”

The potential for discovering a cure for the disease has also received significant attention amid new developments from the Obama administration as part of the goal of achieving an “AIDS-free generation.”

Last week, President Obama announced he’s redirecting $100 million over the course of three years at the National Institutes for Health to an initiative with the goal of developing a cure for the disease.

“The United States should be at the forefront of new discoveries in how to put HIV into long-term remission without requiting live-long therapies, or better yet, eliminate it completely,” Obama said.

A NIH official later clarified for the Blade the $100 million will be on top of another $60 million previously directed toward the effort and comes from grants for other initiatives that have expired at the agency.

But the prospects for a cure were dealt a blow last week, following media reports that two men who had hoped they were cured of HIV after bone marrow transplants found they still had the virus.

After the two men underwent life-threatening procedures intended for cancer, they initially were virus-free as of July in four months in one case and two months in another and stopped taking their HIV medication. But doctors announced last week that virus has reemerged in their systems.

Despite the reemergence of the virus in the systems of the two men, doctors said they learned from the procedure that even if you make HIV seemingly disappear, it can hide in the body — possibly held up in the organs and inside the intestines — and reactivate.

Strub said while efforts to eliminate the disease are important, changing the way society looks at HIV/AIDS should also be a priority.

“The advocacy needs are immense, but one of the most important — to which we in the LGBT community can contribute to greatly — is in reducing stigma by supporting and empowering people with HIV and refocusing on the human rights approach, rather than just a biomedical approach, to HIV prevention.”

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

The White House

White House targets gender-affirming care funding, states fight back

Attorneys general from Md. and elsewhere are fighting directives

Published

on

Activists participate in the Transgender Unity Rally and March in D.C. earlier this year. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services announced last week that federal funding could no longer be used to pay for gender-affirming care through Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program.

The rule prohibits federal Medicaid dollars from covering puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and rare instances of surgery for enrollees under the age of 18 in the Medicaid program and under the age of 19 in CHIP. It does not prohibit coverage of counseling or psychotherapy as part of gender-affirming care.

The decision to restrict what healthcare is covered by federal dollars is part of a longer, more aggressive stance the Trump-Vance administration is taking toward LGBTQ healthcare.

Since taking the White House back for his second term, Trump has signed three executive orders that directly target transgender Americans. They include Executive Order 14168, “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government” that requires the federal government to recognize only a person’s sex at birth, not their gender identity; Executive Order 14183, “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness,” which attempts to remove transgender service members from the military and prevent them from enrolling; and an executive order that helped spur this change by restricting gender-affirming care.

The administration’s choice to villainize gender-affirming care, despite it being considered a best medical practice recommended by nearly every major medical group for gender dysphoria or gender incongruence, including the American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, and American Psychological Association, comes as KFF, a source for health policy research and polling data, estimates about 130,000 young trans people with Medicaid or CHIP coverage could be impacted by the policy.

“Today, we are ending federal taxpayer funding for sex-rejecting procedures on children,” U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., said last week when announcing the change. “These interventions carry serious risks and can cause irreversible harm. The federal government will no longer use Medicaid and CHIP dollars to fund procedures that fail to meet the evidentiary standard our children deserve.”

“Children deserve our protection, not experimental interventions that pose serious risks and convey no proven benefits,” said CMS Administrator Mehmet Oz. “By cutting off federal funds for these sex-rejecting procedures, we’re following the science, saving taxpayer dollars, and, most importantly, protecting children from potentially irreversible harm so they can truly flourish.”

The administration’s push is having a chilling effect on state healthcare legislation — more states now prohibit gender-affirming care than ever before. States with gender-affirming care restrictions jumped from four in 2023 to 27 states today.

The funding change has been met with fierce pushback from LGBTQ advocates, health experts, and government officials across the country before the rule goes into effect.

Some of the first actions against this policy began in July 2025.

Twenty-one states have attempted to restrict this effort in some fashion from going through as the White House intends. They include Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin, as well as Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro on behalf of his state.

The coalition of attorneys general filed lawsuits challenging nine separate provisions of the final rule, arguing that they would make it harder for consumers to get coverage through the ACA, increase costs for states, and weaken key ACA protections.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Aug. 15 struck down a key provision of a Trump-Vance administration final rule that would have excluded coverage of certain types of gender-affirming care as essential health benefits under the Affordable Care Act. Essential health benefits are subject to the ACA’s financial protections, including limits on out-of-pocket costs.

“Everyone deserves access to health coverage,” said California Attorney General Rob Bonta. “The Trump administration tried to exclude gender-affirming care from qualifying as an essential health benefit. We fought back, and the court’s ruling means this care can — and in many states must — qualify for the ACA’s financial protections, ensuring transgender people have an equal opportunity to benefit from the ACA.”

“The Trump administration tried to make essential care unaffordable for transgender Marylanders by stripping it out of the ACA’s cost protections,” said Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown. “We fought to keep that care covered, and we won. My Office will always defend Marylanders’ right to the care they need.”

The final rule at issue — the “Marketplace Integrity and Affordability” rule — was proposed by the Trump-Vance administration in March 2025, purportedly to “curb ACA enrollment fraud” and reduce federal spending on subsidies that help consumers afford ACA coverage. Among other changes, the rule would have removed certain types of gender-affirming care from the ACA’s 10 essential health benefit categories.

“This president would rather target young people than lower costs or expand access to health care. It is reprehensible that our federal government is intent on hurting and isolating the adolescents it is supposed to protect. I will use every tool at my disposal to fight this proposal and protect transgender Americans and their families,” said New York Attorney General Letitia James in December after the policy was announced.

In addition to state government resistance to the change, multiple LGBTQ advocates have committed to protecting the right to healthcare for LGBTQ children.

Rocky Mountain Equality CEO Mardi Moore affirmed those in Colorado would continue to help people most at risk if the change goes through.

“First, to the families impacted by this news: you will not be cut off immediately. The rule takes effect Oct. 13, 2026, and providers can continue to bill Medicaid and CHIP for youth already receiving gender-affirming care for up to six months after that. Rocky Mountain Equality is here, and we can help you understand your options to continue your child’s care.

“This is discrimination dressed up as rule-making. Government healthcare policy should expand what people can access, not strip away care that families and doctors have already determined is medically necessary,” Moore added. “We’ve seen this pattern before with other kinds of essential care, and it rarely stops with just one restriction. Any effort to ban or limit care opens the door for more restrictions on more kinds of care.”

The Human Rights Campaign, the largest LGBTQ lobbying group in the U.S., issued multiple statements following the announcement, and has filed a similar lawsuit against the federal government for prohibiting gender-affirming care to federal employees using federal health plans.

HRC President Kelley Robinson said taking a hard stance against what the administration is presenting as a win for the American people that will ultimately restrict healthcare options for thousands of Americans.

“Every young person is entitled to the health care that they, their parents, and their medical providers agree that they need, without politicians interfering with these important and highly personal decisions. And yet, rather than working to make healthcare more affordable and accessible, the Trump administration continues to obsess over the healthcare needs of trans youth, this time by cutting off health insurance coverage for those who rely on Medicaid and CHIP to access that care,” Robinson said. “The Trump administration is terrorizing trans youth and their families with these kinds of actions, and it has to stop.”

Continue Reading

Virginia

Winsome Earle-Sears ‘Life and Marriage Tour’ to include Northern Va. stops

Voters to consider marriage equality, reproductive rights referenda in November

Published

on

Former Virginia Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key

Former Virginia Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears has announced her campaign against efforts to enshrine marriage equality and reproductive rights in the state constitution will make several stops in Northern Virginia.

Her “Life and Marriage Tour” will include stops in Manassas, Winchester, and Harrisonburg. Earle-Sears said the “Life and Marriage Tour” will also travel to Virginia Beach, Lynchburg, Roanoke, Charlottesville, and other cities across Virginia “throughout September and October.”

The announcement did not include specific dates.

“Virginia, you’ve been asking where the Life and Marriage Tour is headed — here’s a look at our current tour locations,” she said on X on Tuesday. “We’ll be traveling across the commonwealth throughout September and October, and we’re still building the journey.”

Current Gov. Abigail Spanberger, a Democrat, last November defeated Earle-Sears, a Republican, in the race to succeed Republican Glenn Youngkin.

Voters in 2006 approved the Marshall-Newman Amendment, which defined marriage in Virginia as between a man and a woman.

Same-sex couples have been able to legally marry in Virginia since 2014. Youngkin a decade later signed a bill that codified marriage equality in state law.

Two successive legislatures must approve a proposed constitutional amendment before it can go to the ballot.

Spanberger signed bills that finalized the marriage equality and reproductive rights referenda’s language.

The referenda will take place on Nov. 3.

Continue Reading

Russia

Russian LGBTQ rights group to shut down

Russian LGBT Network in April declared ‘extremist’ organization

Published

on

(Washington Blade photo by Ernesto Valle)

A Russian LGBTQ advocacy group on Monday announced it will shut down after a court declared it an “extremist” organization.

A St. Petersburg court in April in response to a Russian Justice Ministry lawsuit made the declaration against the Russian LGBT Network.

“For many years, Russian LGBT Network brought together initiatives and activists and supported queer people across the country,” said the advocacy group on its Facebook page. ” However, its ‘extremist’ status has made the previous public format of its work impossible: any connection to the organization may create additional risks for the people we seek to support and protect.”

The Russian LGBT Network formed in 2006.

The group on its Facebook page said it “made this decision” to close “after a thorough assessment of the risks.”

“Continuing our public activities could have put at risk those who took part in the organization’s work, supported it, or received assistance,” said the Russian LGBT Network. “We cannot control the repressive environment, but we can do everything possible to avoid creating additional risks for people. People’s safety comes first.”

The Kremlin over the last decade has faced global criticism over its crackdown on LGBTQ rights.

The Russian Supreme Court in 2023 ruled the “international LGBT movement” is an extremist organization and banned it.

Russia in January designated ILGA World, a global LGBTQ and intersex rights group, as an “undesirable” organization. ILGA World in response to the designation noted Russians who are found guilty of engaging with “undesirable” groups face up to six years in prison.

Human Rights Watch in May noted the Russian LGBT Network is one of nine LGBTQ groups that Russia this year has banned after authorities deemed them “extremist.”

“Russian LGBT Network may close; but dignity, solidarity, and people’s right to be themselves cannot be destroyed,” said the Russian LGBT Network in its statement. “Take care of yourselves.”

Continue Reading

Popular