August 2008 Archives

Does HIV/AIDS still require an exceptional
response? That question framed the interactive discussion hosted by
the Caucus for Evidence-Based Prevention at the International AIDS Conference.
Mitchell Warren (AVAC) launched the dialogue by quoting Richard Horton (The Lancet): "In 2031 will there still be UNAIDS? Will we still need UNAIDS? What would you do as the new Executive Director of UNAIDS?"

In the session "Women's
Rights Equals Women's Lives," at the International AIDS Conference, advocates and researchers came together
to discuss the twin pandemics of gender-based violence (GBV) and HIV.
Researchers Charlotte Watts from the London School of Hygiene and Claudia
Garcia-Marcos of the World Health Organization, noted that while the
body of evidence on direct biologic linkages between HIV and GBV is
limited, the evidence we do have demonstrates an extremely strong correlation
between the two. Not only does the evidence tell us that women
who experience gender-based violence are more likely to be at risk for
transmission of HIV, but we also know that many of the risk factors
for gender based violence are the same as those for HIV -- including
gender inequities, poverty, lack of financial independence and lack
of education.
While the risk of HIV from gender-based violence is often limited to a discussion of the risk of rape as a transmission factor, Watts stressed that there are many forms of gender based violence beyond rape, including perpetration by an intimate partner (spouse, boyfriend, etc.) rather than a stranger.
"We need to be clear that this is the best researched disease in history. We know what to do to prevent HIV infection, but we're not drawing a straight line between what we know and what we do," stated Elizabeth Pisani, author of The Wisdom of Whores: Bureaucrats, Brothels, and the Business of AIDS.
This session, sponsored by the Caucus for Evidence-Based Prevention, was a frank discussion among advocates, framed around Pisani's idea of the "sacred cows of HIV" (an analogy taken from drivers in India swerving to avoid cows in the road). What are the "sacred cows" standing in the way of progress in the fight against AIDS?
Chris Henderson is PAI's summer 2008 Development Intern.
Attending Craig Lasher's presentation on modernizing U.S. Foreign Aid was yet another thought provoking PAI brown bag, adding to the cornucopia of great opportunities us interns have experienced during our short duration here. I want to revisit a topic that undermines the efforts Craig spoke of about modernizing foreign assistance, that Carlos Indacochea, a recent addition to PAI's research department, so eloquently brought to our attention. One of how to convince the American populous that foreign assistance should regain comprehensive support among both policy makers and those who elect them.
Within the next few weeks, the President will sign the Tom Lantos and Henry J Hyde United States Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Reauthorization Act of 2008 into law. This reauthorization will extend the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) for another five years and provide unprecedented levels of funding to fight the global AIDS pandemic.
Unfortunately, the passage of the Reauthorization Act is bittersweet as it not only fails to address the ideological policies of the 2003 Global AIDS Leadership Act, but in many cases has even expanded their impact. One of these ideological policies is the so-called "conscience clause," which allows organizations who have a moral or religious objection to opt-out of providing services to which they may object. In the 2003 Act, the clause was limited to objections over HIV prevention or treatment programs, thereby allowing faith-based and other organizations to promote the A(abstinence) and B (be-faithful) of ABC, without fear of retribution or loss of funds for not providing the comprehensive information needed to prevent sexual transmission of HIV.

