Box Turtle Bulletin

Rethinking the blood donation policies

This commentary is the opinion of the author and does not necessarily reflect that of other authors at Box Turtle Bulletin.

Timothy Kincaid

March 8th, 2010

In 1983, the FDA established a policy requiring that blood banks not accept donations from any male who had engaged in sex with any other man at any point since 1977. This was implemented so as to attempt to eliminate blood which was potentially infected with the HIV virus from the pool, and it made sense at that time.

It wasn’t until 1983 that the HIV virus was identified, and a method of testing for the virus wasn’t established for another two years.

In 2006, the AABB, America’s Blood Centers, and American Red Cross jointly asked the FDA to reconsider these rules. They argued that continuing the ban was not justified by scientific advances since the ban was implemented.

AABB, ABC and ARC believe that the current lifetime deferral for men who have had sex with other men is medically and scientifically unwarranted and recommend that deferral criteria be modified and made comparable with criteria for other groups at increased risk for sexual transmission of transfusion-transmitted infections. Presenting blood donors judged to be at risk of exposure via heterosexual routes are deferred for one year while men who have had sex with another man even once since 1977 are permanently deferred.

Current duplicate testing using NAT and serologic methods allow detection of HIV- infected donors between 10 and 21 days after exposure. Beyond this window period, there is no valid scientific reason to differentiate between individuals infected a few months or many years previously. The FDA-sanctioned Uniform Donor History Questionnaire was developed recognizing the importance of stimulating recall of recent events to maximize the identification of donors at risk for incident, that is, recent, infections. From the perspective of eliciting an appropriate risk history for exposure to HIV and other sexually transmitted infections, the critical period is the three weeks immediately preceding donation since false negative NAT and serology reflect these window-period infections, and the length of these window periods provide the scientific basis for the deferral periods imposed for at risk sexual behaviors.

The FDA refused.

They argue that as gay men have a higher concentration of HIV infection than some other demographics, this justifies a blanket ban on all donations by all gay men.

Men who have had sex with men since 1977 have an HIV prevalence (the total number of cases of a disease that are present in a population at a specific point in time) 60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher than first time blood donors and 8000 times higher than repeat blood donors (American Red Cross). Even taking into account that 75% of HIV infected men who have sex with men already know they are HIV positive and would be unlikely to donate blood, the HIV prevalence in potential donors with history of male sex with males is 200 times higher than first time blood donors and 2000 times higher than repeat blood donors.

This week, Senator John Kerry, along with several other Senators, sent a letter to the FDA requesting that they reconsider their rules.

“Not a single piece of scientific evidence supports the ban,” the Democratic senator said in a statement. “A law that was once considered medically justified is today simply outdated and needs to end, just as last year we ended the travel ban against those with HIV.”

I doubt that this will be effective. If the FDA refuses to listen to those who know the very most about donation, testing, infection, and the blood supply, why would they listen to John Kerry?

But Kerry’s action does allow us as a nation to re-question why the ban is in place. Is it a matter of heath science or a matter of mistrusting (or disliking) gay men?

The FDA argues that any increased risk of tainting the supply is unacceptable. And that allowing gay men to contribute would unquestionably increase that risk.

But is that true? Does the ban effectively increase the safety of our blood supply? Or does it actually do harm?

To answer these questions, I think we need to look closer at the ban and how it functions.

1. The ban is only as effective as it is perceived to be reasonable. Remember, the ban is voluntary; by that, I mean that the only thing which stops donation is a questionnaire and the donor’s decision to answer honestly. If a gay man is determined to donate, he will only be persuaded not to donate if he believes that the criteria of exclusion is based on reason and not on bias.

2. We must assume that only a psychopath would choose to purposefully donate HIV infected blood. And no questionnaire is going to stop a psychopath. Therefore, this purpose of the questions is to eliminate those who are unknowingly infected.

But who donates blood? According to the Red Cross, only 3 out of 100 of Americans donate. And this 3% is not representative of the population as a whole.

Yes, blood donors come from all races, ages, political affiliations, and economic situations. But they have one thing in common, they are motivated by altruism or a belief that it is in the common good that they donate. They donate because it is the “right thing to do”.

And let’s be practical here for a moment. The type of person who donates blood is not generally the type of person who is irresponsible. If you are a ‘give blood’ type of gay man, you are probably also a ‘get tested’ type of gay man.

So the only unaware HIV-positive infected gay men who are likely to be prevented from donating are those who have good reason to believe (falsely) that they are HIV-negative. That’s not a very big demographic.

3. The FDA does not exclude other demographics who are infected at higher rates than the population at large. For example, over half of all new HIV infections detected in 2007 were in African Americans. While many of those infected are also MSM (men who have sex with men, a term used by the infectious disease community), many are heterosexual. Over 60% of women with AIDS are black. (AVERT)

The estimated lifetime risk of becoming infected with HIV is 1 in 16 for black males, and 1 in 30 for black females, a far higher risk than for white males (1 in 104) and white females (1 in 588).

There are many reasons for this (and for godsake let’s allocate more resources to stemming this trend) and I’m not trying to make comparisons or demonize anyone. But it does demonstrate that the FDA’s banning policies seem inconsistent.

The screening does seek to eliminate those women who might have had sex with a MSM or intravenous drug user in the recent past, but it does not issue a blanket ban based on race (nor should it). However, the “ever had sex at any time in your friggin’ life” definition effectively serves as a ban based on orientation.

So while the FDA does not say that the President of the United States is banned from blood donation based on his ethnicity, it does prohibit donation by Rep. Barney Frank.

4. Not all gay men are equally at risk. Homosexual activity does not create HIV. It is a virus, not a consequence of specific sexual acts. Only about 12% of gay men are infected with the HIV virus.

Yet the FDA treats my friends, a couple in their 40’s who met in high school and have been together ever since, the same as it does some gay man who is single and has an active and diverse sex life. Ironically (and amusingly) it considers ex-gays like Alan Chambers to be no less of a risk than the man whose fetish is to be the recipient in unprotected anal sex.

The FDA clumps gay men into a single demographic and assumes that all gay men are at a higher risk than all heterosexuals.

While statistics indicate a rising infection rate among young heterosexual women, their overall rate of HIV infection remains much lower than in men who have sex with other men.

But clumping in this manner is a foolish and rash policy. Contamination is more likely to come from a young single heterosexual woman who relies on the pill than it is from a gay man in a committed relationship who uses condoms regularly.

5. While the ban on gay men donating does not – in my opinion, as discussed in the points above – serve to diminish much risk of contaminating the blood supply with the HIV virus, it is quite effective at something else: labeling all gay people as dirty and diseased.

This universal ban says, in effect, that all gay men are suspect, a cause of concern, human rats carrying contagion. It feeds the myth that gay equals AIDS and lends credence to the anti-gay activists who market in fear and animus.

But is lifting the ban the answer?

I would argue that a full lifting of the ban is not a wise decision. That would increase – at least in some tiny measure – the risk of taint to the blood pool. Rather, I would advise to change the policy in a way that not only increases the blood supply and to reduces stigma but which also could serve an additional medical function.

Obviously the screening questions need to eliminate the risk of undetected recent infections. But such risks should be based on actual behavior based risk, not on stereotyping of communities. This may even serve to reduce the risk of accidental taint from gay men who ignore the current policy as being nothing more than bias.

Science-based periods of either long-term monogamy or sexual abstinence would likely be respected as reasonable and appropriate. Few gay men would argue that every gay man, regardless of sexual history or responsibility, should donate blood.

And revising the rules for donation to match the requests of the Red Cross would certainly be better than the current policy. But I recommend a different approach.

I recommend that all persons who have any risk of HIV transmission – be they gay men, single heterosexuals, or anyone else who could be at risk – be required to take an HIV test as a step in the donation process. Those persons who tested negative and who had no sexual contact for the previous six months (or whatever restrictions are reasonable) could be treated as acceptable donors. The oral swab tests are non-intrusive, give a response in 20 minutes, and are more than 99% accurate.

The current controls over the blood supply do an amazing job at detecting and removing infected blood. But implementing a screening method that is based on measurability rather than voluntary deferral would effectively eliminate unknown carriers, gay or otherwise.

And it would also reach a population of potentially at-risk citizens who might otherwise go undetected.

The single largest contributor to the spread of HIV is unknown infection. Granted, as I discussed above, those gay men who are most likely to donate blood are also among those most likely to be tested regularly. But HIV testing at a blood donation site could provide access and a safe friendly environment for non-gay people who might be a bit intimidated or uncomfortable asking their doctor or going to the testing center in the gay part of town.

Sean Hayes Just Came Out?

Jim Burroway

March 8th, 2010

Seriously? Wasn’t he already out? Well okay, welcome out anyway. Whatever.

Also breaking: Mo’Nique came out as Black…

Commemorating the Anniversary of an Ex-Gay Conference In Uganda

Jim Burroway

March 5th, 2010

It was exactly one year ago today when three American anti-gay activists stepped before a small crowd attending a conference in the posh Triangle Hotel in downtown Kampala, Uganda. Exodus International will, err, commemorate that anniversary by holding a “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in San Diego, in order to peddle the same junk science they helped to bring to Uganda twelve months ago.

But there will be a better commemoration of that date across town, at St. Paul’s Episcopal Cathedral. I’ll be there, along with former Exodus alumnus Michael Bussee, Truth Wins Out founder Wayne Besen, Straight Spouse Network founder Dr Amity Pierce Buxton, Director of the LGBT Rights Division of Human Rights Watch Scott Long, and many others. And if you’re in the San Diego area, we invite you to join us:

On Saturday, March 6, 2010, a one-day event will be held at St. Paul’s Episcopal Cathedral in San Diego. The 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. which will confront and challenge the “ex- gay movement” – a national movement to “convert” gay and lesbian people to heterosexuality through purported “reparative” therapy efforts. To help educate people about the truth of such claims, and the legacy of harm they leave behind, a day-long conference will be held to expose and counteract this movement.

…Morning sessions, to be held in the Great Hall of the cathedral, will feature authors, psychologists and experts in the field. These will focus on the genesis and subsequent history of the ex-gay movement, the nature of and harm done by reparative therapy, the impact of both on the struggle for the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, and the ex-gay movement’s connection to the looming human rights disaster in Uganda.

It was on March 5, 2009 when we watched in horror as Exodus International boardmember Don Schmierer and a relatively unknown International Healing Foundation unlicensed “counselor” Caleb Lee Brundidge joined forces with perhaps one of the most notorious anti-gay extremist, Holocaust revisionist Scott Lively. We had no idea what the fruits of that conference would be, but knowing full well the reigns of terror that the Ugandan gay community had suffered in the very recent past, we feared the worst.

But our fears for the worst turned out to be a gross underestimation of what would actually happen as a result of that conference. The “Nuclear Bomb” that Scott Lively and his cohorts delivered that day would leave a devastating fallout: public outings of gay men and women in the press, arrests at at least one suspicious death believed to be at the hands of police, and general threats of mob violence. And all of this culminated in the tabling of the draconian Anti-Homosexuality Bill before Uganda’s Parliament, a bill that calls for the death sentence of gay people under certain circumstances (a penalty which could conceivably be extended to include just about anyone due to the bill’s sloppy language), and the virtual criminalization of anyone who knows or comes in contact with gay people.

A year later, the “nuclear bomb” delivered by American ex-gay activists continues to spread its toxic fallout in that troubled land. We stand committed to confronting that very same danger here. If any moment can crystallize the dangers that the ex-gay movement can so callously and carelessly deliver to an unsuspecting population, this is it. And today is the day to commemorate it.

St. Paul’s Cathedral is located at 2728 6th Ave in San Diego. Just Love will take place on Saturday, March 6, from 9:00 to 5:00. I look forward to seeing you there.

Click here to see BTB’s complete coverage of recent anti-gay developments in Uganda.

UK Scouts Condemn Uganda’s Anti-Gay Bill

Jim Burroway

March 1st, 2010

On first blush, that’s doesn’t look like a headline that would strike fear in the hearts of those who support Uganda’s proposed “kill the gays” bill, but there is an important angle to it. Ugandan Member of Parliament David Bahati, sponsor of the notorious Anti-Homosexuality Bill, also happens to be chairman of Uganda’s Scouts Board.

According to a press release from UK LGBT advocate Peter Tatchell, the Chief Executive of the Scout Association UK, Derek Twine, has condemned the proposed Anti-Homosexuality Bill as “discriminatory and contrary to the sanctity of life, [and] completely incompatible with our interpretation of the values of our worldwide Scouting Movement.” Twine continues:

We have already drawn our grave concerns on this to the attention of the Secretary General of the World Organisation of the Scout Movement (WOSM), and we are subsequently aware that the issues are now subject both to WOSM’s direct engagement with the Chief Scout of Uganda (Mrs Maggie Kigozi) and to ongoing global consideration by members of the World Scout Committee.”

Tatchell adds:

“Scouting is very big in Uganda and Mr Bahati derives great prestige from his position as Chairman of the Scout Association of Uganda. If we can get him removed from office it will be a significant personal blow to him. He’ll be weakened and his credibility undermined.

“OutRage! is urging the disaffiliation of the Ugandan scout organisation from the world scouting movement, as a way of adding further pressure on the Ugandan government to drop the Bill. Our request for disaffiliation was immediately forwarded by the Scout Association UK to the World Organisation of the Scout Movement (WOSM) in Geneva.

Click here to see BTB’s complete coverage of recent anti-gay developments in Uganda.

GOProud talks to Big Government about gay conservatism

Timothy Kincaid

February 26th, 2010

In September, Andrew Breitbart’s BigGovernment.com launched with a splash by releasing the undercover video done by James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles on ACORN. The scandal, which resulted in Congress cutting ACORN’s funding, propelled Beirtbart and his websites to conservative stardom.

This week, columnist Bob Parks posted an interview with GOProud’s Jimmy LaSalvia, in which the gay conservative defended his positions. I think LaSalvia did well in explaining himself, and was more proactive and less defensive about gay issues than I had given him credit for in the past.

BOB: Let’s move on to gays in the military.

JIMMY: Cool.

BOB: While serving in the Navy, I had a supervisor who was gay. He wasn’t in your face about it, and because he was (and everyone knew it), he had to be doubly squared away. Through him, I became a much better writer and journalist and our department won two Chief of Information 2nd Place awards for excellence amongst 600 ship and shore commands. With that, why would there be a need for him to come out and force his sexuality on his shipmates?

JIMMY: I don’t think it’s a matter of forcing his sexuality on anyone. It’s a matter of whether he has to lie about it or not. Listen, conduct should be appropriate in the military no matter who you are. But gay and lesbian servicemembers are forced to lie everyday, just to serve their country. It can be significant, like who should we inform if you are killed or wounded? or somewhat trivial just in conversation like “what did you do when you were on leave?” In 2010, our fine servicemembers are more than capable of doing their jobs as professionals whether straight or gay…we shouldn’t make some of them lie in order to do it.

But Jimmy could not resist getting in his digs about the “not like me” gays with whom he finds so little in common.

BOB: How do you feel about gay pride parades. Personally, I cringe when watching rap videos because of the impressions it leaves on others of who black people are. Do you see gay pride parades, as lewd as some can be, as a serious PR blunder?

JIMMY: Certainly in this day and age, as more and more gay people have come out and live their lives openly and honestly, the stereotypical images of pride parades don’t accurately portray the reality of the lives of the vast majority of gay Americans. For the most part, we are just like everyone else…sitting at home on the couch as boring as most other folks watching those nuts on TV! Yes, I suspect it’s very similar to your reaction watching stereotypical images of black people. The best thing that gay people can do (from a PR point of view) is just live your life like any other person, and the rest of America will realize that we are no different than them.

Forty Years of LGBT History Is Now Safe

Jim Burroway

February 26th, 2010

It was a horrendous loss when the venerable Washington Blade went belly up last year. While the paper itself was thriving and profitable, it’s parent company, Windows Media, was a financial disaster. The Blade had become the LGBT paper of record for the nation’s capital, and with its tremendous access to Congress and administration figures, I don’t think it’s too much of an exaggeration to say that the Blade was the nation’s paper along the lines of the New York Times or Washington Post on LGBT issues.

Today, the paper’s successor, DCAgenda, announced that they have successfully purchased the print and electronic archives and other assets of the Blade, ensuring that this historical treasure will be in safe hands.

GOProud Showed Up. Which Is Very Good, But…

This commentary reflects the opinion of the author and does not necessarily reflect those of other authors at Box Turtle Bulletin

Jim Burroway

February 20th, 2010

Alexander McCobin, at Students for Liberty, welcomed GOProud to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) amid cheers and boos.

Ryan Sorba, of the Young Conservatives of California, responded by denouncing CPAC amid boos and cheers.

For some reason, it’s often the gays who start the hottest trends in this country. The Republican Party’s acrimonious split between the traditional followers of John Locke, Adam Smith, Thomas Paine and other believers of individual freedom, and the emerging purer-than-thou wing who today would be loudly lamenting the absence of a “real Republican” if Ronald Reagan himself were alive and running for office — like so many popular trends in America — is just an imitation of what the gays had already started. It was just last April when a group of Log Cabin Republican dissidents split off to form GOProud over the former group’s perceived lack of ideological purity.

But despite GOProud’s purer-than-pure stance, it’s still regarded as being outside the mainstream among other purer-than-pure ideologues who are, in addition, also non-believers in individual freedom. But that didn’t stop GOProud from becoming sponsors of that annual purer-than-pure ideological love-fest known that is CPAC in Washington, D.C. This marks the first time a gay group has been a co-sponsor of the event. It also marks the first appearance of the John Birch Society as a co-sponsor, which had always been excluded for being too extremist.

But while the Birchers were allowed to parade around in their tinfoil hats, the GOProuders would not have a platform to to speak about gay issues at the conference. Outside of their booth with the other exhibitors, their only planned contribution that I’ve been able to discern was a talk about “Using Technology to Mobilize Conservatives.” Other than that, their message was limited to their booth.

Silence appears to be the price of admission. GOProud’s Twitter stream and web site have been uncomfortably silent over the wacky news conference at CPAC over “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Okay, there hasn’t been complete silence, at least not when a good opportunity for spin comes along. Bruce Carroll, aka GayPatriot, giddily twittered, “Nation’s most vocal supporter of gay marriage & removing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell speaks at #CPAC10 – DICK CHENEY! HA.” Except Cheney didn’t utter a single peep about gay marriage or DADT. Chris Crain responds, “Gentlemen… please… we can hold the bar higher than this, can’t we?”

But as we all have come to know, it’s not enough for the purest of the purer-than-pure crowd to have us agree to shut up about our issues and rah-rah conservatism in general. It’s our mere presence, and even our very existence, that many find so horribly offensive. And that offense was on display yesterday when Ryan Sorba decided to go after CPAC for GOProud’s quiet existence. When he was boo’ed, Bruce Carroll (aka GayPatriot) celebrated, saying that this “shows that most mainstream conservatives don’t have much stomach for such nasty rhetoric.” But I have to wonder whether it’s the rhetoric they can’t stomach or the embarrassment over the fact that CSPAN cameras were capturing a dissenting speech live on national television.

Think about it. Sorba’s remarks weren’t that much nastier than those mouthed at the DADT news conference. Sorba just didn’t follow agreed-upon talking points and he compounded that by openly dissenting with fellow CPAC attendees. The boo’s started when he said he was denouncing CPAC before he even said why he was denouncing them. Was it the rhetoric they were booing? Or was it the open dissent — complete with calling people out by name — on nationwide television that garnered the boos (and cheers)?

(By the way, some are saying Sorba was boo’ed off the stage. It looks to me that he left the stage when he finished saying what he wanted to say.)

But just showing up is all it takes for GOProud to excite the purest of the purer-than-pure element, then even GOProud’s most ardent critics would have to concede that their mere presence served, at least, as a small but important measure of community service for LGBT citizens. Besides, anyone who makes life unbearably uncomfortable for the National Organization for Marriage, which found its booth located just a few short steps away from GOProud’s, is worthy of respect. Jimmy LaSalvia’s “Who’s the pansey?” line by itself is worth GOProud’s sponsorship and travel costs.

Playing rope-a-dope, which GOProud has evidently done, is a very useful role to play. The more dopes we can rope, the better. But at some point we ought to see something other than blind cheer-leading among gay conservatives. I mean please, tying Cheney’s standing ovation over his opposition to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and support for gay marriage? Not uttering a single peep over the ridiculous news conference supporting DADT? That just looks pathetic, especially when compared to the open revolt among gay Democrats over their party’s failure to deliver on promises. I’m glad that GOProud decided to stake out a presence at CPAC, but a presence with a clear eye and critical voice would be more helpful still. Woody Allan said that 90% of life is just showing up, but he’s a moviemaker. What does he know about politics?

More on the “Kill The Gay Scouts” Meme

Jim Burroway

February 16th, 2010

I didn’t like the whole “kill the gay Ugandan scouts” meme, and felt the need to set the record straight. But I have to admit that it appears to have gotten the attention of the world scouting headquarters in Geneva, according to a press release Peter Tatchell sent to BTB:

“The world scout headquarters in Geneva has written to the Chief Scout and the Chief Commissioner of the Uganda Scout Association concerning the Anti-Homosexuality Bill and the sponsorship of this Bill by the Chairman of the Uganda Scout Board, David Bahati MP,” reports LGBT human rights campaigner, Peter Tatchell  of OutRage!

“This swift response came just hours after protests against Mr Bahati to the Scout Association UK by the London-based LGBT human rights group OutRage!.

“OutRage! is urging the disaffiliation of the Ugandan scout organisation from the world scouting movement, as a way of adding further pressure on the Ugandan government to drop the Bill.

“Our request for disaffiliation was immediately forwarded by the Scout Association UK to the World Organisation of the Scout Movement (WOSM) in Geneva.

“OutRage!’s actions are an attempt to open up a new front in the campaign against the Bill and to graphically expose the ramification’s of the proposed legislation on youth and civic organisations in Uganda (which has received little coverage so far).

“By highlighting the particular threat to LGBT scout members, we have not intended to detract in any way from the wider issues and consequences of Mr Bahati’s draconian legislation.

“LGBT scouts and scout leaders are, of course, only one section of the Ugandan LGBT community. All Ugandan LGBTs are at risk if this Bill becomes law. We are concerned about the danger to them all – and the threat to their straight families, friends, supporters and allies,” said Mr Tatchell.

Click here to see BTB’s complete coverage of recent anti-gay developments in Uganda.

Does Ugandan MP Want To Kill Gay Boy Scouts?

Jim Burroway

February 16th, 2010

That’s what UK LGBT Activist Peter Tatchell said:

“The leader of the scout movement in Uganda is demanding the execution of all scouts and scout leaders who commit repeated homosexual acts,” reports human rights campaigner, Peter Tatchell of OutRage!.

“Chief of the Scout Board of Uganda, David Bahati, is proposing that all serial homosexual offenders, including scouts and scout leaders, should be hanged – even children.

“Mr Bahati is a Ugandan MP. His Anti-Homosexuality Bill, which is currently before the Ugandan Parliament, stipulates the death penalty for repeat same-sex relations and life imprisonment for all other homosexual acts, even for mere kissing, touching or caressing.

“Scout leaders who fail to report gay scouts to the police will face three years in jail. Any scout leader who provides supportive advice to a gay scout will be jailed for five to seven years.

“This Bill is an expression of prejudice, intolerance, discrimination and violence, contrary to scout principles,” said Mr Tatchell.

That appeared on the Gays Without Borders website. I’ve been badly burned by them before and have learned that this is not a trustworthy source. This story is nevertheless starting to make the rounds on the web.

Since the information that Bahati is the head of Uganda’s Boy Scout movement appears to have come from BTB, I feel a special responsibility to correct the record. Last December, we received a tip from an anonymous reader in Kampala along with several scans of a newspaper clippings, including one identifying MP David Bahata as chairman of the Uganda Scouts Board. Since that was sent to us exclusively by someone who does not have a web site himself and this article did not appear online, I’m quite confident that this is where Tatchell learned of Bahati’s role in Uganda’s scounting movement. We were the only major website to report this and we are the ones who first posted this photo.

Now, it’s true that his proposed bill would impose the death penalty on anyone who engages in sex with someone of the same gender under the age of 18, who are HIV-positive (disclosed and consensual or not), who is a “repeat offender” (so broadly defined as to include anyone who has had a relationship with more than one person, or who had sex with the same person more than once), or who had sex with a disabled person (consensual or not).

So, by this accounting it would appear that under certain circumstances, Boy Scouts could be convicted and hanged for “aggravated homosexuality” if they have sex with someone of the same gender and approximately the same age (under 18) — and if Uganda’s death penalty law allows for hanging people under the age of 18. So far, I have not been able to determine whether Ugandan law permits this. But more specifically, I can find no reports anywhere that Bahati is specifically “demanding the execution of all scouts and scout leaders who commit repeated homosexual acts.”

Focusing on Boy Scouts, while a nice trick, misses the larger point. This bill would impose the death penalty on Boy Scouts, altar boys, choir girls, soccer players, pastors, members of Parliament, chiefs, cooks and bottle-washers — everyone who falls into its trap. And it would impose criminal penalties to anyone else, gay or straight, who would help them in any way or fail to report them to police. The scope and breadth of this bill is beyond breathtaking. It’s almost impossible to exaggerate the depth of evil behind this bill. But it is easy to pretend the bill says something that it doesn’t say, whether someone opposes the bill or supports it.

With all due respect to Mr. Tatchell, who has put his own health and safety on the line in Russia, Zimbabwe, and elsewhere around the world on behalf of LGBT people everywhere — and he is due all the respect that bravery warrents — this trivial sideshow distracts from the larger point. David Bahati did not call for the execution of gay Boy Scouts in his capacity as chair of Uganda Scouts Board. He called for the execution of almost all gays in his capacity as a member of Parliament for the ruling party which hold more than two-thirds of all the seats in Uganda’s legislature. And all of this in what is effectively a one-party state, in which real power rests in the hands of President Yoweri Museveni. We must never forget that it is Museveni, who easily blocks opposition political rallys and shuts down radio stations he doesn’t like, who can stop this bill with a wave of a finger.

Since Tatchell’s remarks made the rounds, I am now happy to see that he has issued a clarification:

(Bahati’s) Anti-Homosexuality Bill does not, of course, specifically cite or single out LGBT scouts or scout leaders. But, like other LGBT Ugandans, scout members who commit repeat homosexual acts will be liable for execution – if Bahati’s is Bill is passed. The Bill does not specify from what age the death penalty will apply. I am told that it could apply to young LGBT people under 18. Does anyone know what the age of criminal responsibility is in Uganda? Is there any Ugandan law specifying the minimum age at which a person can be executed? Good news: The World Organisation of the Scout Movement is, as a result of OutRage!’s representations, considering action against the scout movement in Uganda.”

Learning the World Organization of the Scout Movement’s position would be very useful, as would discovering whether Ugandan law actually allows the execution of those under the age of 18. That’s a question I’ve been trying to discover the answer to myself.

Click here to see BTB’s complete coverage of recent anti-gay developments in Uganda.

Military Times poll shows sharp decline in support for DADT

Timothy Kincaid

February 7th, 2010

The Military Times is a newspaper targeted at career military personnel. For the past several years the paper has been surveying its readership on the issue of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Tomorrow they will be releasing the latest results and today they pre-reported the findings.

Opposition to gays serving openly in the military has declined sharply among those wearing the uniform today, the Military Times newspapers will report Monday.

An exclusive survey of some 3,000 active-duty troops shows such opposition has fallen sharply from nearly two-thirds (65 percent) in 2004 to about half (51 percent) today. The survey results appear Monday in Army Times, Air Force Times, Navy Times and Marine Corps Times.

Those opposed to open service will likely latch onto this survey, ignore the trend, and claim that this is conclusive proof that half of America’s servicemen do not want to work with gay soldiers. But, as we noted in 2008, this survey is not even close to being representative of military personnel. In fact, only 47% of the survey participants are currently members of the military.

This latest survey, however is closer to reflecting servicepersons as a whole. The respondants in this year’s poll were on average 4 years younger than those in 2008. And the drop in support for the DADT policy between 2008 and 2010 nearly mirrors that in the drop in percentage of participants over the age of 40, about 10%.

The new survey is also more extensive than prior years. It asks a number of additional questions relating to gay service personnel. After deleting the veterans, lawmakers, family members and others, the following can be gleaned from this non-representative study:

• 95% of participants identify as heterosexual. Around 2% identify as gay or bisexual and the rest ticked the “decline to answer” option.
• Attitude about allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military:

14% strongly favor
15% favor
19% neutral
15% oppose
36% strongly oppose

• Of those who oppose open service, 54% believe that sexual oriention is a choice while only 34% of those who favor open service have that belief.
• If the ban were overturned, about 38% believe that gay couples should receive the same benefits as straight couples and about 44% oppose the idea.
• The most challenging issues for the military should the policy be overturned are believe to be reducing harassment against openly gay personnel, and reducing violence and hate crimes against gay personnel.
• 56% know that there are gay people in their unit, 17% do not believe that there are and the rest aren’t certain.
• Of those who found out about a gay person in their unit, 2% reported them up the chain of command.

There were also a number of subsets of if-then questions which sought to get opinions about levels of comfort or discomfort. I did not attempt to make meaning of them.

Based on this non-representative survey, it would appear that about half of career military service personnel are opposed to open service, about one third strongly opposed. However, very few are actually willing to end a fellow soldier’s career when the subject becomes personal rather than theoretical.

Today’s Question

Jim Burroway

February 6th, 2010

Ex-Gay Survivors To March In Sydney’s Mardi Gras

Jim Burroway

February 4th, 2010

Anthony Venn-Brown, of Australia’s Freedom 2 b[e] is organizing a group of ex-gay survivors to march in the February 27 Sydney Mardi Gras Parade. Sydney’s Mardi Gras is the perhaps the largest gay pride celebration in the world, and Anthony explains why participating can be such a healing experience for former ex-gays:

People who are same-sex-orientated often feel societal and family pressures to resist, reject or deny their true feelings. This pressure to conform and live as heterosexuals is much more intense for those who come from faith backgrounds and Christian churches, as the belief system says that acceptance or rejection of their sexuality has eternal consequences. Struggling to change can be private and internal, through one on one personal counselling or support groups. Some of us have even gone to the extremes of exorcisms, ‘ex-gay’ programs or marrying, believing this will solve our ‘problem’. The journey to find resolution and self–acceptance for gay men and lesbians from Christian backgrounds can be torturous and even traumatic.

…Marching in the Mardi Gras parade or a Pride march is often an empowering experience and an opportunity to put the shame and the ‘demons’ of the past to rest by publicly declaring that we are out, proud and love being who we are; lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender.

Our message is a positive one; celebrating our journeys to resolution and self-acceptance. By marching together we also send a positive message to people in churches who are still locked in a prison of self-hatred.

If you’re interested in marching with Freedom 2 b[e], you can find more information at their web site. I know I would give my eye teeth to be there.

American Prayer Hour vs. National Prayer Breakfast

Jim Burroway

February 3rd, 2010

Several groups are sponsoring the American Prayer Hour for tomorrow, February 4, as an alternative to the National Prayer Breakfast which will take place at the same time in Washington, D.C. The National Prayer Breakfast is organized by the secretive Evangelical group known as the Family, some of whose members are linked to Uganda’s draconian Anti-Homosexuality Bill. The American Prayer Hour was conceived as a multi-city event to call on the UGandan government to withdraw the bill that Saddleback pastor Rick Warren characterized as “unjust, extreme and un-Christian toward homosexuals.”

To kick off the event, APH organizers held a news conference yesterday featuring Harry Knox, Director of Religion and Faith for the Human Rights Campaign; the Rev. Elder Darlene Garner, Metropolitan Community Church pastor;  Bishop Carlton Pearson, interim senior pastor at Chicago’s Christ Universal Temple; Bishop Gene Robinson, the first openly gay man elected bishop in the Episcopal Church; and Frank Schaeffer, son of pre-eminent conservative theologian Francis Schaeffer. More on Mr. Schaeffer later.

But the star of the event was “Moses,” a Ugandan citizen who is seeking asylum in the United States. He appeared in disguise because he fears for his life if he should be forced to go back to Uganda, and his testimony shows us exactly what’s at stake.

Frank Schaeffer’s presence is particularly notable. His father, Frances Schaeffer, was a very influential and conservative theologian who rejected modernism in all its theological forms. His book, The Christian Manifesto is credited — or blamed — for inspiring the rise of the Christian Right as a political force, as well as the rise of Dominionism as a theological one. His son, Frank, grew up immersed in the work of his father, and in his book Crazy for God, Frank described his own role in pushing religious leaders to tackle abortion in the 1970’s and 1980’s. But over time Frank became disillusioned with the movement his father helped to inspire, and came to the conclusion that the Evangelical right had distorted his father’s teachings beyond recognition. He is now a critic of the very movement he and his father helped to establish.

At yesterday’s news conference, Frank was quoted as saying:

“As a person who was raised in the heart of conservative Christianity, it took me years to realize that anti-gay beliefs are wrong and not inherent to Christianity. Today, fundamentalists are exporting anti-gay beliefs because fewer and fewer people here believe the lies. It’s time to stop using gay people as political pawns and understand that we are all children of God.”

Soulforce Founder Mel White’s Open Letter to American Pastors on Uganda’s Anti-Gay Bill

Jim Burroway

February 3rd, 2010

Soulforce founder Mel White, Interim Executive Director Bill Carpenter, and Board Chair Chuck Phelan have released this open letter to Jan and Paul Crouch and other American Evangelical pastors who broadcast in Uganda, calling on them to denounce the proposed Anti-Homosexuality Bill that is now before Parliament.

An Open Letter from Soulforce to Jan and Paul Crouch, founders of the Trinity Broadcasting Network, and the Evangelical Christian broadcasters who are featured on Lighthouse Television, TBN’s affiliate in Uganda, including:  Matthew Crouch, Joyce Meyer,  Andrew Wommack,  Benny Hinn,  Kenneth Copeland,  Joel Osteen, T.D. Jakes, and Franklin Graham:

By now you are well aware of the anti-homosexual bill pending before the Parliament of Uganda. We urge you to denounce this bill.  Use your personal friendships with President and Mrs. Museveni, with MP David Bahati (your Christian colleague who proposed this bill), and with Stephen Langa, (the Ugandan Christian organizer behind the bill) to take a public and passionate stand against it.

The media are blaming the visit to Uganda by three of your colleagues for this despicable and truly un-Christian law.  In fact, for years you have used your Lighthouse Television programs, your radio broadcasts, and your massive public meetings to warn Ugandans of the so called “threat homosexuals pose to Bible-based values and the traditional African Family.”

In no small part you are already responsible for the current call by Ugandan leaders to enforce the old law condemning lesbian and gay Ugandans to up to 14 years in prison. This new law increases that sentence to life imprisonment and even death by hanging.  Denounce this new bill or the blood of lesbian and gay Ugandans will be on your hands.

It isn’t just the “liberal media” who are condemning the bill.  In mid-November, Exodus International, the ministry that promises to assist homosexuals in overcoming homosexuality, warned,  “If homosexual behavior and knowledge of such behavior is criminalized and prosecuted, as proposed in this bill, church and ministry leaders will be unable to assist hurting men, women and youth who might otherwise seek help in addressing this personal issue.” While Soulforce does not agree with Exodus that lesbian and gay people need to be “cured,” we wholeheartedly agree with their position on this hateful bill.

Warren Throckmorton, a member of the Clinical Advisory Board of the American Association of Christian Counselors warned that this legislation would make their mission “to extend the love and compassion of Christ to all” a difficult if not impossible task.

Your colleague, mega-church pastor Rick Warren, in a very public video appeal to his fellow clergy in Uganda, gives five reasons why Ugandan Christians should not support the bill: (1) it is “unjust, extreme and un-Christian; (2) it would “force pastors to report their pastoral conversations with homosexuals to authorities; (3) “…it would have a chilling effect on your ministry to the hurting… homosexuals who are HIV positive will be reluctant to seek or receive care, comfort and compassion from our churches out of fear of being reported; (4)  “All life, no matter how humble or broken, whether unborn or dying, is precious to God… It would be inconsistent to save some lives and wish death on others…” And (5) “the freedom to make moral choices, and our right to free expression, are gifts endowed by God.” Warren reminds the clergy that Uganda is a democratic country “…and in a democracy everyone has a right to speak up.” Warren concludes by urging them “to speak out against the proposed law.”

The People of Soulforce urge you to take Rick Warren seriously.  It is very possible that your silence on this matter will convince the people of Uganda that it is God’s will to condemn homosexuals to life imprisonment or even death by hanging. Your powerful media voices have made you superstars to Ugandans. We implore you to use your power to denounce this bill. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if this time the Christian community became known for love and justice rather than fulfilling the stereotype of the “liberal media” as ‘hate-filled bigots?

You often ask others, “What would Jesus do?”  This is the perfect time to ask yourselves that question. 

The People of Soulforce

Mel White, Founder
Bill Carpenter, Interim Executive Director
Chuck Phelan, Board Chair    

 

ADDENDUM:           EXAMPLES OF OTHERS WHO CONDEMN THE BILL

This bill has been condemned by leaders of Western nations including the Prime Ministers of Canada, Australia, and Great Britain and the President of the United States. The European Parliament passed a resolution against the bill and threatened to cut financial aid to Uganda if it is enacted. They described the bill as “state-legislated genocide.”

The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch urge Uganda to shelve the bill and decriminalize homosexuality.

The 16,000 members of the HIV Clinicians Society of South Africa and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS warned that excluding marginalised groups would compromise efforts to stop the spread of AIDS in Uganda where 5.4% of the adult population is infected with HIV.

The Sunday Times in South Africa warned Uganda that it is in danger of being “dragged back to the dark and evil days of Idi Amin.”

The New York Times stated unequivocally “that such barbarism (in the bill) is intolerable and will make Uganda an international pariah.” 

The Washington Post labeled the bill “ugly and ignorant”, “barbaric”, and “that it is even being considered puts Uganda beyond the pale of civilized nations.”

The Los Angeles Times warned that the bill would cause gay Ugandans to face an “impossible, insulting, historical, cruel and utterly false choice of having to choose between being gay and being African.”

The Anglican Reverend Canon Gideon Byamugisha said that the Bill “would become state-legislated genocide.”

The Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams has said in a public interview that he did not see how any Anglican could support it: “Overall, the proposed legislation is of shocking severity and I can’t see how it could be supported by any Anglican who is committed to what the Communion has said in recent decades. Apart from invoking the death penalty, it makes pastoral care impossible – it seeks to turn pastors into informers.”

The Vatican legal attaché to the United Nations stated that “Pope Benedict is opposed to ‘unjust discrimination’ against gay men and lesbians.”

ADDENDUM: 

AS IN THE US, PAUL CAMERON IS THE PRIMARY SOURCE OF THE HALF-TRUTH, HYPERBOLE AND LIES ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY AND HOMOSEXUALS UPON WHICH THE BILL IS BASED

Stephen Langa, the March 2009 workshop organiser, specifically cited an unlicensed converstion therapist named Richard A. Cohen who states in a book that was given to Langa and other prominent Ugandans,

“Homosexuals are at least 12 times more likely to molest children than heterosexuals; homosexual teachers are at least 7 times more likely to molest a pupil; homosexual teachers are estimated to have committed at least 25 percent of pupil molestation; 40 percent of molestation assaults were made by those who engage in homosexuality.”

These statements were based on faulty studies performed by Paul Cameron who has been expelled from the American Psychological Association, the Canadian Psychological Association and the American Sociological Association.   Cohen, himself, confirmed the weaknesses of these studies, stating that when the book will be reprinted, these statistics will be removed.

ADDENDUM:   OUR SOURCES

Jeffrey Gettleman, writing for the New York Times,  January 4, 2010, reported on “Americans’ Role in Uganda Anti-Gay Push.” 

Erin Roach, posted on Baptist News, November 18, 2009, the news that “Exodus Opposes Uganda’s Proposed Anti-Gay Law.”

Baptist Press, December 13, 2009, announced that “Mega-Church Pastor Rick Warren Condemns Uganda Anti-Gay Bill.”

The editors of Wikipedia have assembled the best history of this bill and the world’s response.

YouTube carries the complete video of Rick Warren’s Open Letter to the Clergy of Uganda.*

*We wish to express our thanks to the Rev. Rick Warren for taking this rather courageous step on behalf of the lesbian and gay people of Uganda.  Pastor Warren did everything in his power to avoid meeting with our gay and lesbian parents and their families in 2009 during the Soulforce American Family Outing.  We have tried on many occasions to help him understand the tragic consequences of his own teachings about homosexuality and homosexuals.  And though we continue hoping that he will meet with a Soulforce delegation to hear the scientific, historic, psychological and personal evidence that homosexuality is one of God’s gifts, we pause in our pursuit just long enough to give him thanks for reaching out to save the lives of our lesbian sisters and gay brothers in Uganda.  Thank you, Pastor Warren.  We are grateful!

Aetna demostrates insurance industry callousness about the medical needs of their “members”

This commentary is a personal rant from the author and may not necessarily reflect the opinion of other authors at Box Turtle Bulletin. Additionally, it is not directly within the realm of what this site normally covers. I wrote it anyway. I make no claim that this is representative of anyone else's story, but it's mine.

Timothy Kincaid

February 2nd, 2010

In 2004 Aetna Insurance Company adopted the slogan, “We want you to know.” However, I really, really, truly, very much wish I knew nothing about Aetna.

As I wrote last Friday, Aetna, my HMO insurer, decided as of January 1, 2010 to move a medication that I require off of their preferred list. They do allow one other alternate medication, but I have an allergic reaction to that medication which results in redness and eye irritation and my ophthalmologist will not prescribe it.

In my update last Friday, I told you that it looked like a tier override might be possible. It is now clear that this was a misunderstanding. As I do not reside in New Jersey, such an option is not available.

During this process I discovered something interesting. Aetna has in place procedures to ensure that those who decide the pricing are shielded from all contact with those who suffer the consequences of their decisions. Even the intermediaries who speak with doctors are not allowed to talk to these decision makers, instead having all interaction be by means of forms and email.

Aetna wishes to make certain that those who deny coverage are not swayed by emotional appeal or the circumstances of any individual members. Were they to be made aware of the difficulties that they cause, they might be inclined to prioritize ethical practice ahead of gasp-worthy profits ($1.4 billion in 2008) and exorbitant executive salaries (which increased 625% between 2005 and 2008).

So Aetna wins. By taking my drug off the preference list, they will shift $25 per month from their bottom line to mine. And I have no recourse at all other than, of course, informing you, my Congressman, my Senators, my state legislators and the CA Insurance Commissioner of the practices of this corporation.

Insurance company arrogance is one big reason people are unhappy about health care

This commentary is a personal rant from the author and may not necessarily reflect the opinion of other authors at Box Turtle Bulletin. Additionally, it is not directly within the realm of what this site normally covers. I wrote it anyway. I make no claim that this is representative of anyone else's story, but it's mine.

Timothy Kincaid

January 29th, 2010

Most Americans have health insurance. And most Americans are content with their level of coverage. But “most” is not enough to quell the dissatisfaction that is growing in the nation over the way in which health issues are treated.

But unlike the politicians, I think the underlying discontent lies not in whether there is a single payer or whether catastrophic care is planned for or even in the increased cost of heath care. Rather, I think that the anger and frustration results from a total lack of control over ones own care coupled with the arrogance and condescension with which insurance companies treat the people who pay for their astronomic executive salaries and bonuses.

Allow me to illustrate.

I have pigmentary glaucoma. This is a rare genetic eye condition (discovered mostly in near-sighted male Caucasians in their 30s and 40s) in which bits of pigment flake off the iris and clog the eye’s drains. If untreated, the pressure in the eye builds, destroying the optic nerve and leading to blindness.

This is an easily treated disease. As long as I maintain a regimen of eye drops, I can keep the intraocular pressure in my eyes under control (below 21 mmHg) and avoid nerve damage. And although my eyes had reached pressures of 40 and 38 before detection, I have been very fortunate in that I have had very little loss of vision.

There are three different primary medications from which I can choose and, in the process of stabilizing my pressures, my doctor tried all of them. One was inadequately effective and one resulted in significant redness and irritation. But the third was, as Goldilocks might say, just right. (In conjunction with another eyedrop which works slightly differently)

So everything is just fine.

Until this week.

When I went to pick up my prescription I found that Aetna, my insurance provider, decided to move Travitan Z, one of my essential eye medications, off of their formulary list. What this means is that it is no longer covered at my standard deductible rate. In this case, the out-of-pocket monthly price of this medication went from $35 to $60.

Now moving a medication off the formulary list is not necessarily unreasonable. Sometime a generic is available, at other times there are comparable less expensive options that work identically. Unfortunately, this is not the case for me. There is no generic available and the alternatives were determined by my physician to be either less effective or a source of irritation.

So I called Aetna to discuss the situation. What I found was incompetence, arrogance, and condescension.

My first call resulted in a fellow telling me that he “went on Google” and found a generic, which would certainly have been fine with me. But after calling my pharmacy, I learned he had simply discovered the medication’s non-brand name but that this medication was not available as a generic drug and won’t be until 2013

The second call was when Aetna’s policy of deflecting criticism was revealed.

I was first told that the problem was due to my choices in the open enrollment period. So we walked through the options available that I so very foolishly ignored and, no surprise to me, in each option my eye coverage would be the same. Because the issue was not my “choices” at all, but rather that the drug had been moved off of the formulary list that was used for each of my options.

Having exhausted that avenue of blame, Aetna then told me, “that is the price at which your employer has chosen to cover that medication”. That, of course, was a flat out lie. My employer never said, “hmm, Travatan Z, yeah let’s raise the price on that”. Instead, my employer (or rather the large employment data processor that my real employer uses to process payroll benefits) set a rate for all non-formulary drugs and left the decision up to Aetna as to which drugs would be on the list.

The young lady to whom I was speaking then went for the “I didn’t decide that” route. Well, no, of course not.

But I wasn’t calling her to discuss my options, I was calling Aetna and she was just the voice of the company at that moment. But that simply generated another round of “well this is the result of your choices that you made during open enrollment and this is the amount your employer decided to pay for this drug”. It seems they trained her well; at no point did she acknowledge that the decision resulting in my increased co-pay was made by Aetna.

After finally having the young lady tell me that I had no options whatsoever, I thought for a moment about what I had hoped to achieve from my call. What could Aetna have done differently to avoid having me publicly vent my complaint?

• Aetna could have owned up to the responsibility of the decision that increased my monthly prescription budget. They could have explained the reasoning behind the decision and not tried to lie and claim that it was due to choices made by me or my employer. I might not have been happy, but I would not have felt manipulated.
• Aetna could have treated me like a client, someone that they want to retain and satisfy. They could have expressed concern rather than try to blame me and my employer for their decision.
• Aetna could have provided a means for which exceptions could be made. If there are adequate medications that provide alternatives to most glaucoma patients, that is fine. But some provision should be made for those for whom their doctor has determined that alternatives are inadequate.
• Aetna could have avoided the appearance of profiteering. I might be less resistant to paying an extra $300 per year if Aetna’s CEO was not paid in excess of twenty-four million dollars ($24,000,000) in 2008.

In summation, I’m screwed. Aetna made a decision and I get to pay for that choice. I can pay more with a smile, or I can pay more and vent my frustration to the entire world (clearly, I’m choosing the latter).

Now I know that I am fortunate. Even after the increase, I’ll likely pay less than $2,000 out of pocket for medical care this year. Some people face monthly prescription costs in excess of that amount. It hardly seems worthy of this rant.

But my experience with Aetna addresses a bigger issue.

I am, by nature, favorable to capitalism. I believe that a system that rewards investment and research is more likely than any other to result in continued improvements in treatment for my condition. But capitalism relies on competition, on the ability of the customer to pick up their custom and go to the store next door, which is not an option that many Americans have.

And I do not object to insurance companies making a profit. It is reasonable that providing a service should be compensated. But egregious salaries and bonuses secured through a political system that secures insurers’ advantages and disallows or discourages cross-state shopping or foreign nation pricing are offensive if not downright immoral.

So I have now joined the ranks of those who think of health insurance companies, Aetna in particular, with contempt. Not because of what they provide or really even the profit they make, but because of the limitations on choices that lobbying has created and the arrogance and contempt that it has bred within a smug corporate culture confident that it need not compete for my patronage.

And unless insurers want moderates and conservatives to join with more collective-minded Americans and seek to dismantle the entire system, they should seriously rethink their approach to business.

UPDATE:

For those interested in the outcome, there may be a solution.

After ranting, I started searching the internet and Aetna’s own website and found that they had issued a Pharmacy Clinical Policy Bulletin which allowed for a medical exception specifically for glaucoma medicine if the patient was allergic to the one drug on their “preference list”. After reading this bulletin to Aetna’s employees, I was able to finally reach someone who was familiar with the exceptions that their customer service claimed did not exist.

After four calls from me (speaking to six different people) and two calls from my doctor, Aetna may be making a “tier override”. I’ve paid the larger co-pay but it looks like I may be refunded the difference.

But how many Aetna members do not have BTB readers to encourage them not to give up, are unskilled at searching, and are willing to believe what they are told by customer service? How many are just too sick to spend hours trying to resolve the problem?

Aetna should start caring about the concerns of their members. All the insurance companies should. In the current political culture, arrogance will not serve them well.

Maurice Grossman (1927-2010)

Jim Burroway

January 22nd, 2010

The world is full of cheerful, unsung heroes. One of them passed away this morning and Tucson is a bit less cheerful for his passing.

Maurice Grossman, a former University of Arizona art professor, died this morning following heart valve replacement surgery. He was 82.

Born in Detroit, Michigan in 1927, he became an educator and ceramic artist in Arizona. He studied at Wayne State University and earned an MFA at Ohio State University. From 1955 to 1988, he was Professor of Ceramics at the University of Arizona in Tucson after founding their ceramics program. I came to know him during the campaign to try to defeat Arizona’s Prop 102. He was just one of those guys who seemed to know just about everyone, and no one he knew could ever be an enemy.

Last October, he was selected to be the Grand Marshal for Tucson’s Pride parade. (Tucson holds its parade in October as a concession to the typically scorching 105+ degree summer temperatures.) The UofA’s Arizona Daily Wildcat featured Maurice’s honor with a good description of his  journey:

Grossman was a UA professor from 1955 to 1989 and started the three-dimensional arts program in the Art Department during that time. “I’m very proud of what I accomplished and am still acknowledged when I’m on campus,” Grossman said. “I loved my students; I love teaching. In a way I’m still teaching.”

Grossman said he lived the first part of his life trying to determine who he was. He got married in his 20s, and had two children with his wife, who died in 1978.

“Like most gay men, I was trying to understand more about myself,” Grossman said. “At that time, in my 20s, I met a very beautiful and lovely woman and we fell in love.”

Though he was married and in love with his wife until she died, Grossman said he knew he was gay before then. In 1978 Grossman became more politically active in the gay community. He volunteered with Wingspan and Stonewall Democrats in Tucson. He waited a few years before he told anyone he was gay.

“When I told (my children), they knew; they said, ‘we’ve known for years,’” Grossman said.

Grossman said there was no real fallout or loss of friendships because of his revelation.

If you had the pleasure of knowing Maurice, you’d understand why.

The thing that impressed me about him is that he didn’t think to bother about slowing down. Age was an occasional nuisance but never a hindrance. And nothing was going to get in the way of his good cheer. He remained very active in the LGBT community and in the local arts scene. The Dinnerware Gallery in 2007 threw a fifty-year retrospective for him to coincide with Maurice’s 80th birthday.

There are a lot of sad people here in Tucson today.

Congressional Human Rights Commission Hears Testimony On Uganda’s Anti-Gay Bill

Jim Burroway

January 22nd, 2010

Yesterday, Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) chaired a meeting of the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission to discuss the proposed Anti-Homosexuality Bill that is now before Uganda’s Parliament. Julius Kaggwa, a leader of the Kampala-based  Civil Society Coalition on Human Rights & Constitutional Law, was among those who testified to say that personal involvement by President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle would be helpful in stopping the bill.

According to written testimony supplied to BTB, Mr. Kaggwa described some of the abuses he and others have incurred in Uganda:

I have personally been a victim of this hostility on several occasions.  In one case, I was forced to resign from a job for the simple reason that controversy around my identity had placed the reputation of the organisation I worked for in question. They felt that having me on their staff drew “unwanted” attention to their organisation. In another case, a house I rented was set on fire by unidentified people.

I personally know lesbians who have been raped by male relatives in order to so-called “cure them” of their lesbianism. Sadly, although they were thus infected with HIV, they cannot access justice. I know gay men who have been habitually blackmailed to avoid arrest.  I have further seen first-hand the trauma of transgender Ugandans who have been sexually abused, including by the police, and arrested purely for their gender expression. One transgender woman had a gang of men violently insert rough pieces of wood in her anus to remind her that she was a biological man and not a woman. These and similar abuses are what LGBT Ugandans live with on a daily basis. In most cases, the government has not held the perpetrators accountable.

Mr. Kaggwa testified that as harsh as the situation has been for LGBT people, it has deteriorated further since MP David Bahati introduced the Anti-Homosexuality Bill before Uganda’s Parliament.

Since the bill’s first reading in the Ugandan parliament, the Civil Society Coalition on Human Rights and Constitutional Law has been approached for help by homosexual people who have received death threats. We have also been approached by human rights activists whose offices have been raided by police and where police surveillance continues daily.  Religious leaders have threatened to hunt homosexuals if the government does not pass the bill quickly.

The effects of the bill would be wide-ranging. If passed in its current form, it would not only impose a lifetime sentence on those who are convicted of homosexuality, it will add the death sentence if the accused is HIV-positive, a “serial offender,” or whose partner is deemed disabled — even if the relationship was consensual. The proposed statutes will also ban all advocacy on behalf of LGBT people with imprisonment if five to seven years, while “aiding and abetting” will garner a seven year sentence. Health, counseling, and HIV/AIDS workers fear that their work will be criminalized if they should aid LGBT people because of this proposal. Other proposals would force friends and family members to report LGBT people to police or risk a three year sentence, and criminalize landlords or hotel owners who knowingly rent to gay people with five to seven years’ imprisonment.

Kagwwa warned of the legal implications of all of this:

If passed, this bill will further worsen the access of sexual minorities to health services. The greatest scare for all sexual minorities in Uganda is how to protect themselves from HIV infection and to access treatment for those living with HIV.  Sexual minorities in Uganda are already excluded from mainstream HIV and AIDS interventions. We are not able to readily access relevant health care and information. This bill makes this exclusion worse by proposing the death penalty for HIV positive homosexual Ugandans. If it is passed, most homosexual Ugandans will not be brave enough to seek the medical care that any human being needs and deserves. This provision also leaves a lot of room for malicious blackmail and venomous attacks and it threatens to further prevent homosexual Ugandans from voluntarily testing for HIV, and accessing preventive information and treatment.

According to Chris Johnson at DC Agenda, the panel explored several options for opposing the draconian measure. Kaggwa emphasized the importance of local Ugandans’ voices being heard as loudly as international voices:

“It is important that these local, indigenous voices are heard as heavily or as loudly as the international voices,” he said. “We believe that if that voice supplements our own voices, then we will be productive. But if the foreign voices are louder than ours, then I’m afraid that might have a counter-productive effect.”

Karl Wycoff, deputy assistant secretary of state for East African Affairs, testified that the State Department has been working to prevent the bill from being enacted into law:

The introduction of this anti-homosexuality bill in Uganda characterizes just such a moment — one where we must say to our friends who’s friendship we value that together we must stand against injustice, and in this case, injustice against the LGBT community,” he said.

Wycoff noted how the White House in January issued a statement in opposition to the legislation and said Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has expressed concerns about the bill with Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni in addition to publicly opposing the legislation in two speeches.

“Our embassy … has been very active on this subject with representatives of the Ugandan government, with civil society, with local gay and lesbian groups and with others who press for this bill to be dropped,” Wycoff said.

The panel discussed various options for dealing with the proposed law. Rep. Baldwin reminded the panel of Sen. Ron Wyden’s (D-OR) proposal to review Uganda’s trade status with the United States. Other options were explored, but reducing funding to Uganda under the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) was seen by witnesses as inappropriate. Said Christine Lubinski, executive director of the HIV Medicine Association, the program’s $13 billion in aid is “too much of a day-to-day lifeline for too many people.” Cary Alan Johnson, executive director of the International Gay & Lesbian Human Rights Commission, however noted that the funds could be “channeled differently” to non-governmental organizations.

Yesterday, more than ninety members of Congress sent separate letters to President Barack Obama and Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni urging that strong measures be taken to block the bill from becoming law, calling the proposal “the most extreme and hateful attempt by an African country to criminalize their LGBT community.”

[Julius Kaggwa's written testimony provided to BTB by the American Jewish World Service]

Click here to see BTB’s complete coverage of recent anti-gay developments in Uganda.

Twelve Senators Voice Opposition to Uganda’s Anti-Gay Bill

Jim Burroway

January 20th, 2010

Twelve U.S. Senators have written to Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni calling on him to block the Anti-Homosexuality Bill that is now before that nation’s Parliament. Citing Uganda’s relative success in fighting HIV/AIDS, the Senators note:

While your nation has been a leader in Africa on many fronts, including the reduction of HIV infections, this proposed legislation will be a glaring setback in Uganda’s human rights standing.  Unfortunately, even the mere threat of the new and severe penalties for homosexual behavior suggested in this bill, including life imprisonment and the death penalty, could easily add to an already intolerant atmosphere in Uganda based on sexual orientation.

Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman (CT) joined Democrats Benjamin Cardin (MD), Richard Duban (IL), Daniel Akaka (HI), Christopher Dodd, (CT), Kirsten Gillibrand (NY), Sherrod Brown (OH), Jeff Merkley (OR), Patty Murray (WA), , Mark Udall (CO), Diane Feinstein (CA) and Barbara Boxer (CA) in signing the letter.

Click here to see BTB’s complete coverage of the past year’s anti-gay developments in Uganda.

Click here to read the letter sent to Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni

Congratulations Amanda Simpson

Jim Burroway

January 4th, 2010

President Barack Obama has named Amanda Simpson as a Senior Technical Advisor to the Commerce Department, where she will be working in the Bureau of Industry and Security:

“I’m truly honored to have received this appointment and am eager and excited about this opportunity that is before me. And at the same time, as one of the first transgender presidential appointees to the federal government, I hope that I will soon be one of hundreds, and that this appointment opens future opportunities for many others.”

Simpson brings considerable professional credentials to her new job. For thirty years, she has worked in the aerospace and defense industry, most recently serving as Deputy Director in Advanced Technology Development at Raytheon Missile Systems in Tucson, Arizona. She holds degrees in physics, engineering and business administration along with an extensive flight background. She is a certified flight instructor and test pilot with 20 years of experience.

As a fellow Tucsonan, I have had the rare privilege of knowing Amanda. She is not only a truly amazing, dynamic woman, but she’s a genuine trailblazer as well. She’s as been a local activist and former member of the City of Tucson Commission on GLBT Issues, and in 2004 she became the first transgender person to win the Democratic Nomination for the Arizona House of Representatives. She was recognized that same year as one of the YWCA’s “Women On the Move.”

Several of us gathered for a Christmas party on the Friday before Christmas. It was a bittersweet party since it was also our good-bye party for Amanda. We will all miss her here in Tucson, but we are also immensely proud and excited for her new opportunities in D.C. I can’t think of a more qualified person to advise the Commerce Department on the technical issues surrounding technology exports. Break a leg, Amanda!