At an August AIDS conference in Mexico City, the U.S. was praised for ending its 15-year-old law banning HIV-positive people from entering the country. But that ban has yet to be lifted by the Bush administration, much to the ire of the usual groups. I’m glad it hasn’t yet been done. The bill had bi-partisan backing—Sens. John Kerry (D), no longer the most liberal Democrat in Congress since Barak Obama arrived on the scene, and Gordon Smith (R) of Oregon. Since then, 58 Dems have written to the President asking him to take “swift action on this issue.”
I guess that’s because the Congress so swiftly reacts to problems facing American citizens-----like the financial crisis brought on by the sub-prime mortgage debacle or the people in the U.S. devastated by Hurricane Ike. (although a bill promptly surfaced to help the people of Haiti)
I suppose the Congress feels HIV should be removed from the list of communicable diseases of public health significance because….That’s where I get stuck. Because….
Granted we know enough to have overcome the unwarranted fears of how HIV is spread, and true, many people innocent of some of the more behavior-prone ways of contracting this horrendous affliction have been infected and may feel unfairly targeted, BUT are we to assume that visitors to this country who are HIV positive will cease being intravenous drug users who share needles, refrain from unprotected sex so they do not spread the disease, tell the people with whom they have relationships that they are HIV positive or refrain from any other kind of behavior that promotes the spread of HIV? Sorry, John Kerry, Gordon Smith, and you additional 58 Congressman. I don’t assume that. I go back to the great line by Felix Unger in The Odd Couple: ASSUME means to make an ASS of U and ME.
We’ve got people in Washington quaking in their boots that someone out there might not like us so they are constantly considering those outside America over the ones they are elected to protect and to serve. Last July 30, President Bush signed into law a five-year $48 billion bill to fight AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis around the world. Those are good intentions, but he should have vetoed the bill because it contained this lifting of the ban. Can you imagine the outcry had he vetoed it? Despite the names he would have been called, he should have used that veto power, and Congress should get its act together and put Americans' best interests first.
I guess that’s because the Congress so swiftly reacts to problems facing American citizens-----like the financial crisis brought on by the sub-prime mortgage debacle or the people in the U.S. devastated by Hurricane Ike. (although a bill promptly surfaced to help the people of Haiti)
I suppose the Congress feels HIV should be removed from the list of communicable diseases of public health significance because….That’s where I get stuck. Because….
Granted we know enough to have overcome the unwarranted fears of how HIV is spread, and true, many people innocent of some of the more behavior-prone ways of contracting this horrendous affliction have been infected and may feel unfairly targeted, BUT are we to assume that visitors to this country who are HIV positive will cease being intravenous drug users who share needles, refrain from unprotected sex so they do not spread the disease, tell the people with whom they have relationships that they are HIV positive or refrain from any other kind of behavior that promotes the spread of HIV? Sorry, John Kerry, Gordon Smith, and you additional 58 Congressman. I don’t assume that. I go back to the great line by Felix Unger in The Odd Couple: ASSUME means to make an ASS of U and ME.
We’ve got people in Washington quaking in their boots that someone out there might not like us so they are constantly considering those outside America over the ones they are elected to protect and to serve. Last July 30, President Bush signed into law a five-year $48 billion bill to fight AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis around the world. Those are good intentions, but he should have vetoed the bill because it contained this lifting of the ban. Can you imagine the outcry had he vetoed it? Despite the names he would have been called, he should have used that veto power, and Congress should get its act together and put Americans' best interests first.
Bush politics "political+commentary" politicians "John+Kerry" "Gordon+Smith" senators laws HIV Mexico AIDS Congress "communicable+diseases" "sub-prime+mortgages" "Hurricane+Ike" Haiti sex drugs disease "Felix+Unger" "The+Odd+Couple" Washington malaria tuberculosis
No comments:
Post a Comment