Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Michael Gerson :: Townhall.com Columnist
The Moral Scales
by Michael Gerson
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


WASHINGTON -- How much do seven members of the U.S. Senate weigh?

Eyeing them -- Tom Coburn, Jim DeMint, Jeff Sessions, Saxby Chambliss, David Vitter, Jim Bunning, Richard Burr -- I'd guess they probably come in at about 1,300 pounds. These are the Republicans who have signed a hold letter, preventing action on the reauthorization of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR).

Now, how much do 3 million HIV/AIDS-infected people -- the treatment goal of a reauthorized PEPFAR -- weigh? This is a more difficult calculation. Adults with advanced forms of the disease can weigh about 60 pounds. Children with AIDS are like a shadow falling on a scale. Maintaining weight becomes difficult with vomiting and diarrhea, with tuberculosis and fungal infections, with cancers such as Kaposi's sarcoma and lymphoma.

Even so, you'd think that a few million of these wasting bodies would weigh more on the moral balance than seven senators. But so far, you'd be wrong.

It is the nature of the Senate that the smallest of minorities can impede the work of the majority. But it takes a conscious choice -- an act of tremendous will and pride -- for members to employ these powers against an AIDS bill with overwhelming bipartisan support.

The seven, led by Coburn, complain that the reauthorization is too costly. They object to "mission creep" -- the funding of "food, water, treatment of other infectious diseases, gender empowerment programs, poverty alleviation programs" -- as though people surviving on AIDS treatment do not need to eat, work or get their TB treated. And the senators are concerned that AIDS funds might be used for things such as abortion referrals and needle distribution, though the legislation doesn't mention these possibilities. So they are pushing for the extension of a superfluous spending mandate requiring that at least 55 percent of PEPFAR resources be used for treatment, on the theory that this will starve "feckless or morally dubious" prevention programs.

For all of conservatism's evident virtues, it can have one furtive, seedy vice: A justified suspicion of government can degenerate into an anti-government ideology -- rigid, stingy and indifferent to human suffering. Conservative concerns on family planning and abstinence in the PEPFAR reauthorization are not imaginary, but they could be resolved through good faith negotiations, as they were in the House of Representatives. A generalized hostility to AIDS prevention, however, is destructive. Given that there are about 2.5 new HIV infections for every person starting on AIDS drugs, there is no way to control the pandemic through treatment alone. And because treatment is less expensive than it used to be, PEPFAR is meeting its treatment goal for less money. The 55 percent treatment floor would force the program to waste money in pursuit of an arbitrary, nonsensical spending target -- the worst kind of congressional earmark.

Other members of the Senate Republican conference seem content to stand by and watch Coburn undermine the bill, since they have their own, quiet concerns about PEPFAR's price tag. But the legislation is an authorization, not the appropriation (which comes later), so the $50 billion figure means little. These Republicans are objecting to a placeholder, taking a baseball bat to a vapor.

President Bush has yet to push for PEPFAR's reauthorization as his top legislative priority, so Majority Leader Harry Reid and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell feel little pressure to roll over Coburn's objections -- which they could do, since there are more than 60 "yes" votes.

Reid supports the legislation but seems uninterested in scheduling floor time without assurances from Republicans that the debate will be short and the number of amendments limited. If it passes, after all, President Bush will get much of the credit. The political calculation must be tempting: Why not allow seven, white Republicans to discredit their party by blocking a lifesaving bill for Africa? And there is an added bonus: Coburn is an adviser on health issues to John McCain.

Given these obstacles, supporters of the PEPFAR reauthorization now estimate a 50 percent chance it will be shelved until next year. Without a five-year U.S. commitment on AIDS funding, other countries would be reluctant to put new people on treatment. And lives would be lost.

Each of the Coburn Seven counts himself pro-life. If a bill came to the Senate floor that would save millions of unborn children, one assumes that pro-life members would push to improve it, accept a few necessary compromises, and then enthusiastically support the legislation.

It is difficult to imagine why pro-life legislation involving millions of Africans should be viewed differently.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Michael Gerson writes a twice-weekly column for The Post on issues that include politics, global health, development, religion and foreign policy. Michael Gerson is the author of the book "Heroic Conservatism" and a contributor to Newsweek magazine.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Michael Gerson's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
I'm suspending judgement
until I hear their side of the story.

If Jim Dermint and Jeff Sessions are
against this bill then it is a stinker and needs to go down.

One star

AIDS is a disease you volunteer for
I have seen a loved one die of AIDS and I know it is a vicious disease. I also know that there is one sure way to prevent it and that the people who get it and spread it are doing it voluntarily. There are plenty of other things to spend money on that do not involve trying to bail the ocean with a fork. Why not take that money and spend it trying to catch up on the damage done by Rachel Carson and the Greenies whose hysteria against DDT led to millions of innocent deaths? Nobody volunteers for malaria. The men who spread AIDS are doing it with full knowledge of what they do and a decision to keep on doing it.

I think these seven men are right. Let them try to battle those who would, once again, elevate sex over life itself, even sex that leads inevitably to the grave.

reality time.
I agree with the first 3 replies.




PEPFAR is unconstitutional
PEPFAR is unconstitutional. Neither the Congress nor the President is authorized to spend taxpayer's money on charity.

Yes, you Volunteer for AIDS
The little children born into it totally asked for it! Rape victims were begging for it! People told by their leaders that the condoms cause AIDS (a far too common theme in Africa) are definitely making conscious decisions!

AIDS isn't only affecting promiscuous gay men and drug addicts. People need to get out of the early 80's; we've had quite a bit of change since then.

Russia
In Russia AIDS around one million are infected. Eighty percent from needles.

Perhaps all 535 members of Congress should release their health records and let us know which one's them have been infected by some form of venereal disease.

Why are we spending tax dollars...
on an albeit noble cause, when this is clearly a job for non-governmental charity organizations? How many of the allocated tax dollars actually make it to the intended recipient and how many get sucked up by the bureaucracy? Organizations whose sole cause is delivering a specific service, product, treatment, are going to do it much more efficiently than our or any government. If the government must do anything for situations like this one, it should be to clear the way for private organizations to collect money and deliver the care to the intended recipients. When government gets involved, people feel like they're off the hook and don't need to chip in because they feel they're contributing indirectly through their taxes. Problem is their tax dollars are mostly employing bureaucrats, not buying care for sick people.

Read Coburn's answer
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/gersons_m isplaced_pepfar_anger.html
Gerson has mischaracterized Coburn and the others with a fine example of demagoguery

Mike in NY
Try reading both sides before you go off after the wrong windmills.

Hey, Jpip in CA
AudiR in Alaska said that AIDS is something you volunteer for. I refuted that, since it is so patently false and hateful that it was needed.

What is the other side? Babies born with AIDS asked for it?

Gerson's sneering sanctimony
By all means read Coburn's response (link in above comment). Gerson is a good example of how the Bush administration has all but destroyed the Republican party with its leftwing massive governmental spending programs akin to LBJ's War on Poverty. Just shake down the American taxpayer with sneers and jibes at their moral inferiority and voila, the gates of heaven will surely open for you, the anointed ones. This is simply not what taxes are for. Gerson makes me sick, and so does W.

Mike
By knowingly and willingly sperading AIDS to the women they have sex with, they are committing wilful murder. Make it a capital crime and put to death the men who are spreading it and pretty soon the epidemic will slow way down.

As for the women and children who are infected by these men, the women should be quarantined so they can't spread it to others and their infected children should be allowed to stay with them but not to interact with uninfected people.

If these people were suffering from TB or Bird Flu or SARS, you would have no problem at all in doing this, and in fact it is being done here in Canada. However, since it is a disease that is spread almost entirely by either sex or illegal drug use, (a "hippie disease" you might say) then nobody dares restrain those who continue to infect the world. Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.

Oh the nasty uncaring republicans
Yes, there are innocents hurt by this disease but primarily it is a behavior disease. Just how much do we keep spending on this disease that can be curtailed by limiting anal sex and dirty needles. There are diseases affecting far more people that aren't getting the research money because liberals and bleeding hearts have made it seem as if the average citizen is at constant risk. A little compassion goes a long way.

Quarantine AIDS victims?
Most people with HIV have no idea that they're infected, so a quarantine would not be a panacea for stopping the spread of AIDS. Not to mention, in some parts of Africa a full quarter of people have HIV; how can you quarantine a quarter of a country?

The only thing your plan would do would make people stop getting HIV tests. Unless they became mandatory for everyone every three months, which would never happen.

Finally, why quarantine someone with HIV? Unlike SARS, HIV can't be transmitted through the air. Unless the people are having unprotected sex, sharing needles, giving blood, or having birth they will not spread the disease. Not to mention, it does seem horrifying to banish someone for being sexually assaulted.

The only real answer is simple: preventive products, therapy, and education. Any other method would be unfeasible, heartless, and overwhelmingly expensive.

Quarantine AIDS victims?
Most people with HIV have no idea that they're infected, so a quarantine would not be a panacea for stopping the spread of AIDS. Not to mention, in some parts of Africa a full quarter of people have HIV; how can you quarantine a quarter of a country?

The only thing your plan would do would make people stop getting HIV tests. Unless they became mandatory for everyone every three months, which would never happen.

Finally, why quarantine someone with HIV? Unlike SARS, HIV can't be transmitted through the air. Unless the people are having unprotected sex, sharing needles, giving blood, or having birth they will not spread the disease. Not to mention, it does seem horrifying to banish someone for being sexually assaulted.

The only real answer is simple: preventive products, therapy, and education. Any other method would be unfeasible, heartless, and overwhelmingly expensive.

good opportunity
This is a good opportunity and location to remind the resident Townhall homosexuals about the following.

homosexuals are sterile, except when it comes to producing and spreading disease

homosexuality is sterile

the homosexual sterilty, along with their inclination to suicide by anal 'sex' say all that has to be said about the validity of homosexuality

nothing favors homosexuality

nothing favors homosexuals

nothing recommends homosexuality

nothing recommends homosexuals

No.t an issue for government
Health issues are not the business of government in any case. There is no constitutional authority for assistance to those in the U.S. let alone a foreign nation. Wake up America!! You are being dragged into the smokescreen of issues which clouds the view of the bigger problem. Check out newswithviews.com and read the articles by Joe American---it will give you a new perspective.

Audi and Vic--on the nail!
eom

Let everyone die....its natural.
I think we need to defund all the government grants for health research ......... including the National Institute of Health. Death is natural, everyone does it one time.

Ugh!
"A justified suspicion of government can degenerate into an anti-government ideology -- rigid, stingy and indifferent to human suffering."

It's not the government's business to do anything about human suffering. Bush has been overwhelmingly compassionate with our money and we're paying for his compassion with hefty inflation and a teetering economy. How did this guy become a columnist here? He belongs at "The Weekly Standard", or "Time".

Well
Gersons smarmy attack 'splains a lot regarding
Bush's compassionate conservatism (which is the most insulting catchphrase any elected official could come up with). This is the clown responsible for the mess we are in, and we are to accept what he says about Sen. Coburn and the others. This guy knows more than a medical doctor? I would believe Tom Coburn over any one of the socalled 'compassionate conservatives', a.k.a. RINO's. Those 7 men have more integrity than all the socalled compassionate conservatives put together. It's a shame, we have such a handful of true leaders and Americans in the Senate and a majority in both sides of the aisle of self serving nincompoops.

Gerson "casts pearls before swine"
The responses to this article are appauling. It is evident that the people critical of Mr. Gerson's piece are not educated on the disease and it's impact on the world's socioeconomic stability. The idiots only see AIDS from the American perspective: a gay disease; how wrong and ignorant. AIDS victims worldwide are predominantly dumb, religious, poor, naive str8s, just like most of you. How can poor christianized tribal cultures combat a retrovirus disease like HIV (not a venereal disease, stupid!); they're good enough for your God, but not your clean water and medicines. Quarantine? How do you quarantine people for a disease that takes up to a year for any medical test to detect, Dr. Welby? You think HIV cares if you're gay or str8? I guess you won't be convinced until a few thousand more str8, white, American women contract the disease. What you don't realize is that while your conservative husbands and boyfriends write out their donation checks to senators like Coburn, they're hopping online to hook-up with a hot boy trick for the weekend business trip. Reality Check. Deny charity to the poor; What Would Your Jesus Say? I guess He'd say the same thing He said about American christians who murdered the natives, enslaved Africans, and currently store tens of thousands of discarded human embryos from invitro procedures in cryogenic freezers to keep conservative christian white women from becoming sterile.

More conservative hypocrisy
"Each of the Coburn Seven counts himself pro-life. If a bill came to the Senate floor that would save millions of unborn children, one assumes that pro-life members would push to improve it, accept a few necessary compromises, and then enthusiastically support the legislation."

When it's the lives of a bunch of poor black Africans, the "pro-life" attitude goes out the window. Why am I not surprised?
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.