Federal Funding for HIV Prevention Programs Comes with Strings

Companies that receive federal funds to support distribution of condoms and sex-ed in undeveloped countries must also speak out against prostitution and sex trafficking -- and in favor of abstinence and monogamy -- reports AVN. NSFW

The U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, decided that requiring organizations to convey the government's message in return for federal funding is not unconstitutional. It overturned a lower court's ruling on the matter.

Smith's amendment to the U.S. Leadership Act states that "the reduction of HIV/AIDS behavioral risks shall be a priority of all prevention efforts in terms of funding, educational messages, and activities by promoting abstinence from sexual activity and substance abuse, encouraging monogamy and faithfulness, promoting the effective use of condoms, and eradicating prostitution, the sex trade, rape, sexual assault and sexual exploitation of women and children."

With the adoption of the Smith amendment, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which provides funds for third-world health programs, began requiring that all fund recipients sign a pledge that their organizations have "a policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking."

DKT [International, a D.C.-based service organization founded in 1989 by Philip D. Harvey, owner of Adam & Eve, the adult mail-order company] refused to sign the pledge, since, according to the District Court opinion, it "believes that a policy explicitly opposing prostitution will likely result in stigmatizing and alienating many of the people vulnerable to HIV/AIDS - the sex workers - and may result in limiting access to the group DKT is trying to reach."

I'm not a big fan of the sexual exploitation of anyone. But I think that the Smith amendment ignores the reality: using condoms is not a minor behavior change, it's a huge cultural shift. To stride into a country saying we want to save lives and all you have to do is listen to us tell you that you're a bunch of cheating, whoring, child-molesting drug users and then you can take these condoms ... that doesn't seem like the right place to start.

As much as we'd like to "fix" everything at once -- I believe that we need to accept the reality that change happens slower than that. Start with communicating the idea of condoms as a way to protect health while still getting to have sex, and then see how things go.

So much has to change before we can do anything else -- just that much would be a wonderful start. And the change will come, from within; and it will likely come from the women. That's the only way to get lasting effects, to have the culture shift happen internally.

And if abstinence isn't high on their priority list, who can blame 'em?