The federal government has addressed AIDS in two broad ways: by spending money on research and treatment of the disease and by prohibiting unfairness to people with HIV or AIDS.. It has
Trang 1Examples of
acknowledgments
Short forms of acknowledgment
The forms of acknowledgment set forth in this section may be used and are sufficient for their respective purposes under any law of this State The forms shall be known as "Statutory Short Forms of Acknowledgment" and may be referred to by that name The authorization of the forms in this section does not preclude the use of other forms [1969, c 364 (new).]
1 Individual For an individual acting in his own right:
State of County of The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this (date) by (name of person acknowledged)
(Signature of person taking acknowledgment)
(Serial number, if any)
[1969, c 364 (new).]
2 Corporation For a corporation:
State of County of The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this (date) by (name of officer or agent, title of officer or agent) of (name of corporation acknowledging) a (state or place of incorporation) corporation, on behalf of the corporation
(Signature of person taking acknowledgment)
(Serial number, if any)
[1969, c 364 (new).]
3 Partnership For a partnership:
State of County of The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this (date) by (name of acknowledging partner or agent), partner (or agent)
on behalf of (name of partnership), a partnership
(Signature of person taking acknowledgment)
(Serial number, if any)
[1969, c 364 (new).]
4 Principal For an individual acting as principal by an attorney in fact:
State of County of The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this (date) by (name of attorney in fact) as attorney in fact on behalf of (name
of principal)
(Signature of person taking acknowledgment)
(Serial number, if any)
[1969, c 364 (new).]
Acknowledgments
[continued]
Trang 2ACCOUNTINGof the new company’s profits for the
years it has been using the label A court will
refuse the accounting, because by its
acquies-cence the competitor tacitly approved the use of
the label The competitor, however, might be
entitled to an injunction barring the new
company from further use of its trademark if
it is so similar to the competitor’s label as to
amount to an infringement
may acquiesce or refuse to acquiesce to an
lower federal court The IRS is not bound to
change its policies due to an adverse ruling
by a federal court with the exception of the
U.S Supreme Court The chief counsel of
the IRS may determine that the commissioner
of the IRS should acquiesce to an adverse
decision, however, thus adopting the ruling as
the policy of the IRS The decision whether
to acquiesce to an adverse ruling is published by
the Internal Revenue Service as an Action on
Decision
a failure to do what the law requires to
protect one’s rights, under circumstances
mis-leading or prejudicing the person being sued
Acquiescence relates to inaction during the performance of an act In the example given above, the failure of the competitor’s general counsel to object to the use of the label and to the registration of the label as a trademark in the Patent and Trademark Office is
several years had elapsed from the first time the label had been used is laches
ACQUIRED IMMUNE DEFICIENCY SYNDROME
A disease caused by the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) that produces disorders and infections that can lead to death
(AIDS), a fatal disease that attacks the body’s immune system making it unable to resist infec-tion, is caused by the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), which is communicable in some bodily fluids and transmitted primarily through sexual behavior and intravenous drug use
The United States struggled to cope with AIDS from the early 1980s until the late 1990s, when new drug therapies started to extend the length and quality of life for many people with
5 Public officer By any public officer, trustee or personal representative:
State of
County of
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this (date) by (name and title of position)
(Signature of person taking acknowledgment)
(Serial number, if any)
[1969, c 364 (new).]
Section History:
PL 1969, Ch 364, § (NEW)
The Revisor's Office cannot provide legal advice or interpretation of Maine law to the public If you need legal advice, please consult a
qualified attorney.
Office of the Revisor of Statutes
7 State House Station State House Room 108
This page created on: 2003-03-13
Acknowledgments
Examples of acknowledgments (continued)
ILLUSTRATION BY GGS CREATIVE RESOURCES REPRODUCED BY PER-MISSION OF GALE, A PART OF CENGAGE LEARNING.
Trang 3AIDS Since the beginning, AIDS and its resulting epidemic in the United States have raised a great number of legal issues, which are made all the more difficult by the nature of the disease AIDS is a unique killer, but some of its aspects are not: epidemics have been seen before; other sexually transmitted diseases have been fatal AIDS is different because it was discovered in—and in the United States still predominantly afflicts—unpopular social groups: gay men and drug users This fact has had a strong impact on the shaping of AIDS law Law is often shaped by politics, and AIDS is
a highly politicized disease The challenge in facing an epidemic that endangers everyone is complicated by the stigma attached to the people most likely to be killed by it
Epidemics have no single answer beyond a cure Because no cure for AIDS exists, the law continues to grapple with a vast number of problems The federal government has addressed AIDS in two broad ways: by spending money on research and treatment of the disease and by prohibiting unfairness to people with HIV or AIDS It has funded medical treatment, research, and public education, and it has passed laws
are HIV-positive or who have developed AIDS
States and local municipalities have joined
in these efforts, sometimes with federal help
In addition, states have criminalized the act of knowingly transmitting the virus through sexual behavior or blood donation The courts, of course, are the decision makers in AIDS law They have heard a number of cases in areas that range from employment to education and from
developed, it remains relatively new with respect
to most issues, and controversial in all
AIDS and the Federal Government Political attitudes toward AIDS have gone through dramatically different phases In the
as such was easy for lawmakers to ignore No one hurried to fund research into a disease that seemed to be killing only members of a historically unpopular group When it was not being ignored, some groups dismissed AIDS as a problem that homosexuals deserved, perhaps brought on them by divine intervention Discriminatory action matched this talk as gay men lost jobs, housing, and medical care AIDS activists complained bitterly about the failure
of most U.S citizens to be concerned Public opinion only began to shift in the late 1980s, largely through awareness of highly publicized cases As soon as AIDS had a familiar or more mainstream face, it became harder to ignore; when it became clear that heterosexuals were
The AIDS quilt,
on display in
Washington, D.C.,
has become a
well-known symbol of
support for AIDS
victims and their
families Families and
supporters of AIDS
victims create a panel
to commemorate a
person’s life; each
panel is then joined
with others from
around the country.
LEE SNIDER/CORBIS.
Trang 4also contracting the disease, the epidemic
acquired higher priority
By the late 1980s much of the harshness in
public debate had diminished Both liberals and
recommending increases in federal funding for
medical research on AIDS Already the amount
spent in this area had risen from $61 million in
1984 to nearly $1.3 billion in 1988 President
GEORGE H.W.BUSHtook a more active approach and
in 1990 signed two new bills into law One was the
Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources
Emergency (CARE) Act (Pub L No 101-381,
104 Stat 576), which provides much-needed
money for states to spend on treatment The
other was the groundbreaking Americans with
12117), which has proved to be the most effective
weapon against the discrimination that individuals
with the disease routinely suffer Bush also hurried
AIDS-related drugs Though he supported
Amer-icans with the disease, Bush agreed to a
to the United States for people with HIV
called for fighting the disease itself, rather than the
people afflicted with it In 1993 he appointed the
first federal AIDS policy coordinator He fully
funded the Ryan White Care Act, increasing
government support by 83 percent, to $633
million, and also increased funding for AIDS
research, prevention, and treatment by 30 percent
These measures met most of his campaign
promises on AIDS He reneged on one: despite
met a major obstacle on another proposal:
Congress failed to pass his health care reform
package, which would have provided health
coverage to all U.S citizens with HIV, delivered
drug treatment against AIDS, on demand, to
intravenous drug users, and prohibited health
plans from providing lower coverage for AIDS
than for other life-threatening diseases
initiatives that allocated federal funds toward
fighting the aids epidemic In 2003 he
AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), in which he called upon
congress to pass legislation that would
appro-priate $15 billion over five years to support
international AIDS prevention and the purchase
of anti-viral drugs The largest share of the money was contributed directly by the United States to other countries, such as through programs sponsored by the U.S Agency for
accounted for almost half the money in a global fund committed to fight HIV and AIDS As the initial plan expired in the 2008 fiscal year, Congress approved, and President George W
Bush signed into law legislation that extended the plan another five years and authorized an additional $48 billion in funding Specifically, the funds from PEPFAR are designated to help provide treatment to at least 3 million individuals with HIV, prevent approximately
12 million new infections, and provide care for
12 million people infected
presi-dential campaign pledged to develop and
Total Male Female
New AIDS Cases Reported, 1993 to 2007
9,579 26,355 35,954 2007
10,744
29,766
40,540 2005
11,211
30,851 42,062 2003
11,082
31,901 42,983 2001
10,780
35,357
46,137 1999
13,105
47,056 60,161 1997
13,764
59,616 73,380 1995
16,824
89,165 105,990 1993
Number of AIDS cases SOURCE: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention.
ILLUSTRATION BY GGS CREATIVE RESOURCES REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF GALE,
A PART OF CENGAGE LEARNING.
Trang 5implement a comprehensive national HIV/
AIDS strategy designed to not only reduce HIV infections, but also to increase access to care and treatment and reduce HIV-related health disparities He specifically pledged to expand funding for research and prevention of HIV, including a vaccine and a microbicide product for women to apply topically to prevent the transmission of HIV and other infections
He has further pledged to work toward improv-ing the quality of life for those livimprov-ing with HIV and supports increased funding for adequate and safe housing for individuals living with HIV In April 2009 President Obama’s Administration announced it was implementing a five-year national communication campaign with the
(HHS) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), known as Act Against AIDS, that would refocus the national attention
of the HIV crisis in the United States The campaign was in part a response to data released
by the CDC in 2008, which estimated that
infected with HIV each year and more than 14,000 Americans die with AIDS each year
AIDS and Public Life Having HIV is not a sentence to remove oneself from society It does not limit a person’s physical
or mental abilities Only later, when symptoms develop—as long as ten years from the time of infection—does the disease become increasingly debilitating In any event, people who are HIV-positive and AIDS-symptomatic are fully able to work, play, and participate in daily life Moreover, their rights to do so are the same as anyone else’s
The chief barrier to a productive life often comes less from HIV and AIDS than from the fear,
SUSPICION, and open hostility of others Because HIV cannot be transmitted through casual
RIGHTSof those individuals with the disease
AIDS in the Workplace The workplace is a common battleground Many people with AIDS have lost their jobs, been denied promotions,
or been reassigned to work duties that remove them from public contact During the 1980s this discrimination was fought through lawsuits based
on older laws designed to protect the disabled
Plaintiffs primarily used the Rehabilitation Act of
1973 (29 U.S.C.A § 701 et seq.), the earliest law of this type But the Rehabilitation Act has a limited
scope: it applies only to federally funded work-places and institutions and says nothing about those who do not receive government money Thus, for example, the law was helpful to a California public school teacher with AIDS who sued for the right to resume teaching classes (Chalk v United States district court, 840 F.2d 701 [9th Cir 1988]), but it would be of no use to a worker in a private business
With passage of the ADA in 1990, Congress gave broad protection to people with AIDS who work in the private sector In general, the ADA is designed to increase access for disabled persons, and it also forbids discrimination in hiring or promotion in companies with 15 or more employees Specifically, employers may not discriminate if the person in question is otherwise qualified for the job Moreover, they may not use tests to screen out disabled persons, and they must provide reasonable accommodation for disabled workers The ADA, which took effect
in 1992, quickly emerged as the primary means for bringing AIDS-related discrimination law-suits From 1992 to 1993, more than 330
which investigates charges before they can be filed in court Given the lag time needed for EEOC investigations, those cases started appear-ing before federal courts in 1994 and 1995 AIDS and Health Care Closely related to work
is the issue of health care In some cases, the two
DISABILITY benefits for people with AIDS were often hard to obtain during the 1980s Insur-ance was particularly difficult because employ-ers feared rising costs, and insurance companies did not want to pay claims To avoid the costs of AIDS, insurance companies used two traditional industry techniques: they attempted to exclude AIDS coverage from general policies, and they placed caps (limits on benefits payments) on AIDS-related coverage State regulations largely determine whether these actions were permissi-ble In New York, for example, companies that sell general health insurance policies are for-bidden to exclude coverage for particular diseases Caps have hurt AIDS patients because their treatment can be as expensive as that for cancer or other life-threatening illnesses Insur-ance benefits can be quickly exhausted—in fact, AIDS usually bankrupts people who have the disease The problem is compounded when
Trang 6employers serve as their own health insurers In
McGann v H&H Music Co., 946, F.2d 401 (5th
employers could legally change their policies to
reduce coverage for workers who develop
expensive illnesses such as AIDS
brought by a Philadelphia construction worker
with AIDS illustrated that the ADA could be
used to fight caps on coverage In 1992 the joint
union-management fund for the Laborers’
District Council placed a $10,000 limit on AIDS
benefits, in stark contrast to the $100,000
allowed for other catastrophic illnesses At that
time, the fund said the cap on AIDS benefits
was designed to curb all health costs In 1993
the EEOC ruled that the fund violated the ADA,
and, backed by the AIDS Law Project of
Philadelphia, the worker sued Rather than fight
an expensive lawsuit, the insurance fund settled:
under the agreement, it extended coverage for
all catastrophic illnesses to $100,000 Hailing
the settlement as a major blow against
wide-spread discrimination in insurance coverage,
the law project’s executive director, Nan Feyler,
told the Philadelphia Inquirer, “You can’t single
out someone based on a stereotype.”
In other respects, health care is a distinct
area of concern for AIDS patients and health
professionals alike Discrimination has often
taken place State and federal statutes, including
the Rehabilitation Act, guarantee access to
health care for AIDS patients, and courts have
upheld that right In the 1988 case of Doe v
Centinela Hospital, 57 U.S.L.W 2034 (C.D
Cal.), for example, an HIV-infected person with
no symptoms was excluded from a federally
funded hospital residential program for drug
and alcohol treatment because health care
providers feared exposure to the virus The case
itself exposed the irrationality of such
discrimi-nation Although its employees had feared HIV,
the hospital argued in court that the lack of
symptoms meant that the patient was not
disabled and thus not protected by the
Rehabil-itation Act A federal trial court in California
grant services based solely on fear of contagion
is discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act
Other actions during the 1990s have relied
JUSTICEreached a settlement in a lawsuit with the
city of Philadelphia that ensures that city employees will treat patients with AIDS The first settlement in a health care–related ADA suit, the case arose out of an incident in 1993, when an HIV-positive man collapsed on a Philadelphia street Emergency medical workers not only refused to touch him but told him to get on a stretcher by himself The man sued In settling the case, the city agreed to begin an extensive training program for its 900
emergen-cy medical technicians and 1,400 firefighters
In addition, officials paid the man $10,000 in
Department of Justice viewed the suit as an important test of the ADA Assistant Attorney General James Turner said the settlement would
“send a clear message to all cities across the nation that we will not tolerate discrimination against persons with AIDS.”
Health care professionals are not the only ones with concerns about HIV transmission
Patients may legitimately wonder whether their doctors are infected During the early 1990s, the medical and legal communities debated whether HIV-positive doctors have a duty to inform their patients of the illness According to the CDC, the risk of HIV transmission from health care workers to patients is very small when recommended infection-control procedures are followed, yet this type of transmission has occurred The first cases of patients contracting
in 1991: Dr David J Acer, a Florida dentist with AIDS, apparently transmitted HIV to five patients One was Kimberly Bergalis, age twenty-three, who died as a result Before her
contend-ing that it should have known that Acer had AIDS and effectively barred him from operating
policy Bergalis’s claim was settled for $1 million A second claim by Bergalis, against the insurance company that recommended Acer
to her, was settled for an undisclosed amount
Since the Bergalis case, many U.S dentists, physicians, and surgeons with AIDS have begun disclosing their status to their patients Faya v
Almaraz, 329 Md 435, 620 A.2d 327 (Md 1993), illustrates the consequences of not doing so In Faya the court held that an HIV-positive doctor has the legal duty to disclose this medical condition
to patients and that a failure to inform can lead to
Trang 7a NEGLIGENCE action, even if the patients have not been infected by the virus The doctor’s patient did not contract HIV but did suffer emotionally from a fear of having done so The unanimous decision held that patients can be compensated for their fears Although this case dealt
specifical-ly with doctor-patient relationships, others have concerned a variety of relationships in which the fear of contracting AIDS can be enough for a
PLAINTIFFto recover damages
Routine HIV-testing in healthcare facilities also raises legal issues Most people who are HIV-positive want this information kept confidential
Facilities are free to use HIV testing to control the infection but in most states only with the patient’s
INFORMED CONSENT Some states, such as Illinois, require written consent The level of protection for medical records varies from state to state
California, for example, has broad protections;
under its statutes, no one can be compelled to provide information that would identify anyone who is the subject of an HIV test However, every state requires that AIDS cases be reported to the CDC, which tracks statistics on the spread of HIV Whether the name of an HIV-infected person is reported to the CDC depends on state laws and regulations
AIDS and Education Issues in the field of education include the rights of HIV-positive students to attend class and of HIV-positive teachers to teach, the confidentiality of HIV records, and how best to teach young people about AIDS A few areas have been settled in court: for example, the right of students to attend classes was of greater concern in the early years of the epidemic and later ceased to be a matter of dispute
Certain students with AIDS may assert their right to public education under the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (EAHCA), but the law is only relevant in cases involving special education programs More commonly, students’ rights are protected by the Rehabilitation Act Perhaps the most important case in this area is Thomas v
Atascadero Unified School District, 662 F Supp
376 (C.D Cal 1986), which illustrates how far such protections go Thomas involved an elementary school student with AIDS who had bitten another youngster in a fight Based on careful review of medical evidence, the U.S
District Court for the Central District of California concluded that biting was not proved
to transmit AIDS, and it ordered the school district to readmit the girl Similarly, schools that excluded teachers with AIDS have been successfully sued on the ground that those teachers pose no threat to their students or others and that their right to work is protected
by the Rehabilitation Act, as in Chalk
Confidentiality relating to HIV is not uniform in schools Some school districts require rather broad dissemination of the information; others keep it strictly private In the mid-1980s the New York City Board of Education adopted a policy that no one in any school would be told the identities of children with AIDS or HIV infection; only a few top administrators outside the school would be informed The policy inspired a lawsuit brought
by a local school district, which argued that the identity of a child was necessary for infection control (District 27 Community School Board v Board of Education, 130 Misc 2d 398, 502 N.Y
rejected the argument on the basis that numer-ous children with HIV infection might be attending school, and instead noted that universal precautions in responding to blood incidents at school would be more effective than the revelation of confidential information Schools play a major role in the effort to educate the public on AIDS Several states have mandated AIDS prevention instruction in their schools But the subject is controversial: It evokes personal, political, and moral reactions
to sexuality Responding to parental sensitivi-ties, some states have authorized excused absences from such programs The New York
controversy over its policy of not allowing absences at parental discretion Furthermore, at the local and the federal levels, some conserva-tives have opposed certain kinds of AIDS education During the 1980s those who often criticized liberal approaches to sex education argued that AIDS materials should not be explicit, encourage sexuality, promote the use
of contraceptives, or favorably portray gays and
amendments to appropriations measures (bills that authorize the spending of federal tax dollars) that mandate that no federal funds
response the CDC adopted regulations that prohibit spending federal funds on AIDS
Trang 8education materials that might be found
offen-sive by some members of certain communities
Despite the controversy, some communities
have taken radical steps to halt the spread of
AIDS In 1991 and 1992 the school boards of
New York City, San Francisco, Seattle, and Los
Angeles voted to make condoms available to
students in their public high-school systems
AIDS and Private Life
Although epidemics are public crises, they begin
with individuals The rights of people who have
AIDS and those who do not are often in
contention and seldom more so than in private
life It is no surprise that people with HIV
continue having sex, nor is it a surprise that this
behavior is, usually, legal Unfortunately, some
do so without knowing they have the virus Even
more unfortunately, others do so in full
knowl-edge that they are HIV-positive but without
informing their partners This dangerous
behav-ior has opened one area of AIDS law that affects
individuals: the legal duty to warn a partner
before engaging in behavior that can transmit the
infection Courts recognized a similar duty long
before AIDS ever appeared, with regard to other
sexually transmitted diseases
A failure to inform in AIDS cases has given
rise to both civil and criminal lawsuits One
such case was brought by Mark Christian, the
lover of actor Rock Hudson, against Hudson’s
estate Christian won his suit on the ground that
Hudson had concealed his condition and
contin-ued their relationship, and the jury returned a
there was no evidence that Christian had been
infected Another case was brought in Oregon in
1991, when criminal charges were filed against
Alberto Gonzalez for knowingly spreading HIV
by having sex with his girlfriend After Gonzalez
felony) and to two charges of recklessly
endan-gering others, he received an unusual sentence:
the court ordered him to abstain from sex for five
months Although such convictions are
increas-ingly common, courts have also recognized that
not knowing one has HIV can be a valid defense
In C A U v R L., 438 N.W.2d 441 (1989), for
example, the Minnesota Court of Appeals
affirmed a trial court’s finding that the plaintiff
could not recover damages from her former
fiancé, who had unknowingly given her the virus
State Legislation and the Courts To stem transmission of HIV, states have adopted several legal measures Two states attempted to head off the virus at the pass: Illinois and Louisiana at one point required HIV blood testing as a
states ultimately repealed these statutes because they were difficult to enforce; couples simply crossed state lines to be married in neighboring states Several states have taken a less stringent approach, requiring only that applicants for a marriage license be informed of the availability—
and advisability—of HIV tests More
common-ly, states criminalize sexual behavior that can spread AIDS Michigan law makes it a felony for an HIV- or AIDS-infected person to engage
in sex without first informing a partner of the infection Florida law provides for the prosecution of any HIV-positive person
victims to demand that their attackers undergo testing Indiana imposes penalties on persons who recklessly or knowingly donate blood or semen with the knowledge that they are HIV-positive
Older state laws have also been applied to AIDS Several states have statutes that make it a criminal offense for a person with a contagious disease—including a sexually transmitted disease—to willfully or knowingly expose
anoth-er panoth-erson to it, and some have amended these laws specifically to include AIDS In addition, in many states, it has long been a crime to
that punishing sodomy can stem HIV transmis-sion was made in a case involving a Missouri sodomy statute specifically limited to homosex-ual conduct In State v Walsh, 713 S.W.2d 508 (1986), the Missouri Supreme Court upheld the statute after finding that it was rationally related
to the state’s legitimate interest in protecting public health Other AIDS-related laws have been invalidated in court challenges: for exam-ple, in 1993 a U.S district judge struck down a
1987 Utah statute that invalidated the marriages
of people with AIDS, ruling that it violated the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act
Sex is only one kind of behavior that has prompted criminal prosecution related to AIDS
Commonly, defendants in AIDS cases have been prosecuted for assault In United States v Moor, 846 F.2d 1163 (8th Cir., 1988), U.S Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit upheld the conviction of an
Trang 9HIV-infected prisoner found guilty of assault with a deadly weapon—his teeth—for biting two prison guards during a struggle Teeth were also the subject
of a trial in Brock v State, 555 So 2d 285 (1989), but the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals refused to regard them as a dangerous weapon In State v
Haines, 545 N.E 2d 834 (2d Dist 1989), the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed a conviction
when police officers and paramedics refused to let him die, he began to spit, bite, scratch, and throw blood
explo-sion of AIDS-related suits This area of law is
Reading, Writing, and AIDS
Teaching young people about AIDS is
an enormously popular idea Since
the late 1980s, Gallup Polls have revealed
that over 90 percent of respondents think
public schools should do so Agreement
ends there, however In the 1990s more
angry debate focused on AIDS education
than on any issue facing schools since
court-ordered busing in the 1970s The
core question of the debate is simple:
What is the best way to equip students to
protect themselves from this fatal
dis-ease? The answers may be miles apart
For one side, “equipping” means
advo-cating the only sure means of protection,
sexual and drug abstinence For the
other, it means supporting abstinence
along with knowledge of sexual practices,
the use of clean drug needles, and the use
of prophylactics (condoms), which are
distributed in some schools Between
these positions lie a great many issues
of disagreement that have bitterly divided
school districts, provoked lawsuits, and
cost high-ranking Washington, D.C.,
officials their jobs
Sex is an old battleground in public
education Liberals and conservatives
argued over it in the decade following
the sexual revolution of the 1960s,
initially over whether sexual issues
should be discussed in schools After
all, earlier generations who went to
public schools learned mainly about
reproductive organs As new classes
began appearing in the late 1970s,
children learned about the sexual choices
people make If liberals appeared to win
the “sex ed.” debate, growing social problems helped: rises in teen pregnan-cies and sexually transmitted diseases secured a place for more explicit school health classes The much greater threat of AIDS pushed state legislatures into action By the mid-1990s AIDS preven-tion classes had been mandated in at least
34 states and recommended in 14 But the appearance of even more explicit teaching has reinvigorated the sex ed
debate
Supporters of a comprehensive ap-proach say AIDS demands frankness
Originating in comprehensive sex ed
theory, their ideas also came from pacesetting health authorities such as formerSURGEON GENERALC Everett Koop
Arguing in the mid-1980s that AIDS classes should be specific and detailed and taught as early as kindergarten, Koop countered conservative arguments by saying, “Those who say ‘I don’t want
my child sexually educated’ are hiding their heads in the sand.” This position holds that educators are obligated to teach kids everything that can stop the spread of the disease.“What is the moral responsibility?” Jerald Newberry, a health coordinator of Virginia schools, asked the Washington Times in 1992 “I think it’s gigantic.” Abstinence is a part
of this approach, but expecting teens to refrain from having sex was considered
by many to be unrealistic given some studies that show that nearly three out
of four high school students have had sex before graduation Thus, the
comprehensive curriculum might well include explaining the proper use of condoms, discussing homosexual prac-tices, describing theSTERILIZATIONof drug needles, and so on
Abstinence-only adherents think be-ing less frank is bebe-ing more responsible They view sexuality as a moral issue properly left for parents to discuss with their children and one that lies beyond the responsibilities of schools The con-servative columnist Cal Thomas spoke for this viewpoint when he argued that parents “have lost a significant right to rear their children according to their own moral standards.” Other objections come from religious conservatives who oppose any neutral or positive discussion
of homosexuality Koop, for example, was blasted for allegedly “sponsoring homosexually oriented curricula” and
“teachingBUGGERY in the 3rd grade.” In addition to voicing moral objections, critics say comprehensive sex ed is generally a failure because it encourages
a false sense of security among teens that leads to experimentation with sex or drugs “We have given children more information presumably because we think it will change their behavior, and yet the behavior has gotten worse, not better,” said Gary Bauer, president of the Family Research Council
Each side accuses the other of deepening the crisis Comprehensive approach supporters think abstinence-only backers are moral censors, indiffer-ent to pragmatic solutions The liberal
Trang 10used to discourage individuals from subjecting
others to unreasonable risks and to compensate
those who have been injured by unreasonably
risky behavior The greatest number of
AIDS-related liability lawsuits has involved the receipt
of HIV-infected blood and blood products
A second group has concerned the sexual
transmission of HIV A third group involves
AIDS-related psychic distress In these cases, plaintiffs have successfully sued and recovered damages for their fear of having contracted HIV
Advances in Treatment Though the search for an AIDS vaccine has occupied many researchers, no significant breakthroughs have appeared However, other researchers have concentrated on ways of controlling AIDS
People for the American Way attacked“a
growing wave of CENSORSHIP ravaging
sexuality education” that promotes only
“narrow” curricula It mocked such
abstinence-only programs as Teen Aid
and Sex Respect, both of which have
broughtTHREATSof legal action from the
Planned Parenthood The conservative
American Enterprise Institute asserted
that liberal programs only prod students
toward bad choices: “There has been a
transition from protection to
prepara-tion.” Neither side can agree on any data,
other than to point out that the problems
of AIDS and teen sexuality have appeared
to worsen
Nowhere are the two sides more split
than on the issue of condoms Schools in
at least 23 cities sought to distribute
condoms during the mid- to late-1990s
The assumption was that since students
will have sex anyway—despite warnings
not to—they had better be protected
Conservatives see this position as a
cop-out in two ways: it sells values short and
it undermines parental authority In
1992, in Washington, D.C., critics
erupted over a decision by the Public
Health Commission to hand out
con-doms in junior and senior high schools
without parental consent William
Brown, president of the D.C Congress
of Parents and Teachers, complained:
“We are looking to build and reinforce
and establish family values where they
have been lost, and here we have an
agency of our government that totally
ignores those things we are working for.”
Dr Mary Ellen Bradshaw, the
commis-sion’s chief, replied: “Our whole focus is
to save the lives of these children,
stressing abstinence as the only sure
way to avoid [AIDS] and making
con-doms available only after intensive
education.” In other cities, upset parents simply sued By 1992,CLASS ACTION law-suits had been brought against school districts in New York City, Seattle, and Falmouth, Massachusetts, arguing that condom distribution violated parents’
right toPRIVACY AIDS education in schools is not merely a local issue While most deci-sions are made by states and school boards the federal government plays two important roles First, it funds AIDS prevention programs: abstinence-based programs receive funding under the Adolescent Family Life Act of 1981, and programs that promote contraceptive use among teenagers are supported through the Family Planning Act of 1970 How these funds are spent is a matter of local control, but conservatives have sought to put limits on program content During the early 1990s, Senator JESSE HELMS
(R-NC) twice tried to ban funding for programs that were perceived to promote homosexuality or that did not continu-ously teach abstinence as the only effective protection against AIDS In response, one federal agency, the Center for Disease Control, adopted regulations that prohibited the use of funds on any materials that are found offensive by some members of communities
The second role of the federal government is largely symbolic but no less controversial It is to guide school efforts through advice, sponsorship, and public speeches, and primarily involves the offices of the surgeon general and of the federal AIDS policy coordinator
Koop, who was a Reagan appointee, roused a fair degree of controversy, yet
it was nothing compared to the upheaval that greeted statements by appointees of the Clinton administration AIDS policy
czar Kristine Gebbie and surgeon general
M Joycelyn Elders were forced from their posts after making statements that conservatives found appalling—Gebbie promoting attitudes toward pleasurable sex and Elders indicating a willingness to have schools talk about masturbation Thereafter, the administration frequently stressed abstinence as its top priority for school AIDS programs
Problems surrounding AIDS educa-tion are unlikely to go away Communi-ties frequently disagree on sex education itself, and compromise is often difficult
on such a divisive issue of values As the experience of the Clinton administration suggested, Washington, D.C., could
easi-ly exacerbate an already contentious area, with policy coordinators becoming lightning rods for criticism On the matter of what to say to kids about AIDS, poll data have been misleading U.S citizens are of three minds: say a lot, say a little, and do not say what the other side thinks
FURTHER READINGS Kelly, Pat 1998 Coping When Your Friend Is HIV-Positive New York: Rosen Publish-ing Group.
National Commission on Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome 1993 National Commission on AIDS: An Expanding Tragedy: The Final Report of the National Commission on AIDS Washington, D.C.: National Commission on Acquired Im-mune Deficiency Syndrome.
World Health Organization 1989 Legislative Responses to AIDS Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
CROSS REFERENCES Civil Rights Acts; Schools and School Districts.