This past Tuesday, Ms. Sandy Thurman gave a presentation that included a brief history of AIDS, an explanation of PEPFAR, and a discussion on the relationship between the government and pandemics. A message that Ms. Thurman continuously shared in her conversation was about the importance of collaboration—she mentioned that not everyone will always agree, but the best initiatives will leverage people’s passions. For example, when the Clinton administration wanted to raise money for Africa as individuals were suffering from AIDS, a conservative Senator from North Carolina, Jesse Helms, did not want to support the initiative as he did not want to endorse homosexuality tacitly. Therefore, the Clinton administration decided to make an announcement about AIDS and how the disease affects numerous resilient children in Africa. Senator Helms, who was vital in financing programs, loved helping kids—Ms. Thurman and her team knew that the Senator would provide his support to provide hope for the children in Africa.
A federal court judge recently ruled in Braidwood Management v. Becerra that an Affordable Care Act mandate that requires employers on most health insurance plans to provide HIV PrEP is unconstitutional as it violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (Gonzalez 2022). The plaintiffs were two Christian-owned businesses and six individuals (Gonzalez 2022). Regardless of one’s views on the LGBTQ+ community and the judicial approaches used in the decision, the ramifications of this case can be significant. HIV PrEP, a preventative measure recommended especially for men who have sex with men as they are at a heightened risk of contracting HIV, has a high efficacy rate and helps limit the spread of HIV (Gonzalez 2022). HIV PrEP has been noted to lower the likelihood (by up to 98%!) of people initially testing negative for HIV and later suffering from the virus (International Association of Providers of AIDS Care [IAPAC] 2022). This decision can be a significant roadblock to the United States’ goal of lowering the amount of new HIV infections by 75% in the next three years (IAPAC 2022).
Given what Ms. Thurman shared in class, I wonder if the Department of Health and Human Services can, if not already being done, provide information on how older adults, for example, are also at risk of contracting HIV in a supplemental briefing that needs to be filed—perhaps such details can sway the judge’s opinion before a final decision must be made on whether HIV PrEP violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (Human Rights Campaign 2017 and Gonzalez 2022). What do you all think?
I think you last suggestion about the Department of Health and Human Services providing information for older adults on HIV could help in making legal decisions. To revisit Thurman’s talk, I think it would be helpful to have a “messenger” in this case. Ms. Thurman talked about the importance of making the impersonal (ie a virus) seem personal (ie an individual who is affected by that virus). When we humanize illness, we open a doorway to empathy. Empathetic individuals are more likely to truly understand the experiences of others and formulate a solution that can help those who are infected.
Great post Sreyas. Say more about your idea about older people? Do you mean to say that more and more older folks (of all sexual orientations) are having sex unprotected (maybe because they are no longer able to get pregnant) and are therefore at higher risk to contract HIV/AIDS and that offering them PrEP would protect them as a population and by foregrounding them instead of men who have sex with men, one could argue that PrEp is not just for gay folks?