AIDS Pushed as National Political Issue : Some Incumbents Attacked as Condoning Capital Insurance Law

The radio spot, broadcast recently over a Christian station, attacks the incumbent Democratic congressman for supporting breaks for “high-risk homosexuals” in voting against a Capitol Hill move to overturn the District of Columbia’s new AIDS insurance law. His Republican opponent, the announcer intones, “opposes this ridiculous law” and “supports the American family.”

The district law, effective last month, forbids denial of coverage to people who test positive for exposure to the AIDS virus and prohibits charging such people higher premiums for five years--until the reliability of the tests is demonstrated and risk can be assessed.

The radio campaign spot, however, is not airing in the District of Columbia, but in Greenville, N. C.--more than 200 miles from the nation’s capital, where 20-year House veteran Walter B. Jones is being challenged by Republican real estate developer Howard Moye. In Greenville, where, historically, the issues have revolved around farming and tobacco, Moye is trying to introduce something new: AIDS.

Nationwide Campaign Push

His is not the only campaign to do so. Similar ads are beginning to surface in other races around the country, as conservative groups press a national effort to use the District of Columbia law against incumbent Democrats.

“We don’t think AIDS should have civil rights,” says Larry Pratt, founder of the Committee to Protect the Family, a Virginia-based group that has been encouraging right-wing congressional candidates to use the capital AIDS insurance issue against their opponents.

“The law is a dangerous and outrageous precedent for other wacko legislators to follow,” Pratt said. He added that lawmakers who support it should be “held accountable for voting to support homosexual privileges.”

Homosexual rights groups, however, are not worried about this latest assault.

“In the past, whenever there has been gay-baiting in an election campaign, it has been universally unsuccessful,” said Jeff Levi, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

Insurance Image Cited

“Most people outside Washington don’t care about meddling in the internal affairs of the district,” Levi added. “Also, the insurance issue, more than any other, is harder to present--because the insurance industry is not the most popular industry at the moment. When is the last time you heard anyone say anything nice about the insurance industry?”

Nevertheless, the controversial law--similar to one already in effect in California--was vigorously opposed by life and medical insurance carriers and conservative political groups led by the Christian lobby Moral Majority.

Even after it was approved by the district City Council, the regulation’s opponents refused to give up. California’s Rep. William E. Dannemeyer (R-Fullerton) and Sen. Jesse Helms (R.-N.C.) immediately sought to use the power of congressional review over district affairs to overturn the ordinance.

In July, the House, in a party-line vote on a procedural motion, blocked an effort to bring the issue before the chamber for a vote. In August, however, the Senate voted 53 to 41 to void the district law and attached its repeal to the debt ceiling bill, which must now go to House-Senate conference. Many who opposed the Dannemeyer-Helms resolution said they did so because it was a matter of district home rule.

Memo Sent to Candidates

In the meantime, the Committee to Protect the Family dispatched memos to conservative congressional candidates across the country, urging them to get as much campaign mileage as possible from the capital AIDS controversy.

”. . . . The U.S. congressman you are running against voted to legitimize the homosexual life style and raise insurance rates for poor and average-income families in order to pay a financial bonus to AIDS virus carriers who are typically single male homosexuals,” Pratt recently wrote the political opponents of “all those who voted wrong.”

Pratt said he expects the issue to be used in about a dozen campaigns, including races in California, Maryland, New York, Indiana, Virginia, Massachusetts and South Carolina.

In North Carolina, Moye has pressed his attack on Jones, saying: “There’s no way we can sanction homosexual life styles.”

Jones, a conservative Democrat who chairs the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, has ignored Moye’s charges.

New York, Maryland Debates

“He went with the party on this one,” said Nancy Fish, Jones’ press secretary. “The House leadership normally votes in a block. This issue isn’t going to make much difference in our district.”

The district AIDS insurance law also has sparked debate between Reps. Roy Dyson (D-Md.) and Matthew F. McHugh (D-N.Y.), and their Republican challengers.

Dyson’s opponent, Republican Harley Williams, said it was “outrageous” of Dyson to “penalize everyone in the District of Columbia who wishes to buy life insurance just to protect a small minority of persons. . . .”

McHugh’s GOP opponent, Mark R. Masterson, accused McHugh of voting “to support the homosexual pressure groups and raise insurance rates for poor and average families. . . . “

Levi, of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, said that gay activists probably will use the issue themselves against candidates who supported the override attempt. He cited California’s Rep. Ed Zschau (R-Los Altos), who is running for the U.S. Senate against an incumbent Democrat, Sen. Alan Cranston. Zschau opposed the procedural motion that kept the issue from coming to a vote in the House.

Zschau Under Fire

“Zschau has been trying to present himself as someone good on gay rights, although conservative on other issues,” Levi said. “He has been making a very strong appeal for the gay vote--but this vote has demonstrated he is not willing to stand up to the far right on issues critical to the gay community.”

Jim LeMunyon, Zschau’s campaign spokesman, said that Zschau generally “opposes all motions to cut off debate, regardless of what the issue is.”

Had the issue come to a House vote, LeMunyon added, “I think he would have opposed the Dannemeyer amendment.”