Offer to Speak at AIDS Meeting Revoked Over ‘Politics,’ Doctor Says

A USC obstetrics and gynecology professor, who once worked for the federal Centers for Disease Control in abortion surveillance, says that the CDC has withdrawn its invitation for him to speak at a two-day Atlanta meeting beginning Tuesday to debate several intensely disputed proposals to expand AIDS antibody testing. He blamed “politics.”

Dr. David Grimes, who left the CDC about a year ago, told The Times that he thinks his invitation was rescinded because he believes the option of abortion should be “explicitly explained” to all pregnant women infected with the AIDS virus. The topic of abortion, he said, “doesn’t sit well with members of this Administration.”

He added: “Since I have not been advised of any substantive reasons for the withdrawal of my invitation to speak, I must assume that this decision was politically motivated.”

‘Too Recently From CDC’

Dr. Walter Dowdle, the director of AIDS programs for the CDC, said Grimes’ invitation was withdrawn because “he is too recently from CDC” and that “we’ve been constantly changing the program.” But other CDC officials acknowledged privately that Grimes was bumped because his association with abortion is “too controversial.”

Federal health officials have initiated public debate on a series of proposals that would widen mandatory use of a blood test that determines whether an individual has been exposed to the virus that causes AIDS, not whether he or she will contract the deadly disease. Among other things, the CDC has suggested that the test be routinely administered at all hospital admissions, to couples applying for marriage licenses and women treated for pregnancy. It would be up to state public health departments, however, rather than the federal government to implement such measures.

Meanwhile, a member of the prestigious Institute of Medicine panel on AIDS has criticized the testing proposals in a letter sent several days ago to Dr. James O. Mason, director of the CDC. Dr. June Osborn, dean of the University of Michigan School of Public Health, said that she “could see no rationale beyond convenience” for mandatory testing of the suggested additional population groups.

“The mass screening of such unlikely groups is not merely costly and off the mark, for the implication is sure to be drawn that we are truly worried about these groups,” she wrote. “The inference drawn by the public is likely to be that our reassuring messages about non-transmissibility are a ‘cover-up’ for ignorance and that, indeed, if we are screening . . . indiscriminately, we must be worried about much more general spread than we are saying.”

‘Looking for Lost Object’

Further, she said, “as to premarital screening, I believe that policy bears some relation to the rationale of looking for a lost object under a lamp post because that is where the light is.”

The test, which is now required of all military personnel, State Department families going abroad and applicants to the Labor Department’s Job Corps program, has been the focus of criticism since it was introduced in 1985 to screen the nation’s blood supply. Since then, there has been growing recognition of the procedure as a diagnostic tool to determine whether an individual is infected and infectious to others. However, there is no medical treatment for infection.

Many medical personnel, gay rights and civil liberties groups have feared that test result information--unless kept anonymous or strictly confidential--would attach a stigma to those who test positive and would be used to discriminate in such areas as employment and life and medical insurance.

In fact, many insurance companies already have asserted their right to require applicants for coverage to undergo the test, and the Justice Department has ruled that federally financed employers who fire people with AIDS based on fear of contagion cannot be challenged under U.S. civil rights laws protecting the handicapped.

Refused to Approve Article

Grimes, of the USC School of Medicine, said he spent nine years at the CDC, with much of his work on abortion surveillance in the family planning evaluation division. He said he resigned from the CDC a year ago after the agency refused to approve an article he wrote on contraception for the Journal of the American Medical Assn.

“The word ‘abortion’ was mentioned twice in a 5,000-word article,” he said. “That made up my mind--I started looking for another job.”

Grimes said he was invited by the CDC last month to attend this week’s meeting and present a paper on perinatal transmission of AIDS, that is, from an infected woman to her fetus. On Jan. 31, he said, his invitation was revoked.

“I was told Dr. Mason viewed me as too high risk,” he said.

Grimes said his talk would have reviewed existing data on the risk of AIDS transmission in pregnancy, which is estimated to be from 30% to 50%. “Then I would have described the options for pregnant women, and I would have said that they should be explicitly explained--including abortion,” he said.

‘Ethical Obligation’

He added: “We just can’t sweep it under the rug--we have to be forthright. We have an ethical and medical obligation to do so.”

AIDS, or acquired immune deficiency syndrome, is caused by a virus that destroys the body’s immune system, leaving it powerless against certain cancers and otherwise rare infections. It can also invade the central nervous system, causing severe neurological disorders. It is commonly transmitted through anal and vaginal sexual intercourse, through the sharing of unsterilized hypodermic needles and by woman to fetus during pregnancy.

In this country, AIDS has primarily afflicted homosexual and bisexual men, intravenous drug users and their sexual partners.