Reagan Rejects Federal AIDS Anti-Bias Law

President Reagan, putting off judgment on the central recommendation of the presidential AIDS commission, decided Tuesday not to endorse an expansion of federal anti-discrimination laws to offer greater protection to those afflicted by the deadly disease.

Reagan, issuing his formal response to the commission’s strategy for combatting the AIDS epidemic, announced that he will delay any decision on the sensitive anti-discrimination issue until the attorney general can study its full legal implications.

In explaining Reagan’s response, Dr. Donald Ian Macdonald, Reagan’s drug policy adviser, who crafted the statement, said the President sought to balance the need for compassion and care for AIDS sufferers against “an unwillingness to reward the behaviors that cause (the spread of) the infection.”

Reagan’s response caused an immediate outcry from medical experts, civil libertarians, gay activists and AIDS commission members, who warned that discrimination poses the single greatest obstacle in fighting a disease that may afflict 365,000 Americans within five years.

“This essentially amounts to a plan of inaction. The White House has really squandered its last opportunity to establish its leadership on AIDS,” said Nan Hunter, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s AIDS project.

Said Kristine Gebbie, a disappointed member of the AIDS commission: “A lot of people in this country are just hoping that AIDS will quietly go away, and I’m afraid President Reagan is one of them.”

Reagan’s response encompassed a majority of the 597 recommendations that the commission forwarded to him last month after its nearly yearlong study of the AIDS crisis.

In a strategy that Reagan said could help combat AIDS’ “alarming speed and frightening consequences,” the President ordered federal agencies to prevent discrimination against those with AIDS in the federal work force, and he called on schools, businesses, labor unions and other groups to do likewise--on their own, without a federal mandate.

The President, in a statement scant on specifics, pushed for more effective screening of blood supplies and improved laboratory operations; directed further study of the epidemic’s impact on health care financing; urged accelerated development of AIDS drugs and vaccines; and emphasized anti-drug abuse programs as a critical tool in fighting the spread of the disease.

Plans Further Study

Although he embraced many of the commission’s less controversial ideas, Reagan deferred for more study several major proposals, including recommendations for changes in health care financing, methods of protecting patients’ rights of confidentiality and government management of health issues.

He rejected outright one proposal--to expand the National Health Service Corps to provide more AIDS services in neglected communities.

“It was in the implementation plans themselves that we perhaps differ (with the AIDS commission)--not in terms of the goal, but in how best to get there,” Macdonald said in news media briefings on the response. “Discrimination is one of those issues.”

The AIDS crisis has hit particularly hard at homosexual men and intravenous drug users. Some conservative lawmakers and White House officials have fought strenuously against any anti-discrimination legislation as a “hidden gay rights” bill.

White House spokesman Marlin Fitzwater said at a press briefing that the President’s refusal to endorse anti-discrimination legislation was based on pragmatic, rather than philosophical, concerns.

Ironing Out Legal Points

“There still are a number of legal points . . . to be ironed out” in a Justice Department review before it can be determined whether such action would be appropriate, Fitzwater said.

But Macdonald went further--asserting that there may be no need for a federal law to ban discrimination against those with AIDS.

“Thirty-six states now have passed anti-discrimination laws that protect exactly the things we’re talking about. In the three biggest AIDS cities in the country--New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco--discrimination is not a problem,” Macdonald said, an assertion disputed by advocates for legal protections.

Even without taking a position on anti-discrimination laws, “the President clearly puts himself out front in (urging) compassionate, fair treatment of people who are infected,” Macdonald said. He described the President’s stance against AIDS discrimination within the executive branch as “very strong, the strongest he’s made.”

Panel Head ‘Depressed’

In a brief statement that did not mention anti-discrimination laws, Adm. James D. Watkins, who headed the presidential AIDS commission, praised “this important first step.” He was unavailable for further comment, but sources described him as angered and “a little depressed” by Reagan’s refusal to embrace an anti-discrimination law.

Commission member Gebbie, the public health administrator in Oregon, said in an interview that she was deeply disappointed by Reagan’s response. “The discussion of discrimination is weak, and the whole thing just lacks the energy, the vigor, that this epidemic demands,” she said.

But Dr. William Walsh, a Reagan supporter on the AIDS commission, said, “Any criticism of (the response) is uncalled for. To get into the anti-discrimination legislation at this time might open a Pandora’s box and set back AIDS discrimination considerably. . . . He gave a considered and measured response which I think overall was very good.”

Hunter of the ACLU said the lack of a full presidential endorsement “means that many people in this country will suffer discrimination needlessly, with no medical justification whatsoever. And many people now won’t come forward for testing or treatment for fear of the social repercussions.”

Missed Opportunity

Echoing criticisms expressed by many active in the gay community, Jeffrey Levi, president of the Gay and Lesbian Task Force, said that Reagan “has adopted a business-as-usual attitude . . . (and) has missed an opportunity to overcome eight years of neglect” in fighting AIDS.

Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles), chairman of a House subcommittee on health, accused the Administration of “stalling” and said: “We don’t need another study.”