AIDS: the Meaning of 102

The overwhelming opposition of California voters to Proposition 102 was in effect a strong endorsement of the current state program to contain the pandemic of acquired immune deficiency syndrome--AIDS. That recognition is most welcome, a testimonial to the wisdom of the voters faced with a campaign and an initiative that could easily have led to confusion. The challenge of this extreme initiative, like two earlier challenges of extreme initiatives drawn by Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr., at least served to bring together the public-health leadership and most of the state’s community leaders.

There remains a troubling aftereffect, however. In supporting the proposition, Gov. George Deukmejian rejected the advice of his own key public health professionals, of the California AIDS Leadership Committee--which includes some of the most distinguished experts on AIDS--and of most health-care providers deeply involved with the disease. As his post-election press conference revealed, he chose instead to accept the counsel of Rep. William E. Dannemeyer (R-Fullerton), of Paul Gann--the tax-revolt leader--and of a group of doctors who disagree with the mainstream medical approach to the disease. For many of them, AIDS remains an ideological question related to their hostility to the homosexuals and intravenous drug users who make up the majority of AIDS cases. They have argued, and now the governor argues, that the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) that causes AIDS “doesn’t have any civil rights.” Of course that is true. But in saying it the governor is only perpetuating a falsehood, contrived first by homophobes, that existing public-health programs are more concerned with protecting those infected with HIV than with protecting the public. In fact, the public health strategies, including anonymous test centers, are creatures of necessity and pragmatism--the only proven methods of protecting the public by reaching the highest-risk populations. The governor earlier betrayed substantial ignorance of the problem by vetoing legislation designed to protect those testing positive with HIV from discrimination--a protection also endorsed by most public-health professionals, the California Medical Assn. and the Presidential Commission on the Human Immunodeficiency Virus Epidemic.

So long as the governor harbors those misconceptions, there is the possibility that the state’s efforts will be compromised. But, as he made clear at his press conference, he remains committed to a strong program. Under his governorship, California has taken the lead nationally in providing funds for AIDS treatment, testing and research. The Department of Health Services, under the direction of Dr. Kenneth W. Kizer, has moved ahead aggressively with efforts to involve each community in appropriate planning. The State AIDS Leadership Committee offers the governor one of the best resources in the nation for expert advice.

Progress has been made, particularly in reducing new infections in the homosexual community. Enormous challenges remain, particularly in slowing the spread of the virus in the Latino and black communities, which are suffering disproportionate rates of infection, and among intravenous drug users, who pose a particular threat of HIV transmission to heterosexuals. Preliminary studies indicate that effective programs to reach minorities and drug users will require the use of explicit educational materials and the distribution of condoms and bleach for sterilizing needles--programs that already have drawn the censure of some.

With the defeat of Proposition 102, which would have diverted tens of millions of dollars to programs of dubious value, the state at least is assured of more money for the priority programs. Many of those programs have been identified by the experts. Their success will depend, however, on the willingness of political leaders to take the advice of the experts in the same way that the voters wisely did in rejecting this initiative.