Dannemeyer Hits Back at Critic of His AIDS Policies

California Rep. William E. Dannemeyer (R-Fullerton), stung by a personal attack on his AIDS policy positions by Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), struck back Thursday, labeling Frank’s views “misguided” and criticizing Frank’s “civil rights approach” to controlling the epidemic as a “tragedy for America.”

“It started with Cain slaying Abel,” Dannemeyer wrote in a “Dear Colleague” letter, which goes to every member of the House. “It was perfected by Nicolo Machiavelli. It remains a central tactic today of radical politics. And its volumes of case studies have been added to most recently by our good friend and colleague Barney Frank.

“The tactic is to shoot the messenger and avoid dealing with the merits of the message,” Dannemeyer wrote.

After receiving a “Dear Colleague” letter from Frank last week, a spokesman for Dannemeyer had said that the congressman would not respond publicly.

Frank, noting that Dannemeyer had since changed his mind, said: “He must have been disturbed at the reaction to my letter.”

Unusual Action

In a highly unusual action, Frank had used the vehicle of a “Dear Colleague” letter--traditionally circulated to generate support for or opposition to legislation--to criticize Dannemeyer for consistently fighting AIDS proposals advocated by public health experts and for arguing that health officials and House members are “out of touch” with the thinking of the American people on the subject.

Frank pointed out that the recent California initiative dealing with acquired immune deficiency syndrome, which Dannemeyer sponsored, was overwhelmingly defeated.

In his own letter, Dannemeyer acknowledged that Proposition 102 was “indeed defeated” but maintained that most of its provisions “were passed separately by the California state Legislature . . . as a result of the political pressure created by the initiative.”

Proposition 102 would have required physicians to disclose the names of individuals suspected of being or known to be infected with the AIDS virus. It would also have required that sexual partners of people infected with the AIDS virus be traced and notified and would have repealed laws barring insurance companies and employers from making use of AIDS test results. It was almost universally opposed by the public health community.

Although some provisions of the initiative were approved by legislators, the critical section--requiring physicians to report the names of infected individuals--was not.

“During the campaign, Rep. Dannemeyer denied that the Legislature’s actions made passage of Proposition 102 unnecessary,” said Larry Bush, an assistant to San Francisco Mayor Art Agnos.

Dannemeyer said in his letter that he would continue to push for a public policy that requires disclosing the names of individuals infected with the AIDS virus.

“Let me suggest to my colleagues that the AIDS policies advocated by Mr. Frank are those that are increasingly recognized as misguided by Americans,” he wrote. “ . . . Perhaps future debate in the House will allow the merit of a proposal to be fully debated without the rancor of partisan personal attacks.”

Dannemeyer has also opposed legislation that would protect AIDS patients and those infected with the virus from discrimination and from violations of confidentiality regarding their test results.

In his letter, Dannemeyer submitted a list of 15 questions that he said “must be answered by proponents of anti-discrimination laws for carriers of (AIDS).”

For example, Dannemeyer wrote: “How can the operator of a blood bank refuse the offered blood of someone who is (infected with AIDS) when such a person would be able to claim that refusal to take the blood is an act of discrimination?”

Frank said that such questions demonstrate that Dannemeyer “doesn’t understand the anti-discriminations laws. They do not require you to hire a blind person to judge an art contest or put somebody in a wheelchair on a track team. You treat people differently only in areas where the difference is relevant.”