Dannemeyer Measure Ties U.S. Funds to AIDS Reports

In a move condemned by homosexual activists, Rep. William E. Dannemeyer (R-Fullerton) introduced legislation Thursday that would bar federal funds to states that do not require clinics and doctors to confidentially report to public health officials the names of patients who test positive for the virus that causes AIDS.

The measure, similar to a defeated California ballot initiative that Dannemeyer sponsored last year, would also bar distribution of federal public health funds to states that do not require tracing of sexual partners of those found to be infected with the human immunodeficiency virus, known as HIV.

The legislation faces tough sledding in the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on health and the environment, which is headed by Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles). Several congressional aides said Thursday that they expect no major AIDS legislation to emerge from Congress at least until next year, and the prospects even then are uncertain because there is no consensus on what such a bill should include.

At a Capitol press conference, Dannemeyer asserted: “What we are proposing . . . in this act is nothing more than the procedure our society has traditionally followed through our history to control a communicable disease.

“Unfortunately for all of us, we have set aside this traditional response, the cornerstone of which is reportability (of infected patients) to public health (officials) in confidence, and contact-tracing to control this epidemic in America.”

To support his view, Dannemeyer presented six physicians who represent medical organizations that advocate mandatory, confidential reporting. Also expressing support were an official of the Congress of Racial Equality, a black civil-rights group, and three other Republican congressmen--Dan Burton of Indiana, Thomas J. Bliley Jr. of Virginia and Norman F. Lent of New York. Lent is the ranking minority member on the Energy and Commerce Committee and also serves on the health subcommittee with Dannemeyer and Bliley.

However, the executive director of the nation’s oldest homosexual rights organization immediately condemned Dannemeyer’s plan, and Orange County’s AIDS coordinator expressed serious reservations.

“These individuals and organizations are promoting a particular ideological agenda in the false guise of protecting public health,” said Thomas B. Stoddard, executive director of the New York-based Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund.

Measures Called Intimidating

“Mandatory measures frighten and intimidate populations that need to be encouraged to come forward for help, treatment and information,” he added. “This isn’t the subjective opinion of Tom Stoddard, this is the nearly universal view of the public health community in the United States. I would point out that doctors are not (necessarily) public health experts.”

Penny Weismuller, Orange County’s AIDS coordinator, said: “At this point, I believe . . . that (Dannemeyer’s bill) would be a hindrance to us because there will be many people who will avoid care and treatment until very late in their illness. . . .

“To the extent that mandatory confidential reporting and the fear of discrimination . . . keep people from voluntarily entering the (health care) system early, it will adversely affect our ability to control the epidemic.”

In addition to mandating reporting and tracing procedures, Dannemeyer’s bill would also require states receiving federal public health funds to:

* Impose civil and criminal penalties for those who knowingly transmit HIV through sexual contact, the sharing of hypodermic needles, or the donation of blood, semen, breast milk or a body organ.

* Institute routine, voluntary testing for HIV at hospitals for couples seeking marriage licenses and at clinics for family planning, drug abuse, sexually transmitted diseases and tuberculosis.

* Implement mandatory HIV testing for convicts sentenced to state prison.

At the federal level, the legislation would require the secretary of health and human services to treat HIV infection as a communicable or sexually transmitted disease for the purposes of federal law.