“Defeating HIV/AIDS once and for all will require an unprecedented investment over generations. But it is an investment that yields the best possible return: saved lives.”

US President George Bush, July 2008

In July of 2008, US President George Bush signed into law HR 5501, the Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Reauthorization Act of 2008.

PEPFAR, President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, a pilot program of HR 5501, was started in 2003 under the Bush administration. It was the largest program undertaken by any nation to combat one single disease, HIV/AIDS.

HR 5501 will increase funding for PEPFAR and also put money towards fighting Tuberculosis and Malaria. The main focus of PEPFAR and HR 5501 is the continent of Africa.

Combat and fighting, against diseases. Some ask what the US does for Africa. I ask would they rather fight this way or with bombs in Darfur?

It seems some "experts" (what would we do without experts?) believe the key to success of PEPFAR is prevention of new cases of HIV/AIDS. Once again the topic of "sex education" seems to come up with a major disagreement about the focus of such education.

According to Norman Hearst, a professor at the University of California-San Francisco School of Medicine, a problem with current education about HIV/AIDS prevention is that if concentrates on "condom use." Hearst is of the opinion that encouraging married men to be faithful to their wives and delaying the onset of sexual intercourse would be more effective at stopping the spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa.

His reasoning is that current programs are designed by "Western consultants" who see condom use as being of necessary preeminence. But according to Hearst, this is faulty thinking explaining that emphasis on condoms alone isn't very effective in areas where HIV is "generalized." In Hearst's words, "It's easier to change sexual behavior than getting the people to use an imported sexual device all of the time."

I suggest fidelity and delaying onset of sexual activity for those who can, and condom use for those who can't.

Win-win.

Indeed! All avenues should be approached if the scourge of AIDS is going to be removed from the sub-continent.

Let me go one step further, however, and suggest that if given their way, the so-called right to life supporters would keep condoms out of the picture.

Apparently they aren't in charge, so no harm no foul, but Prof Hearst seems to be wanting to head them in that direction.