Pro-Life Dispute Leaves Program for HIV/AIDS Patients in Peril

The President’s Emergency Plan for Aids Relief (PEPFAR) Faces Political Battle

The President’s Emergency Plan for Aids Relief, or PEPFAR, has been a uniquely successful bipartisan effort, saving 25 million lives globally from HIV/AIDS since it was put into place 20 years ago. Congress and the White House have reauthorized it every five years, under different parties. It has been credited with sparing entire countries from demise.

Political Brawl Threatens PEPFAR Renewal

Now it is in danger of succumbing to a political brawl.

The program must be renewed this fall. But domestic pro-life organizations, including Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America and The Heritage Foundation’s action arm, Heritage Action, have said a vote in favor of PEPFAR’s five-year reauthorization would be a mark against a lawmaker in their scorecards for elected leaders. The Family Research Council told CT it will also score the vote.

The groups argue that the Biden administration is trying to use the program to fund the promotion and provision of abortions. Family Research Council’s vice president for policy and government affairs Travis Weber told CT that PEPFAR was “being used as a massive slush fund for abortion and LGBT advocacy.”

Pro-lifers working to combat HIV/AIDS overseas say that is not the case and have been surprised by the domestic pro-life opposition. Funding or promoting abortion through PEPFAR would be against US law. Abortion is also illegal or highly restricted in most countries with PEPFAR-funded programs, almost all of which are in Africa.

Pro-Life Concerns and Scorecards

Pro-life organizations regularly score lawmakers’ votes on particular pieces of legislation as a way of assessing commitment to pro-life causes. Deeming a vote for a given measure as negative tends to scotch Republican votes for it.

“A five-year reauthorization to us is beyond the pale,” Ryan Walker, the head of Heritage Action, told CT. PEPFAR grantees are “promoting and helping to support abortions abroad,” Walker said.

Without adequate Republican votes, congressional sources said that an amendment that would have extended PEPFAR’s authorization another five years is now dead in the water. Negotiations are ongoing, but PEPFAR advocates used words in interviews like “pessimistic” and “not optimistic.”

One-Year Extension vs. Five-Year Reauthorization

Pro-life critics of PEPFAR say that funding should instead be extended by only one year. But those who have long worked on PEPFAR argue that such a move would result in the program’s death by a thousand cuts, subjecting it to the whims of the annual appropriations process and making it an easy target to trade away for other priorities. Every aspect of PEPFAR would be up for negotiation, they say, year after year.

For decades, PEPFAR’s predictable reauthorization cycle has helped keep certain boundaries in place: controls on where US funds are directed, conscience provisions, and auditing requirements—all of which prevent the program from underwriting abortions. Appropriators could include the existing parameters, but the program would be more exposed to a political process. PEPFAR advocates also say health systems can’t function with a one-year window but need more lead time for building and operating programs.

PEPFAR’s Impact and Support

Launched by President George W. Bush in 2003, PEPFAR aims at delivering antiretroviral (ARV) drugs to people with HIV/AIDS and preventing further transmission. It has resulted in a dramatic increase in life expectancy in Africa. Absent a cure for the disease, people on ARVs generally must remain on the drugs the rest of their lives. The United States currently provides treatment for 20 million people, mostly in Africa, through the program.

PEPFAR has long had pro-life support from Catholics and Protestants, including from African faith-based health providers. But debates about terms like “family planning” and “reproductive health” in language around PEPFAR have always been sticking points.

They appear to be especially sticky now. Some pro-life groups reacted strongly to a recent PEPFAR document that said the program would integrate “sexual reproductive health” into efforts to build up local health systems for HIV/AIDS treatment.

This week, the Biden administration added a footnote in the document to clarify that reproductive health under PEPFAR meant only “HIV prevention, testing, and treatment services,” “education, testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections,” cancer screening and treatment, and “gender-based violence prevention and care.”

The document states that PEPFAR “does not under any circumstances provide support for abortion services.”

That has not satisfied groups like Heritage or Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America.

Field Experience and Rumors

The abortion criticisms are coming from people who don’t have “field experience,” said Doug Fountain, the executive director of Christian Connections for International Health, a group that has supported local organizations fighting HIV/AIDS throughout Africa for decades and does not directly receive PEPFAR funding. Fountain said he has never seen promotion or provision of abortion in PEPFAR-funded projects. “If there was a concern, the faith communities in the implementing countries would have complained.”

“The way we look at it is, which is the more pro-life

SDGs, Targets, and Indicators Analysis

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being
• SDG 5: Gender Equality
• SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

The article primarily focuses on the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) and its potential reauthorization. PEPFAR aims to address the global HIV/AIDS epidemic, which is directly related to SDG 3 – Good Health and Well-being. The article also touches on the integration of “sexual reproductive health” into PEPFAR efforts, which relates to SDG 5 – Gender Equality. Additionally, the bipartisan nature of PEPFAR and the involvement of various organizations highlight the importance of partnerships for achieving the SDGs, specifically SDG 17 – Partnerships for the Goals.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

• Target 3.3: By 2030, end the epidemics of AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, and neglected tropical diseases and combat hepatitis, water-borne diseases, and other communicable diseases.
• Target 5.6: Ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights as agreed in accordance with the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development and the Beijing Platform for Action and the outcome documents of their review conferences.
• Target 17.16: Enhance the global partnership for sustainable development, complemented by multi-stakeholder partnerships that mobilize and share knowledge, expertise, technology, and financial resources, to support the achievement of the sustainable development goals in all countries, in particular developing countries.

The article highlights the importance of PEPFAR in combating HIV/AIDS, which aligns with Target 3.3 of SDG 3. It also discusses the integration of “sexual reproductive health” into PEPFAR efforts, which relates to Target 5.6 of SDG 5. Furthermore, the involvement of various organizations and the need for bipartisan support reflect the importance of partnerships, corresponding to Target 17.16 of SDG 17.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Indicator 3.3.1: Number of new HIV infections per 1,000 uninfected population, by sex, age, and key populations.
• Indicator 5.6.1: Proportion of women aged 15-49 years who make their own informed decisions regarding sexual relations, contraceptive use, and reproductive health care.
• Indicator 17.16.1: Number of countries reporting progress in multi-stakeholder development effectiveness monitoring frameworks that support the achievement of the sustainable development goals.

The article does not explicitly mention specific indicators related to the identified targets. However, to measure progress towards Target 3.3 of SDG 3, the indicator 3.3.1 can be used to track the number of new HIV infections. For Target 5.6 of SDG 5, the indicator 5.6.1 can be used to assess the proportion of women making informed decisions regarding reproductive health. Regarding Target 17.16 of SDG 17, the indicator 17.16.1 can be used to monitor the number of countries reporting progress in multi-stakeholder development effectiveness monitoring frameworks.

Table: SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Behold! This splendid article springs forth from the wellspring of knowledge, shaped by a wondrous proprietary AI technology that delved into a vast ocean of data, illuminating the path towards the Sustainable Development Goals. Remember that all rights are reserved by SDG Investors LLC, empowering us to champion progress together.

Source: christianitytoday.com

Join us, as fellow seekers of change, on a transformative journey at https://sdgtalks.ai/welcome, where you can become a member and actively contribute to shaping a brighter future.