Today's Date: Add To Favorites
ACLU - Remove Restrictions on Global AIDS Funding
Health Care | 2006/11/14
WASHINGTON -(ACLU)- The American Civil Liberties Union and 26 public health experts, human rights and HIV/AIDS organizations are urging a federal appeals court to reject a government policy that restricts the ability of U.S. groups to end the spread of HIV/AIDS in other countries.

The policy, part of the "AIDS Leadership Act," requires organizations that receive U.S. federal funding - regardless of their mission - to explicitly pledge to oppose commercial sex work. Two federal courts have ruled in separate cases that the policy violates the First Amendment rights of U.S. organizations, but the government is appealing those decisions.

"The federal government should stop playing politics with critical funding needed to end the global devastation caused by the AIDS pandemic," said Claudia Flores, an attorney with the ACLU Women's Rights Project and counsel on today's brief. "The global AIDS gag will further stigmatize high-risk populations and put more lives at risk. This policy is completely at odds with efforts to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS and to treat its victims."

The groups filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia emphasizing the damaging impact the policy would have on public health worldwide. The groups also argue that the policy violates the free speech rights of U.S. organizations by restricting use of their private funds.

Many organizations that work to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS often reach out to commercial sex workers to distribute condoms and offer education on safer-sex measures. Signing an official pledge to oppose commercial sex workers could lead to further stigmatization of this high risk population, say the groups, and would undermine prevention and treatment efforts. Those already infected will be discouraged from acknowledging their condition and seeking treatment because of a fear of being shunned or abused. Others will not seek out information or medical care or may fail to take precautions that stem the spread of HIV/AIDS for fear of stigmatization.

"Some of today's fastest growing HIV epidemics are happening among sex workers in developing countries, yet the Bush administration policy would create an even bigger crisis," said Paul Zeitz of the Global AIDS Alliance, one of the groups signed on to today's brief. "As the United States increases its commitment in the global fight against AIDS, we should not push an agenda that would put more lives at risk."

The groups say that this policy is at odds with the United States' own HIV/AIDS policies. The premier federal agencies working to stem the spread of HIV/AIDS in the United States, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, have found that isolating vulnerable groups like sex workers profoundly affects prevention efforts. Denying all funds from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to organizations that do not make the pledge is in direct contradiction to this long held public health practice, said the ACLU.

The ACLU's brief was filed yesterday in USAID v. DKT International. DKT International, a U.S.-based organization, was denied federal funding when it refused to adopt the policy because it would hamper its HIV/AIDS services worldwide, including in countries with high rates of infection like Sudan, Ethiopia, India and Brazil. On May 18, 2006, Judge Emmet G. Sullivan ruled that the pledge requirement is unconstitutional. That ruling came a week after a federal judge in New York issued a similar ruling in a separate case, AOSI v. USAID. The ACLU filed friend-of-the-court briefs in both those cases as well.

In addition to Global AIDS Alliance, the organizations that signed onto the new ACLU brief are: AIDS Action, American Foundation for AIDS Research, American Humanist Organization, American Jewish World Service, Center for Health and Gender Equity, Center for Reproductive Rights, Center for Women Policy Studies, Community HIV/AIDS Mobilization Project, Gay Men's Health Crisis, Global Health Council, Global Justice, Guttmacher Institute, Human Rights Watch, Institute of Human Rights of Emory University, International Planned Parenthood Federation of the Western Hemisphere Region, International Women's Health Coalition, National Council of Jewish Women, Partners in Health, Physicians for Human Rights, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Population Action International, Population Council, Religious Consultation on Population, Reproductive Health and Ethics, Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, the University of California, Berkeley's Human Rights Center and Dr. Jim Yong Kim, Chair of the Harvard Medical School Department of Social Medicine.

The brief's authors are Flores and Lenora Lapidus of the ACLU Women's Rights Project and Caroline Brown, Susannah Vance and Christine Magdo of Covington & Burling LLP.


[PREV] [1] ..[8248][8249][8250][8251][8252][8253][8254][8255][8256].. [8292] [NEXT]
All
Class Action
Bankruptcy
Biotech
Breaking Legal News
Business
Corporate Governance
Court Watch
Criminal Law
Health Care
Human Rights
Insurance
Intellectual Property
Labor & Employment
Law Center
Law Promo News
Legal Business
Legal Marketing
Litigation
Medical Malpractice
Mergers & Acquisitions
Political and Legal
Politics
Practice Focuses
Securities
Elite Lawyers
Tax
Featured Law Firms
Tort Reform
Venture Business News
World Business News
Law Firm News
Attorneys in the News
Events and Seminars
Environmental
Legal Careers News
Patent Law
Consumer Rights
International
Legal Spotlight
Current Cases
State Class Actions
Federal Class Actions
New Hampshire courts hear 2 ..
PA high court orders countie..
Tight US House races in Cali..
North Carolina Attorney Gene..
Republicans take Senate majo..
What to know about the unpre..
A man who threatened to kill..
Ford cuts 2024 earnings guid..
Kenya’s deputy president pl..
South Korean court acquits f..
Supreme Court grapples with ..
Supreme Court leaves in plac..
Kentucky sheriff accused of ..
New rules regarding election..
North Carolina appeals court..


Class action or a representative action is a form of lawsuit in which a large group of people collectively bring a claim to court and/or in which a class of defendants is being sued. This form of collective lawsuit originated in the United States and is still predominantly a U.S. phenomenon, at least the U.S. variant of it. In the United States federal courts, class actions are governed by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule. Since 1938, many states have adopted rules similar to the FRCP. However, some states like California have civil procedure systems which deviate significantly from the federal rules; the California Codes provide for four separate types of class actions. As a result, there are two separate treatises devoted solely to the complex topic of California class actions. Some states, such as Virginia, do not provide for any class actions, while others, such as New York, limit the types of claims that may be brought as class actions. They can construct your law firm a brand new website, lawyer website templates and help you redesign your existing law firm site to secure your place in the internet.
St. Louis Missouri Criminal Defense Lawyer
St. Charles DUI Attorney
www.lynchlawonline.com
Lorain Elyria Divorce Lawyer
www.loraindivorceattorney.com
Legal Document Services in Los Angeles, CA
Best Legal Document Preparation
www.tllsg.com
Car Accident Lawyers
Sunnyvale, CA Personal Injury Attorney
www.esrajunglaw.com
East Greenwich Family Law Attorney
Divorce Lawyer - Erica S. Janton
www.jantonfamilylaw.com/about
St. Louis Missouri Criminal Defense Lawyer
St. Charles DUI Attorney
www.lynchlawonline.com
Connecticut Special Education Lawyer
www.fortelawgroup.com
  Law Firm Directory
 
 
 
© ClassActionTimes.com. All rights reserved.

The content contained on the web site has been prepared by Class Action Times as a service to the internet community and is not intended to constitute legal advice or a substitute for consultation with a licensed legal professional in a particular case or circumstance. Affordable Law Firm Web Design