NationStates Jolt Archive

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is holding up renewal of the primary federal law that battles HIV/AIDS, the 1990 Ryan White Act, causing a rift among activists on the subject and threatening approval of the legislation this year.

Clinton (D-N.Y.) said she opposes the measure because it would lower funding for her home state. But some AIDS groups also see broader political motives at work. Other states that would lose out include California, Florida and Illinois -- all places Clinton would need to win if she seeks the presidency. Her critics also note that many of the states that would receive higher funding under the new formula are rural and Southern, which tend to vote Republican.

You can read the rest at Sen. Clinton Delays AIDS Law's Renewal, Citing Cut in N.Y. Funds (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/22/AR2006082201161.html)

I guess Ms. Clinton does not understand that this money would help those who are affected by AIDS and HIV. It is unfortunate that she is putting politics above those who truly need help :(

I'm torn - I like how bad this makes her look but dont want the needed funding delayed

It's funny, because she's never given a shit about New York being short changed in the previous five years. (Unless it would get her face on national TV).

It's an election year for her now though.

So why does the South need AIDS education funding again? Aren't they the ones who consider "Don't Have Sex Before You're Married" to be the most comprehensive sex education program ever made? Besides, the only people who get AIDS according to them are sinners and Sodomites.

Okay, that was snarky but more seriously, why divert AIDS funding to states that tend to encourage Abstinence-Only Sex Education? It's like sucking Homeland Security funding from New York and dumping it into the MidWest. Yeah, Osama really has it in for the Corn Belt.

So why does the South need AIDS education funding again? Aren't they the ones who consider "Don't Have Sex Before You're Married" to be the most comprehensive sex education program ever made? Besides, the only people who get AIDS according to them are sinners and Sodomites.

Okay, that was snarky but more seriously, why divert AIDS funding to states that tend to encourage Abstinence-Only Sex Education? It's like sucking Homeland Security funding from New York and dumping it into the MidWest. Yeah, Osama really has it in for the Corn Belt.


Well the areas with abstinence only education and the south in general is well known to have a much higher teen pregnancy rate specifically because they aren't getting adequate sex education.

we shouldnt punish the ignorant kids because of their local govt/church/parental policies.

People can really read to much into things...

Then again she could be a politician...

Okay, that was snarky but more seriously, why divert AIDS funding to states that tend to encourage Abstinence-Only Sex Education? It's like sucking Homeland Security funding from New York and dumping it into the MidWest. Yeah, Osama really has it in for the Corn Belt.

Um, because we don't punish people who are ill with HIV/AIDS because we don't like some of the politicians where they live? Just throwing it out there.

Not to mention, I'm sure the people you are criticizing are probably delighted that treatment is being denied to HIV/AIDS patients because of said beliefs. So it's hardly a disincentive.

Well, carry on defending the president elect.

People can really read to much into things...

Then again she could be a politician...

Could be? She most definitely is a politician.

Isn't this the kind of govt. spending that Republicans usually detest? I would think you fiscal small-govt. conservatives would applaud this move and say that charity organizations shoudl be the ones to handle issues like this. this is dangerously close to free healthcare isnt it?

Well the areas with abstinence only education and the south in general is well known to have a much higher teen pregnancy rate specifically because they aren't getting adequate sex education.

we shouldnt punish the ignorant kids because of their local govt/church/parental policies.
But we also shouldent be dumping usefull funds into a place that is spending money on a program that throws all the gains out the window

But we also shouldent be dumping usefull funds into a place that is spending money on a program that throws all the gains out the window


You are right - I just read the opionin piece and Clintons explanation and it seems like she had a viable reason to not approve of the Ryan White Act in its current form. Gauthier was right on teh money with his comparison to homeland Security funding.

You are right - I just read the opionin piece and Clintons explanation and it seems like she had a viable reason to not approve of the Ryan White Act in its current form. Gauthier was right on teh money with his comparison to homeland Security funding.
I mean at some point we have to put the money where it will do the most good ... if thoes states are going to be stupid enough to activly waste that money then they should not get it... states that are willing to use it will.

If thoes states decide to stop fucking around then they should absolutly get a cut of the aid to help their own citizens

I mean at some point we have to put the money where it will do the most good ... if thoes states are going to be stupid enough to activly waste that money then they should not get it... states that are willing to use it will.

If thoes states decide to stop fucking around then they should absolutly get a cut of the aid to help their own citizens


Agreed - I think the OP is really trying hard to attack Clinton with this when there is so much better ammunition out there that he could use to put her in a bad light.

Agreed - I think the OP is really trying hard to attack Clinton with this when there is so much better ammunition out there that he could use to put her in a bad light.
No kidding I hate that woman really (well not hate but I wouldent vote for her)

Her stance on video games and television censorship is enough to turn me off

No kidding I hate that woman really (well not hate but I wouldent vote for her)

Her stance on video games and television censorship is enough to turn me off


Yep! - as well as her position on the war in Iraq. Although I don't see a conservative bashing her for that one (except for perhaps her request for a time table)

You are right - I just read the opionin piece and Clintons explanation and it seems like she had a viable reason to not approve of the Ryan White Act in its current form. Gauthier was right on teh money with his comparison to homeland Security funding.

Well what was her reason?

The new formula seems perfectly reasonable to me, especially as people are living longer and longer with HIV before developing full blown AIDS.

And really, I don't see any reason to deny those people funds because their states have silly sex ed policies. The people who are denied the money are probably not the ones who pushed for this in the first place.

So let me get this straight:
They're wanting to take money away from the States that have the largest numbers of people with HIV/AIDS (California & NY) whilst giving it to the States with the lowest number (Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming).
In other words, taking money from Blue states and giving it to the Red.
During an election year.
Regardless that it'll lead to underfunding where the money's most needed.

And Hilary's the Bitch in this case?


In case anyone's interested, stats on US HIV/AIDS rates:
http://www.avert.org/usastats.htm

AIDS cases per 100,000 population in 2004 (in brackets, the number of cases):
New York 39.7 (70,133)
Florida 33.5 (45,140)
New Jersey 21.2 (17,408)
District of Columbia 179.2 (9,036)
California 13.0 (56,988)

Alabama 10.3 (3,352)
Georgia 18.6 (14,245)
Kentucky 6.1 (2,354)
Mississippi 6.5 (3,078)

Yep. I can see why they need to cut funding to those first 5 states and give the money to the bottom 4.


As for the article? It was a oh-so-typical right-wing hack-job to make Clinton look bad. Basically saying she's doing this cause she wants the money to go to states that'd vote for her. No mention as to which states actually need the funding the most.

Further down the article, it states that the biggest AIDS organizations in the US side with Clinton (who, btw, isn't the only one complaining but is the only one mentioned throughout the hack piece) yet a "chaplain for an outpatient clinic at the University of Alabama" doesn't!
Why, that settles it. Obviously Clinton shoudl back off. What do all those nationwide AIDS organisations know? A priest in Alabama is the best person to ask about funding.

Well what was her reason?

The new formula seems perfectly reasonable to me, especially as people are living longer and longer with HIV before developing full blown AIDS.

And really, I don't see any reason to deny those people funds because their states have silly sex ed policies. The people who are denied the money are probably not the ones who pushed for this in the first place.

Did you read the article?

see one post up - explains very well.

Did you read the article?

see one post up - explains very well.

Yes I did. Ryan White CARE act provides funding for those living with HIV/AIDS who are below the poverty line/uninsured. The revision to the act calls for 75% of title i-iv funding to be spent directly on medical care, as well as a change in which metropolitan areas qualify for title i funding.

Obviously, as there has been an increase in the number of people with HIV/AIDS in the south as well as the fact that there are more of them living in poverty, the way the 2.1 billion is apportioned will change. I don't think that's necessarily unfair. And nor did Senator Kennedy.

It's determined by a formula, not pulled out of thin air based upon what color the state is. But whatever.

Alright. I looked at the GAO report. GAO (http://www.gao.gov/archive/2000/he00150t.pdf#search=%22ryan%20white%20GAO%20funding%20per%20case%22)

Under the old system, states with qualified EMAs (New York, California) recieved 60% more funding per case than states like alabama which has no EMAs. Partly because they get to count cases twice in effect.

The changes to the funding formula address this. In other words equalizing the amount granted per case. The 'red' states are not getting 'more'.

Explain how that's not fair.

I'm not at all a fan of Senator Clinton, but isn't a Senator's job to push for their state's interests?

Agreed - I think the OP is really trying hard to attack Clinton with this when there is so much better ammunition out there that he could use to put her in a bad light.

I am not attacking anyone Sumamba Buwhan. I am just sad that Aids funding is being held up and that she is one of a few who are holding it up.

Thank you WDGann for the information.

I'm not at all a fan of Senator Clinton, but isn't a Senator's job to push for their state's interests?

Well I wouldn't mind, but she wasn't so principled and high minded when new york was actually short changed $700 million in education funds in 2004.

I'm willing to bet she'll change her mind about this too sometime towards the end of november.

You can read the rest at Sen. Clinton Delays AIDS Law's Renewal, Citing Cut in N.Y. Funds (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/22/AR2006082201161.html)

I guess Ms. Clinton does not understand that this money would help those who are affected by AIDS and HIV. It is unfortunate that she is putting politics above those who truly need help :(

It's called pork. If the money isn't going to your state, you don't vote for it, regardless of who gets killed.

You can read the rest at Sen. Clinton Delays AIDS Law's Renewal, Citing Cut in N.Y. Funds (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/22/AR2006082201161.html)

I guess Ms. Clinton does not understand that this money would help those who are affected by AIDS and HIV. It is unfortunate that she is putting politics above those who truly need help :(
I'd say you should be sadder about the actions of those people who decided to cut AIDS funding for NY and other areas. You should be sadder that there are Republicans who are so disgustingly determined to pour other people's money into their home (Red) states that they will strip AIDS funding from the places that need it most, only to funnel it into the least-needy and least-deserving states in the Union. Clinton did exactly the right thing by calling them on this bullshit.

Well the areas with abstinence only education and the south in general is well known to have a much higher teen pregnancy rate specifically because they aren't getting adequate sex education.

we shouldnt punish the ignorant kids because of their local govt/church/parental policies.
Wholehearted agreement.

Oh my God! :eek: Politicians may serve the interests of their constituents first! *swoon*

Oh my God! :eek: Politicians may serve the interests of their constituents first! *swoon*
No, as I said, it's pork. Politicians only serve the interests of certain constituents first. Be more precise.

It's in the same category as adding an estate tax amendment to the bill raising the minimum wage. Apparently that was okay, however, because the Republicans did that, and this is not okay because a Democrat is doing it.

It's in the same category as adding an estate tax amendment to the bill raising the minimum wage. Apparently that was okay, however, because the Republicans did that, and this is not okay because a Democrat is doing it.
Not just any Democrat. It's MRS. CLENIS!!!!!

She's not only the wife of the most evil librul who ever did live, she's also a hairy legged shrill feminist who works outside the home!!!! THE HORROR!! THE HORROR!!

Not just any Democrat. It's MRS. CLENIS!!!!!

She's not only the wife of the most evil librul who ever did live, she's also a hairy legged shrill feminist who works outside the home!!!! THE HORROR!! THE HORROR!!

You do have to admit that she's a flaming bitch.

But, then again, so was Tom DeLay.

Not just any Democrat. It's MRS. CLENIS!!!!!

She's not only the wife of the most evil librul who ever did live, she's also a hairy legged shrill feminist who works outside the home!!!! THE HORROR!! THE HORROR!!
*shoots Bottle with a dart full of nice Vallium* It's for your own good, dear.

You do have to admit that she's a flaming bitch.

I dunno, I find her rather tepid. I think almost everything she does get blown totally out of proportion because she is 1) female and 2) a Clinton. She does things that wouldn't even be on the radar from somebody else, and everybody flips the hell out over what a crazy broad that sHillary is.

I don't like her much, and I hope like hell I'm never forced to vote for her, but I really don't see what the big stink is about her. She's not half as bitchy as her rep.

I dunno, I find her rather tepid. I think almost everything she does get blown totally out of proportion because she is 1) female and 2) a Clinton. She does things that wouldn't even be on the radar from somebody else, and everybody flips the hell out over what a crazy broad that sHillary is.

I don't like her much, and I hope like hell I'm never forced to vote for her, but I really don't see what the big stink is about her. She's not half as bitchy as her rep.
I take it you never saw the video of her back in the Arkansas governor days, when she had some mentally disabled kids on the grounds of the governor's mansion.

Sweet stuff. She curses and rants against "retards" better than anything I've ever heard.

*shoots Bottle with a dart full of nice Vallium* It's for your own good, dear.
*sedated muttering*

Libruls...eeeevil...must defeat the Clenis retroactively...gahh, revenge soon, kill them all...

...losing consciousness...

*mutter mutter drool*