Newspaper Page Text
‘-‘-L
UHCH SIDE IS 002 BBLAD BUTTlRED ON ?
A Dangerous
State of Denial
To the editor:
In response to Mr. Dennis K. Mayer of
South Carolina and his offense to the
"invasion" of his state by ACT-UP/Atlanta
& New York: Mr. Mayer, do you honestly
believe the legislators of South Carolina
would enact these blatantly discriminatory
laws of dubious Constitutional validity if the
disease attacked straight white men? Of
course not. Mr. Mayer, I expect ignorance
from a bigot, but it pains me to hear it
coming from one of my own. South
Carolina's AIDS/HIV laws are aimed at
you, a gay man living in that state, and
contain provisions for incarceration of HIV
positive individuals. Like it or not, sir, the
majority of these individuals are gay - just
like you and me. To pretend any differently
is more than ignorance, it is denial.
Considering the severity of the South
Carolina laws, it is a dangerous state of
denial for you, a resident of that state, to live
in.
It further pains me to hear a gay man
condone practices that "keep" HIV positive
people "out of circulation". Exactly who are
you concerned about, Mr. Mayer? Try as I
might, I cannot believe that you are most
concerned about protecting others. The tone
of your letter speaks for itself. Your own
purity, your own cleanliness, your own
negative status -1 fear these are your
concerns. I wonder, is it only the members
of ACT-UP who "embarrass" you, or are
you also embarrassed by the members of
your community who are living with
HIV/AIDS?
The members of ACT-UP who were
courageous enough to oppose the fascist
laws of your state deserve your heartfelt
thanks, as well as mine. An efficient group
of dedicated men and women, aided by
LAMBDA Legal Defense, made people
aware of the hideous state of affairs in South
Carolina. As a self-avowed "promoter of
gay rights", you should be ashamed of
yourself for not supporting their effort to
help all of us. If the South Carolina laws
are allowed to stand, it is only a matter of
time until more such laws are passed. We
either stand together in this, Mr. Mayer, or
we will fall together. This disease knows
no state boundary, it doesn't give a damn
about whether "fellow Southerners" offend
each other by not "minding their own
business". It kills everyone with equal
efficiency. We face enough of a battle
every day without combating the additional
opposing forces of the South Carolina
General Assembly and the homophobia
within our own community.
You say let South Carolina speak for
itself. Fine, then get out of your own denial
and fear and DO IT! Until then, you mind
your own business and let those who care
mind ours.
Sincerely,
Kim Mi. Shipley
From West
Georgia...Thanks
To the Editor
I just wanted to thank you for the speed
with which you managed to transform the
3rd class subscriptions into on-the-spot 1st
class!
I also want to thank Guest Editorialist
Gary Kaupman for speaking from the heart
about his experience as the executor of his
friend's estate (Vol. 2, No. 7).
I very much support the staff editorial of
the same issue, concerning foster care. We
must prevent one tragedy from becoming
two.
Keep up the great work. Just thought
you might enjoy hearing some praise from
out here in West Georgia.
Sincerely,
Joanne Artz
Carrollton
fj f ' 1 .
What Makes a Disease a Public Health Threat?
The way the laws are currently set up, the government is allowed to refuse visas to immigrants and visitors
who have dangerous communicable diseases. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) - the agency
that implements laws concerning immigration - came up with a list of six or seven dangerous communicable
diseases, including tuberculosis and syphilis, based on recommendations from the Public Health Service. An
amendment offered by Senator Jesse Helms (R-NQ in June 1987 ordered the INS to add HTV infection to that
list
The INS drew up new regulations to implement the law. The regulations required that all immigrants had to
be tested for HTV infection, including refugees and those applying for permanent residence under the Amnesty
Legalization Program. If the immigrant or refugee tested positive, the person was to be refused entry. .
During the discussion in the Senate before the amendment was passed, it was dear that Senators thought
they were voting for a law that would keep immigrants with HIV infection out of the United States, but to
would not necessarily apply to visitors. The amendment itself, however, did not make to distinction clear and
the law that was passed applies equally to immigrants and visitors. The INS regulations don't require that
visitors be tested for HIV, but if INS offidals find out, or are told, that a visitor is infected with the AIDS virus,
they can bar the visitor from entering the country.
There is another catch to all this. For refugees who are HIV infected and for those applying for permanent
residency under the Amnesty Legalization Program who are HTV infected, the INS may grant a waiver and
allow them entry. But for regular immigrants, the law demands exdusion, with no possibility of a waiver in
any circumstances.
It is unfortunate that such a law was passed, since HIV infection is not the same kind of disease as the
others listed as "dangerous and communicable." HIV is not casually communicable like tuberculosis, for
example, which is transmitted through the air when the infected person is in a contagious state.
AIDS lobbyists contend that the law should be changed to drop HIV infection completely from the list, or at
least to allow immigrants and visitors liberal waivers if they are HIV infected. Congressperson Barney Frank
(D-MA) has introduced a major immigration reform bill to allows, for the first time, the possibility of waivers
for immigrants with HIV infection (although it is a restrictive waiver) and maintains the current waiver
provision for visitors. Congressperson Bill McCullum (R-FL) plans on offering an amendment to this bill that
would completely exclude all waivers for both immigrants and visitors with HIV. All of this is on the horizon
for the coming months.
In the meantime, the treatment of visitors who are HTV infected is a continuing source of controversy.
There have been about 10 known cases where the INS has refused visitors entry into the United States because
they were told or somehow knew that the foreigner had AIDS or was HIV infected. None of those cases were
ever officially challenged until a Dutch visitor named Hans Paul Verhoef flew to Minnesota, on his way to
attend the Gay and Lesbian Health Conference in San Francisco last month.
The INS office in Minnesota refused Verhoef permission to enter because he had AIDS, but when Verhoef
fought their ruling, the local office relented and agreed to let him enter. The INS office in Washington,
however, overruled the Minnesota office decision and refused Verhoef permission to enter. Finally, an
immigration judge heard the case and ruled that Verhoef could enter the United States.
Can the INS keep visitors who are HIV infected out of the United States? Under their own regulations, the
INS’s key factors in allowing a waiver are that the danger to the public health must be minimal, the possibility
of spread of infection minimal, and the U.S. government must not have to bear any costs in caring for the
tersoa In the case of a person who is HIV infected and who practices safe sex and does not share
contaminated needles, the threat to public health and possibility of spread of infection is minimal. The cost to
the government is nothing if the person has other forms of health insurance or will need no medical care.
What the Verhoef controversy showed is that the central INS office is applying its regulanons strictly. The
National Organizations Responding to AIDS (NORA) - a coalition of health, social service, research and
advocacy organizations - has been asking members of Congress to ask the INS to clarify that anyone with HIV
infection who understands safe sex and drug practices and agrees to abide by them should not be considered a
threat to public health. That would take away any reason the INS might have for keeping out visitors who are
HIV infected.
There is a deadline at hand: the fifth International Congress on AIDS will begin in Montreal on June 5, and
many conference goers - some who are HIV infected - will be passing through the United States on their way
to Canada The INS may create problems for them. In addition, the Sixth International Conference on AIDS is
scheduled to be held in San Francisco next year. The city expects at least 10,000 foreign delegates to attend,
including many with HIV, but conference organizers are concerned about the current INS problems and will
discuss changing the meeting place when they gather in Montreal this June.
Time is short, but if enough members of Congress voice their concerns to the INS, perhaps the problem can
at least be ameliorated in June so that U.S. immigration policies do not become an international
embarrassment.
-Chai Feldblum and Laura Markowitz
Chai Feldblum is an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union AIDS project.
Laura Markowitz is an editor of a national magazine and a lesbian activist.
Viewpoints
your ideas
is part of a continuing effort to provide a forum for our community
Wc invite
comments arid feelings and your responses to ideas expressed in this space.
The opinions expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the
views
four pages.
of Southern Voice. Submissions should be typed, double-spaced
Mail to:
Southern Voice/Viewpoints
PO Box 18215
Atlanta, Georgia 30316
and no
Page 9