Newspaper Page Text
March 15,1990 • SouthernVoice/5
Activism
GAC Garners Good Grades in 1990 Legislature
Is Georgia's AIDS lobby the model for future lesbian! gay interaction with state lawmakers ?
by Gary Kaupman
"Of course it's a racist, homophobic, sexist cesspool.
But they make our laws and we have to talk to them,
negotiate, find ways to get what we want without mak
ing them feel like they've given up something pre
cious." The speaker, who understandably requests
anonymity, is the former head of a non-profit agency
and one of many who dread the annual trek to the Gold
Dome to lobby for funds and/or legislation helpful to
causes, constituencies and agencies.
Georgia’s citizens with AIDS and other forms of
HIV illness are among those most affected by the
machinations that take place yearly during the 40 fran
tic days that the legislature gathers, makes laws and
decides how the state's 7.785 billion dollar budget will
be spent.
And like many other groups whose best interests
appear to be at odds with the white/rural/good old boy
ethic that pervades state government, getting what's
best for people affected by HIV disease is tricky and
difficult work.
Since 1986 responsibility for this task has fallen
primarily on the shoulders of the Georgia AIDS
Coalition (GAC), a co-op of AIDS and AIDS con
cerned organizations. GAC's mission is to "address in a
consistent and responsible fashion Georgia's legal, leg
islative, administrative and public policy issues related
to AIDS."
Co-chair Pat McCrary stresses that GAC is an
AIDS, not a gay organization, "We try to separate gay
and AIDS for the sake of the legislature...we need to
make them understand that AIDS affects all people."
One of GAC's member organizations is Helping
Hands, Inc., a five year old non-profit, non-political
group that fundraises for a number of local AIDS ser
vice agencies. Chair Alan Jones approaches the
gay/AIDS issue from a slightly different angle, "We are
all of the belief that every life (regardless of back
ground) is important...no one is of less value...and if
our citizens need help, we will be there." Jones adds
that when it comes to AIDS, gay or straight is irrelevant
since the disease is non-discriminatory.
But AIDS legislation is of vital concern to gays.
Many of GAC's member groups are staffed and/or
headed by gays. And the Coalition's lobbyist, Gil
Robison, is well known for his gay activism.
So while GAC may not, per se, be gay, it is far and
away the most consistent and visible gay presence in
the Georgia Legislature. And with storm clouds on
sodomy and hate crimes already gathering on 1991's
legislative horizon, GAC's structure, methods, failures
and successes may provide lessons well-learned in how
the gay and lesbian movement should deport itself as it
moves further into the murky waters of Georgia law
making.
9
GAC's membership is currently comprised of eight
organizations: The Greater Adanta Political Awareness
Coalition (GAPAC—also GAC's largest contributor);
the Atlanta chapter of the National Association of
People With AIDS (NAPWA—in whose offices GAC
meets); Georgia Physicians for Human Rights
(GAPHR); Georgia AIDS Action Committee. (GAAC);
Project Open Hand Atlanta; Helping Hands of Atlanta,
AID Adanta, and the ACLU of Georgia.
All except Open Hand, Helping Hands and AID
Atlanta provide representatives to GAC's Board of
Directors.
Structure and its relationship to funding are impor
tant. The federal statute that permits tax deductible
individual donations—as well as foundation and gov
ernment grants—to service agencies such as AID
Atlanta, NAPWA and Project Open Hand, severely lim
its the dollars those agencies can spend lobbying for
legislative or political change. More practically, AIDS
service providers are swamped with demand beyond
their capacities, making lobbying an onerous task.
Thus, says McCrary, "we are a formalized mouth
piece for (these) organizations...we are there to help
insure that public authorities in the state of Georgia
react responsibly to the AIDS crisis."
GAC meets monthly throughout the year to plan,
extinguish brushfires and lobby for non-legislative
change such as working with the DeKalb County
Health Department to expand information and counsel
ing for individuals who seek HIV testing. Or fighting to
see that the words "confidential" and "anonymous" are
used collectively when HIV antibody testing is dis
cussed.
During legislative sessions the meetings become
biweekly and the focus shifts to legislation that affects
HIV infected persons and/or the agencies which serve
them.
Evett Bennett
Lobbyist Gil "the bill killer" Robison and
Senator Culver Kidd
The tightly structured gatherings focus on short
reports and and quick consensus. Says McCrary, "there
doesn't seem to be much in-fighting in the group
because, when it comes to AIDS, the community
becomes one."
Dan Rendelman of GAPHR feels, "GAC has made
a significant difference in the outcome of bills... it
presented professional and viable information which
helped sway their (legislators) decisions." Speaking of
the role GAC had in halting the original form of the
paranoid and misinformed 1988 Omnibus AIDS Bill,
Rendelman continues, "The legislators were not
informed or educated on AIDS. So we put together a
package of information...(to help them understand) that
these issues will not go away for may years to come."
The responsibility for presenting that "professional
and viable information" falls primarily on the shoulders
of Robison. Others, notably McCrary and Cathalene
Tehan, also hit the floor of the Capitol to talk to the
solons. But day-in and day-out it is the veteran activist
and lawyer for whom life within the Capitol's corridors
has become "like a never ending date with Marlene
Deitrich" who does or does not get the job done. .
The glee with which Robison approaches his work is
reflected in the way he describes the intricacies and in’s
and out's of the legislative process—sounding one
minute like a kid in a candy store, the next as if he'd
been through political boot camp with Tom Murphy.
His written updates to the Board frequendy begin with
pertinent quotes from Shakespeare or the Bible. Clearly
the man loves his work.
GAC's primary lobbying position has been held by
Robison since its inception. In theory, the board is
charged with choosing a new lobbyist each year and
has come under some criticism for not engaging in a
more rigorous search and review process. McCrary is
quoted in the Winter 1989 issue of the GAPAC News
as saying "The (future) selection process...will be a
firm procedure which will include the appointment of a
search committee and a formal review process."
Criticism of Robison's style and performance is gen
erally vague and those voicing it are unwilling to go on
record with their gripes.
■
Style notwithstanding, given the regressive and
homophobic nature of Georgia's legislature, GAC's past
record is enviable. The 1988 Omnibus AIDS Bill as
shaped by GAC is an informed and coherent piece of
legislation. And its content and intent have remained
remarkably intact despite assault from many sides.
As many had predicted, those assaults have
increased substantially as the epidemic has become
more wide-spread. The 1990 session has seen introduc
tion of 11 pieces of legislation that could be damaging
to the civil or medical right of those infected with
HIV—from involuntary and uniformed testing to
allowing counties to regulate AIDS residences to per
mitting small insurance groups to set caps on AIDS-
related benefits. With one exception GAC was success
ful in getting all killed for this session.
On the positive side, 1990 saw the introduction of
six bills that would benefit those who are HIV infected.
GAC’s behind the scenes work in shaping these bill*
and promoting their passage is also substantial.
The budget is the final and perhaps most ambiguous
arena in which GAC attempts to exert an influence.
Front burner this session was funding to replace the
expiring Robert Woods Johnson grant that has provided
baseline dollars AID Atlanta, the Visiting Nurses
Association and Grady's AIDS Clinic. For the first time
in the history of the AIDS epidemic, the Department of
Human Resources full request, $848,387, for these
three agencies was approved.
For the final score on GAC's efforts in the 1990 ses
sion, see the accompanying "Report Card” and the
news story on page 2 .
IzharNaveh contributed to the research on this story.