Replies

There are a lot of more people suffering from heart defects, cancer, and other non-voluntary problems(both straight and homosexuals), that is where most of the cash should be focused.

Are those things in the Constitution? Seems to me you're using the "Constitutionalty" question as a smokescreen for your hatred of AIDS due to its link to homosexuals and/or IV drug users.

I agree federal dollars could be better spent on scientific research, including providing full funding to thoroughly screen the blood supply, than on "prevention" programs.

And, as a reminder that AIDS isn't strickly "voluntary", just this month we had a story of a Texan who contracted HIV through tainted blood needed during a surgery emergency last year. Yours is the sort of thinking which could potentially eliminate important areas of CDC investigation as well as publically funding for private viral research.

When I read the comments of some Freepers on this topic sometimes I think "conservative" really means what liberals contend: money whoring, science and public good ignoring bigot attempting to hide behind a cloke of piousness and false righteousness. It's no wonder W has had to attempt to redefine the image by adding on "compassionate" to the label.

and I think what it is, is an effort to get the CDC back under control, or get rid of it. From gun control to treatment of the "aids epidemic", the cdc is so out of control and off-the-wall, as to be unrecognizable as a government agency, or maybe too recognizable as a government agency, either way, if aids was really an epidemic what should the cdc be doing about it? What should we the uninfected be doing about it?

"Are those things in the Constitution? Seems to me you're using the "Constitutionalty" question as a smokescreen for your hatred of AIDS due to its link to homosexuals and/or IV drug users."

The big players in society are cocaine users, no? High divorce rates, unless the spouse is willing to put up with the adultry in exchange for the luxury... Cocaine increases the potentials of AIDS so quickly it's mind boggling. That was learned through a study.

AIDS gets 10 times the federal dollars than does heart disease and cancer, which kill far more people. AIDS isn't even in the top ten list of killers of Americans.

With this in mind, tax dollars should go to something that is likely to both the most people, not some disease that affect only a fractional number of people inthis country.

AIDS is primarily transmitted by behavior - Behavior which most of us view as perverted.

Funding for AIDS is disproportionate to its impact on Americans, relative to diseases like cancer and heart disease, which kill far, far more people.

I think the government does have a role in funding basic scientific research; However, in the case of AIDS the funding decisions have been highly politicized, resulting in some economically irrational decisions, not the least of which are some of the examples cited in this article...

Last night, on FoxNews - Hannity and Colms, Susan Estrich(sp) made the statement that the suiciderate among homosexual teens is "skyrocketing." She said this as a reply against a city in California wanting to put up pro family ads. She said these ads will make the homosexual teens feel worse about themselves and commit more suicide. Excuse me, but what the type of hay is stuffed into her head? Skyrocketing, even after hollyweird had put so many same sex couples into "positive" roles in tv and movies, Skyrocketed after all the pro samesex promos?

The first thought I had was, it seems they were better off before all the pro homosexual stuff started being marketed.