Dannemeyer Outlines His Views on AIDS
The Times’ editorial (Jan. 30), “Appeal to Hate--and Decency,” on my outspoken views on AIDS was filled with heated words. Nonetheless, it deserves a serious reply in the spirit of an informed public dialogue.
Acquired immune deficiency syndrome is a public health threat of major proportions. There have been 17,000 confirmed cases; one-fourth of them in California. There are as many as 2 million carriers of the AIDS virus. We know AIDS is presently incurable and thus eventually fatal. We also know that 73% of the cases involve male homosexuals and that AIDS is transmitted through the sexual practices of these individuals. In addition, what we do not know is as important as what we do know. At present, neither the exact causes nor the precise means of transmitting AIDS have been conclusively identified.
Reasonable observers will disagree over the conclusions and policies to be drawn from these facts. Go ahead and disagree with me on the merits. Argue with my point of view. But let the public decide where common sense and decency lie.
There are those in the homosexual community, in the public health establishment and at The Times who put greater emphasis on the perceived civil rights of AIDS victims and high-risk groups than on either the civil rights of potential victims or the health of the general public.
The right to privacy deserves respect, but when private activities result in a major public health problem created by private conduct, that of male homosexuals, we do not want to condone and thus recommend this conduct to our children, which is the effect of failing to act.
Caution commands stricter protective measures. I have proposed several specific steps: it should be a crime for a number of an AIDS high-risk group to knowingly donate blood; bathhouses in which persons engage in activities that could spread AIDS should be closed; health care workers should be able to wear such protective clothing as they see fit in treating AIDS patients; health care workers with AIDS should be prohibited from treating patients; and children with AIDS should be provided alternative means of education other than in-class instruction.
An earlier proposal has been partially implemented. The Public Health Service has advised males who have had sex with another male since 1977 to refrain from donating blood. The American Red Cross has commendably gone beyond this and advised prospective blood donors that male homosexuals must not donate blood. It is tragic that hundreds of hemophiliacs who contracted AIDS from contaminated blood transfusions might have been spared had these steps been taken earlier.
Just as important as what I am recommending is what I have not advocated. I do not advocate a quarantine of AIDS patients, much less the isolation of high-risk groups. To take such steps would clearly violate the civil rights of those subject to such action.
I share the disdain of The Times for public hysteria. Excessive reaction to AIDS is to be avoided as much as under-reaction to it. I was particularly concerned when a poll showed that one-third of the public believes that a person can contract AIDS from donating blood. This erroneous impression has contributed to a shortage of blood that itself threatens the public health. I promptly went to the blood center in Orange County to donate blood and issued a statement urging others to do so.
Nonetheless, The Times joins state Sen. Ed Davis (R-Valencia) in avoiding the substance of the issues by hurling personal attacks. Has society reached the point where it is “hatred” to point out a public health problem and seek to reduce it?
The Times raised the issue of providing “equal treatment” for homosexuals. This was the issue in AB 1, which Gov. George Deukmejian wisely vetoed. It is the key to the bill co-sponsored by Sen. Alan Cranston (D-Calif.) to amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to make “sexual orientation” a protected right. The effects of this were presented in the August, 1984, issue of the American Spectator by Patrick J. Buchanan, now at the White House, and J. Gordon Muir, a medical researcher. They noted that sensitivity training on respect of “alternative life styles” would be required on military recruits, landlords who refuse to rent to homosexual couples would be subject to federal prosecution, and schools would be required to hire homosexual teachers.
Whether the public health response to AIDS should be compromised because of the perceived sensitivities of the male homosexual community, or whether gay rights should be given “equal treatment,” comes down to basic value choices in a free society. I speak for those who favor traditional family values. It is a sad day when affirming God’s plan for the human race of one man and one woman forming a loving and compassionate family is deemed in print as hatred.
WILLIAM E. DANNEMEYER
Member of Congress
39th District
Fullerton
