Recalculating: Steve Chapman on a New Century. Steve Chapman
he has to get Senate approval. To become speaker of the House or president pro tem of the Senate — who are next in line behind the vice president to succeed to the presidency — you need to be elected by a majority of your colleagues, all of whom have been chosen by the people.
It’s easy to be complacent about this method of selection because no vice president has had to be sworn in as president on short notice since Gerald Ford ascended in 1974. So it’s easy to forget how quickly a nation that chose one person as its leader can be stuck with an entirely different one.
The problem is that there’s no obvious solution. We can’t very well have a separate election for vice president, since that might stick the president with a terribly incompatible partner. We can’t very well require vice presidential aspirants to go through primary elections. We can’t really make the vice president subject to Senate confirmation. The way we choose vice presidents is indefensible — but no obvious alternative presents itself.
We ought to be looking for one. In a democratic system, an office this important should be filled in a way that limits the power of any one person and lets the people be heard. The current system is accepted by the American people because it hasn’t produced any disasters lately. We might feel differently if we still had vivid memories of President Quayle.
Needle exchange protects children
Thursday, August 3, 2000
One of George W. Bush’s favorite slogans is “No child left behind,” and the Republican national convention has set aside many hours to catalog his devotion to kids. Al Gore has a slew of proposals on education and health care that, we are told, will greatly improve the lot of children. But when it comes to AIDS, the two candidates offer the youngest Americans a whole lot of nothing.
Every year, hundreds of infants are born infected with HIV. They get it from their mothers — most of whom got it by injecting drugs with contaminated syringes, or by having sex with an injecting drug user. So if you want to protect children from AIDS, you have to find a way to prevent transmission via hypodermic needles.
That’s not so hard to do. Amazingly enough, addicts don’t really prefer dirty syringes. They use them only because restrictive laws make clean ones hard to get or expensive. So in the early years of the epidemic, AIDS activists came up with an idea: Give drug users sterile needles in exchange for their old ones.
If you can’t stop people from injecting drugs, the thinking went, maybe you can at least stop them from getting and transmitting the virus. That would save not just their lives, but the lives of their sexual partners and their future offspring.
Hard-line drug warriors scoffed, insisting this approach would merely encourage illicit drug use while having no effect on the HIV infection rate. On both counts, they were wrong.
In one scientific study after another, needle exchange has proven its value. In 1997, the federal National Institutes of Health declared, “There is no longer any doubt that these programs work.” By its estimate, needle exchange can reduce HIV infections among drug users by 30 percent.
Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala eventually reached the same conclusion. “A meticulous scientific review has now proven that needle exchange programs can reduce the transmission of HIV and save lives without losing ground in the battle against illegal drugs,” she said in 1998 — thus meeting the two conditions specified by law for federal funding of such efforts.
But the Clinton administration steadfastly refused to provide any funding. And the Republican Congress, to emphasize its disdain for needle exchange, passed a measure prohibiting the District of Columbia government from implementing this solution, even with non-federal money.
Obstinacy, however, hasn’t solved the problem. Nearly 60 percent of AIDS cases among women can be blamed on drug use or sex with a drug user. Each year, 300 to 400 infants emerge from the womb afflicted by this lethal virus. Many of these victims could have been spared by the simplest of preventives: a clean syringe.
The Republican convention gave a prominent speaking spot to Patricia Funderburk Ware, head of the Family Well-Being Foundation and an advocate of sex education that stresses abstinence. Ware said we need to “insure that not one more American, especially an innocent newborn baby, has to live with this awful disease.”
But she never said a word about dirty needles — which is like talking about obesity without mentioning food. There’s nothing wrong with promoting sexual abstinence among adolescents, but the infants with HIV didn’t get it because they were promiscuous. They got it because one of their parents used a syringe that was fatally contaminated with the virus.
So advocates of needle exchange shouldn’t expect anything from a Republican administration — or from a Democratic one. In this front of the AIDS war, President Clinton has been a conscientious objector, spending his entire term finding reasons not to act. Gore is somewhat more promising: He reportedly advised Clinton to lift the ban, and in a private meeting with two AIDS activists at the 1996 Democratic convention, he said he supported federal funding.
But Wayne Turner, a spokesman for ACT UP Washington, one of those who met with the vice president, dismisses that statement. “Please emphasize that I don’t believe him,” he says. “I have absolutely no faith in this administration, including Gore.”
Selling needle exchange to the American people as the best way to protect infants from AIDS would not be that hard, since that’s exactly what it is. Besides stemming the epidemic without fostering drug use, these programs make perfect fiscal sense. A new syringe costs less than 8 cents. Treating a patient with AIDS costs about $150,000.
You would think one of the two candidates would embrace needle exchange simply because it would save the lives of blameless children. But neither has, and neither is about to.
So maybe they could agree on a joint slogan: Some children left to die.
The unsung heroes in land-mine fight
Sunday, September 10, 2000
When President Clinton refused to sign the 1997 international treaty banning land mines, critics portrayed him as Lucifer’s evil twin. They said the United States was undermining an irreproachable humanitarian cause, exhibiting “arrogance,” and becoming “part of the problem.” After winning the Nobel Peace Prize for her efforts on behalf of the Ottawa accord, Jody Williams of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines lamented, “I think it’s tragic that President Clinton does not want to be on the side of humanity.”
Three years later, judging from a new report by the same organization, the anti-mine campaign has done much to eliminate the threat of these hidden menaces, which kill and maim thousands of people every year. “Great strides have been made in nearly all aspects of eradicating the weapon,” says the study. And you’ll never guess which country deserves a large share of the credit: the United States.
Steven Goose, program director of Human Rights Watch, one of the contributors to the report, says the U.S. is “schizophrenic on this issue. The United States is spending tens of millions of dollars, more than any other country, to assist others with the removal of mines that are already in the ground, and yet the U.S. continues to insist on the right to use mines.”
But there is nothing contradictory about the administration’s position. It refused to go along with the agreement because American mines were not the ones harming innocent people around the world. By demanding that the U.S. relinquish an important weapon immediately, supporters of the treaty were attacking a purely fictional threat. The administration, by leading the charge to get rid of deadly mines already in the ground, chose instead to address a real problem. Better yet, the effort has produced genuine improvement.
The International Campaign to Ban Landmines continues to fault Clinton for not caving in to international pressure, pointing out that 137 countries have signed the treaty, leaving the U.S. in the unsavory company of Cuba, China, Afghanistan, Iraq and Somalia. But it’s clear that Washington’s refusal has been no hindrance in