In Defense of Same Sex Marriage
Filed by: Guest Blogger
July 23, 2010 9:30 AM
http://www.bilerico.com/2010/07/in_defense_of_same_sex_marriage.php
Editors' Note: Guest blogger Dr. Carlos T Mock is a native Puerto Rican who resides in Chicago, IL and Three Oaks, MI. He has published four books and is the GLBT Editor for Floricanto Press in Berkley, CA.
carlos mock.jpgSince Same-sex marriage in the U.S. began on May 17, 2004 in the State of Massachusetts; for 14 years courts and many Americans began to change their minds on the subject. However, the Federal government has clung to its official definition of marriage as only between a man and a woman. On Thursday, one of the most conservative federal judges, Judge Joseph L. Tauro--named by Reagan--in the same state where it all began, finally stood up and said there was never a rational basis for that definition. The outcome he reached is long overdue.
The unsustainable Federal definition of marriage is contained in the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996. At the time, there was no legal same-sex marriage in the United States. But now five states and the District of Columbia issue licenses to all couples. Because of the federal law, thousands of couples in those states cannot receive the same federal benefits as opposite-sex couples, including Social Security survivor payments and spousal burials in national military cemeteries.
Even though there were two cases brought to the judge, Judge Tauro arrived at his conclusions from a case brought by a gay rights group, that the marriage definition violates the equal-protection provisions of the Constitution. There is no rational basis for discriminating against same-sex couples, he ruled, discrediting the reasons stated by lawmakers in 1996, including the encouragement of "responsible procreation" and traditional notions of marriage and morality. In this argument, he was helped by the Obama administration's obligatory but half-hearted defense of the law, which since last year no longer supports Congress's stated reasons.
In their wisdom, our Founding Fathers established a government ruled by separation of powers, with one branch specifically dedicated to protect the rights of minorities, like homosexuals--from the whims of the majority: The Judicial Branch of our government. Courts should generally give Congress wide deference in writing laws, but should not be afraid to examine them when challenged, to make sure they do not discriminate unfairly against an unprotected minority. The Defense of Marriage Act was passed and signed as an election-year wedge issue, and the brief debate leading up to it was full of bigoted attacks against homosexuality as "depraved" and "immoral." One congressman said gay marriage would "devalue the love between a man and a woman." Laws passed on this kind of basis deserve to be upended, and I hope Judge Tauro's equal-protection opinion, which, for now, applies only to Massachusetts, is upheld on appeal.
In his 2003 dissention of the famous Lawrence v. Texas case, Justice Antonin Scalia actually predicted this moment would arrive. That decision left laws prohibiting same-sex marriage "on pretty shaky grounds," he warned, since it undercut the traditional moral basis for opposing homosexuality. The Justice Department cited those words when it abandoned its defense of the law as related to procreation, which, in turn, helped lead to Thursday's decision. The process of justice can take years, but in this case it seems to be moving in the right direction.
Dr. Mock has published four books with Floricanto Press, Berklety, CA. His articles have appeared on publications like The Chicago Tribune and several gay and lesbian newspapers. He was inducted in The Chicago GLBT Hall of Fame in 2007. He can be reached at: www.carlostmock.com
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Friday, July 23, 2010
What The Tribune won't tell you about the war on drugs
What The Tribune won't tell you about the war on drugs
By Carlos T Mock, MD, F. A. C. O. G.
Chicago, IL
July 25, 2009
The unfortunate truth Americans can't deal with is despite tough anti-drug laws, a 2009 survey by The World Health Organization (WHO) shows the U.S. has the highest level of illegal drug use in the world.
The survey of legal and illegal drug use in 17 countries, including the Netherlands and other countries with less stringent drug laws, shows Americans report the highest level of cocaine and marijuana use.
For example, Americans were four times more likely to report using cocaine in their lifetime than the next closest country, New Zealand (16% vs. 4%),
Marijuana use was more widely reported worldwide, and the U.S. also had the highest rate of use at 42.4% compared with 41.9% of New Zealanders.
In contrast, in the Netherlands, which has more liberal drug policies than the U.S., only 1.9% of people reported cocaine use and 19.8% reported marijuana use.
"The use of drugs seems to be a feature of more affluent countries. The U.S., which has been driving much of the world's drug research and drug policy agenda, stands out with higher levels of use of alcohol, cocaine, and cannabis, despite punitive illegal drug policies, as well as (in many U.S. states), a higher minimum legal alcohol drinking age than many comparable developed countries," write the researchers.
Drug users in this country show a stubborn indifference to whether their preferred vice comes from Colombia, Mexico, Bolivia, Ecuador, Paraguay or Pluto, as long as it comes from somewhere. It always does.
Unfortunately, the drug cartels control much of Congress and public opinion. Hiding behind “ulterior motives,” protecting our youth from drug exposure, they have bought most politicians and conservative newspapers—like The Tribune. I personally think that because so much money is at stake, the cartels would “eliminate” any opposition to strict drug rules. It’s the only way they can stay in business. The minute the government legalizes drug use, they are out of business.
We are also forgetting that the majority of drug addiction in this country is to legal substances—tobacco, alcohol, and prescription drugs —the two most common examples of this later category are Hollywood stars like Michael Jackson, and public figures like Rush Limbaugh
It is time that the American public accept the truth: drug addiction is a disease, not a crime. Legalizing and treating addicts is the only way to stop the flow of drugs. Not to mention the savings achieved from the war on drugs plus the revenue on the taxation of such substances.
With our national debt at 10% of GDP—and growing—it may be time for the US government to rethink its drug policies. There is enough revenue and savings to balance our debt, if we eliminated the costs of the war on drugs—by legalizing it—and then add the revenue of taxation to the sale of all abuse substances.
Carlos Mock, MD has published three books and is the Floricanto Press editor for its GLBT series. He was inducted in the Chicago Gay & Lesbian Hall of Fame in October of 2007. He grew up middle-class in the suburbs of San Juan, Puerto Rico. His website is: www.carlostmock.com
By Carlos T Mock, MD, F. A. C. O. G.
Chicago, IL
July 25, 2009
The unfortunate truth Americans can't deal with is despite tough anti-drug laws, a 2009 survey by The World Health Organization (WHO) shows the U.S. has the highest level of illegal drug use in the world.
The survey of legal and illegal drug use in 17 countries, including the Netherlands and other countries with less stringent drug laws, shows Americans report the highest level of cocaine and marijuana use.
For example, Americans were four times more likely to report using cocaine in their lifetime than the next closest country, New Zealand (16% vs. 4%),
Marijuana use was more widely reported worldwide, and the U.S. also had the highest rate of use at 42.4% compared with 41.9% of New Zealanders.
In contrast, in the Netherlands, which has more liberal drug policies than the U.S., only 1.9% of people reported cocaine use and 19.8% reported marijuana use.
"The use of drugs seems to be a feature of more affluent countries. The U.S., which has been driving much of the world's drug research and drug policy agenda, stands out with higher levels of use of alcohol, cocaine, and cannabis, despite punitive illegal drug policies, as well as (in many U.S. states), a higher minimum legal alcohol drinking age than many comparable developed countries," write the researchers.
Drug users in this country show a stubborn indifference to whether their preferred vice comes from Colombia, Mexico, Bolivia, Ecuador, Paraguay or Pluto, as long as it comes from somewhere. It always does.
Unfortunately, the drug cartels control much of Congress and public opinion. Hiding behind “ulterior motives,” protecting our youth from drug exposure, they have bought most politicians and conservative newspapers—like The Tribune. I personally think that because so much money is at stake, the cartels would “eliminate” any opposition to strict drug rules. It’s the only way they can stay in business. The minute the government legalizes drug use, they are out of business.
We are also forgetting that the majority of drug addiction in this country is to legal substances—tobacco, alcohol, and prescription drugs —the two most common examples of this later category are Hollywood stars like Michael Jackson, and public figures like Rush Limbaugh
It is time that the American public accept the truth: drug addiction is a disease, not a crime. Legalizing and treating addicts is the only way to stop the flow of drugs. Not to mention the savings achieved from the war on drugs plus the revenue on the taxation of such substances.
With our national debt at 10% of GDP—and growing—it may be time for the US government to rethink its drug policies. There is enough revenue and savings to balance our debt, if we eliminated the costs of the war on drugs—by legalizing it—and then add the revenue of taxation to the sale of all abuse substances.
Carlos Mock, MD has published three books and is the Floricanto Press editor for its GLBT series. He was inducted in the Chicago Gay & Lesbian Hall of Fame in October of 2007. He grew up middle-class in the suburbs of San Juan, Puerto Rico. His website is: www.carlostmock.com
Friday, July 16, 2010
In defense of Same Sex Marriage
In defense of Same Sex Marriage
By Carlos T Mock, MD
July 10, 2010
Since Same-sex marriage in the U.S. began on May 17, 2004 in the State of Massachusetts; for 14 years courts and many Americans began to change their minds on the subject. However, the Federal government has clung to its official definition of marriage as only between a man and a woman. On Thursday, one of the most conservative federal judges, Judge Joseph L. Tauro—named by Reagan—in the same state where it all began, finally stood up and said there was never a rational basis for that definition. The outcome he reached is long overdue.
The unsustainable Federal definition of marriage is contained in the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996. At the time, there was no legal same-sex marriage in the United States. But now five states and the District of Columbia issue licenses to all couples. Because of the federal law, thousands of couples in those states cannot receive the same federal benefits as opposite-sex couples, including Social Security survivor payments and spousal burials in national military cemeteries.
Even though there were two cases brought to the judge, Judge Tauro arrived at his conclusions from a case brought by a gay rights group, that the marriage definition violates the equal-protection provisions of the Constitution. There is no rational basis for discriminating against same-sex couples, he ruled, discrediting the reasons stated by lawmakers in 1996, including the encouragement of “responsible procreation” and traditional notions of marriage and morality. In this argument, he was helped by the Obama administration’s obligatory but half-hearted defense of the law, which since last year no longer supports Congress’s stated reasons.
In their wisdom, our Founding Fathers established a government ruled by separation of powers, with one branch specifically dedicated to protect the rights of minorities, like homosexuals—from the whims of the majority: The Judicial Branch of our government. Courts should generally give Congress wide deference in writing laws, but should not be afraid to examine them when challenged, to make sure they do not discriminate unfairly against an unprotected minority. The Defense of Marriage Act was passed and signed as an election-year wedge issue, and the brief debate leading up to it was full of bigoted attacks against homosexuality as “depraved” and “immoral.” One congressman said gay marriage would “devalue the love between a man and a woman.” Laws passed on this kind of basis deserve to be upended, and I hope Judge Tauro’s equal-protection opinion, which, for now, applies only to Massachusetts, is upheld on appeal.
In his 2003 dissention of the famous Lawrence v. Texas case, Justice Antonin Scalia actually predicted this moment would arrive. That decision left laws prohibiting same-sex marriage “on pretty shaky grounds,” he warned, since it undercut the traditional moral basis for opposing homosexuality. The Justice Department cited those words when it abandoned its defense of the law as related to procreation, which, in turn, helped lead to Thursday’s decision. The process of justice can take years, but in this case it seems to be moving in the right direction.
Dr. Carlos T Mock is a native Puerto Rican who resides in Chicago, IL and Three Oaks, MI. He has published four books and is the GLBT Editor for Floricanto Press in Berkley, CA. He contributes columns regularly to Windy City Times in Chicago, Ambiente Magazine in Miami, Camp Newspaper in Kansas City. He's had several OP-Ed published at the Chicago Tribune. Inducted in the Chicago Gay & Lesbian Hall of Fame October 18th, 2007. He can be reached at: http://www.carlostmock.com/
By Carlos T Mock, MD
July 10, 2010
Since Same-sex marriage in the U.S. began on May 17, 2004 in the State of Massachusetts; for 14 years courts and many Americans began to change their minds on the subject. However, the Federal government has clung to its official definition of marriage as only between a man and a woman. On Thursday, one of the most conservative federal judges, Judge Joseph L. Tauro—named by Reagan—in the same state where it all began, finally stood up and said there was never a rational basis for that definition. The outcome he reached is long overdue.
The unsustainable Federal definition of marriage is contained in the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996. At the time, there was no legal same-sex marriage in the United States. But now five states and the District of Columbia issue licenses to all couples. Because of the federal law, thousands of couples in those states cannot receive the same federal benefits as opposite-sex couples, including Social Security survivor payments and spousal burials in national military cemeteries.
Even though there were two cases brought to the judge, Judge Tauro arrived at his conclusions from a case brought by a gay rights group, that the marriage definition violates the equal-protection provisions of the Constitution. There is no rational basis for discriminating against same-sex couples, he ruled, discrediting the reasons stated by lawmakers in 1996, including the encouragement of “responsible procreation” and traditional notions of marriage and morality. In this argument, he was helped by the Obama administration’s obligatory but half-hearted defense of the law, which since last year no longer supports Congress’s stated reasons.
In their wisdom, our Founding Fathers established a government ruled by separation of powers, with one branch specifically dedicated to protect the rights of minorities, like homosexuals—from the whims of the majority: The Judicial Branch of our government. Courts should generally give Congress wide deference in writing laws, but should not be afraid to examine them when challenged, to make sure they do not discriminate unfairly against an unprotected minority. The Defense of Marriage Act was passed and signed as an election-year wedge issue, and the brief debate leading up to it was full of bigoted attacks against homosexuality as “depraved” and “immoral.” One congressman said gay marriage would “devalue the love between a man and a woman.” Laws passed on this kind of basis deserve to be upended, and I hope Judge Tauro’s equal-protection opinion, which, for now, applies only to Massachusetts, is upheld on appeal.
In his 2003 dissention of the famous Lawrence v. Texas case, Justice Antonin Scalia actually predicted this moment would arrive. That decision left laws prohibiting same-sex marriage “on pretty shaky grounds,” he warned, since it undercut the traditional moral basis for opposing homosexuality. The Justice Department cited those words when it abandoned its defense of the law as related to procreation, which, in turn, helped lead to Thursday’s decision. The process of justice can take years, but in this case it seems to be moving in the right direction.
Dr. Carlos T Mock is a native Puerto Rican who resides in Chicago, IL and Three Oaks, MI. He has published four books and is the GLBT Editor for Floricanto Press in Berkley, CA. He contributes columns regularly to Windy City Times in Chicago, Ambiente Magazine in Miami, Camp Newspaper in Kansas City. He's had several OP-Ed published at the Chicago Tribune. Inducted in the Chicago Gay & Lesbian Hall of Fame October 18th, 2007. He can be reached at: http://www.carlostmock.com/
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Independence Day and the separation of powers: The Legal Branch
Independence Day and the separation of powers: The Legal Branch
By Carlos T Mock, MD
July 4th, 2010
As we celebrate the birth of our country, I especially celebrate the wisdom of our Founding Fathers in establishing a government ruled by separation of powers, with one branch specifically dedicated to protect the rights of minorities, like me—a homosexual—from the whims of the majority: The Judicial Branch of our government.
In Elena Kagan's confirmation hearings, conservative senators have made two things clear: their disdain for "liberal activist" judges and their fear she will be one. When conservatives talk about judicial activism, they have in mind a variety of Supreme Court decisions — legalizing abortion, hindering the death penalty, allowing flag-burning and preventing officially sponsored prayer in public schools. All these, they believe, ignored the plain words or the original meaning of the text.
But there is another decision that fits any definition of a liberal, activist approach. It came in a 2003 case, Lawrence v. Texas involving two men who were prosecuted after being caught by police having sex in a bedroom in a private home. Lawrence v. Texas, is a landmark United States Supreme Court case. In the 6-3 ruling, the justices struck down the sodomy law in Texas. The court had previously addressed the same issue in 1986 in Bowers v. Hardwick, where it upheld a challenged Georgia statute, not finding a constitutional protection of sexual privacy. Lawrence explicitly overruled Bowers, holding that it had viewed the liberty interest too narrowly. The majority held that intimate consensual sexual conduct was part of the liberty protected by substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. Lawrence has the effect of invalidating similar laws throughout the United States that purport to criminalize sodomy between consenting same-sex adults acting in private. It also invalidated the application of sodomy laws to heterosexuals. This is a clear example of a minority being protected from the majority through judicial acts. Even though not decided upon equal protection grounds, sexual liberty supporters still hope that the majority decision will call into question other legal limitations on same-sex sexuality, including the right to state recognition of same-sex marriage, and the right to serve openly in the military.
Helped by the landmark civil rights case, Loving v. Virginia, in which the United States Supreme Court, by a 9-0 vote, declared Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute, the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924", unconstitutional, thereby overturning Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ended all race based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States by ruling that Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
“Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.” Loving v. Virginia
That’s why the lawyers from both sides of Bush v. Gore—Theodore Olson a Washington, D.C. lawyer and Republican Solicitor General, and David Boies a liberal lawyer who argued for Mr. Gore, joined forces in fighting for same sex marriage in California. The lawsuit was filed by four same-sex couples after California voters approved Proposition 8 in November 2008. The measure, which affirms that marriage is between one man and one woman, was placed on the ballot after the California Supreme Court ruled same-sex marriage to be a right in May 2008.
Again, The judicial branch is defending the rights of minorities (gay and lesbian tax paying citizens) to be denied a constitutional right by a suffrage referendum from the heterosexual majority. Attorney Ted Olson, making the closing argument against Proposition 8, contended that proponents had failed to show that same-sex marriage would harm the institution of marriage or impede society's interest in procreation. He compared the situation of gay couples to that of slaves. Under slavery at the time of the nation's founding, slaves could not be married legally, and that being prohibited from marrying was "the very essence of slavery," he said. Mr. Olson said there was no logical reason for voters to support Proposition 8, and therefore they must have acted out of "animus."
Dr. Carlos T Mock is a native Puerto Rican who resides in Chicago, IL and Three Oaks, MI. He has published four books and is the GLBT Editor for Floricanto Press in Berkley, CA. He contributes columns regularly to Windy City Times in Chicago, Ambiente Magazine in Miami, Camp Newspaper in Kansas City. He's had several OP-Ed published at the Chicago Tribune. Inducted in the Chicago Gay & Lesbian Hall of Fame October 18th, 2007. He can be reached at: http://www.carlostmock.com/
By Carlos T Mock, MD
July 4th, 2010
As we celebrate the birth of our country, I especially celebrate the wisdom of our Founding Fathers in establishing a government ruled by separation of powers, with one branch specifically dedicated to protect the rights of minorities, like me—a homosexual—from the whims of the majority: The Judicial Branch of our government.
In Elena Kagan's confirmation hearings, conservative senators have made two things clear: their disdain for "liberal activist" judges and their fear she will be one. When conservatives talk about judicial activism, they have in mind a variety of Supreme Court decisions — legalizing abortion, hindering the death penalty, allowing flag-burning and preventing officially sponsored prayer in public schools. All these, they believe, ignored the plain words or the original meaning of the text.
But there is another decision that fits any definition of a liberal, activist approach. It came in a 2003 case, Lawrence v. Texas involving two men who were prosecuted after being caught by police having sex in a bedroom in a private home. Lawrence v. Texas, is a landmark United States Supreme Court case. In the 6-3 ruling, the justices struck down the sodomy law in Texas. The court had previously addressed the same issue in 1986 in Bowers v. Hardwick, where it upheld a challenged Georgia statute, not finding a constitutional protection of sexual privacy. Lawrence explicitly overruled Bowers, holding that it had viewed the liberty interest too narrowly. The majority held that intimate consensual sexual conduct was part of the liberty protected by substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. Lawrence has the effect of invalidating similar laws throughout the United States that purport to criminalize sodomy between consenting same-sex adults acting in private. It also invalidated the application of sodomy laws to heterosexuals. This is a clear example of a minority being protected from the majority through judicial acts. Even though not decided upon equal protection grounds, sexual liberty supporters still hope that the majority decision will call into question other legal limitations on same-sex sexuality, including the right to state recognition of same-sex marriage, and the right to serve openly in the military.
Helped by the landmark civil rights case, Loving v. Virginia, in which the United States Supreme Court, by a 9-0 vote, declared Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute, the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924", unconstitutional, thereby overturning Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ended all race based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States by ruling that Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
“Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.” Loving v. Virginia
That’s why the lawyers from both sides of Bush v. Gore—Theodore Olson a Washington, D.C. lawyer and Republican Solicitor General, and David Boies a liberal lawyer who argued for Mr. Gore, joined forces in fighting for same sex marriage in California. The lawsuit was filed by four same-sex couples after California voters approved Proposition 8 in November 2008. The measure, which affirms that marriage is between one man and one woman, was placed on the ballot after the California Supreme Court ruled same-sex marriage to be a right in May 2008.
Again, The judicial branch is defending the rights of minorities (gay and lesbian tax paying citizens) to be denied a constitutional right by a suffrage referendum from the heterosexual majority. Attorney Ted Olson, making the closing argument against Proposition 8, contended that proponents had failed to show that same-sex marriage would harm the institution of marriage or impede society's interest in procreation. He compared the situation of gay couples to that of slaves. Under slavery at the time of the nation's founding, slaves could not be married legally, and that being prohibited from marrying was "the very essence of slavery," he said. Mr. Olson said there was no logical reason for voters to support Proposition 8, and therefore they must have acted out of "animus."
Dr. Carlos T Mock is a native Puerto Rican who resides in Chicago, IL and Three Oaks, MI. He has published four books and is the GLBT Editor for Floricanto Press in Berkley, CA. He contributes columns regularly to Windy City Times in Chicago, Ambiente Magazine in Miami, Camp Newspaper in Kansas City. He's had several OP-Ed published at the Chicago Tribune. Inducted in the Chicago Gay & Lesbian Hall of Fame October 18th, 2007. He can be reached at: http://www.carlostmock.com/
Monday, July 5, 2010
Health care crisis: Lack of Therapy for HIV/AIDS patients
Health care crisis: Lack of Therapy for HIV/AIDS patients
By Carlos T Mock, MD
July 1st. 2010
The weak economy is crippling the government program that provides life-sustaining antiretroviral drugs to people with H.I.V. or AIDS who cannot afford them.
As with other safety-net programs, ballooning demand caused by persistent unemployment and loss of health insurance is being met with reductions in government resources. Without reliable access to the medications, which cost patients in the AIDS Drug Assistance Program an average of $12,000 a year, people with H.I.V. are more likely to develop full-blown AIDS, transmit the virus and require expensive hospitalizations.
In many states, there is a sense of reverting to the 1980s and early 1990s, before the development of protease inhibitors reversed the rise in AIDS deaths.
Is this an example of “The best health care system in the world?” We are been reduced to a third world status where a lack of antiretroviral drugs is the "biggest" problem facing HIV/AIDS treatment programs in Africa, according to Robert Colebunders, a Belgian researcher at Uganda's Infectious Disease Institute at Mulago Hospital in Kampala.
Dr. Carlos T Mock is a native Puerto Rican who resides in Chicago, IL and Three Oaks, MI. He has published four books and is the GLBT Editor for Floricanto Press in Berkley, CA. He contributes columns regularly to Windy City Times in Chicago, Ambiente Magazine in Miami, Camp Newspaper in Kansas City. He's had several OP-Ed published at the Chicago Tribune. Inducted in the Chicago Gay & Lesbian Hall of Fame October 18th, 2007. He can be reached at: http://www.carlostmock.com/
By Carlos T Mock, MD
July 1st. 2010
The weak economy is crippling the government program that provides life-sustaining antiretroviral drugs to people with H.I.V. or AIDS who cannot afford them.
As with other safety-net programs, ballooning demand caused by persistent unemployment and loss of health insurance is being met with reductions in government resources. Without reliable access to the medications, which cost patients in the AIDS Drug Assistance Program an average of $12,000 a year, people with H.I.V. are more likely to develop full-blown AIDS, transmit the virus and require expensive hospitalizations.
In many states, there is a sense of reverting to the 1980s and early 1990s, before the development of protease inhibitors reversed the rise in AIDS deaths.
Is this an example of “The best health care system in the world?” We are been reduced to a third world status where a lack of antiretroviral drugs is the "biggest" problem facing HIV/AIDS treatment programs in Africa, according to Robert Colebunders, a Belgian researcher at Uganda's Infectious Disease Institute at Mulago Hospital in Kampala.
Dr. Carlos T Mock is a native Puerto Rican who resides in Chicago, IL and Three Oaks, MI. He has published four books and is the GLBT Editor for Floricanto Press in Berkley, CA. He contributes columns regularly to Windy City Times in Chicago, Ambiente Magazine in Miami, Camp Newspaper in Kansas City. He's had several OP-Ed published at the Chicago Tribune. Inducted in the Chicago Gay & Lesbian Hall of Fame October 18th, 2007. He can be reached at: http://www.carlostmock.com/
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
