Ending prisoner rape in Michigan
LINDA MCFARLANE writes:
The Michigan Department of Corrections (DOC) last week settled a class action lawsuit brought by over 500 female prisoners who were sexually abused in the state’s prisons. With the $100-million settlement agreement, hopefully the DOC will also begin to take the proactive steps needed to prevent and address the sexual violence that continues to plague its facilities.
This decision came after more than ten years of litigation, during which the courts repeatedly ruled against the state.
Although the prevalence of sexual abuse in Michigan prisons is well documented, leading officials have insisted that this type of violence is not a serious problem. In 2008, DOC Director Patricia Caruso opposed national standards being developed to address sexual abuse behind bars, stating that they would require that a “disproportionate amount of resources be dedicated to an issue that affects less than 1% of the DOC prison population.”
This claim is in blatant defiance of the facts. A 2007 national survey by the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, which surveyed inmates at three Michigan prisons, found that the proportion of prisoners experiencing sexual victimization in the past year alone ranged from 4.6% to 7.9%.
Rape and other forms of sexual violence cause long-term harm to survivors and their communities. Prisoner rape survivors suffer physical injury, contract HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases, and experience severe psychological trauma. The vast majority of inmates ultimately return home, bringing their experiences and medical and psychiatric conditions with them.
See Ending prisoner rape in Michigan
Detroit Free Press -
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
 |
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/07/ending-prison…
California School Bans Sixth I Presentation on Harvey Milk
California School Bans Sixth
Grader’s Presentation on Harvey MilkFaces Possible
ACLU Lawsuit For Violation Of State Education Code
RAMONA, CA – Wrongly citing a school policy on sex education, a
California
school illegally censored a sixth grader’s classroom presentation about Harvey
Milk earlier this month. According
to a demand letter sent by the American Civil Liberties Union to the
Ramona Unified School
District today, the school violated Natalie Jones’s
free speech rights when it refused to allow her to give the presentation in
class. Instead, the school
improperly required classmates to get parental permission to see the
presentation during a lunch recess.
“This whole thing is unbelievable –
first my daughter got called into the principal’s office as if she were in some
kind of trouble, and then they treated her presentation like it was something
icky,” said Bonnie Jones, mother of the Mt. Woodson Elementary School
student. “Harvey Milk was an
elected official in this state and an important person in history. To
say my daughter’s presentation is
‘sex education’ because Harvey Milk happened to be gay is completely
wrong.”
The assignment, part of an
independent research project class, was originally to prepare a written report
on any topic. Natalie Jones, who
was inspired to write about Harvey Milk after watching Sean Penn win an Academy
Award for portraying him, got a score of 49 out of a possible 50 points on the
written report. Students were then
told to make PowerPoint presentations about their reports, which they
would show
to other students in the class. The
day before Natalie was to give her 12-page presentation she was called into the
principal’s office and told she couldn’t do so.
When Bonnie Jones spoke with the
superintendent about the presentation, he said Natalie couldn’t give her
presentation because of a district board policy on “Family Life/Sex
Education.” A few days later, the
school sent letters to parents of students in the class, explaining that her
presentation would be held during a lunch recess on May 8, and that students
could only attend if they had parental permission.
“The principal and superintendent
grossly misinterpreted school policy.
They illegally censored student speech protected by the First Amendment
and the California Education Code,” said David
Blair-Loy, Legal Director of the ACLU of San Diego and
Imperial
Counties. “Writing or talking about a gay
historical figure who advocated for equal rights for LGBT Californians is in no
way the same thing as talking about sex, and school officials should
not pretend
otherwise.”
The Ramona Unified School
District policy on “Family Life/Sex
Education” reads in part:
“(P)arents/guardians shall be
notified in writing about any instruction in which human reproductive
organs and
their functions, processes, or sexually transmitted diseases are described,
illustrated, or discussed. In
addition, before any instruction on family life, human sexuality, AIDS or
sexually transmitted diseases is given, the parent/guardian shall be provided
with written notice explaining that the instruction will be
given…”
“Schools that act as if any mention
of the existence of gay people is something too controversial or ‘sensitive’ to
discuss are doing a disservice to their students,” said Elizabeth
Gill, a staff attorney with the ACLU’s
national LGBT Project. “This school
completely overstepped its bounds in trying to silence Natalie Jones
by shunting
her presentation off to a lunch recess time and misusing a school policy to
justify requiring parental permission to see it.”
In today’s letter, the ACLU is
demanding that the school:
·
Apologize in writing to Natalie
Jones and send a letter about that apology to all the parents who were sent the
principal’s letter about the presentation
·
Give
Natalie Jones an opportunity to give her presentation to all the other members
of her independent research project class
·
Clarify
in writing that the parental notification and permission portion of the “Family
Life/Sex Education” policy only applies to the curricula identified as “course
content” for “Family Life/Sex Education instruction”
The ACLU is giving the district
five days to respond or it may file a lawsuit on Bonnie and Natalie Jones’s
behalf.
Harvey Milk, one of Time Magazine’s “Time 100 Heroes and
Icons of the 20th Century” in 1999, has been the subject of several books, an
opera, a documentary film that won the 1984 Academy Award for Documentary
Feature, and a feature film released last year that won two Academy Awards for
Best Original Screenplay and Best Actor.
Milk’s birthday, the subject of a bill pending in the California legislature
that would make it a state holiday, is this Friday.
For additional information,
including copies of Natalie Jones’s presentation on Harvey Milk, the school’s
letter to parents, and the Ramona U.S.D. “Family Life/Sex Education” policy,
visit http://www.aclu.org/Milk.
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/05/california-sc…
The gay condom debate
To wear or not to wear? The condom debate among gay men, especially in Washington, D.C., where HIV cases are alarmingly high, is especially important.
Gay men do not need condoms for their primary use – birth control – but still need them to protect against sexually transmitted diseases and HIV.
An estimated one in 20 adults in D.C. is affected with HIV and 37 percent of cases affect sexually active gay men, according to the Whitman-Walker Clinic, which provides HIV testing.
While some gay men do not use condoms because it “feels better” or “feels more natural,” other gay men in the D.C. community are speaking out and promoting safe sex.
Michael Komo, president of GW’s Allied in Pride, is taking steps forward in promoting condom use among gay men.
“There is no reason for two people who are sexually active with one another to not use condoms,” Komo said. “We need to do everything as a community in order to promote safe sex.”
While he promotes condom use, Komo also suggests sexually active gay men get tested for HIV every six months.
“My philosophy is that it is better to be safe than sorry. I have done everything in my power to promote sex safe,” said Komo. “I am a huge advocate for using protection. I think that there will always be a debate, whether it be among gay men or straight partners, about whether or not to use a condom during sex.”
GW’s Allied in Pride office provides free condoms.
“We want people to protect themselves if they are having sex,” Komo said. “There is no reason for people to not be safe. (Condoms) take very little effort to use. We always have and always will advocate for practicing safe sex.”
The George Washington University The GW Hatchet* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/04/gay-condom-de…
Stigma drives HIV-positive gay men’s sexual risk-taking
|
Roger Pebody, Friday, March 06, 2009 |
HIV-positive gay men’s experiences of stigma and rejection by sexual partners strongly influence their involvement in casual sex and discourage them from practicing many risk-reduction strategies, report Sigma Research in their Relative Safety II report published this week.
The men they interviewed wished to balance their desire for sexual pleasure with a need to maintain their sense of moral integrity, but were often unable to avoid sex which could result in HIV transmission.
To follow up a similar study published a decade ago, Adam Bourne and colleagues interviewed 42 gay men with diagnosed HIV about their sexual practices and management of risk. The in-depth, qualitative interviews focused on recent experiences of unprotected anal intercourse (UAI), and to take part in the study, men had to have had unprotected sex in the past year. Therefore it’s important to note that the study does not reflect the experiences of the one-third of gay men with HIV who do not practice UAI in any given year.
The researchers attempted to include in the sample a mix of respondents from London and Manchester as well as lower prevalence areas, and also ensure diversity in terms of age and time since diagnosis.
All respondents were aware that they could transmit HIV through unprotected anal intercourse, and almost all said that they would never want to be responsible for doing so. Men more recently diagnosed tended to be particularly preoccupied by this concern, often avoiding sex altogether for a period after diagnosis.
In terms of the other harms which unprotected sex could give rise to, men tended to feel that sexually transmitted infections were rarely serious, although a few were more concerned about hepatitis C. Whilst some recently diagnosed men felt that HIV superinfection was an issue, men who had been diagnosed for longer usually believed that clinicians had deliberately exaggerated its importance.
Of more concern, however, were the emotional, psychological and social harms that unprotected sex could lead to. If men failed to live up to their own ethical guidelines, this could lead to inner turmoil. Moreover, some respondents described the perceived irresponsible behaviour of other HIV-positive men in order to highlight their own moral integrity. Having unprotected anal intercourse posed a threat both to a man’s positive sense of self and to the way in which other gay men saw him.
The researchers argue that men’s concerns about rejection and stigma shape they way they manage risk. Disclosure leaves men vulnerable to significant harm, including violent reactions and anxiety about ex-partners using police investigations as retribution, as well as rejection leading to emotional upset and problems finding sexual partners. In a community that often remains hostile to people with HIV, men’s instinct for self-preservation often leads them to choose behaviours where disclosure is felt to be unnecessary.
For example, many men used saunas, not just because sex was readily available, but also because the men assumed that almost all other sauna users were HIV-positive. Like online chat rooms or HIV support group meetings, saunas were thought to be ‘HIV positive spaces’ where men had implicitly announced their HIV status simply by being there. This allowed men to have unprotected sex there without an explicit discussion of HIV status, but leaving them with their sense of personal integrity intact.
In some settings, some men tried to avoid disclosure but maintain their sense of moral integrity by suggesting to sexual partners that it would be a good idea to use a condom. Nonetheless one man described how these suggestions prompted one sexual partner to ask directly whether he had HIV. When he said yes, the man became angry and left.
Another form of implicit disclosure that men tried was ticking ‘safer sex needs discussion’ on a Gaydar internet profile. Few men explicitly advertised their HIV status on their profile, but might mention it during private instant messaging. The respondents described ambiguities and misunderstandings in disclosure on the internet, but generally found that the internet enabled them to screen potential partners with less fear of disappointment or reprisal.
Nonetheless, the researchers found that men used risk reduction strategies to quite a limited extent. No respondents mentioned reducing the duration of anal intercourse or the impact that viral load or a sexually transmitted infection could have on the risk of transmission. Just a few men discussed the greater risk of infection for the receptive partner or the possible benefit of withdrawing before ejaculation.
Some men did practice some form of sero-sorting (seeking partners of the same HIV status) and respondents said that it allowed them to have uninhibited sex where HIV status did not remain the most salient concern throughout.
Nonetheless the researchers stress that no man exclusively practiced sero-sorting in a way that could guarantee that both partners had the same HIV status. Disclosure was often implicit (by being in a sauna, for example) or was not reciprocal. The respondent may have made an upfront disclosure of HIV status, and assumed that if his partner was ready to carry on without condoms, then he must be positive too.
However the majority of men actually rejected the idea of sero-sorting. It was associated in their minds with high-risk, esoteric practices, and in the words of one respondent, men who are “going spreading it round because they are shagging willy-nilly”. Many men were at pains to distance themselves from this behaviour. They were appalled by the idea that unprotected sex could ever be a regular or planned activity, and so rejected sero-sorting, strategic positioning, withdrawal before ejaculation and other risk reduction strategies.
Nonetheless these same men had all had some unprotected sex. It tended to be described as an exceptional event, explained by circumstances such as substance use or a partner’s insistence. The researchers make it clear that a number of men lacked the self-confidence or negotiation skills to manage such situations. Many men aspired to use a condom every time, but were not able to fall back on risk reduction strategies when, for whatever reason, condoms weren’t used.
In their conclusion the researchers note several consequences of HIV related stigma: a reluctance to disclose and an encouragement to have anonymous sex; some interviewees’ rejection of other HIV-positive men and their behaviour; a desire not to engage with the idea that HIV risk is an integral part of sex; and the reluctance to use risk-reduction strategies.
However they also note that, for many men, there are direct contradictions between their intentions and their behaviour. Many men construct systems of belief about risk that enable them to have the sex they desire, whilst feeling that they are ‘moral enough’. They believe they are behaving responsibly, but HIV transmission may well be taking place.
The researchers recommend tailored prevention interventions for diagnosed men which take account of the centrality of stigma, and discuss unprotected sex in credible and informative ways. Moreover health professionals need to improve their skills in engaging men with these issues.
See Stigma drives HIV-positive gay men’s sexual risk-taking
Aidsmap -
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/03/stigma-drives…
Compound may block HIV infection
Researchers have identified a cheap, commonly-used compound that, applied vaginally, can stop monkeys being infected with a primate version of HIV.
The discovery, by the University of Minnesota, raises hopes of a similar microbicidal treatment to block HIV transmission in humans.
Several microbicides have been tested, but results have been disappointing.
The study – focusing on a compound called glycerol monolaurate (GML) – is published online by the journal Nature.
GML is a naturally occurring compound widely used as an antimicrobial and anti-inflammatory agent in food and cosmetics.
Crucially, it is also cheap, and is likely to protect against other sexually transmitted infections too.
Compound may block HIV infection
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/03/compound-may-…
World Television Premiere Event: The Film ‘Pedro’ Airs on MTV, MTV Tr3s, mtvU & LOGO on Wednesday, April 1 at 8:00 PM ET/PT
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/03/world-televis…
ACLU Asks Court To Stop Misuse Of Taxpayer Dollars In Trafficking Victims Program
BOSTON – The American Civil Liberties Union today asked a federal court to require the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to ensure that funds distributed through the Trafficking Victims Protection Act are not being used to impose religiously based restrictions on reproductive health services. Since 2006, HHS has allowed the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops to limit, based on its religious beliefs, the types of services trafficking victims receive with taxpayer dollars.
“Human trafficking is basically a form of modern-day slavery,” said Brigitte Amiri, staff attorney with the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project. “There are many organizations that are deeply committed to assisting trafficking victims; our government should ensure that these organizations can provide the full range of needed services, including reproductive health care.”
Through the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, the federal government distributes funds to cover an array of services needed by the more than 14,000 individuals, predominantly women, who are brought into the United States annually and exploited for their labor, including in the commercial sex industry. Many trafficking victims experience extreme violence and sexual assault at the hands of their traffickers. Some become pregnant as a result of rape and some contract sexually transmitted infections, including HIV, according to today’s legal papers.
“For more than two years, the Bush administration has sanctioned the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ blatant misuse of taxpayer dollars,” said Daniel Mach, Director of Litigation for the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief. “It has allowed USCCB to impose its religious beliefs on trafficking victims by prohibiting sub grantees from ensuring access to services like emergency contraception, condoms, and abortion care.”
Since April 2006, HHS, which administers funds allocated by the federal Trafficking Victims Protection Act, has awarded USCCB grants ranging from $2.5 million to $3.5 million annually to support organizations that provide direct services to trafficking victims. As part of its sub granting program, USCCB prohibits, based on its religious beliefs, grantees from using federal funds to provide or refer for contraceptive or abortion services. USCCB sub grants to service organizations throughout the country, including to providers in Massachusetts.
“We are asking the court to stop this misuse of taxpayer dollars and to protect the health and safety of trafficking victims,” said Sarah Wunsch, staff attorney with the ACLU of Massachusetts. “Trafficking victims need comprehensive and compassionate care to gain their freedom and lead safe and healthy lives.”
The case is ACLU of Massachusetts v. Leavitt (Civ. No. 09-10038), filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Lawyers on the case include Amiri with the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project; Mach and Heather Weaver with the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief; Rose A. Saxe with the ACLU AIDS Project; and Wunsch with the ACLU of Massachusetts.
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/01/aclu-asks-cou…
Binge drinking linked to increased HIV risk
(New York City) New Yorkers who binge drink tend to have many more sex partners, putting themselves at an increased risk for sexually transmitted diseases compared with those who drink less or don’t drink at all, according to a new Health Department.
The report – Alcohol Use and Risky Sex in …
