Huckabee on HIV in 1992: "We need to take steps that would isolate the carriers of this plague"

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

If gays and AIDS is important to you then don't vote for him. I think you will find the constituency that cares about that is pretty narrow.

Human rights is an issue that resonates with many. You'd be surprised.

They will find a cure for AIDS soon ...

Hmm about half my neighbors work for big pharma and none of them share your optimism. What do you know that they don't?

[GaryC 7]

Huckabee released a detailed written statement earlier in the day defending his comments.

"In the late 80’s and early 90’s we were still learning about the virus that causes AIDS. My concern, as a Senate candidate at the time, was to deal with the virus using the same public health protocols that medical science and public health professionals would use with any infectious disease," he said. "Before a disease can be cured and contained we need to know exactly how and with near certainty what level of contact transmits the disease. There was still too much confusion about HIV transmission in those early years."

Huckabee said the focus at the time was to limit exposure, and that we now know the virus is spread differently than originally thought.

"But looking back almost 20 years, my concern was the uncertain risk to the general population — if we got it wrong, many people would die needlessly. My concern was safety first, political correctness last," he said.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Huckabee released a detailed written statement earlier in the day defending his comments.

"In the late 80’s and early 90’s we were still learning about the virus that causes AIDS. My concern, as a Senate candidate at the time, was to deal with the virus using the same public health protocols that medical science and public health professionals would use with any infectious disease," he said. "Before a disease can be cured and contained we need to know exactly how and with near certainty what level of contact transmits the disease. There was still too much confusion about HIV transmission in those early years."

Huckabee said the focus at the time was to limit exposure, and that we now know the virus is spread differently than originally thought.

"But looking back almost 20 years, my concern was the uncertain risk to the general population — if we got it wrong, many people would die needlessly. My concern was safety first, political correctness last," he said.

Umm the 'casual contact' thing that he was peddling in the early 90s was dispelled by the CDC in 85.

Next!

[no name 1]

If gays and AIDS is important to you then don't vote for him. I think you will find the constituency that cares about that is pretty narrow. They will find a cure for AIDS soon and it will no longer be a issue for the gays.

1 million + gays is not a small constituent.

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

If gays and AIDS is important to you then don't vote for him. I think you will find the constituency that cares about that is pretty narrow. They will find a cure for AIDS soon and it will no longer be a issue for the gays.

1 million + gays is not a small constituent.

one out of every 300? that number is low imo.

[desert_fox 32]

As a candidate for a U.S. Senate seat in 1992, Huckabee answered 229 questions submitted to him by the Associated Press.

...

In 1992, Huckabee wrote: "If the federal government is truly serious about doing something with the AIDS virus, we need to take steps that would isolate the carriers of this plague.

...

When asked about AIDS research in 1992, Huckabee said it received an unfair share of federal dollars compared to cancer, diabetes and heart disease.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/na...1&cset=true

Huckabee for PRES!!

[russ 1]

When asked about AIDS research in 1992, Huckabee said it received an unfair share of federal dollars compared to cancer, diabetes and heart disease.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/na...1&cset=true

Going by the numbers, heart disease, cancer and diabetes kill far more Americans than HIV does. If you are not an IV drug user, gay, or a prostitute, the odds of contracting HIV are incredibly slim. (From the CDC, of the ~1,000,000 HIV cases in the US, ~750,000 are the result of IV drug use or gay sex. I would say the spending 75% of the prevention budget on these groups would be smart). The other 25% of cases is caused by high-risk sex, i.e. prostitution.

[desert_fox 32]

Also in the wide-ranging 1992 questionnaire, Huckabee said: "I feel homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle, and we now know it can pose a dangerous public health risk."

More recently, in 2003, Huckabee said that the U.S. Supreme Court was probably right to strike down anti-sodomy laws, but that states still should be able to restrict things such as same-sex marriage or domestic-partner benefits.

"What people do in the privacy of their own lives as adults is their business," Huckabee said. "If they bring it into the public square and ask me as a taxpayer to support it or to endorse it, then it becomes a matter of public discussion and discourse."

What a flip-flopping right winger!

VOTE for HUCKABEE!!!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Gary, we knew a lot about AIDS in 1992 -- enough to know about its transmission. We didn't know as much about treating it as we do now, but it had already been three years since Princess Diana shook an AIDS patient's hand at the opening of a treatment center. Treating it like a "plague" (as if the biblical word in this context isn't frightening enough) was not the norm in 1992 among educated people.

The point is this: taking a 15 year old statement and trying to apply it to today is reaching. Like I said, I could find statements made by the other candidates on many subjects that would make your eyebrows raise. This is just reaching. If someones stand on gays or AIDS is important then by all means judge your support on that basis but at least make it applicable to today and not something said 15 years ago.

The important 'but' here is that the guy's political career was pretty well established at the time, and that being a given he displayed (for the time) a shocking level of ignorance on that issue.

There is a difference between that and reaching back into someone's life and picking up on things they'd said during college or high-school. I would agree with you there. Not here...

[GaryC 7]

When asked about AIDS research in 1992, Huckabee said it received an unfair share of federal dollars compared to cancer, diabetes and heart disease.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/na...1&cset=true

Going by the numbers, heart disease, cancer and diabetes kill far more Americans than HIV does. If you are not an IV drug user, gay, or a prostitute, the odds of contracting HIV are incredibly slim. (From the CDC, of the ~1,000,000 HIV cases in the US, ~750,000 are the result of IV drug use or gay sex. I would say the spending 75% of the prevention budget on these groups would be smart). The other 25% of cases is caused by high-risk sex, i.e. prostitution.

You said it. The focus on gays and AIDS is just PC pandering. We have a lot more important things to worry about. The left likes to use it as a hammer. Let them. The fact remains that unless you need a blood transfusion contracting AIDS is a possibility only if you don't take the proper precautions. AIDS is fully preventable. The gays have turned it into a political issue.

[russ 1]

They will find a cure for AIDS soon ...

Hmm about half my neighbors work for big pharma and none of them share your optimism. What do you know that they don't?

A retrovirus is a tricky thing to vaccinate against. In simple terms, it adds itself to your DNA. Once there, it isn't such an easy task to get rid of it. The best thing to do is not get it in the first place.

About 5-8% of human DNA is "junk" that we have inherited from such viruses in ancient times. (At least, ones that infected sperm and egg cells.)

I wouldn't hold my breath on a cure or vaccine.

[mawilson 2,133]

The gays have turned it into a political issue.

The gays? You talk about them as if they were all the same. There are gay liberals,

gay conservatives and gay moderates, just like there are various groups among

"the straights".

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The gays have turned it into a political issue.

The gays? You talk about them as if they were all the same. There are gay liberals,

gay conservatives and gay moderates, just like there are various groups among

"the straights".

LMAO "the straights"!

[no name 1]

The gays have turned it into a political issue.

The gays? You talk about them as if they were all the same. There are gay liberals,

gay conservatives and gay moderates, just like there are various groups among

"the straights".

LMAO "the straights"!

What about the fence-sitters?

[GaryC 7]

Being gay isn't a lifestyle choice and to me isn't evil so on that point I do not agree with the evangelicals. But contracting AIDS, with few exceptions, is a lifestyle choice. The only ones I feel sorry for in this day and age are the people that got it through no fault of their own.

That being said I am not a Huckabee supporter so what happens to him doesn't matter much to me. I doubt if he gets the nomination anyway.