HIV Prevention Act (S. 1553)
Introduced by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)

What is is
Why you should support it
Bill status
Take action

What it is>>

The bipartisan HIV Prevention Act will remove the funding restriction requiring that at least 33% of all global HIV prevention funding be used for abstinence-until-marriage programs. The current funding restriction applies to the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria Act which the Administration renamed  PEPFAR, the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief.  If enacted, the bill will enable comprehensive prevention programs to be developed in response to local community needs, rather than having them dictated by Washington, DC. 

Why you should support it>>

• Abstinence and delaying sexual debut need to be part of a continuum of care.  The U.S. approach to HIV prevention embraces the ABC model - Abstinence, Be Faithful, and (as a last resort) use a Condom.  But just because A is one letter in ABC does not mean that 33% of funds need to be directed to these efforts.  In fact, there is no data available indicating that abstinence until marriage programs are effective in preventing HIV and AIDS.  The funding restriction also requires the Administration to prove to Congress that is it spending 33% of funds on A - which had led to separate programs that only focus on abstinence.  This approach ignores that more information and knowledge about HIV prevention is better than less, and keeps young people, in particular, from receiving a continuum of care - learning skills to remain abstinent and learning what to do to protect themselves when they do become sexually active.
• Abstinence until marriage programs don't address the real-life situation of people.  With 80% of HIV infections among women resulting from sex with their husbands or primary partners, the exaggerated emphasis of funding on abstinence until marriage programs has no impact for the overwhelming majority of infections.  Many of these women were abstinent until they got married, and with a lack of information, ability to exercise their rights, or access to interventions, became infected when they got married.  This is a failed approach.

• Independent reviews call for removing the earmark.  Recently, the non-partisan United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the Institute of Medicine (IOM) reviewed PEPFAR and found:
  
  • The earmark limited or reduced funding for programs directed to high-risk groups, such as sexually active youth. (GAO)
  • The majority of country teams on the ground reported that meeting the spending requirement challenges their ability to develop interventions that are responsive to local epidemiology and social norms. (GAO)
  • The 33 percent abstinence spending requirement is limiting available funding for other key HIV prevention programs, such as mother-to-child transmission and maintaining a healthy blood supply. (GAO)
  • There is no evidence to support a 33 percent abstinence-only earmark. (IOM)
  • The 33 percent earmark does not allow country teams on the ground the flexibility they need to respond to local needs. (IOM)

The HIV Prevention Act, like the PATHWAY Act in the House, seeks to remove the funding restriction.  In June, the House voted to lift the restriction in the one-year spending bill that funds these programs, though that effort is still going through the legislative process. 

Bill Status>>

The HIV Prevention Act was introduced on June 6, 2007 and referred to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.

Take Action>>

Help build support for this vital legislation. Make a phone call today:

• Contact your Senators and ask them both to co-sponsor the HIV Prevention Act. Click here to find your Senators and their contact information.
• Email Senator Feinstein and thank her for her leadership on this issue.