>The same principle was attempted in previous centuries with disastrous results. At one time, there were no free clinics for those without medical insurance and you could only receive medical care at hospitals if you could pay out of your pocket. Church organizations (consisting mainly of married financially secure women volunteers or older single daughters of a wealthy family with no other prospects) provided some medical care to street prostitutes but those receiving the care had to sit through religious sermons, lectures, and often denounce their only means of support. I cannot believe it is happening again. I completely agree with education on prevention (shouldn't the audience for that group be mostly those not infected?) as well as treatment, but a signed statement? Sheesh, give me a break.

I hate sermons as much as you. But this is not the same thing....

You stated in your previous post...

"The initiative is based on the success of Uganda, which achieved the greatest decline in HIV of any country of the world. The success there was broadly based on AIDS prevention messages as in the 'ABC' approach (which included abstinance and being faithful to your partner) as well as treatment. This was supposedly recognized worldwide as the most successful program in the world to date. How recognition of that model evolved into requiring beneficiafies of assistance to sign a declaration against prostitution one will never know..."

Doesn't it make sence to try to eliminate something that is detrimental to what has made Uganda's AIDs epidemic better?

Does prostitution promate what has made Uganda better?