Whether or not to attempt to eliminate prostitution is the decision of the country receiving the funds, not the U.S. If the U.S. wants to contribute to the attempt to reduce the number of cases of AIDS in the world and treat existing cases worldwide and donate money for that purpose, then the money should be donated with NO STRINGS ATTACHED. In my opinion, I would like to see all foreign aid (of all types) cease. However, if the U.S. provides humanitarian funds, then provide the money but leave conditions out of it. PERIOD. The U.S. is not the morale judge and jury for the world nor should it be. You cannot give 100.00 to your neighbor and then tell your neighbor exactly how to spend and under what conditions he can spend it. If you attach conditions to the gift then it is not a gift and definitely not a gift whose primary purpose is humanitarian support. I would accept a term of that nature from a religious organization providing aid - that would be a private organization's purogative, but not a government which should be practicing separation of church and state. I also seriously doubt that the majority of our citizens would agree with the conditions attached to the aid. I know that I don't.


>>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?