Supreme Court | Truvada

How The Hobby Lobby Decision Could Undermine The Fight Against HIV/AIDS

The Supreme Court's decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. could pose a significant threat to the fight for broader access to comprehensive treatment for HIV/AIDS. The ruling, handed down last week, held that closely held, for-profit corporations could be exempt from laws in direct conflict with their religious beliefs.

ImageHobby Lobby took specific issue with four forms of contraception the Affordable Care Act required it to provide its employees through its healthcare. While the bulk of the Hobby Lobby conversation has centered around religious objections to contraceptives, Media Matters points out that similar arguments could be made against Truvada, a drug just as socially polarizing.

A form of pre-exposure prophylaxis, (PrEP) Truvada has proven itself to be an overwhelmingly effective means of blocking HIV infection when taken properly. With a 99% efficacy rate, an endorsement from the CDC, and increasing deployment in public health initiatives, Truvada has the potential to be a key component in halting new HIV infection rates.

As Carlos Maza points out in Media Matters, however, the conversation around Truvada bears a striking resemblance to the debate about birth control. "[T]he Truvada debate recalls the way birth control was viewed in some quarters in the 1960s -- as an accessory to promiscuity."

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Yes hormonal birth control and PrEP are the same in that people take them in order to not have to deal with condoms.

    I don't give a damn what the "official" line is about PrEP...(should be used with condoms)...all the hookup sites and apps have guys listing themselves as being on PrEP and looking for bareback sex.

    Guaranteed that within two years some researcher will release a study that shows that guys on PrEP are more likely to contract an STD (other than HIV of course).

    Posted by: Qj201 | Jul 8, 2014 9:13:39 AM


  2. Guaranteed that in a few years along with the explosion of other STDs, there will be extra-resitant strains of HIV because of people using the drug occasionally instead of on daily basis.

    Already in the relevant studies, about half the people who were supposed to take the pill every day actually didn't. Which makes sense when we talk of young people with no prior medical record who can't be troubled to put a condom on, much less stick to a daily drug regimen FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES.

    Of course Big Pharma, major gay sites and the gay HIV+ community will try to spin this as another righteous battle against prudes and religious fanatics. Big Pharma because of the profits, gay sites because it's a way to make money on paid informecials and poz gays because they can't wait for the day that the "stigma" gets erased and everybody else in the gay community lives with the same drugs and the same regular medical checks as them.

    Posted by: ct | Jul 8, 2014 10:52:32 AM


  3. I don't see why it matters whether a drug is "socially polarizing." There is no tangible "proof" of anybody's "religious beliefs" -- they can only be taken to be whatever the person says they are. So if an employer says his religious beliefs prohibit any medical intervention in the natural progression of diseases whatsoever, or that his religious beliefs prohibit holidays from work, how could he be forced to cover anyone for ANYTHING or to follow any law whatsoever?

    Still, at around $13,000 per year, Truvada is a ridiculous extravagance for a disease that can be avoided with simple and FREE precautions. I would be annoyed to think that my salary had to be a thousand dollars a month less because my co-workers and others in society were demanding that all sorts of completely avoidable expenses be paid for by the workplace (and I already do feel this way about the degree to which my salary is ALREADY depressed by such entitlements).

    Posted by: GregV | Jul 8, 2014 11:26:27 AM


  4. I don't see why it matters whether a drug is "socially polarizing." There is no tangible "proof" of anybody's "religious beliefs" -- they can only be taken to be whatever the person says they are. So if an employer says his religious beliefs prohibit any medical intervention in the natural progression of diseases whatsoever, or that his religious beliefs prohibit holidays from work, how could he be forced to cover anyone for ANYTHING or to follow any law whatsoever?

    Still, at around $13,000 per year, Truvada is a ridiculous extravagance for a disease that can be avoided with simple and FREE precautions. I would be annoyed to think that my salary had to be a thousand dollars a month less because my co-workers and others in society were demanding that all sorts of completely avoidable expenses be paid for by the workplace (and I already do feel this way about the degree to which my salary is ALREADY depressed by such entitlements).

    Posted by: GregV | Jul 8, 2014 11:26:28 AM


  5. Every drug would like to get on the medicaid and medicare approved list so that the govt. pays for it and that makes them much more popular to prescribe, but it's a tough sell for any contraceptive or pill that's design to prevent AIDS infections. Normally, when a medication is approved by Medicare, the insurance companies follow suit and cover the pills too.

    Posted by: anon | Jul 8, 2014 11:42:01 AM


  6. I hope in a year, you have a supreme court decision saying that you can get a voucher from your employer to seek your own health insurance if you want, much like how you can get a school voucher to send your children to another school if you're not satisfied with your public school system.

    Posted by: Garst | Jul 14, 2014 6:18:17 PM


Post a comment







Trending


« «Ian Thorpe is About to Be Asked for the Nth Time if He's Gay: VIDEO« «