Peter LaBarbera

CDC: 94 to 95 percent of HIV cases among young men linked to gay sex

Peter LaBarbera
By Peter LaBarbera

WASHINGTON, D.C., September 13, 2013 (Americans for Truth) - The above is a graphic from a CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) online slide presentation, “HIV Surveillance in Adolescents and Young Adults” [1] – breaking down the incidence of HIV among young men ages 13-24. In 2011, an astonishing 94.9 percent of HIV diagnoses among teenage boys (13-19-years-old) were linked to homosexual (“male-to-male”) sex. And 94.1 percent of the cases among young men ages 20-24 (more analysis below) were from “gay” sex.

With the incidence of HIV among men so closely tied to homosexual sex, shouldn’t the government and all concerned and compassionate adults be urging young men and teenaged boys not to engage in or experiment with dangerous homosexual behavior? And yet, the CDC and other pro-”gay” institutions (including many schools public and private) are doing exactly the opposite, as they focus instead on affirming “gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender” youth as a “sexual minority.”

Feds Fund ‘Gay’ Youth Activist Groups

Another CDC document, “HIV and Young Men Who Have Sex with Men” (June 2012), reports that in 2011, the CDC awarded funds to two homosexual activists groups — the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) and the Gay-Straight Alliance Network (GSAN) — “to assist CDC-funded public health and environmental changes to help schools and communities meet the health and medical needs of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth.” See this CNSNews article on the CDC grant.

With HIV rates growing among YMSM (young men who have sex with men), the CDC’s focus on building self-esteem among LGBT youth and creating a “positive school climate” for homosexuals — includes forming “gay”-affirming clubs in schools — seems disconnected from reality. The aforementioned CDC report on HIV and YMSM states:

Gay-straight alliances (GSAs) are one approach being used to create safe and welcoming school environments. Research has shown that in schools with support groups such as GSA’s, lesbian, gay and bisexual students were less likely to experience threats of violence, miss school because they felt unsafe, or attempt suicide than those in schools without such groups.

In the same report, the CDC identifies the behaviors among young homosexuals that are causing the escalating HIV rates:

A CDC analysis of date from 13 YRBS [Youth Risk Behavior Survey] sites found that sexual minority students, especially those who identified as homosexual or bisexual, were disproportionately likely to engage in many health risk behaviors, including sexual risk behaviors (such as having sexual intercourse for the first time at younger ages, having multiple sex partners, and not using condoms); tobacco, alcohol, and other drug use; and behaviors related to attempted suicide.

Elsewhere in the CDC report it touts CDC funding for “school health professionals…to help them understand the needs of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth and shape behavioral messages accordingly.” But those behavioral messages apparently do not include discouraging students from engaging in homosexual sex.

Elephant in the room

The chasm between the obvious and extreme health risks associated with “gay” male sex and the CDC’s politically correct, pro-homosexuality mindset reflects public policy malpractice on an Orwellian scale. “Gay” activist ideology and assumptions — including intrinsic (many would claim innate) “gay”/bi/transgender identities — go unquestioned at the CDC. Ironically, the most direct answer to the HIV-youth crisis — teaching young people NOT to practice unhealthy homosexual sex — is the one thing that is essentially forbidden.

Click "like" if you want to defend true marriage.

All across America, “gay” activists and their straight liberal allies are advocating “gay”-positive lesson plans and strategies in response to anti-homosexual bullying. However, while everyone can agree that all bullying is wrong, many “anti-bullying” programs double as pro-LGBT affirmation programs. This is troubling because: 1) bullying can be discouraged with neutral messaging that does not promote “out and proud” homosexuality and transgenderism; and 2) in the name of “safety,” educators and cultural elites are advocating a sexual lifestyle that has continually been shown to be dangerous, particularly for males.


1. Produced by the CDC’s National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD & TB Prevention, a division of HIV/AIDS Prevention. Data is for 2008-2011.

This article originally appeared on Americans for Truth and is reprinted with permission.

Featured Image
Planned Parenthood's massive abortion facility in Houston Wikimedia Commons
Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

Study estimates 9,200 fewer abortions in Texas this year thanks to pro-life law

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben
By Ben Johnson

A Texas law requiring abortionists to have admitting privileges at local hospitals will reduce the number of abortions statewide by 9,200 this year, according to a newly released report from a think tank that supports abortion-on-demand.

Analysts from the Texas Policy Evaluation Project, which previously published a report entitled "The Public Health Threat of Anti-abortion Legislation," contacted every licensed abortionist in the state and asked for the number of abortions performed since the state's new pro-life law took effect.

They reported 30,800 abortions in the state of Texas between November 2013 and April – 4,600 fewer than the same period in the previous year. That represents a 13 percent decrease, which will translate into at least 9,200 fewer abortions statewide, they estimate.

Medical or chemical abortions, which are induced with the use of a pill rather than surgical procedure, declined by 70 percent, they said.

The project, which includes researchers from Ibis Reproductive Health, credited the closure of roughly half of the abortion facilities in Texas with the decrease.

H.B. 2, which made headlines for barring abortion after 20 weeks, was signed into law by Gov. Rick Perry last July. Another requirement that abortionists have admitting privileges at hospitals within 30 miles of their businesses went into effect on November 1.

The number of abortion facilities has declined from 41 to 22.

“Almost all of these closures are related to difficulties obtaining hospital admitting privileges for physicians at these facilities,” the researchers wrote.

“The closure of clinics and restrictions on medical abortion in Texas appear to be associated with a decline in the in-state abortion rate and a marked decrease in the number of medical abortions,” the authors concluded in an article published today in the journal Contraception.

There may be only six abortion facilities left in Texas by September 1, when new regulations in the law requiring abortion facilities to meet the same health and safety standards as ambulatory surgical centers go into effect.

Some pro-life leaders question the study's numbers. Joe Pojman, executive director of the Texas Alliance for Life, told the Houston Chronicle that abortionists may not be reporting all the abortions they perform.

State Rep. Jessica Farrar, D-Houston, believes the reported reduction in abortions is nothing to celebrate, saying, “we have reduced women's access to safe and legal abortion but not decreased the need for it.” She said the law “endangered women.”

But Melissa Conway of Texas Right to Life said the reductions showed that the law is influencing women to become pro-life. “The more Texans know about the truth of the life-ending procedure of abortion, they are stepping up and turning away from choosing to take the life of a baby,” she said.  

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben


US House gives standing ovation to ‘miracle baby’ doctors said would die (video)

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben
By Ben Johnson
Abigail Rose, daughter Congresswoman Jaime Herrera Beutler, R-WA

Its record as an institution may be spotty, but the House of Representatives honored vulnerable life yesterday, giving a standing ovation to a one-year-old whom doctors had said was certain to die in the womb or shortly after birth.

Congresswoman Jaime Herrera Beutler, R-WA, brought her infant daughter, Abigail Rose, to the House floor along with the doctor who refused to accept the prevailing diagnosis of her colleagues.

Abigail is believed to be the first baby ever to survive Potter's Syndrome, a rare condition in which the baby's lungs and kidneys fail to develop properly due to a lack of amniotic fluid.

After speaking with doctors who said the child had little or no chance to be born, or that the baby would suffocate shortly after birth, the Beutlers wrote, “There is no medical solution available to us. We are praying for a miracle.”

They found hope in the form of Dr. Jessica Bienstock, the residency program director for the Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. Bienstock was willing to try the process of amniofusion, in which saline solution is injected to compensate for the lack of amniotic fluid.

As the injections continued, the parents saw their unborn baby girl respond.

Abigail was born last July 15 during only the 28th week of pregnancy. She weighed just two pounds, two ounces.

“After a few minutes, it was clear that her lungs were very well developed for a baby born so early,” the congresswoman said.

The Beutlers said Dr. Bienstock and the Johns Hopkins staff had been willing to fight for the impossible,” and they succeeded.

The House saw Wednesday that the baby is alive and well.

House Speaker John Boehner, sometimes given to displays of emotion, was moved to tears as he recognized Dr. Bienstock, who was visiting the chamber.

“In her career she has delivered over 1,000 babies, and one of them is well-known to us,” he said, beginning to choke up. “And she is Abigail Rose Beutler, who, of course, is the daughter of our friend – ” he said, gesturing toward the congresswoman, who was holding baby Abigail in her arms.

Beutler and the baby waved, as the House erupted in a standing ovation.

“If she is a happy, healthy miracle, Dr. Bienstock is the miracle worker who helped give the gift of hope and life to this family,” Boehner concluded, thanking all doctors and other medical workers who save children's lives.

The Beutlers hope other babies will be given the opportunity their little girl had.

“We had more doctors tell us ‘no’ than tell us ‘yes,’ and there are other parents who have had similar experiences,” the congresswoman said last year. “We’d like this to be part of the conversation when this diagnosis comes again, so these parents have an option.” 

Featured Image
Wesley J. Smith


Bioethicist on consent for human experiments: Enough with ‘individual control,’ leave it to review boards

Wesley J. Smith
By Wesley Smith

The obligation of researchers to gain informed consent from those willing to be human subjects is a sacrosanct human right established by the Nuremberg Code.

But some in the bioethics movement seek to undermine this crucial human subject protection–to a respectful listen at the highest level of bioethics discourse, including the Hastings Center Report.

Author Barbara A. Koenig writes in the context of genetic research, but the adverse principles she espouses could apply to any human subjects research. First, she sniffs that our devotion to consent has a religious or cult feeling to it. From, “Have We Asked Too Much From Consent?”

My view, though, is that the focus on consent in contemporary biomedical research has become the modern equivalent of a fetish. Recitations of consent’s key components in consent forms and institutional review board protocols have a liturgical feel. Name an issue in human research protection, and the answer is “more consent.”

Rather than each subject deciding whether to participate in certain experimental protocols based on receiving full disclosure of the hoped-for benefits and potential adverse consequences, a group of community representatives–selected and informed by the researchers–would be empowered to decide:

In this model, the meaning and moral force of the initial consent derives not from specific upfront choices, but from consent to a governance scheme. A participant agrees to be governed by the deliberations of others…

The focus turns away from a ceremony of individual control and choice. Instead, consent is about giving up control, agreeing to accept a set of procedures and practices created and interpreted by a group of fellow citizens; it is “consent to be governed.”

Escaping Koenig: It is always easier to decide the ends justifies the means for someone else.

Koenig believes ”experts” brought in by the institution sponsoring the experiments should have the power to consent for the subject:

I would argue that IRBs [Institutional Review Boards] have the authority to authorize experiments that test novel methods, even though exercising that authority requires a reexamination of the dominant liturgy.

And get this ending:

I hope an alternative, favoring talk over technology and community wisdom over individual control, will prevail.

You first, Ms. Koenig.

“Community wisdom,” in the wrong hands, becomes authoritarian. No way anyone should consent to participate experiments in which they lose the right to truly consent. 

Reprinted with permission from the National Review Online.


Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook