Connect with us

25 Years Later, International AIDS Conference Returns To U.S. After Lift Of HIV Travel Ban

Published

on

Back in June 1990, thousands of people from around the world convened in San Francisco for the Sixth International AIDS Conference. Based at the city’s Marriott Hotel, the conference included several days of panels, discussions, and speeches. It was the third time the conference, the premier international event focused on the AIDS epidemic, had been held in the United States—and it would be the last time for more than 20 years. Indeed, when the conference meets in Washington, D.C. next week, on July 22, it will mark the event’s return to U.S. soil after an enforced hiatus. The story of how this hiatus came about is the story of how a group of health organizations and activists, including hundreds who protested at the San Francisco conference, helped to embarrass and punish the United States for so long as it failed to overturn long-standing, discriminatory policies directed at people living with HIV. The particular policies in question were immigration restrictions, otherwise known collectively as the “HIV travel ban.” First imposed in 1987 thanks to a bill sponsored by U.S. Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC), these restrictions barred HIV-positive individuals from obtaining tourist visas or permanent residence in the U.S. without disclosing their status and then receiving special permission to enter the country. In 1989, on the basis of the travel ban, Hans Paul Verhoef, a Dutch AIDS educator, was detained at a Minnesota airport and held for five days after AZT was found in his luggage. It became clear that the same could happen to many people planning to attend the International AIDS Conference in San Francisco, so the Red Cross, World Health Organization, several foreign countries’ health ministries, and other organizations began lobbying the U.S. government to change the law. They threatened to boycott the conference if their demands were not met. The best they got, however, was the announcement in April 1990, two months before the conference, that the government would offer a special 10-day visa that would allow people attending conferences “in the public interest” to travel in the U.S. without having to disclose their HIV status. Generally speaking, however, HIV would remain on a list of “excludable” diseases until Congress moved to negate Helms’s successful bill.

To many organizations and activists, this was an insufficient response. Some decided to proceed with boycotting the conference—but others orchestrated protests at the event. As with many AIDS-related protests at the time, ACT UP, the powerful activist organization founded in New York in 1987, was at the forefront of these demonstrations. ACT UP members traveled from around the country to San Francisco with a protest agenda, teaming up with the Bay City’s chapter of the organization. (In addition to a change in immigration policy, ACT UP demanded better access to HIV drugs, more money for research, and other improvements to the domestic fight against AIDS.) The San Francisco chapter produced a handbook for the event that included information about planned demonstrations and diagrams of the Marriott hotel. The handbook also instructed people on what to do if arrested, something that often happened during ACT UP protests:

“Be sure somebody has your full name—yell it out. We can’t find you in jail if we don’t know your name.”

The most visible protest at the conference came during a speech delivered by Louis Sullivan, the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services. According to an account in the Wall Street Journal, ACT UP members entered the room shouting “shame.” Sullivan was then “showered by paper missiles” and “went almost completely unheard” because of the “shrieking of whistles and airhorns.” The New York Times reported, “Sullivan’s words were intelligible only because the woman standing next to him interpreted his remarks in sign language for the deaf.” The protesters were joined by some attendees at the conference, including speakers and scientists who wore red armbands in protest of the travel ban and some who offered their access passes to the activists so that they could infiltrate the event more easily. They also found an ally in Lars Kalling, the president of the International AIDS Society (IAS), which organized the conference. “How can we expect the private person to behave in a rational and responsible way . . . when states set a bad example by instituting irrational laws towards HIV-infected people?,” Kalling said to the room just before Sullivan’s speech. The San Francisco protests were successful insofar as they brought heightened attention to the travel ban. Yet the immigration restrictions remained in place, and so activists and many in the global AIDS research community continued their battle. But they had a new goal: Rather than boycotting or heckling the event, they were determined to prevent another International AIDS Conference from taking place in the U.S. until the immigration restrictions were lifted. That meant advocating against the plan to hold the conference in Boston in 1992.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=H3zefhq9Ql4

ACT UP was again very visible and vocal. In San Francisco, an Immigration Working Group was formed to fight the travel ban. At the 1991 international conference, which was held in Florence, ACT UP members who had traveled to Italy for the event issued a statement that said, in no uncertain terms:

“THE CONFERENCE CAN BE MOVED. THE CONFERENCE MUST BE MOVED!!! … If the organizers of next year’s conference and if the Board of Directors of Harvard University [which was helping plan the event] attempt to hold this conference in Boston, or any other city in the United States of America, while these discriminatory laws stand against those of us infected with HIV, we’ll give them a Tea Party they’ll never forget!”

At the close of the Florence conference, Max Essex, a virologist at Harvard, told those gathered that the threats to disrupt or prevent the conference in Boston were misguided. “I am grieved that the crass, domestic, American political agenda and the ultimatums I have received from activists have conspired in a bizarre alliance to deny the free exchange of information necessary to fight AIDS,” he said, according to The Washington Post. And yet, organizers of the conference acknowledged that, given pressure from activists, if the U.S. government did not lift the travel ban, the Boston event would likely be canceled. Late that summer, the first Bush administration announced it would revise the travel ban to permit some limited entry into the U.S. Again, however, this was deemed an inadequate response to the demands for change. On August 16, conference organizers formally announced that the event would not be held in Boston. “Up until the last moment, there was great hope that the travel restrictions might change and it might be possible to hold the meeting in Boston,” said James Mann, a professor of epidemiology at Harvard’s school of public health, according to The Washington Post. “But we could no longer afford to be held hostage to uncertainty.” President George H.W. Bush responded to the decision by reaffirming his commitment to the travel ban: “That policy is a good, sound policy. The American people, I think, are supportive of it.” The activism regarding the 1992 conference did not end there, however. Indeed, the travel ban remained in place, so the event, which was relocated to Amsterdam, provided a symbolic stage on which to again condemn the U.S. ACT UP recognized this, and so Tomás Fábregas, a HIV-positive Spanish citizen living in the United States and a member of the Immigration Working Group in San Francisco, defied the travel ban by going to Amsterdam for the conference, hosting a press event (with special guest Elizabeth Taylor), publicly daring the U.S. government to arrest him, and then returning to San Francisco. There, he was greeted by supporters and the media. Rather than endure protests and further media scrutiny, authorities allowed Fábregas into the country. In the eyes of many, it was another victory in the long fight to remove the travel ban. Perhaps the most notable victory for activists at this time, however, was the decision by the IAS to institute a formal policy that would indefinitely prevent the international conference from being held in the U.S. In 1992, the organization’s governing body agreed to prohibit the conference from being held anywhere that, according to the body’s own language, “restrict[s] short-term entry of people living with HIV and AIDS, and/or require prospective HIV-positive visitors to declare their HIV status on visa application forms or other documentation required for entry into the country.” The policy was a slap in the face of the U.S., and it would ultimately prove a public and embarrassing reminder over the next 17 years of the country’s discriminatory policies. The sad reality, of course, is that this reminder lasted so long because the U.S. did not finally lift the HIV travel ban until 2009. At that point, it was one of only a dozen countries that still imposed a ban, finding itself in the company of Iran, Saudi Arabia, Libya, and Sudan. At the time of its removal, President Barack Obama called the initiation of the restrictions more than two decades prior “a decision rooted in fear rather than fact.” Yet that it took the U.S. so long to reverse the ban does not discount the activist efforts surrounding the San Francisco and Boston conferences in the early 1990s. The demonstrations, letters, and speeches issued, as well as the final decision by the IAS to prevent the conference from taking place in the U.S., were early and loud signals of what would and would not be tolerated by the scientific, public health, and LGBT communities in the fight against AIDS. In other words, while there is reason to celebrate the return of the International AIDS Conference to the United States this week, there is also reason to appreciate its long absence. Research for this article was conducted in part at the Yale archives. Image, top, via Facebook Seyward Darby is a freelance writer currently living in Kosovo. She is working for a local human rights group on LGBT and freedom of expression projects with support from the Coca-Cola World Fund and Kirby-Simon Fellowship Program at Yale University. Her organization receives some funding from the U.S. government. 

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

Trump Appears to Confuse America’s Revolutionary War With the Civil War

Published

13 hours ago

on

June 18, 2025

By

President Donald Trump, speaking about war as he attempts to decide whether or not to actively support Israel by bombing Iran, appeared to confuse America’s war for independence —the Revolutionary War—with America’s Civil War.

Asked in the Oval Office on Wednesday afternoon if he’s made a decision about what, if anything, he will do regarding Iran, the President told reporters, “I have ideas as to what to do, but I haven’t made a final.”

“I like to make the final decisions one second before it’s due, you know, ’cause things change. I mean, especially with war, things change with war, it can go from one extreme to the other.”

READ MORE: ‘Feckless or Complicit’: Hegseth Blasted in Heated Hearing Over Social Media Influencer

“War’s very bad. There was no reason for this to be a war,” he said, apparently about Israel and Iran.

“There was no reason for Russia, Ukraine. A lot of wars, there was no reason for.”

“You look right up there,” Trump said, pointing to the wall, “I don’t know, you see the Declaration of Independence, and I say, I wonder if you, you know, the Civil War always seemed to me maybe that could have been solved without losing 600,000 plus people.”

The Declaration of Independence was America’s declaration it would no longer be ruled by England. It effectively became a declaration of war: the American Revolutionary War, or the American War of Independence, which lasted from 1775 to 1783.

By contrast, the American Civil War was fought in the following century, from 1861 to 1865, over slavery.

READ MORE: ‘Middle Finger to Parental Rights’: SCOTUS Conservatives Scorched Over Trans Kids Ruling

Critics were quick to mock the President.

“I think we all remember our schooling, when we learned how the Declaration of Independence led to the Civil War,” snarked former journalist Landon Hall.

“As a Canadian, even I know that the Declaration of Independence has absolutely zero to do with the Civil War, what is going on down there?” asked filmmaker Robert Fantinatto.

“Does he think the Declaration of Independence was written in response to the Civil War?
What is he talking about?” asked attorney Robyn J Leader.

Watch the video below or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘It’s Biblical’: House Republican Defends His Support for Israel

 

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

News

‘Feckless or Complicit’: Hegseth Blasted in Heated Hearing Over Social Media Influencer

Published

16 hours ago

on

June 18, 2025

By

U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth faced sharp and stern criticism during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing over his highly controversial decision to fire Air Force General Timothy D. Haugh, head of the National Security Agency and U.S. Cyber Command. Reports suggested a far-right social media influencer was behind the move to terminate the NSA Director in what some have called a “loyalty purge.”

Calling General Haugh’s dismissal “sudden and inexplicable” and “deeply concerning,” U.S. Senator Jackie Rosen (D-NV) told Secretary Hegseth it “raises significant questions about the decision-making process,” and “its potential consequences.”

“Public reports indicate that the removal of General Haugh, who has served his country proudly, has been influenced by social media influencer, an influencer— a personality on social media, Laura Loomer—spreads conspiracy theories. She’s been denounced even by Republicans,” Senator Rosen charged. “And the idea that any leaders within our agency responsible for out nation’s security—somebody would be dismissed based on the advice of a social media influencer is alarming to say the least. It’s surely not how we should be running our military.”

READ MORE: ‘Middle Finger to Parental Rights’: SCOTUS Conservatives Scorched Over Trans Kids Ruling

Senator Rosen demanded to know if Hegseth was “consulted” regarding the dismissal of General Haugh.

“Well, Senator, I would not advise believing everything you read in the media,” was Secretary Hegseth’s response.

After a heated back-and-forth, Hegseth declared, “I’m the decision-maker for the department. And we all serve at the pleasure of the President, and we have the prerogative to make those decisions.”

Refusing to state specifically that he personally relieved general Haugh, Hegseth served up a more generic response.

“Anyone at that level who was relieved would be relieved by the Secretary of Defense,” he stated.

Hegseth also refused to respond when asked if there was a specific justification for General Haugh’s dismissal.

“Uh, Ma’am, we all serve at the pleasure of the President and the President deserves the type of Commanders and advisers that he thinks will best equip…to accomplish the mission.”

Hegseth also refused to say if he discussed dismissing Haugh with Laura Loomer.

“I don’t discuss who I talk about anything with, but ultimately, this is my decision, and he serves at the pleasure of the president, and that’s why he’s no longer there,” was the Secretary’s reply.

After another question, Hegseth told Senator Rosen, “Uh, I believe your time is up, Senator.”

READ MORE: ‘It’s Biblical’: House Republican Defends His Support for Israel

“Oh,” Rosen vehemently responded, “it is not up to you to tell me when my time is up.”

“Well, the time—” Hegseth continued.

“I am going to say, Mr. Secretary, you’re either feckless or complicit. You’re not in control of your department. You are unserious. It is shocking. You’re not combating antisemitism within your ranks. It’s a dangerous and pivotal time in our nation’s history,” Senator Ro9sen warned.

“And I don’t appreciate the smirk, sir. You are the Secretary of Defense.”

Watch below or at this link.

READ MORE: Dr Oz: Americans Must ‘Earn the Right’ to Be on Medicaid

 

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

News

‘Middle Finger to Parental Rights’: SCOTUS Conservatives Scorched Over Trans Kids Ruling

Published

18 hours ago

on

June 18, 2025

By

Legal experts, advocates for transgender youth, and the liberal justices of the U.S. Supreme Court are condemning SCOTUS’s 6–3 decision to uphold a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for minors. All six conservative justices sided with the ban—some going further to disparage scientific expertise, dismiss the value of medical consensus, and signal that transgender Americans should not be granted protected class status.

Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion upholding the ban, known as SB1.

“An estimated 1.6 million Americans over the age of 13 identify as transgender, meaning that their gender identity does not align with their biological sex,” Justice Roberts wrote at the opening of his opinion, acknowledging that transgender youth exist. In his footnotes he also acknowledged their use of pronouns: “We use ‘transgender boy’ to refer to an individual whose biological sex is female but who identifies as male, and ‘transgender girl’ to refer to an individual whose biological sex is male but who identifies as female.”

Approximately 25 states across the country have some form of ban on medical care for transgender youth. Those bans—including puberty blockers—likely will now stay in place, affecting more than 100,000 transgender youth (as of 2023), according to the Williams Institute.

READ MORE: ‘It’s Biblical’: House Republican Defends His Support for Israel

Justice Amy Coney Barrett took extra steps to write that “transgender status” does not constitute “suspect,” class deserving of strict scrutiny, a higher level of judicial review.

“The Equal Protection Clause does not demand heightened judicial scrutiny of laws that classify based on transgender status,” she also wrote.

Justice Clarence Thomas denigrated what he called “the expert class.”

“There are several problems with appealing and deferring to the authority of the expert class,” he wrote. Justice Thomas added, “whether ‘major medical organizations’ agree with the result of Tennessee’s democratic process is irrelevant.”

“To hold otherwise would permit elite sentiment to distort and stifle democratic debate under the guise of scientific judgment, and would reduce judges to mere “spectators . . . in construing our Constitution.”

Meanwhile, Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent is being praised by transgender advocates and trans-supporting legal experts. And in her dissent she directly opposed Justice Barrett’s claims.

“To give meaning to our Constitution’s bedrock equal protection guarantee, this Court has long subjected to heightened judicial scrutiny any law that treats people differently based on sex,” Justice Sotomayor wrote.

She said in her opinion that Tennessee’s law discriminates against transgender adolescents, and “expressly classifies on the basis of sex and transgender status.” In its ruling, the Supreme Court, Sotomayor wrote, “abandons transgender children and their families to political whims.”

“Tennessee’s ban applies no matter what the minor’s parents and doctors think, with no regard for the severity of the minor’s mental health conditions or the extent to which treatment is medically necessary for an individual child,” she noted.

READ MORE: Dr Oz: Americans Must ‘Earn the Right’ to Be on Medicaid

“This case presents an easy question: whether SB1’s ban on certain medications, applicable only if used in a manner ‘inconsistent with . . . sex,’ contains a sex classification,” Justice Sotomayor concluded. “Because sex determines access to the covered medications, it clearly does. Yet the majority refuses to call a spade a cspade. Instead, it obfuscates a sex classification that is plain on the face of this statute, all to avoid the mere possibility that a different court could strike down SB1, or categorical healthcare bans like it.”

“The Court’s willingness to do so here does irrevocable damage to the Equal Protection Clause and invites legislatures to engage in discrimination by hiding blatant sex classifications in plain sight. It also authorizes, without second thought, untold harm to transgender children and the parents and families who love them. Because there is no constitutional justification for that result, I dissent.”

Attorney Andrew L. Seidel labeled Sotomayor’s dissent, “Clear, concise, and brilliant.”

Attorney Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, responding to the ruling, wrote: “Solidarity with trans people today, who are facing growing state oppression here and globally.”

Writer and former Human Rights Campaign spokesperson Charlotte Clymer wrote on the ruling: “The Supreme Court’s ruling prioritizes the discomfort and fear of some non-trans people over the health and wellbeing of trans youth. It disregards science and every major medical authority. It endorses the state controlling parents and doctors. Every resulting suicide is on the hands of these anti-trans justices.”

Illinois Democratic Governor JB Pritzker, responding to news of the decision, wrote: “Illinois has enshrined protections to meet this very moment. In a time of increasing overreach and hateful rhetoric, it’s more important than ever to reaffirm our commitment to the rights and dignity of the LGBTQ+ community. You have a home here always.”

Political scientist Dr. Norman Ornstein, a contributing editor to The Atlantic, declared: “In effect, the Supreme Court has given a middle finger to parental rights by accepting a Tennessee law banning gender- affirming care for youth. This is a decision that should be made within the family. They love parental rights when it fits right wing aims.

READ MORE: Tapper Tells Ex-Viewer Trump’s Behavior Is More About ‘Personality’ Than Cognitive Decline

 

Image via Shutterstock

 

 

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.