Planned Parenthood thinks no need to reveal HIV status to sex partner

Planned Parenthood thinks no need to reveal HIV status to sex partner

H.L. Mencken long ago described public health as ‘the corruption of medicine by morality’. With the recent announcement that Panned Parenthood would join AHF in attempting to mandate the use of condoms and other “protective equipment” by adult performers under force of law, we are reminded of the dark history of public health and social justice movements the world over. 

Planned Parenthood, today as valuable and respected an organization as can be, was nonetheless founded by Margaret Sanger to help diminish the number of babies of less desirable races. Even the finest things can have ugly beginnings, or ends.

If someone with the virus that causes AIDS was about to have sex with you, should they have to tell you about their HIV-positive status first? Planned Parenthood doesn’t think so.


In a brochure entitled Happy, Healthy, and Hot, which Planned Parenthood describes as a “guide for young people living with HIV to help them understand their sexual rights, and live healthy, fun, happy and sexually fulfilling lives,” the giant of the abortion advocacy world proclaims:

You have the right to decide if, when, and how to disclose your HIV status…
You know best if and when it is safe to disclose your [HIV] status…
There is no right or wrong way to have sex. Just have fun, explore and be yourself!…
It is not always possible to talk about to your partner(s) or to practice safer sex…

There is no if, and there is no question of when. The only appropriate time to disclose one’s HIV status is before having sex with your partner. That is the “right way.” An organization that really cared about sexual health would not need me to explain this.


Please follow and like us:

10 Responses to "Planned Parenthood thinks no need to reveal HIV status to sex partner"

  1. Pingback: Planned Parenthood thinks no need to reveal you have AIDS to sex partner | Adult WIkiMedia

  2. Ernest Greene   May 4, 2014 8:00 pm at 8:00 PM

    Like Weinstein, PPH is completely committed to the all-condoms-all-the-time ideology, under which they falsely presume, despite claims to the contrary, that everyone will use them and that they will always work as a bulwark against HIV transmission, even though we know the statistics don’t support that religion.

    Nevertheless, rather than advocate testing and disclosure they will side with their buddies at AHF with the claim that it really doesn’t matter if you’re infected or not as long as you use condoms.

    That’s just not so and never will be. Again, I refer people to what it says on the condom box, which is that condoms MAY inhibit HIV transmission but that they’re primarily intended for contraception. That is Planned Parenthoods main agenda so it’s not surprising – just disappointing and deeply stupid – that they would sign on with AHF’s imbecilic rhetoric on this subject.

    Both Nina and I, and for that matter one of our main clients, Phil Harvey at Adam&Eve, are big supporters of PPH, especially in its battles over contraception with the wing-nut right. Nevertheless, on this issue they’re clearly wrongheaded and what they advise is deeply irresponsible.

    Condoms do fail. They are not magic. It’s time that point got made more forcefully.

  3. Lily Cade   May 5, 2014 7:36 am at 7:36 AM

    Can we discuss this issue – which appears to be a real one – without defaulting to silly right wing talking points? Calling Planned Parenthood an organization formed to decrease less desireable babies is like starting a critique of Ford Motor Company or Disney Corp with reference to their founders Nazi sympathies – it’s entirely besides the point, and it’s not the way that educated adults talk about things. When you lead with that, it’s hard to take the rest of what you say seriously.

    I’m with Ernest and Nina. I don’t think this is a good thing for PPH to tell people – especially since it’s actually not legally true in a number of states with criminal transmission laws (though I think one must have unprotected sex to be prosecuted under those statues – but I support PPH. Planned Parenthood does a lot of good providing women’s/sexual health services to underserved/low income people. We should be able to discuss this wrong-headed position on disclosure as well as their support of condoms for porn stars with nuance, like adults.

    I’ve been really disappointed with this blog lately. What’s with the partisan talking points? I know you just aggregate a lot of stuff, but can we address real issues without sounding like “Bullshit Mountain”.

    • TRPWL-Sean   May 5, 2014 7:48 am at 7:48 AM

      Planned Parenthood is also a huge supporter of AB1576, they are one of the main reasons certain political people are afraid to speak against the bill in public…so good luck with that PP support

  4. Lily Cade   May 5, 2014 9:32 am at 9:32 AM

    PPH supporting bad things is a real issue. A long dead woman being a racist is not. Like I said, nuance…supporting the condom bill a blip on the radar of what this organization does. Most of what they do is good and I can’t disavow everything they do because of a flawed position on this issue.

    From an outsider perspective, condoms in porn make sense. We’re iconoclasts in porn. We don’t agree with the conventional wisdom regarding condoms (best thing ever, all condoms all the time) We’re like the grass based beef farmers who want to slaughter thier own cows and don’t want to be a part of the deeply flawed USDA system. From an insider perspective, they are right…but most of everything in this countries runs on one size fits all regulations that are far more onerous for small scale companies. Our regulatory systems often serve (despite complaints by big business) to push small competitors out of business. Almost all of porn is made by relatively small business if not outright mom and pop shops. There’s no Exxon-Mobil of porn. Mindgeek is big, but not in the same universe.

    My point was that this issue was important to bring up and to talk about, but I thought it could have been done with more subtlety. All of our social institutions have a legacy of oppression, but using dog whistle talking points doesn’t elevate the discourse.

    • Deep Throat   May 5, 2014 9:51 am at 9:51 AM

      Thank you for the comments, Lily. The intro to this piece has been re-worked to clarify the intended context: to view what’s happening now vis-a-vis AB 1576 through the prism of public health and social justice movements.

      • Ernest Greene   May 5, 2014 12:27 pm at 12:27 PM

        This whole controversy over PPH speaks to how poorly we’ve made our case against things like AB 1576. Gail Dines and her pals, like Bob Herbert at The NYT and Don Hazen at AlterNet, have done much to erode support among liberals, not all of whom are porn fans but who have stepped up in the past to defend our First Amendment rights on principle. We’ve been so obsessed with fighting off our avowed foes we’ve failed to keep our few friends onboard and that’s hurt us.

        Measure B would not have passed in the face of determined opposition from groups like the ACLU, but instead FSC leadership ran to the right and lost.

        In the case of PPH, which has plenty of sound medical advice available, we should have gotten to them before AHF and made a convincing and logical case for opposing mandatory condoms. They might still have gone with AHF, but perhaps not.

        There’s a lesson here and it’s not for those formerly supportive constituencies but rather for ourselves regarding how we lost so much of their support.

        • Deep Throat   May 5, 2014 2:07 pm at 2:07 PM

          ACLU has a pretty shitty record on aiding sex workers, as you yourself have pointed out on numerous occasions. In addition, the LA County Democratic Party was too chickenshit to take a position on Measure B.

          I’m not saying I agree with how two anti-Measure B campaign was run, and I agree that the adult business needs to do a better job solidifying support among its historical friends and allies, but I think it’s extremely unlikely that the new left would’ve done anything for the adult business in the case of Measure B. Weinstein didn’t steal that election, he bought the damn thing fair and square.

          • Ernest Greene   May 5, 2014 5:36 pm at 5:36 PM

            I have to disagree as a student of L.A. politics. This is a long-time pro-labor democratic stronghold. Running a campaign based on the woeful state of porn producers here was suicidally stupid. AHF knew that which is why they campaigned all over East and South L.A. rather than on the west side, where people knew them too well. It’s worth noting that Measure B went down by a flaming 22 points in West Hollywood where AHF has the highest concentration of clients.

            There are still plenty of old-fashioned, pro-free-speech liberals in this town and in this country, but we haven’t reached out them the way Dines and Jensen have. We took them for granted and we were outmaneuvered. The election wasn’t just bought, although AHF’s huge war chest certainly helped. It was also lost by bad choices on the part of the opposition.

            The only good news is that AHF doesn’t really understand the politics of L.A. all that well either or they would have avoided a rumble with the supes, which is about the stupidest fight you could pick in this city. Haven’t these dopes seen Chinatown?

            Both sides damaged themselves by making the wrong allies and the wrong enemies. We got our bad news first. Now it’s AHF’s turn.

            Either way, running to the right on anything that can be cast as a worker-protection issue is god’s own dumb in this town.

  5. Deep Throat   May 6, 2014 12:41 pm at 12:41 PM

    Oh, I agree that we took our traditional allies for granted and we were outmaneuvered, however that has been a long-term failing on our parts not restricted to the time of the Measure B campaign. The adult communities political ineptitude pre-dates Weinstein’s crusade.

    And yes, I agree that failing to focus on the so-called “worker rights” angle was disastrous, and will remain so, however groups like the ACLU lost interest in our side of the argument a very long time ago — in terms of adult production and sex worker rights, generally.

    Also, we’ve known for years (thanks to the AHF email dump) that Weinstein intended to bring PPH on board, in part to embarrass Diane Duke. That they succeeded is of little surprise to me. My guess is money, and press attention bathed in the golden glow of Weinstein’s “AIDS Advocate” halo, trumped principle.

    Beyond this, I agree completely within your analysis.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.