It appears a local McDonalds has thrown down the gauntlet to its new fast-food neighbor.
A Chick-fil-A is moving in next to the Glastonbury McDonald’s. While the chicken chain does not open until July 26, to the casual observer it appears McDonald’s may already be taking a dig at their values. The sign under the golden arches reads “We Welcome Everyone.”
Chick-fil-A has taken criticism in the past for the fast-food chain owner’s opposition to same-sex unions and past support for anti-same-sex marriage initiatives. The chain was founded by S. Truett Cathy in 1946 and is now run by his family.
Under the religiously conservative founder, the chain gained prominence for its Bible Belt observance of Sunday — none of its hundreds of restaurants are open on that day, to allow employees a day of rest.
Those religious views helped win Cathy and his family loyal following from conservative customers, but also invited protests when Cathy’s son denounced gay marriage.
The general manager of the Glastonbury McDonald’s told NBC Connecticut off camera that the sign was simply a welcome message.
“It just means that everyone is welcome, young old, everyone,” she said. She said the sign was not meant as a political statement.
Still, the message raised some eyebrows with those passing through.
“Diversity’s a good thing. What are they gonna do? Not serve some people? I mean, it’s kind of funny today but I think it might have something to do with their neighbors. Which, you know, not calling them out or anything…” said Raymond Modzicato of South Windsor.
“For McDonald’s to step up and say we welcome everyone. I feel that is a huge step for them. Then in the background you have Chick-fil-A who has historically not welcomed everyone,” said Tina Manus, who drove all the way from her home in Stratford to show her support of the McDonald’s.
Some felt that the restaurant shouldn’t be making statements about anything other than food.
“I feel like it’s kind of rude to Chick-fil-A because they have Christian beliefs, but that doesn’t mean they have to not accept gay people,” Zack Caporale of Glastonbury said.
Jordan Snook, the Chick-Fil-A franchise owner, said he wasn’t sure what the intention of the sign was, but said they were striving to create “an environment of hospitality.
Snook also released the following statement when asked about the sign.
“We are excited to open in Glastonbury next week, and look forward to being great neighbors who welcome everyone. Glastonbury will be representative of all Chick-fil-A restaurants in serving great food and providing remarkable service for all customers, as well as a diverse workplace of individuals who represent many viewpoints, opinions, backgrounds and beliefs.”
The Episcopal Church has passed a resolution that will allow same-sex couples to get married in their diocese of choice, regardless of the bishop’s view on same-sex weddings.
The resolution B012 was approved with an overwhelming majority on Friday, July 13, during the Episcopal Church General Convention in Austin, Texas—a triennial event. In 2015, after the historic Supreme Court ruling recognising same-sex marriage across the US, the General Convention too voted on allowing same-sex weddings.
The resolution passed, but it gave bishops the power to refuse a couple on the basis of their theological views on marriage, and force other members of the clergy in that diocese to follow their line. Overall, eight dioceses were effectively refusing same-sex couples the right to marry.
Friday’s resolution removes that hurdle, placing the decision to marry a same-sex couple in the hand of the local priest. Members of the clergy can make the personal decision to not wed gay or lesbian couples—but they will have to tap another priest or bishop willing to perform the sacrament using gender-neutral liturgies.“We are fond of saying around the Episcopal Church that all are welcome, and all means all, y’all,” said the chair of the General Convention’s Task Force on the Study of Marriage, East Carolina Deputy Joan Geiszler-Ludlum, ahead of the vote in support of the resolution, quoted in the Episcopal News Service.
The US Episcopal Church, led by Bishop Michael Curry who gave a memorable, fiery sermon during Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s wedding, is one of a handful of Christian denominations supporting LGBT inclusion—the Unitarian Universalist Association and the United Church of Christ are two of the others—which resulted in the church being shunned by the global Anglican Communion. The Scottish Episcopal Church too faced similar punishment from the Anglican Communion for recognising same-sex marriages.
A Filipino priest performs Christian rites during a mass ‘wedding rites’ on June 28, 2015 in Manila, Philippines. (Photo by Dondi Tawatao/Getty Images)
The resolution approval on Friday marked a victory for the All Sacrament for All People group, which has been campaigning for full marriage equality across the dioceses for the past three years, when Bishop Joseph Bauerschmidt of the Episcopal Diocese of Tennessee enforced the opposition to same-sex marriage in his diocese.
The All Sacraments for All People campaign produced a moving video in which families affected by bishops’ negative decision on same-sex marriage told their stories, calling on the convention to make the necessary changes.
“I think it’s a wonderful compromise, which respects the dignity of the bishop and his position, but still allows marriage for all in their home congregations,” Connally Davies Penley, a member of the All Sacrament for All People, told the Tennessean.
The resolution will only come to effect on the first Sunday of the Advent, December 2. In the meantime, Bishop Bauerschmidt told the Tenneassean, “there is much to work out.”
A new study has suggested that the legalisation of same-sex marriage in the US has improved the health of gay men.
The latest research – by professors at Vanderbilt University – found that equal marriage had led to increased health insurance coverage and better access to health care for men living in same-sex households.
The study revealed that gay marriage “increased the probability” of a man in a same-sex household having health insurance by 4 percent.
These men, it found, since equal marriage became law in the US, were 4 percent more likely to have a “usual source” of healthcare, and 7 percent more likely to have had a health check-up in the past year.The new research, distributed by the National Bureau of Economic Research, did not ask respondents about their sexual orientation – but instead researchers calculated an estimate for number the number of gay or bisexual men and women living in same-sex households with one other adult.
They found that one in ten women and four in 10 men in these same-sex households were not likely to be heterosexual.
The academics then looked at the changes in health insurance and and healthcare for these people, following the legalisation of equal marriage in the US in June 2015.
Still, the results did not find that the impact of gay marriage was notable for women. Researchers pointed to deficiencies in their statistics as an explanation for this.
They said that women were more likely than men to have children from previous relationships – making them more likely to travel to another state where same-sex marriage was legal, before it became law in all the US states.
The researchers said their data did not record this prior residences or the location of same-sex marriages.
However, researchers pointed to previous studies that concluded that the legalisation of equal marriage had had a positive impact on the health of lesbian and bisexual women.
For both men and women in same-sex households, the new study revealed that gay marriage did not affect the rates of substance use and preventative health care.
The findings support the the results from previous research into the impact of equal marriage on gay couples.
In 2012, another study in Massachusetts, focusing on gay and bisexual men in same-sex marriages, revealed that same-sex marriage decreased their need to visit the doctor, and resulted in lower health-care costs.
Anti-gay stigma in middle income countries is harming the global fight against HIV/AIDS, a report has warned today.
The report, launched today by a cross-party group of UK parliamentarians on HIV and AIDS, warns that marginalised groups “risk falling behind in the HIV response” because of stigma.
The No One Left Behind report highlights gaps in provisions for marginalised groups in middle income countries, as international donors are refocussing funding in poorer regions.
It warns: “The aid landscape is changing with 70% of people living with HIV expected to live in middle income countries by 2020. As globally, donors are pulling out of middle income countries, the HIV epidemic is becoming more concentrated in those countries.”
The transition to to domestic funding in such countries risks leaving key groups behind – in part because of the stigma attached to homosexuality.
It warns: “In many middle-income countries, key populations are criminalised by the national government.
“The legal threat and atmosphere of fear and intimidation created by criminalisation laws alongside wider stigma, discrimination and violence experienced by key populations act as a barrier to accessing HIV prevention and treatment services.
“Criminalisation laws which affect homosexuality, sex workers, drug users and the transgender community, significantly reduce the likelihood of national government taking over services for key populations.”
The report calls on the Department for International Development and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria to “work together to ensure there are no gaps in HIV service provision for marginalised populations when they withdraw from middle income countries and to provide additional funding when it is needed.”
It urges the stakeholders to “commit to developing long term sustainable transition plans that take into account the complexity faced by marginalised populations and women and girls accessing HIV treatment, and to ensure all actors are included in the transition process from the start.”
It adds: “DFID should work with the FCO to ensure there is an understanding of the detrimental effects of punitive legislation on public health outcomes and work with country partners to challenge these laws where they still exist.”
Chair of the APPG on HIV and AIDS Stephen Doughty MP said: “It would be a tragedy if we fall back in progress on tackling HIV/AIDS because we have ignored the needs of some of those most affected by HIV – marginalised groups living in middle income countries.
“Many governments throughout eastern Europe and central Asia are either unable or unwilling to fund these groups because of institutionalised stigma and anti-equality laws. The same phenomenon could face many African countries also graduating from low income status.
“As a major donor in the global HIV response, the UK needs to lead the way in championing the rights of these groups to access HIV treatment, otherwise we risk the HIV epidemic going backwards.
Experience the energy of live studio cycling taught by elite instructors, on your time.
With the Peloton bike, you’ll get an unbeatable workout at home, anytime, anywhere.
Ad by Peloton
“We should not see this as a zero sum game where donors are faced with a stark choice of targeting funds at women and girls in low income countries where they are disproportionately affected versus marginalised groups in middle income countries where there is also a major problem with HIV.
“This is a false choice as neglecting either group will lead to devastating consequences for the HIV response. Donors need to wake up to this fact and prioritise both of these key groups in need of targeted interventions.
“Funding marginalised groups is politically unpopular in many countries where for example drug users, sex work or homosexuality are criminalised.
“The current trend is to withdraw HIV funding in middle income countries because these governments should technically have the financial ability to provide HIV services for their own populations. Unfortunately this is most often not the case, particularly for marginalised groups who are being neglected by international donors and their own governments.”
“With 70% of people living with HIV expected to be in middle income countries by 2020 this is a major concern. If we are serious about ending the HIV epidemic we need to ensure these groups are not left behind.”
YouTube apologized on Twitter for the ways they’ve ‘let the LGBTQ community down’.
The company made their statements on Saturday (30 June), the last day of Pride.
‘It’s the last day of Pride Month and we wanted to reach out to the LGBTQ community,’ they wrote on the social media platform.
‘We’re proud of the incredible LGBTQ voices on our platform and the important role you play in the lives of young people.’
Then they continued by acknowledging their missteps.
They specifically cited ‘inappropriate ads’ as well as their monetization policy.
‘We’re sorry and we want to do better,’ they wrote before continuing.
They finished with one final tweet: ‘It’s critical to us that the LGBTQ community feels safe, welcome, equal, and supported on YouTube. Your work is incredibly powerful and we are committed to working with you to get this right.’
This is not the first time YouTube’s policies and actions have directly affected LGBTQ creators, nor the first time they’ve apologized.
A month later, they announced the filter would no longer affect such content.
Lately, however, creators have criticized the platform for anti-LGBTQ ads. They also complained of their ads being demontized and stripped of ads, reportedly due to words like ‘transgender’ in titles.
The tweets don’t outline any specific actions and people are wary of the apology.
In A Workplace Divided: Understanding the Climate for LGBTQ Workers Nationwide, HRC Foundation seeks to uncover the prevalence of LGBTQ workers feeling pressure to hide their sexual orientation and/or gender identity on the job and the cost of that hiding both to individuals and employers writ large. We also research the benefits to employers and workers when workplace climates are more welcoming of LGBTQ people.
46% of LGBTQ workers say they are closeted at work, compared to 50% in HRCF’s groundbreaking 2008 Degrees of Equality report;
1-in-5 LGBTQ workers report having been told or had coworkers imply that they should dress in a more feminine or masculine manner;
53% of LGBTQ workers report hearing jokes about lesbian or gay people at least once in a while;
31% of LGBTQ workers say they have felt unhappy or depressed at work;
and the top reason LGBTQ workers don’t report negative comments they hear about LGBTQ people to a supervisor or human resources? They don’t think anything would be done about it — and they don’t want to hurt their relationships with coworkers.
In the new plan announced on Monday, Starbucks said that in addition to covering bottom surgery, they will now cover all other medical steps in a person’s transition.
This will cover several other procedures that were previously considered cosmetic – which can often be hard to obtain as insurers typically refuse to cover them.
The international coffee chain will now cover procedures including top surgeries in the form of breast reduction or augmentation, hair removal or transplants and facial feminisation surgery.
As well as covering all gender-confirming surgeries, the coffee chain will also help trans employees find appropriate doctors and healthcare providers.
Starbucks has covered bottom surgery since 2012, making it one of the first national employers to do so in the US.
Trans advocates have highlighted that medical transition is often represented as one surgery, when it actually involves multiple procedures that take many years.
Ron Crawford, vice president of benefits at Starbucks, explained that the new plan hoped to be fully inclusive.
“The approach was driven not just by the company’s desire to provide truly inclusive coverage, and by powerful conversations with transgender partners about how those benefits would allow them to truly be who they are.
“You have to think of it from an equity perspective.”
He added: “Nobody else is doing this. We would love to see more employers doing this.”
Over time and exposure to the elements exterior concrete can develop cracks due to temperature changes, ground movement, improperly placed joints and excessive loads.
Starbucks worked with the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) in order to determine which procedures were required to help transgender employees.
Jamison Green, who worked with Starbucks on behalf of WPATH, said that the company was the first to ever partner with the charity.
Green said: “Starbucks was not afraid to ask all the right questions and demand that people get the best possible care.
“We produced a list of the most crucial benefits and those that are deemed problematic to insurance companies, such as facial feminization and electrolysis.”
The complaint from Paul Bray was originally thrown out but was then reinstated after an appeals court maintained the suit.
Bray is filing complaints against Starbucks coffee shops in Eden Prairie and Edina, Minnesota, saying their treatment of him changed after he told them he was transgender in March 2013, after changing his name.
Bray shared the information with an employee, Adam Voth, so as to explain any confusion with the names on his credit card, and Voth promised to keep it confidential.
However afterwards, another Eden Prairie Starbucks employee, Sophia Peka, who Bray had formed a friendship with over a year of visiting the coffee shop, began to discriminate against him.
An evangelical leader who is a member of President Donald Trump’s Religious Advisory Council praised First Daughter and senior White House advisor Ivanka Trump, the Christian Broadcasting Network reported Monday.
Pastor Jack Graham of the Prestonwood Baptist Church received a $50,000 personal donation from Ivanka, who earned $82 million in outside income with her husband Jared Kushner in 2017, while both were working in the White House.
Prestonwood has a long history of anti-LGBT activism.
“This is an old fight dating back to the Garden of Eden when Satan seduced the first family with lies and deception. The same lies are in play today,” Graham wrote. “The biblical design of marriage is clear: a man and a woman living and loving together in a monogamous relationship in the image of God.”
“Gay marriage violates God’s standard and is outside God’s plan for men and women. The Supreme Court of the United States has now reached their goal of legalizing gay marriage in every state in the country,” he continued. “We have set a course for disaster in our beloved nation and there seems to be no turning back.”
Now Graham is praising Ivanka Trump.
“I’ve had the opportunity to meet with Ivanka Trump a number of times over the last year, and I’ve been struck by her kindness and concern for those in need, so, it wasn’t that surprising to know she would want to help these families,” Graham said. “Hopefully, Ivanka’s generosity will inspire many other Americans to get off the sidelines and actually provide tangible help to those in need.”
“The beauty of America and the people in our church is that we don’t have to wait for our politicians to sort out their disagreements in order to do what is right,” said Graham, who has served two terms as president of the Southern Baptist Convention.
Graham has been a fierce defender of the president.
In 2016, just before the election, Graham stood by Trump following his “Access Hollywood” comments admitting to sexual assault.
In 2017, following the deadly “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Graham stood by Trump despite the president’s claim that there were “fine people” among the white nationalists.
Pierre-Cédric Crouch, nursing director of the sexual health clinic Magnet at San Francisco AIDS Foundation, said that this method “has some promise,” but that it’s definitely not a perfect solution and that more research is needed on the effectiveness of STI prophylaxis before it can be recommended.
Pierre-Cédric Crouch, PhD, ANP-BC
“Syphilis can cause a lot of harm and anything to help reduce the increasing rates would be helpful,” he said. “We don’t know the impact this would have on drug resistance and I would be concerned people would get complacent and not get tested for STIs as often. Gonorrhea is not covered by this strategy so it’s definitely not perfect. If someone came in to the clinic asking for it, I would counsel that this is still being studied and we would need more data before STI PEP [post-exposure prophylaxis] can be recommended.”
Jared Baeten, MD, PhD, director of the Center for AIDS Research at the University of Washington shared a similar view. “I absolutely would at least consider prescribing now, but I’d love to see some strong science to help me know if I should set aside my reasons to give pause. There isn’t a perfectly right answer right now.”
Keith Henry, MD, from Hennepin County Medical Center shared a more conservative view. “I don’t think prophylactic doxycycline is ready for prime time. Regularly testing for all STDs every three months and treatment for STDs diagnosed is my recommendation for sexually active men [who do not use condoms].”
Jeffrey Klausner, MD, MPH, who has conducted research on STI prevention with doxycycline, views this strategy as appropriate on a case-by-case basis.
Jeffrey Klausner, MD, MPH
“I have a few patients who are using doxycycline in addition to PrEP,” he said. “On an individual level, this method of STI prevention might be right for someone, for instance, who has had syphilis twice, and doesn’t want to get it again,” said Klausner.
For people interested in this method of STI prevention, Klausner said he encourages people to talk to their health care providers. “I’ve talked about this with other providers in urban areas,” said Klausner. “Doctors understand there is a role for this, and see it as an opportunity for select patients.”
What are the pros and cons?
Baeten counted four reasons to consider prescribing doxycycline to someone at high risk of STIs (e.g., a person with a history of STIs and frequent condomless sex). Namely, that STI rates are on the rise among men who have sex with men in the U.S. (with rates as high as 25-50% each year among people taking PrEP in research studies); evidence that doxycycline prophylaxis works to prevent chlamydia and syphilis; the opportunity to synergistically deliver STI prevention with PrEP; and, the fact that—other than condoms—there are not many effective ways to prevent STIs.
“If you’re a sexually active—if you have multiple partners in a given week, if you’re in a situation where you enjoy group sex, if you visit sex clubs, this could be a real solution for you,” said Klausner. “Obviously, it should be used in addition to condoms, but condoms don’t work for some people for various reasons.”
Baeten also counted four “reasons to pause” in using antibiotics to try to prevent STIs. First, he said that “it isn’t totally clear if prophylaxis is that much more beneficial than frequent screening and treatment.” It would be a waste of resources to prophylactically treat everyone for STIs, if increased screening and treatment are as effective in curbing new infections. Pill fatigue is another concern, as is drug resistance.
Jared Baeten, MD (Photo: Liz Highleyman)
“There’s legitimate concern that regular use of an antibiotic can result in resistance developing to that antibiotic—in this case, resistance to doxycycline and related antibiotics, for STI organisms and potentially for other bacteria that live naturally in our bodies and occasionally cause disease. The type of bacteria that causes gonorrhea already is often resistant to many antibiotics, including doxycycline, when it once was not, for example,” said Baeten.
“Everyone raises concerns about drug resistance,” said Klausner. “In some ways it’s a non-conversation when you talk about gonorrhea because we haven’t used tetracycline or doxycycline to treat gonorrhea since the mid-1980s, and it’s already resistant. The amount of tetracyclines that would be introduced by the increasing use of this practice and into the whole population—who already exposed to massive amounts of tetracyclines in the food industry, human health, acne treatments, malaria prophylaxis—is actually miniscule. I don’t think it would have a substantial impact.”
The research on STI chemoprophylaxis
Two studies with men who have sex with men have evaluated the efficacy of doxycycline to prevent sexually transmitted infections.
The first study, published in Sexually Transmitted Diseases by R. K. Bolan and colleagues, found that HIV-positive men who have sex with men who took 100 mg of doxycycline daily reduced the risk of contracting syphilis, chlamydia or gonorrhea during the study by 70%.
A total of 30 men were randomized to either take the antibiotic for 36 weeks or not. At each study visit (at baseline, 12-, 24-, 36- and 48-weeks post-baseline) participants received rectal and urine gonorrhea and chlamydia tests, a pharyngeal (throat) gonorrhea test, and a syphilis blood test.
During the study, there were 15 cases of any STI (gonorrhea, chlamydia and syphilis) among men not taking the antibiotic, compared to six cases of STIs among men taking doxycycline. This translated into a risk reduction of 70%.
The second study, published in Lancet Infectious Diseases, tested whether doxycycline prevented STIs in HIV-negative MSM taking PrEP. In this study, 232 participants were randomized to take 200 mg of doxycycline “on demand” (within 72 hours of having sex), or to not take an antibiotic.
A total of 73 participants presented with a new STI during the study period, 45 in the no-antibiotic group and 28 who were taking doxycycline. This translated into a risk reduction of 47%, with the antibiotic significantly reducing the number of chlamydia and syphilis infections (but having no effect on the number of gonorrhea infections).
The take-away
Overall, the clinicians who shared their thoughts with BETA recognized the potential benefits—to individuals and on a population level—of allowing people to take doxycycline preventatively to treat STIs, but were acutely aware of the issues raised by this approach as well.
Although STI prophylaxis is not (and may not ever be) a strategy that health care providers recommend for people to reduce their risk of STIs, there are a number of things you can do if you’re concerned about STIs.
What comes to mind when you hear the term “harm reduction”? Many people in public health or in the community may think of needle exchanges or safer sex practices. PrEP can be a form of harm reduction, since it can allow you to enjoy the sex you want to have while at the same time reducing the harms that can come from condomless sex.
Damon Jacobs, LMFT
Because I’m an advocate for the health of people in the LGBTQ community, I’m also concerned by harm coming from something else in our community: tobacco. Did you know that LGBTQ people smoke at a higher rate than heterosexual people, and people living with HIV smoke at rates two to three times higher?
I probably don’t have to tell you that smoking tobacco causes many kinds of cancers and health problems. Interestingly, it’s the tobacco—and not nicotine—that is the source of those health concerns. Which means that other forms of nicotine-delivery agents, like vaping products and e-cigarettes, can be better for your health (harm reduction!) if they’re used instead of cigarettes.
What do e-cigarettes have to do with public health?
E-cigarettes are battery-operated devices that deliver nicotine to users in heated liquid vapors instead of smoke. After hitting the market in 2006, they became quite popular among consumers because they satisfy nicotine cravings without delivering the toxic carcinogens and combustibles found in tobacco that are known to cause so much damage. Although e-cigarettes are not completely harmless (there have been cases of burns and poisonings), there is no tobacco in vaping products.
We can think of vaping as a form of harm reduction—a practical public health philosophy that, at its heart, empowers people to reduce potential harms from sex, drugs or other substances without requiring abstinence. Vaping gives people the drug—nicotine—without the carcinogens and tobacco found in cigarettes.
For the same reasons that we encourage people who inject drugs to use sterile needles and other clean injection equipment—and provide people with those supplies freely—we can recognize that people may want the option to use vaping products to quit or reduce harm from nicotine addiction.
The problem I have with San Francisco’s Proposition E
On June 5, 2018, voters in San Francisco will vote on Proposition E which stands to ban the sale of flavored tobacco products, including products like menthol cigarettes and cigarillos, as a strategy to prevent “Big Tobacco” from appealing to children and hooking new users.
To be clear, I’m not against policy changes that may prevent people from starting to smoke or help people reduce the amount they smoke. I’m well aware of the devastating impact that tobacco is having on my community. But there’s a stunning flaw in this proposed ordinance that compels me to speak out against it: The ordinance lumps in e-cigarettes as a flavored tobacco product that would be forbidden from sale.
Proponents of the ordinance argue that tobacco companies have unfairly targeted LGBTQ adults, communities of color and children with flavored products. They say that children must be protected from the dangers of smoking. They want to stop new people from starting to smoke. Yes, I agree! But are there ways to do this without blocking a method of harm reduction from people who already smoke?
I take issue with denying adults, who already consume nicotine, the opportunity to use harm-reduction tools to do so.
Let’s be real. Quitting smoking cigarettes is DIFFICULT. Only about 6% of adults can successfully quit smoking, although about 70% report wanting to quit. The drug in cigarettes, nicotine, is highly addictive. For those people who are using electronic cigarettes as an alternative to smoking—what happens if the product is taken off the shelf?
San Francisco can proudly call itself a leader in providing harm reduction tools for its communities. Volunteer groups in the late 1980s were one of the nation’s first to successfully use needle exchange programs to prevent HIV. More recently, the city’s Getting to Zero consortium has committed to being the first to reach zero new HIV infections, with PrEP and treatment as prevention being critical strategies to reach this goal. These groundbreaking approaches share the common approach of harm reduction—meeting adults where they are to offer interventions that improve health and quality of life. The proposed ordinance runs counter to these harm reduction approaches.
E-cigarettes do need to be regulated and prevented from getting into the hands of children, but banning all flavored vaping products for adults just doesn’t make sense. It is quite possible to prevent nicotine addiction in children and help adults stay alive at the same time. I ask people to use science, logic, and compassion when going to the polls on June 5th.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author alone. They do not reflect the opinions or positions of BETA or of San Francisco AIDS Foundation. BETA serves as a resource on new developments in HIV prevention and treatment, strategies for living well with HIV, and gay men’s health issues. Our goal is to inform, empower, and inspire conversation.
If you could take a pill to prevent sexually transmitted infections (STIs) like gonorrhea, chlamydia and syphilis—would you?
