Vol. 7, No. 8
August 1992
Solicitation
charges
dropped
...pages
Global
Samaritan
...page 26
FKEE
The C^rolin^e* Meet Compreheneive Gay &. leeb\aY\ Newep^per'i^ Frinted on Kecycied P^per^
ACT UP wins anonymous testing case
«. /%vion/TA Wc orit/>rio fir\r AVQiiiatino anonviTioiistcstinfifostcrstnistinDublichcsltli
by David Jones
Q-Notes Staff
DURHAM—A Durham judge has con
cluded that the state’s decision to limit anony
mous HIV testing to 17 sites should be found
null and void. The State Health Depa^ent
announced promptly that it intended to ignore
the findings of the court and proceed with its
plan to end all anonymous HIV testing.
The court decision came as a result of a
as far as we need to.”
If the Commission takes no action, or acts
in any way that is inconsistent with the find
ings of the court, ACT UP may seek ajudicial
order in State Superior Court or Federal Dis
trict Court to compel the State to correct the
flaws the Durfiam court found with State
policy.
Although the power of an administrative
law judge is limited, the court’s decision was
tempted to change its criteria for evaluating anonymous testing fostem trust in public
HIV-testing strategies. The court found that efforts ^ong those at risk for HIV, and that
the state “Previously...had considered anony- “Trust in the public health efforts mcr^^d
mous HIV testing to be a critical component the willingness of those at highest risk for
of efforts to get essential risk reduction infor- HIV infection to swk public health assistance
mation to those at highest risk for HIV infec- and adhere to public health recommendations
tion....” However, the opinion pointed out regarding transmission of HIV.
ine coun uecisiun tmiic aa a Juauii Ui Cl law juugi.. lo uiiiiic.c,
lawsuit filed by ACT UP/Triangle in August acarefulandcompellingrejechonof the State
^ .. I. HAfAncp of itQ nlan to
1991 after the State Health Department per
suaded the Commission for Health Services
to reduce the number of anonymous test sites
from all 100 counties to a few regional sites,
and then end all anonymous testing by 1994.
The case was heard in Durham in February
1992.
OnJulyS, 1992, AdministrativeLaw Judge
Brenda Becton issued a 14-page decision
finding that while the state does have the legal
authority to restrict services to regional cen
ters, the anonymous HIV testing decision
was made in a way that is “arbitrary and
capricious.”
The ruling does not directly require the
state to change policy. It is the result of an
administrative hearing and is only a “recom
mended decision,” or a recommendation that
the Health Services Commission adopt the
findings and conclusions of the court. The
state is required to take the issue back to the
Commission for review. ACT UP and the
state will be able to present additional written
comments to the Commission which will
consider the matter at its November, 1992
meeting. State Health Director Ronald Levine
said that he would not propose any policy
changes to the Commission.
ACT UP’S Steve Harris, who organized
the lawsuit, responded, ‘This is just the be
ginning. If they think that we are going to
fold, they are very mistaken. We will take this
Health Department’s defense of its plan to
phase-out anonymous testing.
The judge noted that the state has at-
that the state’s new objectives were to en
courage confidential testing as an end in itself
by “a significant shift or reduction in the
availability and accessibility of anonymous
testing.”
Judge Becton noted that the state had ar
gued in the past that “...the availability of
40
30
D
20
ID
0
Increase in reported cases of
AIDS between the periods
April 1990-March1991
and
April 1991-March 1992
North
Carolina
United
States
She also found that health care profession
als “believe that there is no public health
rationale for decreasing access to anonymous
HIV antibody testing and that doing so will
result in an increase rather than decrea^ in
the spread of the disease in North Carolina.”
In abandoning its earlier policy of encour
aging testing generally for one that seeks to
reduce access to anonymous testing specifi
cally, Judge Becton ruled that the state must
show that the new policy “furthers the detec
tion, control and prevention of HIV infec
tion,” and that “the basis for the change must
be clearly articulated.”
The court opinion notes that the state ar
gued that the new policy of disco^ging
anonymous testing was implemented in order
to improve the state’s ability to notify the
partners of people who test positive for HIV.
However, Judge Becton found that “... p^-
ner notification cannot take place unless in
fected persons present themselves for testing
and are also willing to provide the necessary
information about contacts....” Further, she
found that the state has not had adequate staff
to carry out HIV partner notification, that the
state has not conducted any studies to evalu
ate the effectiveness of partner notification
and that the proposed policy change was
made before any scientific study had been
designed to measure its eff^t.
When it came to selecting the sites that
would retain anonymous testing until 1994,
Judge Becton found numerous inconsisten
cies in the state’s rationale and noted several
Continued on page 22
Local BWMT co-chair
elected to National Board
by Frank Dalrymple
Q-Notes Staff
As of June 27 this
year, Charlotte resi
dent Brad Caldwell
began serving an
elected two-year term
on the National Board
of Directors of Black
and White Men To
gether/Men of All
Colors Together
(BWMT/MACT).
_____ _ Since the formation
of the Charlotte-area chapter of BWMT/
MACT, some three years ago, Caldwell has
served as its co-chair, and will remain in that
seat until the end of the year.
Attending the candidates forum in Dal
las, Caldwell delivered a speech before the
153-member House of Delegates that de
tailed his position on racism and commu
nity relations, and his plans for national
growth within the organization.
One of eight candidates vying for six
seats, he placed third in the voting, follow
ing two incumbents.
His term will conclude in mid-1994.
The national board, which is based in
Chicago, is comprised of fourteen board
members, four of whom are officers.
With a seven to seven balance between
men of color and whites, each member
supervises a regional district comprised of
three local chapters.
Caldwell will oversee and advise MACT/
Triangle-area, B WMT/Atlanta, and BWMT/
Memphis.
The national board adviser for the Char
lotte-area chapter is Doug Reynolds of
MACT/Kansas City.
Also appointed to the demanding post of
Chairman of the Resource Development
Committee, Brad will attend national quar
terly board meetings each year. Usually,
two are held in Chicago, and possibly one
will take place in Charlotte next year.
Faced with heavy fundraising and advi
sory chores, he is excited about the work
ahead, and also plans to develop at least two
more Southeast regional chapters, “possi
bly Columbia and Virginia Beach.”
When asked about the misconceptions
of BWMT/MACT, Caldwell offered, “Like
other gay and lesbian organizations, people
first think we’re a sexual group, which we’re
not. We are a political, social group. We
cater to all cultures and our goal is to stamp
out racism and homophobia.”
Q-Notes congratulates Brad Caldwell,
and wishes him continued success locally,
and even greater success nationally.
Antigay discrimination resoiution
passed by CRC Subcommittee
by Gordon Rankin
Q-Notes Staff
CHARLOTTEr-On Tuesday, July 14, the
Discrimination Subcommittee of Charlotte’s
Community Relations Committee (CRC)
adopted a resolution that sexual orientation,
familial status, age and disability status be
added to the existing list of factors (race,
national origin and gender) under which a
person may not be discriminated against ac
cording to the city’s Human Relations Ordi
nance. The motion, if next adopted by the full
CRC and then ultimately by the Charlotte
City Council, would become the first public
law in the State of North Carolina to prevent
discrimination on the basis of sexual orienta
tion. While the Town of Chapel Hill has
adopted a resolution to prevent such discrimi
nation in the hiring of town employees, its
policy is not law and is equivalent to the
policies of corporations such as IBM.
John Quillin, a Charlotte resident, chaired
a task force late last year and early this year to
review the existing law and to spearhead the
attempt to modify it when it was initially
suggested that the law required modification.
Quillin is the only openly gay member of the
Discrimination Subcommittee and shares its
chairing responsibilities occasionally with
others.
“We now expect the resolution to go be
fore the full CRC in August and before City
Council as early as September, but that may
not be in our best interest.” he said, citing the
fact that his subcommittee is presently con
sulting with gay and lesbian-friendly Council
members in order to formulate the best strat
egy to ensure the resolution’s passage into
law. Anthony Fox, an Assistant City Attor
ney for Charlotte, has also been consulted on
a continuing basis.
As part of the effort, Quillin and others are
forming a coalition to steer the motion. The
coalition is to be an entity independent of the
CRC or the Discrimination Subcommittee
and will be composed primarily of members
of the Charlotte area gay and le.sbian commu
nity.
The importance of the proposed changes
to the Human Relations Ordinance lies pri
marily in the fact that public accommoda
tions, which are addressed in its first section,
could no longer refuse services to gay men
and lesbians based simply on their sexual
orientation. A “public accommodation” is
any facility which is not a private club (e.g..
restaurants, theaters and parks) or any other
“private” facility. An example of a private
facility would a country club. However,
gay bars and heterosexual night clubs may be
considered private establishments for the
purposes of ABC law, but not with regard to
public accommodation.
Quillin said that legal definition, as exem
plified above, is often a very difficult subject
to sort through and is abundant in loopholes.
He first joined the CRC when he learned that
Continued on page 17