As HIV spreads, GOP unlikely to fund needle swaps

WASHINGTON — In 1988, archconservative Sen. Jesse Helms successfully pushed Congress to prohibit federal dollars from being used to distribute sterile syringes to intravenous drug users, equating an effort meant to slow the spread of AIDS and other diseases to federal endorsement of drug abuse.

Now, with a severe outbreak of HIV and hepatitis due to a surge in heroin use in states including Indiana, Kentucky and West Virginia, the question of whether to let federal money support needle exchanges is back. Still, in contrast to a new willingness by state politicians to accept needle exchanges, Congress appears unlikely to overturn the moratorium even with drug problems hitting hard in states represented by those responsible for the spending bills that impose the ban.

Rep. Harold Rogers, the Republican chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, has seen drug addiction spread in his rural district in southeastern Kentucky, leading him to direct money home for both treatment and law enforcement. But a spokeswoman says he remains opposed to needle exchanges, which he considers a matter of local discretion.

“He continues to support the ban on the use of federal funds for needle exchange programs,” said the spokeswoman, Jennifer Hing. She added that Rogers intended “to focus federal resources on education and treatment programs that support communities in their drive to end the cycle of dependency.”

Though evidence has mounted that needle exchanges are effective, they have remained anathema to many politicians, particularly Republicans who have long framed opposition as an essential element of their antidrug image.

“As Republicans, we don’t want to look like we are facilitating drug use,” said Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., chairman of the appropriations subcommittee that distributes health funding. “We want to get you help, but we want to do other things.”

While expressing reservations, Cole acknowledged that public funding of needle exchanges could be more cost effective than the potential public expense of treating increasing numbers of AIDS and hepatitis cases.

To some Democrats, there is no question that the ban should be eliminated.

“We should lift the ban,” said Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn. “Health, and not ideology, should be the determining factor.”