Coburn 7 Stops World AIDS Relief

(What exactly are the mixed vibes in Oklahoma City these days? Read DocHoc's commentary this week in the Oklahoma Gazette to find out.)

He is known as an obstructionist, a rascally contrarian, a political stuntman, “Dr. No,” the politician adored by the local corporate media and extreme GOP ideologues, but Oklahoma U.S. Senator Tom Coburn crosses a new line in depravity in his efforts to stop world AIDS relief.

Coburn is leading a group of seven U.S. Senators, all Republicans, who have signed a letter against the reauthorization of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). Under the arcane rules of the Senate, the letter halts action on reauthorization unless it receives 60 “yes” votes, which might yet be accomplished since the reauthorization enjoys wide bipartisan support in Congress.

The plan is designed to treat 3 million HIV-infected people throughout the world.

Coburn and the other Senators says the program costs too much, according to Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson, and, of course, they “are concerned that AIDS funds might be used for things such as abortion referrals and needle distribution, though the legislation doesn't mention these possibilities.” The senators also want 55 percent of PEPFAR money’s devoted solely to treatment

But, incredibly, the reauthorization of the program does not even actually appropriate any money to the program.

The other Senators are Jim DeMint, Jeff Sessions, Saxby Chambliss, David Vitter, Jim Bunning, and Richard Burr. They have become known as the Coburn Seven because Coburn has taken the lead role in the obstructionism.

Coburn recently led an effort to stop a bill outlawing genetic discrimination, which later passed overwhelmingly with bipartisan support, and he once apparently proudly claimed to have placed 87 holds on various Senate business in 2007.

Coburn, a physician, is lauded by GOP ideologues, such as pundit George Will, and editorial writers at The Oklahoman, but some of his antics bring up moral questions. His battle against world AIDS relief and the genetic anti-discrimination legislation puts Coburn’s moral compass in the public limelight. Here are some questions: Is it right for a physician to actively work to deny dying people a chance to live? Does this stance not show Coburn has problems with basic judgment? Why did he choose these particular issues to grandstand? Does Coburn’s ego get in the way of sound decision making?

Coburn’s stunts do nothing to help those state voters who elected him. It may be great on a short-term visceral level to some voters here, for example, that George Will has become a Coburn sycophant, but for every adoring pundit like Will there is another pundit or another organization that vehemently opposes the Senator and considers him a cruel egomaniac. The bad publicity outweighs the good. Coburn’s controversial stances continue to harm the state’s image.