home

John Roberts' 1985 AIDS Memo to Reagan

David Webber at The Nation has a new article on Judge John Roberts' 1985 AIDS memo to then President Ronald Reagan that Roberts wrote in conjunction with a major announcement Reagan was about to make. According to the article, he refused to disavow the memo when being interviewed by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Here's a snippet:

Five days before the press conference, [Roberts] reviewed the presidential briefing materials and recommended deletion of a sentence encapsulating the CDC's conclusion: "As far as our best scientists have been able to determine, AIDS virus is not transmitted through casual or routine contact." In a memorandum, the Assistant Counsel to the President explained, "I do not think we should have the President taking a position on a disputed scientific issue of this sort. There is much to commend the view that we should assume AIDS can be transmitted through casual or routine contact, as is true with many viruses, until it is demonstrated that it cannot be, and no scientist has said AIDS definitely cannot be so transmitted."

Exactly twenty years later, that lawyer, John G. Roberts Jr., would sit before the US Senate Judiciary Committee as the nominee for Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

Roberts's speculation about "AIDS transmission" was as indefensible in 1985 as it is today. By 1983, scientists had identified a retrovirus as the cause of AIDS. This retrovirus, later named Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), was known to infect only upon entering the bloodstream, directly or through mucosal membranes--not through intact skin. AIDS had been diagnosed only among individuals having intimate sexual contact with those infected, or those who were exposed to infected blood or blood products. There were no cases of AIDS identified among the caregivers and family members who were not sexual partners of those with AIDS. These patterns had been strong enough for the CDC to announce as early as November 1982 that both airborne and casual contact transmission were unlikely. Not everything was known about transmission by 1985, just as not everything is known to this day. But it is fair to say that casual contact transmission was not among the issues under debate in the scientific and medical community.

Sen. Russ Feingold, who has announced he will vote for Roberts, questioned Roberts about the memo.

During Roberts's Senate confirmation hearing, Senator Russell Feingold questioned the judge about his AIDS memo. In his defense, Roberts strangely noted that if Reagan's statement had "turned out to be wrong it could have been disastrous." But of course, Reagan's statement was wrong, and the hysteria it caused was disastrous. Either Roberts was being disingenuous or he has gained no further insight on the issue over the last twenty years.

Webber concludes,

The AIDS memo, obviously, is only one among many pieces of evidence bearing on Roberts's qualifications to be Chief Justice. Roberts's assistance to gay rights advocates in the 1996 Supreme Court case Roemer v. Evans suggests that he does not hold the virulently antigay attitudes prevalent twenty years ago in the Reagan Administration. Nevertheless, the 1985 memo--and Roberts's refusal to disavow it in any way in his testimony before the Judiciary Committee--is another source of profound discomfort with the idea that its author could soon become Chief Justice of the United States.

[hat tip Peter. G.]

< NOLA Police Chief Retiring | Atlanta Hostage Gave Gunman Meth >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Re: John Roberts' 1985 AIDS Memo to Reagan (none / 0) (#1)
    by Peter G on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:22 PM EST
    David Webber's website is actually chock full of great information on HIV/AIDS, particularly in relation to legal issues. Many criminal justice aspects included.

    Re: John Roberts' 1985 AIDS Memo to Reagan (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:22 PM EST
    So do you think that John Roberts intentionally acted in a way that would further the spread of AIDS? Do you think that this was his personal opinion? I'm just wondering exactly how your reblogging should be interpreted. :)

    Re: John Roberts' 1985 AIDS Memo to Reagan (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:23 PM EST
    useless thread

    Re: John Roberts' 1985 AIDS Memo to Reagan (none / 0) (#4)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:23 PM EST
    So do you think that John Roberts intentionally acted in a way that would further the spread of AIDS?
    Intentionally? Maybe not. But this is the EXACT reason you don't let lawyers or political appointees redact scientific statements about science from scientists. Reagan and his handlers were responsible for the wider spread of AIDS, due to their inaction and refusal to care because it was happening amongst gays.
    "There is much to commend the view that we should assume AIDS can be transmitted through casual or routine contact, as is true with many viruses, until it is demonstrated that it cannot be, and no scientist has said AIDS definitely cannot be so transmitted."
    Any scientist (or attentive 7th grade student), can tell you that it is impossible to prove a negative. (This is why CSI folks will only testify that something is "consistent with'.)

    Re: John Roberts' 1985 AIDS Memo to Reagan (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:23 PM EST
    Actually, this is precisely consistent with the known judicial philosophy of this man. And while it may prove impractical (and inhumane) from a public health standpoint, from a legal perspective, it does make perfect sense. Remember folks, The Law, is usually not on The Cutting Edge and The Learning Curve is normally several years (decades?)behind that of the hard sciences. Let's not get our knickers in a twist over this minor revelation.

    Re: John Roberts' 1985 AIDS Memo to Reagan (none / 0) (#6)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:24 PM EST
    "Let's not get our knickers in a twist over this minor revelation." Can I see a show of hands of folks who have had friends or loved ones die of aids? Chances are they might still be alive if this lawyer had made his opinion based on the science and not his 'judicial philosophy.'

    Re: John Roberts' 1985 AIDS Memo to Reagan (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:26 PM EST
    PUH-leeze! Yeah; let's judge the man in 1985 by the retrospective (and oh-so-self-righteous) morality of 2005. C'mon, you can do better than THAT! Next, we'll be hearing about a Roberts-sighting at a grassy knoll. If only ...

    Re: John Roberts' 1985 AIDS Memo to Reagan (none / 0) (#8)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:26 PM EST
    lav, ever seen the time plot an a communicable virus spread? Do you think the reaction would have been the same to an avian flu with the same vector? BTW, I was judging by a 1982 scientific consensus. The original premise holds, in science, trust scientists, not lawyers or politicians.

    Re: John Roberts' 1985 AIDS Memo to Reagan (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:27 PM EST
    Strange, but I remember 1982 and 1985 well and the SOCIAL consensus was PRECISELY what Roberts honed in on. Was it wrong then? Maybe. Is it wrong now? Of course. My point is that the law is a conservative beast and changes at a crawl. It does so because it is the anchor for our society at large. And keeping stare decisis in mind, once it DOES make that change, it's often forever. Besides, this was in the Reagan era, when gay-bashing pretty much reached its peak. And, as I recall, this was another closet-fundamentalist president, believing he was being Guided By God. So, here's what you can expect from Roberts: caution. He will ONLY go as far as the letter of the law allows (which is why I believe abortion rights will probably be pruned by him - but not cut). The problem we have is one of practicality: science in 1982 and 1985, was trumped by politics - much as it is in 2005. I suspect this has always been the case and, likely, always will.