The politics of prevention: in a nod to the conservatives who put him in office, President Bush packs his AIDS policy panel with supporters of abstinence-based sex education. (AIDS).

Imagine a conference room somewhere in Washington, D.C. Thirty-five presidential appointees debate federal AIDS policy. Stating at each other around the table are a gang member-turned-religious conservative, a former right-wing congressman who believes that condoms don't work, a onetime beauty queen who lobbies for abstinence until marriage, openly gay conservatives, liberals who support universal sex education, and two representatives of the pharmaceutical industry.

Welcome to the brave new world of the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV and AIDS, which meets for the first time this month.

"It will be fascinating to see how the religious conservatives deal with those who advocate safe sex and needle exchange," says Cornelius Baker, executive director of Whitman-Walker Clinic, an AIDS service organization in Washington, D.C. "The split between Democrats and Republicans will be the least of the differences."

President Bush appointed approximately two dozen new members to the council in January, including cochair Tom Coburn, a former congressman from Oklahoma with a 0 rating on gay rights issues from the gay advocacy group Human Rights Campaign; Charles Francis and Abner Mason, openly gay Republicans; and Louis Suilivan, president of Morehouse School of Medicine in Atlanta and a former secretary of Health and Human Services who in 1990 shelved a report on gay teen suicide.

The clashing political philosophies of the 35-member council, which retains nine Clinton appointees, highlights the fissures in the Bush administration's AIDS policy. After just over a year in office, the president has sought to push abstinence education to appease social conservatives while at the same time trying to prevent outcries from public health leaders, who often support comprehensive sex education.

Despite this ideological rift, it may be difficult to pigeonhole some of the more conservative members of the council. Patricia Funderburk Ware, the council's executive director, has been described by critics as antigay because she was a staff member at Americans for a Sound AIDS Policy, a right-wing group that has lobbied against gay rights and for abstinence-only sex education. But in an interview with The Advocate, Ware emphatically disputes that characterization while expressing support for gay-inclusive abstinence education and a desire to work closely with gays and lesbians.

"I got into this line of work because I saw too many of my young gay friends dying in the 1980s," she says. "If we teach teens to delay sex until marriage, we should also encourage gay teens to abstain until they can find a monogamous, faithful relationship with the person you choose as an adult. Multiple sexual partners is not a good idea for kids, gay or straight. I would tell any council member of whatever political persuasion that young gay kids have just as much right to find the love of their lives as anyone else."

Still, critics say Bush's appointments mark the first cracks in the bipartisan approach to federal AIDS policy that defined the Clinton era. Indeed, the appointments set off a crossfire between gay political groups. The Log Cabin Republicans lauded Bush for appointing "a wide diversity to the Advisory Council." But the National Stonewall Democrats said the president had packed the council with "antigay, unqualified people," and the group blasted Log Cabin for praising the appointments.

Since the establishment of the first AIDS council under President Reagan in 1986, its influence on federal AIDS policy has varied. But the group has always been highly politicized. When Reagan in 1987 named the first openly gay man to serve on the panel, Frank Lilly, religious conservatives protested wildly. And when President Bush tried to eliminate the council last year, AIDS activists complained vociferously, causing the White House to reverse its decision.

"The presidential AIDS council has a mixed track record," says David Harvey, executive director of the AIDS Alliance for Children, Youth, and Families, a Washington, D.C.-based group. "Under Reagan, it raised awareness. But by the Clinton administration, it issued a lot of important recommendations that were never implemented. It's too early to tell how this latest incarnation will turn out."

One current question that could be decided by the panel is the future focus of HIV prevention. At a time when the rate of new infections has spiked among racial minorities and pockets of young gay men, the White House is pushing for increased funding for abstinence-only sex education. Fulfilling a campaign pledge to equalize funding for abstinence and comprehensive sex education, Bush's 2002 budget request calls for a 33% increase in funding for such programs in public schools, to $135 million annually.

Bush and other conservatives argue that teaching teenagers about contraceptives and HIV prevention measures such as condoms indirectly condones sexual activity. At least one quarter of the president's appointees advocate some form of abstinence education.

But critics argue that abstinence-only education is inherently antigay. Under 1996 welfare reform legislation, abstinence education must "teach that sex outside marriage probably would have harmful psychological and physical effects," among other requirements.

"When conservatives talk about abstinence, they are talking about abstinence until marriage, from which gays and lesbians are of course excluded," says Bill Smith, director of public policy for the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States. "This is not disease prevention. This is the promotion of marriage and conservative ideas about family life. These people are desperately trying to erode the way in which condoms have been adopted by young people."

Despite the conservative tilt to the council, national AIDS groups are taking a wait-and-see approach. "I don't see a massive shift in HIV prevention yet," Harvey says. "We don't know what issues will emerge as a priority."

Baker, who worked on AIDS policy in the first Bush administration, supports a program known as "abstinence plus." "I think it's perfectly reasonable to tell a gay kid that he can make a choice to go to bed alone," he says. "But if he chooses something else, he should have the necessary education to make appropriate decisions to protect himself."

Francis also supports "abstinence plus." But as the president's closest gay confidant, he anticipates playing a peacemaking role on the council. "I hope to bring a fresh and empathetic perspective to this gigantic problem [of AIDS]," he says. "I realize there are many paths to the mountaintop where we can eliminate HIV. Some will follow the path of abstinence, and that's fine. Others will rely on safer sex, which is fine too."

But Smith says the dueling educational tactics are unlikely to find common ground. "I wouldn't want to be in the shoes of those council members whose terms are continuing," he says. "Having spent years working in conflict resolution across the country, I've seen many miraculous comings-together. But I don't see how this could be one of them. Frankly, I don't see any willingness on the part of abstinence-only advocates to compromise at all. These two warring philosophies are just too far apart. The best we can hope for is gridlock."