Several flatly oppose safe sex, a cornerstone prevention strategy throughout the AIDS epidemic, and champion measures considered anathema by civil libertarians, like mandatory testing of newborns and listing Americans with HIV infections in a common database. “The administration is giving these posts to Christian fundamentalists to appease them … rather than trying to take the epidemic seriously,” says Gay Men’s Health Crisis officer Ronald Johnson. “It seems to be a patronage pool for right-wing conservatives.”

To co-chair the council, Bush is expected to name two physicians who were backed by the anti-gay groups Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council: Dr. Louis Sullivan, a secretary of health and human services during the first Bush administration and Dr. Tom Coburn, a Republican congressman from Oklahoma until 2000. Both men have a track record promoting abstinence and opposing “harm reduction” AIDS prevention, such as distributing condoms to sexually active people and needles to injection drug users. But during his tenure in the House, Coburn defended other key AIDS issues, sponsoring the Ryan White CARE Act reauthorizations in 1996 and 2000 and making AIDS drug assistance a top priority. As a result, his expected appointment has been greeted with mixed reactions, with groups like AIDS Action in Washington D.C. declaring, “You can’t just hate the guy.”

Coburn recently spoke with NEWSWEEK’s David France about his religious beliefs, his thoughts on condoms, and his ideas for the future of AIDS in America.

NEWSWEEK: Have you spoken to the President about his AIDS priorities?

Dr. Tom Coburn: I have–during the campaign, in one short meeting. But I’ve not spoken to him about the Presidential Advisory Council. I think he recognizes that this is a disease that affects every attribute of American society and that he would like to see it not there.

What priorities will you stress as co-chair?

I really don’t see that as my job. My job is to build a consensus out of the 35 people on that committee. I want to depoliticize it–Secretary Sullivan and I have talked about this–to take politics out of it and come to a consensus for how we can more effectively treat and to make recommendations about lessening the numbers of new infections. I’d like to see us come out with unanimous consensus on everything we recommend.

Do you really think consensus is probable? There are nine holdovers from the Clinton years.

Listen. No matter what wing of the political perspective you are from, if you get down and recognize this is a disease that affects everybody no matter your race, nationality, and orientation, it doesn’t matter. So let’s get rid of all the issues and dispense with them, and leave political trappings at the door. Is it possible? Sure. Is it probable? I don’t know.

Your expected appointment has sparked some angst among AIDS activists, to say the least. Are you surprised?

Not particularly. I have a political career that’s evident in Washington, and I’m not ashamed of that career. It has not necessarily been one that the gay community would support. But on this issue, there hasn’t been a time when I haven’t positioned myself in a way that’s supportive ultimately to every community. I’m a straight arrow. What you see is what you get. I’m not ashamed of my opinions, and I’ll defend them.

Talk to me about condoms.

I’m a realist. I would not ever recommend to one of my patients to have sex with someone with HIV with a condom. Because I know the statistics. They break. They slip. What we’ve done is not told the whole truth about condoms. … My position is, if you can get people to use condoms perfectly, and you can make sure they use them, and tell them what the risks are, and tell them the breakage rates and slippage rates are, it’s a good strategy.

There’s no consensus there. Almost everybody else disagrees with you about this.

I don’t think you should ever educate anyone on condoms unless you specifically teach them how to use them, and what their failure rates are. Anywhere else in medicine, if we fail to give informed consent, we’re liable. The assumption is, people won’t know what to do with the information. And that is the most arrogant position I have ever seen.

Then you support only abstinence?

I believe that monogamy is the answer to HIV infection. I understand that people think I’m not a realist in this area. But I’m monogamous, and there are hundreds and hundreds of millions of people out there that are monogamous.

How about needle exchange programs–and the studies that show they reduce infection rates?

First off, IV-drug use is illegal. So I disagree with the assumptions of the studies. And I disagree with needle exchange. I think it’s failed compassion. If you want to help somebody help them get off drugs. Don’t give them clean needles. That is a poor substitute for eliminating HIV. That’s a personal opinion, again, that’s not necessary what the committee is going to do.

Opinions like that, which are shared by some of the new committee members, have caused deep suspicions among AIDS leaders toward the Presidential Advisory Council. GMHC calls the entire panel a “patronage pool” for Christian fundamentalists. Do you think that is fair?

You know, that’s just like the Christians preaching hate to the gay community. What is the prism of Christian fundamentalism? You know, how I see that is: Jesus said there are two commandments, love god and love your neighbor. That’s the fundamentalism that I follow.