By Doris Kathia
Condoms save lives. That should not be a political statement. Yet across the world, a simple, effective tool for preventing HIV and other sexually transmitted infections continues to be dragged into ideological battles that have little to do with science and everything to do with moral panic.
We are seeing a worrying global rise in STIs, including the resurgence of syphilis. HIV continues to disproportionately affect communities with limited access to prevention. Despite this reality, some conservative and pro‑life groups are doubling down on abstinence‑only messaging — not simply as personal guidance but as preferred public policy.
Choosing abstinence is a valid personal decision, but enforcing abstinence‑only frameworks while restricting access to condoms and comprehensive sex education is a political choice with measurable public health consequences.
Decades of research show that abstinence‑only programmes do not reduce infections at the population level. Human behaviour is complex. People form relationships. People have sex. Pretending otherwise has never prevented disease. What does prevent disease is access to tools — accurate information, condoms, testing, and treatment. Undermining these tools does not protect life; it increases vulnerability.
And the costs are borne by those least able to absorb them: young people who receive incomplete or misleading information; women who lack negotiating power in relationships; marginalised communities already facing health‑care barriers; and public health systems forced to manage the long‑term consequences of preventable infections.
Condoms remain one of the most affordable, accessible, and effective prevention tools ever developed. They empower individuals immediately, require no prescription, and drastically reduce the risk of HIV and other STIs when used correctly.
The cost of a single condom is negligible compared with the lifetime cost of HIV treatment. Yet instead of treating condoms as essential, some policymakers allow them to be framed as symbols of moral decline.
This is not how we treat other prevention tools. We do not oppose seat belts to promote careful driving. We do not ban sunscreen to encourage responsible sun exposure. Prevention exists because risk exists. Removing tools does not remove risk — it amplifies harm.
Forty years into the global HIV response, we know exactly what works: testing, treatment, and barrier protection. The challenge is not science. It is political will. It is the courage to prioritise evidence over ideology.
Supporting condom access does not erode values. It acknowledges reality. It respects bodily autonomy. It saves lives. If we are intentional about protecting life, then we must invest in the tools that make protection possible: affordable or free condoms, widespread distribution, and comprehensive sexual health education grounded in respect rather than shame.
Public health cannot function when filtered through ideology. Condoms are not a moral threat — they are a medical solution. The most responsible choice remains the simplest one: make prevention accessible and let people protect themselves.
Ms Kathia is a Human Rights Defender and a communications expert.
