Uganda had seen a sharp decrease in the nation’s AIDS rate, but after its decline in the 1990s inspired public health strategies to fight HIV infections, a new study shows that Uganda and Chad are the only two African nations where the number of AIDS cases is rising.

The HIV infection rate in Uganda grew from 6.4 percent in 2005 to 7.3 percent in 2012. But at roughly the same time, the United States spent about $1.7 billion to fight AIDS in Uganda through the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), which teamed up with faith-based groups in 2003 and emphasized abstinence. Instead of continuing Uganda’s decreasing number of HIV infections, the survey shows that the public health campaigns, including the PEPFAR-sponsored “Get Off the Sexual Network” message, may have backfired:

On one hand, 90 percent of Ugandans today acknowledge sexual fidelity in a relationship as a health imperative, according to the survey results; on the other hand, roughly 25 percent of married men said they had multiple sexual partners.

The survey found that 75 percent of Ugandans were knowledgeable about condoms in sexual health but that fewer than 8 percent of married men who were having sex outside their marriage were using condoms.

Uganda’s hard-line approach toward homosexuality, which is outlawed here, also fuels the spread of AIDS, experts say. One report indicated that one-third of the male respondents who had sex with other men said they had previously been married to women and fathered children. Fewer than half use condoms.

Pepfar’s founding policies barred partnering with organizations that did not condemn prostitution, and called for 33 percent of financing to be spent on abstinence and fidelity programs.

“If you have an environment that stigmatizes them, then don’t expect people to use condoms,” said Canon Gideon Byamugisha, a religious leader and AIDS activist in Uganda. Byamugisha told the New York Times that the country has “confusing” messages in its fight against HIV/AIDS.

When Congress reauthorized PEPFAR in 2008, the program dropped a directive to promote abstinence until marriage; however, it still emphasizes abstinence and fidelity. In his 2013 budget, President Obama requested $6.4 billion for PEPFAR.

An Obamacare provision that requires employer-based insurers to cover birth control took effect this week, allowing millions of women to access contraception without a co-pay. Wheaton College, a prominent evangelical school, recently joined several religious institutions in a lawsuit fighting the rule.

But as it turns out, Wheaton “inadvertently” covered emergency contraceptive before it invoked the religious freedom argument against Obamacare and managed to drop the provision from its insurance plans in April, well after the uproar began. The Huffington Post reports that Wheaton “tried to scramble to get rid of that coverage in order to qualify” for a one-year exemption for religious institutions:

“In order to be eligible for the safe harbor, the institution has to certify that it has not covered contraceptives after February 10, 2012,” said Emily Hardman, communications director for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. Wheaton didn’t qualify because “for a short time after February 10, Wheaton’s policies inadvertently covered emergency contraceptives. Wheaton was in the process of fixing that error in February, but it was not fixed before the cutoff date.“

The religious argument against Obamacare — that these institutions are being forced to violate morals — has been dismissed multiple times in courts, where plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate any harm from the rule, which includes exemptions for religious nonprofits.

Wheaton isn’t the only religious college to offer contraception. Catholic colleges like Georgetown University, the University of Scranton, DePaul University, and Christian University have insurance plans that cover birth control and 28 states already require organizations that offer prescription insurance to cover contraception.

As Mississippi struggles with the highest rate of teen pregnancy in the country, a majority of school districts are doubling down on a abstinence-only instruction, largely ignoring a 2011 state law that requires Mississippi schools to teach some form of sex education. But a growing number are abandoning the failed approach and opting for small steps toward a more honest conversation about sexual health.

The 2011 measure to provide gender-separated sexual education — which requires parents to give permission for their children to attend the classes — goes into effect for this upcoming school year, though the state Department of Education reports that 81 of Mississippi’s school districts, over half, have chosen to retain abstinence-only as their sole method of instruction. Seventy-one districts will adopt “abstinence-plus” classes that will continue to advocate for abstaining from sex, but include the mention of some forms of contraception.

Health advocates say that “abstinence-plus” could help slowly move the state in the right direction. “We are pleased and excited that so many districts decided to go with abstinence-plus,” Jamie H. Bardwell, the program director for the Women’s Fund of Mississippi said. “It definitely shows a need and a desire for more than just abstinence-only. It reflects the reality that 76 percent of Mississippi 12th-graders have already had sex.”

Faced with staggering teen pregnancy rates — teen pregnancy rate is highest in states with abstinence-only policies — some conservatives are starting to abandon abstinence-only policies in favor of contraceptive options. Eighty-eight percent of Evangelicals now support birth control and 82 percent of Catholics believe birth control is morally acceptable.

Transforming high rates of support for birth control into high rates of young people using birth control, however, involves teaching students what they need to know about it. A growing number of conservative school districts broadening their abstinence education programs to include “abstinence-plus” is the beginning of this process.

The Oklahoma Health Care Authority has just released a report estimating that accepting the expansion of Medicaid coverage could save their state nearly $48 million a year. Their findings are similar to the results from another recent study that estimated $350 million in savings for Arkansas under the expansion.

The Obamacare provision that expands Medicaid coverage to an estimated 17 million low-income people is popular with the majority of Americans, but Republican governors in states across the country have been resisting accepting the expansion. Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin (R) has said she will not decide on whether or not accept the Medicaid expansion until after the presidential election.

As the Tulsa World reports, opting into the expansion of the Medicaid program would be a good move for Oklahoma because it would free up state money for other necessary programs, such as mental health services:

Services currently funded completely with state money would shift to Medicaid funding – allowing the state to either shift its tax money to other uses or magnify its ability to provide those services.

“I think it’s darn sure one of the selling points for accepting” the Medicaid expansion, said Michael Brose, executive director of the Mental Health Association in Tulsa.

Carter Kimble, spokesman for the Oklahoma Health Care Authority, said first-draft estimates of potential state savings with the Medicaid expansion show that the Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services could save $34 million, the Corrections Department $11.2 million, and the state Health Department $2.4 million.

Oklahoma and Arkansas are not alone. The Urban Institute estimates that 21 to 45 states would save money by taking the Medicaid expansion. In fact, many of the Southern states whose Republicans governors have been most resistant to Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion would actually benefit most from expanding the program.