New Zealand: Ex-partner of the first person prosecuted for HIV transmission in New Zealand believes HIV prosecutions are harmful

HIV prosecutions are harmful, says victim

By Amelia Wade

A victim of the first person prosecuted for infecting others with HIV says she is against making criminals out of transmitters.

Marama Mullen believes it only pushes the issue further underground.

The Waikato woman was given HIV by Kenyan musician Peter Mwai who was jailed for seven years in 1994 for having unprotected sex with seven women and infecting two.

Just 22 years old at the time, Mullen said she couldn’t “really fathom” what the trial would mean.

“Quite a few times I wanted to stop and back out because of the lack of support for being the person who was doing it. There was a lot of media and a lot of people had differing views and opinions.

“But a lot has changed for me since then – I’ve actually become an advocate for not criminalising the spread of HIV because I truly believe it creates more stigma.”

She’s now spent more than a decade working with agencies for HIV aids as well as indigenous groups. She said the stigma of infection was especially harmful for Maori and Pasifika people.

“You’re disappointing your family double – it’s one thing if you’re gay but to add to that the stigma of being HIV positive is another.”

Mullen said it was common for people of Maori or Pasifika descent to go into denial about their condition and believes that may have been the case for Mikio Filitonga.

“When you tell someone you’re positive, it gives them the power to do what they want with that information.”

Mullen said she “felt for” Filitonga because if he was in denial, being publicly identified in a criminal trial as a HIV positive person was the “worst thing that could have happened to him”.

Usually when people didn’t disclose their status it was more to do with the fear of rejection rather than a criminal intent to infect, Mullen said.

She doesn’t think prosecutions are the best approach unless the person actively intended to infect someone.

Making someone a criminal as well as HIV positive only worsened the problem, she said.

Mullen has worked on a management plan – similar to one in Australia – which refers people suspected of infecting others to an agency.

It would to establish whether there are any mental health or cultural reasons behind their actions and whether a prosecution is necessary.

Mullen said it was “sitting on a bureaucrat’sdesk somewhere” yet to see the light of day.

Today’s medication is able to suppress the virus to the point it is undetectable and non transmittable so it was questionable as to whether someone even needed to disclose their status to partners.

Mullen said she believed if a person was dutifully taking their medication, they were taking enough precautions not to pass on HIV.

Within two months of taking the antiviral drugs, Mullen said her viral load – the amount of HIV in someone’s blood – dropped from 1000 which was “heading towards Aids” to it being undetectable.

She’s since been able to have two children – who are both HIV negative – and live a totally normal life.

Except for the stigma.

After being an outspoken advocate for acceptance, she’s considering moving from the Waikato to live incognito for the sake of her children.

Other parents have tried to get her 10- and 7-year-old kicked out of school, they’ve been bullied, had people refuse to go to their home and have been excluded from birthday parties – despite both being negative.

“The biggest message we want to get out there is that if we’re on medication we can’t infect people and we’re not transmittable.”

THE AIDS FOUNDATION AGREES

The New Zealand Aids Foundation said the broad application of criminal law to HIV transmission risks undermining public health and human rights.

Executive director Jason Myers said a prosecution should only happen if someone acted with the express intent to transmit the virus.

“Broad application of criminal law to the transmission of HIV has the potential to do significant damage to the public health and human rights based HIV response in New Zealand.

“It also increases the HIV stigma and discrimination experienced by people living with HIV, the vast majority of whom take care of themselves and their sexual partners.”

Myers said they knew the vast majority of people living with HIV who know their status act responsibly to take care of the health of both themselves and their sexual partners.

PREVIOUS HIV PROSECUTIONS:

1994 – In a highly publicised case, Kenyan musician Peter Mwai was the first person charged with infecting someone with HIV. He sentenced to seven years jail for having unprotected sex with five women and infecting two with HIV. Deported in June 1998 having served four years in jail here, Mwai died in Uganda in September 1998.

1999 – Former male prostitute Christopher Truscott held in “secure” care (he has escaped many times) in Christchurch after being prosecuted in 1999 for having unprotected sex with four men.

1999 – David Purvis, a 31-year-old Pakuranga invalid beneficiary, sentenced to four months jail for committing a criminal nuisance by having unprotected sex with another man. Pleaded guilty.

2004 – Zimbabwean Shingirayi Nyarirangwe, 25, was jailed in Auckland for three years after pleading guilty to four charges of criminal nuisance and three of assault.

2004 – Justin William Dalley, an unemployed 35-year-old of Lower Hutt, was sentenced to 300 hours of community work, six months’ supervision and to pay a woman $1000 in costs because he did not wear a condom during sex with her, despite knowing his HIV positive status. The woman did not contract HIV.

Soon after, he was acquitted of a similar charge because he wore a condom and thus set the legal precedent that by wearing protection an HIV positive man is taking “reasonable precautions” against infection and need not disclose his HIV status.

2009 – Auckland train driver Glenn Mills took his own life facing re-trial for 28 charges relating to 14 people. He had been in custody for over six months.

November 2016 – Christchurch man Johnny Lumsden, 26, is arrested and charged with criminal nuisance following accusations he had unprotected sex with several men without telling them he was HIV-positive.

THE LAW AND HIV

• If you are HIV positive, you do not have to disclose your status before having intercourse as long as you are using a condom.

• If the sex is unprotected, the HIV-positive person has a legal duty to disclose his/her status.

HIV IN NZ

During Mikio Filitonga’s trial, the court heard from Dr Graham Mills, an infectious diseases expert at Waikato Hospital. He said the most common mode of HIV transmission in New Zealand is male gay sex with 80 per cent of positive people believed to have been infected that way.

More than 50 per cent those who are HIV positive – 1500 to 2000 people – in New Zealand are believed to be living within the Auckland District Health Board’s boundaries.

Current estimates are that there are up to 4000 people in NZ who are HIV positive, he said.

Published in the New Zealand Herald on March 24, 2017

[Update]Mexico: Legislation to criminalise HIV transmission withdrawn in San Luis Potosi State Congress

A House Representative withdraws opinion/ruling that would criminalize HIV transmission in San Luis Potosi

The opinion/ruling with draft decree that was intended to add the crime of risk of contagion to the penal criminal code of the State of San Luis Potosi was withdraw The document established penalties and sanctions to whom or who put someone else at risk of contagion of  “a venereal disease or other serious infective period”.

A Member of San Luis Potosí friends fight against AIDS  /, Andrés Costilla Castro denounced than this initiative was an attempt against the dignity  of PLHIV and promoted stigma towards PLHIV in San Luis Potosí and  because of that, they demanded for such decree to be eliminated.

The document was presented by Esther Angelica Martinez Cardenas of the PRI and approved by justice committees; Health and Social Welfare.

Costilla Castro reiterated that this initiative would put people with HIV under a status of potential criminals, and that it opposed their dignity as persons, attempting to take away human rights and stigmatising them because of a health condition.

The opinion/ruling read as follows:

The offence of contagion is committed if a person puts someone in danger of contagion, knowing they are suffering from a venereal disease or other serious illness during an infectious period, putting in danger of contagion the health of another person, by sexual intercourse, or other transmissible method; shall be sentenced from one month to three years in prison, and up to forty days of the value of the unit of measurement and valid update. If the condition or disease was incurable, a sentence of six months to five years in prison shall be imposed. In  the case of spouses, boyfriends or concubines, only the case could proceed following a complaint by the offended party.

The opinion/ruling was removed during the session on Thursday to be analyzed again by the committees involved in the issue.

Diputada retira dictamen para penalizar el contagio de VIH en SLP

Fue retirado el dictamen con proyecto de decreto que planteaba  la adición del delito de Peligro de Contagio al Código Penal del Estado de San Luis Potosí. El documento establecía penas y sanciones a quien o quienes pongan a otra persona en riesgo del contagio de “una enfermedad venérea u otra grave en período infectante”.

Por su parte el integrante de la organización Amigos Potosinos en Lucha Contra el Sida, Andrés Costilla Castro denunció que esta iniciativa  atenta contra la dignidad y promueve el estigma hacia las personas con VIH en San Luis Potosí por lo que solicitaron fuera bajado este dictamen.

El documento, fue presentado por la priista Esther Angélica Martínez Cárdenas y aprobado por las Comisiones de Justicia; y Salud y Asistencia Social.

Costilla Castro reiteró que esta iniciativa colocaría a las personas con VIH bajo un estatus de posibles criminales, contraviniendo a su dignidad como personas, a tentando a sus derechos humanos y estigmatizándolos por su condición de salud,

El dictamen marcaba lo siguiente:

Comete el delito de peligro de contagio quien, a sabiendas de que padece una enfermedad venérea u otra grave en período infectante, ponga en peligro de contagio la salud de otra persona, por relaciones sexuales, u otro medio transmisible; será sancionado de un mes a tres años de prisión, y hasta cuarenta días del valor de la unidad de medida y actualización vigente

Si la enfermedad padecida fuera incurable se impondrá la pena de seis meses a cinco años de prisión. Cuando se trate de cónyuges, concubinarios o concubinas, sólo podrá procederse por querella de parte ofendida

El dictamen fue retirado durante la sesión de este jueves para ser analizado nuevamente por las comisiones involucradas en el tema.

Published in La Orquesta on March 17, 2017

__________________________________________________________

First article published on March 16, 2017 (English google translation, scroll down for Spanish article)

Congress a step away from criminalising HIV transmission…Again

The Secretary of health, international treaties and activists are against the proposal.

By María José Puente

This Thursday, in a plenary session, the State Congress will vote on a draft decree that adds the crime of Danger of Contagion to the Penal Code of the State of San Luis Potosí. If approved, the new legislation establishes penalties and sanctions to those who put someone else at risk of contagion of “a venereal or other serious illness when being infectious.”

The document, already approved by the Justice Commissions; and Health and Social Services , was presented to the Congress by Esther Angélica Martínez Cárdenas, from the PRI group. There, the deputy says that it is necessary for the Potosino penal code to adopt the federal standard, where the crime is mentioned and allows for a penalty of up to 5 years in prison, equal to the one raised in the State decision.

The text reads:

“The offense of contagion is committed by a person who, knowing that he suffers from a venereal or other serious illness in an infectious period, endangers the health of another person by sexual intercourse or other transmissible means; Will be sanctioned from one month to three years in prison, and up to forty days of the value of the current unit of measurement and update.

If the illness suffered is incurable, a sentence of six months to five years’ imprisonment shall be imposed. In the case of spouses, or concubines, the case may only proceed following a complaint by the offended party “.

For the organizations that defend the rights of the LGBT population and the Ministry of Health at the national and even state level, this homologation is not only anachronistic, but it  also puts at risk the population suffering from ilnesses such as those mentioned there and particularly those who have been or may be diagnosed with HIV or AIDS.

REPEATED ERROR

In October of 2016, Juan Manuel Carreras, governor of San Luis; In conjunction with the Women’s Institute, attempted a similar legislative move, presenting a package of initiatives aimed at preventing violence against women.

The argument, said in an interview Jeús Paul Ibarra Collazo , head of Red Diversificadores Sociale was directed in such a way because the rate of contagion of women by way of their spouses could increase because part of the male population, openly heterosexual, actually had sexual relations with other homosexual men, contracted the disease and then, continued at the same time with their female partner, which resulted in her being infected as well.

Ibarra Collazo recognizes that the male homosexual population leads the statistics of HIV or AIDS, because by keeping alive what he calls internalized homophobia, the spread of the disease through sexual contact between men increases the number of cases.

Regardless of this, the Ministry of Health sent a press release specifically addressed to Juan Manuel Carreras, who asked him to take a second look at the initiative because, according to international treaties to which Mexico is a signatory, the measure that the governor and the IMES intended to boost is useless.

” The National Center for Prevention and Control of HIV / AIDS of the Ministry of Health calls for an analysis of this proposal in the framework of international and national recommendations in this area, since criminalization or criminalization of people with HIV is not a public policy that helps to reduce and control the epidemic, quite the contrary, it has been shown that the establishment of restrictions, indications or penalties for people with HIV does not prevent them from spreading the virus and there is little evidence that Criminal sanctions will ‘rehabilitate’ a person so as to avoid future risk behavior of HIV transmission, “the statement said.

After reception of the document and after a dialogue between the state agencies, Red Diversificadores Sociales and the pressure of the group Amigos Potosinos in Fight against Aids, the initiative seemed to have been withdrawn; However, this March 16, again and after already having been approved by the aforementioned committees, the article will be voted on by the 27 deputies that make up the Congress, without it being clear whether Congresswoman Esther Angélica Martínez Cárdenas is aware or not of the previous initiative.

STIGMA, DISCRIMINATION AND LACK OF PREVENTION POLICY

  Although the Ministry of Health points out that “imposing penalties can only be justified in case of conduct that is legally condemnable, so that criminal law based on this objective can only legitimately be applied to a subset of cases of HIV transmission” it also highlights that “this does not have anything to do with the primary goal of preventing HIV transmission. “

This can also be seen as presented by APELCS : “It is very difficult to determine causality, deceit, intentionality and various factors involved in the transmission of HIV”, and also, as stated by Paul Ibarra, and reaffirmed by the Ministry of Health, establishing punitive measures for the contagion of HIV or any other disease could inhibit the will of the key subjects to undergo the screening tests that finally have proven to be a palliative way to avoid transmission.

That is, when there is a penalty for contagion, it automatically pose a warning sign on the carriers, whether men, women, children or girls, which can facilitate discrimination and stigma on a disease that, with the advance of science and effective public policies of prevention, has ceased to be a death sentence for a large part of the population.

APELCS , on the other hand, exhorts “the members of the Health Commissions; Justice and social services; In particular to Congresswoman Esther Angélica Martínez Cárdenas to reconsider the criminalization of HIV and to lower this initiative, as they would put people with HIV under the status of potential criminals, in contravention to their dignity as persons, undermining their human rights and stigmatizing them for their Health condition “.

Paul Ibarra , on the other hand, points out what seems to be obvious and that is that there is a dislocation between the powers of the state, since the return of this attempt to change the Criminal Code, denotes that the deputy who is promoting it did not take into account the antecedent in October, nor was aware of the pronouncement against by the Ministry of Health, RDS and APELCS scarcely 5 months ago.

Published in La Orquesta on March 16, 2017

___________________________________________________

Congreso, a un paso de penalizar el contagio de VIH… Otra vez

Secretaría de Salud, tratados internacionales y activistas están en contra de la propuesta.

Por María José Puente

Este jueves, en el Pleno del Congreso del Estado será votado un dictamen con proyecto de decreto que plantea la adición del delito de Peligro de Contagio al Código Penal del Estado de San Luis Potosí. De aprobarse, la nueva normativa establece penas y sanciones a quien o quienes pongan a otra persona en riesgo del contagio de “una enfermedad venérea u otra grave en período infectante”.

El documento, ya aprobado por las Comisiones de Justicia; y Salud y Asistencia Social, fue presentado en el Congreso por Esther Angélica Martínez Cárdenas, de la bancada priista. Ahí, la diputada expone que es necesario que el código penal potosino tome de molde la norma federal, donde el delito mencionado sí se contempla y establece una pena que puede llegar a los 5 años de prisión, igual que lo plantea el dictamen estatal.

Textualmente, en el dictamen se lee:

“Comete el delito de peligro de contagio quien, a sabiendas de que padece una enfermedad venérea u otra grave en período infectante, ponga en peligro de contagio la salud de otra persona, por relaciones sexuales, u otro medio transmisible; será sancionado de un mes a tres años de prisión, y hasta cuarenta días del valor de la unidad de medida y actualización vigente.

Si la enfermedad padecida fuera incurable se impondrá la pena de seis meses a cinco años de prisión. Cuando se trate de cónyuges, concubinarios o concubinas, sólo podrá procederse por querella de parte ofendida”.

Para las organizaciones de defensa de los derechos de la población LGBT y la propia Secretaría de Salud a nivel nacional y hasta estatal, dicha homologación es no solo anacrónica, sino que pone en riesgo a la población portadora de enfermedades como las que ahí se señalan y particularmente a quienes han sido diagnosticados o podrían serlo con VIH o Sida.

ERROR REPETIDO

En octubre de 2016, Juan Manuel Carreras, gobernador de San Luis; en conjunto con el Instituto de las Mujeres intentó una movida legislativa similar, presentando un paquete de iniciativas que tenían como objetivo prevenir la violencia contra las mujeres.

El argumento, dice en entrevista Jeús Paul Ibarra Collazo, titular de Red Diversificadores Sociales; se dirigía en el sentido de que el índice de contagio de mujeres por la vía de sus cónyuges podría ir en aumento porque parte de la población masculina, abiertamente heterosexual, en realidad mantiene relaciones sexuales con otros hombres homosexuales, contrae la enfermedad y luego, al continuar con su pareja mujer, ella también resultaba contagiada.

Ibarra Collazo reconoce que la población homosexual masculina lidera la estadística de contagio de VIH o Sida, pues al mantenerse vivo lo que él llama homofobia interiorizada, el contagio y diseminación de la enfermedad por contacto sexual entre hombres incrementa el número de casos.

Independientemente de ello, la Secretaría de Salud envió un comunicado de prensa específicamente dirigido a Juan Manuel Carreras, a quien le pidió echar un segundo vistazo sobre la iniciativa pues, según tratados internacionales a los que México está suscrito, la medida que el gobernador y el IMES pretendían impulsar es inservible.

“El Centro Nacional para la Prevención y Control del VIH/Sida de la Secretaría de Salud hace un llamado para que se analice esta propuesta en el marco de las recomendaciones internacionales y nacionales en la materia, ya que la penalización o criminalización de las personas con VIH no es una política pública que ayude a la disminución y el control de la epidemia, muy por el contrario está demostrado que el establecimiento de restricciones, señalamientos o penas a personas con VIH no impide que propague el virus y existe poca evidencia de que las sanciones penales ‘rehabilitarán’ a una persona de modo que evite un comportamiento futuro de riesgo de transmisión del VIH” sentencia el comunicado.

Recibido el documento y tras un diálogo entre las dependencias estatales, Red Diversificadores Sociales y la presión del grupo Amigos Potosinos en Lucha contra el Sida, la iniciativa parece haber sido retirada; sin embargo, este 16 de marzo, nuevamente y ya aprobado incluso por las comisiones mencionadas, el dictamen será votado por los 27 diputados que integran el Congreso, sin que quede claro si la diputada Esther Angélica Martínez Cárdenas tiene conocimiento de la iniciativa anterior.

ESTIGMA, DISCRIMINACIÓN Y ESCASA POLÍTICA DE PREVENCIÓN

 Aunque la Secretaría de Salud apunta que “imponer penas solo puede justificarse en conductas que sean jurídicamente condenables, de modo que el derecho penal basado en este objetivo solo puede aplicarse legítimamente a un subconjunto de casos de transmisión del VIH” también remata que “esto no tiene nada que ver con el objetivo principal de prevenir la transmisión del VIH”.

Eso puede también verse como lo plantea APELCS: “Es muy difícil determinar la causalidad, el dolo, la intencionalidad ya que intervienen diversos factores en la trasmisión del VIH” además, como también secunda Paul Ibarra y reafirma la Secretaría de Salud, establecer medidas punitivas por el contagio de VIH o cualquier otra enfermedad podría inhibir la voluntad de los sujetos clave para someterse a las pruebas que finalmente sí han demostrado ser un paliativo para evitar el contagio.

Es decir, que al existir una pena por el contagio, automáticamente se establece una señal de alerta sobre los sujetos portadores, sean hombres, mujeres, niños o niñas, lo que puede favorecer la discriminación y el estigma sobre una enfermedad que, con el avance de la ciencia y las políticas públicas efectivas de prevención, ha dejado de ser, para una buena parte de la población, una sentencia de muerte.

APELCS, por su parte, exhorta “a las y los integrantes de las Comisiones de Salud; Justicia y asistencia social; en particular a la Diputada Esther Angélica Martínez Cárdenas a reconsiderar la penalización del VIH y a bajar esta iniciativa, pues colocarían a las personas con VIH bajo un estatus de posibles criminales, contraviniendo a su dignidad como personas, atentando a sus derechos humanos y estigmatizándoles por su condición de salud”.

Paúl Ibarra, por otro lado, señala lo que a ojos vistas parece saltar y es que existe una desarticulación entre los poderes del estado, pues el regreso de este intento de modificación al Código Penal, denota que la diputada que la promueve no tomó en cuenta el antecedente de octubre, ni tuvo conocimiento del pronunciamiento en contra hecho por la Secretaría de Salud, RDS y APELCS hace escasos 5 meses.

Published in La Orquesta on March 17, 2017

Mexico: Roberto Guzman on why HIV criminalisation laws do not protect women from HIV or violence and are inappropriate

Women and HIV criminalisation(Google translation – For the original Spanish version, please scroll down)

By Roberto Guzmán

Despite the fact that HIV infection has no cure, it has now become treatable and mortality has fallen. HIV has become a chronic disease with a higher quality of life and life expectancy. However, social perceptions have not significantly changed and HIV transmission and its gender-implications are still the cause of associated stigma and strong discrimination throughout the infection process and have become a major obstacle for prevention and medical care.

If a woman lives with HIV, her discrimination inhibits personalization of the risks for fear of distrust or of criticisms in her social environment, a situation that reduces the possibility of negotiating preventive measures and undermines her willingness towards her partners, by limiting a systemic diagnosis, by not wanting to share her results and her new life condition and by increasing the probability of not being able to seek treatment for its control.

Although the infection rates in this sector remains stable, women who contract HIV today continue to be ostracized, not only by their own families but also by their communities. They are expelled from their homes or rejected by their spouses to live in terror or to suffer violence, even to be deprived of life as if they were criminals.

If our Congress intended to apply a criminal law to the exposure and transmission of HIV as an outlet for this, perhaps its decree resulted from a well-intentioned desire to protect them in response to a legitimate concern for its rapid expansion. But continuing to allow society to criminalize them, does not foresee the emergence of new transmissions or reduce their vulnerability to the virus, on the contrary it would hurt them rather than help them, by having a negative impact on public health needs and the protection to their human rights. Continuing to criminalize them also does not protect them from sexual violence and rape, nor from unwanted pregnancies, on the contrary, it increases the risk of “secondary criminalization” when rape survivors infected with HIV could be persecuted for a possible exposure and transmission to their babies or their partners.

I believe that instead of responding to HIV by raising fears or laws, a human rights approach would emphasize protecting the dignity of all of them by creating conditions for free and informed taking of their health and life.

————————————————-

EL CIELO DE LA OPOSICIÓN

Por Roberto Guzmán

La mujer y su criminalización por VIH

Pese a que la infección del VIH no tiene cura, hoy se vuelve tratable y disminuye su mortalidad al tornarse crónica y con mayor calidad y esperanza de vida. Sin embargo, los cambios en la percepción social que aún continúan son menos significativos ya que su transmisión y sus implicaciones respecto al género son causa de un estigma asociado y motivo de una fuerte discriminación en los distintos ámbitos del proceso de la infección al volverse obstáculo importante para la prevención y su asistencia médica.

Sí una mujer vive con VIH, su discriminación inhibe la personalización que tiene frente al riesgo por miedo a generarse desconfianza o crítica en su entorno social, situación que reduce la posibilidad de que se negocien medidas preventivas y el socavar su predisposición con sus parejas, al limitar su detección sistémica al no querer compartir su resultado y nueva condición de vida y la  probabilidad de no poder buscar tratamiento para su control.

Pese a que la tasa de infección de este sector permanece estable, las mujeres que hoy contraen VIH continúan siendo condenadas a un ostracismo, no solo por sus propias familias sino por sus comunidades que las expulsan de sus casas o al ser rechazadas por sus cónyuges teniendo que vivir aterradas o sufrir violencias, incluso ser privadas de la vida como si fuesen criminales.

Si nuestro Congreso tuviera la intención de aplicar una ley criminal a la exposición y transmisión del VIH como una salida a esto, quizá su decreto resultaría un bien intencionado deseo por protegerlas como respuesta a una preocupación legítima por su rápida expansión. Pero el continuar permitiendo que la sociedad las criminalice, no prevé la aparición de nuevas transmisiones ni reduce con ello su vulnerabilidad frente al Virus, al contrario las perjudicaría más que ayudarlas, al lograr un impacto negativo en las necesidades de salud pública y en la protección a sus derechos humanos. El seguir criminalizándolas tampoco las protege de la violencia sexual y la violación, ni de los embarazos no deseados, por el contrario, aumenta el riesgo a una “criminalización secundaria” cuando las sobrevivientes de violación si fuesen infectadas por VIH pudieran verse perseguidas por una posible exposición y transmisión a sus bebes o a sus parejas.

Considero que en lugar de responder al VIH generando temor o leyes, un enfoque de derechos humanos pondría énfasis en la protección a la dignidad de todas ellas al crearse condiciones para la toma libre e informada en relación a su salud y su vida.

 

US: Article (including quotes from Sero's Sean Strub) highlights how movement against HIV criminalisation is growing stronger in 2017

HIV Criminalization Is Detrimental to Public Health. It’s Time for the Law to Catch Up. By Matt Baume. Outward: Expanding the LGBTQ Conversation on Slate.com

It was in the summer of 2015 that then-23-year-old Michael Johnson was sentenced to thirty 30 years in prison for transmitting HIV. Since 1988, his home state of Missouri has imposed harsh penalties for what prosecutors call “reckless infection,” and it’s hardly alone: Most states have, at some time, prosecuted people for transmitting the virus. But those prosecutions may soon come to an end.

Laws that establish HIV-specific crimes date back to the dark years of the epidemic: “Everyone detected with AIDS should be tattooed in the upper forearm, to protect common-needle users,” wrote William F. Buckley Jr. in the New York Times in 1986, “and on the buttocks, to prevent the victimization of other homosexuals.” At the time, hysteria over AIDS produced a national wave of stigmatizing laws—laws that have now been shown to have worsened the epidemic.

“If people are so concerned with HIV transmission, then perhaps the Missouri legislature and Governor Nixon should start by repealing this law,” wrote Kenyon Farrow, the U.S. and global health policy director for the Treatment Action Group, in response to Michael Johnson’s prosecution.

Though it may seem appropriate to discourage HIV transmission, laws that create HIV-specific crimes “are unjust and harmful to public health around the world,” according to the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Rather than discouraging transmission, the laws actually discourage patients from seeking testing and care, which in turn leads to more transmissions. Numerous other public health experts and political leaders have called for an end to HIV prosecutions, including the American Medical Association, the National Association of County and City Health Officials, the U.S Conference of Mayors, and the Obama administration’s Department of Justice.

But reform comes slowly, and advocates for repeal have found themselves toiling for years to overturn the harmful statutes. Now, at last, a coordinated nationwide effort is taking shape, and 2017 is likely to see significant advances in the decriminalization of HIV.

“There’s two big shifts over the last five or six years,” said Sean Strub, executive director of the Sero Project, a group that advocates for repeal. “One, the people in the LGBT community … have an understanding of what HIV criminalization is. It’s a general awareness of the phenomenon in the communities most directly affected.” He estimates that his organization has had over a thousand speaking engagements in the last half-decade.

“Second: The issue is increasingly seen in public health terms,” he said. “To be fair, there wasn’t a lot of hard evidence [until recently]. We now know that 25 percent of people with HIV in the U.S. know one or more individuals who are afraid to get tested for HIV for fear of getting criminalized.” That statistic is based on a Sero Project survey of over 2,000 people, designed to determine how the partners of people with HIV access health care. Their findings indicate that criminalization has a public health impact beyond people who already have HIV.

Organizations like Sero Project have learned some valuable lessons over the last few years about harm reduction, and they’re now leveraging those best-practices in communities and legislatures around the country. Those strategies include coordinated educational efforts that simultaneously hit multiple communities: Faith, LGBTQ, public health, and legal. In addition, advocates are establishing local coalitions so that legislative pressure comes from constituents, rather than national groups. And they’re engaging with individual prosecutions around the country.

This year will see particularly intense focus in midwestern and southern states: Mississippi, Tennessee, Georgia, the Carolinas, Ohio, and Indiana will see intensive outreach efforts. California is making great strides, with a bill announced earlier this month to modernize the state’s laws. That effort has included a detailed study of prosecutions, with an analysis of demographic data that could become a model for modernization in other states.

Customized approaches are key to the approach in each state. In Florida, for example, advocates have reached out to members of the criminal justice system, from police officers all the way up to judges. Iowa’s decriminalization effort included a collaboration between hepatitis and HIV groups.

Another important evolution is how closely reform advocates are working with advocates for other forms of social change. “Whether it’s trans activists or drug policy people or sex work activists or Black Lives Matter or penal system reform, HIV decriminalization seems to be a nexus for those efforts,” said Strub. “It’s so closely tied to the criminalization of bodies. … Five or six years ago, other organizations were not involved in this work.”

At the national level, advocates are sponsoring a Congressional lobbying campaign in March. Top priorities include reforms to Army policy, as well as the creation of incentives for states to modernize their laws. (An old provision in the Ryan White CARE Act, a 1990 law that provided funding for HIV programs, prompted many states to impose criminalization in the first place.) The Repeal HIV Discrimination Act, sponsored by Barbara Lee (D-CA) and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), would provide a framework for state-by-state repeal—and although it’s languished since 2013, it will see a renewed push next month.

Among the states to watch: Missouri, home of Michael Johnson. The state is in the midst of an organizing effort that Strub estimates could take two or three years. Johnson’s conviction was recently overturned due to prosecutorial misconduct, and he’s been remanded for a retrial likely to happen sometime this year. That’s encouraging news, though Missouri Court of Appeals refused to rule on the constitutionality of the law under which Johnson was convicted.

As a result, Johnson and many others like him will remain tangled in a maze of trials, legislation, and lobbying efforts, trapped by misguided laws that impose preventable harm—for now.

Canada: Powerful first person testimony from Chad Clarke, an HIV criminalisation survivor and now passionate advocate

From behind bars to the front lines of anti-criminalization advocacy

Bob Leahy talks to Ontario’s Chad Clarke about how Chad’s time in prison for non-disclosure of HIV status on an aggravated sexual assault charge turned him into a passionate advocate against HIV criminalization.  

Chad Clarke, 45. lives in Dresden, a rural community in south-west Ontario (pop 2,500). He contracted HIV in 2004 but was not diagnosed until 2008. In February 2017 his story was featured in Toronto’s NOW magazine.

Said the article by writer Rob Easton “On February 12, 2009 he turned himself in on an aggravated sexual assault charge brought by his former common-law partner. A judge found Clarke failed to disclose his HIV status. He didn’t see the light until he walked out of prison more than two years later in June 2011, but his resurrection as an HIV activist could not have happened without the experience of prison, which led to his resolve to fight so no one would have go through what he did.”

Bob Leahy recently spoke at length with Chad to find out more. Here is Chad’s story.

++++++++++

It was on February 12 of 2009 that I received a phone call at work. I was building a house that day. It went “hello is that Chad Clarke? This is officer so-and-so and we have been looking for you.” I said “what is this regarding?” They asked me if I knew a particular person. We were in a common law relationship for two-and-a half years and we had separated on bad terms. I had got a phone call after we broke up accusing me of giving her HIV. At the time I did not know I was HIV-positive. When she had first contacted me and started harassing me on the phone I just said “do what you have to do.” I was contacted by Public Health who told me I needed to go get tested. I brought my then current partner with me and we went to the Byng (HIV) Clinic in Windsor. She came back negative. I was HIV-positive.  I had no clue about HIV, about longevity, about treatment. I was on meds for about six months before the police contacted me.

Anyway the police said “there is a Canada-wide warrant out for your arrest.” They said the outstanding warrant was for an aggravated sexual assault charge. At that time my knees buckled. I got into my car and sat there and one cigarette led to five. Then I got a phone call and a female (police) voice said “Mr. Clarke, what are your plans?” I said “let me go home and say goodbye to my family. I will turn myself in to address this.” Then I threw the phone out of the window. I freaked out. I was paranoid.

I drove with my uncle to Newmarket to turn myself in first thing in the morning. My understanding was that I would be released on my own recognizance. When I approached the desk officer at the police station and said my name and why I was there  they proceeded to put handcuffs on me. They told me I was now going for a bail hearing in Barrie.

We arrived at the Barrie courthouse and I went before the judge. It was duty counsel that represented me there. I didn’t have time to call a lawyer and besides I thought I was going home. But I was denied bail at the first bail hearing. I was very confused, no idea what was next or how this would unfold.

I was remanded into custody in the Penetanguishene jail. You have to go 90 days before you can go for another bail hearing. I got there about 9 oclock in the evening and they informed me I was going in to protective custody. It was because of my HIV status and because they didn’t want to put the general population at risk. And for my own safety because there might have been some backlash against me. I saw the nurse that night and I said to her “I’m HIV-positive and I’m on Atripla and I really need that medication.” She said “no problem, we will get it to you”. Then the jail goes into a Level 2 weapons lockdown because I’m high profile and they wanted to make sure there were no weapons and nobody was going to come after me. We were locked down for two weeks and in that time I did not receive my antiretroviral pills.

In April 2009 I went back to court for a second bail hearing and I had a plan that I was going to get out and fight it from the street. My family had pooled some money together and were willing to bail me out. But they bought up some things from my past and lo and behold I was denied bail once again. After that I got put in touch with a really good lawyer and he wanted to play the circuit, to get a good judge to hear the pre-trial. He didn’t inform me that there was a HALCO or a PASAN or any of that. That lasted for 13 months and when it was time to go to court I asked him “how much time am I looking at?” He said 10 to 15 years.

I had a daughter and son just going into their teens. I thought I was never going to see them again. I thought “somebody was going to stab me because they don’t like the fact that I’m HIV.” Finally it was whittled down and I asked my lawyer “if I plead guilty how much time would I get?” My lawyer told me four years was the best he could get me. At least it would give me a date to work on where I could see my loved ones.

So I pleaded guilty at the preliminary hearing to something I totally disagreed with. My hands were tied. There was nothing I could do.

So I was moved to a different unit of the range awaiting sentencing. I was befriended a lifer and he asked me if I had ever heard of PASAN? I made the call and got in contact with Mooky (Cherian) and Claudia Medina. Claudia showed me that there were people out there that cared. She sent me cards and tried to keep my spirits up and focused. Mooky said “I wished you had contacted us sooner, we could maybe have got you out sooner. It was unfortunate you pleaded guilty.” I said “that was what I was instructed to do.”

To be honest I didn’t have any problems with the inmates. I told them what I had and started educating them about Hep C. I had their backing. 100% of the inmates said “I shouldn’t even have been there. This is wrong.”

So we are at the 26-month mark and I had had no blood work done. I wanted Ensure to keep my weight on and the general doctor I would see – no HIV specialist  – refused to give it to me. But I had a good rapport with the Byng  Clinic and I called in every day and at one point I was taken to Sunnybrook Hospital to see Dr. Raclis about a bacterial infection I had. She put me in a separate room and proceeded to ream out the two guards about my health care. That was the only time I got to see any kind of HIV specialist.

At one time back at the jail I was pulled off my laundry job and I asked “why is that?” The guard said “we are concerned that you are going to spread your AIDS to other inmates because you are touching their clothes”. By this time Mooky had brought me up to speed about how HIV was contracted and I said “number one, I have no open wounds, number two HIV dies in the air within seconds and number three I’m wearing protective gloves – and I think you are an ignorant bastard.” So they proceeded to put me back on the range.

I had been sentenced to a 48-month prison term and in total I served 39 months in Penetanguishene. It’s maximum security. Just before you are released you are supposed to see a social worker to see if you are going to go on Ontario Works or ODSB, but I didn’t have a social worker approach me. I was getting scared. I had been in there a long time. How was my life going to change now that I’m out? So I got hold of the chaplain and I asked him if they could find an AIDS Service Organization (ASO) for me in Chatham because I was going to move back there, where my parents are. So I made a call to AIDS Support Chatham-Kent. I had two weeks left in my sentence so I got set up with my ASO and also made an appointment to see my doctor at the Byng Clinic.

When I was released on June 3, 2011 I went to live with my youngest brother. I was on a 250 acre farm in a rural area, out near Dresden where I am at now. I stayed there for six months, trying to readapt, trying to give myself a new identity. The Chad Clarke before I had gone to jail was no longer there. I was a different person. I felt isolated. I wanted to go back to Toronto.

In Toronto I was introduced to the Ontario AIDS Network and their PLDI (positive leadership) program and did their Level One training. Then after about eighteen months  I moved back to the Chatham area and started volunteering with AIDS Support Chatham-Kent and started doing harm reduction work – they have a needle exchange program there. I was interested in that and felt this was my calling – and I haven’t stopped. I get a chance to engage with my community – I don’t call them “druggies” or “junkies”, I call them intravenous drug users. They have an identity. I don’t judge them. I share my story.

I was there until 2014 and something was telling me I needed to do something different. I went back to Toronto and enrolled in a George Brown sheet-metal program for a year. Then I decided to enroll at Ryerson University in a psychology, mental health and addictions program – I used to be an addict myself when I lived on the streets of Toronto. I was addicted to cocaine for many years and I needed others to see that I changed and if one person gets it I’ve done my job.

I got introduced to ACT and Toronto PWA Foundation and was helping with their therapeutic care department. Then I decided I wanted to go to B.C and see what harm reduction really is – and tell my story. I found out about the Jim Pattison Centre in Surrey, B.C. – they deal in positive living – and a place called Positive Haven; it’s no longer around and it provided produce for all the local food banks

At that time my daughter was pregnant and I wanted to come back home so I did and reconnected with the AIDS Committee of Windsor and their satellite centre, AIDS Support Chatham-Kent and started volunteering again, doing more in-depth harm reduction. I was there five days a week until last September.

Then I got involved with CPPN. I saw a posting from Christian (Hui) one day and I said “hey, there is finally a national organization in Canada for people living with HIV!” I wrote my story for Christian and he connected me with Alex McLelland; at that time Alex was doing research on people who had been charged under HIV criminalization laws. Alex came down from Montreal to my home and I shared my story.  And we talked about the need for some kind of coalition. To me it’s wrong to be charged, it’s a human rights violation for being charged because you have an incurable disease in your body.

So he said that he would put me in contact with Richard Elliot (Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network). It was October 20 of this past year our group started the Canadian Coalition to Reform HIV Criminalization. I’m on the steering committee. We have kept in contact constantly as we got more members, from B.C., from the east coast, even defence lawyers.

I had the honour in February to sit down with two representatives from the federal Department of Justice and we read them testimony of other people who were presently or had been incarcerated for non-disclosure charges. It was very emotional.

So I thought “I’ve been there. I will be your voice while you are inside. I’ve gone through it.” I shared my story and one of the things I demanded was that Corrections Canada staff take an AIDS 101 program to address the ignorance around how they treat inmates. I also demanded that not just the Toronto police but police across Canada take AIDS 101 and it has to be renewed annually to stay up with the science. The coalition want  to have a moratorium on non-disclosure prosecutions and we talked about the need for prosecutorial guidelines around non-disclosure cases. We are having a follow-up think tank in May to come up with a brief about that. I think we are going to have prosecutorial guidelines. For the first time in a long time I have some faith in the federal government around this.

Why do I do the work I do? I would hate to see any fellow brothers and sisters with HIV walk in the shoes I had to walk in. If I can educate with my story about what needs to be changed . . . Change needs to happen. I’m doing the work I am supposed to be doing. This is where I need to be.

I’m proud to share my story. I’m not ashamed of who I am.

US: HIV Criminalisation laws will feature heavily in AIDSWatch 2017 conversations with Members of Congress

Every year, AIDSWatch brings together hundreds of people living with HIV and their allies to meet with Members of Congress with the aim of educating them about important issues involving HIV-positive people in the country.

Presented by The Elizabeth Taylor AIDS Foundation, it is the nation’s largest annual constituent-based national HIV advocacy event, and is implemented as a partnership between AIDS United, the Treatment Access Expansion Project, and the US People Living With HIV Caucus.

In order to continue the efforts towards a cure, we must also try and mend social stigma around those living with HIV. But in order to stop new infections and successfully treat those living with the virus, we need compromise and collaboration across all sectors. One of the biggest conversations organizers plan to have at AIDSWatch 2017 centers around HIV criminalization laws.

Last month, a bill was introduced to the California state legislature by Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) and assembly members Todd Gloria (D-San Diego) and David Chiu (D-San Francisco) aiming to modernize these laws, which criminalize and stigmatize those living with HIV.

The bill was co-sponsored by Equality California, the ACLU California, APLA Health, Black AIDS Institute, Lambda Legal, and Positive Women’s Network. It’s purpose is to repeal all HIV specific laws that criminalize otherwise legal behavior, turning misdemeanors into felonies that put innocent people (like Michael Johnson) in prison simply for being HIV-positive.

“ETAF is putting our hearts into encouraging every state to overturn its criminalization laws,” Laela Wilding, Elizabeth Taylor’s eldest granddaughter and ambassador to ETAF, says to Plus. “Generally speaking it’s about disclosure. The problem with that is in many cases, it becomes a ‘he said, she said’ type of situation where one person may say, ‘yes I disclosed my positive status’ and eventually there’s a possibility that person could come back and accuse them of having not disclosed their status after some kind of sexual encounter or relationship, and then it’s sort of a push and pull. Usually the person who is HIV-positive is the person who is marginalized and often ends up going to jail or prison.”

There are well over 30 states in the United States with laws that discriminate against people with HIV in one form or another, and many of them are written in vague terms so they’re interpreted in different ways. That being said, it becomes incredibly important to monitor the way these laws are written and try to overturn them — much like how Colorado did last year.

Wilding says a major reason for Colorado’s victory was because people in the state were educated on the facts and medical realities of what it means to be living with HIV: that undetectable means uninfectious, yet poz people are stigmatized and marginalized in the criminalization system to almost no mercy.

“[Colorado] overturned those laws by letting people know the facts,” Wilding adds. “Then, almost everyone was behind it. Of course we don’t want to criminalize these people who are living with a disease that is considered treatable to a certain degree. If we can talk about it with our friends, talk about it in the media, I think that state-by-state we can start breaking the stigma down and change these laws. I think once people know about it, they want to help.”

HIV criminalization laws also have an invisible effect on HIV testing. For people who live in a state with these laws, it’s easy for them to brush off an opportunity to get tested. After all, why risk knowing you’re positive if you’re only going to get punished for it? As a result of people being left untested, the number of people living with HIV who don’t know it (and who aren’t getting treated) are left at risk.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, one in eight people have the virus and don’t know it. And while a new report shows that annual HIV infections in the U.S. dropped 18 percent between 2008 and 2014, it is still evident that Black men are not only disproportionately effected, but are also the most targeted when it comes to criminalization laws.

“The trans community and women, people of color, these people particularly in California, women in California, are being marginalized and criminalized to an even greater degree and I don’t think people have any idea that this is going on,” Wilding adds. “Once we hear about it, we get fire up. We think, ‘Why is our government spending money criminalizing these people?’ We need to protect them, and support them in the right ways. That would reduce the transmission of HIV, which is the point.”

Elizabeth Taylor’s great-grandson, Wilding’s son, Finn McMurray, spoke to Congressional members last year at AIDSWatch about the importance of sexual health education in schools. According to him, there is still very little conversation about treatment and prevention, especially around PrEP. He hopes that will change.

“Most of my peers unfortunately don’t know about these new, or do not talk about, or haven’t considered for themselves, these new breakthroughs,” the 18-year old activist says. “That’s something to work on, actually informing youth and getting youth to talk about it — not only the issues that have been around for a long time, which are still quite prevalent, but the breakthroughs that are happening now and how those can be utilized.”

McMurray will again ask for a cosponsor of the Real Education for Healthy Youth Act, which aims to fund teacher training on sex education and provide grants for comprehensive sex education. “I think that sexual health education is extremely important to not only the fight against HIV, but all STIs,” he reiterates.”The age group of 15-24 make up half of the new infections each year. I think it’s essential for the next generation to make healthy decisions for themselves. I’d really like to see a shift in the conversation that my generation is having. There’s a lot of potential, but we aren’t as a whole being exposed to enough and being pushed and supported to have these conversations.”

AIDSWatch 2017 will take place from March 27 – 28, 2017 in Washington, D.C.

US: In-depth review of scientific studies on the criminalisation of HIV exposure

The Center for Interdisciplinary Research on AIDS (CIRA) at Yale University has completed an in-depth review of scientific studies on the criminalization of HIV exposure in the United States. The review appears in the current issue AIDS and Behavior.  Dini Harsono, Assistant Director for Clinical Health Services Research at CIRA, is the lead author of the article. Collaborating authors include two prominent members of CIRA’s longstanding work group on the Criminalization of HIV Non-Disclosure, Carol Galletly of the Center for AIDS Intervention Research in Wisconsin and Zita Lazzarini, UConn Health, and CIRA’s Executive Director, Elaine O’Keefe. This is the first comprehensive examination of empirical research on this topic in the US, examining studies conducted between 1990 and 2014. In addition to describing the research and key findings, the review discusses implications for practice and policy that emerge from the studies reviewed, identifies gaps in our current knowledge, and sets the course for future research in this area.

You can read the article here.

UK: Inaccurate information around the risk of HIV or HCV transmission posed to police officers by spitting is stigmatising and hugely damaging

More than 30 years on from the start of the AIDS crisis, tabloids are still spreading a basic falsehood about HIV.

The claim has been repeatedly reported in newspapers amid a row over the use of police ‘spit hoods’ to prevent detainees from spitting at officers.

Amid a clash on the proposed use of spit hoods by the Metropolitan Police, outlets have repeated claims that their use will reduce the chances of officers being infected with HIV or hepatitis C – despite three decades of evidence that it is impossible to get HIV from saliva.

In a joint statement today, the Hepatitis C Trust and National AIDS Trust both expressed concern about the inaccurate reporting, pointing out  that both HIV and hepatitis C “are blood borne viruses, and therefore cannot be transmitted via spitting.” HIV is transmitted from blood-to-blood contact.

Deborah Gold, Chief Executive of NAT said: “HIV is irrelevant to the debate about spit hoods because spitting simply is not an HIV transmission route.

“Using fear of HIV to justify spit hoods is extremely stigmatising and of great concern to NAT. This stigma and misinformation is especially damaging when a false implication of HIV risk from spitting comes from a source that people trust.”

Dr Stuart Flanagan, Clinical Research Fellow, Viral Hepatitis and HIV Medicine, Queen Mary University London, said: “Hepatitis C and HIV are not transmitted by spitting on someone else.

“Although these viruses may be theoretically present and detectable in saliva, the infection and transmission risk is negligible.

“In the UK the majority of cases of hepatitis C are transmitted by blood to blood contact, and the vast majority of HIV cases are sexually transmitted.”

The statement added that the inaccurate claims had been “hugely damaging as they reinforce existing stigma and misconceptions that surround both viruses.

“Such falsehoods also cause unnecessary alarm to police staff. Given the significant challenges faced by police officers in the line of duty, causing them to fear they have been put at risk when they have not places an undue burden upon them, and must not go unchallenged.

“While the debate around the use of spit hoods is an important one for the police, policy-makers and the public, hepatitis C and HIV are of no relevance to it and should not be used as justification for their use.”

Labour’s Shadow Home Secretary Diane Abbott, who had come under fire after saying there is “no evidence that spit hoods are necessary or useful”, told PinkNews in a statement: “This rational intervention made by the medical community is deeply appreciated.  It is important that medical professionals have clarified this unfounded belief.

“The arguments for spit hoods should be evidence based. The public expect and deserve a national debate to be fact-based, not fear-based.

“Police staff, who are often under incredible stress in the line of duty, should not be led to believe that they are at high risk of HIV or HEP C from spitting.

“Disappointingly this association has been propagated widely across the media, particularly in the past few weeks. Amongst social media users and in major tabloid newspapers, including the Express, Mail, the Standard and the Sun.

“I hope they will widely report this important interjection by Hepatitis Trust and the NAT. “

US: Modernising California HIV-criminalisation laws is crucial to reduce the fear and discrimination that lead to more HIV infections

BY EDWARD MACHTINGER

Pebbles had a life filled with trauma – she had spent most of her youth in foster care and in the juvenile justice system. When she was 17, her mother died. Despite her other problems, it was her HIV diagnosis that caused her the most shame and isolation.

She was so stigmatized by having HIV, so ashamed, so fearful of rejection by family and friends, that she did not tell anyone that she had acquired the disease. This made it almost impossible for her to come to the clinic, to take her HIV medications, and to care for herself. As a result, despite our best efforts, she couldn’t take her HIV medications regularly and died of a completely preventable brain infection. She was 22 and left behind a 1-year-old daughter.

The overwhelming stigma her story illustrates is one of the greatest challenges I’ve encountered in my 20 years as a physician treating women and girls living with HIV. I see this every day in my clinic: Many of my patients do not feel safe revealing their status to anyone for fear of rejection or violence. To make matters worse, California still has a number of laws on the books that, instead of promoting public health, criminalize people living with HIV and add substantially to the stigma surrounding it.

These laws impose draconian penalties on people living with HIV even for activities that carry no risk of transmission. By treating HIV differently than other serious communicable diseases, these laws increase the sense of shame and isolation attached to HIV.

This legislation has never been shown to help prevent HIV transmission. Rather, it makes it less likely that people living with HIV will get tested and seek treatment that makes them incapable of transmitting the virus. These laws actually increase the risk of HIV transmission in our communities.

Since these laws were enacted in the 1980s and ’90s, we have developed potent HIV medications that, when taken regularly, suppress the virus so effectively that HIV-positive people can live long, healthy lives and be completely noncontagious to others – something confirmed by two international studies. We have also learned that HIV-related stigma is, itself, a serious public health issue.

A bill recently introduced in the California Senate would modernize the state’s laws targeting people living with HIV with criminal penalties and bring them in line with how we treat other serious communicable diseases. Senate Bill 239, authored by Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, eliminates this form of HIV exceptionalism by incorporating the current scientific understanding of HIV, addressing HIV in the same manner as other serious communicable diseases, and eliminating extra punishment for people living with HIV who engage in consensual sexual activity.

There are many reasons for HIV-related stigma, but state laws that criminalize HIV are among the worst offenders. These laws, as they are currently written, are not only outdated and ineffective, but they are actually dangerous because they create a climate of fear and discrimination that lead to more HIV infections.

SB 239 is not a partisan or political issue, nor is it a matter of conflict in medical science. This is a basic issue of public health. The proposal to revise and modernize these laws is crucial to achieve our shared goals of reducing new HIV infections and helping those living with the virus to be safe, healthy and empowered.

Dr. Edward Machtinger is a professor of medicine and director of the Women’s HIV Program at UC San Francisco. He can be contacted at Edward.Machtinger@ucsf.edu.

Published in The Sacramento Bee on February 28, 2917