SERO speaks on injustice of HIV discrimination | The Johns Hopkins News-Letter

“Hi. I am Robert Suttle and I am not a criminal. I am not a sex offender.” Last Thursday, Suttle, alongside two colleagues, stood before a sea of Hopkins undergraduates and professed the reality of his situation. He was personable, grounded and boldly transparent. “Me. Living in the south. I’m black.

Canada: Expert witness for prosecution, Robert Remis, subject of protest

Saturday, April 13, 2013 – At the Canadian Association of HIV/AIDS Researchers conference in Vancouver AIDS ACTION NOW! led people living with HIV, researchers, and doctors to stand in solidarity and call for members of the Canadian HIV research community to stop acting as paid expert witnesses on the side of Crown prosecutors in HIV non-disclosure trials.

Canada: HIV law unjust, says lawyer

Barrie Advance A Toronto lawyer believes a new law for HIV patients isn’t fair for Canadians, and leads to more questions than answers. Ryan Peck, executive director of the HIV and AIDS Legal Clinic Ontario (HALCO), was in Barrie recently to discuss the law.

Visual AIDS Blog reports on New York screening of two powerful anti-criminalisation documentaries

A vivacious roar of 200 voices from around the world could be heard spilling out of the SVA theater last night on West 23 rd Street. Representatives from the ICW: International Community of Women living with HIV (in town for UN meetings), people from the neighborhood, and others from across the 5 boroughs, gathered to watch HIV IS NOT A CRIME and POSITIVE WOMEN: EXPOSING INJUSTICE.

UK: New research calls for better guidance for HIV service providers on criminal law, confidentiality and ethics

Yesterday saw the release of an important new UK study, Keeping Confidence: HIV and the criminal law from service provider perspectives, which explores how HIV criminalisation impacts those who deliver health and social care services for people with HIV.

The report’s lead author, Dr Catherine Dodds, from Sigma Research at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, said: “Although HIV health and social care professionals expressed diverse views about their potential role in such cases, they gave a clear sense that criminal prosecutions for the transmission of HIV would not improve public health. Instead, it was most common to hear descriptions of such cases leading to increased stigma, reduced trust between service users and providers, and traumatic consequences for those involved in such cases.”

Study co-investigator, Matthew Weait, Professor of Law and Policy at Birkbeck, Univerisity of London, said: “This important and innovative research demonstrates both the problems that HIV criminalisation creates for clinical and social care providers and the need for solutions at both national and regional level. Care providers working in HIV and sexual health are concerned primarily with the health and wellbeing of their service users – which is of course as it should be; but there is also evidence that criminalisation is compromising their work. Increased awareness and understanding of, and inter-organisational communication about, legal issues is critical, and Keeping Confidence makes practical recommendations as to how that work might be taken forward for the benefit of prevention and support.”

Roger Pebody from aidsmap.com does an excellent job of summarising the study and its findings in this news report:

The study explored how criminal prosecutions for HIV transmission in England and Wales are handled by those who deliver clinical, psychosocial and community support for people with HIV. The report paints a picture of professionals grappling with the difficulties of communicating complex legal information in an appropriate way for each individual. They must weigh up competing concerns and responsibilities, including their own patient’s health and wellbeing, the health of unidentified sexual partners and the legal liability of their own organisation.

Read more at aidsmap.com

The report was launched in central London yesterday at a one-day meeting attended by around 70 HIV service providers, representatives of most of the UK’s community-based HIV organisations, and people living with HIV.

Following presentations of the report’s main findings, a panel consisting of a health adviser, and representatives of community-based organisaton and a people living with HIV discussed the implications for them.

Ceri Evans, Senior Health Adviser at the West London Centre for Sexual Health, Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, highlighted that there may not be a ‘best time’ to inform a newly diagnosed individual of their new legal obligations. Athough she agreed that the post-testing counselling session may not be ideal, she noted that since the criminal law potentially covers all sexually transmissable infections, including genital herpes, and there is usually only a single oppportunity to provide counselling following a new herpes diagnosis, that information about the law might need to be provided to some patients sooner rather than later.

Of note, the report’s fieldwork, involving 75 providers of HIV health and social care services in England and Wales, was undertaken in the latter half of 2012. Since then, the British HIV Association (BHIVA) and the British Association for Sexual Health and HIV (BASHH) have released an updated position statement on HIV Transmission, the Law and the Work of the Clinical Team which provides clinicians with information and guidance on managing many of the issues highglighted as problematic in the research. Lead author, Dr Mary Poulton, Consultant and Clinical Lad, Sexual Health and HIV, Kings College Hospital, London, outlined the main recommendations and provided case studies that illustrated how the decision-guiding algorithm regarding third-party disclosure might be particularly useful.

The rest of the meeting focused around discussing the report’s recommendations, which were as follows.

National recommendations

1. HIV service professionals will benefit from a single website or webpage that collates practical and accessible information about criminal prosecutions for the sexual transmission of HIV. It will need to be updated as new resources become available, and older ones are revised. New resources should be published as required in order to keep pace with clinical and scientific developments in the treatment of HIV that may impact on legal decision-making. The online resource can also identify the best sources of expert criminal legal advice where those are available.

2. A nation-wide programme of continuous professional development in the criminal law should be available to those who provide clinical and non-clinical HIV services. Topics covered should include: straightforward legal definitions and defence arguments, how and when to raise discussions about legal responsibilities, professional liability, communication skills development through the use of scenarios, and existing policy and practice models.

3. Key contacts with an interest in criminal prosecutions should be identified in each clinical and non-clinical HIV service organisation.This process should feed into the development of an updated list for the explicit use of disseminating information about information and training discussed in recommendations 1 and 2 above.The key contacts will also be utilised as the main organisational contact for the development and dissemination of resources to inform people with HIV about the law in this area.

Local recommendations

4. Existing professional guidance and associated documents should be discussed and adapted for local use. This will translate differently in specific settings, and it may lead to the development of local criminalisation policies or protocols, or values statements in some workplaces. At a minimum, such activities should strive for internal consistency on advice, facilitation and support.

5. Opportunities should be created for clinics and community-based organisations to exchange best practice as it relates to criminal prosecution for HIV transmission and to discuss where they agree and disagree on a conceptual level about the ethics of responsibility and public health in HIV prevention.

6. Alongside the development of local criminalisation protocols, all organisations will need to review their confidentiality policies, ensuring that they are accessible to service users, and compatible with internal agreements about criminalisation.

Whilst there was broad consenus regarding many of the recommendations, implementation will depend on various stakeholders collaborating, as well as sufficient funding.

Of note, currently only Australia has a website on HIV and the law aimed specifically at HIV healthcare professionals. The Australian Association of HIV Medicine (ASHM) online Guide to Australian HIV Laws and Policies for Healthcare Professionals covers civil, criminal and public health law, and also includes reference to national guidance on the Management of People with HIV who Place Others at Risk.

The entire day was filmed by the HIV Justice Network and video of the main presentations and final disussion outcomes will be available soon.

Switzerland: New Law on Epidemics delayed due to referendum, change in HIV law still likely

The road to law reform can be long and rocky, especially in a direct democracy like Switzerland. The proposed changes (for the better) to a law that has been used to prosecute people with HIV for potential exposure even when their partner consented to unprotected sex, and/or when there was no risk, first agreed upon last March will now be put to a popular vote.

The revised Law on Epidemics will only criminalise the intentional spread of a communicable disease.

Last week, the initiative committee for a referendum on the new Law on Epidemics brought to the Federal Chancellery over 80,000 signatures from Swiss citizens unhappy with the law.

According to my sources in Switzerland, the public debate has not been about the change in the law relating to prosecutions for HIV exposure or transmission. In fact, the majority of political parties, the government, all the health institutions, and all the Cantons favour the new law.

Rather, the referendum demand was a result of strong opinions over those parts of the law dealing with mandatory vaccinations and sex education in schools.

The date for the referendum is not yet clear, although it is possible that it will take place before the end of 2013. Last November, the same group behind this referendum forced a similar vote on the new law on animal medicine and lost by a large majority (68%), which is encouraging.

Another encouraging sign is that earlier this month, the German-language Tages Anzeiger (Daily Gazette) published a broadly positive article explaining the changes in the law that relate to HIV. I have (unofficially) translated the into English, and it is reproduced below.

The federal government plans to decriminalise the transmission of AIDS

Claudia Blumer, Daily Gazette, 01/11/2013

Switzerland treats HIV-positive people who infect a sexual partner especially harshly. Following international criticism, it will change the criminal code.

Today someone who negligently, willfully or maliciously infects someone with the AIDS virus is punished by up to five years in prison. In the future only transmission of the virus with “malice aforethought” will punishable. The terms “willfully” and “negligently” have been deleted from the revised Law on Epidemics, which includes an amendment to Article 231 of the the Criminal Code. The law was supposed to come into force in early 2013. Due to the referendum, voters are now expected to decide in June.

Parliament adopted the Law on Epidemics in the autumn of 2012. The change in the criminal code was a resul of long debate in the lower houses. Senator Urs Schwaller (CDP) explains why he agreed to change the provision only to “malice aforethought”: “The offender, in this case, would have acted with intent to harm. If they had merely been negligent, this could be prosecuted under general criminal statutes for personal injury. ”

A relaxation of the criminal law also makes sense for preventive-medical reasons, notes Ticino MP Dr Ignazio Cassis (FDP). According to current scientific knowledge prosecuting HIV-positive people is counter-productive because it stigmatises the disease and those affected by it. This may result in greater harm to public health if we do not dare speak openly about the disease. “The general sense of justice collides at this point with the pragmatic preventive medical approach,” says Cassis.

36 convictions since 1990

The Swiss law on HIV transmission has become more restrictive over the past 20 years. At the beginning of the 90s, Article 231 – which covers the spread of disease – was used for the first time in connection with AIDS. Since then, according to Aids-Hilfe Switzerland, there have been 36 guilty verdicts based on actual or attempted transmission of HIV through sexual contact. A federal court ruling from 2008 states that an HIV-positive person can be punished even if they knew nothing of their infection.

The number of convictions in relation to the number of HIV-positive people is higher in Switzerland than in most other European countries. In this country, sometimes even people living with HIV have been punished even if the unprotected sexual intercourse took place with the partner’s full knowledge and consent to the risk of infection, or when no one was infected, or if the HIV-positive person was rendered uninfectious by antiretroviral therapy. The reason for the legal interest is because Article 231 is about “public health”: it does not protect individual interests, but those of the community. The consent of the partner therefore doesn’t protect the HIV-positive person from prosecution. Neighbouring European countries apply laws relating to personal injury or death, resulting in fewer convictions. But many countries are in the process of revising their criminal provisions, says Marcel Niggli, professor of criminal law at the University of Freiburg. The trend is towards decriminalisation.

Laws easing “overdue”

The Swiss law on HIV transmission has been repeatedly criticized by international organisations. However, Switzerland has not been put under political pressure, says Ignazio Cassis. Yet he has heard informal criticism from abroad, for example, at international AIDS conferences. He has been exposed to, among other things, calls from UNAIDS, an agency of the United Nations, for the decriminalization of HIV transmission. In a position paper it calls on governments not to create HIV-specific laws. Switzerland has also been criticized by the UN Human Rights Council. As part of the Universal Periodic Review it criticized Switzerland in an October 2012 report, for punishing HIV-positive people regardless of the specific situation. This is contrary to the prevention strategies. The criminalization of HIV transmission is ineffective and causes only the stigmatization of those affected.

The amendment was not informed by the Federal Health Office, or by a long-standing demand by the Federal Commission for Sexual Health and Aids-Hilfe Switzerland Switzerland. Federal Commission for Sexual Health President Pietro Vernazza has said that the decriminalization of unprotected sex for people with HIV has been overdue since the late Nineties, especially if they were successfully treated with antiretroviral therapy: “Studies have proven the effectiveness of the therapy. During treatment, an HIV-positive is not contagious.”

Austria: HIV-positive man aquitted for ‘oral sex without ejaculation’ (Update)

Update: December 18th

A gay man on trial for allegedly exposing his ex-partner to HIV during ‘oral sex without ejaculation’ has been acquitted. The judge told the 37 year-old defendant that he had acted “entirely properly” according to Austria’s ‘safer sex’ guidance.

The case is covered in several Austrian newspapers, including Der Kurier and Der Standard, as well as the gay news portal, GGG.at.

It centred around a complaint following the end of a short-lived relationship between summer 2008 and spring 2009. The defendant was diagnosed HIV-positive during the relationship and waited several months to disclose this to the complainant. However, since he was counselled by his doctor that insertive oral sex without ejaculation would not expose his partner to HIV, and this was the only sexual risk at issue, his defence was that he had followed Austria’s ‘safer sex’ guidance.

Defence laywer, Helmut Graupner, told the court: “They are attempting to criminalise people who do exactly what the state wants them. This accusation is simply a scandal.”

(Under Articles 178 and 179 of Austria’s criminal code, disclosure is not a defence to potential HIV exposure, and so this case was not about non-disclosure, per se, but rather about whether the complainant was, in fact, exposed to HIV via oral sex without ejaculation.)

The complainant claimed on the witness stand that he had suffered mental anguish due to the fear of acquiring HIV, and he had brought the case partially because he wanted compensation for this.

However, Judge Eva Brandstetter agreed with the defence that ‘safer sex’ guidance was followed. It was “very clear that you behaved entire properly,” she told the defendant as she acquitted him.

The prosecution has until Friday to appeal the acquittal.

Original post: December 14th

Austria’s leading HIV and human rights lawyer has strongly criticised both Vienna’s prosecutorial authorities and the Austrian Ministry of Justice for allowing the forthcoming trial of an HIV-positive man for practising safer sex – namely, “oral sex without ejaculation”.

“The state must not criminalise HIV-positives for complying with the safer sex rules propagated by the same state“, says Dr. Helmut Graupner, president of Austria’s LGBT civil rights organisation Rechtskomitee LAMBDA (RKL) – who is also serving as counsel for the defendant – in a strongly-worded press release (see below). “This prosecution not only constitutes a serious human rights violation but also poses a considerable threat to public health.”

In addition Austrian MP Petra Bayr has tabled a parliamentary question to the Ministry of Justice concerning this ridiculous prosecution which asks:

whether Parliament is aware of this prosecution;
what it intends to do to ensure that prosecutors are aware of HIV tranmisssion risks and science;
how it can justify HIV-related prosecutions under articles 178 and 179 of the criminal code when UNAIDS recommends against such prosecutions and asks whether Parliament will consider amending these articles to reflect up-to-date science; and
what measures are being considered by the Justice Department to ensure consistent and science-based jurisprudence that promotes public health.

This is the second prosecution this year for perceived HIV exposure that, in fact, posed no risk whatsoever. In March 2012, a 17 year-old boy was convicted of HIV exposure after his 16 year-old girlfriend performed oral sex on him without him first disclosing that he was living with HIV. The judge said that even oral sex with condom would have been criminal as the use of condoms would not diminish the risk of infection.

The trial will take place this Monday, 17 December 2012, in room 307 at the Vienna Regional Criminal Court, Wickenburggasse 22, 1080 Vienna. Rechtskomitee LAMBDA’s press release notes that the trial is public which suggests that concerned HIV advocates could attend the trial to support the defendant (who cannot be named) and to show the prosecutor and judge that such prosecutions are out of step with science and do nothing for HIV justice.

The full Rechtskomitee LAMBDA’s press release can be downloaded here and is also reproduced below.

Austria: HIV-positive Man Prosecuted for Safer Sex

Trial next Monday in Vienna

An HIV-positive man stands criminal trial next week for practising safer sex propagated by the state and by the publicly funded aids service organisations. The prosecutor indicted him for “oral sex without ejaculation” (!), exactly what has been propagated as safer sex for decades.

The prosecution relies on Art. 178 of the Criminal Code (“wilful endangering of human beings by transmittable diseases”), an offence which for two decades had been used to convict persons (mostly women) even for sexual intercourse using a condom.

1997 the Supreme Court at last held that sexual intercourse with a condom is in accordance with the safer sex rules and no criminal offence (OGH 25.11.1997, 11 Os 171/97). And 2003 it was only after years of reopening-proceedings that the Graz Appeals Court to quash the conviction of an hiv-positive man for oral sex without ejaculation (Carinthian Oral Sex Case: http://www.RKLambda.at/news_safersex.htm). Already these days Austria´s then Minister for Health, Herbert Haupt, had stated, “that criminal persecution and conviction of hiv-positive persons for sexual contacts with hiv-negative persons in spite of them complying with the health authorities’ and aids-service-organisations´ safer sex rules run counter to effective hiv- and Aids-prevention (2313/AB XXI.GP, http://www.parlament.gv.at/PAKT/VHG/XXI/AB/AB_02313/).

Threat to effective HIV-prevention

Austria finds itself within the top ten worldwide regarding criminal conviction rates of hiv-positive persons (http://www.gnpplus.net/criminalisation/node/1262). Germany never had such a special offence and Switzerland recently restricted its law (which never had been as far-reaching as the Austrian one) to infection with malicious intent, thereby implementing a recommendation by the Swiss Commission on Aids (now: Swiss Commission on Sexual Health) (http://www.bag.admin.ch/hiv_aids/05464/12494/12821/, document for download on the right side). UNAIDS and the EU-Fundamental Rights Agency for years have been calling for a repeal of such criminalisation of HIV-positive persons and for restriction of criminal offences to intentional infection (http://www.unaids.org.fj/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=162:unaidsundp-policy-brief-criminalization-of-hiv-transmission-&catid=25:technical-documents&Itemid=74; http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2010/rights-based-approach-hiv-european-union, http://www.hivjustice.net/oslo/oslo-declaration/).

Accordingly the Austrian Minister of Justice in 2010 on the occasion of the Vienna World Aids-Conference had assured that Austrian criminal law would not criminalize sexual acts in accordance with the safer sex rules and declared that the prosecutors would be informed to this effect (4941/AB, 2 June 2010, http://www.parlament.gv.at/PAKT/VHG/XXIV/AB/AB_04941/).

Double game played by the (Minister of) Justice?

Nevertheless last spring a 17 year old juvenile has been convicted for oral sex (without the allegation of ejaculation) with the judge even claiming that the use of a condom would not have made a difference (http://vorarlberg.orf.at/news/stories/2523707/). And now in Vienna the prosecutor is indicting a man explicitly even for oral sex without (!) ejaculation, behaviour explicitly propagated by the health authorities´ and the aids-service-associations´ (http://www.aids.at/alles-uber-hivaids/wie-kann-ich-mich-schutzen/; http://www.aidshilfen.at/sie-haben-fragen-wir-haben-antworten; https://www.gesundheit.gv.at/Portal.Node/ghp/public/content/Safer_Sex.html).

The trial takes place next Monday, 17 December 2012 in room 307 at the Vienna Regional Criminal Court, Wickenburggasse 22, 1080 Vienna. The trial is public. Revealing the defendant´s identity in the media is strictly prohibited (§§ 7 & 7a Media Act).

Members of federal parliament have tabled a parliamentary question to the Ministry of Justice concerning this incredible prosecution (13275/J, 6 December 2012, http://www.parlament.gv.at/PAKT/VHG/XXIV/J/J_13275/).

“The state must not criminalise HIV-positives for complying with the safer sex rules propagated by the same state“, says Dr. Helmut Graupner, president of Austria’s LGBT civil rights organisation Rechtskomitee LAMBDA (RKL) and counsel for the defendant, “This prosecution not only constitutes a serious human rights violation but also poses a considerable threat to public health.”

Local Ontario paper's sympathetic coverage of impact of Canada's HIV non-disclosure prosecutions

It took Mary 15 years before she could tell her children she’s HIV-positive. “How do you disclose it to those you really love?” said The AIDS Network speaker. “When you’re in a sexual relationship, how are you going to disclose it? It’s so deep and there are so many layers.” She and others expressed alarm at Canada’s HIV non-disclosure law during a panel discussion at Central Library last Thursday (Nov. 29). The film Positive Women: Exposing Injustice was screened at the AIDS Action Halton event, held to recognize World AIDS Day (Dec. 1).

US: Anti-criminalisation advocacy goes mainstream for World AIDS Day

World AIDS Day saw unprecedented media attention on advocacy against HIV criminalisation in the United States.

Following on from the flurry of media interest stemming from advocacy at the International AIDS Conference held in Washington DC this summer, including a major piece on CNN’s website, CNN’s Dr. Sanjay Gupta interviewed Nick Rhoades and Robert Suttle.

In case the video disappears in the future: here’s the transcript.

Coming up, when sex, even consensual sex becomes a crime. We’ll explain.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

GUPTA: This weekend marks World AIDS Day, and this weekend, we got some, what I would consider, extremely troubling news, perhaps surprising as well.

Listen to this closely: more than a quarter of all new HIV infections in this country are in 13 to 24-year-olds. And most of those young people don’t even know that they are infected.

Now, as you know, there’s always been secrecy around HIV/AIDS. But it also brings up a tough issue. More than half of the United States’ states have laws that make it a crime for people with HIV to not disclose it when they have sex. Now, some say that’s only fair, but others say making this crime not just scares people and keeps them from being tested or seeking care.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

GUPTA (voice-over): Four years ago, Nick Rhoades, an HIV positive, 34- year-old, living in Iowa, met a younger man. They hit it off, and had sex.

NICK RHOADES, CONVICTED OF CRIMINAL TRANSMISSION OF HIV: My viral load is undetectable. I wore a condom. I did everything I could to protect him and myself.

GUPTA: What Rhoades didn’t do was tell his friend about having HIV. And when the friend out later, he sought treatment at a local hospital. And the hospital employee called the police.

Rhodes was arrested, charged with criminal transmission of HIV and after pleading guilty on the advice of his lawyer, he was sentenced to 25 years in prison.

RHOADES: I served over a year locked up, some of it in maximum security and some of it in solitary confinement. And I still have to register as a sex offender for the rest of my life. GUPTA: Scott Schoettes, an the attorney for Lambda Legal, is Rhoades new lawyer. He is asking the Iowa Supreme Court to overturn Rhoades conviction.

SCOTT SCHOETTES, HIV PROJECT DIRECTOR, LAMBDA LEGAL: This case in particular was compelling, it really was a good example of the ways in which these laws are misused by the justice system to punish people in very severe ways for things that should not even be crimes.

GUPTA: About a thousand miles away in Louisiana, a similar case.

Robert Suttle said his partner knew Suttle had HIV, but after a messy break-up, his ex went to the police. Suttle was charged of intentionally exposing the man to the AIDS virus.

ROBERT SUTTLE, CONVICTED OF INTENTIONAL EXPOSURE TO AIDS VIRUS: I was arrested at work and I was booked.

GUPTA: To avoid a possible 10-year sentence, Suttle entered a plea. And he spent six months in jail.

Under the picture on his driver’s license in bold red capital letters, it says “sex offender”. He has to carry that tag for 15 years.

SUTTLE: There are a lot of good people in the world that are HIV positive, but that doesn’t mean that they are criminals. It doesn’t mean they have malicious intent to hurt anybody. They’re just trying to deal and cope with having this disease. And yet, there’s these laws that make us look like we’re criminals.

GUPTA: At least 34 states and two U.S. territories have laws that criminalize activities of people with HIV. Not disclosing your status to a sexual partner, that can land you in jail. So can spitting on somebody or biting them if you have the disease.

Often, it doesn’t matter if you actually transmit the virus. In fact, the man that slept with Rhoades never got HIV.

REP. BARBARA LEE (D), CALIFORNIA: Jail time is not warranted in these cases.

GUPTA: Last year, Congresswoman Barbara Lee introduced legislation to get rid of these state laws.

LEE: Many offenses receive a lesser sentence than the transmission of HIV. And these laws, again, they’re archaic. They’re wrong. They are unjust. And they need to be looked at and taken off of the books.

GUPTA: Prosecutor Scott Burns agrees that the laws need updating, but he also says repeal would be a mistake.

SCOTT BURNS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION: Any time that someone knows they have HIV or AIDS doesn’t disclose that to the other party, I think, is wrong. I think there should be a sanction. I just don’t think you do that in America. And I think most prosecutors would agree with me. GUPTA: Rhoades and Suttle now work for the Sero Project. It’s a group that fights stigma and discrimination, trying to make the case that what happened to them should never happen to others.

SUTTLE: We cannot sit and ignore the fact that this is happening.

RHOADES: I have to fight for this, and I think there are a lot of people that are fighting, as well.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

GUPTA: Now, I should say the accuser in Nick’s case didn’t want to talk to us. And the identity of Robert’s accuser is sealed as well by court order.

In addition, a local Iowa TV station, KWWL, in the county where Nick Rhoades was prosecuted, led with this fantastic interview with Tami Haught from CHAIN (Community HIV/Hepatitis Advocates of Iowa Network), who is leading Iowa’s campaign to modernize the HIV criminalization law.

KWWL.com – News

Finally, yesterday saw the US National Dialogue on the Criminalization of HIV Transmission, Exposure and Non-disclosure: The role of the States and the Federal Government, on Capitol Hill in Washington DC. I’m sure there will be more written about this, but I’m including below a collection of all the tweets and images created live to give you an idea of the richness of the conversation, who was there, and who wasn’t. Thanks especially to Darby Hickey for summarising the dialogue so well.