US: Two congresswomen, co-chairs of the HIV caucus in Congress, teamed up to introduce a bill aiming to modernise HIV laws

Ileana Ros-Lehtinen Wants to Change HIV/AIDS Laws

By KEVIN DERBY

March 29, 2017 – 9:45am

A South Florida Republican congresswoman is urging the federal government, the states and local governments to “modernize laws and policies to eliminate discrimination against those living with HIV/AIDS.”

U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., and U.S. Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., are the co-chairs of the HIV Caucus in Congress. This week, Ros-Lehtinen and Lee teamed up to bring out the “Repeal HIV Discrimination Act.”

“This bill expresses the sense of Congress that federal and state laws, policies, and regulations should not place a unique or additional burden on individuals solely as a result of their HIV status, and offers a step-by-step plan to work with states to modernize their laws,” Ros-Lehtinen’s office announced.

Ros-Lehtinen made the case for why the bill was needed.

“The fear and stigma surrounding HIV have led to a number of criminal statutes and penalties that do not improve public health,” Ros-Lehtinen said. “Since the establishment of laws which unfairly penalize individuals living with HIV, we have made great medical advances that prove that antiretroviral therapy can reduce HIV transmission risk. My colleague, Barbara, and I are introducing the REPEAL HIV Discrimination Act in order to help eliminate needless and harmful statues and regulations which only shame individuals without providing meaningful benefits for HIV prevention and care.”

“HIV criminalization laws are based on bias, not science. Instead of making our communities healthier, these laws breed fear, discrimination, distrust, and hatred. Our laws should not perpetuate prejudice against anyone, particularly against those living with diseases like HIV. By passing this legislation, Congress would send a signal that discrimination and stigma have no place in our laws,” said Lee. “I am grateful for the continued partnership of my friend and colleague, Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen, in the fight to ensure that all are able to live with dignity and respect, and to one day achieve an AIDS-free generation.”

The two congresswomen pointed to more than 33 states and two territories which, they insist, “have criminal statutes based on outdated information regarding HIV/AIDS.”

The caucus has more than 70 members in both the House and the Senate including Florida Democrats U.S. Rep. Kathy Castor, Ted Deutch, Alcee Hastings, Debbie Wasserman Schult and Frederica Wilson.

"HIV can be prevented or it can be prosecuted, but not both" writes Sean Strub in a new book on the war and stigmatisation of sex

HIV: Prosecution or Prevention? HIV Is Not a Crime

A chapter from the book The War on Sex edited by David M. Halperin and Trevor Hoppe.

Iowan Nick Rhoades is HIV-positive and has had an undetectable viral load for many years, making it virtually impossible for him to sexually transmit the virus. When he had sex with a man he met online in 2008, he also used a condom. Despite these protective measures, Rhoades was prosecuted and convicted for not disclosing his HIV status to his partner before they had sex. He was sentenced to 25 years in prison and lifetime sex offender registration.

Willy Campbell is serving 35 years in Texas for spitting at a police officer; David Plunkett served over six years in a New York state prison before an appeals court ruled that saliva could not be considered a “deadly weapon” in New York State. Monique Howell Moree was charged by the U.S. Army for failing to disclosure her HIV-positive status to a partner in South Carolina before having sex with him, even though the partner said he didn’t want her charged and that she told him to use a condom. Kerry Thomas is serving 30 years in Idaho, even though his accuser agrees that he always used a condom.

All over the United States — and in much of the world — people living with HIV/AIDS (PLHIV) are facing criminal penalties for nondisclosure of their HIV status prior to having sex or for perceived or possible exposure to, or transmission of, HIV. About two-thirds of U.S. states have HIV-specific criminal statutes, laws that only apply to PLHIV.

Most people believe the law should apply equally to all and that creating different statutes for different parts of society based on immutable characteristics — whether it is gender, sexual orientation, race, physical ability, or genetic makeup — is a bad idea. Yet here we are doing exactly that, creating a viral underclass in the law with one group singled out for different treatment.

Sero Project, a network of PLHIV combating HIV criminalization, has documented more than 1,300 instances of charges led under HIV-specific statutes. But HIV criminalization isn’t constrained by geography; in every state, regardless of whether there is an HIV-specific statute, PLHIV can and often do face more serious charges or harsher sentencing under regular criminal statutes than do HIV-negative individuals accused of the same crimes. Texas and New York do not have HIV-specific statutes, but as mentioned, have incarcerated PLHIV because they considered their saliva dangerous.

These statutes and prosecutions create an illusion of safety for those who do not have HIV or do not know their HIV status, putting the entire burden of HIV prevention on those who have been tested and know they have HIV. The statutes undercut the fundamental public health message that HIV prevention is a shared responsibility and that everyone should act in such a way as to maintain their own health and protect themselves from contracting HIV or other sexually transmitted infections.

Decades-long sentencing and required sex offender registration are not unusual punishments for HIV-related crimes in the United States, even though actual HIV transmission is seldom (less than 5 percent of cases) a factor in these prosecutions. Many cases boil down to whether the PLHIV can prove they disclosed their status to their partners in advance of intimate physical contact; it doesn’t matter whether there was even a risk of HIV transmission. People living with HIV charged under prostitution or assault statutes frequently face significantly more severe penalties solely because they have HIV. They sometimes face charges for spitting, scratching, or biting that are “pile-on” charges, driven by accusations made by law enforcement, first responders, or prison guards.

The first HIV criminalization laws in the United States were passed in the late 1980s and early ’90s, largely in response to a provision of the Ryan White Care Act that required states, in order to qualify for funding, to demonstrate an ability to prosecute what was then labeled “intentional transmission.” At the time many considered any intimate contact with an HIV-positive person a life-threatening risk; contracting HIV was believed by many to be tantamount to a death sentence.

A second wave of statutes was enacted after the introduction of combination therapy in the mid-1990s, which fundamentally changed what an HIV-positive diagnosis meant. What was once thought a death sentence had become a chronic but manageable long-term health condition.

As it became understood that PLHIV were surviving much longer, the public’s perception of PLHIV also changed. Rather than objects of pity facing a “death sentence,” PLHIV became seen as viral vectors, potential infectors — an inherent threat to society. Living longer meant PLHIV would be around longer to infect others.

The criminal justice and public health systems began to define and treat PLHIV as a dangerous population, one that needed to be sought out, tracked down, tested, reported, listed, tagged, monitored, regulated, and, increasingly, criminalized.

While the statutes were used in the early years disproportionately often against heterosexual African American men (often in conjunction with other criminal charges), today they are used more broadly, typically in circumstances where there was no intent to harm, often when there was no other crime involved, and frequently for behaviors that pose no or little risk of HIV transmission.

Beyond the blatant injustice, HIV criminalization is also horrible public health policy, because it discourages people at risk from getting tested for HIV and makes those who do test positive less trustful of public health authorities.

To be liable for prosecution, one must get tested for HIV and know one’s HIV status. Current HIV criminalization punishes this responsible behavior — getting tested — and privileges the ignorance of not knowing one’s HIV status. Yet new cases of HIV are transmitted in disproportionate numbers by those who have not been tested and do not know they have it; those who do get tested and know they have HIV are far less likely to transmit HIV than those with HIV who do not know it.

Although the HIV-specific statutes were passed by state legislatures with the intent to reduce HIV transmission, the evidence increasingly shows that the statutes may be having the reverse effect.

The Sero Project’s 2012 survey of more than 2,000 PLHIV in the United States revealed that at least 25 percent of the respondents knew one or more individuals who were afraid to get tested for fear of facing criminalization. Research has shown that HIV criminalization makes those who do test positive for HIV less likely to cooperate with traditional disease prevention measures, like partner notification programs, or with treatment adherence programs. Most recently, a study found that HIV-negative gay men who knew they lived in a state with an HIV criminalization statute were more likely to engage in unprotected intercourse.

Repeal of HIV criminalization statutes is necessary both to protect the rights of people with HIV and to reduce the transmission of HIV.

An individual who demonstrates a premeditated malicious intent to harm another person can be prosecuted under existing assault statutes, whether they use a gun, a baseball bat, their fists, or a virus. The HIV-specific statutes are unnecessary and, worse yet, they stigmatize people with HIV/AIDS, discourage people at risk from accessing testing and treatment services, and feed a public bloodlust for punishment. In short, they are worsening the epidemic.

The prevention of HIV — or preventing any sexually transmitted infection — is a shared responsibility, but that does not mean there is not harm inflicted when someone misleads another person and transmits an infectious disease. In those circumstances, the injured party may seek recourse in the civil courts or possibly through a restorative justice process.

In any case, incarceration of PLHIV does not necessarily prevent further HIV transmission, as there is significant HIV transmission within penal environments, where condoms are seldom available.

Advocacy to repeal HIV-specific statutes, modernize public health statutes concerning perceived or possible exposure to, or transmission of, HIV and other infectious diseases, and educate law enforcement, prosecutors, and other actors in the criminal justice system has been under way for several years.

A network of survivors of HIV criminalization prosecutions, launched in 2010, has helped to educate and mobilize affected communities. This HIV criminalization reform advocacy has received support from public health professionals and policy leaders, including the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS, the National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directors, UNAIDS, and the American Medical Association.

The first national conference on HIV criminalization in the United States was held in June 2014 at Grinnell College in Grinnell, Iowa. Organized primarily by PLHIV — including participation by a dozen PLHIV who had been prosecuted for “HIV crimes” — the conference included participants from 28 states. It focused on how HIV criminalization affects communities of color, transgender women, sex workers, and gay men. It also showed the impact of HIV criminalization on how members of those communities (and others) access HIV prevention, testing, and treatment and whether they decide to disclose their HIV status. Finally, the conference highlighted effective strategies for reform.

The only state, so far, to modernize their statute substantively in recent years has been Iowa, where the conference was held. After a four-year education and lobbying effort led by Nick Rhoades and other PLHIV in the state, the Iowa legislature repealed its HIV-specific statute in 2014. The legislature replaced it with a new statute that addressed several infectious diseases, required a higher standard of intent to harm, and established tiered punishments. Similar efforts are under way in about a dozen states. A few weeks later, the Iowa Supreme Court overturned Rhoades’s conviction and removed the sex offender registration requirement for all others previously convicted under the Iowa statute.

HIV criminalization is an extreme manifestation of stigma. That is particularly true of HIV-specific statutes that create a viral underclass in the law, establishing a different criminal law for one segment of society based on an immutable characteristic. Despite the biomedical advances in the treatment of HIV, HIV-related stigma remains stubborn, driven in significant part by HIV criminalization.

It is time we learned a basic lesson: HIV can be prevented or it can be prosecuted, but not both.

 

India: HIV/AIDS (Prevention & Control) Bill strongly criticised for not guaranteeing universal access to HIV treatment

Delhi, Gaborone, New York – The International Treatment Preparedness Coalition (ITPC) and its global coalition partners are outraged following a decision by the Indian Parliament to absolve itself from responsibility of providing treatment for people living with HIV in India. The HIV/AIDS (Prevention & Control) Bill was passed in the upper house of the Indian Parliament yesterday, 21 March 2017. The Bill states that the government will provide treatment for people living with HIV ‘as far as possible’ (see full text below) absolving the government from its responsibility to protect the right to life.

“This is a step backwards for human rights, and a tremendous blow for all people living with HIV in India,” said Gregg Gonsalves, Chair of ITPC-Global. “It is extremely concerning that the India government has given itself this loophole at a time when the government program is in disarray, with the worst period of antiretroviral drug stock outs.”

Networks of people living with HIV and other civil society organizations lobbied Members of Parliament to amend the draft Bill that was first tabled in February 2014. In response to civil society concerns, senior Members of Parliament urged the Union Minister JP Nadda to make the amendment. HIV treatment activists were stunned when these parliamentarians withdrew their amendment at the last minute, thus giving way to the Bill passing into legislation.

“As the biggest supplier of generic medicines to the developing world, India could be the leading light in HIV treatment, an example to the rest of the world,” said Solange Baptiste, ITPC-Global’s Executive Director. “Instead this new Bill fails to enshrine the rights of its own people. I fear it’s an omen of things to come. We, HIV treatment activists, will be watching and monitoring to make sure the Indian government upholds its responsibility to all its citizens living with HIV.”

“Nothing in the world is more important than securing treatment for me, and my community of people living with HIV,” said Loon Gangte Regional Coordinator ITPC-South Asia. “I earnestly appeal to the government to delete the loophole ‘as far as possible’ and assure our right to life”.

Editor’s Note:

HIV/AIDS Bill Final Text

The provision for HIV treatment in Section 14 of the HIV/AIDS Bill, reads as follows:

1. The measures to be taken by the Central Government or State Government under section 13 shall include the measure for providing, as far as possible, Anti-Retroviral and Opportunistic Infection Management to people living with HIV or AIDS.

2. The Central Government shall issue necessary guidelines in respect of protocols for HIV and AIDS relating to Anti-Retroviral Therapy and Opportunistic Infection Management which shall be applicable to all persons and shall ensure their wide dissemination.

About International Treatment Preparedness Coalition

International Treatment Preparedness Coalition (ITPC) is a global coalition of HIV treatment activists formed in 2003 to respond to the needs of communities worldwide. The global network is driven by individual activists, peer support groups, grassroots networks, community-based organizations, and non-governmental organizations. Each of our partners share our values and vision and come together to address issues around access to treatment issues in their countries, regions and at the global level.

US: On-going research project shows strong regional and gender differences in the 99 HIV criminalisation convictions in Florida since 1995

HIV Criminalization Convictions in Florida from 1995 to 2016

In the 21 years from 1995 to 2016, Florida convicted 99 people under HIV criminalization laws. These 99 convictions differed by region. For example, Miami-Dade County had only one conviction, but the Jacksonville area had 31. These differences could result from differences in behavior, in prosecutor attitudes, or in local political culture.

Florida obtained convictions for 53 women and 46 men over these 21 years. Women accounted for 28 percent of all people living with HIV (PLWH) in Florida in 2014. In contrast, women accounted for 54 percent of those convicted under these HIV laws. Despite the argument that these laws protect women, Florida has convicted more women than men. Among current inmates, however, women constitute 17 percent of HIV convictions. As of January 1, 2017, Florida’s prisons hold 24 people convicted under these laws: 20 men and 4 women.

Sexual orientation and gender identity data were not available.

Over these 21 years, racial data showed a strange pattern. About 56 percent of those convicted were Blacks, 1 percent Latino, and 43 percent White. In 2014, the HIV epidemic in Florida showed a different pattern. About 47 percent of PLWH were Black, 21 percent Latino, 30 percent White, and 2 percent “other.” The low number of convicted Latinos may result from confusion between “racial” and “ethnic” identities. Several “White” inmates had Spanish-language names and “appeared” Latino in their mug shots.

Regional Differences

The Health Resources Services Administration has identified those areas with large numbers of PLWH, as Eligible Metropolitan Areas (EMAs). Florida has six EMAs. The Jacksonville EMA consists of Clay, Duval, Nassau, and St. John’s Counties. The Orlando EMA consists of Lake, Orange, Osceola, and Seminole Counties. The Tampa EMA consists of Hernando, Hillsborough, Pasco, and Pinellas Counties. While these three EMAs contain multiple counties, each of the three other EMAs contains only one county. Broward, Miami-Dade, and Palm Beach Counties each form their own EMA.

As shown in the chart “HIV Criminalization Convictions in Florida 1995 to 2016 Differ by Region,” these EMAs differ in their conviction rates. Two EMAs, Tampa and Jacksonville, accounted for 57 percent of convictions, over these 21 years. These two EMAs, however, did not have the largest number of PLWH among the six EMAs.

Florida has 67 counties. Together all six EMAs contain 15 counties and have convicted 76 people. Of the remaining 52 counties, 10 counties have convicted 23 people under these HIV laws. While every county in Florida has at least one PLWH, only 25 counties have convicted people under these laws.

Male / Female differences

In a binary system of gender, over-representation of women requires an under-representation of men. This may result from confusion about the legal definition of “sexual intercourse” in Florida. Florida courts have issued conflicting rulings about whether the legal term “sexual intercourse” includes anal intercourse. The Florida Supreme Court heard arguments about this issue in 2014, but has yet to rule. Prosecutors may be reluctant to bring a male-male HIV criminalization case to trial until that matter is resolved.

HIV criminalization laws over these 21 years have resulted in few convictions. That could change drastically, if the legal definition of “sexual intercourse” were to include anal intercourse.

The Florida HIV Justice Coalition has posted a Sign-on Statement to fight to modernize HIV criminalization laws. To sign-on is also the first step to becoming involved in that effort.

Please visit https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1UcFGh3A_nyeX0A3GdFWJApr830KrZ2hMTeguklWN3vM/prefill or Bit.ly/2leC1wx

For more on the legal question of whether anal intercourse constitutes “sexual intercourse” under Florida law, please visit http://southfloridagaynews.com/Local/is-supreme-court-s-same-sex-hiv-disclosure-ruling-on-its-way.html or http://bit.ly/2mqezML

This article is part of an on-going research project into HIV Criminalization in Florida.

Published in SFGN on March 24, 2017

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

US: Florida State Senate Committee Supports Public Health Measure To Modernize HIV Laws (Press Release)

Press release from the Sero Project

Tallahassee March 22, 2017

The Florida HIV Justice Coalition today applauded members of the Florida State Senate’s Criminal Justice Committee for voting unanimously yesterday in favor of Senate Bill 628.

SB 628 will modernize Florida statutes regarding sexually transmissible infections (STIs) to reflect advances in scientific knowledge and medical treatment, particularly as they concern prevention and treatment of HIV.

The Florida HIV Justice Coalition, comprised of physicians, healthcare workers, legal, public health and policy professionals, people living with HIV and other allies, has led a statewide effort to raise awareness and mobilize support for reform.

Senator Rene Garcia (R-Hialeah), the SB 628’s chief sponsor, said, “Florida doesn’t want to be first in new HIV cases; we want to be first in the effort to end the HIV epidemic. With the support of public health leaders, prosecutors, major HIV service providers in Florida, like the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, the Sero Project (a national network of people living with HIV) and others, we are going to get there. Today’s unanimous vote by the Senate Criminal Justice Committee is an important step.”

Leaders in providing services for people with HIV in Florida, as well as nationally, agree that early testing and ongoing adherence to treatment can stop the spread of HIV.

“Virtually all HIV transmission in Florida is from people who have HIV but do not know it, because they have not been tested, or are not on treatment,” said David Poole, Director of Legislative Affairs at AIDS Healthcare Foundation, Florida’s leading HIV service provider. “Getting tested, treated and virally suppressed prevents HIV transmission. That’s why updating these statutes is a vital HIV prevention strategy for Florida.”

“Public health policies and criminal statutes should be aligned to incentivize HIV testing and treatment. Any criminal act concerning transmission of sexually transmitted infections should be based on an intent to harm, a significant risk of harm and actual infliction of harm,” said Mrs. Kamaria Laffrey, a Winter Haven resident who has led the Florida HIV Justice Coalition and is a woman living with HIV. “We will continue to work with Senator Garcia and other legislators to improve SB 628 as it continues through the legislative process.”

“We commend and thank Senator Garcia for his leadership. We look forward to working with the legislature and our allies to improve public health and ensure equality and justice for all Floridians,” said Tami Haught, a woman living with HIV who coordinates state organizing for the Sero Project, a national organization working to modernize HIV-specific criminal statutes in 32 states.

The bill next moves to the Senate Health Policy Committee. Similar legislation, HB 605, has been filed in the House and will be heard first by that chamber’s Criminal Justice Committee.

Further information:

Kamaria Laffrey, Coordinator, Florida HIV Justice Coalition Kamaria.laffrey(at)seroproject.com

David Poole, Director of Legislative Affairs, AIDS Healthcare Foundation david.poole(at)aidshealth.org

[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.