Canada: Canada's HIV disclosure laws are dangerous for women says B.C. Civil Liberties Association

HIV disclosure laws endanger women says B.C. Civil Liberties Association

Fear of legal repercussions keeps HIV-positive women from reporting sexual abuse, says Michael Vonn

Canada’s HIV disclosure laws are dangerous for women, especially those in abusive relationships or who have been sexually assaulted, says a lawyer with the B.C. Civil Liberties Association.

Michael Vonn, the civil rights group’s policy director, says a lack of awareness of the law can lead people — mostly women, but not exclusively — to disclose their HIV positive status in situations where that information can be used against them.

“Women who are HIV positive, if they are in abusive relationships, are often essentially ‘disciplined’ with the threat of [revealing their status],” Vonn told Early Edition host Rick Cluff.

“If you don’t do what I say, or you try to leave me, I’m going to go to the police and I’m going to say you didn’t disclose,” she said. “It’s emotional blackmail.”

Vonn said similar logic can often discourage HIV-positive women from reporting incidents of sexual assault.

“[They are often] too afraid to go to the police to report that crime because of concerns it will somehow boomerang back on them,” she said.

This fear of criminal liability for failure to disclose is compounded, Vonn said, by the fact that Canada is one of the most aggressive prosecutors of HIV nondisclosure in the world on a per capita basis.

Law not well known

In 1998, a landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision made it a crime to not disclose a positive HIV diagnosis to a sexual partner. Someone with such a diagnosis can be charged with aggravated assault for failing to disclose it, even if the virus is not transmitted.

A 2012 ruling clarified that disclosure is not required if the “realistic possibility of transmission of HIV is negated” — specifically, if the HIV-carrying partner has a low viral load and a condom is used during sexual intercourse.

Vonn says that ruling can compel an HIV-positive partner to disclose even when an abusive partner could use that information against them.

It can also strengthen an abusive partner’s blackmail efforts by allowing them to lie and say one of those conditions was not being met.

“Treatment options [can] make you virtually unable to infect somebody, because your virus will be so successfully suppressed,” Vonn said. “Who exactly tells you that that good news story medically is not the good news story legally?”

Medical professionals often don’t feel comfortable giving legal advice to their newly low-viral-count patients, said Vonn, which makes them less aware of their obligations.

Change not likely in short term

Vonn said she does not have any particular hope that the law will change any time soon, especially since the relevant Supreme Court rulings are so recent. In lieu of legal change, Vonn emphasizes education and prosecutorial discretion.

“[We want the Crown to] really think about the public interest in terms of making such prosecutions,” she said.

As for the education component, Vonn urged HIV-positive Canadians to familiarize themselves with disclosure law as it pertains to them. To that end, SFU is holding a free information session on Wednesday, March 30, at which Vonn will be a panelist.

“Understand the law,” Vonn said. “If this is news to you, there are resources that are available.”

Originally published in CBC News

US: Can the American Psychological Association's stand against HIV criminalization laws convince state policymakers that [potentially exposing someone to] the virus should not be a crime?

Criminalizing HIV Transmission Does More Harm Than Good

Can the American Psychological Association’s stand against HIV criminalization laws convince state policymakers that transmitting the virus should not be a crime?
Originally published in Pacific Standard by Elena Gooray on

Last week, the American Psychological Association published a resolution against HIV criminalization laws—measures that punish people with the virus for not telling their sexual partners about their HIV status. These measures grew out of panic over AIDS in the 1980s, driven partly by a lack of knowledge about how HIV is transmitted, and partly by prejudice against the population in which the virus was spreading fastest—men having sex with men. But the APA argues that, rather than reducing the spread of the virus, these laws can actually fuel the epidemic.

These HIV-specific laws can discourage people from getting tested by making ignorance of their HIV status a form of protection against sex-related criminal charges, according to David Martin, senior director of the APA’s office on AIDS. “If you don’t know whether you have [the virus], you can’t be prosecuted for having sex with someone and not telling them you have HIV,” he says. “But if you do know and don’t inform your partner, even if you use a condom and everything you did was safe with regards to the possibility of transmission, you can be incarcerated.” After being locked up, Martin explains, people become much more likely to transmit HIV, due to the prevalence of high-risk sexual behavior and drug use in prison—as well as a lack of condoms.

A wave of research has already argued against HIV-specific laws.

And yet, HIV criminalization measures remain popular. Thirty-three states have HIV-specific laws on the books. The justification for these laws is that having sex while infected with HIV means running a substantive risk of passing on the virus, and partners have the right to know exactly what risks they’re taking. But people with HIV can take effective steps to prevent transmission. As early as the late 1990s, researchers had found that consistent condom use is at least 90 percent effective in preventing HIV transmissions. And the base risk of contracting the virus itself is small: The most likely route of transmission is from unprotected anal sex, and in that case epidemiologists have estimated the risk to be below two percent.

A wave of research has already argued against HIV-specific laws, noting that those rare cases in which people do intentionally spread HIV can be prosecuted under broader criminal law and so do not require targeted legislation. The White House chimed in against HIV criminalization in 2010, followed by a 2014 Department of Justice guide for updating the laws to reflect the latest research. But states have yet to respond.

Though the APA has long voiced support for reversing HIV-specific laws, their recent resolution gives them greater clout for advocacy with government officials, according to Martin. Now, when the APA sends representatives to lobby on Capitol Hill, “They can say, ‘This is the APA’s official policy,’ rather than just, ‘We think this is a good idea,'” Martin says.

Decisive resolutions from the APA are noteworthy. The organization frequently weighs in on issues to which psychological research can be applied—including best practices in delivering health care, sexual assault in the military, and affirmative action policies—by distributing press releases of relevant research findings or contributing briefs to individual court cases. But the APA takes a unified, official position on social issues far less often.

Still, Martin says, staying silent on political issues relevant to public-health research runs counter to the APA’s mission. He points to the APA’s past resolutions against sexual orientation-based discrimination, and, in 2014, the organization called for greater gun control measures and warned against treating gun violence as chiefly a problem of mental illness. “People think of the APA as mostly a professional guild agency,” Martin says. “But its stated mission is to advance the creation, communication, and application of knowledge from psychology to improve lives. Passing this resolution is perfectly within that scope.”

Psychological research can be applied to everything from policing to education disparities, and the APA has an important role in determining whether the field’s findings are being applied constructively or harmfully. But the organization’s public image as an advocacy organization took a hit last summer, when it broke that APA psychologists had cooperated with the Central Intelligence Agency and Pentagon to develop torture techniques after the 9/11 attacks, as documented in a report by a former federal prosecutor. The APA promptly responded to the report by banning psychologist participation in national security interrogations.

Still, the scandal undoubtedly damaged the APA’s credibility as an organization committed to bettering society. But Martin and his colleagues are hopeful that the organization’s latest resolution will help the APA have a positive social impact, by bringing researchers’ and federal policymakers’ consensus on HIV criminalization to the state level.

US: Latest updates from the Positive Justice Project on state HIV criminalisation advocacy and key criminal cases

Zimbabwe: The persecution and prosecution of Harare model highlights reasons why HIV should not be criminalised

For the past few weeks, social and conventional media have been awash with the most heinous of headlines — “Harare model injects lover’s son with HIV.”

BY BELLINDA CHINOWAWA & ELIZABETH MANGENJE

An outraged public bayed for her blood, denouncing the model and calling for her immediate incarceration. After an invasive HIV test, it emerged that the allegations against the model were false, and that she is just another victim of the poorly crafted section 79 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act, which in part reads as follows;

“ Any person who

(a) Knowing that he or she is infected with HIV; or

(b) Realising that there is a real risk or possibility that he or she is infected with HIV

Intentionally does anything or permits the doing of anything which he or she knows will infect, or does anything which he or she realises involves a real risk or possibility of infecting another person with HIV, be guilty of deliberate transmission of HIV, whether or not he or she is married to that other person, and shall be liable to imprisonment for a period not exceeding twenty years.”

The wording of this provision is objectionable because:

It criminalises sexual intercourse

Under this section, any person who has had sexual intercourse can be arrested and prosecuted, as with every sexual encounter, there is a risk or possibility of infection with HIV. Scientific research shows that no one method is 100% effective in protecting against the risk of infections. Having safe sexual intercourse is, strictly speaking, irrelevant for the purposes of this provision. A dangerously wide offence has been created.

It creates conditions for false incrimination

It is currently not possible in this country to tell who was infected first. Thus, the story which carries the day is that of the person who reports to the police first. This disadvantages women, who by reason of their reproductive health needs invariably get to know their status first as antenatal care services make HIV-testing compulsory for women. The only option for women to avoid prosecution under section 79 is to avoid antenatal care services or to opt out of HIV-testing, notwithstanding the danger that these decisions present for their own health, the health of their unborn babies and the community at large.

It does not reduce the spread of HIV

There is no evidence that applying criminal law to HIV risk behaviour incapacitates, rehabilitates, or deters offenders.

It promotes fear and stigma

Prosecution under section 79 is typically accompanied by inflammatory and ill-informed media coverage and this only serves to reinforce stigma against people living with HIV.

It penalises a conjectural likelihood

In terms of section 79, one does not actually have to have infected someone with HIV for a court to find that there has been “deliberate transmission of HIV”. Where a person facing charges under this section is tested and found positive, then a court must convict them, whether or not any transmission took place!

It disproportionately affects the already marginalised

Due to the persistence of deep-rooted prejudice against groups such as commercial sex workers, there is a real possibility that criminal prosecution will disproportionately affect them, as they are easy targets for such a witch hunt.

Data and evidence collected in 15 years (1986-2001) on prosecution for HIV transmission or exposure in the United States as well as several studies conducted around Europe revealed that most of the individuals convicted for HIV transmission or exposure were in vulnerable social and economic positions, including, commercial sex workers and prisoners.

Thus, it is arguable that section 79 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) violates section 56 of the Constitution which guarantees non-discrimination and equal protection of the law. A law that puts people at risk of prosecution and 20 years imprisonment for a crime whose elements are not sufficiently clear for them to regulate their conduct cannot be said to be in line with the protection guarantee under the Constitution. As Edwin Cameron, a Judge of the Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa, has noted, “prosecutions for HIV transmission and exposure, and the chilling content of the enactments themselves, reinforce the idea of HIV as a shameful, disgraceful, unworthy condition.”

The persecution and prosecution of the Harare model is proof of all the reasons why HIV should not be criminalised. The general criminal law is sufficient to deal with instances where a person maliciously and deliberately infects others with HIV, and in other jurisdictions, such persons are charged with assault, or attempted murder. There is no proof that criminalising HIV transmission will achieve either criminal justice or prevents HIV transmission.

The sentiment behind section 79 is understandable — it is grounded in the belief that, given the deleterious nature of HIV, any person living with it, has a moral duty to avoid infecting others. In this instance, however, the criminal law is a blunt instrument, imprecise and heavy-handed, leaving a trail of destruction in its wake. The criminalisation of HIV transmission threatens a human rights response to HIV that empowers people to avoid infection or live successfully with HIV. As UNAIDS has noted, instead of applying criminal law to HIV transmission, governments should expand programmes which have been proven to reduce HIV transmission and strengthen and enforce laws against rape and other forms of sexual violence against women and children.

The events of the past few weeks have shown that Section 79 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act is overly-broad, and open to abuse. It only serves to entrench stigma and discrimination, and has no place in a society ostensibly founded on recognition of the inherent dignity and worth of each human being.

l Bellinda Chinowawa and Elizabeth Mangenje are project lawyers with Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights

 Originally published in The Standard

 

Nigeria: The Network of People Living With HIV and AIDS campaigns to raise awareness of supportive Anti-discrimination Law

By Gabriel Ewepu

ABUJA- THE Network of People Living With HIV and AIDS in Nigeria, NEPWHAN, yesterday, commenced sensitisation of Nigerians on the Anti-discrimination Act 2014, on stigmatisation of people living with HIV.

The National Coordinator, NEPWHAN, Victor Olaore, said the sensitisation about the law will create awareness about the penalty of discrimination and stigmatisation against people living with HIV.

He said: “Stigma and discrimination is still high in the country, especially in the community, people living with HIV still suffer high level of stigmatisation. In fact, even in the facility they are expected to receive treatment, most people still get stigmatised in the work place, and we felt that the stigma index survey that was conducted in the country shows evidence of documented cases of what people living with HIV suffer.

“These are the tools that have helped us to advocate for the passage of Anti-discrimination Bill. Now that we have the law, since 2014, many Nigerians are not aware that such a law exists – not even people living with HIV in our communities in the country are aware that we have a law that protects the rights and dignity of people living with HIV.

“This law has very comprehensive content and is detailed enough, and there is no excuse about it, and we want to make it clear that people will not say they are not aware of the law.

“We have plan to also step down the dissemination at the state level, we are disseminating this document to 1, 030 support groups we have across the country, and we are going to distribute it all over the states, and more partners and media in each state are going to be aware that we have this law at the national level.

“We want to educate people living HIV that there is a legal framework that can protect their right and their dignity in the country. We want the employers of labour and every other person in the society to know that there is this law that has been in existence in the country since 2014, and people should stop stigmatisation, denying employment of highly productive Nigerians irrespective of their HIV status.”

According to him NEPWHAN will set up hotlines where people living with HIV who have crisis or being stigmatised could call in and have referral and legal services, as the organisation has partnered with Human Rights Commission on issues of discrimination and stigmatisation.

Meanwhile, a 26 year old woman, Gloria Asuquo, and a member of Association of Positive Youths Living with HIV/AIDS in Nigeria, narrated her ordeal of stigmatisation and discrimination.

“At the earlier stage in 1999 I had to run away from the village I lived because of the stigma. I was stigmatised from my church, at home, in the community. I tested positive when I was 11 years old, and it was through blood transfusion I got infected in a general hospital.

“After my rescue and treatment at Gwagwalada Specialist Hospital, I stood with people living with HIV, and for them to stand for their right. I was denied admission as a result of my status, which they withdrew my admission letter.

“My advice for people living with HIV is for them to be happy because the federal government have recognised them and they should go to the health facility and most of them don’t like going to the hospital because of stigma, and they should go for the treatment, and if any further discrimination they should call and report, and we will take it up”, she stated.

Originally published in Uncova

US: Indiana Law Review critically examines how the state's HIV non-disclosure law is overly broad and problematic

Criminalization of HIV: Spread of the Viral Underclass

by Tyler J. Smith

J.D., 2015, Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law

H-I-V. Arguably, no three letters in American society have generated more fear of a “viral underclass” [1] than those associated with the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (“HIV”). In many states, including Indiana, simply having HIV is a crime with potentially severe consequences. The criminalization of HIV is founded on a fear of something many people do not fully understand and the stigma of “HIV’s association with an ‘outlaw’ sexuality, anal intercourse, gay men, people of color, and people who use drugs.” [2] Indeed, convictions under these statutes rarely have anything to do with actual HIV transmission or risk of transmission. [3] Over thirty states currently have HIV specific criminal statutes “based on perceived exposure to HIV, rather than actual transmission of HIV to another.” [4]

The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and HIV Medical Association (HIVMA) assert that “[c]riminalization is not an effective strategy for reducing transmission of infectious disease and in fact may paradoxically increase infectious disease transmission.” [5] Studies further indicate that “these laws discourage individuals from being screened and treated for conditions when early diagnosis and treatment of infected individuals is one of the most effective methods to control the disease.” [6] More people have been convicted under these laws in the United States and Canada than all other countries in the world combined. [7]

Numerous examples illustrate the unfounded fear and stigma that fuel egregious convictions and unjust sentences of HIV positive people. An HIV positive man in Michigan was charged under the state’s anti-terrorism statute with possession of a “biological weapon” after he allegedly bit his neighbor. [8] Another HIV positive man in Texas is currently serving thirty-five years for spitting at a police officer. [9] A man in Iowa with an undetectable viral load received a twenty-five year sentence after a one-time sexual encounter in which he wore a condom. [10] His sentence was suspended, but he was placed on probation for five years and had to register as a sex-offender for ten years. [11]

Many states rightfully criminalize reckless, knowing, or intentional behaviors that actually put others at significant risk. However, some states have other criminal statutes that are overbroad, or criminalize simply having HIV and engaging in conduct that scientifically poses no risk of transmission. Such statutes clearly exhibit a complete lack of scientific understanding of how HIV is transmitted and because of their overbroad nature, give prosecutors “significant discretion in determining whether and how to prosecute individuals arrested or reported for HIV exposure.” [12] The actual risk of transmission depends on the amount of the virus in a person’s blood. [13] The risk-per-exposure for various sex acts, without factoring in how condoms or medical treatment reduce the risk even further, ranges from zero to eighty-two in 100,000. [14] Intravenous drug use risk-per-exposure ranges from sixty-three to 240 in 100,000. [15] Despite the relatively low risk, “courts rarely look at what a person did to further reduce the risk of transmission.” [16] Simply having HIV is a considered a crime.

With overwhelming bi-partisan support, criminalization of HIV became federal in 1990 with the Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency Act. [17] The Act’s namesake, Ryan White, a thirteen-year old boy from Russiaville, Indiana, contracted the disease in 1984 following a blood transfusion. [18] This act created The Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program; the “most comprehensive Federal program that provides services exclusively to people living with HIV.” [19] It serves more than 500,000 people that do not have adequate health care coverage to manage their treatment. [20]

Congress exercised its power to control funding by requiring states to “protect against intentional transmission” to receive federal funding for the new program. [21] Section 2647 of the Act provided in part that “[t]he Secretary may not grant . . . to a State unless the chief executive officer determines that the criminal laws of the State are adequate to prosecute any HIV infected individual” who intended to transmit HIV through donation of bodily fluid, engaging in sexual activity intending to transmit HIV, or shared needles intending to transmit HIV. [22] This provision was repealed in 2000; however, the seeds for states to go above and beyond were already sown. Some states went further than what the federal law required by defining intentional transmission as non-disclosure of their positive status to a sexual partner. [23]

Although thirty-plus states criminalize HIV under HIV-specific criminal statutes or STD criminal statutes that specifically encompass HIV, [24] zero states have criminalized the transmission or the failure to disclose the positive status of other sexually transmitted diseases, such as the Human Papillomavirus (“HPV”). [25] According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”), 33,000 new cases of cancer are reported each year with about 26,900 of these cancers caused by HPV. [26] Nearly all cases of cervical cancer are caused by HPV [27] and 4074 women died of cervical cancer in 2012. [28] In 2013, an estimated 9278 women received a new diagnosis of HIV. [29] In 2012, among women who previously received a diagnosis of AIDS, an estimated 3561 women died. [30] Thus, more women were diagnosed with cancer caused by HPV than women who were diagnosed with HIV and more women died of cancer caused by HPV than women who died of AIDS. [31] Yet HPV has not been criminalized in any state. [32]

Portions of Indiana’s criminal code do make sense. Someone who recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally donates or sells semen or blood that contains HIV could rightfully face felony charges. [33] However, other statutory provisions in the criminal code are overbroad and punish scientifically unfounded conduct. For example, a person without HIV can be charged with a Class C Misdemeanor for “battery” by placing bodily fluid or waste on another person in a rude, insolent, or angry manner. [34] A person without HIV can be charged with “malicious mischief,” a Class B Misdemeanor, for placing bodily fluid or fecal waste with the intent that another person will involuntarily touch it. [35] If a person is HIV positive, both of these offenses become Level 6 Felonies for exposing to others any bodily fluid, including those scientifically proven to not transmit HIV. [36] Battery is a Level 5 Felony if the bodily fluid or waste is placed on a public safety officer, but only if the accused is HIV positive. [37] If the accused is not HIV positive, then committing battery on a public safety officer remains a Level 6 Felony. [38] Therefore, simply having HIV statutorily increases the penalty for these offenses.

Despite laws to the contrary, the CDC clearly states that “[c]ontact with saliva, tears, or sweat has never been shown to result in transmission of HIV.” [39] Very low quantities of HIV have been found in the saliva and tears of some AIDS patients. [40] However, “finding a small amount of HIV in a body fluid does not necessarily mean that HIV can be transmitted by that body fluid.” [41] HIV has not been found in the sweat of HIV-infected patients. [42] Indiana prosecutors have discretion to prosecute HIV positive persons criminally for a variety of offenses related to their HIV positive status regardless of intent to transmit or actual transmission and regardless of whether transmission is even scientifically possible.

Indiana law also criminalizes simply having what it defines a “dangerous communicable disease.” [43] Carriers of HIV, AIDS, and Hepatitis B have a duty to “warn or cause to be warned by a third party a person at risk” of the carrier’s disease status and the need to seek healthcare. [44] HIV positive persons must disclose their status to past, present, and future sexual or needle-sharing partners or face criminal penalty. [45] The burden of proof shifts to the accused to show he or she in fact disclosed his or her positive status to those past, present, or potential partners. [46] A person who “recklessly” violates the statutory provision commits a Class B Misdemeanor. [47] A person who “knowingly or intentionally” fails to comply with the statutory provision commits a Level 6 Felony. [48] Each day a violation of the duty statute continues is considered a separate offense. [49] In Indiana, a Class B Misdemeanor carries a penalty of imprisonment for a fixed term of not more than 180 days and a fine of not more than $1000, [50] and a Level 6 Felony carries a penalty of imprisonment for a fixed term between six months and three years, and a fine of not more than $10,000. [51] Neither the intent to transmit nor the actual transmission of HIV is required to be prosecuted under this statute. [52]

The “duty to warn” statutes make sense on their face, but no evidence exists to suggest these statutes fulfill their intent. Criminal consequences for a failure to disclose are intended by lawmakers to increase testing, encourage those who are positive to disclose, and thus decrease the number HIV infected persons. However, evidence and logic suggest the opposite is true. [53] People at risk are afraid to know their status in fear of being prosecuted.

Because public health is a significant state interest, one would think that state legislators would pass laws based on science and logic, not on fear of what or whom they do not understand. HIV is not easily transmitted, yet nearly seventy percent of states criminally target conduct unlikely to result in harm and increase criminal penalties for simply having HIV. [54] The first step in solving a problem is acknowledging there is one. States, including Indiana, must look beyond their own fear to see the “viral underclass” they have statutorily created. Having HIV or any disease should not be a crime.

[1] Sean Strub, Prosecuting HIV: Take the Test – And Risk Arrest?, Positively Aware (May/June 2012), http://www.positivelyaware.com/archives/2012/12_03/prosecutingHIV.shtml [https://perma.cc/3ZK7-RTYF].

[2] Sean Strub, Body Counts: A Memoir of Activism, Sex, and Survival 393 (2014).

[3] Id.

[4] H.R. Res. 1586, 114th Cong. (2015) (Introduced in Congress on March 24, 2015, this bill seeks to modernize laws and eliminate discrimination with respect to people living with HIV/AIDS).

[5] Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and HIV Medicine Association Position on the Criminalization of HIV, Sexually Transmitted Infections and Other Communicable Diseases, HIV Med. Ass’n (Mar. 2015), http://www.hivma.org/uploadedFiles/HIVMA/Policy_and_Advocacy/HIVMA-IDSA-Communicable%20Disease%20Criminalization%20Statement%20Final.pdf [https://perma.cc/G7AQ-WAN4].

[6] Id.

[7] Glob. Network of People Living With HIV, The Global Criminalisation Scan Report 2010 12 (2010), available at http://www.gnpplus.net/assets/wbb_file_updown/2045/Global%20Criminalisation%20Scan%20Report.pdf [https://perma.cc/X4CM-A44R] (reporting more than 300 people have been convicted under these laws in the United States and more than sixty in Canada).

[8] The Ctr. for HIV Law & Policy, Ending and Defending Against HIV Criminalization: State and Federal Laws and Prosecutions (May 2015), available at http://hivlawandpolicy.org/resources/ending-and-defending-against-hiv-criminalization-state-and-federal-laws-and-prosecutions [https://perma.cc/3E24-YVGZ].

[9] Id.; see also German Lopez, An HIV-Positive Man in Texas is Serving 35 Years in Prison for Spitting on a Cop, Vox (Feb. 19, 2015, 4:10 PM), http://www.vox.com/2015/2/19/8071687/hiv-criminalization [https://perma.cc/PP5Q-HLY5].

[10] The Ctr. for HIV Law & Policy, supra note 8; see also Diana Anderson-Minshall, Amazing HIV+ Gay Men: Nick Rhoades, Plus (Sep. 11, 2014 4:00 AM), http://www.hivplusmag.com/people/2014/09/11/amazing-hiv-gay-men-nick-rhoades [https://perma.cc/8NJX-L7EX].

[11] Id.

[12] The Ctr. for HIV Law & Policy, Ending & Defending Against HIV Criminalization: A Manual for Advocates 9 (2015), available at http://hivlawandpolicy.org/sites/www.hivlawandpolicy.org/files/HIV%20Crim%20Manual%20%28updated%205.4.15%29.pdf [https://perma.cc/S5D2-RHNU].

[13] See generally The Ctr. for HIV Law & Policy, Why Are We Putting People in Jail for Having HIV? (Nov. 2015), http://www.hivlawandpolicy.org/resources/why-are-we-putting-people-jail-having-hiv-a-grassroots-guide-hiv-criminalization-facts [https://perma.cc/DTF8-V7J9].

[14] Id.

[15] Id.

[16] Id.

[17] Pub. L. No. 101-381, 104 Stat. 576 (1990) (Congress reauthorized this act in 1996, 2000, 2006, 2009, and 2013).

[18] Who Was Ryan White?, Dep’t. Health & Hum. Servs., http://hab.hrsa.gov/abouthab/ryanwhite.html [https://perma.cc/7P2W-VKE5] (last visited Mar. 4, 2016).

[19] Ryan White CARE Act Celebrates 25th Anniversary, Dep’t. Health & Hum. Servs. (Aug. 18, 2015), http://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2015/08/18/ryan-white-care-act-celebrates-25th-anniversary.html [https://perma.cc/HQD4-4EQD].

[20] Id.

[21] Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency Act of 1990 § 2647.

[22] Id.

[23] See Mich. Comp. Laws 333.5210 (2015).

[24] The Ctr. for HIV Law & Policy, supra note 12, at 292.

[25] Strub, supra note 2, at 393.

[26] HPV and Cancer, Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention, http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/hpv/statistics/cases.htm [https://perma.cc/TQY8-YQRM] (last updated June 23, 2014).

[27] Which Cancers Are Caused by HPV, Nat’l Cancer Inst., http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/infectious-agents/hpv-fact-sheet#q2 [https://perma.cc/M7K8-N7PT] (last reviewed Feb. 19, 2015).

[28] Cervical Cancer Statistics, Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention, http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/cervical/statistics/#2 [https://perma.cc/HV3Y-DNMZ] (last visited Dec. 9, 2015).

[29] HIV Among Women, Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention, http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/gender/women/ [https://perma.cc/9ED7-5ZJ6] (last reviewed Nov. 9, 2015).

[30] Id.

[31] Strub, supra note 2, at 393.

[32] Id.

[33] Ind. Code § 16-41-14-17 (2015).

[34] Id. § 35-42-2-1(b), (e), (g).

[35] Id. § 35-45-16-2(a)-(f).

[36] Id. § 35-42-2-1(b), (e), (g); id. 35-45-16-2(a)-(f).

[37] Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1(g).

[38] Id. § 35-42-2-1(d)(2).

[39] HIV and Its Transmission, Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention (July 1999), http://hivlawandpolicy.org/sites/www.hivlawandpolicy.org/files/CDC%2C%20HIV%20and%20its%20transmission.pdf [https://perma.cc/T2PQ-LPXC].

[40] Id.

[41] Id.

[42] Id.

[43] Ind. Code § 16-41-7-1.

[44] Id.

[45] Id.

[46] Id.

[47] Id. § 16-41-7-5.

[48] Id. § 35-45-21-3.

[49] Id.

[50] Id. § 35-50-3-3.

[51] Id. § 35-50-2-7(b).

[52] Id. § 16-41-7-1.

[53] HIV Medical Ass’n, supra note 5.

[54] The CTR. for HIV Law & Policy, supra note 12, at 292.

US: New York Public radio produces empathatic audio feature story on HIV criminalisation

Last summer, in a Missouri courtroom, a college wrestler named Michael Johnson was sentenced to 30 years in prison for “recklessly infecting a partner with HIV.”

Johnson, who also goes by “Tiger Mandingo”, was accused of knowingly infecting his partners with HIV, although at least one of them said Johnson called to tell him the diagnosis when Johnson tested positive for the virus.

The case shed light on the stigmas surrounding sexually transmitted infections, or STIs, and especially HIV/AIDS. In more than 30 states there is a legal requirement for HIV positive individuals to disclose their status to whomever they’re having sex with. And while most people agree that honest conversation is a good practice, the laws allow people with HIV to be imprisoned for even spitting, biting or oral sex.

“Every person with HIV in the country who knows they have HIV is one accusation away from finding themselves in a courtroom,” said Sean Strub, director of The Sero Project.

Strub was diagnosed with HIV in the 1980s. Since then, treatments for STIs like HIV/AIDS has made significant progress across the globe. But Strub argues that an HIV diagnosis has continued to carry a stigma, perhaps even worse than before. And Strub said forcing people to disclose their status can backfire, and alienate a population that needs support.

While Strub is working to change the policy, New York University sex researcher and educator, Zhana Vrangalova, is focused on challenging society’s perception of risky sex.

“People really fear that STIs are more prevalent than they are…and that once you catch it you may always keep it,” she said.

Vrangalova is on a mission to de-stigmatize safe sexual behavior. Her website, for example, is about casual sex and provides a forum for people to talk about the flings and one-night stands that are usually dismissed in traditional sex education. Students in her class learn how to balance health and protection with redefining normal sexual behavior.

Jake Hernandez, a 23-year-old nursing student taking her class, has had personal experience with the same situation that got Michael Johnson behind bars. His ex-boyfriend called him to tell him he was HIV positive after they had oral sex, and luckily, Hernandez tested negative.

While he felt betrayed by his boyfriend, Hernandez still believes society needs to challenge the stereotypes surrounded STIs and the people who have them, especially gay men. While visiting a sex shop for his class with Vrangalova, he said the assumption is, “that we just walk around having sex all the time.”

“I mean I would probably say I’ve had casual sex once in my life. If I was dating a girl would you be saying all these things?”

Listen here

Originally published at WNYC.com

US: Bernie Sanders “absolutely opposed” to HIV criminalisation

In the plan that Clinton articulated to achieve an “AIDS-free generation” the day after her gaffe, she came out against state HIV criminalization laws penalizing perceived transfer of the disease.

Although his plan doesn’t address them, a Sanders spokesperson said he’s “absolutely opposed” to those laws.

From Washington Blade.

US: Republican Senator highlights Florida’s “archaic” HIV-specific criminal law, advocates for law reform in 2017

Last Thursday, March 10th Senator Rene Garcia introduced an amendment in the Florida Senate to an amendment of a bill he was co-sponsoring (SB 314) to highlight the damage done to the HIV response by the state’s overly broad HIV criminalisation law.

Senator Garcia, a Republican, withdrew the amendment following his three minute intervention, but noted that he intends to work with the Senate in the next legislative session, 2017, in order to reform Florida’s overly broad HIV non-disclosure law.

In order words, the amendment was presented strategically in order to give the issue of HIV criminalisation some exposure to his colleagues.

Tami Haught of the Sero Project, who is working closely with colleagues in Florida to modernise the law, noted:

“We are delighted that Senator Garcia is taking leadership on this issue and look forward to an ongoing dialogue. Sero and our Florida partners will be soliciting comments and a legal review of what Senator Garcia has proposed as well as continuing to organize statewide to build support for change. We have a lot of work to do between now and next year’s legislative session.”

Watch Senator Garcia speak about why it is crucial to reform Florida’s HIV criminalisation law below.