US: Lawmakers support bill to update HIV transmission charges

North Dakota House votes to repeal ‘discriminatory’ HIV law

With a 50-43 vote, the House passed a bill to downgrade the crime of intentional HIV transmission from a felony to a misdemeanor, aligning the charge with other intentional disease transmission.

The criminal charge associated with knowingly infecting someone with HIV could change in North Dakota after lawmakers voted Wednesday, Feb. 19, to downgrade the crime from a felony charge to a misdemeanor.

According to state law, HIV is the only infectious disease that carries a felony charge if it is knowingly transmitted to another person.

Those found guilty of doing so face 20 years in prison and a $20,000 fine, while knowingly infecting someone with any other sexually transmitted disease is punishable by a fine up to $1,000.

House Bill 1217 would move the penalty for spreading HIV to the same misdemeanor class as other sexually transmitted diseases.

Bill sponsor Gretchen Dobervich, D-Fargo, said in a House Human Services hearing on the bill that the existing law, which was enacted in the 1980s, is discriminatory against people with HIV.

Dobervich added that in 35 years of the law being in effect, no one has been prosecuted.

“There has been a lot of discussion on this bill, and one of the things that keeps coming up is that HIV can be terminal. And it can — so can a lot of other infectious diseases,” she said. “This bill reflects the tremendous body of evidence that modernizing HIV laws decreases the risk of HIV, as people who are at risk of HIV are more likely to seek testing.”

There was no further discussion on the House floor before lawmakers passed the bill with a 50-43 vote, sending it to the Senate for consideration.

The state Department of Health and Human Services, American Civil Liberties Union and representatives of two health care clinics voiced support for the bill in its hearing. There was no opposing testimony.

Mexico: Criminalisation of HIV in Tamaulipas has a negative impact on public health

Danger of contagion: Tamaulipas criminalizes people with HIV

Translated with Deepl.com – Scroll down for original article in Spanish

The offence that penalises HIV carriers who have sexual contact with others is still in force. Morena has not supported the initiative to repeal it presented by deputy Magaly Deandar.

Tamaulipas criminalises and stigmatises people with HIV or any other disease considered ‘contagious’, ‘incurable’ or a ‘bad gene’. The offence of risk of transmission, a measure that punishes the risk of spreading a virus with imprisonment, is still in force.

The Penal Code of Tamaulipas maintains this offence with penalties ranging from six months to three years in prison. In twenty-five other states in Mexico, the penalties include the impediment to marry, denial of custody of one’s children and financial fines.

State law stipulates that a person who knowingly carries a venereal disease or HIV in an infectious period and who puts another person at risk of infection through sexual relations commits the offence of danger of contagion. In the case of spouses or cohabiting partners, the offence only proceeds if the offended party files a complaint.

In particular, article 203 of the Penal Code of Tamaulipas punishes HIV carriers. In a large part of the country, the ‘danger of contagion’ sanctions other sexually transmitted diseases.

Criminalisation encourages discrimination

According to the Mexican Network of Organisations against the Criminalisation of HIV, the criminalisation of the ‘risk of HIV transmission’ or similar concepts that appear in the legislation of the federal states generate more harm than benefits in terms of impact on public health.

This criminalisation undermines respect for and guarantees of human rights by promoting fear, stigma and discrimination, reinforcing the idea that people living with HIV or AIDS are criminals, dangerous and immoral.

The organisation points to the criminalisation of HIV patients, turning carriers into both victim and perpetrator. Focusing efforts on judging and punishing rather than promoting the prevention of contagion.

Tamaulipas seeks to decriminalise the danger of contagion

In 2022, deputy Magaly Deandar Robinson presented an initiative to repeal Article 203 in the Tamaulipas Congress. The Morenista argued that this measure violates human rights rather than recognising the institutional vacuum on the part of the public health service.

‘More than a question of laws, it is a question of human rights. That is how it should be for everyone,’ the legislator for Reynosa explained in an interview for Elefante Blanco,

Despite international recommendations from organisations such as the United Nations (UN), this proposal was rejected by the Morena majority. However, Deandar Robinson emphasised, the state congress could take it up for a second time in the next three months.

Magaly Deandar recognised that although this illicit act sought to stop the HIV pandemic, it ended up criminalising and making it difficult for people and carriers to approach specialised care centres.

‘It is the perfect time to reactivate the government to carry out HIV prevention tasks,’ she added.

In 2024, Mexico City, Nayarit, Jalisco, Aguascalientes, San Luis Potosí and Tabasco removed the danger of contagion from their penal codes.

Peligro de contagio: Tamaulipas criminaliza a personas con VIH

El delito que sanciona a las personas portadoras de VIH que tienen contacto sexual con otras sigue vigente. Morena no ha acompañado la iniciativa para derogarlo presentada por la diputada Magaly Deandar.

Tamaulipas criminaliza y estigmatiza a personas con VIH o alguna otra enfermedad considerada «contagiosa», «incurable» o un «mal venero». El delito de peligro de contagio, medida que castiga con cárcel el riesgo de propagación de un virus, sigue vigente.

El Código Penal de Tamaulipas mantiene este ilícito con penas que van de los seis meses a tres años de prisión. En otros veinticinco estados de México, las penas incluyen el impedimento para casarse, negar la custodia de sus hijos y multas económicas.

La ley estatal estipula que comete peligro de contagio la persona con conocimiento de ser portador de un mal venéreo o VIH en periodo infectante y que pone en riesgo de contagio a otra mediante relaciones sexuales. En el caso de cónyuges o concubinos, el delito procede únicamente si él o la agraviada lo denuncia.

De manera particular, el articulo 203 del Código Penal de Tamaulipas castiga a portadores de VIH. En gran parte del territorio nacional, el “peligro de contagio” sanciona otras enfermedades de transmisión sexual.

Criminalización fomenta la discriminación

De acuerdo con la Red Mexicana de Organizaciones contra la Criminalización del VIH, la penalización del “riesgo de contagio del VIH” o figuras análogas que aparezcan en las legislaciones de las entidades federativas generan más daños que beneficios en términos de impacto en la salud pública.

Esta penalización atenta contra el respeto y garantía de los derechos humanos al promover el miedo, el estigma y la discriminación, fortaleciendo la idea de que quien vive con VIH o SIDA es criminal, peligroso e inmoral.

Dicha organización señala la criminalización de la que son víctimas los pacientes con VIH al convertir al portador en víctima y victimario. Centrando los esfuerzos en juzgar y castigar en lugar de fomentar la prevención del contagio.

Tamaulipas busca despenalizar el peligro de contagio

En 2022, la diputada Magaly Deandar Robinson presentó una iniciativa para derogar dicho el artículo 203 en el Congreso de Tamaulipas. La morenista argumentó que esta medida vulnera los derechos humanos antes que reconocer el vacío institucional por parte del servicio de salud publica.

“Más que un tema de leyes, es un tema de derechos humanos. Así debería de ser para todos”, explicó la legisladora por Reynosa en entrevista para Elefante Blanco,

Pese a las recomendaciones internacionales por organismos como la Organización de las Naciones Unidas (ONU), esta propuesta fue rechazada por la mayoría de Morena. Sin embargo, enfatizó Deandar Robinson, el Congreso estatal podría retomarla por segunda ocasión en los próximos tres meses.

Magaly Deandar reconoció que aunque esta ilícito buscó frenar la pandemia por VIH, terminó por criminalizar y dificultar el acercamiento de las personas y portadores a los centro de atención especializados.

“Es el tiempo perfecto para reactivar al gobierno para realizar tareas de prevención contra el VIH”, agregó.

En 2024, Ciudad de México, Nayarit, Jalisco, Aguascalientes, San Luis Potosí y Tabasco retiraron el peligro de contagio de sus códigos penales.

 

US: Lashanda Salinas and Kerry Thomas share their experiences of being incarcerated under HIV criminalisation laws

I want my name back

Lashanda Salinas and Kerry Thomas share their experiences of being incarcerated under state HIV criminalization laws—and talk about how they’re working to change them

In 2006, a former boyfriend accused Lashanda Salinas of never having disclosed her HIV status while they had been dating. Unable to prove she had told him (and that she had an undetectable viral load, meaning she was unable to transmit HIV during sex), Salinas accepted a plea deal and was convicted under Tennessee’s criminal exposure to HIV law. She was sentenced to three years’ probation—and then learned she was required to register as a sex offender. In May 2023, Tennessee Governor Bill Lee signed a bill amending the state’s law, allowing people charged with criminal exposure of HIV to be removed from the registry. Less than two months later, Salinas’s name was taken off the list. She’s started to open up about her experience, talking with audiences across the country, from small groups of individuals living with HIV to state and federal elected officials. She is an active member of the Tennessee HIV Modernization Coalition, a Health Not Prisons advocate, member of The Elizabeth Taylor AIDS Foundation Council of Justice Leaders and is a graduate of Justice Institute 3.0, a program of The Sero Project, a national advocacy and HIV decriminalization organization for people with HIV.

Kerry Thomas has been living with HIV for 36 years, having served 15 years of a 30-year prison sentence at the Idaho State Penitentiary. Although he was undetectable and had used a condom, he was convicted of not telling the woman he had had sex with of his HIV status. Like many state laws that criminalize HIV, Idaho’s law took no account of Thomas’s undetectable status and that no transmission of the virus had occurred. Now 60, Thomas is the community decriminalization strategist for The Sero Project. He also contributes to several organizations, including the Center for HIV Law and Policy’s Aging Advisory Council, the U.S. People Living with HIV Caucus, the Idaho Coalition for HIV Health and Safety and the Vera Institute of Justice’s Designed for Dignity project.

The two advocates talked about their experiences and insights in a Zoom conversation for POSITIVELY AWARE in November. The 80-minute exchange has been excerpted and edited for brevity and clarity. —Rick Guasco

Kerry Thomas: Let’s start with a little bit of your story, wherever you want to start.

Lashanda Salinas: Back in 2006 I was dating a gentleman. We met online. Before we met [in person] I told him, I’m HIV-positive—are you okay with that? He said he was okay with it, and we proceeded to date. But the relationship wasn’t what I thought it would be, so we decided to break up. About a week or two after we broke up, two police officers walked into my job and asked to speak to me. The first thing that ran through my head was, What did I do? I had just moved to Nashville a month or so earlier. They tell me, Your boyfriend has filed charges against you stating that you did not tell him you were HIV-positive. I said I had told him. And they’re like, Well, do you have proof? I said that I didn’t. I didn’t think I ever needed proof. That night, they arrested me. I was under a $100,000 bond. There was no way I was going to ask my family to come up with 10% [to be released from custody]. I wasn’t about to do that. So, I stayed in there about two days shy of two months. My public defender came back with a plea deal, three years’ probation. I didn’t want to take the plea because I knew I was innocent, but in order to get out and spend time with my family, because my father had just passed, I took the plea. I thought, I can get out, spend time with my family and not have to worry about anything. When I got out, my probation officer calls me while I’m at work and tells me that I have to register as a sex offender. I’m like, You got the wrong person. She said because I was charged with criminal exposure of HIV, that this was part of the sentence. I was on the sex offender registry for about 17 years, when Governor Lee amended the criminal exposure law to remove the sex offender registration. I was the first person with HIV to come off the registry. And from there, my life has taken off.

Kerry: You mentioned that you didn’t want to ask your family for bond money. Why? Was it financial?

Lashanda: It was financial. I knew that my family wasn’t able to come up with $10,000. I didn’t want to put that on my mom, because she was at the hospital every day to see my father. It was just something I didn’t want to ask them for.

Kerry: Stigma is such a big part of HIV criminalization—someone being able to just make an accusation. What were your thoughts and feelings when the police came to your job?

Lashanda: When they said that my boyfriend had pressed charges because I didn’t tell him I was HIV positive, my heart sank to my feet.

Kerry: I’m assuming you had never been arrested before?

Lashanda: Well, I have, but nothing like this. When you get arrested for a little thing, you pretty much know what the outcome will be. I knew this was a big thing. I thought I would have a bond of maybe $100 and then get out of there. But when I went before the judge and she said $100,000, I was like, Are you serious?

Kerry: If you look at cases across the country, that’s one of the things that we notice, extremely high bonds that are placed again and again. The narrative from the public becomes, Holy cow, why would they give someone such a high bond? She must’ve done something serious. Instantly, it’s no longer about medical facts. It’s about stigma and criminalizing the person, dehumanizing them. Because you’re a person living with HIV, they paint it as if you’re an imminent threat to society. If we let you out on a low bond, you’re going to try to spread this to everybody.

Lashanda: Exactly, and that’s what they did with me. I was trying to get a bond reduction. The prosecutor said, You’ve got family in such and such cities; you’re a flight risk. Because he said flight risk, the judge agreed and there was no bond reduction.

Kerry: One thing I want folks to know because it’s not talked about much, and if it’s something that you’re not comfortable speaking to, I understand. Can you describe what it was like when they put the [handcuffs] on you? Especially from a woman’s standpoint.

Lashanda: Luckily, I had a woman police officer there. When she told me to turn around and put my hands behind my back, and I did that, you could hear a pin drop, it was so quiet. And then you hear the cuffs clink. At that time, I was like, You are about to go to jail for something you really don’t know nothing about. And I’ll never forget the booking process.

Kerry: What was that like?

Lashanda: Oh, my Lord. It made me feel dirty because you’ve got these males patting you down, touching you where you don’t feel comfortable for them touching you, and then they ask you all these questions, like, Have you been arrested before? If you have been arrested, what was it for? When did you get arrested?

Kerry: Do you think that they knew that you were a person living with HIV?

Lashanda: I don’t think they knew because they didn’t treat me any different. But the thing was, after the booking, they put you in what they call a holding cell. That holding cell, to me, was like I was in a dog kennel.

Kerry: Were you in there by yourself?

Lashanda: No. This is where they put everybody. It’s an open space that’s a fenced in pen. I just felt like a dog. After the bond hearing, I was placed in what they call a pod with all these other women. How they heard about my charge before you get there, I will never know.

I went to sleep, woke up the next morning for breakfast, and the lady that was in the room with me said, Oh, you have HIV. I’m like, How do you know I have HIV? What are you talking about?She said, Well, your charges are criminal exposure of HIV. And I’m like, Oh, God, she knows I’m HIV-positive. How is she going to treat me? Is she going to treat me like the judge did? I told her, Yes, I am HIV-positive. I am undetectable. She said she doesn’t know what “undetectable” meant. But you can’t give it to me, can you? she asked. I was like, Just by sleeping in the room with you, on my own in this bed? How am I supposed to give it to you? She said, Well, I heard you can get it by touching something that an HIV-positive person has touched. At that point, I just sat her down and explained it to her. Ma’am, by you touching my toothbrush or touching my towel or whatever, you’re not going to get HIV. It doesn’t work that way. The sad part was that the lady was 50-something years old; I was in my late 20s at the time and was having to explain this to her.

In there, you’re always thinking, What’s the next step? What do I need to do to get myself out of the situation? You hear about the public defenders having a bad rep, they don’t help you with your case or they don’t care. But I have to applaud my public defender. After my bond hearing, her next step was to have somebody from Vanderbilt [University], from their infectious disease department, come and basically state, She’s undetectable, there is no way she can pass HIV on to anybody. But then the plea came—three years’ probation. I didn’t want to take it, but I did.

Kerry: Why did you?

Lashanda: I took that plea only to get out and be with my family.

Kerry: There’s a public narrative that only guilty people take a plea, only guilty people need a lawyer. So, if you didn’t take the plea?

Lashanda: A year and a half in a women’s prison and a year and a half on probation. I was thinking of taking the plea, but then I was like, No, I’m innocent. I’m not taking that plea.And then I had to request a furlough—that’s what I thought I was going to court for that day, but there was the plea with three years’ probation. I’m sitting there debating, Okay, do you want to take this plea or do you take the furlough, go to the funeral and come back.

Kerry: Whose funeral was it?

Lashanda: It was for my father. [Salinas’ father died in the hospital while she was in custody.] I was thinking, Lashanda, what do you want to do? You know you’re innocent, but people are making it out that you’re guilty, that you did not tell [your boyfriend]. If I take this plea, are people going to think that I’m guilty? I made the decision to take the three years’ probation just to get out and be with my family because that seemed like the only way I could get out.

Kerry: Do you bake? Have you ever made bread?

Lashanda: No, I’ve never made bread.

Kerry: You get the dough, you spin it around, put it on the table and you start kneading it. You soften

it up a bit. That’s what they do at the prosecutor’s office. I call it knead ’em and plead ’em. They put you

in difficult conditions. They’re kneading you, then they hit you with a plea deal. That’s knead ’em and plead ’em. That’s why I’ll push back on anyone who says only guilty people take a plea. No, not when you’re in that oven.

It’s amazing to me how our stories are so similar. This is my 14th month since returning to the community after serving 15 years under Idaho’s criminalization statute. They didn’t play around. I had a $1 million bond. Basically, you’re saying, This dude ain’t getting out. And then you compound that with the ignorance surrounding HIV. If he’s got a $1 million bond, he must be a real threat to society.

I remember going for sentencing the day after I accepted the plea. I was sentenced to 30 years of incarceration. Similar to your circumstances, one of the reasons I took the plea was because at the time, both my parents were elderly. Because of the bond, the media attention on my case was through the roof. As naïve as I was, I thought the best thing to do to cut off the media attention was to accept the plea, go to the judge and for the judge to make an honest decision. Not one time in the sentencing hearing did anything about HIV come up. It was about villainizing the individual. Not one time in the sentencing does the fact that you’re undetectable come up.

Lashanda: It becomes about you and your character, exactly.

Kerry: We need to talk about the scientific facts, the medical facts, about HIV.

I think it’s important that folks understand that both of us are doing amazing things now. Maybe you can share a little bit of some of the projects you’ve worked on after incarceration.

Lashanda: Where do I start?

Kerry: How about start with why? Why did you choose to get involved in HIV decriminalization advocacy?

Lashanda: I chose to get involved after I realized that so many people were being criminalized. There’s advances in medication for HIV, and I realized that the laws didn’t match today’s science. I knew there were people out there who wanted to speak, but were afraid.

Kerry: Afraid of what?

Lashanda: Afraid of being stigmatized, of being told, you’re dirty. At first, I was scared to speak out because I was like, Now everybody in the world is going to know I’m HIV-positive. So I had a conversation with myself, had a conversation with my family to ask how they felt about it. Everybody said they were okay. I put on the whole armor of God to do this. I will take the beatings and the backlash on behalf of people who feel they cannot speak for themselves.

Kerry: I think we’re similar that way. And what I had to realize is that part of my recovery, for lack of a better term, has been I do it because no one should ever have to go through the experience of HIV criminalization. I’ve been very blessed that almost from the moment of my arrest to this day, that I’ve had a lot of support. I’m thankful for that.

The question for me is, What do I want my son to think of me? When I was arrested, my son was 14 years old. He had just turned 14. I made a conscious choice to do my time with dignity. How I’m gonna do my time is how I define myself as an adult, as a man. I’m not talking about machismo stuff, but I’m gonna live my life the best I can, on my terms. Part of the willingness to have a conversation like this is to reclaim that. I want my name back, I want some respect on my name.

Lashanda: Exactly. I want that back.

Kerry: That’s my motivation. That is decriminalization to me.

I was very fortunate to have an opportunity to work with The Sero Project upon my release. I worked with them for 12 years while I was incarcerated. I did 15 [years], 12 of those years was being a part of The Sero Project, on their board and in other capacities. That has been my focus, my outreach into the community. I love that you said that you’re motivated to advocate for the many people who don’t have the capacity.

Lashanda: When I was in jail, I had no resources whatsoever. There was no support besides my family, but I needed somebody else there. I didn’t have anybody to tell me what criminal exposure to HIV was, no one to give me advice as to what I should do. When I felt like I needed to cry, I had nobody.

Kerry: And there was nobody there to tell you that it was going to be okay.

Lashanda: Exactly. Nobody, not even me. I didn’t say that to myself because of the simple fact I didn’t know if it was gonna be okay.

Kerry: I’m often asked, How did you do 15 [years]? You know what? I can’t do 15 years, but I can do today. And God willing, I can do tomorrow. That literally became my mantra, I can do today.Sometimes

I had to break it down—I can do this. I can do this hour. Sometimes it was, I can do this minute.

Lashanda: Exactly.

Kerry: Early on, I said, There’s no such thing as a bad day. I never had 24 hours of that. I might’ve had an hour here, an hour there. I’ve had multiple bad moments in the course of a day, over the course of a lifetime, but God, I’m blessed. There’s something to be thankful for every day, if not every moment, and that speaks to gratitude.

One thing that The Sero Project does is that we have our HINAC [HIV Is Not A Crime] 6 training academy [to be held May 31–June 3 at North Carolina State University in Raleigh]. It’s more than just an academy. It’s about coming together in a sense of community. The training is teaching us how to love each other and work together.

Lashanda: I think of it as, I’m going somewhere to visit with my family, to come together with one goal. We’re going to see how we can take this a step further.

Kerry: I always say HIV is not a crime, but choosing to be ignorant of it is. What is it that motivates you to swing your feet out of bed?

Lashanda: It all boils down to somebody needs me. So I’ve got to swing my feet out of this bed and get started. If everybody else can do it, I can do it as well.

‘There’s advances in medication for HIV, and I realized that the laws didn’t match today’s science.’

Lashanda Salinas

Kerry: Yes, you can. You can reach out to organizations like Sero, reach out to your local clinic, to your state’s legislature. You can reach out and get training. You can stand up.

Lashanda: I think I want to do one-on-one advocacy training. I don’t know what that looks like yet…

Kerry: Why not?

Lashanda: Because when I started, there was no blueprint. I was just throwing it out there. And it just so happened that Sero caught me.

Kerry: If you want to do one-on-one advocacy training, we can plan for that. I choose the term mentorship. I’ll even take it further and call it peer support. Because that’s what it takes, having one-on-one life conversations with folks. That’s what moves the needle.

Lashanda: This is one of the ways to get started in advocacy. Reach out to an organization. It all starts with reaching out.

Kerry: It’s empowering. Just like with our HIV care, we have to become an active participant in our own survival. Surviving criminalization is the same thing. You gotta be an active participant in your own survival.

For more information about the HIV Is Not A Crime 6 summit, GO TO seroproject.com/hinac.

US: Senator introduces bill to decriminalise HIV in Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania bill calls for decriminalization of HIV

HARRISBURG, Pa. (WTAJ) — A member of the Senate announced plans to introduce legislation that would decriminalize HIV in the Commonwealth.

The bill, authored by Senator Vincent Hughes (D – Montgomery, Philadelphia), would end criminal penalties based on someone having the HIV virus. Hughes argued that in Pennsylvania, people living with HIV have been prosecuted under laws for conduct that would not be seen as a crime because of the virus.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published information regarding risk factors involved with HIV transmission, which worked to dispel the myth that HIV can be transmitted through saliva. Hughes noted that the CDC’s work shows that activities like oral sex or spitting present a low or negligible risk of HIV transmission.

Within the published works, the CDC also noted that condoms and pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) are effective in preventing the transmission of HIV.

In Pennsylvania prostitution is typically a misdemeanor, however, people living with HIV who are charged can face felonies as well, even if the transmission would not be possible because either no physical contact occurred or the nature of the contact was not a method of transmission. Criminalization laws for HIV do not reflect the science around prevention, transmission and treatment but instead stigmatize people living with the virus, Hughes noted in his legislation.

The Commonwealth could also face legal challenges if laws on discrimination, with Hughes noting that in 2023 the Department of Justice issued findings that Tennessee is violating the Americans with Disabilities Act by enforcing its aggravated prostitution law.

In 2023, a presumed 36,302 Pennsylvania residents were living with HIV. The overall HIV rate in the Commonwealth in 2022 was 7.2 per 100,000 population, with counties like Berks, Dauphin, Delaware, Lackawanna, Lehigh and Philadelphia seeing an increase. Philadelphia was noted to have the highest rate of 25 per 100,000 population.

From 2018 through 2023, 49,620 men were recorded to have characteristics of HIV which led to a diagnosis, with women accounting for 15,979 diagnoses. There were 229 late diagnoses in 2023, however, over 600 people were diagnosed on time or early.

Australia: HIV advocates renew their call to the NSW Government to repeal the Mandatory Disease Testing Act

HIV organisations call for repeal of mandatory disease testing

HIV advocates and health experts have renewed their call to the NSW Government to immediately repeal the Mandatory Disease Testing Act 2021, following the release of the NSW Ombudsman’s report which brings into question the health benefits of the legislation for frontline workers.

The NSW Ombudsman report monitoring the operation and administration of the Mandatory Disease Testing Act 2021, tabled in Parliament on 5 February, found the Act does not have “clear and measurable benefits” for workers.

The report recommends the NSW Government consider whether the Act “should be continued at all”. The report also found that the Act is mostly being used in situations where there is no risk of blood-borne transmission to a frontline worker.

NSW Ombudsman Paul Miller said the evidence showed there was not effective.

“Our aim with the report is that it provides the platform for a clear-minded and evidence-based evaluation of the effectiveness of the scheme”.

“The MDT Act tries to balance important competing policy considerations,” said Mr Miller. “The scheme aims to enable testing to be undertaken very quickly, so that the test results might allay the stress and anxiety the worker may be facing, or so that those results can be taken into account in a worker’s medical treatment. At the same time, the Act aims, as it must, to provide protections and procedural fairness to those being tested. It may be that these competing policy concerns are irreconcilable.”

“We did not observe clear and measurable benefits of the MDT scheme for workers. Given that lack of clarity, it is questionable whether the significant and complex legislative and administrative burden of the MDT scheme is warranted for such a small number of exposures,” Miller said.

ACON, Bobby Goldsmith Foundation, Positive Life NSW and the HIV/AIDS Legal Centre have always maintained that the Act is not grounded on evidence but on outdated misconceptions about how HIV and other blood-borne viruses are transmitted, which perpetuate stigma and discrimination.

The HIV organisations say that the laws do not reduce the risk of transmission. Treatments that prevent the transmission of HIV are readily available, and these treatments are prescribed by doctors who are trained in identifying potential risk.

The Ombudsman also found that the Act is disproportionately targeting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and the protections for those subject to a Mandatory Testing Order are ineffective.

The report adds that those making decisions about applying a Mandatory Testing Order are not in a position to make determinations and suggests that resources “currently applied to the scheme would be better directed toward providing better avenues of advice and support directly to frontline workers exposed to bodily fluids in the workplace”.

ACON CEO Michael Woodhouse said the report shows the legislation has no bennefit to frontline workers.

“The Ombudsman’s report shows that mandatory disease testing offers no benefit to frontline workers. It only serves to create unnecessary fear about HIV and other blood-borne viruses.

“In the unlikely event that a frontline worker is exposed to HIV, there are simple treatments available that will prevent transmission. These are more effective strategies than mandatory testing.

“NSW does not [support] ineffective laws that only promote fear and discrimination.” Woodhouse said.

HIV/AIDS Legal Centre Principal Solicitor Vikas Parwani also voiced support for the government to review the legislation.

“The Mandatory Disease Testing Act should be repealed in its entirety. Invasive procedures like blood tests, when performed without consent, are a serious infringement on bodily autonomy and human rights. Unsurprisingly, the report confirms that mandatory testing orders are being used in circumstances where there is virtually no risk of HIV transmission, and often, against marginalised communities with limited access to legal recourse.

“In addition, by perpetuating outdated myths about HIV transmission and further stigmatising people living with HIV, the scheme also undermines Australia’s world leading public health response.” Parwani said.

Positive Life NSW CEO Jane Costello also welcomed the report and urged the government to take action.

“Positive Life NSW and the community of people living with HIV that we represent, welcome the NSW Ombudsman’s report and its recommendation that the Mandatory Disease Testing Act should not be continued.

“The Act is unscientific, relies on an outdated understanding of HIV transmission and lacks an evidence base. Mandatory disease testing and the inherent misconceptions around the ways in which HIV can be transmitted perpetuate stigma and discrimination against all people living with HIV and must cease.” Costello said.

The Bobby Goldsmith Foundation’s CEO Nick Lawson said the laws should immediately be repealed.

“Bobby Goldsmith Foundation strongly supports the call for the immediate repeal of the Mandatory Disease Testing Act. This legislation not only lacks a foundation in contemporary scientific evidence but also disproportionately impacts Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.

“Alongside our sector partners, we believe it is crucial to focus on supporting the broader communities’ frontline workers so that their health and wellbeing are protected without perpetuating stigma and discrimination.” Lawson said.

“We remain steadfast in our commitment to promoting dignity, respect and inclusion for all people living with HIV.”

Similar legislation was introduced in Western Australia by both the Barnett Liberal and McGowan Laborgovernments similarly against the recommendations of experts in the field of HIV. There were suggestions in 2019 that WA’s mandatory disease testing laws were being overused.

 

US: New report from the Williams Institute on the enforcement of Indiana’s HIV-related body fluid laws

US: Enforcement of HIV Criminalization in Indiana: Body Fluid/Waste Enhancement Laws

Using data obtained from the Indiana Office of Court Services, online court-tracking tools, and Probable Cause Affidavits, this study examines the enforcement of Indiana’s HIV-related body fluid laws.

Overview

The Williams Institute examined arrest and court records from Indiana regarding people living with HIV (PLWH) who were prosecuted for an alleged HIV-related body fluid exposure crime. Indiana has six laws criminalizing PLWH spanning both the criminal and health codes. This report—one in a series examining HIV criminalization in Indiana—analyzes the enforcement of HIV-related body fluid/ waste penalty enhancements between 2012 and 2023.1 Almost all charges under these two statutes involved bodily fluids (such as saliva and urine) and conduct (such as spitting and coughing) that do not transmit HIV. None of the charges involved an allegation that HIV was actually transmitted.

  • IC § 35-42-2-1(c2)(f)(h), Battery by Bodily Fluid or Waste, creates penalty enhancement when a person, knowingly or intentionally, “in a rude, insolent or angry manner places any bodily fluid or waste on another person” and the “person knew or recklessly failed to know that the fluid or bodily waste was infected” with HIV.
    • The base misdemeanor becomes a Felony 6 if the person accused is living with HIV. If the victim is a “public safety official,” the base Felony 6 penalty increases to a Felony 5.
  • IC § 35-45-16-2(c-f), Malicious Mischief by Body Fluid or Waste, creates a penalty enhancement when a person causes another involuntarily to come into contact with or ingest a body fluid or waste and “the person knew or recklessly failed to know that the body fluid or fecal waste is infected with” HIV.
    • The base misdemeanor becomes a Felony 6 if the person accused is living with HIV. If transmission occurs, it further increases to a Felony 4.

In Indiana, a Felony 6 conviction can result in incarceration for up to 2.5 years. A Felony 5 conviction can result in incarceration for up to 6 years, and a Felony 4 conviction can result in incarceration for up to 12 years.

Key Findings

  • We identified 42 unique people across 51 unique cases who were charged under the two body fluid/waste HIV penalty enhancements between 2012 and 2023. In each battery case, the PLWH was charged with a penalty enhancement for behaviors that pose no transmission risk.
    • No cases under either law involved allegations of or charges for HIV transmission.

Battery by Bodily Fluid or Waste

  • In all, there were 41 cases involving 38 PLWH charged with an HIV-related battery by bodily fluid or waste crime. Of those, about half (49%) involved the public safety official HIV penalty enhancement.
  • None of the cases reviewed alleged actual HIV transmission or conduct that can transmit HIV.
    • In all, 82% of the alleged acts solely involved exposure to saliva, mainly through spitting. Saliva exposure is not an HIV transmission route. Urine exposure occurred in 3% of the incidents. Urine exposure is not an HIV transmission route.
    • Only 15% of cases involved exposure to blood. However, HIV is not transmitted by blood via the acts described in the cases reviewed (for example, spitting saliva mixed with blood at someone).
  • Enforcement increased over time, from 2.7 cases per year between 2012 and 2018 to 4.4 per year between 2019 and 2023.
  • About four in five (81%) of people charged were men.
  • White people were 64% of people charged, although they accounted for only 45% of the state’s population of PLWH. Likewise, white men were overrepresented, accounting for about half (51%) of all people accused of an HIV-related battery by bodily fluid crime, although they made up only 38% of the state’s population of PLWH.
  • Cases were highly concentrated in 17 of Indiana’s 92 counties, with about a third (31%) of cases occurring in Marion County—home to Indianapolis, the state capital and largest city.
  • Most alleged crimes took place in private residences (29%), public spaces (27%), hospitals (24%), and jails or prisons (15%).
  • In more than one in five (22%) cases, victims were advised to undergo HIV testing or post-exposure treatment even though none of the cases analyzed in this report alleged conduct that can transmit HIV.
  • Many cases indicated a period of heightened tension prior to alleged exposure:
    • Just over half (54%) of cases reviewed involved officer use of force prior to the alleged exposure incident.
    • Just under half (46%) of the cases described the person accused as apparently experiencing acute mental distress, intoxication, or both.
  • Nearly all (93%) people accused were found indigent by the courts and assigned a public defender.
  • Among the cases for which we have final outcomes, about four in ten (42%) had all charges dismissed.
  • In all, 17 cases led to a conviction on at least one HIV-related battery by bodily fluid charge; of those, 41% also included a public safety official enhancement. All convictions came from plea agreements. None of these cases proceeded to trial.
    • HIV-related convictions disproportionately resulted in incarceration in the Indiana Department of Corrections (72%), compared to just 32% for other non-HIV-related offenses connected to the analyzed cases.
    • HIV-related offenses resulted in significantly longer sentences, averaging 2.3 years, compared to 1.2 years for other offenses. Sentences for battery by bodily fluid/waste HIV offenses with public safety official enhancements averaged 3.1 years, more than double the 1.5-year average for those without enhancements.

Malicious Mischief

  • Only four people, involving 10 cases, were charged under malicious mischief enhancement. Many (eight in total) of these may have been inappropriate applications of the law—they involved conduct not intended to be covered by the law.
    • Two of the four people (eight cases) involved a person living with HIV allegedly failing to disclose their HIV status to an intimate partner. All eight resulted in convictions. The other two cases involved a person throwing a towel with urine and a person coughing; both were dismissed.
  • None of these cases involved charges for or allegations of HIV transmission.

Indiana’s HIV-related body fluid/waste exposure laws continue to punish PLWH more severely. None of the cases reviewed alleged actual HIV transmission. All the battery by bodily fluid cases describe conduct that does not transmit HIV, such as spitting or biting. The handful of malicious mischief cases that alleged conduct capable of HIV transmission appeared to be a misapplication of the law. None of these alleged HIV transmission either. Indeed, neither of Indiana’s HIV-related bodily fluid exposure laws contemplate behaviors that can normally transmit HIV. Rather, the laws appear to single PLWH out for harsher punishment merely because of their HIV status.

Download the full report

Mexico: Initiative to repeal of HIV criminalisation article in Federal Criminal Code sent to Justice Commission

Proposal to remove the crime of “danger of contagion” from the Federal Penal Code

Translated from Spanish with Deepl.com. Scroll down for original article.

In order not to undermine human rights and avoid the discrimination faced by people living with HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus) and AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome), Congresswoman Laura Hernández García (MC) proposed repealing article 199 bis of the Federal Criminal Code, which refers to the crime of ‘danger of contagion’.

The article to be repealed establishes that anyone who, knowing that he or she is ill with a venereal disease or other serious disease during an infectious period, endangers the health of another by sexual intercourse or any other transmissible means, will be punished with three days to three years in prison and up to forty days in fines.

In addition, if the disease is incurable, it will be punishable by six months to five years in prison, and in the case of spouses, concubines or common-law wives, it will only be possible to proceed by complaint of the offended party.

The initiative, sent to the Justice Commission, considers that this decriminalisation contributes to eliminating barriers that limit the prevention and timely detection of the virus. It also strengthens public policy measures that contribute to combating the HIV pandemic within the framework of public health.

It states that HIV is a public health and human rights problem that, as of 2023, affects 39.9 million people around the world, who, due to stigma and discrimination, see their human rights violated and face barriers to exercising their rights and accessing health services that allow them adequate treatment.

These barriers, it stressed, signify institutional violence, which is why it is necessary to repeal article 199 Bis of the Federal Criminal Code, as the crime of danger of contagion ‘cannot remain in force’.

It called for building a new perspective on HIV, AIDS and people living with the condition, with a culture based on information that promotes non-discrimination, equal treatment, prevention and testing.

It explains that of the 33 penal codes that operate in Mexico, 27 provide for the crime of danger of contagion, which is often used against people with HIV, so this proposal is a first step to repeal it in the states where it still exists.

It points out that punitivism and criminalisation have different consequences for people living with HIV, such as loss of employment or housing, being forced to live in isolation from their families and society, as well as being subjected to physical violence.

It places HIV-positive people – especially women – at greater risk of violence and abuse, and ignores the reality that some may lack the capacity to disclose their HIV status or may not be able to negotiate condom use with their partner.

It adds that such criminalisation restricts the institutional public health response to HIV, as it results in fewer people attending health services for testing to avoid being exposed, diagnosed or punished, which does not help them, if necessary, to start treatment or share their diagnosis.

The disease affects not only those living with the virus, but also their families and those in their social environment. This is why there must be no criminal offence that violates their human rights and their access to health services.

The perspective of the response to the virus must focus on public health, not punitivism, the proposal emphasises.

Con el propósito de no socavar los derechos humanos y evitar la discriminación que enfrentan las personas que viven con VIH (Virus de Inmunodeficiencia Humana) y Sida (Síndrome de Inmunodeficiencia Adquirida), la diputada Laura Hernández García (MC) planteó derogar el artículo 199 bis del Código Penal Federal, que se refiere al delito de “peligro de contagio”.

El artículo que se pretende derogar establece que el que a sabiendas de que está enfermo de un mal venéreo u otra enfermedad grave en período infectante, ponga en peligro de contagio la salud de otro, por relaciones sexuales u otro medio transmisible, será sancionado de tres días a tres años de prisión y hasta cuarenta días de multa.

Además, si la enfermedad fuera incurable será de seis meses a cinco años de prisión, y cuando se trate de cónyuges, concubinarios o concubinas, sólo podrá procederse por querella del ofendido.

La iniciativa, enviada a la Comisión de Justicia, considera que esta descriminalización contribuye a eliminar barreras que limitan la prevención y detección oportuna del virus. Además, fortalece las medidas de política pública que abonan al combate de la pandemia del VIH en el marco de la salud pública.

Expresa que el VIH constituye un problema de salud pública y de derechos humanos que, a 2023, afectaba a 39.9 millones de personas alrededor del mundo, y quienes, debido al estigma y discriminación, ven violentados sus derechos humanos y enfrentan barreras para ejercer sus derechos y acceder a servicios de salud que les permitan un tratamiento adecuado.

Esas barreras, destaca, significan violencia institucional, por lo que es necesario derogar el artículo 199 Bis del Código Penal Federal, pues el delito por peligro de contagio “no puede seguir vigente”.

Se pronunció por construir una nueva perspectiva en torno al VIH, el Sida y las personas que viven con esta condición, con una cultura basada en la información que fomente la no discriminación, el trato igualitario, la prevención y la realización de pruebas.

Explica que de los 33 códigos penales que operan en México, 27 prevén el delito de peligro de contagio, que suele usarse contra personas con VIH, por lo que esta propuesta es un primer paso para que se derogue en los estados donde aún existe.

Refiere que el punitivismo y la criminalización tienen diferentes consecuencias para las personas que viven con VIH, como la pérdida del empleo o la vivienda, que se les orille a vivir aisladas de sus familias y de la sociedad, así como ser objeto de violencia física.

Coloca a las personas seropositivas –en especial a las mujeres– en una situación de mayor riesgo de violencia y abusos, e ignora la realidad de que es posible que algunas carezcan de la capacidad para revelar su estado serológico o no están en condiciones de negociar con su pareja el uso de preservativo.

Agrega que esa criminalización restringe la respuesta institucional al VIH en materia de salud pública, pues provoca que menos personas acudan a servicios de salud a realizarse pruebas de detección para evitar ser visibilizadas, diagnosticadas o castigadas, lo cual no ayuda a que, en caso necesario, inicien el tratamiento o compartan su diagnóstico.

La enfermedad no sólo afecta a quien vive con el virus; también a sus familias y a quienes forman parte de su entorno social. Por eso es necesario que no exista ninguna figura penal que vulnere sus derechos humanos y su acceso a servicios de salud.

La perspectiva de la respuesta al virus debe enfocarse en la salud pública, no en el punitivismo, enfatiza.

2024 in review: Progress amid challenges

As the world grappled with shifting political landscapes and evolving public health priorities, the fight against HIV criminalisation remained a critical, yet often overlooked, human rights issue. The HIV Justice Network and our HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE coalition partners navigated a year of both challenges and progress, underscoring the ongoing need for vigilance and advocacy in the face of unjust HIV-related laws and practices.

Rising Case Numbers and Persistent Challenges

In 2024, reported HIV criminalisation cases rose to 65, compared with 57 in 2023 and 50 in 2022. While these numbers remain lower than the 119 cases prior to COVID in 2019, they highlight a troubling upward trend. Cases were documented across 20 countries, with Russia and the United States leading at 26 and 11 cases, respectively. Other notable contributors included Spain (3), Argentina (2), Belarus (2), Senegal (2), and Singapore (2).

In Panama, a 14-year prison sentence for alleged HIV transmission marked the country’s first reported case. Uruguay also saw its first case, where spitting was classified as an ‘assault on health,’ despite no risk of transmission.

These figures only scratch the surface, as media-reported cases represent a fraction of the actual global burden. Civil society organisations uncovered hundreds of previously unreported cases, particularly in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, while the Williams Institute’s research in the U.S. revealed hundreds more, including detailed analyses in Indiana, Maryland, Mississippi, and Ohio.

High-Profile Cases and Intersectional Injustices

Several cases drew international attention in 2024, shedding light on the intersectional injustices of HIV criminalisation.

In Qatar, a British-Mexican national’s arrest after a Grindr sting operation also emphasised the perilous intersection of HIV status, gay identity, and discriminatory laws. Following a public campaign and diplomatic efforts, the individual was released and allowed to leave the country. Similarly, Senegal reported two cases stemming from police raids on LGBTQ individuals, further highlighting how HIV criminalisation disproportionately affects other criminalised and marginalised groups.

A particularly concerning case in South Africa resulted in a life sentence plus ten years for a soldier accused of HIV transmission and non-disclosure. The verdict reflected outdated views equating HIV to a death sentence and reinforced harmful legal interpretations equating HIV non-disclosure with rape. Previously only Canada had framed HIV non-disclosure in this way, and this framing has been roundly criticised by HIV and human rights groups in the country and rejected by Canada’s Justice Committee.

Legal Reforms: Progress and Setbacks

Efforts to modernise or repeal unjust HIV laws gained ground in 2024, with notable victories including:

  • Mexico: Repeal of ‘danger of contagion’ laws in Colima and Mexico City.
  • Tennessee, U.S.: Elimination of mandatory sex offender registration for ‘aggravated prostitution’.
  • Singapore: Introduction of an undetectable viral load defence in HIV exposure laws.

In Uganda, the Constitutional Court struck down the death penalty provision in the Anti-Homosexuality Act 2023, but upheld other regressive aspects, highlighting the mixed fortunes of legal challenges in hostile environments.

There was also disappointing news from Canada, where a federal review of its legal approach to HIV non-disclosure was abandoned, despite tireless advocacy efforts. Other retrogressive moves included Guinea’s harsher penalties for ‘intentional HIV transmission’, Tennessee’s expansion of aggravated rape provisions to include people living with HIV, and reports from China that the municipality of Chongqing was revising laws concerning STI transmission as part of a broader crackdown on HIV.

Policy Developments and Advocacy Wins

Policy shifts in 2024 reflected growing recognition of human rights in public health.

In Uzbekistan, the Ministry of Health reduced the number of prohibited professions, including hairdressing, for people living with HIV.

In the U.S., once the global leader in HIV criminalisation, significant legal and policy improvements continue to be secured. Updated guidelines allowed parents living with HIV to breastfeed, while increased transparency on molecular HIV surveillance marked a small but critical step forward. Nevertheless, unscientific prosecutions were still seen in the U.S. in 2024: conduct that carries little to no risk of transmission was criminalised, including spitting, throwing blood, and sex with an undetectable viral load.

Dedicated advocacy also prevented new criminalisation laws in Uganda and Zimbabwe, the latter rejecting an attempt to reinstate a repealed law criminalising HIV transmission. These successes underscore the power of collective action in resisting harmful legislation.

Courts Upholding Justice

Courts in several countries provided a beacon of hope by rejecting unjust prosecutions:

  • Kenya: A court threw out a baseless charge of deliberate HIV transmission against a domestic worker accused of spitting in food.
  • Italy: A man was acquitted due to a ‘very low viral load’, with the court recognising the negligible transmission risk.
  • Greece: The European Court of Human Rights ruled that the forced testing and public shaming of sex workers violated their rights, setting a vital precedent.

The Road Ahead

Despite these wins, the persistence of HIV criminalisation laws and prosecutions and their disproportionate impact on marginalised communities serve as a sobering reminder of the work still required. As we move into 2025, facing an ever-emboldened anti-rights movement, we remain committed to challenging unjust laws, building power with affected communities, and advocating for evidence-based, rights-affirming approaches.

In a year marked by both setbacks and progress, the global movement against HIV criminalisation demonstrated resilience and resolve. The delicate balance of successes and challenges reminds us that vigilance, advocacy, and solidarity are more crucial than ever in our fight for justice and equality.

US: HIV law reform tops advocates agenda for 2025 legislative session in Maryland

HIV decriminalization bill is FreeState Justice’s top 2025 legislative priority

A bill that would decriminalize HIV in Maryland is a top legislative priority for FreeState Justice in 2025.

FreeState Justice Community Advocacy Manager Ronnie Taylor told the Washington Blade on Wednesday the Carlton R. Smith Jr. HIV Modernization Act seeks to repeal “outdated and stigmatizing laws that criminalize the transfer of HIV, bringing Maryland’s public health laws in line with modern science and best practices.”

The bill is named after Carlton Smith, a long-time LGBTQ activist known as the “mayor” of Baltimore’s Mount Vernon neighborhood who died last May. A similar measure died in the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee in 2024.

“The bill emphasizes public health education, anti-discrimination measures, and access to care, ensuring those living with HIV are supported rather than penalized,” said Taylor.

Taylor pointed out FreeState Justice is working with the Maryland Legislative LGBTQIA+ Caucus and the Maryland Commission on LGBTQIA+ Affairs to build support for four additional bills and policy objectives.

• The Birth Certificate Modernization Act would “streamline the process for amending gender markers on birth certificates to make it more accessible and affirming.”

• The Commission on History, Culture and Civics would create “an inclusive commission to center marginalized voices in Maryland’s history, culture, and civics education.”

• The implementation of “inclusive and diverse English Language Arts Standards” in public schools that would ensure “curricula reflect diverse identities and lived experiences, fostering a more inclusive learning environment for students.”

• The creation of a “comprehensive health education framework” that would establish “a robust and inclusive health education framework for primary and secondary schools, focusing on equity and affirming all students.”

Taylor noted FreeState Justice is also “exploring ways to support” Compassion and Choices, a group that advocates for assisted dying, in their efforts in support of the Honorable Elijah E. Cummings End of Life Option Act.

“The act has profound historical significance for LGBTQIA+ communities, as end-of-life options were first championed during the HIV/AIDS epidemic of the 1990s, highlighting the importance of dignity and choice,” said Taylor.

She added the “legislative efforts reflect FreeState Justice’s commitment to advancing equity and dignity for LGBTQIA+ Marylanders through policy advocacy and community collaboration.”

Mexico: Advocacy organisation calls for the repeal of HIV criminalisation law in Tabasco

Tudyssex seeks to eliminate laws that criminalize people with HIV

Translated from Spanish with Google Translate; scroll down for original article.

The president of Tabasqueños Unidos por la Diversidad y la Salud Sexual (Tudyssex), José Cruz Guzmán Matías, said that they are preparing a proposal to eliminate the legal provisions that criminalize people living with HIV, for having sexual relations without a condom, describing them as discriminatory and obsolete.

Cruz Guzmán pointed out that the state’s Criminal Code contemplates penalties of up to six years in prison and fines for those who, living with communicable infections, are denounced for having unprotected sex.

The activist recalled that, a person with HIV who has adequate control with antiretroviral drugs, achieves that the virus is not only undetectable, but non-transmissible, so that he can lead a normal life, without risk of infecting others.

“The Penal Code includes an article dating back to 1940, when syphilis was the most feared disease. Today we know that HIV, with the appropriate treatment, does not represent a risk of transmission in these conditions. That’s why we ask for its elimination,” he explained.

In addition to the penalty, he also denounced civil rights limitations faced by people with HIV, such as the requirement to undergo medical tests before civil marriage.

According to the leader of Tudyssex, this measure can be used to deny marriage to HIV-positive people, despite the fact that both parties are informed and agree.

Busca Tudyssex que se eliminen leyes que criminalizan a personas con VIH

El presidente de Tabasqueños Unidos por la Diversidad y la Salud Sexual (Tudyssex), José Cruz Guzmán Matías, señaló que preparan una propuesta para eliminar las disposiciones legales que criminalizan a las personas que viven con VIH, por mantener relaciones sexuales sin condón, calificándolas de discriminatorias y obsoletas.

Cruz Guzmán señaló que el Código Penal del estado contempla penas de hasta seis años de prisión y multas para quienes, viviendo con infecciones transmisibles, sean denunciados por tener relaciones sexuales sin protección.

El activista recordó que, una persona con VIH que lleva un control adecuado con medicamentos antirretrovirales, logra que el virus sea no solo indetectable, sino intransmisible, por lo que puede llevar una vida normal, sin riesgo de contagiar a otros.

“El Código Penal incluye un artículo que data de 1940, cuando la sífilis era la enfermedad más temida. Hoy sabemos que el VIH, con el tratamiento adecuado, no representa un riesgo de transmisión en estas condiciones. Por eso pedimos su eliminación”, explicó.

Además de la penalización, también denunció las limitaciones en derechos civiles que enfrentan las personas con VIH, como el requisito de realizarse pruebas médicas antes del matrimonio civil.