Mexico: Organisations call for the withdrawal of initiative aiming to criminalise HIV-transmission in Quintana Roo

Call ATTENTION TO A MEMBER of the legislative body Congresswoman BERISTAIN: STOP CRIMINALIZATION OF HIV INITIATIVE

NOTICARIBE

POSTED ON JUNE 08, 2017, 11:44 PM 6 MINS POST Views: 1,135

By Leslie Gordillo

CANCUN, MX,- Members of associations called for the commissions of Justice, Human Rights, Development and Family groups in situations of vulnerability and of the Great Commission, in particular Mrs Laura Esther Beristain Navarrete, to reconsider the criminalization of HIV and to lower this initiative, which aims to put people with HIV under a status of potential criminals.

“We cannot allow actions that criminalise and punish and much less from a party that supposedly embraces the causes and unveiled an agenda where you will work with at-risk groups, then it is not being consistent, much less the party and its members in this case, the member of the Commission on Health,” said Roberto Guzman, Network Posithiva of Quintana Roo AC, which joined ICW Mexico and UNAYAC.

This call was made through a letter delivered in the city of Chetumal to groups already mentioned, where the points for consideration, knowing that these commissions are responsible for determining the initiative of “Decree amending Article 113 and is added in the third section, crimes against society, the seventh title, crimes against public health”, which seeks to amend article 113 of the criminal code and the punishment of 5 to 25 years with imprisonment from spreading or becoming infected with dangerous viruses to other people.

Before this, expressed in the letter some clarifications requested were taken into account to avoid an initiative “that violates the dignity and promotes stigma toward people living with HIV”, among which are: the importance of promoting actions in favour of the recognition of the human rights of women in the international order of the various instruments in this field has signed and ratified the Mexican State; not to seek punishment for behaviour that is perceived as wilful misconduct in relation to HIV and other sexually transmitted infections, because the scientific evidence indicates that HIV prevention is not achieved with punitive measures, but with public health policies that facilitate actions that promote changes at the structural level.

Also mentioned that the criminalization stigma and discrimination toward people living with HIV, including girls, children, adolescents and women, so that it is contradictory to promote actions that are contrary to the dignity of these vulnerable groups; the difficulty of determining causality, fraud, the intentionality as a number of factors in HIV transmission, such as: the possibility of the transmission, the type of exposure, the use or not of the condom, the stage of the infection, if you take your antiretroviral treatment or not, if you have a detectable load or not, if there are concomitant diseases, the status of the receiving partner and agreements established between couples.

They emphasized that the punitive measures, such as which is intended to legislate, could hinder and affect the various multisectoral action in the field of prevention, detection and care in our state. Could influence that people perceive HIV risk factors, to bypass an early detection in order not to know their status, in virtue of preventing a possible criminal proceedings.

In addition to the specific content of this initiative of “danger of contagion” could cause the legal responsibility of the HIV prevention falls only on those living with HIV, and this could be invisibilizarse the public health message that sexual partners have shared responsibility about their sexual health. And that this type of adjustments to the Criminal Code will promote higher levels of stigma and discrimination toward the various populations with HIV and their families.

Contrary to this, recounted in the Charter, should label resources to prevent, detect and respond in a timely manner HIV; to improve the quality and comprehensiveness of care services provided from the capasits and hospitals in the health sector; and reduce stigma and discrimination toward the populations affected by HIV and other STIS.

———————————————————–

Le Llaman la atención a Diputada Beristain: Piden asociaciones detener iniciativa de penalización del VIH

Leslie Gordillo

CANCÚN, MX,- Integrantes de asociaciones exhortaron a las comisiones de Justicia, Derechos Humanos, Desarrollo Familiar y Grupos en Situación de Vulnerabilidad y de la Gran Comisión, en particular a la diputada Laura Esther Beristaín Navarrete, a reconsiderar la penalización del VIH y a bajar esta iniciativa, que pretende colocar a las personas con VIH bajo un estatus de posibles criminales.

“No podemos permitir acciones que criminalidad y penalicen y mucho menos a partir de un partido que supuestamente abraza las causas y dieron a conocer una agenda donde va trabajar con los grupos de riesgo, entonces no está siendo congruente el partido y mucho menos sus integrantes en este caso la diputada de la comisión de salud”, expresó Roberto Guzmán, de Red + Posithiva de Quintana Roo AC, organismo que se unió a ICW México y UNAYAC.

Este llamado se hizo a través de una carta entregada en la ciudad de Chetumal a los grupos ya mencionados, en donde expresan los puntos a consideración, a sabiendas que estas comisiones son responsables de dictaminar la iniciativa de “Decreto por el que se reforma el Artículo 113 y se adiciona dentro de la sección tercera delitos contra la sociedad, el titulo séptimo, delitos contra la salud pública”, la cual pretende reformar el artículo 113 del código penal y castigar de 5 a 25 años con prisión a quien contagie o infecte con virus peligrosos a otras personas.

Ante esto, manifestaron en la carta algunas precisiones que pidieron fueran tomadas en cuenta para evitar así una iniciativa “que atenta contra la dignidad y promueve el estigma hacia las personas con VIH”, entre las que destacan:

La importancia de impulsar acciones a favor del reconocimiento de los derechos humanos de las mujeres en el orden internacional de los diversos instrumentos que en esta materia ha suscrito y ratificado el Estado mexicano; no buscar castigo para las conductas que se perciben como dolosas en relación al VIH y otras infecciones sexuales, ya que la evidencia científica  señala que la prevención del VIH no se logra con medidas punitivas, sino con políticas en salud pública que faciliten acciones que promuevan cambios a nivel estructural.

Mencionaron también que la penalización favorece el estigma y la discriminación hacia personas con VIH, incluyendo a las niñas, niños, adolescentes y mujeres, por lo que resulta contradictorio impulsar acciones que contravienen a la dignidad de estos grupos vulnerables; la dificultad de determinar la causalidad, el dolo, la intencionalidad ya que intervienen diversos factores en la trasmisión del VIH, como: la posibilidad de la trasmisión, el tipo de exposición, el uso o no del condón, la etapa de la infección, sí lleva tratamiento antirretroviral o no, si tiene carga detectable o no, si existen enfermedades concomitantes, el estado de la pareja receptora y los acuerdos establecidos entre parejas.

Enfatizaron que las medidas punitivas como las que se pretende legislar, podrían obstaculizar y afectar las diversas acciones multisectoriales en materia de prevención, detección y atención del VIH en nuestro Estado. Podría influir a que las personas que se perciban con factores de riesgo ante el VIH, omitan realizarse una detección temprana a fin de no conocer su estado serológico en virtud de prevenir un posible proceso penal. 

Además de que el contenido en específico de esta iniciativa de “Peligro de contagio” podría provocar que la responsabilidad jurídica de la prevención del VIH recaiga solamente en quienes viven con VIH, y con ello podría invisibilizarse el mensaje de salud pública de que las parejas sexuales tienen responsabilidad compartida sobre su salud sexual. Y que este tipo de adecuaciones al Código Penal promoverán mayores niveles de estigma y discriminación hacia las diversas poblaciones con VIH y sus familias.

Contrario a esto, relataron en la carta, deberían etiquetar recursos para prevenir, detectar y atender oportunamente el VIH; mejorar la calidad e integralidad de los servicios de atención otorgados desde los CAPASITS y hospitales del sector salud; y disminuir el estigma y la discriminación hacia las poblaciones afectadas por el VIH y otras ITS. 

Mexico: Senator in Quintana Roo presents initiative to sentence people living with HIV to up to 25 years in prison in cases of alleged HIV transmission

PRD proposes 25 years of imprisonment to anyone who transmits HIV in Quintana Roo.

Laura Esther Beristáin Navarrete, a local senator from the PRD, presented an initiative to the Congress of Quintana Roo to sentence with up to 25 years in prison those who transmit HIV to another person.

The initiative has been described as stigmatising and a violation of the human rights of people living with the virus.

Faced with the proposal of the PRD, a group of civil organisations that fight against HIV, among them the Positive Network of Quintana Roo, ICW Mexico and Unayac, addressed a letter to the local congress in which they ask the Commission for Justice, Human Rights, Family Development and Vulnerable Groups to discard this initiative to criminalise people with HIV.

“We will not allow AIDS to be penalised by a party like the PRD, who claims to fight for the underprivileged and social causes” said Roberto Guzman, a member of the Positive Network of Quintana Roo.

The initiative seeks to reform Article 113 of the local Penal Code in order to include in the third section about “Crimes against Society”, a point that will detail crimes that threaten public health. In this way, those who transmit HIV to another person will be punished with a sentence of up to 5 to 25 years in prison.

The activists said that if this amendment to article 113 was approved, it would undermine the dignity of people living with HIV by listing them as alleged criminals, and warned that the initiative has as a background the promotion of stigma towards this population.

They also clarified that Mexico has signed international agreements in favour of the rights of people with the virus and against its criminalisation.

“The evidence points out that to prevent HIV, punitive measures are not recommended, but public health policies that promote structural changes are,” said Guzmán, who insisted that the penalty will directly affect other prevention strategies, as people will resist having an HIV test out of fear of stigma, which will interfere with the timely detection of the virus and its treatment.

In response to the demands of civil society, Beristaín defended her proposal and said that the initiative is not against people with HIV, but seeks to care for the health of the inhabitants of the state and punish those who pose a threat against it.

Finally she invited the activists to read the initiative in full. “The proposal has nothing against infected people. The only thing that seeks to take care of the health of the Quintana Roo society, it is not criminalising anyone, “said the deputy.

———————————————————

Laura Esther Beristáin Navarrete, senadora local de la bancada del PRD, presentó una iniciativa ante el Congreso de Quintana Roo para castigar con hasta 25 años de prisión a quienes transmitan el VIH a otra persona. La iniciativa ha sido calificada de estigmatizadora y de ir en contra de los derechos humanos de las personas que viven con el virus.

Frente a la propuesta de la perredista, un grupo de organizaciones civiles que luchan en contra del VIH, entre las que se encuentra La Red Positiva de Quintana Roo, ICW México y Unayac, dirigieron una carta al congreso local en el que solicitan a las comisiones de Justicia, Derechos Humanos, Desarrollo Familiar y Grupos Vulnerables que descarten dicha iniciativa por criminalizar a las personas con VIH.

“No permitiremos que se penalice el Sida por un partido como el PRD, que afirma luchar por los desvalidos y las causas sociales, anunciaron que la propia sociedad de Cancún trabajará por los grupos de riesgo”, declaró Roberto Guzmán, integrante de la Red Positiva de Quintana Roo.

La iniciativa busca reformar el artículo 113 del Código Penal local con el fin de incluir en la tercera sección los “Delitos contra la Sociedad”, punto en el que se detallarán los crímenes que atentan contra la salud pública. De esta forma, se castigará con una pena de 5 a 25 años de cárcel a quienes transmitan el VIH a otra persona.

Los activistas señalaron que de ser aprobada esta reforma al artículo 113 se atentaría contra la dignidad de las personas que viven con VIH al catalogarlas como presuntos criminales, además, alertaron que la iniciativa tiene como trasfondo la promoción del estigma hacia este sector poblacional. Asimismo, aclararon que México ha firmado convenios internacionales a favor de los derechos de las personas con el virus y en contra de su criminalización.

“Las pruebas señalan que para que la prevención del VIH no se recomiendan medidas punitivas, sino políticas de salud pública que promuevan cambios estructurales”, comentó Guzmán, quien insistió en que la penalización afectará de forma directa otras acciones de prevención, pues las personas se resistirán a hacerse una prueba de VIH por temor al estigma, lo cual se interpondrá en la detección oportuna del virus y en su tratamiento.

Ante los reclamos de la sociedad civil, Beristaín defendió su propuesta y dijo que la iniciativa no está en contra de las personas con VIH, sino que busca cuidar la salud de los habitantes del estado y castigar a quienes atenten contra ella. Finalmente invitó a los activistas a leer de forma completa la iniciativa.

“La propuesta no tiene nada en contra de las personas infectadas. Lo único que busca es cuidar la salud de la sociedad quintanarroense, no se está criminalizando a nadie”, señaló la diputada.

Con información de Milenio y Noticaribe. Imagen tomada del Congreso del Estado de Quintana Roo.

US: California State Senate votes to make HIV-exposure a misdemeanour instead of a felony, in line with other communicable diseases

Knowingly exposing others to HIV should no longer be a felony, state Senate says

The state Senate on Wednesday voted to no longer make it a felony for someone infected with HIV to knowingly expose others to the disease by having unprotected sex without telling his or her partner about the infection.

The crime would be downgraded to a misdemeanor, and the bill would also apply to people who donate blood or semen without telling the blood or semen bank that they have acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, or AIDS, or have tested positive for human immunodeficiency virus, or HIV, the precursor to AIDS.

The measure, which next goes to the Assembly for consideration, was introduced by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), who said it is unfair to make HIV/AIDS the only communicable disease given such harsh treatment by prosecutors.

“These laws are irrational and discriminatory,” Wiener told the Senate, adding that the current felony status is “creating an incentive not to be tested, because if you don’t know your status you can’t be guilty of a felony.”

The measure was widely opposed by Republican lawmakers including Sen. Joel Anderson of San Diego.  “If you intentionally transmit something that is fundamentally life-threatening to the victim, you should be charged and go to jail,” he said.

Sen. Jeff Stone (R-Murrieta) said, “My friends, it’s not a gay issue. It’s a public health issue. We shouldn’t allow someone to play Russian roulette with other people’s lives.”

Sen. Richard Pan (D-Sacramento), a physician, voted for the bill and argued that it undermines public health to imprison those with HIV under the current law.

US: Lambda Legal describes California Senate Bill purpose to update HIV criminalisation laws

SB 239: A Long-Overdue Update of CA’s Discriminatory HIV Criminalization Laws

Lambda Legal | Scott Schoettes – California Senate Bill 239 is a long-overdue update of California’s outdated and discriminatory criminal laws targeting people living with HIV. As a co-sponsor of this important legislation, Lambda Legal wants to correct some misperceptions and clarify the purpose of this bill.

SB 239 was introduced to improve public health by creating an environment in which more people are willing to get tested for HIV, to obtain the medical treatment they need to protect their own health and the health of others and to discuss their HIV status with sexual partners.

By singling out people who know they are HIV-positive for severe criminal punishment as a result of sexual activity, regardless whether there was any real risk of transmission or any harm actually occurred, current law inhibits rather than encourages the exact practices that will help combat HIV/AIDS.

Let’s get the biggest misperception about SB 239 out of the way first.

SB 239 does not change California law with respect to disclosure of a person’s HIV status.

Current law does not require disclosure of one’s HIV-positive status prior to sexual activity. While it is true that the current HIV exposure statute applies only if the person did not disclose their HIV-positive status; mere nondisclosure isn’t a violation of the law. Rather, the person must also act with the specific intent to transmit HIV.

SB 239 would not change that.

Instead, SB 239 updates the law to incorporate the current scientific understanding of HIV.

For example, we now know that people living with HIV who are taking HIV medications—and therefore have a suppressed viral load—cannot transmit HIV to their sexual partners. With that in mind, SB 239 clarifies that activities undertaken to reduce the risk of transmission—such as using a condom or being on treatment—demonstrate a lack of intent to transmit HIV (or, for that matter, any other disease).

These refinements of the law help define the limited circumstances under which it is appropriate to penalize disease transmission.

SB 239 also eliminates the injustice in California criminal law for people living with HIV.

Under current law, HIV is the only medical condition that can result in a felony conviction. And individuals with HIV can be subject to a longer potential sentence than for certain types of manslaughter.

Exposure to all other infectious or communicable diseases—several of them also incurable or potentially fatal if untreated—would result in at most a misdemeanor conviction.

Given that HIV is now a manageable condition for people with access to care, it is time to stop putting it in a class all by itself. SB 239 would pull HIV out of its own separate statute and include it in the law that applies to every other serious communicable disease.

Eliminating this type of discrimination against people living with HIV is an important step in achieving the public health goals of SB 239.

Thanks to modern medical science, we now have the tools needed to make AIDS a thing of the past.

People who are diagnosed with HIV in a timely fashion and receive the necessary medical care can expect to lead long, healthy lives. But currently, approximately one in seven people living with HIV in the United States is unaware of their HIV-positive status, and only 40% of people living with HIV are engaged in medical care and have a suppressed viral load.

We must increase the number of people who know their HIV status and are on treatment, and SB 239 will help achieve that.

There is a tremendous amount of work to be done to eliminate public misconceptions about HIV, the routes and relative risks of transmission and the stigma that stems from these misconceptions.

But one thing California can do immediately is remove the discrimination in the law against people with HIV.

That is what SB 239 is designed to do and that’s why over 100 organizations support the bill, including APLA Health, the Black AIDS Institute, Equality California, Positive Women’s Network-USA, ACLU of California, National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directors (NASTAD), HIV Medicine Association, SF AIDS Foundation, Bienestar, Planned Parenthood of California, Transgender Law Center and Human Rights Watch.

Together, we can make California law on this subject a model for the whole country.

US: HIV criminalisation laws are outdated, stigmatising and applied unfairly and it’s time to end the cycle says Erika D. Smith

The AIDS crisis is over. Why are people still going to jail over HIV? 

BY ERIKA D. SMITH

I’m not in the habit of quoting Ronald Reagan. But on Monday, as legislation that would greatly reduce the criminal penalties for transmitting HIV moved one step closer to a vote in the California Senate, I couldn’t help but think of words penned by the former president.

The year was 1990 and my teacher handed out a Washington Post article for the class to read.

“We owe it to Ryan to make sure that the fear and ignorance that chased him from his home and his school will be eliminated,” Reagan wrote. “We owe it to Ryan to open our hearts and our minds to those with AIDS. We owe it to Ryan to be compassionate, caring and tolerant toward those with AIDS, their families and friends.”

He was reacting to the death of Ryan White, a blond-haired boy from the Midwest who had contracted HIV during a blood transfusion for hemophilia and was diagnosed with AIDS. White wasn’t like the then-mysterious gay men in California and New York, or even the IV drug users in inner cities, who had been falling ill and dying by the thousands. He was an “innocent” victim.

At 13 years old, he got thrust into the national spotlight because he wanted to go to school with his friends. But because it was the height of the AIDS epidemic, an era when fear and willful ignorance regularly trumped facts, the school district fought his family at every turn.

As a 13-year-old girl in a Midwestern suburb, I identified with him.

Over time, that vague fear of AIDS that I once had has been replaced with an understanding that HIV is a chronic illness that can be easily managed with medication. It’s no longer a death sentence. What’s more, it’s highly unlikely that someone with an undetectable level of HIV in his or her blood, which is pretty common these days for undergoing treatment, will transmit the virus to anyone else.

Heck, hepatitis C kills three times as many people as HIV does.

But in California and more than 30 other states, dozens of laws remain on the books to punish people who willfully expose others to the virus. To this day, people still get charged with felonies over HIV and go to prison for five, 10 or even 20 years. In some states, those convicted must register as a sex offender for life.

These laws aren’t “compassionate,” “caring” or “tolerant” toward people with HIV or AIDS. They’re fear-based holdovers from the days of the “gay plague,” which in many ways, the Reagan administration callously let happen by ignoring the disease and its victims for far too long. Back in the 1980s, Reagan wasn’t “compassionate,” “caring” or “tolerant.”

San Francisco was ground zero, with three times as many AIDS cases per capita as New York and 10 times as many as Los Angeles. At one point, about half of San Francisco’s gay men were infected and most expected to die within 10 years. I’ve heard horror stories from gay men with gray hair, many of them tearing up just thinking about all the friends and partners they lost.

So it’s telling that it’s a gay man from San Francisco, Sen. Scott Wiener, who is pushing the bill that would greatly reduce the penalties for transmitting HIV.

Where California now has four felony offenses on the books for people who deliberately pass along the virus, Senate Bill 239 would repeal two of them and reduce two others to a misdemeanor, just like the intentional transmission of every other infectious or communicable disease.

The bill advanced out of the Senate Appropriations Committee on Monday and Wiener hopes to get it to the Senate floor by May or June.

So far, only the California Right to Life Committee has come out in opposition. Meanwhile, the list of groups in support is long, from the California Medical Association to Equality California to the ACLU.

Their reasoning is pretty plain. One is that threatening to punish people for transmitting HIV does absolutely nothing for public health. It only encourages people to hide their status or not get tested at all. You can’t be charged with infecting someone with something you didn’t know you had.

Another reason is that research shows that the laws are applied unfairly. White men, for example, make up 40 percent of the people diagnosed with HIV in California, but only 16 percent of the individuals who’ve had contact with law enforcement over it, according to the Williams Institute at UCLA.

Meanwhile, black women make up only 4 percent of the Californians diagnosed with HIV, but account for 21 percent of people who have gotten in trouble for it. A good number of them are sex workers, turning a potential misdemeanor prostitution charge into a felony.

Only about 1,260 people were accused of an HIV-related crime in California between 1988 and 2014. Of those who were convicted, 85 percent were sent to prison.

So far, only Iowa and Colorado have acted to repeal their laws. If California is next, it could potentially accelerate a fledgling national trend toward decriminalization.

There’s little hope of accomplishing change at the federal level, even though public health officials have been pushing for it for years. In Congress, Reps. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., introduced the Repeal HIV Discrimination Act, but it’s likely to go nowhere. There has been resistance, particularly among Republicans.

Like the Reagan administration, red state lawmakers started paying attention to AIDS because of Ryan White, a boy unfairly marginalized by people who didn’t understand HIV or how it is contracted. Following an early provision in the Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency Act, which provided funding for education and treatment, they passed misguided laws to prosecute people over HIV or AIDS.

California just beat middle America to the punch.

Now the remnants of those laws are being used to marginalize a whole new group of people with HIV, many of them opioid addicts in red states spreading the virus through dirty needles. It’s time to be “compassionate,” “caring” or “tolerant.” It’s time to end the cycle.

Published in the Sacramento Bee on April 24, 2017

US: Senate bill aiming to update existing HIV criminalisation laws in Florida progresses to next stage

Bill to Modernize HIV Criminalization Makes Progress

On March 21, the Criminal Justice Committee of the Florida Senate unanimously passed Senate Bill 628 (SB628). This bill would align Florida’s HIV criminalization laws with current science, modernizing them.

The Health Policy Committee of the Florida Senate will vote on this bill next. Three other Senate Committees and the Florida House still have to approve it, before it becomes law.

SB628 brings Florida’s HIV criminalization laws, written in the ‘80s, into this century. It requires proof of intent to infect and reduces the maximum sentence. Gender neutral, it replaces “sexual intercourse” with “sexual conduct.” SB628 treats HIV as one among many sexually transmitted infections.

A conviction under current law results in a felony with five-year maximum sentence. Under SB628, a conviction would result in a misdemeanor with a one-year maximum sentence.

SB628 requires proof of intent to infect. Use of a condom or compliance with a prescribed treatment would disprove intent to infect. As SB628 requires proof of “a substantial risk of transmission,” it would exclude spitting.

SB628 replaces the term “sexual intercourse” with the term “sexual conduct.” Sexual conduct would include both mixed- and same-sex sexual conduct. The bill defines sexual conduct to include anal intercourse, vaginal intercourse, and oral sex, including “rimming.”

This bill “normalizes” HIV as one of many bacterial, fungal, viral, or parasitic sexually transmitted infections. SB628 adds human papilloma virus and hepatitis to these infections.

Kamaria Laffrey, Florida Community Organizer for Sero Project, an HIV-criminalization reform group, defined modernization as “making the laws current.”  She referred to a growing consensus that people with a suppressed viral load cannot transmit the virus. She stressed the importance of keeping “your message clean and relatable to the legislators in your state.”

Some people associated with Black Lives Matter have criticized modernizing HIV Criminalization Laws. They charge that lawmakers, police, prosecutors, and judges target Black people for excessive punishment. They cite racial differences in mass incarceration and police violence as evidence. Even modernized HIV criminalization laws could still leave Black people vulnerable to police and prosecutorial excess. As a woman of color, Laffrey understands this criticism. She, however, remains focused on what can work to improve people’s lives now.

The first step to viral suppression consists in knowing one’s HIV status. Laffrey described HIV criminalization as punishing “those that know their status and privileging those that are ignorant.” As such, these laws discourage HIV testing.

Laffrey lauded SB628 as a bi-partisan effort. Rene Garcia, a Miami-Dade Republican has sponsored this bill. Daphne Campbell, a Miami-Dade Democrat, has cosponsored it. Laffrey described Garcia as “very straightforward on what’s possible and what’s not.” They have been able to talk about necessary compromises, but have focused on modernization.

She said, “We really lucked out with Garcia.” He has a history of supporting HIV issues in Florida. Garcia also chairs the Miami-Dade “Getting to Zero” Task Force. That group advises that county how to control HIV.

Laffrey also praised the Florida HIV Justice Coalition, the activists behind SB628. She described them as, “A passionate bunch of people that are excited about this process happening in Florida. Watching reform happen in Iowa and Colorado, I was on the edge of my seat wondering when this would happen in Florida. They’re just an amazing group of people that are in it for the long haul.”

The Florida HIV Justice Coalition meets once per month via webinar. Between meetings, people communicate via email. If someone wants to know more about this group, they can email Laffrey at Kamaria.laffrey@seroproject.com. If they would like to join, they can ask Laffrey to add them to the listserv.

Published in SFGN on April 14, 2017

US: Michigan candidates for the governor's office call for State's HIV felony law to be repealed

Dem Gubernatorial Candidates Call for Reform of State’s HIV-Specific Law

Advocates Applaud Move, Encourage Legislative Action Before New Governor Takes Office in 2019

LANSING – Calling Michigan’s HIV-specific felony law “discriminatory” and “wrong to criminalize sickness,” the two declared candidates for the governor’s office say it’s time to reform the law.

“I’m a strong believer in science, and in the years this law has been on the books, significant strides have been made in HIV treatment and prevention,” said Gretchen Whitmer, the former State Senate Minority Leader and Ingham County Prosecutor. She’s declared her candidacy for the Democratic nomination for governor in 2018 earlier this year. “Yet prosecutions are often driven by fear and stigma, not science, just as the legislation itself was when it was passed. It’s wrong to criminalize sickness, which is what this law has effectively done. It absolutely should be revisited.”

Last month, Abdul El-Sayed, the former director of the City of Detroit’s Department of Health and Wellness Promotion, told Between The Lines that Michigan’s law “absolutely” should be repealed.

“You should not be criminalized for a disease,” he said. The 32-year-old doctor was a Rhoades Scholar and in his role as the director of Michigan’s most populous city’s health and wellness promotion, he dealt first hand with the ongoing HIV crisis in Detroit. “That is absolutely wrong. It’s hateful. It’s discriminatory, and we can, as a state, do better. You can count on me for that.”

Michigan passed the AIDS-Penetration with Uninformed Partner Law in 1988. Former lawmaker Susan Grimes Gilbert (formerly Grimes Munsell) lead the charge to pass Michigan’s law as well as participated in the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) working group on the subject. That group recommended the development of HIV Assault laws in all 50 states

In an interview presented in a report in The Advocate and The American Independent News Network in 2013, she acknowledged that the law was driven by fear.

“At that time people were scared to death of [AIDS],” Grimes Munsell told the news outlets. She acknowledged much had changed since that time.

“I think it is time to repeal the [felony] law,” she said in 2013. “In fact, I don’t do this very often, but I am willing to lobby for that change.”

Her voice added to an already growing chorus calling for reform. Among them, the former staffer from ALEC who wrote the group’s draft legislation and policy recommendations and a member of President Ronald Reagan’s Commission on HIV, commonly called “The Watkins Commission.”

Social scientists and activists have criticized the laws for years as unfairly stigmatizing those living with HIV as people hell bent on transmitting their infection to others. They’ve noted the laws have little impact on behavior and at least one study has found that high profile prosecutions for HIV nondisclosure lead those most at risk of HIV infection to decline HIV testing and sexual health counseling from healthcare providers.

State Rep. Jon Hoadley (D-Kalamazoo) has been floating draft legislation for the last six months to modernize Michigan’s HIV law. Specifically, his proposal would eliminate the current felony law, and create in its stead two misdemeanor laws.

Both misdemeanor laws would require prosecutors prove beyond a reasonable doubt the accused not only had HIV, but intended to transmit the infection and took actions that had a likelihood of transmitting the virus. The lower of the two misdemeanors -which would carry up to 93 days in jail – would be used if there was no transmission. The one-year misdemeanor would be used if there was transmission of the virus.

The legislation garnered a number of co-sponsors last session, but Hoadley did not introduce it.

Activists supporting modernizing Michigan law say they are pleased the two Democratic gubernatorial candidates are raising the issue.

“We are very pleased to see the issues related to the unjust, unscientific law criminalizing HIV being taken up by candidates for the top office in the state,” says Kelly Doyle, the coalition manager for the Michigan Coalition for HIV Health and Safety. “This is about fairness and reducing stigma, and having top candidates talking about this issue helps reduce the stigma and highlight the problems.”

She was joined in that praise by Curtis Lipscomb, executive director of LGBT Detroit. He released a statement to BTL saying his group was “pleased” that the candidates “reject Michigan’s outdated HIV criminalization laws and the notion of criminalizing disease.”

“We must get rid of stigma around HIV/AIDS, testing, prevention and treatment – and listening to science is the only way to do that,” Lipscomb said.

He said his group is eager to continue discussions with the legislature “to move to repeal this dangerous law.”

Doyle echoed that sentiment, “Of course, this legislature could check one item off the beginning of the 2019 gubernatorial term by passing legislation now which brings Michigan in line with common sense public health approaches which ensure of the safety of all Michiganders.”

Published in PrideSource on April 13, 2017

Canada: Top Canadian scientists release statement calling for measures to address the overly broad use of criminal charges in HIV non-disclosure cases

Canada’s top HIV researchers urge federal, provincial and territorial governments to act now to limit the use of the criminal law in HIV non-disclosure cases

MONTRÉAL, QC, April 6, 2017 — As the country’s premier national HIV research conference gets underway, the original co-signatories of the Canadian consensus statement on HIV and its transmission in the context of criminal law (2014) are releasing a statement expressing their deep concern about the ongoing, overly broad use of the criminal law in HIV non-disclosure cases, irrespective of the possibility of transmission or whether transmission actually occurred.

Used correctly, an unbroken condom offers 100% protection against HIV transmission. Several recent, large clinical trials have also found that effective antiretroviral therapy (ART) prevented HIV transmission to HIV-negative partners in both male same-sex and heterosexual sero-discordant couples.

“Now that we have data that clearly demonstrates people with HIV with undetectable viral loads are at basically zero risk of infecting their partners, it’s past time for the law to catch up with the science,” says Dr. Mona Loutfy, Women’s College Hospital, who is presenting at the annual Canadian Conference on HIV/AIDS Research.

“When taken and monitored consistently, the ability of ART to prevent HIV transmission has been repeatedly demonstrated. It is time that the criminal law recognizes this,” adds Dr. Rupert Kaul from the University of Toronto.

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in 2012 that disclosure is required before sex that poses a “realistic possibility” of HIV transmission. However, since that ruling, individuals have been prosecuted regardless of whether transmission occurred and even in cases posing no realistic possibility of transmission. This has led to further fear and uncertainty in the HIV community regarding disclosure obligations. The federal Department of Justice is consulting with senior officials from provincial and territorial governments to review how HIV non-disclosure cases are prosecuted.

At the 2014 annual Canadian Conference on HIV/AIDS Research, nearly 80 scientific experts on HIV released a peer-reviewed consensus statement about the then-available science regarding HIV transmission possibilities associated with various acts, noting their concern that the criminal justice system was out of step with the science. Additional research results since then have further confirmed the conclusions in that statement. Last December, on World AIDS Day, the federal Minister of Justice acknowledged the need to take action to address the overly broad use of criminal charges.

The Board of Directors of the Canadian Association for HIV Research (CAHR), the host of CAHR 2017, supports the call for measures to limit the overly broad use of the criminal law, including developing prosecutorial guidelines that are informed by human rights and public health principles, and based on current scientific evidence regarding HIV transmission.

“In consultation with people living with HIV, public health and human rights experts, we urge the federal Minister of Justice and the provincial and territorial Attorneys General to develop prosecutorial guidelines that eliminate the serious adverse individual and public health impacts caused by the inappropriate use of the criminal law,” says Dr. Mark Tyndall, Executive Director of the British Columbia Centre for Disease Control.

 

About the British Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS

The BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS (BC-CfE—http://cfenet.ubc.ca) is Canada’s largest HIV/AIDS research, treatment and education facility and is internationally recognized as an innovative world leader in combating HIV/AIDS and related diseases. BC-CfE is based at St. Paul’s Hospital, Providence Health Care, a teaching hospital of the University of British Columbia. The BC-CfE works in close collaboration with key provincial stakeholders, including government, health authorities, health care providers, academics from other institutions, and the community to decrease the health burden of HIV and AIDS. By developing, monitoring and disseminating comprehensive research and treatment programs for HIV and related illnesses, the BC-CfE helps improve the health of British Columbians.

Published on BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS website on April 6, 2017

US: Updates on 4 states that may reform HIV Criminalisation laws

What’s New in HIV Criminalization in the United States: Congress, California, Florida, Georgia, Ohio and Utah

By Victoria Law

From TheBody.com

April 6, 2017

Table of Contents

Will Congress modernize HIV laws and policies? Advocates certainly hope so. Here’s an update, plus a look at four states that may reform laws that criminalize HIV non-disclosure and transmission — and one state that’s increasing penalties for people living with HIV.

REPEALing Policies That Encourage and Allow HIV Discrimination

On the federal level, Congress is considering HR 1739 or the REPEAL HIV Discrimination Act of 2017. If passed, the Act directs the attorney general, the secretary of Health and Human Services and the secretary of defense to initiate a national review of federal (including military) and state laws, policies, regulations and judicial decisions regarding criminal and related civil commitment cases involving people living with HIV or AIDS. This last part means that, if it were passed, federal agencies (including all branches of the military) would review past HIV cases and decisions based on current knowledge about HIV transmission.

“We’ve got incredible science data. Now we’ve got to get policymakers to understand,” Ken Pinkela, the military and federal policy director for the Sero Project, told TheBody.com. Though the Act would not force states to follow suit, having a mandate on the federal level would influence policies on the state level. Furthermore, not only would Pinkela personally benefit if the REPEAL Act were passed, but so would every other member of the military who has been criminalized and discharged because of their HIV status.

California Looks to Reduce HIV Criminalization

In February, California state lawmakers introduced SB 239. The bill reduces HIV transmission from a felony with three, five or eight years in prison to a misdemeanor with jail time of no more than six months.

The bill also lessens penalties for people engaged in sex work. Currently, if a person is convicted of prostitution or another sexual offense, he or she is subject to an HIV test. If this person tests positive and is later arrested again for prostitution or another sexual offense, existing law makes them guilty of a felony. The bill deletes both of these provisions, meaning that people arrested for sex work are no longer required to submit to an HIV test and, if they are arrested again, they are not subject to a felony based on HIV status.

SB 239 also requires any court or agency that has records related to the deleted provisions to destroy them by June 30, 2018. Finally, the bill requires a court to vacate related convictions.

“These [existing] laws are disproportionately used against women and people of color, and fuel stigma, violence and discrimination,” stated Naina Khanna, executive director of the Positive Women’s Network – USA, when the bill was introduced.

The numbers prove this. Nearly half (43%) of those criminalized under California’s HIV-specific criminal laws are women, though women make up only 13% of Californians living with HIV. Though blacks and Latinx people make up only half of Californians living with HIV, they are more than two-thirds of those who came into contact with the criminal justice system based on their HIV status. The intersections have hit black women particularly hard. They comprise 4% of the state’s HIV population, yet make up 21% of those with criminal justice encounters because of their status. In contrast, white men, who make up 40% of people in the state diagnosed with HIV, compose 16% of those who encounter the criminal justice system because of their HIV status.

The bill passed the Senate’s Public Safety Committee by a vote of 5 to 2. It is now before the Appropriations Committee.

“Florida Doesn’t Want to Be First in New HIV Cases”

Under Florida law, it’s a crime to not disclose HIV status prior to sex. This was how [65-year-old Gary Debaun was arrested and charged with unlawful sexual transmission of a disease. Prosecutors charge that Debaun forged medical records declaring that he was HIV-negative to show to his then-partner. Under current law, creating a false report to hide the presence of HIV or other communicable diseases is a third-degree felony]].

Debaun’s attorney attempted to use another outdated law to prevent his conviction — that since Florida law defines sex as between a man and a woman, “sexual intercourse” only applies to heterosexual sex. Though a lower court agreed and dismissed the case, the state’s appellate court overturned that ruling. In March, the state’s Supreme Court also rejected that argument. The district attorney’s office has stated that it plans to re-introduce the charges.

However, the law may be changing. In March, the Senate Criminal Justice Committee voted unanimously in favor of SB 628, which updates existing HIV criminalization laws. If passed, a person with HIV would no longer be considered acting with intent to transmit if he or she were undergoing treatment, used a condom or other method to prevent transmission or had offered to do so (even if the offer was rejected by the other person). The bill would also reduce non-disclosure in other instances and the creation of a false report to hide HIV status from a felony to a first-degree misdemeanor.

“Florida doesn’t want to be first in new HIV cases; we want to be first in the effort to end the HIV epidemic,” said Senator Rene Garcia, the bill’s chief sponsor. Thanking service providers and advocacy groups such as the AIDS Healthcare Foundation and the Sero Project, he stated, “Today’s unanimous vote by the Senate Criminal Justice Committee is an important step.” The bill is now in the Health Policy Committee.

Georgia Convenes a Committee

Under current Georgia law, a person living with HIV or hepatitis can be arrested and sentenced to up to ten years in prison if they do not disclose their status before having sex, sharing needles or donating blood. If a person with HIV or hepatitis throws bodily fluids (such as urine, blood, feces or saliva) on a peace officer or correctional officer, they face up to 20 years in prison. It does not matter that spit does not transmit. Over 50,000 Georgians live with HIV and approximately 3,000 are newly diagnosed each year.

Similar to other parts of the country, HIV criminalization laws have not only resulted in prison sentences, but have also had a chilling effect on people’s day-to-day safety. Testifying before the House Special Rules Committee, Nina Martinez, a member of the Coalition to End HIV Criminalization in Georgia, recounted being sexually assaulted by a fellow student at Emory University nine years earlier. “Because of this law I immediately knew that I wasn’t going to report it to law enforcement,” she told them. “It was never going to be about consent, it was going to be about my HIV status. And so I was afraid of the very real possibility of going to prison for my own sexual assault because of this law.”

In February, Georgia Representative Sharon Cooper introduced House Resolution 240, which proposed creating a Joint Study Committee on Reforming HIV Related Criminal Laws. The following month, Senator Vincent Fort introduced the Senate counterpart, Resolution 465. “Most of these laws do not account for actual scientifically supported levels of risk by types of activities engaged in or risk reduction measures taken,” stated the resolution. “As a result, many of these state laws criminalize behaviors that the [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] regards as posing either no or negligible risk for HIV transmission even in the absence of risk reduction measures[.]” The committee includes not only state senators, but also a representative from the Department of Health, a criminal defense attorney and a community-based HIV service provider.

Ohio Rethinks HIV Criminalization

In 2016, the Ohio Supreme Court announced that it would hear State of Ohio v. Orlando Batista, in which Batista was convicted of non-disclosure and sentenced to eight years in prison. At issue are the state’s HIV laws, which classify non-disclosure as a felonious assault. Like current California laws, if a person tested positive for HIV after being arrested for solicitation, that would increase the charge from a misdemeanor to a felony if they were arrested again.

As in other states, lawmakers, pressed by advocates and medical professionals, are beginning to rethink HIV criminalization. On March 2, the state’s Recodification Committee examined proposed amendments to its HIV criminal law. The Committee will vote on the amendments at a later date.

Utah Enacts Heavier Penalties for People With HIV

While some states are considering decriminalizing HIV, Utah is moving in the opposite direction. In March, Governor Gary Richard Herbert signed HB 369, or the Sexual Offenses and Statutory Nonconsent Amendments, into law.

As of 2013, 2,565 people living in Utah had been diagnosed with HIV, a rate of 115 per every 100,000 people. The following year, 120 people were newly diagnosed, a rate of five per every 100,000 people.

Initially, the bill criminalized HIV non-disclosure with the first draft making it a felony. In later drafts, non-disclosure became a misdemeanor.

Testifying against the bill in February, Troy Williams, the executive director of Equality Utah, expressed concern that the measure would discourage people from being tested and encouraged the state to instead promote testing and treatment. “We would want to do everything in our power to open the doors to encourage people to be tested,” he said. His concerns have been echoed by other advocates, including people living with HIV.

Those concerns seem to have been heard; the final law does not include criminalization for non-disclosure. It does, however, enhance penalties for people convicted of non-consensual sex offenses if they have HIV, hepatitis B or hepatitis C. The wording of the law does not acknowledge that people who are virally suppressed are not at risk of transmitting HIV through sex.

Victoria Law is a freelance writer and editor. Her work focuses on the intersections of incarceration, gender and resistance. She is the author of Resistance Behind Bars: The Struggles of Incarcerated Women.

Published in the Body on April 7, 2017

US: Promising development for Georgia advocates as State lawmakers create committee to assess HIV laws

Georgia lawmakers poised to study HIV decriminalization

Advocates for decriminalizing HIV in Georgia saw small wins last week as two measures from state lawmakers that would create committees to study the issue moved closer to passage.

Nina Martinez, a member of the Coalition to End HIV Criminalization in Georgia, testified about one of the measures before the House Special Rules Committee on Wednesday.

“Our HIV non-disclosure statute makes it a felony crime for me not to disclose my HIV-positive status before engaging in private consensual conduct, without regard to whether or not measures are taken to prevent HIV exposure and transmission. Without harming anyone or intending to harm anyone, I could face up to 10 years of imprisonment,” Martinez told the committee.

In Georgia, HIV criminalization laws make it a felony for an HIV-positive person to engage in sex without first disclosing their status. The laws also criminalize acts like spitting when the behavior is directed at law enforcement officers with penalties that include up to 20 years in prison.

Rep. Dominic LaRiccia, a Republican from Douglas, challenged Martinez on her statement.

“Would you share briefly a specific instance, personally, of where you have been discriminated against and how it impacted your ability to move freely and do all the things that you do?” LaRiccia asked.

Martinez responded by discussing being the victim of an attack that she decided against reporting to law enforcement over concerns about her HIV status.

“About nine years ago I was sexually assaulted by an Emory undergraduate student. I was at Emory for graduate school, and because of this law I immediately knew that I wasn’t going to report it to law enforcement,” Martinez said.

“It was never going to be about consent, it was going to be about my HIV status. And so I was afraid of the very real possibility of going to prison for my own sexual assault because of this law,” she added.

Martinez also spoke on a panel about HIV decriminalization in November.

Rep. Buddy Harden, the Republican chair of the committee, quickly thanked Martinez for her testimony and the committee voted to approve the resolution. The measure, House Resolution 240, is from Rep. Sharon Cooper, a Marietta Republican.

But the resolution that passed last week was a watered down version of what Cooper initially proposed in February. It called for the creation of a Joint Study Committee on Reforming HIV Related Criminal Laws but was pared back to propose a House-only committee that will investigate reforms needed to address a variety of chronic illnesses, including HIV, as well as asthma, obesity, shingles and influenza.

The new language now calls on the study committee to “assess the HIV laws’ alignment with current evidence regarding HIV transmission risk and consider whether these laws are the best vehicle to achieve their intended purpose,” in addition to addressing the other chronic health issues.

Cooper’s revised resolution also states:

“WHEREAS, identifying the barriers to HIV awareness, testing, and early linkage to care would be in the state’s best interest; Georgia ranks fifth in the nation for new HIV diagnoses; the Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta area is listed as eighth in cities with the highest rate of new HIV infection; it is estimated that one in 51 Georgians are at risk of contracting HIV in their future.”

Lawmakers create study committees to hear expert testimony and collect information about an issue ahead of possible legislative action. It is too late in the session to gain approval for a joint study committee – one that includes House and Senate members – so the measure approved last week was limited to a House study committee. That means it only needs House approval to create the nine-member study committee that would include five lawmakers and four health experts.

With just two days – Tuesday and Thursday – left in the session, it’s not clear if Cooper’s resolution will see a full House vote.

The other promising study committee is from Sen. Vincent Fort (photo), an Atlanta Democrat who introduced Senate Resolution 465. That resolution would create a nine-person panel and includes language from Cooper’s original resolution:

“[M]any of these state laws criminalize behaviors that the CDC regards as posing either no or negligible risk for HIV transmission even in the absence of risk reduction measures.”

Fort’s resolution received a favorable recommendation from a Senate committee but it’s not clear if the Senate Rules Committee will push the resolution to the full Senate for a vote.

LGBT and HIV activists have blasted HIV criminalization laws in nearly three-dozen states as a failure, criticizing the statues for adding stigma to HIV, keeping people from getting tested, and oppressing already marginalized populations such as LGBT people.

In February, state lawmakers joined with LGBT and HIV activists during a public hearing to explore the impact of the HIV epidemic among black Georgians as well as HIV criminalization laws.

Published in Project Q Atlanta on March 29, 2017