US: It is time to review previous convictions under the former HIV law and issue pardons

HIV law has changed, but those prosecuted under former measure struggle to overcome convictions

Jeremy Merithew had a hook-up in 2012 that he will remember for the rest of his life. He met a man on the gay app Adam4Adam. The man came over for sex and left.

The next day, a deputy from the Kent County Sheriff’s Department was knocking on his door and he ended up behind bars.

The reason? Police and prosecutors said he broke Michigan’s felony law called AIDS — Sexual Penetration with Uninformed Partner. The law, passed in 1988, required a person who knows they are living with HIV to disclose their status to potential sexual partners before engaging in any sexual penetration “however slight.”

Critics of the law called it a stigmatizing remnant of a time when the science of HIV was not fixed and infection was considered a likely death sentence.

They went to work and got the Legislature to change the law in 2019. The new law created misdemeanors crimes requiring prosecutors to prove a person had an intent to transmit their infection and took actions likely to transmit it. The new law specifically creates protections for people living with HIV who use a risk reduction method to prevent passing the virus, including condoms or being on HIV medications that suppress the virus.

Merithew is fighting back after serving his sentence and is preparing to ask Gov. Gretchen Whitmer to pardon him. And he’s got some powerful allies in his actions: former state. Rep. Jon Hoadley (D-Kalamazoo), Jay Kaplan of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Michigan, and HIV activist and political leader Sean Strub, executive director of the Pennsylvania-based Sero Project that works to help reform HIV-specific criminal laws, as well as working with those who have been prosecuted under these laws and are trying to re-enter society.

“How was this justice?” Hoadley said of the case against Merithew. “Jeremy posed no risk before the charges, and he posed no risk after his conviction. How did we help society by putting him in prison? We don’t.”

Kaplan, who is the staff attorney for the ACLU of Michigan LGBTQ Project, said the laws had “tragic consequences.”

“The whole idea that based on a medical status — that you tested positive, you are automatically considered a criminal — is wrong,” Kaplan said. He said it was often used as a political tool by elected prosecutors in order to appear “tough on crime.”

Hoadley believes Whitmer and her administration should review all convictions under the former felony law and issue pardons for those where a conviction would not be achieved under the new law.

Whitmer’s office did not respond to repeated requests for comment for this story. Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel also didn’t respond.

There is a precedent to expunging criminal convictions after a law changes. After Michigan legalized personal possession of marijuana for recreational use in 2018, the state allows those convicted for possession and other non-violent marijuana crimes to seek and expungement of their records.

Hoadley, Kaplan and Strub agree it’s time to review those previous convictions under the former HIV law.

By the time Merithew was in court, science had shown the prescription drugs released in 1996 could not only stop HIV from replicating in the body and slow if not halt the virus’ relentless destruction of the immune system, but that it made that person unable to sexually transmit the virus. This discovery led to a prevention method called “undetectable = untransmittable.” It is also referred to as “treatment as prevention.”

Despite science clearly demonstrating that a person on medications with an undetectable viral load being unable to transmit HIV, Merithew was prohibited by Kent County Circuit Court Judge James Redford from bringing up the medical facts as a defense in his trial. Prosecutors offered Merithew an opportunity to plead guilty to one count of the disclosure law by having anal sex. But when he refused, they lodged a second charge for oral sex and a charge of using a computer to commit a crime.

“It doesn’t make sense to ignore the science,” said Strub. “When a person with HIV shows up in a courtroom there seems to be a presumption of guilt, rather than a presumption of innocence. It seems to be on the person with HIV to prove they disclosed their HIV status.”

Without the medical science to show he didn’t pose any threat, a sympathetic victim — a married Black man with two young children at home who worked raising money for homeless services in Grand Rapids — a deputy who expressed his unease with looking at same-sex sexual behavior and string of messages from the hook-up site that were ambiguous as to whether Merithew disclosed his HIV status, Merithew was convicted and sent to prison.

In addition to the prison sentence, Redford ordered Merithew to register as a sex offender for the next 15 years, which has prevented him from moving to certain areas or living in a home with children or getting most jobs. The former felony law was not among criminal convictions listed in the state’s sex offender registry requiring registration. However, Redford relied on a catch-all clause in the law intended for minors convicted of sex crimes to order Merithew on the sex offender registry.

Merithew is out of prison and living in a northern Michigan community with his mother. He said he hopes to complete a Ph.D in psychology focusing on the impact of trauma in people’s lives.

Merithew told the Advance he was offered a position in Lansing earlier this year. He attempted to move closer to the area, but he said officials in the county he was looking to move to threatened his relatives with child protective services involvement and removal of their children if he was allowed to live with them. He said had to decline the position as a result.

While Merithew is white, a study published by Trevor Hoppe in 2015 — then a doctoral student at the University of Michigan and now an assistant professor of sociology at University of North Carolina — found a racial disparity of who was being prosecuted. His study found that white women and Black men who had sex with women had a more likely potential of prosecution under the law in Michigan. He characterized this disparity as an “uneven application” of the felony law.

Strub said HIV criminalization laws across the country result in further shaming and stigmatization of people living with HIV by forcing them to register on sex offender lists.

“From a human rights perspective, these are egregious human rights violations often imposing draconian prison sentences of decades in situations not only where there was no transmission, but no risk of transmission,” Strub said.

A crucial new advocacy tool to challenge HIV criminalisation

A crucial new advocacy tool to challenge HIV criminalisation

This week UNDP published a crucial new tool to support our advocacy efforts in challenging HIV criminalisation.

Guidance for prosecutors on HIV-related criminal cases presents ten key principles to help prosecutors understand the complex issues involved in a prosecution involving an allegation of HIV non-disclosure, potential or perceived exposure, or transmission. It also includes key recommendations from the Global Commission, UNAIDS’ 2013 guidance for Ending overly-broad criminalisation of HIV non-disclosure, exposure, and transmission: Critical scientific, medical, and legal considerations, and the 2018 Expert Consensus Statement on the Science of HIV in the Context of Criminal Law.

These principles are:

Prosecutions should be informed at all stages by the most reliable evidence
Ensure that rights of complainant, defendant, and witnesses are respected throughout
Pursue prosecutions in only limited circumstances, as HIV most effectively addressed as a public health matter
Establish a sufficient evidentiary basis for a prosecution
Consider whether prosecution in a given case is in the public interest
Generally consent to pre-trial release, absent exceptional circumstances
Avoid arguments that could be inflammatory, prejudicial, or contribute to public misinformation about HIV
Ensure correct interpretation of science and its limitations if seeking to prove actual HIV transmission
Ensure no discrimination in sentencing
Ensure sentencing is not disproportionate

Although the Guidance is aimed specifically at prosecutors, it will be useful for lawmakers, judges, and defence lawyers

So far, very few jurisdictions have produced such guidelines. Ensuring that advocates understand why these Guidelines are an important harm reduction tool in our work towards ending HIV criminalisation, and how to advocate for them, will be a major focus of our work moving forward.

Video toolkit: How to advocate for prosecutorial guidelines. This workshop held in Berlin in September 2012, discussed the challenges associated with the creation of such guidelines, providing important insights from prosecutors and civil society alike, and included the European premiere of HJN’s documentary ‘Doing HIV Justice: Clarifying criminal law and policy through prosecutorial guidance’.

The Guidance was developed for UNDP by our HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE colleagues, Richard Elliott and Cécile Kazatchkine of the HIV Legal Network. The process, which took two years, involved multiple consultations. Several other colleagues, including HJN’s Executive Director Edwin J Bernard, HJN Supervisory Board member Lisa Power, and HJN Global Advisory Panel member Edwin Cameron were part of the Project Advisory Committee.

At the launch of the Guidelines earlier this week, UNDP committed to continuing to support civil society in working with law and policymakers, and the criminal legal system, towards ending HIV criminalisation as part of its ongoing follow-up work on behalf of the Global Commission on HIV and Law, which published its main report in 2012 as well as a 2018 supplement. An evaluation of the Global Commission, published this month, highlights the many ways the Global Commission has beneficially impacted HIV-related laws and policies, including galvanising the movement for HIV Justice.

Ukraine: New bill proposes expanding HIV-specific criminal law with harsher sentences for transmitting all serious communicable diseases

Avakov proposes harsh prison sentence

The Interior Ministry proposes to rewrite Article 130 in the Criminal Code, which deals with deliberate exposure to a dangerous communicable disease.

Now it mainly refers to HIV, but also mentions “other incurable infectious diseases. The new interpretation removes HIV and incurable diseases, i.e., if the bill is passed, the article can be applied to transmission of “a particularly dangerous infectious disease. It is not clear what infections we are talking about, but in theory, the coronavirus could be included in this list.

At the same time, it is proposed to increase responsibility for transmission. At present, it is possible to be arrested for up to three months or sentenced to 3-5 years in prison. The new draft stipulates imprisonment from 3 to 8 years, and if the perpetrator infects two or more people or minors, he will face from 5 to 10 years.

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version), Scroll down for original article in Russian

Умышленное заражение коронавирусом: Аваков предлагает жесткое тюремное наказание

…Кроме того, в Уголовном кодексе МВД предлагает переписать и статью 130 – о намеренном заражении опасной инфекционной болезнью.

Сейчас речь в ней идет в основном о ВИЧ, также указаны “другие неизлечимые инфекционные болезни”. В новой интерпретации ВИЧ и неизлечимые болезни убрали, то есть, в случае принятия законопроекта под статью можно будет попасть за заражение “особо опасной инфекционной болезнью”. О каких именно инфекциях идет речь – неясно, но в теории к этому списку можно отнести и коронавирус.

При этом предлагается усилить ответственность за заражения. Сейчас предусмотрен арест на срок до трех месяцев или срок на 3-5 лет. В новом проекте прописали лишение свободы от 3 до 8 лет, а если виновник заразит двух или больше лиц или несовершеннолетних – ему будет грозить срок от 5 до 10 лет.

US: New Jersey Assemblywoman introduces legislation to modernise the state’s HIV-specific criminal law

Vainieri Huttle Introduces Bill to Decriminalize Transmission of HIV

(TRENTON) – Assemblywoman Valerie Vainieri Huttle has introduced legislation to decriminalize the transmission of HIV under certain circumstances.

Under current New Jersey law, it is a crime of the third degree if a person knows that he or she is infected with AIDS or HIV and commits an act of sexual penetration without the informed consent of their partner. A third-degree crime is punishable by three to five years in prison, a fine of up to $15,000, or both.

The legislation (A-5673) seeks to amend existing law to downgrade this penalty to a disorderly persons offense, and also have it only apply to people who act with specific intent to transmit an infectious or communicable disease like HIV, do not attempt to prevent transmission, and pass the disease to another person. A disorderly persons offense is punishable by six months in prison, a fine of up to $1,000, or both.

“For far too long, stigma around HIV/AIDS and the LGBTQ community has guided our laws. This legislation ensures that New Jersey moves forward guided by public health, not bigotry,” said Assemblywoman Valerie Vainieri Huttle (D-Bergen). “I am honored to be working alongside Garden State Equality, Hyacinth and the Harm Reduction Coalition to put forth this historic legislation.”

“The current law disproportionately impacts communities who are more likely to be living with the virus, including LGBTQ+ people, Black and Latinx people, transgender women, and sex workers. We are thrilled to partner with pro-equality champions, Senator Vitale and Assemblywoman Vainieri Huttle, on modernizing this outdated and harmful law,” said Christian Fuscarino, Executive Director, Garden State Equality.

Axel Torress Marrero, Senior Director of Public Policy and Prevention, Hyacinth AIDS Foundation said, “New Jersey’s HIV criminalization statute is based on stigma and fear, rather than modern science. It no longer reflects the current science of treatment and transmission of HIV. In 2021, a person living with HIV today can take medication to reduce their viral load that corresponds to the amount of virus present in their body, which means they will not transmit HIV to another individual. This tremendous breakthrough is the science supporting the Undetectable Equals Untransmittable (U=U) reality.”

“This bill will make New Jersey more inclusive and less stigmatizing for people living with HIV. The criminal code is meant to punish actions that harm others, not discriminate against people living with a chronic health condition. We sincerely thank bill sponsors Senator Vitale and Assemblywoman Vainieri Huttle for championing this effort to decriminalize HIV and promote public health,” said Jenna Mellor, Executive Director, New Jersey Harm Reduction Coalition.

In addition to HIV, the measure would also apply to the transmission of chancroid, gonorrhea, syphilis, herpes virus, or any of the varieties or stages of such diseases. It now goes to the Assembly Speaker for further review.

Uganda’s new Sexual Offences law a setback for HIV justice and human rights

The HIV Justice Network (HJN) joins other civil society and human rights organisations in condemning the passage of the Sexual Offences Bill in Uganda earlier this week.

The move by Ugandan Parliamentarians to pass the Sexual Offences Bill is a major concern for those working to end HIV and intersectional criminalisation. Considering that Uganda already passed the HIV Prevention and Control Act in 2014, which criminalises HIV transmission, attempted transmission, and behaviour that might result in transmission by those who know their HIV status, this new law goes further.

One of the definitions of rape in the Bill is ‘misrepresentation’, which runs the very real risk of being interpreted by the criminal legal system as HIV status non-disclosure, and if the accused is found to be living with HIV, this results in the death penalty.

The Human Rights Awareness and Promotion Forum (HRAPF) stated: “Singling out HIV and AIDS as a factor for aggravated penalty for rape, discriminates against people living with HIV. The provision places the burden on people living with HIV which do not fall to those living with other infectious illnesses. Using HIV and AIDS as a factor for aggravated offence treats people with HIV as vectors of disease, rather than as people with an interest in their own health and rights. This provision undermines the efforts to eliminate the stigma that surrounds people living with HIV and AIDS. … [This] law falls most heavily on those who ‘took the trouble’ to get tested and may even by engaging in safe sex options. This may discourage those who do not know their status from having an HIV test.”

The Bill, which attempted to fill a gap in current legislation around issues of sexual assault and rape, goes much, much further by also criminalising same-sex acts and sex work.

“It is clear from the Bill that some of the clauses directly reinforce sections of the Penal Code Act Cap 120 of Uganda that criminalise homosexuality and sex work. This is, therefore, a direct threat of chapter 4 of the 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda that promotes human rights of all Ugandans,” said Richard Lusimbo, the National Coordinator of the Uganda Key Populations Consortium.

His sentiments are echoed by Women with a Mission and Triumph Uganda, who have analysed the Bill’s implication to the LGBTQ+ and sex workers community, and who have urged for a re-review and amendments to the problematic clauses, which were passed suspiciously.

“We urge the President of Uganda to task parliament to re-review provisions of the Bill that will fuel human rights violations, impede, and undermine the registered gains in the fight against HIV/AIDS. We urge all stakeholders in the health sector to voice the negative implications of the law against HIV/AIDS, STIs, and justice on the key priority and marginalized communities and civil society organizations in Uganda.

With the passage of the legislation, the President is expected to assent the Bill into law within fourteen working days. The legislation was first tabled by Hon Monica Amoding, MP for Kumi Municipality on April 14, 2016, and was described as consolidating and amending the law to sexual offences from various enactments. At the third reading of the bill, the MPs included the various contentious clauses and amendments that are now being challenged.

New Zealand: Man sentenced to three years and nine months in prison for removing condom without consent during sex

New Zealand’s first successful ‘stealthing’ prosecution leads the way for law changes in Australia and elsewhere

Last week’s sentencing of a Wellington man for rape was legally significant for being New Zealand’s first successful prosecution for what is known as “stealthing”.

Stealthing occurs when a condom is removed without consent during sexual intercourse. In these cases, a person may have consented to sex but only under certain conditions — for example, with the use of a condom.

In this case, X was found guilty of raping a sex worker in a Lower Hutt brothel in late 2018, and sentenced to three years and nine months in prison. The court was told he was made aware on several occasions a condom was legally required and he agreed to use one.

The two had consensual sex with protection, but when they had sex again X removed the condom. The woman indicated he had acted inappropriately and made him put the condom back on. Without her knowledge, X again removed the condom and ejaculated inside her. The woman ran to her manager’s office and the police were called.

Judge Stephen Harrop said sex workers were no less victims than any other survivor. He also rejected the defence claim that the stealthing was not premeditated and that cultural factors were relevant to the sentencing (X arrived in New Zealand from the Philippines in 2016).

Judge Harrop said X was told multiple times that a condom was necessary, adding: “I can’t proceed on the basis that raping sex workers is any more acceptable [in the Philippines] than it is here.”

The judge also said the sexual assault had risked the woman’s physical health and had caused her ongoing mental harm. In her victim impact statement, she said her world view has changed, she has had to cease work and almost never leaves home alone.

Recognising stealthing as a crime

The conviction is significant because it recognises everyone has a right not only to choose to consent to sexual activity, but also to choose what conditions are placed on that consent.

This is also significant for the New Zealand police who have been accused of not taking reports of stealthing seriously in the past.

Furthermore, the landmark New Zealand judgment paves the way for other countries to reconsider their laws. There is currently a proposal to outlaw stealthing “as a factor that negates consent” before the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly.

Last year, the New South Wales Law Reform Commission also suggested changes to the state’s legislative regime. These would mean sex with a condom is legally defined as a specific activity that can be consented to, without consenting to any other sexual activity, such as sex without a condom.

So far, only one Australian case has made it to court, with a Melbourne man charged with rape in 2018 after allegedly removing a condom without consent. The trial has been delayed by the pandemic.

Further afield, Switzerland, Canada and Germany have all seen convictions for stealthing.

Physical and psychological risk

While these proposed changes are a step in the right direction, it is clear stealthing is still not well understood. This is perhaps not surprising, as issues of consent in general remain a real problem in the community and the courts.

As the acclaimed TV drama series I May Destroy You powerfully depicted, stealthing is about dominance and power and can happen to anyone. While most people will agree that “no means no”, it’s less clear what “yes” can mean.

Specifically, what conditions have been placed on that “yes”? Situations where the agreed conditions have changed – such as when a condom has been removed – should require “fresh consent” from both partners.

Beyond the moral, ethical and legal considerations, stealthing poses real risks to the physical and psychological well-being of the survivor, including sexually transmitted infections, HIV, unplanned pregnancy, depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder.

Fundamentally, stealthing violates the dignity and autonomy of survivors and is a violation of a person’s right to self-determination. The apparent unwillingness of police to prosecute, combined with a lack of public awareness, has undoubtedly meant stealthing has been under-reported in the past.

It is to be hoped the recent New Zealand conviction increases community awareness and encourages other survivors to come forward and tell their stories. Ultimately, it should lead to other jurisdictions recognising stealthing as a sexual crime and changing their laws to reflect this.

[Update] Let’s ensure ending HIV criminalisation is a priority in the 2021 Political Declaration

You can’t end HIV without ending HIV criminalisation!

We must ensure that HIV criminalisation is included as a key indicator in the High-Level Meeting (HLM) 2021 Political Declaration.

It is crucial to ensure political commitment to remove laws and policies that unjustly impact people living with HIV in all of our diversities.

And so, HJN is calling on civil society to ensure that a specific focus on HIV criminalisation is included in the 2021 Political Declaration.

Today, 23 April, you can attend an interactive multi-stakeholder hearing that will be streamed live on the GNP+ Facebook page as well as on UN Web TV. The hearing starts at 9 am in New York / 3 pm in Geneva.

You can also join the civil society debrief during the break at 12.30 pm New York / 6.30 pm Geneva if you register here.

This Civil Society Engagement Guide to the HLM 2021 includes some important engagement opportunities and places to start on this journey.

Other ways to get involved:

Contact key government officials engaged with the HLM to influence your country’s input into the negotiations around the Political Declaration
Advocate for your government to include representatives of affected communities in the country delegation to the HLM and advocate for the highest level of government representation at the HLMs
If your civil society organisation doesn’t already have ECOSOC status, you can register for special accreditation to participate in the HLM until this Sunday, 25 April.

April 16, 2021

HJN is urging all stakeholders engaged with the civil society dialogue on the new Global AIDS Strategy and the 2021 High-Level Meeting on HIV/AIDS to ensure that HIV criminalisation is included as a key indicator in the 2021 Political Declaration. We must ensure political commitment to remove laws and policies that unjustly target people living with HIV, who are often also members of other criminalised or marginalised populations.

The High-Level Meeting (HLM), which takes place between 8-10 June 2021, will review the progress made in ending HIV as public health threat since the last HLM in 2016. We expect the UN General Assembly to adopt a new political declaration to guide the future direction of the response as the world marks 40 years since the first case of AIDS was reported, and the 25th anniversary since UNAIDS was established.

As noted in the new Global AIDS Strategy 2021–2026, End Inequalities, End AIDS, ending HIV criminalisation is central to ending HIV as a public health threat by 2030, noting: “Punitive laws, the absence of enabling laws and policies, and inadequate access to justice contribute to the inequalities that undermine HIV responses.”

The Strategy furthers states that HIV and other forms of criminalisation are a violation of human rights. “SDG 3 cannot be achieved if stigma, discrimination, criminalization of key populations, violence, social exclusion, and other human rights violations in the context of HIV are allowed to continue and if HIV-related inequalities persist. The evidence consistently shows that the criminalization of people living with HIV and key populations reduces service uptake and increases HIV incidence.”

HJN is therefore calling on all stakeholders to ensure that a specific focus on HIV criminalisation is included in the 2021 Political Declaration. Here’s how:

Contact key government officials engaged with the HLM to influence your country’s input into the negotiations around the Political Declaration
Advocate for your government to include representatives of affected communities in the country delegation to the HLM and advocate for the highest level of government representation at the HLMs
If your civil society organisation doesn’t already have ECOSOC status, you can register for special accreditation to participate in the HLM until 25 April.

And through the leadership of our HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE partner, GNP+, you can make your voice heard and included by responding to a survey that will support the development of a civil society statement with clear community recommendations to the HLM and Political Declaration.

The responses to this survey, which should take less than 10 minutes, are confidential and will only be used for the purpose of the HLM process. The closing date to submit your responses is next Tuesday, 20th April 2021.

English: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/27QGLGD
French: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/S9WWY58
Spanish: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/W9WSTJ6
Russian: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/WSZBW88
Portuguese: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/WJJK257

Russia: Bill proposing to abolish mandatory deportation of foreigners with HIV submitted for review

MP proposed to change legislation in favour of infected migrants

Translated from Russian via Deepl.com. For original article, please scroll down.

Fedot Tumusov, First Deputy Chairman of the State Duma Health Committee, has sent for review to the Russian Government a draft law proposing to abolish mandatory deportation of foreigners with HIV. The deputy deems it necessary to allow them to be treated in Russia at their own expense or at the expense of their home country. In his opinion, this would protect the rights of migrants with HIV and save money of the Russian tax payers, as emergency treatment in neglected cases costs the government more than 200 thousand rubles. The Ministry of Health has previously questioned whether it is cheaper to treat foreigners with HIV than to expel them from the country.

The deputy Fedot Tumusov (“Fair Russia”) proposed to cancel the rule on deportation of foreign citizens and stateless persons with HIV and allow them to be treated legally in Russia. He submitted the relevant bill (available to Kommersant) for review by the government. The current law “On Prevention of the Spread of Disease Caused by Human Immunodeficiency Virus in the Russian Federation” prohibits foreign nationals with HIV from entering Russia, their temporary stay, and residence. If foreigners who have been tested (not anonymously) are found to be HIV-positive, Rospotrebnadzor makes a decision on their undesirability to stay in the country. In the explanatory note, Mr. Tumusov points out that many foreigners with HIV, having received such an order, go into illegal status for many years.

Knowing that if they are officially diagnosed with HIV infection, they will be denied entry to Russia forever, migrants avoid such testing in every possible way, which contributes negatively to the epidemiological situation in Russia and countries of Eastern Europe and Central Asia,” the note said.

In 2015, following a ruling by the Russian Constitutional Court, a decree was issued prohibiting the expulsion of migrants with HIV if their spouse, children or parents are Russian citizens or foreigners with residence permits in Russia. However, according to the deputy, the amendment prevents the majority from legally residing in the country. Mr. Tumusov points out that the current legislation violates the rights of migrants to medical assistance and contradicts the State Strategy of the RF for counteraction of spread of HIV till 2030. Among other things, the Strategy stipulates that Russia shall assist HIV-positive foreigners in seeking medical assistance and provide social support to certain categories of population groups vulnerable to HIV infection.

Fedot Tumusov notes that migrants with HIV who refuse antiretroviral therapy often end up in hospitals and intensive care units “in a severe and neglected condition,” which increases the burden on the Russian budget.

Mr. Tumusov refers to the results of a study by the Expert Group on the Health of Migrants in the EECA Region (EEG), previously reported by Kommersant. The experts estimated that the cost of a set of examinations, treatment and services for one person for 21 days in the hospital is 228,572.6 rubles, while the annual outpatient HIV treatment and examination costs an average of 83,084 rubles. Fedot Tumusov also suggests organising treatment at the expense of the country of origin or the foreigner with HIV himself. According to Mr. Tumusov, the CIS countries, from where mass migrant workers come, now fully provide antiretroviral drugs to their citizens during their stay in the labour migration. Thus, the deputy emphasizes, the adoption of the bill would not require additional federal budget expenditures; on the contrary, it would save taxpayers’ money.

According to the Central Research Institute of Epidemiology, Rospotrebnadzor, 37,389 HIV-positive foreigners have been identified in Russia since 1985, when the first case of infection was detected, until the end of 2019. In the same time period, the number of Russians with HIV has reached 1,420,975. The EEG study draws attention to the high prevalence of HIV infection in Russia – 54.8 people per 100,000 population. In countries from which migrant workers come most frequently, the rate is much lower: 14.2 in Tajikistan, 13.2 in Kyrgyzstan and 7.2 in Azerbaijan. Vadim Pokrovsky, head of the Federal AIDS Center, told Kommersant earlier that in the late 1980s, when infection was found mainly in people arriving from abroad, there was “some sense” in examining them and sending them back home. Within a few years the number of Russians who were infected far exceeded the number of foreigners. However, the practice of deportation, according to the expert, was supported by “ura-patriots” who believed that in this way they were “saving Russia from HIV infection”.

According to the Russian Federation of Migrants (FMR), about 1,500-2,000 foreign nationals are diagnosed with HIV status each year when applying for a work permit.

“Based on this, one can assume that a lot of migrants who do not apply for a permit may also be diagnosed with the infection, but there is no data,” says Vadim Kozhenov, head of the MDF. According to him, MDF “in general” supports the initiative of Fedot Tumusov, because “modern means of HIV therapy can make a person absolutely safe for others.

The Ministry of Health did not comment on the deputy’s initiative. Earlier, the ministry said it did not agree with the conclusions of the REG about the economic benefits of treating migrants with HIV.

Депутат предложил изменить законодательство в пользу инфицированных мигрантов

Первый зампред комитета по охране здоровья Госдумы Федот Тумусов направил на отзыв в правительство РФ законопроект, который предлагает отменить обязательную депортацию иностранцев с ВИЧ. Депутат считает необходимым позволить им лечиться на территории РФ за свой счет или за счет их родной страны. Это, по его мнению, защитит права мигрантов с ВИЧ и сэкономит деньги российских налогоплательщиков, так как экстренное лечение в запущенных случаях стоит государству более 200 тыс. руб. В Минздраве ранее усомнились в том, что лечить иностранцев с ВИЧ дешевле, чем высылать из страны.

Депутат Федот Тумусов («Справедливая Россия») предложил отменить норму о депортации иностранных граждан и лиц без гражданства с ВИЧ и разрешить им легально лечиться в России. Депутат направил соответствующий законопроект (есть в распоряжении “Ъ”) на отзыв в правительство. Действующий закон «О предупреждении распространения в РФ заболевания, вызываемого вирусом иммунодефицита человека» запрещает иностранным гражданам с ВИЧ въезд в Россию, их временное пребывание и проживание. Если у иностранцев, прошедших тестирование (не на условиях анонимности), выявлена ВИЧ-инфекция, Роспотребнадзор выносит решение о нежелательности их пребывания на территории страны. В пояснительной записке господин Тумусов указывает, что многие иностранцы с ВИЧ, получая такое предписание, на долгие годы уходят на нелегальное положение.

Понимая, что при официальном выявлении ВИЧ-инфекции им навсегда будет закрыт въезд в Россию, мигранты всячески избегают такого тестирования, что вносит негативный вклад в эпидемиологическую ситуацию в России и странах Восточной Европы и Центральной Азии»,— говорится в записке.

В 2015 году, после соответствующего решения Конституционного суда РФ, вышло постановление, запрещающее выдворять мигрантов с ВИЧ, если у них супруг, дети или родители — граждане РФ или иностранцы с видом на жительство в России. Однако, по замечанию депутата, большинству данная поправка не дает возможности легально проживать в стране. Господин Тумусов указывает, что действующее законодательство нарушает права мигрантов на медицинскую помощь и противоречит Государственной стратегии РФ по противодействию распространению ВИЧ до 2030 года. Стратегия предполагает, в частности, что Россия будет оказывать содействие обращению ВИЧ-положительных иностранцев за медицинской помощью, а также оказывать соцподдержку отдельным категориям уязвимых в отношении ВИЧ-инфекции групп населения.

Федот Тумусов отмечает, что мигранты с ВИЧ, отказываясь от антиретровирусной терапии, нередко попадают в стационары и реанимационные отделения «в тяжелом и запущенном состоянии», что увеличивает нагрузку на бюджет РФ.

Господин Тумусов ссылается на результаты исследования экспертной группы по здоровью мигрантов в регионе ВЕЦА (РЭГ), о котором ранее рассказывал “Ъ”. Эксперты подсчитали, что затраты на комплекс обследований, лечения и услуг для одного человека продолжительностью 21 день в стационаре составляют 228 572,6 руб., в то время как годовое амбулаторное лечение ВИЧ-инфекции и обследование обходятся в среднем в 83 084 руб. Федот Тумусов также предлагает организовать лечение за счет средств страны исхода или самого иностранца с ВИЧ. По словам господина Тумусова, страны ближнего зарубежья, откуда массово прибывают трудовые мигранты, в настоящий момент полностью обеспечивают своих граждан антиретровирусными препаратами во время их пребывания в трудовой миграции. Таким образом, подчеркивает депутат, принятие законопроекта не потребует дополнительных расходов федерального бюджета, а, напротив, сэкономит деньги налогоплательщиков.

По данным ЦНИИ эпидемиологии Роспотребнадзора, в России с 1985 года, когда был обнаружен первый случай инфекции, до конца 2019 года выявлено 37 389 ВИЧ-положительных иностранцев. За это же время число россиян с ВИЧ достигло 1 420 975 человек. В исследовании РЭГ обращает внимание на высокую распространенность ВИЧ-инфекции в России — 54,8 человека на 100 тыс. населения. В странах, из которых трудовые мигранты приезжают чаще всего, показатель гораздо ниже: 14,2 — в Таджикистане, 13,2 — в Киргизии, 7,2 — в Азербайджане. Глава Федерального центра по борьбе со СПИДом Вадим Покровский ранее заявил “Ъ”, что в конце 1980-х, когда инфекция действительно обнаруживалась в основном у приезжающих из-за рубежа, в их обследовании и высылке на родину «был какой-то смысл». Уже через несколько лет число россиян—носителей инфекции значительно превышало число иностранцев. Однако практика депортации, по словам эксперта, поддерживалась «ура-патриотами», которые считали, что таким образом «спасают Россию от ВИЧ-инфекции».

По данным Федерации мигрантов России (ФМР), ежегодно в стране примерно у 1,5–2 тыс. иностранных граждан при оформлении трудового патента выявляется ВИЧ-статус.

«Исходя из этого, можно предположить, что у множества мигрантов, не оформляющих патент, также может быть выявлена инфекция, однако данных нет»,— говорит глава ФМР Вадим Коженов. По его словам, ФМР «в целом» поддерживает инициативу Федота Тумусова, так как «современные средства терапии при ВИЧ позволяют делать человека абсолютно неопасным для окружающих».

В Минздраве инициативу депутата “Ъ” не прокомментировали. Ранее в ведомстве заявили, что не согласны с выводами РЭГ об экономической выгоде лечения мигрантов с ВИЧ.

US: Bill proposed in Missouri removes HIV-specific language from state law and reflects more recent research

Changes to HIV laws moving in Missouri Legislature, but anti-discrimination win proves elusive

The Missouri House overwhelmingly backed legislation Monday to ease access to drugs that can help prevent HIV infection, one of several measures lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender advocates are backing in the Legislature this year.

Rep. Phil Christofanelli, R-St. Peters, garnered support from 148 lawmakers, while seven Republicans voted “present,” sending the measure to the Senate. His proposal would allow access at pharmacies to pre- and post-exposure drugs used to prevent infection with HIV, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a disease that disproportionately affects gay and bisexual men and racial and ethnic minorities.

Christofanelli said he has heard stories of people going to emergency rooms to seek post-exposure medication and instead being referred to a specialized HIV clinic.

“That’s really a disgrace . . . because these drugs can save lives,” he said. “And I believe that you should be able to access them wherever is most convenient to you.”

Stephen Eisele, director of the Missouri LGBT advocacy group PROMO, noted in written testimony supporting the bill that HIV/AIDS “disproportionately affects our (LGBT) community” and “affects LGBT Black people and People of Color in our state at even higher rates.”

Under Christofanelli’s proposal, pharmacists would operate with the supervision of a licensed physician and follow strict protocols. Patients would have to follow up with a physician and receive a prescription before getting more than a 30-day supply of the pre-exposure medication.

“I’m hopeful that some of our big pharmacy chains will be the first adopters,” Christofanelli said.

Representatives from both parties praised the proposal.

Even with the House’s passage of Christofanelli’s bill, there appeared to be little-to-no momentum in the GOP-led Legislature behind the long-sought Missouri Nondiscrimination Act, or MONA, which would forbid discrimination in housing and employment based on a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity.

This year, the Legislature is believed to have more openly LGBT lawmakers than ever; there currently are six openly LGBT members serving in the Legislature, including Christofanelli, who came out publicly as gay last month.

Eisele said he is asking allies to contact Rep. Mary Elizabeth Coleman, R-Arnold, chair of the House Children and Families Committee, to encourage her to hold a hearing on MONA, sponsored by Rep. Tom Hannegan, R-St. Charles.

Eisele said in addition to MONA, his organization’s other priority this year is defeating House Joint Resolution 53, which would ask voters to amend the state constitution in order to ban trans children from playing sports on teams that align with their gender. The resolution has yet to be voted on by the full House.

Another change to state law, which advanced without opposition through two House committees, would remove statutes that specifically criminalize exposing another person to HIV without that person’s knowledge or consent.

The proposal, also by Christofanelli, removes the HIV-specific language from state law, stating an individual infected with “a serious infectious or communicable disease” would be guilty of a Class D felony if they knowingly expose that person to the disease; if the victim contracts the disease, the infected person would be guilty of a Class C felony.

The legislation doesn’t apply to airborne illnesses such as COVID-19.

Eisele, the PROMO director, said the measure would encourage more people to learn their HIV status.

“Our statutes make it less likely that individuals at risk for HIV will seek medical care because, if they do, they could face prosecution for ’knowing’ their status and transmitting HIV,” he said in House testimony. “This statute actively supports negative health outcomes.

Virginia becomes eighth US state since 2012 to modernise its HIV criminalisation laws

Even as Virginia’s Governor, Ralph Northam, signed legislation late last month to modernise the US state’s HIV criminalisation laws, advocates noted that the inclusion of a felony penalty means that more work needs to be done to ensure that HIV criminalisation is finally ended in the state.

As the first US state in the South to modernise its laws (after Illinois, Iowa, Colorado, California, North Carolina, Michigan and Washington), Virginia’s Senate Bill 1138 removes a number of discriminatory laws that are often used against marginalised populations, like sex workers and people who use drugs, and helps bring HIV in line with other sexually transmitted infections for which there is preventative care and treatment.

According to NBC News, the legislation repeals the felony criminal ban on blood, tissue or organ donation by people with HIV and other sexually transmitted infections; makes HIV testing optional (rather than mandatory) for people convicted of certain ‘crimes’, including sex work and drug charges; and strikes down a statute making failure to disclose HIV-positive status before sex a crime.

HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE partners, Positive Women Network-USA (PWN) and the Sero Project (Sero), said the signing was a “culmination of over two years of organizing and advocacy led by ECHO VA–the coalition founded by Positive Women’s Network – USA Virginia State Lead Deirdre Johnson and Dr. Cedric Pulliam–with the collaboration of PWN, Equality Virginia, and the Sero Project.”

They said the signing into law is the latest achievement of the movement to end HIV criminalisation in the United States. “And it’s great news for people living with HIV and who care about ending the HIV epidemic in Virginia,” they added.

However, even as the advocates celebrated this milestone, the new law’s “intentional transmission of HIV”, or “infected sexual battery,” remains a felony in Virginia, rather than a misdemeanor, as proponents had hoped. However, the new legislation now requires proof of actual infection, rather than just an allegation of potential or perceived exposure.

This is something PWN, Sero, and their partners hope to change in the near future. “Our next steps are to continue to work with our partners… to change the felony penalty to a misdemeanor. We are also working on making sure that the news of this historical change reaches communities impacted by these changes.”

Currently, 32 US states still have laws that criminalise HIV non-disclosure and/or potential or perceived HIV exposure, but efforts are currently underway across the US, many of them supported by PWN and Sero, to modernise or repeal these outdated and unjust laws.