US: HIV criminalisation laws expose Black Americans to disproportionate arrest and prosecution rates

“Look at who’s in political control”: How HIV disclosure laws are steeped in racial bias

HIV criminalization arose in an atmosphere of fearful ignorance, disproportionately harming Black men. But activists are fighting back.

Today, 32 states have laws that criminalize people living with HIV (PLWH). These laws expose PLWH to the risk of prosecution and incarceration for engaging in consensual sexual activity while not disclosing their status. Of those states, 28 enhance criminal penalties based on an individual’s knowledge of their HIV status. In many of these states, arrests and convictions due to HIV criminalization disproportionately impact Black populations, because HIV disproportionately impacts Black populations.

A new study of 16 states by the Williams Institute shows Black Americans are more likely than any other race to be arrested and convicted for HIV-related allegations, and were arrested for HIV-related crimes at higher rates than their overall share of the population. In 64% of the states analyzed, Black Americans faced higher rates of arrest than their share of PLWH in the state. In 75% of the states, Black Americans were convicted at higher rates than their share of PLWH in the state.

Legislation criminalizing the transmission of HIV started in the 1980s, in response to events largely fueled by fear that the AIDS epidemic — which at the time was perceived as gay men’s disease, and was originally called Gay Related Immunodeficiency Syndrome (GRID) — would spread to heterosexuals. In 1987, Ronald Reagan’s Presidential Commission on the HIV Epidemic recommended that states adopt HIV-specific laws in response to rising infection rates among gay men, based on the belief that existing assault laws were too lenient to serve as a deterrent.

In 1990, the Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resource Emergency (CARE) Act was enacted, providing funding to states on the condition that their criminal laws addressed intentional HIV exposure and transmission.

Subsequently, flurries of punitive legislation arose amid highly publicized, sensationalized cases involving young Black men, such as that of Nushawn Williams in the late 1990s. Accused of having sex with younger women while HIV-positive, Williams pleaded guilty to reckless endangerment and statutory rape and was sentenced to 12 years in prison. He remains imprisoned after serving his sentence because the New York attorney general initiated involuntary civil commitment proceedings against him just days before his release.

“Available research confirms what we knew back then — criminal laws do not reduce HIV transmission or the behavior that causes it,” says Catherine Hanssens, the founding executive director of The Center for HIV Law and Policy.

Robert Suttle, an HIV criminalization policy expert, tells LGBTQ Nation that these laws became more about control than prevention. “HIV criminalization became a proxy to control certain populations — queer people, sex workers — especially to stop people diagnosed with HIV from having sex,” says Sutter. “It’s never worked.”

Indeed, recent studies have found that HIV criminalization laws have “no detectable prevention effect.”

Not only do HIV criminalization laws, conceived at a time when an HIV diagnosis was essentially considered a death sentence, fail as preventative measures, but they also eliminate burdens of proof and intent to do harm, which are required under criminal law.

Most of these laws only require simple exposure with the failure to disclose HIV status. Most state laws don’t require evidence of transmission or intent to harm. Several target interactions in which spit and other bodily fluids come into contact with law enforcement, correctional employees, and first responders, criminalizing behavior that has no chance of transmitting HIV.

Again, these laws — which have stood for decades — reflect a time when little was known about how HIV was spread, and a diagnosis was considered fatal.

Black bodies on trial: The case of “Tiger Mandingo”

The case of Michael Johnson, also known by his screen name “Tiger Mandingo,” illustrates many of the problems with HIV-criminalization laws and how they intersect with the historic policing of Black Americans.

Johnson, a Black gay wrestler at Linwood University in St. Charles, Missouri, was arrested in 2013 for not disclosing his HIV-positive status to six former male sex partners, four of whom were white. At the time, Missouri’s law required PLWH to inform their partners of their status, regardless of safe-sex practices. The law did not require intent to transmit or actual transmission of HIV, but only that a person was aware of their status and unable to prove that they informed their partners before engaging in sex.

Johnson faced a stacked deck before his trial even started. Of the 51 potential jurors, only one was non-white. Half said they believed being gay was a choice, and two-thirds believed it was a sin. All were straight, HIV-negative, and believed that PLWH who do not disclose to their partners deserved to be prosecuted. The final jury consisted of four white men, seven white women, and one retired Black nurse. Most of the jurors appeared to be in their 50s or 60s.

Several discrepancies arose during Johnson’s trial. Johnson maintained that he disclosed his status and that all of his partners engaged in consensual sex without condoms. Each of his partners testified that they’d asked if he was “clean” or STD-free, and that he’d assured them that he was. This contradicted what they initially told police. But the jury never heard of these discrepancies, either because his defense attorney failed to raise them or because she was overruled when she did.

Telling people that they are a potential criminal based only on a diagnosed health condition is harmful, particularly to people who have been told for centuries that they are not worthy of equal treatment under the law based on race, sexual orientation, or gender identity.”

Catherine Hanssens, executive director of The Center for HIV Law and Policy.

One partner testified that Johnson had actually infected him, but told the police he’d told Johnson he was HIV-positive when he met him. No genetic evidence linked Johnson’s strain of HIV to the virus in the other men, suggesting that they may have contracted it from someone else.

The prosecution employed stereotypical tropes. Images of Johnson’s penis — from a sex video made with one of his partners — were shown to the nearly all-white, all heterosexual, HIV-negative jury, literally criminalizing his “contagious” Black body, and reducing him to his sex organ, described in graphic, lurid detail in police reports and on the witness stand as “very large” and “too tight” for condoms.

In 2015, the jury sentenced him to 30 years for transmitting HIV without disclosure to six former sexual partners, and 30.5 years for exposing four others without disclosure, for a total of 60.5 years — a longer sentence than many convicted of involuntary manslaughter. The judge ultimately reduced the sentence to 30 years.

However, Johnson served only a fraction of his sentence. His conviction was overturned in December 2016 due to egregious prosecutorial misconduct. Johnson accepted a plea deal and was released from prison on July 7, 2019.

In 2021, Missouri reformed its HIV-criminalization law, downgrading “reckless exposure” of someone to HIV from a Class B felony to a Class D felony. Moving away from the AIDS panic of the 1980s, the law applies to all “serious infections and communicable diseases,” instead of singling out HIV. Prosecutors must now prove someone “knowingly” exposed someone to HIV.

Policing Black bodies in a culture of fear

While HIV criminalization laws were originally targeted at gay men, they represent a small number of actual arrests.

“Based on the best data available, women of color who are sex workers and Black men targeted by police or those currently incarcerated make up most of the arrests and convictions,” Hanssen says.

Hanssen also describes how HIV criminalization laws don’t necessarily impact transmission, but may discourage vulnerable communities from accessing essential resources. “As I’ve suggested, laws based on myths and misconceptions surrounding HIV will perpetuate HIV stigma,” Hanssen said.

HIV-related stigma creates real obstacles for PLWH. The behaviors often associated with acquiring HIV — such as being gay or using intravenous drugs — are still stigmatized, and confirming or disclosing one’s HIV status is still widely perceived as socially dangerous. HIV-related stigma can discourage testing and prevention practices. Individuals may fear confirming their HIV status, let alone accessing education about transmission and prevention. HIV criminalization laws increase those fears.

“But look at who’s in political control — and who controls public health and the legal system. Those systems get off the hook by shifting blame to individuals. Instead of investing money into prevention, education, and awareness, they criminalize people.”

Robert Suttle, an HIV criminalization policy expert

“Telling a newly diagnosed person they will be prosecuted as a felon if they expose another person to HIV may not discourage them from having sex,” she said, “but it might discourage them from entering and staying in health care, particularly when medical mistrust is already so high among the vulnerable populations targeted by these laws.”

This is especially true for Black Americans, among whom medical mistrust may be a deeply rooted reaction to historical exploitation by incidents like the Tuskegee experiment and ongoing systemic racism.

Suttle explains how these laws cause particular harm to Black LGBTQ+ people by creating a culture of fear. “Is the public health system or legal system helping the people they claim to protect?” he asks, “The evidence shows they’re doing more harm than good.”

“For Black people — especially Black LGBTQ+ people — HIV isn’t just a medical condition,” he says. “It’s shaped by laws, policies, and institutions that operate from a culture of fear rather than science, and from control rather than care.”

Hanssen echoes Suttle, saying, “Telling people that they are a potential criminal based only on a diagnosed health condition is harmful, particularly to people who have been told for centuries that they are not worthy of equal treatment under the law based on race, sexual orientation, or gender identity.”

“There is now plenty of evidence demonstrating how HIV criminal laws increase stigma,” says Catherine Hanssens. “These laws create a uniquely harmful, un-American legal standard and produce felony penalties rooted in lack of knowledge about HIV transmission – that alone is enough to demand their repeal.”

Reforms vs. real change

Thanks to the work of state-based organizations like Free State Justice in Maryland, Equality California, and Washington State’s HIV Justice Network, so far, eight states have taken steps to reform their HIV criminalization laws, though not all have repealed them.

California and Washington State have made the biggest changes. Now, both states require proof that someone intended to transmit HIV or actually did so before they can be convicted. They have also removed most laws that made exposure to HIV or other diseases a crime, except in some cases involving sex offenders. Intentional transmission is now a misdemeanor in California, with a maximum sentence of six months, or in Washington State, 30 days.

By comparison:

North Carolina still connects criminal liability to viral load and engagement in care.
Iowa eliminated its sex offender registry requirement and tightened up intent requirements, but added “recklessness” as a standard for liability.
Virginia reformed its bill, but retains felony-level offenses.

Beyond reforms to state laws, Suttle suggests a paradigm shift away from focusing on individuals and toward the legal and justice systems is necessary for effective change.

“In an individualistic society, if HIV is happening, it’s treated like we [PLWH] caused it,” he says. “But no single individual can cause an epidemic. Instead of addressing external factors — poverty, lack of education, lack of access to healthcare — systems punish individuals. Those conditions are by design, not because people ‘created’ HIV.”

“But look at who’s in political control — and who controls public health and the legal system. Those systems get off the hook by shifting blame to individuals. Instead of investing money into prevention, education, and awareness, they criminalize people.”

“For Black LGBTQ communities, this is a matter of survival,” Suttle says. “HIV in America today isn’t simply defined by medicine. It’s defined by whether laws and institutions will catch up with science, provide equity, and understand the reality we’re living in.”

Subscribe to the LGBTQ Nation newsletter and be the first to know about the latest headlines shaping LGBTQ+ communities worldwide.

Terrance Heath is a longtime LGBT equality activist, writer, and award winning blogger. He lives in Chevy Chase, Maryland, with his two sons.

New Zealand: Undetectable yet prosecutable, study highlights the need for law reform

Momentum for change on HIV criminalisation

A study of people living with HIV has revealed that despite advances in HIV treatment, criminalisation continues to create uncertainty and distress, with 60% of people living with HIV fearing legal consequences and many avoiding relationships altogether.

The full study and its findings will be released at a public event on 27 February at 3 pm at the Ellen Melville Centre in Auckland, by Positive Women, Body Positive, Toitū te Ao and Burnett Foundation Aotearoa.

The study surveying 247 people living with HIV in New Zealand, highlights the urgent need for rules and practice to align with modern HIV science. Over half of participants reported anxiety about legal consequences, particularly around disclosing HIV or discussing sexual practices with healthcare service providers.

“This shows that people living with HIV want to see HIV transmission managed by Public Health authorities, and not the Police. We have one of the highest rates of HIV criminalisation per capita globally, with at least 14 prosecutions since 1993,” says Liz Gibbs CEO of Burnett Foundation Aotearoa.

“The Government’s decision to sign the U=U Call to Action at Big Gay Out 2026 is a great first step in bringing New Zealand into line with overseas best practices on how to manage HIV.”

U = U stands for Undetectable = Untransmittable (U=U). It means that a person living with HIV who is on effective treatment and maintains an undetectable viral load cannot transmit HIV to sexual partner(s).

Senegal: New bill further criminalises LGBT people as well as advocacy and funding with major implications for civil society

Government tightens repressive measures against ‘unnatural acts’: Advocacy now punishable by imprisonment

Translated with AI – Scroll down for original article in French

Adopted by the Council of Ministers, the bill amends Article 319 of the Senegalese Penal Code: broadened definition, heavier penalties and, for the first time, criminalisation of advocacy and financing of such acts. Combined with Article 139 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this text paves the way for systematic preventive detention for anyone who publicly expresses support for or finances activities in favour of LGBT people.

The Senegalese government wants to take a significant step forward in strengthening its legislation against homosexuality. At Wednesday’s Council of Ministers meeting, a bill amending Article 319 of Law No. 65-60 of 21 July 1965 on the Penal Code was examined and adopted. This text, which must still be submitted to the National Assembly for final promulgation, has three distinct parts: clarification of the legal definition of unnatural acts, tougher penalties, and, most innovatively, the inclusion of advocacy and funding of such acts in the sanctions.

Until now, Article 319, paragraph 3, of the Penal Code, in its version resulting from Law 66-16 of 12 February 1966, provided for imprisonment of one to five years and a fine of 100,000 to 1,500,000 CFA francs for any indecent or unnatural act committed with a person of the same sex. The text was deliberately general, with some legal experts describing it as a ‘catch-all’ provision, and only targeted the perpetrator of the act. The new reform aims to clarify the legal meaning of the concept of unnatural acts, increase the applicable penalties, and, above all, cross a new threshold: punishing not only the acts themselves, but also the speech and funding that support them.

Apology and funding in the crosshairs of the law

This is the provision that has been most commented on by the legal experts consulted. By including apology and funding in the scope of enforcement, the Senegalese legislature is explicitly targeting all forms of promotion, financial support or public justification of unnatural acts, whether in writing, in images, in speech or on social media. Human rights associations, NGOs funded by international donors, journalists and even ordinary internet users sharing activist content could theoretically fall within the scope of this provision. This extension to funding is particularly significant: it directly targets health organisations that receive foreign funding for their HIV prevention programmes among homosexual populations.

Article 139 of the CCP, automatic preventive detention in ambush

This is where the legal mechanism comes into its own. Article 139 of the Senegalese Code of Criminal Procedure provides that a committal order is mandatory when the public prosecutor makes duly reasoned requests in certain categories of cases. In other words, once an offence falls under this regime and the public prosecutor’s office decides to prosecute, the investigating judge is required to place the accused in pre-trial detention even before a judgement is handed down.

If the revised Article 319 is adopted as it stands and if the offences of promoting and financing unnatural acts fall within the scope of Article 139 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the practical result would be as follows: anyone arrested for promoting, even through a simple post on social media, or for financing activities in support of LGBT people could find themselves automatically placed in preventive detention on the simple instruction of the public prosecutor’s office. It is this link between the two texts that is of primary concern to defenders of civil liberties.

A context of renewed tensions

This reform comes at a time of heightened social tension. Since early February 2026, a case of deliberate HIV transmission in Keur Massar has led to the arrest of dozens of people, including some public figures, on charges including unnatural acts. The case, which has received widespread media coverage, has reignited the national debate on homosexuality and appears to have accelerated the government’s decision to strengthen existing legislation.

This reform echoes previous parliamentary attempts, notably the bill proposed by the And Samm Jikko Yi collective, which was rejected in 2022 due to a lack of consensus. The bill called for prison sentences ranging from five to ten years and already criminalised advocacy. The current government appears to be reviving the essence of this repressive framework, this time through a government bill, giving it greater institutional legitimacy.

Concerns about freedom of expression and press freedom

International human rights and press freedom organisations are alarmed by the potential side effects of this bill. The criminalisation of advocacy and funding, which is inherently difficult to define legally, could backfire on journalists covering these issues, researchers publishing papers, doctors raising awareness about sexual health, and even NGOs fighting HIV whose work involves addressing risky behaviour among homosexual populations and whose budgets come in part from foreign donors. Senegal was removed from the French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons (Ofpra) list of safe countries of origin in 2021, precisely because of the risks associated with sexual orientation.

The bill must now follow the ordinary legislative procedure before being enacted. Its final adoption is likely to spark intense debate in the National Assembly, as well as potential appeals to the Constitutional Council or international bodies. In the meantime, Article 139 of the Code of Criminal Procedure remains in the background, like a silent warning to all those who wish to speak out publicly or provide financial support for these issues.

Sénégal – Le gouvernement durcit l’arsenal répressif contre les « actes contre nature » : L’apologie désormais passible de prison

Adopté en Conseil des ministres, le projet de loi modifie l’article 319 du Code pénal sénégalais : définition élargie, peines alourdies et, fait inédit, criminalisation de l’apologie et du financement de ces actes. Croisé avec l’article 139 du Code de procédure pénale, ce texte ouvre ainsi la voie à des détentions préventives systématiques pour quiconque exprime publiquement un soutien ou finance des activités en faveur des personnes LGBT.

Le gouvernement du Sénégal veut franchir un pas significatif dans le renforcement de sa législation contre l’homosexualité. Lors du Conseil des ministres de ce mercredi, un projet de loi modifiant l’article 319 de la loi n°65-60 du 21 juillet 1965 portant Code pénal a été examiné et adopté. Ce texte, qui doit encore être soumis à l’Assemblée nationale pour promulgation définitive, comporte trois volets distincts : la précision de la définition légale des actes contre nature, le durcissement des peines encourues, et élément le plus novateur l’intégration dans les sanctions de l’apologie et du financement de ces actes.

Jusqu’à présent, l’article 319 alinéa 3 du Code pénal, dans sa version issue de la loi 66-16 du 12 février 1966, prévoyait un emprisonnement d’un à cinq ans et une amende de 100 000 à 1 500 000 francs CFA pour tout acte impudique ou contre nature commis avec une personne du même sexe. Le texte était volontairement général, certains juristes le qualifiant de « fourre-tout », et ne visait que l’auteur de l’acte. La nouvelle réforme entend clarifier ce que recouvre juridiquement la notion d’acte contre nature, alourdir les peines applicables, et surtout franchir un seuil inédit : sanctionner non plus seulement les actes, mais les discours et les financements qui les soutiendraient.

L’apologie et le financement dans le viseur de la loi

C’est la disposition la plus commentée par les juristes consultés. En intégrant l’apologie et le financement dans le champ répressif, le législateur sénégalais vise explicitement toute forme de promotion, de soutien financier ou de justification publique des actes contre nature, que ce soit par l’écrit, l’image, la parole ou les réseaux sociaux. Des associations de défense des droits, des ONG financées par des bailleurs internationaux, des journalistes et même de simples internautes partageant un contenu militant pourraient théoriquement entrer dans le champ d’application de cette disposition. Cette extension aux financements est particulièrement significative : elle cible directement les organisations de santé qui reçoivent des fonds étrangers pour leurs programmes de lutte contre le VIH au sein des populations homosexuelles.

Article 139 du CPP, la détention préventive automatique en embuscade

C’est ici que la mécanique juridique prend toute sa dimension. L’article 139 du Code de procédure pénale sénégalais prévoit que le mandat de dépôt est obligatoire lorsque le procureur de la République prend des réquisitions dûment motivées dans certaines catégories d’affaires. En d’autres termes, dès lors qu’une infraction visée entre dans ce régime et que le parquet décide de poursuivre, le juge d’instruction est tenu de placer l’inculpé en détention provisoire avant même qu’un jugement ne soit rendu.

Si l’article 319 révisé est adopté en l’état et si les délits d’apologie et de financement des actes contre nature intègrent le champ d’application de l’article 139 du CPP, le résultat pratique serait le suivant : toute personne interpellée pour avoir fait la promotion, même par un simple post sur les réseaux sociaux, ou pour avoir financé des activités en faveur des personnes LGBT pourrait se retrouver placée en détention préventive automatique sur simple instruction du parquet. C’est cette articulation entre les deux textes qui préoccupe au premier chef les défenseurs des libertés.

Un contexte de tensions ravivées

Cette réforme intervient dans un contexte de vive tension sociale. Depuis début février 2026, une affaire de transmission volontaire du VIH à Keur Massar a conduit à l’arrestation de plusieurs dizaines de personnes, dont certaines personnalités publiques, sous des chefs d’inculpation incluant les actes contre nature. L’affaire, fortement médiatisée, a relancé le débat national sur l’homosexualité et semble avoir accéléré la décision gouvernementale de renforcer la législation existante.

Cette réforme fait écho à des tentatives parlementaires antérieures, notamment la proposition de loi du collectif And Samm Jikko Yi, rejetée en 2022 faute de consensus, qui demandait des peines allant de cinq à dix ans d’emprisonnement ferme et qui criminalisent déjà l’apologie. Le gouvernement actuel semble reprendre l’essentiel de cette architecture répressive, en la portant cette fois par la voie d’un projet de loi gouvernemental, lui conférant une légitimité institutionnelle plus solide.

Des inquiétudes sur la liberté d’expression et la liberté de la presse

Des organisations internationales de défense des droits humains et de la presse s’alarment des effets de bord potentiels de ce texte. La criminalisation de l’apologie et du financement, par nature difficile à délimiter juridiquement, pourrait se retourner contre des journalistes traitant de ces sujets, des chercheurs publiant des travaux, des médecins sensibilisant à la santé sexuelle, ou encore des ONG de lutte contre le VIH dont le travail implique d’aborder les comportements à risque au sein des populations homosexuelles et dont les budgets proviennent en partie de bailleurs étrangers. Le Sénégal avait d’ailleurs été retiré en 2021 de la liste des pays d’origine sûrs par l’Ofpra français, précisément en raison des risques liés à l’orientation sexuelle.

Le projet de loi doit à présent suivre la procédure législative ordinaire avant d’être promulgué. Son adoption définitive soulèvera vraisemblablement des débats intenses à l’Assemblée nationale, ainsi que de potentiels recours devant le Conseil constitutionnel ou des instances internationales. En attendant, l’article 139 du Code de procédure pénale reste en toile de fond, comme un avertissement silencieux adressé à tous ceux qui souhaiteraient s’exprimer publiquement ou apporter leur soutien financier à ces questions.

New Zealand: Government backs U=U, opening door to reform of HIV non-disclosure laws

Burnett Foundation Aotearoa welcomes the Government’s decision on U=U

Associate Health Minister Doocey’s decision to sign the U=U declaration today is a critical step on the road towards zero locally acquired HIV transmissions in Aotearoa New Zealand.

“The U=U message helps increase testing, treatment adherence, and viral suppression rates, but most importantly, it increases the confidence and dignity of people living with HIV. It’s proof that science and compassion walk hand in hand,” says Liz Gibbs, CEO of Burnett Foundation Aotearoa.

This decision makes New Zealand the 5th country to sign the multinational U=U Call to Action, behind Australia, Canada, the USA, and Vietnam.

“Currently people living with HIV may face prosecution under the Crimes Act for HIV non-disclosure to their sexual partners (unless they are using a condom), even if they are on treatment with an undetectable viral load and therefore pose zero risk of transmission. With the Government’s official endorsement of U=U, it gives the Police, Courts and government departments the backing required to modernise outdated guidelines and policies, so they are in-keeping with the latest science.” says Gibbs.

This is a significant step forward that many across the HIV and sexual health community have been advocating for several years, and we are thrilled to see it finally come to pass.

US: Ryan White’s mother calls for HIV law reform in Indiana

Decades after Ryan White, Indiana still criminalizes HIV

Nearly 40 years ago, my son Ryan White became the face of HIV stigma in America. Diagnosed with AIDS at 13 after contracting HIV from a blood product used to treat his hemophilia, Ryan faced profound discrimination. He was banned from school, shunned by his community and even threatened because of widespread fear and misinformation about HIV. Despite this, Ryan used his short life to fight stigma and discrimination.

Today, that fight continues as Indiana confronts the urgent need to reform its HIV criminal laws and remove stigma from our statutes.

It’s heartbreaking to realize that even decades after Ryan’s death, stigmatizing HIV laws remain on the books. Indiana’s HIV criminal laws were enacted in the 1980s, when fear overshadowed science. At the time, people believed HIV could be spread through casual contact — beliefs we now know are false. Yet those assumptions continue to shape the law today.

Indiana’s laws punish people living with HIV for actions that do not transmit the virus, including attempting to donate blood, having sex while using proven prevention methods or even spitting. Saliva does not transmit HIV, and the blood supply is safe due to robust screening. These laws defy modern science and undermine public health by reinforcing stigma.

Stigma remains one of the greatest barriers to ending the HIV epidemic. It discourages people from getting tested, seeking treatment, and disclosing their status ― all critical steps to preventing transmission. When stigma drives people away from care, the virus continues to spread.

The good news is that we now have the tools to end HIV. Advances in treatment allow people living with HIV to live long, healthy lives. With proper care, the virus becomes undetectable — and undetectable means untransmittable (U=U). Medications like PrEP (pre-exposure prophylaxis) and PEP (post-exposure prophylaxis) can prevent HIV transmission altogether. Yet outdated HIV criminal laws ignore these advances and fuel the very stigma Ryan worked so hard to fight.

That’s why I’m calling on Indiana lawmakers to modernize the state’s HIV criminal laws and align them with current science. Reform is a necessary step toward reducing stigma, improving public health, and honoring the dignity of people living with HIV.

I can’t help but think about how these laws would have impacted Ryan if he were alive today. Knowing my son — who dedicated his life to education and understanding — could have been criminalized under Indiana law is deeply painful. We owe it to Ryan and to the thousands of Hoosiers living with HIV, to do better.

On Feb. 28, HIV Is Not a Crime Awareness Day, I urge all Hoosiers to contact their elected officials and demand meaningful reform of Indiana’s HIV criminal laws. Together, we can honor Ryan’s legacy by replacing fear with facts, stigma with science and misinformation with compassion. It’s time to end HIV stigma in Indiana once and for all.

Jeanne White-Ginder is an AIDS activist and mother of the Ryan White.

US: New Williams Institute analysis shows HIV criminalization disproportionately targets Black communities

Black Americans are disproportionately criminalized for living with HIV.

Through “heightened surveillance, arrest, and conviction,” Black Americans are more likely to be criminalized for their HIV.

Black people in the U.S. aren’t just more likely to have HIV — they’re more likely to be criminalized for it.

Black Americans accounted for about 38 percent of new HIV diagnoses and 39 percent of people living with HIV in 2023, according to a report from the Williams Institute, despite making up around 12 percent of the population.

Black women had the highest HIV diagnosis rate at 19.6 per 100,000, which is about 11 times the rate for white women at 1.8 per 100,000. Black boys and men ages 13 to 24 accounted for 47 percent of all new diagnoses among youth, while white boys and men made up just three percent.

Even with higher rates of infection, Black Americans are less likely to be on medications that treat HIV, with just 64 percent receiving care and 53 percent virally suppressed. They are also less likely to have health insurance, as 12.3 percent of Black adults ages 19 to 64 did not have health insurance in 2024, compared to 6.8 percent of white adults.

Black Americans are more likely to be criminalized for their HIV as well, as they are often subjected to “heightened surveillance, arrest, and conviction within the criminal legal system,” according to the report. In 64 percent of states analyzed, they faced higher rates of arrest than their share of people living with HIV. For example, Black people in California were 6 percent of the state population and 18 percent of people living with HIV, but 39 percent of HIV-related arrests.

They’re also more likely to face harsh post-conviction penalties like sex offender registration. In Tennessee, Black people were 17 percent of the state’s population and 55 percent of people living with HIV, but 74 percent of people on the sex offender registry with an HIV-related conviction.

“Most HIV criminal laws were enacted before effective HIV treatment and prevention tools became widely available,” said Nathan Cisneros, director of the HIV Criminalization Project at the Williams Institute. “In recent years, there has been a push to reform or repeal these laws as policymakers and the public increasingly recognize that these laws can discourage testing, increase stigma, and deepen disparities — especially for Black Americans.”

USA: New Williams Institute report analyses three decades of HIV criminalisation prosecutions in Michigan

Enforcement of HIV Criminalization in Michigan

Using data obtained from the Criminal History Record database maintained by the Michigan State Police Criminal Justice Information Center, this study examines the enforcement of HIV nondisclosure laws from 1991 to 2024.

Executive Summary

Michigan’s HIV criminal laws date back to the 1980s, and it is the state with the first known conviction under an HIV criminalization law. The Williams Institute analyzed data from 1991 to 2024 from the state of Michigan regarding individuals with criminal cases alleging HIV nondisclosure under Michigan Compiled Laws § 333.5210 in the state’s penal code. Records were obtained from the state’s Criminal History Record database maintained by the Michigan State Police Criminal Justice Information Center. These records contained information on 90 cases that resulted in misdemeanor or felony convictions or were pending outcomes for a felony charge at the time of the data request and contained at least one HIV-related nondisclosure charge.

General Findings

Between 1991 and 2024, there were at least 90 cases involving 79 people and 116 HIV-related criminal charges involving HIV nondisclosure in Michigan.
- In all, 74 cases resulted in conviction on an HIV-related offense. These cases involved 68 people and 109 separate HIV-related charges.
- Nine people are awaiting a decision for a current HIV-related felony charge.
While enforcement of the HIV nondisclosure law occurred across Michigan, prosecutions were primarily concentrated in four counties.
- Cases were concentrated in four counties in the Southeast Lower Peninsula region around the Metro Detroit area. Wayne County—home to Detroit—accounted for 16% of all HIV-related criminal cases, followed by Macomb County (7%), Washtenaw County (7%), and Oakland County (4%). Together they comprised one-third (34%) of all HIV-related cases in the state, but two-thirds (67%) of people living with HIV (PLWH) in the state.
  - While Wayne County was home to 42% of the state’s PLWH, it recorded only 16% of the state’s HIV nondisclosure cases.
Men were overwhelmingly represented among individuals in the HIV-related cases analyzed, accounting for 85% of people with HIV-related cases in Michigan. Men were about 77% of PLWH in Michigan.
When looking across race categories, Black (46%) and white (53%) Michiganders made up roughly equal shares of people criminalized.
- However, Black people in Michigan accounted for 14% of the state’s population and 53% of PLWH in the state. White Michiganders, by contrast, made up 78% of the population and 34% of PLWH in the state.
- As a result, Black people in Michigan are overrepresented when compared to their share of the state’s overall population, while white people in Michigan are overrepresented compared to their share of the state’s population of PLWH.
  - Black men made up only 7% of Michigan’s population, yet 40% of PLWH, and they account for 43% of individuals convicted or with pending HIV-related cases.
  - White men comprised 41% and white women 13% of those convicted or with pending cases, despite representing only 29% and 4% of PLWH, respectively.
  - Although Black women make up 8% of Michigan’s population and 13% of PLWH, they account for only 1% of convictions or pending cases.

2019 Legislative Reform

In 2019, Michigan reformed its HIV-related nondisclosure law. Before the reform, nondisclosure of HIV status before any form of “sexual penetration,” including oral sex, was criminalized. The reform narrowed the scope of criminalized behaviors to anal and vaginal intercourse. It required either 1) intent to transmit HIV to an intimate partner, 2) actual HIV transmission, or 3) reckless disregard for transmission risk to sustain a conviction.
- Prosecutions continued post-reform: since enactment of the 2019 legal change, there have been at least 11 HIV-related nondisclosure cases involving 30 individual HIV-related nondisclosure charges.
  - However, there appears to be a recent decline in enforcement. There were nine HIV-related cases between 2020 and 2024 (the five years after the law was reformed) compared to 23 HIV-related cases between 2014 and 2018 (the five years before the law was reformed).
- Ten charges under the reformed law have resulted in a conviction. All but two were for reckless disregard (a misdemeanor offense); one was for felony intent to transmit, and one appeared to be under the pre-reform statute, although the final court disposition came after the law went into effect.
  - There have been no convictions of actual transmission of HIV (a felony) under the new law.
- Another 10 charges are awaiting a final disposition under the new law: nine for alleged intent to transmit and one for alleged misdemeanor reckless disregard.

Other Findings

Between 1991 and 2024, the Michigan State Police Criminal Justice Information Center, which maintains the state’s Criminal History Record database, did not identify any records in response to our data request documenting convictions under Michigan’s law that criminalizes PLWH for donating blood.
Further, between 1991 and 2024, the data provided by the Michigan State Police Criminal Justice Information Center included no mandatory testing charges that resulted in a conviction for that charge, and no convictions stemming from a mandatory testing charge have occurred since 2008.

Download the full report

New Zealand: New Zealand’s HIV progress undermined by stigma and outdated laws

Experts warn stigma, outdated laws obstacles to ending HIV transmission

New Zealand is on track to record its lowest number of new HIV diagnoses in decades – but advocates say progress is at risk because stigma and outdated laws still shape the lives of people living with HIV.

Just 95 people were diagnosed with HIV in 2024, with even fewer expected this year. But, despite the medical advances behind that decline, discrimination remains widespread.

Judith Mukakayange from Positive Women Inc said she still sees stigma harming families.

“I got a call about a family denied emergency housing because the mother is living with HIV. They believed she could transmit HIV just by sharing a house, which is not true.”

Burnett Foundation Aotearoa CEO Liz Gibbs said outdated criminal laws also contributed to the stigma.

“If you don’t declare your status and have unprotected sex, you can be criminally prosecuted under New Zealand law, despite being on treatment and having an undetectable viral load. They cannot transmit HIV, and therefore shouldn’t be criminalised.”

Rodrigo Olin German, who has lived with HIV for 22 years, said too few New Zealanders understood the science behind modern treatment.

“Very few people know that people with HIV cannot pass it on if they are on effective treatment. We need more education and wider national campaigns.”

A history of acceptance – a present-day problem

New Zealand once prided itself on its compassion toward people living with HIV. In the 1980s, Eve van Grafhorst, a young girl ostracised in Australia after contracting HIV through a blood transfusion, was welcomed in Aotearoa and able to live a normal life.

Advocates say that spirit has faded, and that public attitudes today are still shaped by fear rather than science.

Survey reveals widespread misunderstanding

New research released ahead World AIDS Day highlights the scale of the problem:

41% of New Zealanders are not comfortable having food prepared by someone living with HIV
82% say they would be uncomfortable having a sexual relationship with someone with HIV
23% would be uncomfortable shaking hands.

Calls for law reform and access to medication

At a World AIDS Day breakfast at Parliament, the Burnett Foundation called on the Government to update HIV criminalisation laws and improve access to modern medicines.

Gibbs said New Zealand was significantly behind other countries.

“Some of our medication regime is 15 years or longer behind best practice in OECD nations. In other countries, you would have access to long-acting injectable treatment.”

Government response

The Government says there are no current plans to review HIV criminalisation laws.

However, officials have been asked to provide advice on endorsing the U=U campaign, which highlightedthat HIV can be both undetectable and untransmittable with the right treatment.

Advocates say embracing U=U publicly, updating the law and improving medication access could put New Zealand on track to become one of the first countries in the world to reach zero new transmissions.

Canada: Advocates urge Liberals to honour the Trudeau government’s commitment to reform HIV disclosure laws

Words aren’t enough: Canada must deliver on HIV criminal reform

HIV criminalization is not a new concern. For decades, people living with HIV in Canada have faced the reality that they can still face public outing by authorities, prosecution by the “justice” system, and imprisonment for allegedly not disclosing their HIV status to a sexual partner. This continues to be the case today, even in situations where there was no realistic possibility of transmission, no intent to transmit, and no transmission actually happened.

And for decades, people living with HIV, activists and community advocates, legal minds, and public health and medical experts have shown again and again that Canada’s terribly punitive approach is discriminatory, scientifically outdated, and harmful to public health. It reinforces and codifies systemic injustices and inequalities based on race, migration status, sexual orientation, and gender. It contradicts current science on HIV transmission, and it entrenches HIV stigma, further cementing barriers that people living with HIV face to accessing care and treatment, not to mention housing, employment, and personal safety. How can we expect people to feel safe getting tested and learning their HIV status when it could later be vindictively used against them?

That’s why it really mattered when, on December 1^st, 2017, the Government of Canada acknowledged these very concerns and highlighted the problematic state of HIV criminalization on World AIDS Day in their report Criminal Justice System’s Response to Non-Disclosure of HIV. The problem is that since 2017, the government’s actions have not caught up to words and there has been little progress from Canada to right these wrongs. People living with HIV in this country continue to be forced to live in fear.

Over the last eight years, activists, led by people living with HIV themselves, have continued to move the needle on HIV criminalization. Thanks to their efforts, the federal government announced national consultations on HIV criminalization at the 2022 International AIDS Conference, which was held in Montreal. “Our government recognizes that the criminalization of people living with HIV can lead to stigmatization and significant hardships,” stated then-Minister of Justice David Lametti. “This is why we are consulting Canadians on the best approach to reform the criminal law regarding HIV non-disclosure. It will help us find solutions, and will lead to better outcomes for affected populations.”

Those consultations concluded in early 2023 and since that time, no law reform has been introduced. Productive meetings with advocates aimed at making meaningful change continued for a time, until the Government of Canada quietly informed us last year that it had put any plans for real justice on the backburner.

While other jurisdictions, including various American states, such as Nevada, Virginia, Maryland, and Illinois, narrow or eliminate misguided prosecutions, the threat of criminalization continues to hang over the heads of people living with HIV here in Canada. In parallel, at a time when fewer people are being diagnosed with HIV around the world, HIV cases rose a staggering 35.2% in Canada between 2022 and 2023. While preliminary data from 2024 indicate a slight decrease in new cases in Canada, only time will tell whether this represents a reversal from recent worrying trends. What remains clear is that Canada must do more – both in its legal and policy responses – to get back on track toward the goal of eliminating HIV as a public health threat by 2030.

And so, every World AIDS Day, advocates find themselves writing yet another op-ed urging Canada to act. The headlines over the past few years alone tell the story: “Unjust HIV Criminalization is a National Disgrace”; “The Government of Canada Must Act to End the Harms of HIV Criminalization”; “We Need to Stop Criminalizing People with HIV”; “Let’s Stop Criminalizing HIV Status.” How long until these headlines are finally replaced with news that Canada has followed through on its promises to end the harms of HIV criminalization?

With a new government in place, we are feeling more hopeful than we were last World AIDS Day. But this government still needs to take firm and decisive action to bring Canada’s laws in line with science and human rights, and remove the stigma and discrimination against people living with HIV that is currently entrenched in our justice system. In so doing, we could envision a very different headline for next year’s World AIDS Day op-ed, and a very different reality for people living with HIV in Canada.

Muluba Habanyama is the Chair of the Canadian Coalition to Reform HIV Criminalization

Colin Hastings is an Assistant Professor at the University of Waterloo

André Capretti is a Policy Analyst at the HIV Legal Network

Uganda: Uganda faces a choice between scientific progress and harmful criminalisation

Uganda’s HIV future needs laws advancing progress, not repeating past

OPINION

By Belinda Agnes Namutebi

Imagine a truck arriving at your warehouse with goods you know you desperately need. They align with the future you have projected. They represent freedom, protection, and progress. They carry value that will transform your operations for years to come. But as you stand there receiving these goods, grateful for their arrival, you remain wary of a roadblock just outside your gate. A hindrance with the power to undo everything you have procured. An obstacle that does not care how far the goods have travelled or how important they are for your future.

That roadblock is Uganda’s outdated HIV & AIDS Prevention and Control Act.

Despite the funding disruptions that have threatened Uganda’s health system this year, we have been listed among the countries to receive support from the Global Fund and the United States government for the rollout of long-acting Lenacapavir, the twice-yearly injection that offers six months of protection against HIV.

Science has delivered an HIV prevention tool that complements the options Uganda already has, such as the ABC approach, oral PrEP, the dapivirine ring, and long-acting Cabotegravir. Lenacapavir offers six months of protection, which means that people at risk of HIV no longer need to take a daily pill. This convenience reduces the pill burden, which may in turn improve adherence, strengthen continuity of prevention, and ultimately lower new HIV infections, contributing to a better quality of life.

Lenacapavir is also discreet and offers genuine choice. Young women and girls who are exposed to HIV can now select a method that fits their realities. That freedom of choice is empowering, and it naturally reduces stigma because prevention becomes a private, dignified, and self-directed decision.

The economic benefit of Lenacapavir for Uganda’s health budget is significant. Every infection prevented is a treatment avoided. The more people who remain HIV-free because of long-acting prevention, the fewer resources the country will spend on lifelong HIV treatment.

Now this science arrives in Uganda and meets a law that criminalises having HIV. A law like this creates fear, which means people avoid testing because they do not want to be labelled criminals. When the law makes testing feel dangerous, people stay away from the very services that are meant to help them. If they do not test, they will not know their status. And if they do not know their status, they cannot make informed decisions about whether to start HIV treatment or whether to use HIV prevention tools, especially if they are at risk.

Science has already provided these tools: treatment that suppresses the virus, and prevention options that protect people before exposure. But without testing, none of this reaches the people who need it. Lack of testing also reduces disclosure, breaks trust, and eventually affects adherence because people operate in secrecy instead of safety.

The result is that the law ends up keeping people away from the systems that could protect them. Instead of slowing HIV transmission, it drives it underground. Instead of supporting prevention, it actively undermines it. The law creates the very silence that science is trying to break.

Uganda now stands at a moment when science is offering us a new beginning. Long-acting prevention is here. Global partners are ready. Communities are ready. Young women are ready. The only part of the system still living in 2014 is the law. If we want the goods at our warehouse to reach the people they are intended for, we must clear the road ahead.

As Uganda moves toward the polls to choose a new Parliament, this cannot be a forgotten issue. The HIV legislation must be at the top of the legislative agenda. Our next Parliament must decide whether Uganda will move forward with science or remain anchored to a past that no longer protects us.