[Update] US: Felony charges for intentional STD transmission one step closer in Louisiana

House committee votes in favor of STD criminalization bill with changes

A bill that would make it a felony to “knowingly and intentionally infect” someone with an incurable sexually transmitted disease, or STD, is one step closer to passage after a tight committee vote on Wednesday (May 28).

The bill — House Bill 76 — was first heard by the House Administration of Criminal Justice committee on May 7. Rep. Pat Moore, D-Monroe, who authored the bill, voluntarily deferred the legislation after significant pushback from public and sexual health advocates, as well as people living with sexually transmitted diseases and criminal defense lawyers.

The committee reheard an amended version of the bill on Wednesday , which raises the threshold for conviction to actual transmission of an STD, rather than simply exposure. Committee members voted 7-5 to advance the bill to the full House.

“If this is passed, it’s not going to please everyone,” Moore, who introduced a similar bill in 2021, said during the hearing. “But when you think about those victims who are asking for justice and say, ‘Do something about this,’ that’s in my heart and that’s in my mind. So, I think this can help.”

During the May 7 committee meeting, Moore brought along two women who claimed to have been unknowingly exposed and infected with incurable sexually transmitted infections, or STIs, including one who said she was infected by a DJ in New Orleans. The DJ was arrested earlier this year under Louisiana’s existing law that makes it a felony to intentionally expose someone to HIV without disclosure and consent.

The bill comes as other states have looked to reform or repeal similar laws, particularly those targeting people with HIV, over the past decade. Since 2014, 18 states have either loosened or repealed laws against exposure to HIV and other STDs, according to the Center for HIV Law and Policy. Studies have shown that criminalizing STDs does little to lower the number of cases and increase stigma toward people with STIs.

During testimony, public health advocates said Louisiana should invest more heavily in resources for testing and treatment, as well as sexual health education. They said these types of bills can reduce the incentive for people to get tested, since people can’t be prosecuted if they don’t know their status.

If the bill passes both legislative chambers and becomes law, a person found guilty of intentionally infecting someone else with an incurable STD without disclosing their own status could be fined up to $5,000 and be sentenced to up to 10 years in prison. The penalties would be worse if the victim is a minor, older than 65 or has an intellectual disability.

The four most common incurable sexually transmitted infections are hepatitis B, herpes simplex virus (HSV), human papillomavirus (HPV) and HIV. While no treatments exist to eliminate these viruses, all are treatable and manageable with medication, and HPV can sometimes clear up on its own.

Even with Louisiana’s current law against intentional HIV exposure, the state had the third-highest rate of new HIV diagnoses in the country in 2022, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Mexico: LGBTI groups ask for the repeal of HIV criminalisation law

LGBT+ groups demand legislation to punish discrimination against people with HIV

Translated with Deepl. Scroll down for the original article in Spanish.

They demanded to eliminate article 302 of the Tlaxcala Criminal Code, which criminalizes people living with HIV under the figure of “danger of contagion”, considering it obsolete and stigmatizing.

LGBTTTI+ collectives showed that in the state of Tlaxcala there are still areas with high levels of discrimination against people of diverse sexual orientation or with sexually transmitted diseases such as HIV.

In the framework of the International Day against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia, the collectives demanded a halt to legislative omissions that result in criminalisation and hate speech that violate justice, equality and dignity of people of sexual diversity.

They denounced that, according to the National LGBTQ+ Youth Mental Health Survey 2024, more than 50% of the LGBT+ community in Tlaxcala have been victims of discrimination, mainly by public institutions and in legal spaces.
“There is a systematic resistance of the local Congress to legislate in favour of equality. This phenomenon translates into omissions, freezing of initiatives and evasive speeches in the face of the urgency of guaranteeing human rights”, they affirmed.

Among their demands, they demanded the elimination of article 302 of the Penal Code of Tlaxcala, which criminalises people living with HIV under the figure of ‘danger of contagion’, considering it obsolete and stigmatising.

They also requested to sanction and eliminate hate speech on digital platforms and to establish protocols for institutional response to digital violence against LGBTTTI+ people.

It is worth noting that Congresswoman Mí Pérez Carrillo presented an initiative to reform the local Penal Code to criminalise hate speech against the LGBTIQ+ community, which is expected to be taken up in the coming days.

Exigen colectivos LGBT+ legislar para castigar discriminación a personas portadoras de VIH

Exigieron eliminar el artículo 302 del Código Penal de Tlaxcala, que criminaliza a las personas que viven con VIH bajo la figura de “peligro de contagio”, por considerarlo obsoleto y estigmatizante.

Colectivos LGBTTTI+ evidenciaron que en el estado de Tlaxcala persisten zonas con altos niveles de discriminación hacia personas con orientación sexual diversa o con enfermedades de transmisión sexual como el VIH.

En el marco del Día Internacional contra la Homofobia, la Transfobia y la Bifobia, los colectivos exigieron un alto a las omisiones legislativas que derivan en la criminalización y en discursos de odio que vulneran la justicia, igualdad y dignidad de las personas de la diversidad sexual.

Denunciaron que, de acuerdo con la Encuesta Nacional de Salud Mental de Juventudes LGBTQ+ 2024, más del 50% de la comunidad LGBT+ en Tlaxcala ha sido víctima de discriminación, principalmente por parte de instituciones públicas y en espacios legales.

“Existe una resistencia sistemática del Congreso local a legislar en favor de la igualdad. Este fenómeno se traduce en omisiones, congelamiento de iniciativas y discursos evasivos ante la urgencia de garantizar derechos humanos”, afirmaron.

Entre sus demandas, exigieron eliminar el artículo 302 del Código Penal de Tlaxcala, que criminaliza a las personas que viven con VIH bajo la figura de “peligro de contagio”, por considerarlo obsoleto y estigmatizante.

Asimismo, solicitaron sancionar y eliminar discursos de odio en plataformas digitales y establecer protocolos de respuesta institucional ante la violencia digital contra personas LGBTTTI+.

Es de destacar que la diputada Madaí Pérez Carrillo presentó una iniciativa de reforma al Código Penal local para tipificar los discursos de odio contra la comunidad LGBTIQ+, por lo que se espera que sea retomada en los próximos días.

[Update]US: STD criminalisation bill withdrawn as advocates call for education and resources

Louisiana lawmakers shelve bill criminalizing ‘intentional exposure’ to STDs

A Louisiana House committee shelved a bill Wednesday that would have made it illegal for someone to “intentionally” expose another person to an “incurable” sexually transmitted disease after steep concerns that criminalization could worsen the state’s proliferating STD rates.

This was the second time Rep. Patricia Moore, D-Monroe, had introduced such a bill in five years, despite opposition from public and sexual health advocates as well as people living with STDs. Moore said at a House Administration of Criminal Justice committee meeting that she wants to create a law that offers people recourse for when someone “knowingly and intentionally” doesn’t disclose their STD status.

The bill would have created a new felony, carrying up to 10 years in prison and $5,000 in fines, for someone who knows they have an “incurable” STD and exposes someone else without their knowledge and consent. Those penalties would have increased if the person exposed to the STD is a minor, over 65 years old or has an intellectual disability. The exposure under either charge would have needed to come through sexual contact, donating bodily fluids such as blood or sharing needles.

After pushback during public testimony, Moore voluntarily deferred House Bill 76.

In 2023, Louisiana had the highest rate of chlamydia cases in the country and ranked in the top 10 for syphilis, HIV and gonorrhea, according to data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The legislation comes as other states have repealed or modernized their own laws criminalizing STDs, especially HIV, over the past decade to align with the current medical landscape. An attempt to update Louisiana’s own law criminalizing HIV failed last year.

Before the bill was deferred, Moore amended it to just focus on “incurable” STDs, removing a proposal to create a new misdemeanor charge for exposing someone to a curable STD. The four most common incurable sexually transmitted infections are hepatitis B, herpes simplex virus (HSV), human papillomavirus (HPV) and HIV. While no treatments exist to eliminate these viruses, all are treatable and manageable with medication, and HPV can sometimes clear up on its own.

But the groups who opposed the bill, including several members of the Louisiana Coalition Against Criminalization and Health, said the bill would have the same problems as another state law on the books that criminalizes “intentional exposure” to HIV.

Data on how many people have been charged under the law is challenging to compile, but UCLA’s Williams Institute identified 147 allegations of HIV-related crimes between 2011 and 2022 in Louisiana, though researchers said that number could be higher.

Dietz, the coalition’s state coordinator, told the committee that said both the current law and bill contain “legal loopholes” that allow the law to be used against people living with HIV in their personal relationships, in part because it’s on the person living with the STD to prove they received the accuser’s consent.

In 2024, Dietz and other members of a state task force charged with researching the criminalization of HIV found that Louisiana’s current legal approach “can actually interfere with work to end the HIV epidemic,” according to its report.

“We’ve already made recommendations for the way the existing law allows for environments of coercion because again … proving that you disclosed your status is challenging,” Dietz said. “Even if you were to have proof in your hand, even if someone were to write it down, what if someone ripped it up? Or you lost it?”

St. Tammany Parish resident Katie Darling, who also serves as the vice chair of the Louisiana Democratic Party, shared the testimony of one of her residents who said she had been living with HIV for 25 years. Darling said the resident had her first husband sign an affidavit acknowledging that he knew she had HIV and consented, even though she was taking medication that prevented transmission. When the marriage turned physically abusive, the resident testified that her former husband threatened to take her to court over her HIV status.

“Thankfully, I had the document he signed on file at my doctor’s office. But what if I hadn’t?” Darling read from the testimony. The St. Tammany resident has now had her second husband sign a similar affidavit.

Those who opposed the bill also acknowledged that there is a need for people to have justice when they are unknowingly given an STD, whether that’s under new legislation or current laws around sexual assault.

Jennifer Tokarski, who is living with HPV, testified in support of the bill. She shared the story of her former husband who had sex outside of their marriage, refused to admit it and ultimately transmitted the virus to her.

“After five years in what I believed was a faithful relationship and Catholic marriage, I became severely ill,” Tokarski testified. “My husband attended appointments, rejected STD testing, reassuring doctors we were monogamous.”

When she learned of his infidelity, she said he battered her and filed for divorce.

“Only then did I learn he had infected me with a lifelong and incurable STD,” Tokarski said. “This is not just a private betrayal, this is a public health failure.”

Moore and Tokarski said they believed such a law would help promote honest conversations about sexual health that would lower the spread and give survivors a voice.

Studies have shown that criminalizing STDs do little to lower the number of cases and increase stigma. During testimony, public health advocates said Louisiana should invest more heavily in resources for testing and treatment as well as sexual health education, which isn’t required in schools.

At Wednesday’s meeting, Moore said she planned to work with the bill’s opponents to improve the language and possibly return the legislation to the committee if there’s time before the session. Otherwise, Moore said she will bring a form of the legislation back next year.

USA: Louisiana lawmaker renews push to criminalise STI exposure

Bill revives effort to criminalize non-consensual STD exposure in Louisiana

A Louisiana lawmaker has introduced a bill that would create new crimes for knowingly and intentionally exposing someone to a sexually transmitted disease without their informed consent.

House Bill 76, sponsored by state Rep. Patricia Moore (D-Monroe), would establish two separate offenses: felony intentional exposure for incurable STDs and misdemeanor intentional exposure for curable ones.

Felony Exposure (incurable STD)

Under the bill, a person could face felony charges if they knowingly have an incurable STD and intentionally expose someone without that person’s knowledge or informed consent through:

Sexual intercourse or sodomy.
Selling/donating blood, semen, organs, etc.
Sharing needles.

The proposed bill said the standard penalty includes up to 10 years in prison and/or up to a $5,000 fine.

There would be harsher penalties if:

The victim is under 13 and the offender is 17 or older: 25–99 years in prison, with at least 25 years served without parole.
The victim is under 18 with an age gap of over two years: 10–25 years, with at least 10 served without parole.
The victim is 65 or older: Up to 25 years
The offender has an intellectual disability: Up to 15 years’ sentence and up to a $10,000 fine

Anyone convicted would also be placed on lifetime electronic monitoring. Offenders must cover the cost of their monitoring unless deemed unable to pay, in which case the state may cover the expense. The Department of Public Safety and Corrections would be tasked with setting the payment rules.

The bill includes affirmative defenses:

If the exposed person knew the offender’s status, knew the risks, and gave informed consent.
If the offender disclosed their status and took preventative measures advised by a healthcare provider.

Misdemeanor Exposure (curable STD):

The bill also creates a misdemeanor offense for knowingly exposing someone to a curable STD without informed consent through the same methods listed above.

The penalty would be up to six months in jail and/or up to a $1,000 fine.

The bill’s current status is pending before the House Administration of Criminal Justice Committee.

Bill has faced past criticism

Rep. Moore filed similar legislation in 2021 (House Bill 238), which expanded an existing criminal statute that previously applied only to HIV exposure. The earlier bill drew criticism from some public health experts and LGBTQ advocates, according to a report from the Louisiana Illuminator. Opponents argued that the bill could discourage people from getting tested for STDs, since the enforcement hinges on the offender knowing their status. Groups like the HIV Medicine Association and the CDC have warned that criminalization laws can increase stigma, reduce screening, and undermine public health efforts.

Moore said at the time that her goal was to address high rates of infection in Louisiana and that she was open to amendments and input from healthcare professionals.

Canada: Canada’s broken promise on HIV criminalisation reform

HIV criminalization and the Canadian government’s failed law reform project: Another. Incredible. Disappointment. Surprise!

By Chad Clarke with contributions from Colin Johnson

The Government of Canada has broken its promise to reform the laws that criminalize people living with HIV. In November 2024, the Federal Justice Minister’s office informed the Canadian Coalition to Reform HIV Criminalization (CCRHC) that the federal government’s long-promised initiative addressing the “overcriminalization” (their term) of HIV was not going to move forward. This announcement came after almost a decade of difficult work on the part of the HIV community. Blood, sweat and tears and some lives were lost while we worked on developing a workable consensus statement that would satisfy a majority of Parliament.

The government squandered time, money, people’s energy and people’s lives. By conducting a public consultation on “reforming the criminal law regarding HIV non-disclosure” only to appear like they were doing something, when in fact they weren’t, the government failed to address the harms associated with stigma, discrimination and criminalization! It has failed to address the way our current Criminal Code harms people and communities affected by HIV. “Silence = Death” is an iconic slogan in the history of AIDS activism and we can not be silent on our incredible disappointment with the government’s inaction.

A backdrop of struggle

Back in July of 2024, I sat down with fellow CCRHC steering committee member Colin Johnson to discuss HIV criminalization and to urge the government to act. Our CATIE Blog article, entitled “HIV law reform”, began by listing some of the emotions that I was feeling at the time: “Anger! Disappointment! Betrayal!” I still feel these emotions as I write this follow-up blog post.

I feel like I’m playing a game of chess with this government and once again we’re locked in a stalemate. Our current feelings of disappointment are experienced against the backdrop of 44 years of struggle.

While there have been notable improvements in Canada for people living with HIV/AIDS, for example in antiretroviral medicines, in some respects we are backsliding. According to the Public Health Agency of Canada, we saw 2,434 new HIV diagnoses in 2023, a 35.2% increase from the previous year.

Consultation games

In the face of rising HIV cases, it makes sense to ask how the government is funding the HIV response. Short answer: it’s not funding it enough.

In 2003, more than 20 years ago, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health recommended that $100 million per year be allocated to support the HIV response in Canada. While funding did increase, it fell short of this recommendation. The government promised to spend $84.4 million annually as of 2008, but in reality, this figure has been frozen at about $73 million. This means over $123 million promised for the HIV response was never delivered. This lack of funding has had a crippling effect on the services and community organizations working to respond to and prevent HIV.

In 2019, the Standing Committee on Health, once again, recommended $100 million per year to fund the HIV response in Canada. But, we’re still waiting!

On the one hand, the government is clearly not spending enough on the HIV response. But on the other hand, how much money was spent on the nationwide consultation that was destined to go nowhere? We already had so much data showing that the criminal law needed to be changed. For example, back in 2019 the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights tabled a report calling on the government to change the criminal code.

The CCRHC even developed proposed language for reforming the Criminal Code. We didn’t need this expensive consultation.

A consequence of inaction

As I write this, people living with HIV are still being convicted of serious criminal offences and sentenced to years in prison for allegedly not disclosing their HIV status to sexual partners, even in situations where there was little to no risk of transmission.

Beyond the horrible, violent ways that HIV criminalization harms individuals—too numerous and too painful for me to recount here (see Alexander McClelland’s book on this topic)—we know that it has also caused significant harmful consequences for our wider communities. To quote a recent publication in the Canadian Journal of Public Health, HIV criminalization

“…is applied in uneven and discriminatory ways, hinders public health HIV prevention efforts, and has damaging effects on the everyday well-being, safety, security, and rights of people living with HIV. Studies also show that the mainstream press reinforces damaging, racist, stigmatizing messages about HIV in its coverage of criminal non-disclosure cases.”

If anyone reading this thinks they might be in favour of a criminal law response to HIV, let me ask you this: how many cases of HIV has the criminal law ever prevented? To answer this question, I’ll offer this quote from an article in the journal of Critical Public Health: “One of the defining features of the literature is the absence of a single study demonstrating that HIV criminalization has a positive impact on HIV prevention.”

HIV criminalization is killing people. I tell you this based on my own personal experience. As a criminalization survivor, I sometimes feel like I am being inexorably, slowly, killed by a brutal system that has abandoned me to poverty, precarious housing, stigma, discrimination and ongoing criminalization. I served my time, but there are so many other ways that my life is still criminalized today because of the unjust Criminal Code that persecuted me in the first place, and because of the government’s inaction and failure to right this historic wrong.

From inaction to action

I don’t want to end this piece with the government’s inaction. Instead, I want to leave us with a call to action. In the coming federal election, we can ask how parties and leaders will address community calls for criminal law reform. We can ask them to commit to taking real action: we don’t need another public consultation that goes nowhere.

Also, we can inform ourselves and others about the harms of HIV criminalization. I don’t know exactly where this quotation comes from, but it’s one that my friend, the late Cindy Stine, once told me: “If you don’t know your rights… you don’t have any!”

As we head into this next election, we as a community can keep HIV criminalization on the political agenda. We know that HIV criminalization harms public health—it harms everyone. Time to ACT UP!

I encourage you to stand with me by joining the Canadian Coalition to Reform HIV Criminalization. HIV IS NOT A CRIME!!

Chad Clarke has been living with HIV for more than 15 years. His personal experience of prosecution and imprisonment has transformed him into a passionate leader and activist working against the discriminatory criminalization of HIV non-disclosure. Chad’s voice has been a spark that has inspired many to get involved in the movement for change. He is a current member of the steering committee of the Canadian Coalition to Reform HIV Criminalization.

Colin Johnson is a Black gay man who has lived with HIV for the past 40 years. He has been an advocate for African, Caribbean and Black communities for decades, with a focus on queer folk and substance use. He is the co-chair of the Toronto Harm Reduction Alliance (THRA) and sits on the steering committee for the Canadian Coalition to Reform HIV Criminalization.

Australia: Controversial HIV testing bill in South Australia faces backlash from experts

Alarm raised over proposed HIV testing laws in South Australia

South Australia is moving to bring in laws forcing people to be tested for HIV despite a report in New South Wales describing similar legislation as ineffective and unneeded.

Health organisation Thorne Harbour Health has expressed strong opposition to the South Australian Government’s proposed Criminal Law (Forensic Procedures) (Blood Testing) Amendment Bill 2024, citing concerns over its scientific validity, potential to spread disinformation, and its exacerbation of stigma toward people living with blood-borne viruses (BBVs).

The bill intends to protect frontline emergency services workers by mandating blood testing of individuals who spit at or bite them. Yet, expert bodies such as the Australasian Society for HIV, Viral Hepatitis and Sexual Health Medicine have firmly stated that mandatory testing for BBVs is not an effective or evidence-based approach to public health.

“We support policies that ensure a safe workplace for all workers, including emergency services personnel. However, this bill is not an evidence-based approach to achieving that goal. It creates unnecessary anxiety for workers and does nothing to improve public health outcomes,” said Thorne Harbour Health Vice President and Secretary of the HIV Justice Network, Paul Kidd.

“The bill, as drafted, does not consider the actual risk of transmission,” said Kidd.

Throne Harbour Health argues that Testing should only be permitted where there is risk of transmission. HIV, Hepatitis B, and Hepatitis C cannot be transmitted through saliva, meaning spitting does not pose a risk.

They also advocate that testing should only be ordered within 72 hours of alleged exposure, as this is the window in which prophylactic interventions (such as post-exposure prophylaxis, or PEP) can prevent transmission. They say the proposed six-month time frame is ineffective and misleading.

They also highlight that emergency service workers should undergo immediate medical treatment if a risk is identified, rather than waiting for mandatory test results that may be misleading or delayed.

“People living with HIV continue to face stigma across many aspects of our lives, including in our interactions with police. It’s vital that emergency workers understand how HIV is transmitted and when they are at risk of transmission. There have been zero recorded cases of HIV transmission to an on-duty police officer in Australia,” said President of Positive Life SA, Kath Leane.

“By promoting inaccurate information about how BBVs are transmitted, this legislation does more harm than good. Not only does it put emergency workers at risk of misunderstanding real threats, but it also increases discrimination against people living with HIV,” said Leane.

Similar legislation has been passed in New South Wales and Western Australia. Last month the New South Wales Ombudsman questioned if the laws truly served the purpose they were designed for.

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

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

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

OUTinPerth recently approached both the Labor party and the Liberal party and asked if they still supported the Western Australian laws. We are waiting for a response.

US: Advocates hope report update will finally push Ohio to end HIV criminalisation

‘Guilty until our status is proven innocent’: Update on Ohio’s outdated HIV criminalization laws

With six Ohio decades-old laws still currently on the books that criminalize living with HIV, there is a new effort to give voice to the negative consequences and long-term impacts of the laws.

The Equality Ohio Education Fund and Ohio Health Modernization Movement (OHMM) released an update last week to their 2024 report, “The Enforcement of HIV Criminalization in Ohio,”which documents the use of Ohio’s HIV criminalization laws from 2014 to 2020 and the consequences of HIV criminalization across the state.

Key findings of the 2024 report include:

From 2014 to 2020, there were at least 214 confirmed HIV-related prosecutions in Ohio, of which over half (120 cases) came from the state’s “harassment with a bodily substance” law and about a third (77 cases) came under Ohio’s felonious assault law. The remainder (17 cases) were related to sex work.
The enforcement of Ohio’s HIV criminal statutes is geographically concentrated, with at least 26% (56 cases) of prosecutions occurring in Cuyahoga County (Cleveland). The other most-represented counties include Hamilton County (Cincinnati), with at least 26 cases, Lucas County (Toledo) with at least 16 cases, Franklin County (Columbus) with at least 15 cases and Montgomery (Dayton) and Warren counties, each with at least 10 cases.
Ohio’s HIV criminalization laws disproportionately impact Black communities, with at least 36% of defendants identifying as Black. Statewide, 29% of all defendants (62 people) were Black men.
In Cuyahoga County, 68% of HIV-related cases impacted Black Ohioans.

Most of the charges examined in the report fall under two Ohio laws.

One law makes it a crime for a person living with HIV (or hepatitis or tuberculosis) to “harass” someone with their bodily fluids. That would include spitting or throwing urine, feces or blood at another person.

Under the other law, a person can be charged with felonious assault if they have sex with another person without telling them that they are living with HIV.

The penalties for failing to disclose HIV status in Ohio are stiff regardless of whether the virus was actually transmitted or whether it was even possible for a person to transmit the virus. Possible sentences for individuals living with HIV can be anywhere from two to 29 times longer than those for Ohioans who are HIV-negative.

Most of the laws were passed decades ago, at a time fueled by fear and absent scientific understanding about how HIV is transmitted and before advancements in HIV-related treatment were widely introduced. Laws still remain in place in 34 states.

Giving voice

New to the report are the stories of three Ohioans who have been impacted by the state’s HIV criminalization laws.

Adam Reilly, OHMM legislative co-chair, said the goal of including these narratives is to humanize the laws to help Ohioans connect HIV criminalization to actual people.

“These are real people: your neighbors or even your family who have been directly affected,” said Reilly. “We hope that people finish reading the report, see the injustice and take action.”

One of those narratives came from Bryan C. Jones, a longtime HIV decriminalization advocate who lived with HIV for more than 42 years before passing away in December.

“To this day I’m still scared of having sex with someone,” Jones said. “The law says we are innocent until proven guilty, but for us [persons living with HIV/AIDS], we’re guilty until our status is proven innocent.”

Another narrative came from Anna – a pseudonym to protect her – a 37-year-old Black trans woman from Cleveland who was arrested for solicitation by an undercover detective. During the arrest, she confirmed her status of living with HIV.

“They asked me, was I HIV positive? I told them, ‘yeah,’” Anna said. “And next thing I know, they just blew it all out of proportion. Transgender woman, HIV positive, soliciting. They was trying to give me five years in prison.”

Anna took a plea deal, was sentenced to 18 months in a men’s prison – without access to gender-affirming care – and had to register as a sex offender, a consequence of Ohio’s laws that does not exist as a penalty in other states.

A part of her plea deal included making a mandated statement about her HIV status to the media.

“I [felt] like I was nobody. I mean, it’s like they made a debacle out of me,” Anna said. “Could you imagine walking out the courtroom and there’s cameras everywhere?”

The third narrative came from Kelley, a 46-year-old woman in Warren living with HIV. Kelley was was arrested and charged with felonious assault after her ex fiance claimed that she did not disclose her HIV status to him, which she states is untrue.

Kelley served five years of an eight year prison sentence.

“To this day, I still don’t understand why this is felonious assault,” Kelley said.

The hope for new legislation

Two bills were introduced in the Statehouse in late 2024 by then-Rep. Sara Carruthers (R-Hamilton) to bring the six laws more in line with modern science and research.

Although neither bill advanced beyond an initial November hearing, advocates are hoping future legislation is introduced to accomplish the same science-based approach.

“Spread the word about these narratives and contact your representatives,” the OHMM’s Reilly said. “The more that lawmakers hear from their constituents, the more that they will see that there is a want, a need and a desire to modernize these laws.”

At the very least, advocates hope the updated report educates more Ohioans and inspires strong emotion. In his other role as outreach and testing manager at Caracole – the Cincinnati-based AIDS-service organization – Reilly said he regularly speaks with clients who don’t know about the six laws, including those who are living with HIV.

“I have never had an experience of someone saying, ‘These laws sound like a good idea,’” Reilly said. “Maybe if people know more about the laws, they will become enraged and something can change.”

IGNITE ACTION

Read the updated report “The Enforcement of HIV Criminalization in Ohio” by going here.
To access The Buckeye Flame’s full 2025-2026 Guide to Ohio’s LGBTQ+ Legislation, click here.

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

Danger of contagion: Tamaulipas criminalizes people with HIV

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

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

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

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

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

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

Criminalisation encourages discrimination

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

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

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

Tamaulipas seeks to decriminalise the danger of contagion

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peligro de contagio: Tamaulipas criminaliza a personas con VIH

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

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

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

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

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

Criminalización fomenta la discriminación

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

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

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

Tamaulipas busca despenalizar el peligro de contagio

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I want my name back

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kerry: What was that like?

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

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

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

Kerry: Were you in there by yourself?

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

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

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

Kerry: Why did you?

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

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

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

Kerry: Whose funeral was it?

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

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

Lashanda: No, I’ve never made bread.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lashanda: Where do I start?

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

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

Kerry: Afraid of what?

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

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

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

Lashanda: Exactly. I want that back.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lashanda: Exactly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lashanda Salinas

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

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

Kerry: Why not?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Overview

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

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

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

Key Findings

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

Battery by Bodily Fluid or Waste

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

Malicious Mischief

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

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

Download the full report