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

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

From TheBody.com

April 6, 2017

Table of Contents

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

REPEALing Policies That Encourage and Allow HIV Discrimination

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

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

California Looks to Reduce HIV Criminalization

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Georgia Convenes a Committee

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

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

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

Ohio Rethinks HIV Criminalization

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

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

Utah Enacts Heavier Penalties for People With HIV

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

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

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

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

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

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

Published in the Body on April 7, 2017

NZ: The prosecution of people living with HIV for HIV non-disclosure is at odds with medical advances

Living with HIV is no death sentence

Jane Bruning was 33 when she was told she would die.

The Auckland woman was living in Tanzania when her former partner died suddenly, almost immediately after being told he was HIV positive.

Subsequent tests revealed Bruning, mother to a young son, also had HIV.

It was the 1980s, and the news wasn’t good.

“In those days it just wasn’t considered something heterosexual people got,” says Bruning.

“It was a shock…In Tanzania there was no information about HIV. They only had one national radio station, and one newspaper newspaper and they were both in Swahili. There was very little information — HIV was perceived as a gay man’s thing that happened in San Francisco.

“It was very, very scary because there was absolutely no infrastructure or support. I was told I had three years to live and to sleep well, eat well, and don’t have sex.”

Bruning said the ensuing period was “surreal”.

Jane Bruning, national coordinator for Positive Women, says New Zealand is at a crossroads when it comes to how we approach HIV.

She relocated to New Zealand so her family could take care of her son when she was gone.

For years she waited to die.

Then, antiretroviral treatment drastically changed the lives of people living with HIV for the better.

With daily medication Bruning realised she would live to meet her grandchildren after all.

Nonetheless, everything was different.

“I don’t know that it’s been a normal life and I’m not sure I would say it’s been 100 per cent healthy because of the side effects from the medication. I knew I wasn’t going to die, but I wasn’t quite sure how to live.”

Bruning, now 59, is one of a small percentage of heterosexual women in New Zealand living with HIV.

It hasn’t been an easy road.

From a medical perspective she is healthy albeit some side effects from her daily medication including peripheral neuropathy, lipoatrophy and lipodystrophy, however, life hasn’t been the same since.

She hasn’t had a partner in 20 years, which is a personal choice. “I thought I was coming home to die so I didn’t see any point in getting into a relationship”.

As the national coordinator of Positive Women, a support agency for women living with HIV and their families, she has come across cases of people being treated like lepers despite medication reducing their risk of transmission.

Earlier this month prosecutors at the Auckland District Court accused Mikio Filitonga of burying his head in the sand when it came to his own HIV diagnosis.

He was found guilty of causing grievous bodily harm to his former partner by infecting him with HIV, and of committing a criminal nuisance by having unprotected sex with him knowing he had HIV and not disclosing it.

Evidence heard at trial established Filitonga was evasive with medical authorities, shunned treatment, and didn’t tell his partner of his diagnosis.

He is one of around a dozen people who have been charged with offences relating to the infliction of HIV since Kenyan musician Peter Mwai became the first person to be prosecuted in 1994.

Unlike some countries or US states where law has been specially crafted for the offence, prosecutors in New Zealand utilise existing legislation to prosecute those whose recklessness leads to injury.

But given people living with HIV can have long, healthy lives—can injury be proven?

Filitonga’s defence lawyer Ross Burns applied to have the charges formally dismissed by the Judge, arguing that the definition of grievous bodily harm hadn’t been met because the complainant was taking medication that made him asymptomatic—technically injury free.

Judge Mary-Beth Sharp rejected the application, saying HIV was an “indisputably serious” illness.

“It is incurable, chronic, and can cause death. With respect, that says it all,” she says.

After the trial the New Zealand Aids Foundation criticised the prosecution, saying court action should only be taken where malicious intent to infect others is established.

The Sunday Star-Times asked: Should people still be prosecuted for inflicting a manageable illness when many others, such as measles, can cause the same damage but aren’t pursued through the courts.

“I do think HIV is a big deal. I wouldn’t want anyone to contract it. I wouldn’t wish it on anybody,” says Bruning.

“In saying that, with the medication making viral loads undetectable, I think we’re coming to a real crossroads. Do you need to wear condoms? Do you need to disclose your status? Clinically, there is no reason why someone should have to wear a condom or disclose. Morally, you have a whole different story.”

Long time infectious diseases physician Dr Graham Mills says it’s an “interesting paradox”, and its silly to compare HIV to measles or other highly infectious diseases that don’t become the subject of criminal prosecutions.

Society’s continued efforts to reduce transmission rates, including the prosecution of reckless persons who pass it on to others, are at odds with the fact medical advances can render HIV virtually undetectable, he says.

Mills works with a 190 HIV patients under the Waikato District Health Board umbrella and gave expert evidence in the Filitonga trial.

He wouldn’t comment on the case but admitted that he became fascinated with specialising in infectious diseases during his time as a medical student at Otago University when a mysterious illness known only as GRID (gay related immuno deficiency which later became known as HIV) became known in the United States.

Since then he has seen patients die, but many also live normal lives.

“Ask yourself, why do I want to reduce HIV? One, because it forces people to be on medication and treatment for the rest of their life.

“Two, it’s expensive. It costs about $10,000 a year for pharmaceutical and out patient costs. Most people don’t pay that much in tax per year.

“Three, it’s an ongoing epidemic, and there are people that lose in any epidemic. The people that lose out are the people that have barriers to health care.

“We’re not criminalising HIV. We never have. We have existing laws to hold people to account because someone has complained, because they believe they have come to serious harm, and therefore we’re giving them the framework with which to lay a complaint.”

Auckland University law professor Julia Tolmie says case law evolved at a time when HIV was “an inevitable death sentence”.

“That has certainly shifted now. Nonetheless the illness would still fall within the definition of grievous bodily harm, which just means ‘really seriously hurt’ or ‘really serious bodily injury’. Something can be ‘bodily injury’ even if treatment is available to cure or manage it,” she says.

The “real issue” for the courts is whether a person’s HIV positive status has been disclosed to consenting partners.

“I think there is an argument that you could apply the same legal principles to, for example, herpes, which is arguably grievous bodily harm, but may not be considered to be dangerous to life.

“I do not know about the infection process for measles but I imagine one of the difficult issues there would be establishing that a person purposefully risked infecting others—people may well be contagious before they know that they have the illness.

“Of course, there is also the need to have a complainant before criminal charges will be laid. People may well not think of informing the police where someone has deliberately risked infecting them with measles or other illnesses.”

Susan – not her real name – disagrees. Her former partner Darryl Kilpatrick was jailed briefly after he had unprotected sex with her without disclosing his HIV status.

She underwent years of testing before receiving confirmation she hadn’t been infected, but she developed post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and attempted suicide.

Susan firmly believes people who inflict HIV on others should be charged with a sexual offence, describing her own experience as akin to being raped.

“The effects are identical to rape and sexual violation. The breach of trust, the health issues—it’s an absolute threat to life and future sexual relationships”.

“It’s been a long, lonely journey and I have to say it’s never ending. It’s been very hard,” says Susan.

She said people “minimised and rationalised” her situation because she hadn’t been infected, and she became frustrated with the lack of support.

“I rang the Wellington sex abuse helpline and the woman on the phone said to me, ‘I don’t know how to help you’. I just screamed at her saying, ‘can’t you see I’ve been sexually violated?'”

Susan later successfully pursued ACC through the High Court in order to get payments for her PTSD, after the agency initially said it didn’t recognise her injury.

The NZAF said prosecutions had the “significant potential” to undermine previous successes in breaking down stigma and discrimination, and reducing HIV incidence rates.

Director Jason Myers said it weakened public health messages of shared responsibility for sexual health and promoted the perception that they are “potential criminals or a threat to innocent’ people”.

“For these reasons, the application of criminal law to the transmission of HIV should be kept for those very few cases in which a person who knows their HIV status has not disclosed this to a sexual partner and acted with the express intent to transmit the virus. Invoking criminal laws in cases of adult private consensual sexual activity is disproportionate and counterproductive to enhancing public health,” said Myers.

According to Bruning there is a strong difference between keeping personal information secret knowing it won’t affect anyone else, and being reckless or deliberate.

“To me, burying your head in the sand is not is not useful, although I understand how stigma can affect people to an extent they are in denial, but that’s very different to someone who injects their blood (in 2009 an HIV positive man deliberately injected his sleeping partner with his blood to deliberately infect her so they could have sex) into someone else,” said Bruning.

Published in Stuff on April 2, 2017

US: Positive Project Update – March 2017

CHLP Authors Articles on HIV Criminalization for Special Issue of APA’s Psychology and Exchange Newsletter

CHLP staff recently authored two articles for the March edition of the Psychology and AIDS Exchange newsletter from the American Psychological Association. This issue is dedicated to exploring the issue of criminalization of HIV exposure and transmission, and highlights the APA’s commitment to decriminalizing HIV. Executive Director Catherine Hanssens and Staff Attorney Kate Boulton wrote, “When Sex is a Crime and Spit is a Dangerous Weapon: The origins, impact and advocacy response to HIV criminal laws,” which can be read here. Deputy Director Mayo Schreiber penned “An Update on the Prosecution, Conviction and Appeal of Michael Johnson,” which can be read here.

State Advocacy Working Group Updates

CALIFORNIA

On February 6, Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) and Assemblymember Todd Gloria (D-San Diego) introduced SB 239, a bill to modernize California laws that criminalize and stigmatize people living with HIV. The bill is co-sponsored by the ACLU of California, APLA Health, Black AIDS Institute, Equality California, Lambda Legal, and Positive Women’s Network–USA. The organizations are members of Californians for HIV Criminalization Reform, a broad coalition of people living with HIV, health service providers, civil rights organizations, and public health professionals dedicated to ending the criminalization of HIV in California. The full text of the bill can be found here. On March 1, The Center for HIV Law and Policy submitted a letter in support of the bill. A hearing on the bill was held on March 28.

On March 8, Californians for HIV Criminalization Reform and the LGBT Caucus held a legislative briefing about HIV Criminalization at the State Capitol in Sacramento.

If your organization is interested in supporting modernization of California’s HIV criminal laws, we invite you to join Californians for HIV Criminalization Reform (eqca.org/chcr). Please contact brad@eqca.org or 323-848-9801 for additional information.

GEORGIA

On February 14, Representative Sharon Cooper (R-Marietta) introduced House Resolution 240, which proposed the creation of a Joint Study Committee on Reforming HIV Related Criminal Laws. However, Cooper presented a substitute on March 24 to the Special Rules committee that significantly weakened the resolution’s initial intent, shifting its focus to health care barriers for a range of chronic conditions, inclusive of HIV, rather than the stark barrier of HIV criminalization. The full text of the current resolution can be found here. On March 20, Senator Fort (D-Atlanta) introduced a parallel resolution in the Senate that proposes the creation of a Senate Study Committee to examine reform of Georgia’s HIV-specific criminal law. In addition to five state senators, that committee would include a representative from the Department of Public Health, as well as a criminal defense attorney, and a community-based HIV service provider. The full text of that resolution can be found here.

Members of the Georgia Coalition to End HIV Criminalization also engaged in advocacy at the state capitol on February 16, educating legislators about HIV criminalization and building support for HR 240.

Next Meeting: Thursday, March 23 from 4:00-6:00pm (ET)

If you are interested in joining the Georgia Coalition to End HIV Criminalization, please contact Nina Martinez (nina.i.martinez@gmail.com) or Emily Brown (emily@georgiaequality.org) for additional information.

INDIANA

HMM-Indiana is participating in Indiana HIV Advocacy Day on April 12 and will present on HIV criminalization. You can register to attend here. The Steering Committee continues to meet monthly and expand its network. HIV Advocacy Day will be on April 12 at the Indiana Statehouse from 10:00am-3:00pm. You can register here.

Next Steering Committee Meeting: Monday, April 17

If you are interested in information about HIV criminalization in Indiana or in participating, supporting or endorsing HMM-Indiana, visit our get involved page or contact us at hmm.indiana@gmail.com

MISSOURI

The Missouri HIV Justice Coalition (MO HIV JC) drafted a letter to the prosecuting attorney in Michael Johnson’s case requesting that charges not be re-filed. The plan is to submit the letter again in April —organizations that would like to sign on can still do so by contacting Ashley Quinn at ashley@empowermissouri.org .

MO HIV JC will be hosting a Train-the-Trainer event this summer, contact Ashley if you’re interested in receiving training to be equipped to educate your community about HIV criminalization in order to grow grassroots support. We need representatives from across the state and all demographics, prioritizing people living with HIV.

The St. Louis chapter of Empower Missouri is hosting an April 21 forum on the Criminalization of Poverty that will include a panelist speaking about HIV criminalization. The forum runs from 12:00pm-1:30pm at The Highlands Golf Course Inside Forest Park, and 1.5 hours of CEU credits are available. For more info or to RSVP, contact: christine@empowermissouri.org

Meetings are held on the fourth Friday of the month at 1:00pm (CT) via conference call.

If you are interested in becoming an advocate with the Missouri HIV Justice Coalition, please contact Ashley Quinn at ashley@empowermissouri.org.

OHIO

On February 8, CHLP hosted a webinar on Ohio’s HIV felonious assault statute and advocacy strategies to modernize the law. Advocates will use the presentation as a helpful starting point to develop targeted educational materials for different audiences in the state. Planning is also in progress for an in-person convening of Ohio advocates develop an advocacy strategy and focus on expansion of the coalition.

On February 21, advocate Steve Arrington organized a presentation on HIV criminalization for the Ohio Black Women’s Leadership Caucus. The AIDS Taskforce of Greater Cleveland organized a March 10 legislative luncheon to introduce policymakers to the issue of HIV criminalization in the state of Ohio. Ohio advocates and PJP are also in the process of planning a May forum on HIV criminalization that will take place in Columbus, Ohio. More details will be available soon.

The Ohio Recodification Committee reconvened and examined proposed amendments to Ohio’s HIV criminal law on March 2. The Committee will vote on the amendments at a later date.

Next meeting: Wednesday, April 12 at 5:00pm (ET)

If you would like information on HIV Criminalization or are interested in becoming an advocate with the Ohio HIV Criminalization Working Group, contact Kate Boulton at kboulton@hivlawandpolicy.org.

SOUTH CAROLINA

The South Carolina HIV Task Force (SCHTF) held its first 2017 quarterly meeting on February 7 at the Lions Street Student Center in Columbia. The event focused on priority areas of advocacy over the next year and also included a presentation on HIV criminalization in the state. SCHTF also reached out to some legislators to start identifying allies who can support modernization efforts.

The working group is currently in the early stages of planning an in-person meeting so that key stakeholders can come together and develop an advocacy strategy and focus on expansion of the coalition.

Meetings are held on the second Thursday of the month at 2:00pm (ET).

If you would like information on HIV Criminalization or are interested in becoming an advocate with the PJP SC Law Modernization Group, please contact Kate Boulton at kboulton@hivlawandpolicy.org.

TENNESSEE

The Working Group learned in early January that the prospective legislative sponsor for their modernization bill did not want to move forward with the bill this year, but has assured advocates he will support the bill next year. The Working Group will be focusing its energy on outreach and education over the next year to further strengthen its coalition and build support for modernization. Members of the Working Group attended Day on the Hill at the state capitol in February and reported that several legislators are receptive to the idea of supporting a modernization bill next year.

Next Meeting: Thursday, April 27 at 12:00pm (ET)

If you would like information on HIV criminalization or are interested in becoming an advocate with the PJP TN Working Group, please contact Kate Boulton at kboulton@hivlawandpolicy.org.

TEXAS

Advocates convened monthly through March and participated in HIV Advocacy Day at the state capitol on February 28. In mid-December, a bill was proposed to create a new offense of Indecent Assault. Although bill sponsors emphasized that the bill is merely an anti-groping law, advocates had concerns about how language in the proposed bill could have unintended consequences for PLHIV. Advocates were able to meet with legislators, who agreed to include language clarifying the bill’s legislative intent.

Lacresha Craig remains in the Dallas County jail and there is has been no response from the Dallas District Attorney (DA) to a letter sent by advocates at the end of last year. Advocates agreed during their last call to draft an op-ed highlighting the injustice of Craig’s case, and will continue reaching out to the DA.

Meetings are held on the third Friday of the month at 1:00pm (CT).

If you are interested in information about HIV criminalization or actively participating in the Texas HIV Working Group, please contact Kate Boulton at kboulton@hivlawandpolicy.org

CHLP’s assistance in criminal cases includes counseling defendants and their families, referring defendants to attorneys, providing legal and trial strategy support to criminal defense attorneys, identifying and assisting with preparation of medical and scientific experts, drafting sections of court submissions, and submitting friend-of-the-court briefs.

MISSOURI

On December 20, 2016, the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District overturned Michael Johnson’s conviction and remanded the case for retrial. On February 14, 2017, the State of Missouri filed an application for transfer of Johnson’s case to the Missouri Supreme Court. If the court rejects the case, then it will be remanded for retrial, as decided by the Court of Appeals last year, meaning the prosecution can pursue a new trial or drop the case. If the court accepts the case, there will be an opportunity for briefing, oral argument, and then a decision after that, which could take several months. Stay informed on developments in this case with our newly updated fact sheet and case timeline, which can be found here.

OHIO

Orlando Batista was indicted for felonious assault in July 2014 for allegedly engaging in sexual conduct with his girlfriend without first disclosing his HIV status. After the trial court rejected his motion to dismiss, Batista pleaded no contest and the court sentenced him to the maximum term of eight years. In October 2016, the Supreme Court of Ohio accepted his appeal for review. In December 2016, CHLP, with support from the Gibbons P.C. law firm and the Ohio Public Defender, along with seven Ohio-based and national HIV, LGBT, health professional and criminal justice organizations, submitted a friend-of-the-court brief in support of Batista to the Supreme Court of Ohio, challenging the Ohio felonious assault statute on the grounds that it violated the Constitutional Guarantee of Equal Protection and federal prohibitions against discrimination on the basis of disabilities. The ACLU of Ohio Foundation and Center for Constitutional Rights submitted a separate friend-of-the-court brief based on First Amendment grounds. Both Batista and the State of Ohio have submitted merit briefs for the court’s consideration. The Ohio Attorney General submitted a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the State of Ohio. A decision from the court is expected in 2017.

If you are aware of anyone charged in an HIV exposure or transmission case, please refer them to our website, www.hivlawandpolicy.org, and/or have them or their lawyer contact CHLP for assistance at 212-430-6733 or pjp@hivlawandpolicy.org.

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

Georgia lawmakers poised to study HIV decriminalization

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cooper’s revised resolution also states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Published in Project Q Atlanta on March 29, 2017

US: Two congresswomen, co-chairs of the HIV caucus in Congress, teamed up to introduce a bill aiming to modernise HIV laws

Ileana Ros-Lehtinen Wants to Change HIV/AIDS Laws

By KEVIN DERBY

March 29, 2017 – 9:45am

A South Florida Republican congresswoman is urging the federal government, the states and local governments to “modernize laws and policies to eliminate discrimination against those living with HIV/AIDS.”

U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., and U.S. Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., are the co-chairs of the HIV Caucus in Congress. This week, Ros-Lehtinen and Lee teamed up to bring out the “Repeal HIV Discrimination Act.”

“This bill expresses the sense of Congress that federal and state laws, policies, and regulations should not place a unique or additional burden on individuals solely as a result of their HIV status, and offers a step-by-step plan to work with states to modernize their laws,” Ros-Lehtinen’s office announced.

Ros-Lehtinen made the case for why the bill was needed.

“The fear and stigma surrounding HIV have led to a number of criminal statutes and penalties that do not improve public health,” Ros-Lehtinen said. “Since the establishment of laws which unfairly penalize individuals living with HIV, we have made great medical advances that prove that antiretroviral therapy can reduce HIV transmission risk. My colleague, Barbara, and I are introducing the REPEAL HIV Discrimination Act in order to help eliminate needless and harmful statues and regulations which only shame individuals without providing meaningful benefits for HIV prevention and care.”

“HIV criminalization laws are based on bias, not science. Instead of making our communities healthier, these laws breed fear, discrimination, distrust, and hatred. Our laws should not perpetuate prejudice against anyone, particularly against those living with diseases like HIV. By passing this legislation, Congress would send a signal that discrimination and stigma have no place in our laws,” said Lee. “I am grateful for the continued partnership of my friend and colleague, Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen, in the fight to ensure that all are able to live with dignity and respect, and to one day achieve an AIDS-free generation.”

The two congresswomen pointed to more than 33 states and two territories which, they insist, “have criminal statutes based on outdated information regarding HIV/AIDS.”

The caucus has more than 70 members in both the House and the Senate including Florida Democrats U.S. Rep. Kathy Castor, Ted Deutch, Alcee Hastings, Debbie Wasserman Schult and Frederica Wilson.

"HIV can be prevented or it can be prosecuted, but not both" writes Sean Strub in a new book on the war and stigmatisation of sex

HIV: Prosecution or Prevention? HIV Is Not a Crime

A chapter from the book The War on Sex edited by David M. Halperin and Trevor Hoppe.

Iowan Nick Rhoades is HIV-positive and has had an undetectable viral load for many years, making it virtually impossible for him to sexually transmit the virus. When he had sex with a man he met online in 2008, he also used a condom. Despite these protective measures, Rhoades was prosecuted and convicted for not disclosing his HIV status to his partner before they had sex. He was sentenced to 25 years in prison and lifetime sex offender registration.

Willy Campbell is serving 35 years in Texas for spitting at a police officer; David Plunkett served over six years in a New York state prison before an appeals court ruled that saliva could not be considered a “deadly weapon” in New York State. Monique Howell Moree was charged by the U.S. Army for failing to disclosure her HIV-positive status to a partner in South Carolina before having sex with him, even though the partner said he didn’t want her charged and that she told him to use a condom. Kerry Thomas is serving 30 years in Idaho, even though his accuser agrees that he always used a condom.

All over the United States — and in much of the world — people living with HIV/AIDS (PLHIV) are facing criminal penalties for nondisclosure of their HIV status prior to having sex or for perceived or possible exposure to, or transmission of, HIV. About two-thirds of U.S. states have HIV-specific criminal statutes, laws that only apply to PLHIV.

Most people believe the law should apply equally to all and that creating different statutes for different parts of society based on immutable characteristics — whether it is gender, sexual orientation, race, physical ability, or genetic makeup — is a bad idea. Yet here we are doing exactly that, creating a viral underclass in the law with one group singled out for different treatment.

Sero Project, a network of PLHIV combating HIV criminalization, has documented more than 1,300 instances of charges led under HIV-specific statutes. But HIV criminalization isn’t constrained by geography; in every state, regardless of whether there is an HIV-specific statute, PLHIV can and often do face more serious charges or harsher sentencing under regular criminal statutes than do HIV-negative individuals accused of the same crimes. Texas and New York do not have HIV-specific statutes, but as mentioned, have incarcerated PLHIV because they considered their saliva dangerous.

These statutes and prosecutions create an illusion of safety for those who do not have HIV or do not know their HIV status, putting the entire burden of HIV prevention on those who have been tested and know they have HIV. The statutes undercut the fundamental public health message that HIV prevention is a shared responsibility and that everyone should act in such a way as to maintain their own health and protect themselves from contracting HIV or other sexually transmitted infections.

Decades-long sentencing and required sex offender registration are not unusual punishments for HIV-related crimes in the United States, even though actual HIV transmission is seldom (less than 5 percent of cases) a factor in these prosecutions. Many cases boil down to whether the PLHIV can prove they disclosed their status to their partners in advance of intimate physical contact; it doesn’t matter whether there was even a risk of HIV transmission. People living with HIV charged under prostitution or assault statutes frequently face significantly more severe penalties solely because they have HIV. They sometimes face charges for spitting, scratching, or biting that are “pile-on” charges, driven by accusations made by law enforcement, first responders, or prison guards.

The first HIV criminalization laws in the United States were passed in the late 1980s and early ’90s, largely in response to a provision of the Ryan White Care Act that required states, in order to qualify for funding, to demonstrate an ability to prosecute what was then labeled “intentional transmission.” At the time many considered any intimate contact with an HIV-positive person a life-threatening risk; contracting HIV was believed by many to be tantamount to a death sentence.

A second wave of statutes was enacted after the introduction of combination therapy in the mid-1990s, which fundamentally changed what an HIV-positive diagnosis meant. What was once thought a death sentence had become a chronic but manageable long-term health condition.

As it became understood that PLHIV were surviving much longer, the public’s perception of PLHIV also changed. Rather than objects of pity facing a “death sentence,” PLHIV became seen as viral vectors, potential infectors — an inherent threat to society. Living longer meant PLHIV would be around longer to infect others.

The criminal justice and public health systems began to define and treat PLHIV as a dangerous population, one that needed to be sought out, tracked down, tested, reported, listed, tagged, monitored, regulated, and, increasingly, criminalized.

While the statutes were used in the early years disproportionately often against heterosexual African American men (often in conjunction with other criminal charges), today they are used more broadly, typically in circumstances where there was no intent to harm, often when there was no other crime involved, and frequently for behaviors that pose no or little risk of HIV transmission.

Beyond the blatant injustice, HIV criminalization is also horrible public health policy, because it discourages people at risk from getting tested for HIV and makes those who do test positive less trustful of public health authorities.

To be liable for prosecution, one must get tested for HIV and know one’s HIV status. Current HIV criminalization punishes this responsible behavior — getting tested — and privileges the ignorance of not knowing one’s HIV status. Yet new cases of HIV are transmitted in disproportionate numbers by those who have not been tested and do not know they have it; those who do get tested and know they have HIV are far less likely to transmit HIV than those with HIV who do not know it.

Although the HIV-specific statutes were passed by state legislatures with the intent to reduce HIV transmission, the evidence increasingly shows that the statutes may be having the reverse effect.

The Sero Project’s 2012 survey of more than 2,000 PLHIV in the United States revealed that at least 25 percent of the respondents knew one or more individuals who were afraid to get tested for fear of facing criminalization. Research has shown that HIV criminalization makes those who do test positive for HIV less likely to cooperate with traditional disease prevention measures, like partner notification programs, or with treatment adherence programs. Most recently, a study found that HIV-negative gay men who knew they lived in a state with an HIV criminalization statute were more likely to engage in unprotected intercourse.

Repeal of HIV criminalization statutes is necessary both to protect the rights of people with HIV and to reduce the transmission of HIV.

An individual who demonstrates a premeditated malicious intent to harm another person can be prosecuted under existing assault statutes, whether they use a gun, a baseball bat, their fists, or a virus. The HIV-specific statutes are unnecessary and, worse yet, they stigmatize people with HIV/AIDS, discourage people at risk from accessing testing and treatment services, and feed a public bloodlust for punishment. In short, they are worsening the epidemic.

The prevention of HIV — or preventing any sexually transmitted infection — is a shared responsibility, but that does not mean there is not harm inflicted when someone misleads another person and transmits an infectious disease. In those circumstances, the injured party may seek recourse in the civil courts or possibly through a restorative justice process.

In any case, incarceration of PLHIV does not necessarily prevent further HIV transmission, as there is significant HIV transmission within penal environments, where condoms are seldom available.

Advocacy to repeal HIV-specific statutes, modernize public health statutes concerning perceived or possible exposure to, or transmission of, HIV and other infectious diseases, and educate law enforcement, prosecutors, and other actors in the criminal justice system has been under way for several years.

A network of survivors of HIV criminalization prosecutions, launched in 2010, has helped to educate and mobilize affected communities. This HIV criminalization reform advocacy has received support from public health professionals and policy leaders, including the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS, the National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directors, UNAIDS, and the American Medical Association.

The first national conference on HIV criminalization in the United States was held in June 2014 at Grinnell College in Grinnell, Iowa. Organized primarily by PLHIV — including participation by a dozen PLHIV who had been prosecuted for “HIV crimes” — the conference included participants from 28 states. It focused on how HIV criminalization affects communities of color, transgender women, sex workers, and gay men. It also showed the impact of HIV criminalization on how members of those communities (and others) access HIV prevention, testing, and treatment and whether they decide to disclose their HIV status. Finally, the conference highlighted effective strategies for reform.

The only state, so far, to modernize their statute substantively in recent years has been Iowa, where the conference was held. After a four-year education and lobbying effort led by Nick Rhoades and other PLHIV in the state, the Iowa legislature repealed its HIV-specific statute in 2014. The legislature replaced it with a new statute that addressed several infectious diseases, required a higher standard of intent to harm, and established tiered punishments. Similar efforts are under way in about a dozen states. A few weeks later, the Iowa Supreme Court overturned Rhoades’s conviction and removed the sex offender registration requirement for all others previously convicted under the Iowa statute.

HIV criminalization is an extreme manifestation of stigma. That is particularly true of HIV-specific statutes that create a viral underclass in the law, establishing a different criminal law for one segment of society based on an immutable characteristic. Despite the biomedical advances in the treatment of HIV, HIV-related stigma remains stubborn, driven in significant part by HIV criminalization.

It is time we learned a basic lesson: HIV can be prevented or it can be prosecuted, but not both.

India: HIV/AIDS (Prevention & Control) Bill strongly criticised for not guaranteeing universal access to HIV treatment

Delhi, Gaborone, New York – The International Treatment Preparedness Coalition (ITPC) and its global coalition partners are outraged following a decision by the Indian Parliament to absolve itself from responsibility of providing treatment for people living with HIV in India. The HIV/AIDS (Prevention & Control) Bill was passed in the upper house of the Indian Parliament yesterday, 21 March 2017. The Bill states that the government will provide treatment for people living with HIV ‘as far as possible’ (see full text below) absolving the government from its responsibility to protect the right to life.

“This is a step backwards for human rights, and a tremendous blow for all people living with HIV in India,” said Gregg Gonsalves, Chair of ITPC-Global. “It is extremely concerning that the India government has given itself this loophole at a time when the government program is in disarray, with the worst period of antiretroviral drug stock outs.”

Networks of people living with HIV and other civil society organizations lobbied Members of Parliament to amend the draft Bill that was first tabled in February 2014. In response to civil society concerns, senior Members of Parliament urged the Union Minister JP Nadda to make the amendment. HIV treatment activists were stunned when these parliamentarians withdrew their amendment at the last minute, thus giving way to the Bill passing into legislation.

“As the biggest supplier of generic medicines to the developing world, India could be the leading light in HIV treatment, an example to the rest of the world,” said Solange Baptiste, ITPC-Global’s Executive Director. “Instead this new Bill fails to enshrine the rights of its own people. I fear it’s an omen of things to come. We, HIV treatment activists, will be watching and monitoring to make sure the Indian government upholds its responsibility to all its citizens living with HIV.”

“Nothing in the world is more important than securing treatment for me, and my community of people living with HIV,” said Loon Gangte Regional Coordinator ITPC-South Asia. “I earnestly appeal to the government to delete the loophole ‘as far as possible’ and assure our right to life”.

Editor’s Note:

HIV/AIDS Bill Final Text

The provision for HIV treatment in Section 14 of the HIV/AIDS Bill, reads as follows:

1. The measures to be taken by the Central Government or State Government under section 13 shall include the measure for providing, as far as possible, Anti-Retroviral and Opportunistic Infection Management to people living with HIV or AIDS.

2. The Central Government shall issue necessary guidelines in respect of protocols for HIV and AIDS relating to Anti-Retroviral Therapy and Opportunistic Infection Management which shall be applicable to all persons and shall ensure their wide dissemination.

About International Treatment Preparedness Coalition

International Treatment Preparedness Coalition (ITPC) is a global coalition of HIV treatment activists formed in 2003 to respond to the needs of communities worldwide. The global network is driven by individual activists, peer support groups, grassroots networks, community-based organizations, and non-governmental organizations. Each of our partners share our values and vision and come together to address issues around access to treatment issues in their countries, regions and at the global level.

US: On-going research project shows strong regional and gender differences in the 99 HIV criminalisation convictions in Florida since 1995

HIV Criminalization Convictions in Florida from 1995 to 2016

In the 21 years from 1995 to 2016, Florida convicted 99 people under HIV criminalization laws. These 99 convictions differed by region. For example, Miami-Dade County had only one conviction, but the Jacksonville area had 31. These differences could result from differences in behavior, in prosecutor attitudes, or in local political culture.

Florida obtained convictions for 53 women and 46 men over these 21 years. Women accounted for 28 percent of all people living with HIV (PLWH) in Florida in 2014. In contrast, women accounted for 54 percent of those convicted under these HIV laws. Despite the argument that these laws protect women, Florida has convicted more women than men. Among current inmates, however, women constitute 17 percent of HIV convictions. As of January 1, 2017, Florida’s prisons hold 24 people convicted under these laws: 20 men and 4 women.

Sexual orientation and gender identity data were not available.

Over these 21 years, racial data showed a strange pattern. About 56 percent of those convicted were Blacks, 1 percent Latino, and 43 percent White. In 2014, the HIV epidemic in Florida showed a different pattern. About 47 percent of PLWH were Black, 21 percent Latino, 30 percent White, and 2 percent “other.” The low number of convicted Latinos may result from confusion between “racial” and “ethnic” identities. Several “White” inmates had Spanish-language names and “appeared” Latino in their mug shots.

Regional Differences

The Health Resources Services Administration has identified those areas with large numbers of PLWH, as Eligible Metropolitan Areas (EMAs). Florida has six EMAs. The Jacksonville EMA consists of Clay, Duval, Nassau, and St. John’s Counties. The Orlando EMA consists of Lake, Orange, Osceola, and Seminole Counties. The Tampa EMA consists of Hernando, Hillsborough, Pasco, and Pinellas Counties. While these three EMAs contain multiple counties, each of the three other EMAs contains only one county. Broward, Miami-Dade, and Palm Beach Counties each form their own EMA.

As shown in the chart “HIV Criminalization Convictions in Florida 1995 to 2016 Differ by Region,” these EMAs differ in their conviction rates. Two EMAs, Tampa and Jacksonville, accounted for 57 percent of convictions, over these 21 years. These two EMAs, however, did not have the largest number of PLWH among the six EMAs.

Florida has 67 counties. Together all six EMAs contain 15 counties and have convicted 76 people. Of the remaining 52 counties, 10 counties have convicted 23 people under these HIV laws. While every county in Florida has at least one PLWH, only 25 counties have convicted people under these laws.

Male / Female differences

In a binary system of gender, over-representation of women requires an under-representation of men. This may result from confusion about the legal definition of “sexual intercourse” in Florida. Florida courts have issued conflicting rulings about whether the legal term “sexual intercourse” includes anal intercourse. The Florida Supreme Court heard arguments about this issue in 2014, but has yet to rule. Prosecutors may be reluctant to bring a male-male HIV criminalization case to trial until that matter is resolved.

HIV criminalization laws over these 21 years have resulted in few convictions. That could change drastically, if the legal definition of “sexual intercourse” were to include anal intercourse.

The Florida HIV Justice Coalition has posted a Sign-on Statement to fight to modernize HIV criminalization laws. To sign-on is also the first step to becoming involved in that effort.

Please visit https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1UcFGh3A_nyeX0A3GdFWJApr830KrZ2hMTeguklWN3vM/prefill or Bit.ly/2leC1wx

For more on the legal question of whether anal intercourse constitutes “sexual intercourse” under Florida law, please visit http://southfloridagaynews.com/Local/is-supreme-court-s-same-sex-hiv-disclosure-ruling-on-its-way.html or http://bit.ly/2mqezML

This article is part of an on-going research project into HIV Criminalization in Florida.

Published in SFGN on March 24, 2017

New Zealand: Ex-partner of the first person prosecuted for HIV transmission in New Zealand believes HIV prosecutions are harmful

HIV prosecutions are harmful, says victim

By Amelia Wade

A victim of the first person prosecuted for infecting others with HIV says she is against making criminals out of transmitters.

Marama Mullen believes it only pushes the issue further underground.

The Waikato woman was given HIV by Kenyan musician Peter Mwai who was jailed for seven years in 1994 for having unprotected sex with seven women and infecting two.

Just 22 years old at the time, Mullen said she couldn’t “really fathom” what the trial would mean.

“Quite a few times I wanted to stop and back out because of the lack of support for being the person who was doing it. There was a lot of media and a lot of people had differing views and opinions.

“But a lot has changed for me since then – I’ve actually become an advocate for not criminalising the spread of HIV because I truly believe it creates more stigma.”

She’s now spent more than a decade working with agencies for HIV aids as well as indigenous groups. She said the stigma of infection was especially harmful for Maori and Pasifika people.

“You’re disappointing your family double – it’s one thing if you’re gay but to add to that the stigma of being HIV positive is another.”

Mullen said it was common for people of Maori or Pasifika descent to go into denial about their condition and believes that may have been the case for Mikio Filitonga.

“When you tell someone you’re positive, it gives them the power to do what they want with that information.”

Mullen said she “felt for” Filitonga because if he was in denial, being publicly identified in a criminal trial as a HIV positive person was the “worst thing that could have happened to him”.

Usually when people didn’t disclose their status it was more to do with the fear of rejection rather than a criminal intent to infect, Mullen said.

She doesn’t think prosecutions are the best approach unless the person actively intended to infect someone.

Making someone a criminal as well as HIV positive only worsened the problem, she said.

Mullen has worked on a management plan – similar to one in Australia – which refers people suspected of infecting others to an agency.

It would to establish whether there are any mental health or cultural reasons behind their actions and whether a prosecution is necessary.

Mullen said it was “sitting on a bureaucrat’sdesk somewhere” yet to see the light of day.

Today’s medication is able to suppress the virus to the point it is undetectable and non transmittable so it was questionable as to whether someone even needed to disclose their status to partners.

Mullen said she believed if a person was dutifully taking their medication, they were taking enough precautions not to pass on HIV.

Within two months of taking the antiviral drugs, Mullen said her viral load – the amount of HIV in someone’s blood – dropped from 1000 which was “heading towards Aids” to it being undetectable.

She’s since been able to have two children – who are both HIV negative – and live a totally normal life.

Except for the stigma.

After being an outspoken advocate for acceptance, she’s considering moving from the Waikato to live incognito for the sake of her children.

Other parents have tried to get her 10- and 7-year-old kicked out of school, they’ve been bullied, had people refuse to go to their home and have been excluded from birthday parties – despite both being negative.

“The biggest message we want to get out there is that if we’re on medication we can’t infect people and we’re not transmittable.”

THE AIDS FOUNDATION AGREES

The New Zealand Aids Foundation said the broad application of criminal law to HIV transmission risks undermining public health and human rights.

Executive director Jason Myers said a prosecution should only happen if someone acted with the express intent to transmit the virus.

“Broad application of criminal law to the transmission of HIV has the potential to do significant damage to the public health and human rights based HIV response in New Zealand.

“It also increases the HIV stigma and discrimination experienced by people living with HIV, the vast majority of whom take care of themselves and their sexual partners.”

Myers said they knew the vast majority of people living with HIV who know their status act responsibly to take care of the health of both themselves and their sexual partners.

PREVIOUS HIV PROSECUTIONS:

1994 – In a highly publicised case, Kenyan musician Peter Mwai was the first person charged with infecting someone with HIV. He sentenced to seven years jail for having unprotected sex with five women and infecting two with HIV. Deported in June 1998 having served four years in jail here, Mwai died in Uganda in September 1998.

1999 – Former male prostitute Christopher Truscott held in “secure” care (he has escaped many times) in Christchurch after being prosecuted in 1999 for having unprotected sex with four men.

1999 – David Purvis, a 31-year-old Pakuranga invalid beneficiary, sentenced to four months jail for committing a criminal nuisance by having unprotected sex with another man. Pleaded guilty.

2004 – Zimbabwean Shingirayi Nyarirangwe, 25, was jailed in Auckland for three years after pleading guilty to four charges of criminal nuisance and three of assault.

2004 – Justin William Dalley, an unemployed 35-year-old of Lower Hutt, was sentenced to 300 hours of community work, six months’ supervision and to pay a woman $1000 in costs because he did not wear a condom during sex with her, despite knowing his HIV positive status. The woman did not contract HIV.

Soon after, he was acquitted of a similar charge because he wore a condom and thus set the legal precedent that by wearing protection an HIV positive man is taking “reasonable precautions” against infection and need not disclose his HIV status.

2009 – Auckland train driver Glenn Mills took his own life facing re-trial for 28 charges relating to 14 people. He had been in custody for over six months.

November 2016 – Christchurch man Johnny Lumsden, 26, is arrested and charged with criminal nuisance following accusations he had unprotected sex with several men without telling them he was HIV-positive.

THE LAW AND HIV

• If you are HIV positive, you do not have to disclose your status before having intercourse as long as you are using a condom.

• If the sex is unprotected, the HIV-positive person has a legal duty to disclose his/her status.

HIV IN NZ

During Mikio Filitonga’s trial, the court heard from Dr Graham Mills, an infectious diseases expert at Waikato Hospital. He said the most common mode of HIV transmission in New Zealand is male gay sex with 80 per cent of positive people believed to have been infected that way.

More than 50 per cent those who are HIV positive – 1500 to 2000 people – in New Zealand are believed to be living within the Auckland District Health Board’s boundaries.

Current estimates are that there are up to 4000 people in NZ who are HIV positive, he said.

Published in the New Zealand Herald on March 24, 2017