Denmark: HIV to be removed from Article 252, but new statute wording may re-criminalise non-disclosure without “suitable protection”

Denmark’s new Minister of Justice Morten Bødskov is now taking formal steps to remove references to HIV from Article 252 of the Danish Penal Code which means that, for the time-being, HIV exposure and transmission is decriminalised.

The news was released in a letter dated 8 November and provided to me by AIDS-Fondet (Danish AIDS Foundation).

That’s the good news. The not-so-good news is that the working group set up to examine whether or not there should be a new HIV-specific law is proposing new wording for a statute that would criminalise non-disclosure of known HIV-positive status, unless “suitable protection” is used for vaginal or anal intercourse.

Their recommendations will be considered during a consultation period which ends on 6 December 2011.  Members of all branches of the criminal justice system are being consulted as well as HIV and human rights organisations.

Denmark prosecuted its first HIV-related criminal case in 1993, but the Supreme Court found in 1994 that the wording of the existing law (“wantonly or recklessly endangering life or physical ability”) did not provide a clear legal base for conviction. The phrase “fatal and incurable disease” was added in 1994, and HIV was specified in 2001.  After at least 15 prosecutions, the former Minister of Justice suspended the law earlier this year due to concerns that it no longer reflected the realities of HIV risk and harm.

The working group has produced a 20 page memo which states that the legal basis for the current statute no longer exists and, therefore, it should be repealed.  They particularly emphasise the increased life expectancy for people on antiretroviral therapy (ART) and conclude that HIV is no longer “fatal” (although it is still “incurable”).

The lifespan of a well-treated HIV-infected individual does not differ from the age and gender-matched background population, and…timely treatment is now as effective and well tolerated (i.e, usually without significant side effects) so that an estimated 85-90 per cent of patients can live a normal life, as long as they adhere to their treatment on a daily basis.

The memo then examines HIV-related risk (including the impact of ART on risk) and harm and  highlights that it is the estimated 1000 undiagnosed individuals (out of an estimated total of 5,500 people with HIV in Denmark) that are more likely to be a public health concern.

It notes that using HIV as a weapon in terms of violent attacks with needles; rape; or sex with minors could still be an aggravating factor during sentencing under other, revelent criminal statutes. However, a 1994 Supreme Court ruling found that general criminal laws, such as those proscribing bodily harm or assault could not be applied to sexual HIV exposure or transmission.

The memo then presents arguments for and against a new statute. It argues that any new law should not proscribe ‘HIV exposure’, since it notes, the risks of HIV transmission on ART “are vanishingly small” and so it would be very difficult for any prosecutor to prove that someone was exposed to HIV under these circumstances.

Since ART is now considered to be effective as condoms in reducing HIV transmission risk, the working group considered whether it might be possible to only criminalise untreated people who have unprotected sex, but worry that proving that a person on ART was uninfectious at the time of the alleged act would be too difficult.

Similarly, although they consider the UNAIDS recomendation to only criminalise intentional transmission via non-HIV-specific laws, they were concerned that proving such a state of mind would be extremely difficult.

They conclude that if a new statute were to replace Article 252 it should criminalise non-disclosure unless “suitable protection” is used. (This potentially leaves it open to argue that ART as well as condoms could be considered “suitable protection.”) Their suggested wording is

§ x. Whoever has a contagious, sexually transmissible infection which is incurable and requires lifelong treatment and has intercourse with a person without informing them of the infection, or using suitable protection, is punishable by a fine or imprisonment for up to 2 years.

They note, however, that since the harm of HIV is reduced due to the impact of ART that the current maximum sentence of 8 years in prison should be reduced to 2 years and “the normal penalty should be a fine or a short (suspended) term of imprisonment.”

Although they are not necessarily recommending this new statute, the working group warns that “decriminalisation…may have unintended, negative consequences” and that public health and community based HIV organisations alike should ensure that health education about HIV and how to avoid it continues unabated because “it is important to send the message that HIV is still a disease that must be taken seriously.”

US: Positive Justice Project Members Endorse REPEAL HIV Discrimination Act

Press Release

New York, September 23, 2011 – Members of the Positive Justice Project, a national coalition dedicated to ending the targeting of people with HIV for unreasonable criminal prosecution, voiced their support for the REPEAL HIV Discrimination Act that Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D-CA) introduced today.

Download the REPEAL ACT here

The bill calls for review of all federal and state laws, policies, and regulations regarding the criminal prosecution of individuals for HIV-related offenses. It is the first piece of federal legislation to take on the issue of HIV criminalization, and provides incentives for states to reconsider laws and practices that unfairly target people with HIV for consensual sex and conduct that poses no real risk of HIV transmission.

The proposed bill is being met with widespread support.  Ronald Johnson, Vice President for Policy and Advocacy at AIDS United (a Positive Justice Project member) says, “AIDS United supports the REPEAL HIV Discrimination Act. It’s long past time for a review of these criminal and civil commitment laws and we welcome Representative Barbara Lee’s efforts to help local and state officials understand and make needed reforms.”

Thirty-four states and two U.S. territories now have laws that make exposure or non-disclosure of HIV a crime. Sentences imposed on people convicted of HIV-specific offenses can range from 10-30 years and may include sex offender registration even in the absence of intent to transmit HIV or actual transmission.   Though condom use significantly reduces the risk of HIV transmission, most HIV-specific laws do not consider condom use a mitigating factor or as evidence that the person did not intend to transmit HIV.

For example, a man with HIV in Iowa received a 25-year sentence for a one-time sexual encounter during which he used a condom and HIV was not transmitted; although the sentence was eventually suspended, he still was required to register as a sex offender and is barred from unsupervised contact with children. People also have been convicted for acts that cannot transmit HIV, such as a man with HIV in Texas who currently is serving 35 years for spitting at a police officer.

“The Repeal HIV Discrimination Act relies on science and public health, rather than punishment, as the lead response to HIV exposure and transmission incidents.  It embodies the courage and leadership needed to replace expensive, pointless and punitive reactions to the complex challenge of HIV with approaches that can truly reduce transmission and stigma,” remarked Catherine Hanssens, Executive Director of the Center for HIV Law and Policy and a founder of the Positive Justice Project

Representative Lee’s bill requires designated officials to develop a set of best practices, and accompanying guidance, for states to address the treatment of HIV in criminal and civil commitment cases.  The bill also will provide financial support to states that undertake education, reform and implementation efforts.   A fact sheet created by The Center for HIV Law and Policy, AIDS United, Lambda Legal and the ACLU AIDS Project summarizes the problems with HIV criminalization and the measures the REPEAL HIV Discrimination Act takes to address them.

“The REPEAL HIV Discrimination Act will serve a critical role in educating Members of Congress and the public about the harmful and discriminatory practice of criminalizing HIV.  Such state laws often originated during times when fear and ignorance over HIV transmission were widespread, and serve to stigmatize those who are living with HIV.  Our criminal laws should not be rooted in outdated myths.  Rep. Lee is to be commended for her tireless leadership on behalf of those who are living with HIV/AIDS,” said Laura W. Murphy, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office.

Scott Schoettes, HIV Project Director at Lambda Legal summarized the support of many. “Lambda Legal wholeheartedly supports the ‘REPEAL HIV Discrimination Act.’ It is high time the nation’s HIV criminalization laws were reformed to reflect the modern reality of living with HIV, both from medical and social perspectives. Except for perhaps the most extreme cases, the criminal law is far too blunt an instrument to address the subtle dynamics of HIV disclosure.”      

Other PJP member statements in support of the REPEAL HIV Discrimination Act:

“The HIV Prevention Justice Alliance expresses our strong commitment to HIV decriminalization and ongoing support for Representative Barbara Lee’s Repeal HIV Discrimination Bill. We have seen how the criminalization of HIV has increased instead of reduced HIV stigma and panic. We have also seen how the criminalization of HIV further targets communities – black, Latino/a, queer, transgender, low income, sex worker, homeless, drug user – which are already disproportionately impacted by HIV/AIDS and mass incarceration. We applaud Congresswoman Lee’s courageous effort to support resiliency and dignity of HIV positive people and loved ones and affirm her continued support for prevention justice and decriminalization.”

—Che Gossett, Steering Committee Member, HIV Prevention Justice Alliance

“This is definitive legislation in the national fight to end HIV discrimination and for survivors of criminalization.”

—Robert Suttle, Member of Louisiana AIDS Advocacy Network (LAAN)

“A Brave New Day is in full support of Rep. Barbara Lee’s Anti-Criminalization bill.”

—Robin Webb, Executive Director of A Brave New Day

“We feel strongly that many such statutes violate human rights, are constitutionally vague, are irrational, and violate the laws of science in that they attempt to characterize known scientifically proven facts about transmission as irrelevant to the issue of potential damage and danger.   We feel that people’s ‘fear’ if irrational cannot provide a basis for a criminal statute or prosecution under same and that a statute cannot be both legal and illogical.”

—David Scondras, Founder/CEO, Search For A Cure

For a list of organizations supporting the REPEAL HIV Discrimination Act, click here.

                                     

Global Commission on HIV and the Law: High Income Country Dialogue (UNDP, 2011)

The Global Commission on HIV and the Law held a High Income Countries Dialogue on 17 September 2011 in Oakland, California.

A total of 65 participants from 15 countries discussed and debated region-wide experiences of enabling and restrictive legal and social environments faced by people living with HIV, other key populations and those affected by HIV in high income countries.

Since high income countries have accounted for the vast majority of criminal prosecutions relating to HIV non-disclosure, exposure or transmission, this video focuses on the part of the dialogue that heard testimony from policymakers, community advocates and experts from the Global Commission specifically on this issue.

The Regional Dialogue, hosted by the Global Commission on HIV and the Law, was jointly organized by UNDP, on behalf of the UNAIDS family, and the University of California, Berkeley Law, The Miller Institute for Global Challenges and the Law.

 

Guyana’s Special Select Committee of Parliament on the Criminal Responsibility of HIV Infected Individuals has chosen not to create an HIV-specific criminal law

UN Team on AIDS lauds Guyana 09-Sept-2011 – says ‘Guyana gets it right’ by not criminalising HIV GUYANA’S Special Select Committee of Parliament on the Criminal Responsibility of HIV Infected Individuals has chosen not to make the transmission of HIV a criminal act.The Joint United Nations Team on AIDS, coordinated by the United Nations Joint Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) congratulates the Parliamentary Committee for its mature and measured decision.

This latest parliamentary decision clears the way for Guyana’s HIV response to continue proceeding in a rational and productive direction.

(The full Report of the Special Select Committee to the Guyana Parliament are available online and the Speech of Honourable Dr. Leslie Ramsammy, Minister of Health quoted at: https://www.kaieteurnewsonline.com/2011/09/20/franklin-does-about-face-on-motion-to-criminalize-willful-transmission-of-hivaids/ 

Verdict on a Virus (IPPF, UK, 2011)

This short film produced by The International Planned Parenthood Federation is a commentary from a selection of experts about the criminalisation of HIV transmission in England and Wales. It brings together a selection of policy makers, programmers, advocates, academics and people living with HIV to inform the public debate.

Tell your story – how are you impacted by HIV criminalisation?

Understanding the unintended impacts of the criminalisation of HIV exposure or transmission – way beyond the relatively few individuals who are accused, arrested and/or prosecuted – can play a crucial part in advocating against such laws and prosecutions.

Over the next few months, there are going to be multiple opportunities to highlight issues such as:

  • Creating fear and confusion about relying on disclosure to prevent HIV risk, and when disclosure is legally necessary
  • Making it harder for people living with HIV who are having problems maintaining safer sex to talk with healthcare workers due to fear of prosecution
  • Increasing HIV-related stigma
  • Creating a false sense that HIV is someone else’s problem, rather than a shared responsibility
  • Providing an additional disincentive for people to learn their HIV status

These opportunities will arise via the Global Commission on HIV and Law’s High Income Country Dialogue that will take place in Oakland, California on 16-17 September (click here for more details);  the UNAIDS Programme Coordinating Board meeting focusing on HIV and Enabling Legal Environments that will take place in Geneva, Switzerland on 13-15 December; and through an ongoing project by IPPF, Behind Bars, that highlights a wide range of personal testimonies about the impact of HIV criminalisation.

I’m hoping that blog readers will help me collate personal testimonies about the impact of HIV criminalisation on their own lives. You don’t have to be an HIV professional or have been involved in a case to have been impacted (although such testimonies are very welcome).

As the example I’m about to show you illustrates, you can simply live in fear of the law because you are living with HIV.

I’m more than happy to receive testimonies from all over the world, but right now – because I am in the middle of producing a report about the impact of HIV criminalisation in Europe for the Global Commission on HIV and the Law – I’m especially looking for testimonies from Europe.

If you have a story to share, you can either paste it into the comment box or send it to me at yourstory(at)edwinjbernard.com.  Some stories that I receive may be included in my Global Commission submission, and included in IPPF’s Behind Bars collection, and all will be highlighted on my blog. Submissions can be anonymous (but I will require some evidence of authenticity), and if you do use your real name, please indicate whether it can be used in full or not.

Here’s Jonas’s story (not his real name) from Norway.  The use of Paragraph 155 (known as the ‘HIV Paragraph’) is currently being evaluated by a Government committee’s thorough investigation into the appropriateness of HIV criminalisation. The committee should produce its recommendations by Spring 2012, although there are no guarantees that a version of this law will not remain on the books and continue to be enforced when their deliberations end.

Paragraph 155 of the Norwegian Penal Code, an infectious-disease law enacted in 1902, essentially criminalises all unprotected sex by HIV-positive individuals even if their partner has been informed of their status and consents, and irregardless of viral load or a desire by a couple to conceive.  Both ‘willful’ and ‘negligent’ exposure and transmission are liable to prosecution, with a maximum prison sentence of six years for ‘willful’ exposure or transmission and three years for ‘negligent’ exposure or transmission.

Paragraph 155 – and a story from a partially unlived life

In my teens I turned off my sexuality. Even as my hormones were reaching boiling point, I managed to shut down. I felt that my desires were wrong, and I am a strong-minded person. In my twenties, I told my family and friends that I was gay. I began to have sex carefully, but I was never in any relationship.

When I reached 30, and after some therapy, I began to feel ready to try enter into a relationship. In January 2000 I took the HIV test, together with my best friend, since it was the “millennium change.” My test turned out to be HIV-positive, and the shock was devastating. I was very far from having a wild sex life – it was just very bad luck. Like many other HIV-positive persons, I later came to understand what my doctor told me following diagnosis:  “You are going to be fine. HIV is no longer a death sentence.” The words were a great comfort. I still had so much unlived life in me.

Life with HIV was difficult at first, but slowly I came to accept the new situation, the same way I had earlier come to accept my sexual orientation. But because of Article 155 must I, as a virile, and still fairly young man, now live like a monk – an asexual monk? What kind of life will that be? Would I be able to live like that?

Last time I had sex was some months ago. I was dating a nice guy I was attracted to, and we were at his place. Sweet music was playing. I lied and said I did not have the energy to have sex after my gym work out, but that I would like a massage instead. I got the massage. A very nice massage. The atmosphere got hot. I felt both excited and uneasy. He said he wanted to have sex with me. I said no. We continued with massage and kissing for a while. “Just a little?” He asked again. I gave in. We began to have sex. We got a condom and lubricant ready. Then the thought hit me hard, like a powerful wave. What if the condom bursts? It could happen, even if it is very unlikely. “Exposure to potential risk,” says the HIV Paragraph.

Although I hadn’t told him myself, I knew that he knew a guy who knows that I am HIV-positive, someone I met at a seminar for HIV-positive people some years before. But I did not know this guy well, and I share my diagnosis only with people I have known for a long time, and trust, like friends and family. What if he tells his friend about this incident? Perhaps his friend would guess who I am and say, was his name xxxx? ‘Ah yes, he has HIV, like me!’ What if he then calls the police? Reports me? What if the police comes to my home? Brings me in for interrogation, and puts me in a prison cell? What about my important meeting next week? Mum will be crushed if I go to jail. For having sex.

I pulled away. I used the oldest excuse in the book: headache. And low blood sugar. I put on my clothes and left. I never called him again. I have thought about him several times.

I will not be able to live my life without sex. I’m not a big fan of the word injustice. Nature is not fair. But Paragraph 155 criminalises me for wanting to live a full life – and that includes a sex life. Me – who has studied law just because everyone said I was always so fair and wise.

I feel like a victim, even though I often criticise the role of the victim. A victim of this discriminatory law that criminalises the sexuality of people affected by HIV. A victim of prejudice related to HIV, which few seem to bother to care about. Norwegian society likes its scapegoats. I want to remove the criminalisation of sexuality in Norway. I want a good life. In Norway. In 2011. And in the rest of the years I will live in this beautiful country.

New report explores implications of tests to estimate timing of HIV infection for criminal prosecutions

From UNAIDS front page today.

 

Feature Story: New report explores implications of tests to estimate timing of HIV infection for criminal prosecutions

The UK charity National AIDS Trust (NAT) launched a report on 4 August 2011, entitled Estimating the likelihood of recent HIV infection – implications for criminal prosecution, which explores the validity and meaning of the Recent Infection Testing Algorithm HIV tests, or RITA tests, within the context of criminal prosecutions of HIV transmission.

The report, primarily aimed at professionals working in the criminal justice system and HIV specialists who may be called on as expert witnesses in criminal HIV transmission cases, calls for caution about the potential use of RITA results to determine timing of HIV infection.

About RITA and its potential use in criminal law context

RITA tests estimate the likelihood that a person found to be HIV-positive has been infected recently, usually within the previous six months. To date, the United Kingdom is the only country reported to routinely return RITA results to newly diagnosed patients.

As criminal law in the UK allows for the prosecution of people for transmitting HIV to another person, the report underlines the importance that RITA tests and their limitations be fully understood and not misused in criminal proceedings. The report underlines that while there have been no reported instances of use of RITA results in courts to attempt to prove timing of HIV transmission and consequently the identity of the person who transmitted HIV, this may happen in the near future.

No test can conclusively state when an individual acquired HIV

“No scientific test is able to conclusively state when an individual acquired HIV,” said Dr Cate Hankins, Chief Scientific Adviser to UNAIDS. “It is important to be cautious, follow clear protocol, and understand the limitations of RITA results when delivering them to patients or using them within a criminal law context.”

According to the report, proving HIV transmission in the context of criminal law cases requires the use of a combination of scientific evidence, medical records and testimony to establish the facts, timing and direction of HIV transmission.

“Scientific advances such as RITA testing are extremely welcome when estimating the recency of HIV infection on a population level, especially as late diagnosis is a huge issue,” said Ms Deborah Jack, Chief Executive of National AIDS Trust. “However, it is crucial that the limitations of RITA tests are fully understood and are not used out of context, for example during criminal proceedings.”

As RITA tests are designed to work at the population level (based on averages) rather than at the individual level, taking into account significant rates of false RITA test results in individuals, the report draws the conclusion that RITA tests are not reliable as evidence of recent HIV infection for individuals in the context of criminal proceedings.

Better understanding of HIV science in the context of criminal law

The NAT report comes weeks ahead of an expert meeting on the scientific, medical, legal and human rights aspects of the criminalization of HIV transmission and exposure organized by UNAIDS in Geneva from 31 August to 2 September 2011.

The meeting will bring together leading scientists and medical experts on HIV together with legal and human rights experts. Participants will examine relevant scientific and legal evidence and concepts relating, among others, to harm, risk, intent and proof, and their conceptualization/application in the context of criminalization of HIV exposure and transmission.

The meeting is part of UNAIDS’ work towards halving the number of countries with punitive laws and practices around HIV transmission, sex work, drug use, or homosexuality that block effective AIDS responses by 2015.

Denmark: HIV criminalisation exports stigma, writes Justice Edwin Cameron

Denmark’s leading broadsheet newspaper, Politiken, last week published an article by Justice Edwin Cameron of the South African Constitutional Court congratulating Denmarks’ recent suspension of its HIV-specific criminal statute, and asking that it considers abolishing it altogether – otherwise it risks being emulated in low-income settings that follow the country’s example of an otherwise strong human rights record.

Justice Cameron wrote a similar article for a Norwegian newspaper in 2009 which led to a rethink of the use of Paragraph 155 (the ‘HIV paragraph’) and the establishment of an independent commission to explore the article’s revision.

I hear from my contacts in Denmark that there already some signs that the article has gained the attention of some high-level government ministers concerned about Denmark’s standing in the global HIV community.

Let’s hope it has a positive impact on Denmark’s ongoing government working group currently considering whether the only HIV-specific law in Western Europe should be revised or abolished.

The full text of Edwin Cameron’s article in English is below. The Danish original can be found here.

Debate: Denmark exports stigma
AIDS Foundation
Politiken 8th June 2011, Culture, page 6

INTERNATIONAL COMMENTARY: Danish HIV–law is in conflict with the UN
by Edwin Cameron

When South Africans think of Denmark, we see a country with the highest humanitarian standards that others look up to. I was therefore disturbed to realise recently that Denmark has one of the world’s harshest laws criminalising HIV: Penal Code Section 252, paragraph 2. This provision makes criminal anyone with a life threatening and incurable communicable disease who wilfully or negligently infects or exposes another to the risk of infection.

What is notable about the Danish law is that it includes mere exposure—which means that a person may be guilty even though there is no actual transmission. The penalty is severe—up to eight years of imprisonment. Today the law only covers people living with HIV — a vulnerable group that experiences much discrimination.

Denmark is among the world’s most generous contributors to UNAIDS, the UN agency that works to mitigate the impact of this mass worldwide epidemic. In addition, Denmark has signed the declaration on HIV and AIDS, adopted at the UN Special Session. But Denmark’s penal code is in conflict with both UNAIDS and the UN Declaration’s position.

UNAIDS has called on governments to limit criminalisation to cases where “a person knows his HIV positive status, acts with the intent to transmit HIV and actually transmits HIV’. In contrast, the Danish penal provision is precisely the kind of legislation that UNAIDS warns against.

We know that many developing countries pay attention to the more developed countries’ laws when they formulate their own. In Africa, my own continent, an increasing number of countries have adopted laws that criminalize HIV, with devastating consequences – not least for women. By maintaining its own discriminatory legislation Denmark in effect exports stigma.

But there are strong reasons why criminal laws and prosecutions are bad policy when it comes to AIDS.

1: Criminalisation is ineffective in relation to limiting the spread of HIV. In most cases the virus spreads when two people have sex, neither of them knowing that one of them has HIV. The fact that a penal provision is of no use here is a good reason to doubt whether it should remain on the statute book.

2: Criminal laws and prosecutions are poor substitutes for measures that can really control the epidemic. Experience shows us that well-considered public health programmes that offer counseling, testing and treatment are far more effective tools to prevent the spread of HIV.

3: Criminalisation does not protect women, but makes them victims. In Africa, most of those who know their HIV status are women, because most tests take place at antenatal health care sites. These laws have rightly been described as part of a ‘war on women’.

4: Many of these new laws in Africa, which are being adopted partly on the strength of Western European precedents, are extremely poorly drafted. For example, according to the ‘Model Law’ that many countries in East and West Africa have adopted, a person who is aware of being infected with HIV must inform “any sexual contact in advance” of this fact. But the law does not define “any sexual contact.” Is it holding hands? Kissing? Nor does the law say what “in advance” means.

5: Criminalisation increases stigma. From the first AIDS diagnosis 30 years ago, HIV has carried a mountainous burden of stigma. One overriding reason: the fact that HIV is sexually transmitted.  No other infectious disease is viewed with as much fear and repugnance. It is tragic that it is stigma that drives criminalisation.

6: Criminalisation has a deterrent effect on testing. AIDS is now a medically manageable disease, but why would someone want to know their HIV status when that knowledge may lead to prosecution? Criminalisation assumes the worst about people with HIV and punishes their vulnerability.

Denmark’s legislation also makes it difficult for a country that ought to be a world leader in non-discrimination to confront other countries’ laws.  For example, Denmark has contributed constructively in the international movement to abolish the travel restrictions for people with HIV.

The recent decision by the Danish Justice Minister, Lars Barfoed, to suspend the Danish Criminal Code provision on HIV on the grounds that people living with HIV on treatment today live much longer lives and the risk of transmission of the virus to others is much reduced is certainly a step in the right direction. I congratulate the Danish Government on this decision. The very positive developments in HIV treatment is indeed a good reason to radically reconsider whether Penal Code 252. 2 should exist at all.

Penal Code provisions are a piece of the puzzle that shows how a country treats its citizens. Let us fight stigma, discrimination and criminalisation – and fight for common sense, effective prevention and access to treatment.  Only in this way can we fight this global epidemic.

Edwin Cameron is a judge of South Africa’s Constitutional Court who is himself living with HIV.

US: (Update) Nebraska passes unscientific, stigmatising body fluid assault law

Update: June 7 2011 

I’ve just learned via my colleagues at the Positive Justice Project in the US, that The Assault with Bodily Fluids Bill (LB226) introduced into the Nebraska State Legislature by Senator Mike Gloor recently passed into law with no amendments.

For further background on the bill, and Sen. Gloor’s motivation for introducing it, read this excellent piece from Todd Heywood in The Michigan Messenger.

“The entire bill is hinged on gross ignorance about the actual routes and risks of HIV transmission,” says Beirne Roose-Snyder, staff attorney for the Center for HIV Law and Policy in New York City. “Nowhere in the nearly three-decades-long history of the epidemic has a corrections officer been infected by the routes described in the bill. As for serious misinformation, there is real harm caused to law enforcement staff who themselves may be living with HIV, and to those who are not but who are being sold an unsound bill of goods on how to protect themselves, by placing a legislative imprimatur on the unfounded fears about how HIV and other diseases are spread. It also clearly has a negative impact on the way people with HIV are treated in and out of the criminal justice system, and has resulted in people serving decades of time behind bars on the basis of ignorance and hysteria.”

This latest development is extremely disappointing, and suggests that the trend of passing new laws that inappropriately criminalise people with HIV (and, sometimes other blood-borne infections such as hepatitis B or C) in a misguided attempted to protect police or other public safety officers is not reversing. 

A similarly unscientific and stigmatising bill – proposing mandatory testing and/or immediate access to medical records of anyone who exposes their bodily fluids to an emergency worker – has recently been proposed in British Columbia, Canada. Read this letter from the BC Civil Liberties Association about why the bill provides a false sense of security and may well be unconstitutional.


Original post: February 1st 2011

This Friday, February 4th, the Nebraska State Legislature will debate The Assault with Bodily Fluids Bill which would criminalise striking any public safety officer with any bodily fluid (or expelling bodily fluids toward them) and includes a specific increase of penalty to a felony (up to five years and/or $10,000 fine) if the defendant is HIV-positive and/or has Hepatitis B or C.

The Bill ignores the fact that HIV cannot be transmitted through spit, urine, vomit, or mucus; punishes the decision to get tested for HIV; and will not keep public safety officers safer, but rather will reinforce misinformation and stigma about HIV.

Download the full text of Nebraska Legislative Bill 226 here

Two major problems with the Bill are:

1. The proposed language in Sec. 2(3) is contrary to science

2. Codifying the breach of doctor /patient confidentiality in Sec. 2(5) is extremely serious, and should not be undertaken with no public health benefit

  • It is extremely important for public and individual health for people with HIV to get tested at the earliest opportunity, start timely treatment, and stay on treatment. This all hinges on having a good relationship with their doctor or health care provider. Forcing doctors and health care providers to reveal private health information, or even testify about it, will have a negative impact on patient trust of the health care system and willingness to remain engaged in HIV care. The plain language in Sec. 2(5) would force any person charged under this statute to be tested for the identified viruses, or force the opening of their medical records for previous testing results.

The Positive Justice Project (PJP) has produced a set of talking points (download here) that summarises the problems with the Bill, and with HIV-specific legislation in general.  PJP highlights that the wording of the Bill is so broad that it would allow for the following Kafkaesque situations:

  • If a person with HIV accidentally vomits in the direction of a medical officer in a prison infirmary, they could be sentenced to five more years in prison.
  • If someone accidentally sneezes in the direction of a police officer, a judge must grant a court order for their medical records and they may be subjected to involuntary HIV antibody and hepatitis B and C antigen testing if the police officer decides to press charges.
  • An inmate who spits or vomits in the direction of a corrections officer, even without hitting or intending to hit the officer, can be forcibly tested for HIV and hepatitis and if found to have any of these viruses, charged with a felony.
  • An adolescent with HIV or hepatitis held in a juvenile detention facility who spits while being restrained by a corrections officer, or while arguing with a guidance counselor, could wind up serving five years in an adult prison facility.

PJP asks anyone in the United States who cares about this issue to contact their State representative (using the talking points to highlight the many problems with the Bill) and specifically encourages any networks or individuals in Nebraska to contact:

State Senator Mike Gloor, who introduced the Bill. 
District 35
Room #1523
P.O. Box 94604
Lincoln, NE 68509
Phone: (402) 471-2617
Email: mgloor@leg.ne.gov

Sandra Klocke
State AIDS Director
Office of Disease Control and Health Promotion
Nebraska Department Health and Human Services
301 Centennial Mall South, 3rd Floor
P.O. Box 95026
Lincoln, Nebraska, 68509-5044
Phone: 402-471-9098-
Fax: 402-471-6446
sandy.klocke@nebraska.gov

and/or

Heather Younger
State Prevention Manager
Disease Prevention and Health Promotion
HIV Prevention
Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services
301 Centennial Mall South
Lincoln, Nebraska, 68509
Phone: 402-471-0362
heather.younger@nebraska.gov