Zimbabwe’s victory:
A beacon of hope for HIV justice amid global challenges

In a landmark victory for human rights, Zimbabwe repealed its HIV criminalisation law in 2022, marking a significant step forward in the global fight for HIV justice. This historic reform, detailed in a new case study and documentary by the HIV Justice Network (HJN), was the result of years of dedicated advocacy by Zimbabwean activists, legal experts, and community organisations. Their success serves as both an inspiration and a blueprint for other nations still grappling with punitive HIV laws.

For decades, Zimbabwe’s Section 79 of the Criminal Law Code unfairly targeted people living with HIV criminalising alleged transmission without regard for intent, transmission risk, or scientific evidence. These laws, rooted in stigma rather than science, disproportionately harmed women, but mostly deterred men from seeking testing and treatment. The repeal of Section 79 was a hard-won victory that showcased the power of coalition-building and sustained advocacy.

Yet, as we celebrate Zimbabwe’s progress, we must confront a sobering reality: the global movement for HIV decriminalisation faces an existential crisis due to dwindling funding. Many donors are shifting priorities, putting essential advocacy work at risk. The HIV response itself is in peril, making it even more critical to sustain efforts to challenge unjust laws and protect the rights of people living with HIV.

The HIV Justice Network has been at the forefront of this struggle, playing an irreplaceable role in co-ordinating the global movement against HIV criminalisation. In a recent meeting, our HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE coalition partners re-affirmed the immense value of our work, emphasising our deep institutional knowledge, comprehensive legal monitoring, and convening power. Our two databases – the Global HIV Criminalisation Database and Positive Destinations – are vital resources for advocates, helping to expose patterns of injustice and build evidence-based arguments for reform.

Moreover, in environments where local organisations face political or legal risks, we serve as a powerful global voice, shining a spotlight on abuses and advocating for change. The network’s ability to bring together diverse stakeholders – activists, lawyers, researchers, and policymakers – ensures that no-one is fighting this battle alone.

Despite the funding crisis, the fight for HIV justice has never been more urgent. Punitive, discriminatory, outdated laws and policies continue to undermine public health efforts, fuel stigma, and violate human rights. The repeal of Zimbabwe’s HIV criminalisation law is a powerful reminder that change is possible, but it does not happen in isolation. It requires sustained, co-ordinated efforts – exactly the kind of work that HJN has championed for years.

The Zimbabwean victory is a beacon of hope, but it also serves as a call to action. We must not allow financial constraints to derail the progress we have fought so hard to achieve. Now, more than ever, we need to stand together to ensure that HIV criminalisation becomes a relic of the past. The future of HIV justice – and, therefore, the HIV response itself – depends on it.

New case study and documentary examines how Zimbabwe repealed its HIV criminalisation law

Today, the HIV Justice Network (HJN), supported by the International AIDS Society (IAS), released a video documentary, “It is Time!” – How Zimbabwe Decriminalised HIV, along with a case study report examining Zimbabwe’s successful repeal of its HIV-specific criminal law.

The report, Reforming the Criminal Law in Zimbabwe: A Case Study, explores how advocates, legal experts, and community leaders worked together to repeal Section 79 of Zimbabwe’s Criminal Code, which criminalised HIV non-disclosure, exposure, or transmission. It outlines key strategies used in the campaign and lessons for other countries seeking to end HIV criminalisation.

The 24-minute documentary “It is Time!” brings this story to life through interviews with those involved in the multi-year effort. It also explores how advocates responded when a new law threatened to reintroduce HIV criminalisation.

Zimbabwe’s experience highlights several key strategies:

  • Coalition-building: Bringing together civil society, legal experts, and policymakers strengthened the advocacy effort.
  • Public health and human rights messaging: Advocates demonstrated how criminalisation undermined Zimbabwe’s HIV response.
  • Scientific evidence: Expert testimony helped policymakers understand the realities of HIV transmission.
  • Legislative strategy: Repealing Section 79 as part of a broader legal reform helped ensure success.

The documentary “It is Time!” is now available on the HIV Justice Network YouTube channel.

Reforming the Criminal Law in Zimbabwe: A Case Study (English, pdf, 9 pages) can be downloaded here.

The documentary and case study will also be added to the HIV Criminalisation Online Course, available for free as part of the HIV Justice Academy.

The case study and video were launched during a webinar co-hosted by HJN and IAS, featuring discussions on the significance of Zimbabwe’s law reform for the global movement against HIV criminalisation from:

  • Marlène​​​​ Bras, Director of HIV Programmes at the IAS;
  • Dr Ruth Labode, former legislator, and chairperson of the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Health in Zimbabwe;
  • Immaculate Owomugisha, a Ugandan lawyer and human rights activist who also sits on HJN’s Supervisory Board; and
  • HJN’s Senior Policy Analyst, Alison Symington.

A recording of webinar can now be viewed in English and in French on the IAS+ website.

HIV Is Not a Crime Awareness Day:
A Call to Action in a Time of Crisis

Today, on HIV Is Not a Crime Awareness Day, we stand in solidarity with people living with HIV and our allies who not only continue to fight criminalisation, discrimination, and stigma, but also the sudden loss of funding amongst rising political opposition. This year, the urgency of our fight has never been clearer. As the devastating consequences of US policy shifts ripple across the world, we are not just advocating for change – we are fighting for our lives.

Last Wednesday, at the UK Parliament, we brought together key stakeholders to highlight how unjust HIV criminalisation laws, arrests and prosecutions persist in the UK and across the Commonwealth. Similar events are taking place globally, reinforcing that this issue transcends borders.

With Zero Discrimination Day tomorrow spotlighting the power of communities in the HIV response, #WeStandTogether – today and every day – to end the unjust laws and policies that punish people not only for living with HIV, but also because of who they are, who they love, or how they make a living. In a world where stigma still shackles and injustice still reigns, HIV Is Not a Crime Awareness Day is not just necessary – it’s urgent.

The fight for justice also brings hope. On Wednesday, 5 March at 9am EST / 3pm CET / 4pm CAT / 5pm EAT, join us for a special webinar with the International AIDS Society’s Heart of Stigma programme (register here), where we will premiere a powerful new documentary and toolkit on Zimbabwe’s successful decriminalisation of HIV. Zimbabwe’s victory proves that change is possible even in challenging political environments.

This is not just a moment. It’s a movement. The time for action is now.

Angola: Angola set to introduce new legislation against HIV/AIDS discrimination

Translated from Portuguese with Google translate. Scroll down for original article.

The National Institute for the Fight Against AIDS assures that the country will soon know a new legislation on the discrimination of people living with AIDS.

According to the Deputy Director General of the Institute, José Carlos Van-Dúnem, the bill is already in the Angolan parliament.

Meanwhile, tomorrow, March 1, the world marks the day of the zero discrimination project for people living with AIDS.

The National Institute for the Fight against AIDS will make the carnival party a time to widely disseminate the UNAIDS recommendation.

Angola vai em breve conhecer uma nova legislação sobre a discriminação da pessoa vivendo com sida

O Instituto Nacional da Luta Contra a SIDA, assegura que o país vai em breve conhecer uma nova legislação sobre a discriminação da pessoa vivendo com SIDA.

De acordo com o Director Geral Adjunto do Instituto, José Carlos Van-Dúnem, a proposta de lei já está no parlamento angolano.

Enquanto isso, amanhã, 1 de março, o mundo assinala o dia do projecto zero discriminação da pessoa vivendo com SIDA.

O Instituto Nacional de Luta contra a SIDA, vai fazer da festa do carnaval momento para divulgar em grande a recomendação da ONU-SIDA.

Spain: Landmark ruling in Spain recognises HIV-based discrimination for the first time

Groundbreaking ruling in Spain recognises HIV discrimination

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

  • Cesida, the Legal Clinic of the University of Alcalá and the Fernando Pombo Foundation have achieved an important ruling that recognises for the first time discrimination based on the HIV status of a person.
  • The legal standing in court of social organisations such as CESIDA paves the way for greater protection of the rights of vulnerable people.

Cesida (the Spanish HIV/AIDS Coordinating Committee), the Legal Clinic of the University of Alcalá and the Fernando Pombo Foundation have obtained a pioneering court ruling on equality and non-discrimination based on HIV status in Spain. The case concerned discrimination suffered by a person with HIV in the administrative sphere. Specifically, a resolution of the Directorate General of Traffic (DGT) has been declared null and void on the grounds that it was discriminatory, as it reduced the validity of a citizen’s driving licence by half solely because he or she is living with HIV, without any justification and without following the established procedure.

The Citizens’ Anti-AIDS Commission of Navarre has accompanied “Pedro” throughout the process, providing support and advice from the outset. Their work, like that of other organisations that work directly with people with HIV, is essential to guarantee the defence of the rights of people with HIV and to offer the necessary support in these situations of discrimination. At CESIDA we would like to thank them for their commitment and that of all the organisations that fight against stigma and inequality every day.

Active legitimisation of social organisations

The case shows how social organisations such as CESIDA can better defend people in vulnerable situations under Law 15/2022 of 12 July, which is comprehensive for equal treatment and non-discrimination.

Oliver Marcos, general secretary of CESIDA, declared: ‘This ruling is a crucial step in the defence of the rights of people with HIV. There is still much to be done, but we are firmly committed to continuing to fight against the stigmatisation and discrimination suffered by people with HIV in our society.’

The active legitimisation of social organisations is a key channel for those who, due to their vulnerable situation, do not want to or cannot appear in a judicial process. Social organisations assume their legal representation by exercising their right to effective judicial protection without the affected person having to be part of the process, their authorisation being sufficient. In this way, the role of the third sector is reinforced when the organisations have among their aims the defence and promotion of human rights, without extending the scope to abstract or media defences without real content.

In this case, the person who felt that their right to equal treatment had been violated consulted the DGT’s decision with CESIDA. Three students, tutored by two professors, from the Legal Clinic of the University of Alcalá, which has collaborated with CESIDA for many years, considered that this could be a case of direct discrimination based on serological status. The Legal Clinic of the UAH then contacted the Fernando Pombo Foundation, which promotes and coordinates pro bono legal advice projects to improve the rule of law. The Fernando Pombo Foundation considered that this was a strategic issue for the achievement of its aims and also involved a team of pro bono lawyers from the law firm Gómez-Acebo & Pombo, and together they planned the legal strategy.

Ana Higuera, director of the Fernando Pombo Foundation, emphasises that ‘for us, participating in the defence of this case has been a stimulus for our mission. The admission of the claim by CESIDA, without the need for individual visibility of the person with HIV, represents a key advance in the legal approach to avoiding discrimination that, although not always visible, is real. Furthermore, the judgement’s analysis of how the discrimination occurred is clear and direct, which I consider essential to raise awareness of real situations of discrimination and differentiate them from others in which differential treatment is appropriate. In this sense, I believe that the judgement is educational and useful’.

This is one of the first cases in which, in accordance with Law 15/2022, the legitimacy of an association constituted for the purpose of defending human rights is recognised to combat a situation of discrimination in the field of public law.

The sentence: discrimination based on serological status in the renewal of a driving licence

On 24 October 2022, the DGT (Directorate General of Traffic) informed Pedro (not his real name) that his driving licence had been renewed for half the normal period (5 years instead of 10) and the only apparent reason was that he had disclosed during the medical check-up that he had HIV and was taking the corresponding antiretroviral treatment, without this affecting his ability to drive in any way.

Although the limitation on renewal may not be very relevant, the interest of the case lies in the recurrence with which situations similar to this one occur every day in the lives of people with HIV, who continue to be stigmatised despite advances in the treatment and prevention of transmission of the virus thanks to the efficacy and safety of antiretroviral drugs. Faced with this decision by the DGT, Pedro authorised CESIDA to lodge an appeal, which was possible thanks to the provisions of article 29 of Law 15/2022, which introduces the active legitimation of social entities with certain requirements.

Once the evidence had been presented and the arguments put forward by the team of pro bono lawyers from the law firm Gómez-Acebo & Pombo defending CESIDA’s claim, the Administrative Court ruled in favour of CESIDA and annulled the DGT’s decision on the grounds that it was discriminatory. This ruling is a pioneering pronouncement in our country. It literally says:

‘But discrimination occurs in several ways. The applicant is discriminated against when the procedure established in article 44.3 of the General Drivers Regulations is not followed. The applicant is discriminated against when, on appeal, the provision established in section 13 of Annex IV itself is not taken into account, according to which ‘except if the interested party accompanies a favourable medical opinion’, a report that appears on page 10 of the administrative file indicating that ‘the influence of Dovato on the ability to drive and use machines is nil or insignificant (see technical data sheet)’. The applicant is discriminated against when the decision adopted is a flat-out one, as evidenced by the fact that the administrative file begins with the applicant’s complaint, which is classified as an appeal, with no record of any previous action.

The renewal applicant is treated differently, as the established general rule (renewal for a period of ten years) does not apply to him. It is done because he is HIV positive, without any justification and without following the procedure that, in any case, would be established for this purpose.’

After the sentence was handed down, the DGT has already sent Pedro his new driving licence for the general period, without exceptions, having also notified the finality of the sentence a few days ago.

A precedent against discrimination based on serological status

Miguel Ángel Ramiro, coordinator of the Legal Clinic of the University of Alcalá, emphasised that ‘This case sets an important precedent in Spain as it is a pioneering ruling against discrimination based on HIV status, as well as for the recognition of the standing of social organisations’. And he added: ‘The participation of our students in this process has been key. Not only have they learned about applicable legal norms and procedural issues, but they have also contributed to the fight for equality and social justice, a fundamental aspect in the training of future professionals.’

Oliver Marcos, general secretary of Cesida, emphasised: ‘We encourage people with HIV to turn to associations when they feel their rights have been violated, showing that in this way changes are achieved. In addition, we place special emphasis on the fact that public administrations should be the guarantors of equality and avoid this type of discrimination in any area within their competence.’

Sentencia pionera en España reconoce la discriminación por el VIH

  • Cesida, la Clínica Legal de la Universidad de Alcalá y la Fundación Fernando Pombo logran una importante sentencia que reconoce por primera vez la discriminación por razón del estado serológico de una persona con el VIH.
  • La legitimación activa ante los tribunales de entidades sociales como CESIDA abre el camino a una mayor protección de los derechos de las personas en situación de vulnerabilidad.

Cesida (Coordinadora Estatal de VIH y sida), la Clínica Legal de la Universidad de Alcalá y la Fundación Fernando Pombo han obtenido un pronunciamiento judicial pionero en materia de igualdad y no discriminación por razón del estado serológico en España. El proceso ha enjuiciado la discriminación sufrida por una persona con el VIH en el ámbito administrativo. En concreto, se ha declarado la nulidad de una resolución de la Dirección General de Tráfico (DGT) por entender que la misma era discriminatoria ya que reducía la vigencia del permiso de conducción de un ciudadano a la mitad únicamente porque vive con el VIH, sin motivación alguna y con ausencia del procedimiento que, en todo caso, está establecido para ello.

La Comisión Ciudadana Antisida de Navarra ha acompañado a «Pedro» durante todo el proceso, brindándole apoyo y asesoramiento desde el primer momento. Su labor, al igual que la de otras entidades que trabajan directamente con personas con el VIH, es esencial para garantizar la defensa de los derechos de las personas con el VIH y ofrecer el respaldo necesario ante estas situaciones de discriminación. Desde CESIDA queremos agradecer su compromiso y el de todas las organizaciones que día a día luchan contra el estigma y la desigualdad.

Legitimación activa de las entidades sociales

El caso muestra cómo las organizaciones del ámbito social como CESIDA pueden defender mejor a personas en situación de vulnerabilidad en virtud de la Ley 15/2022, de 12 de julio, integral para la igualdad de trato y la no discriminación.

Oliver Marcos, secretario general de CESIDA, declaró: “Esta sentencia es un paso crucial en la defensa de los derechos de las personas con el VIH. Aún queda mucho por hacer, pero tenemos el firme compromiso de seguir luchando contra la estigmatización y la discriminación que sufrimos las personas con la infección por el VIH en nuestra sociedad.”

La legitimación activa de las entidades sociales resulta una vía clave para aquellas personas que por estar en una situación de vulnerabilidad no quieren o no pueden personarse en un proceso judicial. Las organizaciones sociales asumen su representación legal ejerciendo su derecho a la tutela judicial efectiva sin que la persona afectada tenga que formar parte del proceso, bastando su autorización. De este modo, se refuerza el papel del tercer sector cuando las organizaciones tengan entre sus fines la defensa y promoción de los derechos humanos, sin que se amplíen los ámbitos a defensas abstractas o mediáticas sin contenido real.

En este caso, la persona que sintió vulnerado su derecho a la igualdad de trato consultó con CESIDA la decisión de la DGT. Tres estudiantes, tutorizados por dos profesores, de la Clínica Legal de la Universidad de Alcalá, que colabora desde hace muchos años con CESIDA, consideraron que podría tratarse de un supuesto de discriminación directa por razón del estado serológico. La Clínica Legal de la UAH contactó entonces con la Fundación Fernando Pombo, que impulsa y coordina proyectos de asesoramiento jurídico pro bono para mejorar el Estado de Derecho. La Fundación Fernando Pombo consideró que se trataba de un tema estratégico para la consecución de sus fines e involucró también un equipo de abogados pro bono del despacho Gómez-Acebo & Pombo, y juntos planificaron la estrategia jurídica.

Ana Higuera, directora de la Fundación Fernando Pombo, destaca que “para nosotros participar en la defensa de este caso ha sido un estímulo para nuestra misión. La admisión de la reclamación por CESIDA, sin necesidad de una visibilidad individual de la persona con el VIH, representa un avance clave en el enfoque jurídico para evitar discriminaciones que, aunque no siempre son visibles, son reales. Además, el análisis que realiza la sentencia sobre cómo se ha producido la discriminación es claro y directo, lo que considero fundamental para concienciar sobre situaciones reales de discriminación y diferenciarlas de otras en las que el trato diferenciado es adecuado. En este sentido, creo que la sentencia es pedagógica y útil”.

Se trata de uno de los primeros casos que, conforme a la Ley 15/2022, se reconoce la legitimación de una asociación constituida con el fin de defender los derechos humanos para combatir una situación de discriminación en el ámbito del Derecho público.

La sentencia: discriminación por estado serológico en la renovación del permiso de conducir

El 24 de octubre de 2022 la DGT comunicó a Pedro (nombre ficticio) la renovación de su permiso de conducción reducida a la mitad de tiempo (5 años en lugar de 10) y la única razón aparente fue que éste comunicó en la revisión médica que tenía el VIH y tomaba el correspondiente tratamiento antirretroviral, sin que esto afectará en modo alguno a su capacidad de conducir.

Aunque la limitación de la renovación pudiera resultar poco relevante, el interés del caso está en la recurrencia con que situaciones similares a ésta se producen todos los días en la vida de las personas con el VIH, que siguen siendo estigmatizadas a pesar de los avances en el tratamiento y la prevención de la transmisión del virus gracias a la eficacia y seguridad de los fármacos antirretrovirales. Ante esta decisión de la DGT, Pedro autorizó a CESIDA a interponer un recurso contencioso-administrativo, lo que pudo hacerse gracias a la previsión del artículo 29 de la Ley 15/2022 que introduce la legitimación activa de las entidades sociales con ciertos requisitos.

Una vez practicada la prueba y expuestos los argumentos por el equipo de abogados pro bono del despacho Gómez-Acebo & Pombo que defendían la pretensión de CESIDA, el Juzgado de lo contencioso-administrativo falló en favor de CESIDA y ha anulado la resolución de la DGT por entender que la misma es discriminatoria. Esta sentencia es un pronunciamiento pionero en nuestro país. Textualmente dice:

“Pero es que la discriminación se produce de varias maneras. Se discrimina al solicitante al no seguirse el procedimiento establecido en el artículo 44.3 del Reglamento General de Conductores. Se discrimina al solicitante cuando en vía de recurso no se tiene en cuenta la previsión establecida en el propio apartado 13 del Anexo IV conforme a la que “excepto si el interesado acompaña un dictamen facultativo favorable”, informe que consta en el folio 10 del expediente administrativo en el que se indica que “la influencia del Dovato sobre la capacidad de conducir y utilizar máquinas es nula o insignificante (consultar ficha técnica)”. Se discrimina al solicitante cuando la decisión adoptada lo es de plano, como acredita el que el expediente administrativo se inicia con la reclamación del solicitante que se califica como recurso de alzada, sin que conste ninguna actuación previa.

Se trata de forma diferente al solicitante de la renovación, al que no se aplica la norma general establecida (renovación por plazo de diez años), se hace por su condición de seropositivo, sin motivación alguna y con ausencia del procedimiento que, en todo caso, estaría establecido para ello.”

Después de recibirse la sentencia, la DGT ya ha enviado a Pedro su nuevo permiso de conducir por el período general, sin excepciones, habiéndose, además notificado la firmeza de la sentencia hace unos días.

Un precedente contra la discriminación por razón del estado serológico

Miguel Ángel Ramiro, coordinador de la Clínica Legal de la Universidad de Alcalá, recalcó “Este caso sienta un precedente importante en España al ser un pronunciamiento pionero contra la discriminación por razón del estado serológico; así como para el reconocimiento de la legitimación activa de las entidades sociales”. Y añadió: “La participación de nuestros estudiantes en este proceso ha sido clave. No solo han aprendido sobre normas jurídicas aplicables y cuestiones procedimentales, sino que también han contribuido a la lucha por la igualdad y la justicia social, un aspecto fundamental en la formación de futuros profesionales.”

Oliver Marcos, secretario general de Cesida, enfatizó: “Animamos a las personas con el VIH a acudir a las asociaciones cuando sientan vulnerados sus derechos, evidenciando que de esta manera se logran cambios. Además, hacemos especial hincapié en que las administraciones públicas deben ser las garantes de la igualdad y evitar este tipo de discriminación en cualquier ámbito de su competencia.”

UK Parliamentary Reception Marks HIV Is Not A Crime Awareness Day

On Wednesday, 26th February, the HIV Justice Network (HJN) co-hosted a parliamentary reception in the UK Parliament in collaboration with the All-Party Parliamentary Group on HIV, AIDS and Sexual Health (APPGA) and the UK’s National AIDS Trust (NAT). The event, held to mark HIV Is Not A Crime Awareness Day, underscored the urgent need to combat HIV criminalisation in an era of rising global anti-rights movements and shrinking HIV funding.

Baroness Barker, Co-Chair of the APPGA, opened the event, acknowledging the significance of addressing HIV criminalisation within the broader context of human rights and public health.

The Global Scale of HIV Criminalisation

HJN’s Executive Director, Edwin J Bernard, was the first speaker, offering insights into the global state of HIV criminalisation, with a particular focus on Commonwealth countries. He highlighted key issues, including:

  • HIV criminalisation is state-sponsored stigma It punishes people living with HIV for acts that wouldn’t be crimes if they were HIV-negative, perpetuating discrimination and undermining public health efforts.
  • The scale of injustice is vast At least 80 countries have HIV-specific criminal laws, and prosecutions have taken place in at least 90 countries, with Commonwealth nations lagging in law reform.
  • Progress is happening, but remains under threat While 17 countries have reformed their laws, critical funding cuts jeopardise continued advocacy and reform efforts.
  • Sustained investment is essential Law reform takes time, and without long-term, flexible funding, the progress made could be reversed, leaving the most marginalised at risk.
  • The time to act is now Policymakers, funders, and advocates must step up to support efforts to end HIV criminalisation and ensure justice for people living with HIV.

Read the full text of his remarks here: HJN Executive Director’s Speech.

[Show picture list] Photos: Aditi Sharma

Insights from the UK: NAT’s New Report on HIV Criminalisation

Daniel Fluskey, Director of Policy, Research, and Influencing at NAT, presented key findings from NAT’s recently published report, Criminalisation of HIV Transmission: Understanding the Impact (read the report). The report offers several urgent recommendations for reform, including:

  • U=U should be central to legal considerations If an individual has an undetectable viral load, no investigation should take place.
  • Reckless transmission cases can force disclosure Legal proceedings can place individuals in unsafe situations, potentially exposing them to stigma and harm.
  • Police need comprehensive training Investigations must be fair, informed, and necessary to prevent unnecessary criminalisation.
  • Voluntary attendance should replace arrest Arrest should not be the default approach when investigating HIV-related cases.
  • All stakeholders must receive training Including people living with HIV, support staff, and clinicians, to ensure a more informed legal and healthcare environment.

A Personal Story: The Impact of Criminalisation

The event featured a powerful testimony from a man who was unjustly arrested for a crime that never existed—there was no risk, no harm. As a police officer himself, he never imagined he would experience such a humiliating and disproportionate arrest. Multiple officers arrived at his home and charged him with ‘attempted grievous bodily harm’ without explanation or the chance to respond. 

It was only 20 hours into his unlawful detention, during disclosure before his interview, that he was finally told why he had been arrested. At that point, he disclosed his U=U status – evidence that should have prevented his arrest in the first place.

Although he was never formally charged, the case was eventually dismissed as “Entered in Error” after a review of his medical records. Yet, the arrest remains on his record, casting a shadow over his career and deeply impacting his mental health.

“I did nothing wrong,” he concluded, “yet I am still fighting for justice.”

The Forgotten Impact of Past Prosecutions

Sophie Strachan, Director of Sophia Forum, shared her own experience of being diagnosed with HIV while in prison more than two decades ago. She also highlighted the case of the first woman prosecuted in England & Wales for ‘reckless’ HIV transmission. Convicted in 2006 and sentenced to 32 months in prison, she was vilified by the media for a ‘crime’ that would not be prosecuted today under current guidelines.

Nearly 20 years later, this woman remains deeply affected by her conviction. Despite wanting to move forward, her criminal record has made it impossible for her to work or even volunteer. “She is a virtual recluse, terrified that people will still recognise her,” Sophie explained. Her case remains a stark reminder of the lasting impact of unjust prosecutions.

Building Momentum for Change

The reception was attended by members of the UK House of Commons and House of Lords, as well as representatives from UK and international NGOs, philanthropic funders, and advocates working to end HIV criminalisation worldwide.

The discussions reinforced the urgent need for continued advocacy, law reform, and investment to end the unjust criminalisation of people living with HIV. As our Executive Director emphasised: HIV is not a crime. The time to act is now.

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

I want my name back

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kerry: What was that like?

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

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

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

Kerry: Were you in there by yourself?

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

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

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

Kerry: Why did you?

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

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

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

Kerry: Whose funeral was it?

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

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

Lashanda: No, I’ve never made bread.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lashanda: Where do I start?

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

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

Kerry: Afraid of what?

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

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

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

Lashanda: Exactly. I want that back.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lashanda: Exactly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lashanda Salinas

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

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

Kerry: Why not?

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

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

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

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

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

2024 in review: Progress amid challenges

As the world grappled with shifting political landscapes and evolving public health priorities, the fight against HIV criminalisation remained a critical, yet often overlooked, human rights issue. The HIV Justice Network and our HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE coalition partners navigated a year of both challenges and progress, underscoring the ongoing need for vigilance and advocacy in the face of unjust HIV-related laws and practices.

Rising Case Numbers and Persistent Challenges

In 2024, reported HIV criminalisation cases rose to 65, compared with 57 in 2023 and 50 in 2022. While these numbers remain lower than the 119 cases prior to COVID in 2019, they highlight a troubling upward trend. Cases were documented across 20 countries, with Russia and the United States leading at 26 and 11 cases, respectively. Other notable contributors included Spain (3), Argentina (2), Belarus (2), Senegal (2), and Singapore (2).

In Panama, a 14-year prison sentence for alleged HIV transmission marked the country’s first reported case. Uruguay also saw its first case, where spitting was classified as an ‘assault on health,’ despite no risk of transmission.

These figures only scratch the surface, as media-reported cases represent a fraction of the actual global burden. Civil society organisations uncovered hundreds of previously unreported cases, particularly in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, while the Williams Institute’s research in the U.S. revealed hundreds more, including detailed analyses in Indiana, Maryland, Mississippi, and Ohio.

High-Profile Cases and Intersectional Injustices

Several cases drew international attention in 2024, shedding light on the intersectional injustices of HIV criminalisation.

In Qatar, a British-Mexican national’s arrest after a Grindr sting operation also emphasised the perilous intersection of HIV status, gay identity, and discriminatory laws. Following a public campaign and diplomatic efforts, the individual was released and allowed to leave the country. Similarly, Senegal reported two cases stemming from police raids on LGBTQ individuals, further highlighting how HIV criminalisation disproportionately affects other criminalised and marginalised groups.

A particularly concerning case in South Africa resulted in a life sentence plus ten years for a soldier accused of HIV transmission and non-disclosure. The verdict reflected outdated views equating HIV to a death sentence and reinforced harmful legal interpretations equating HIV non-disclosure with rape. Previously only Canada had framed HIV non-disclosure in this way, and this framing has been roundly criticised by HIV and human rights groups in the country and rejected by Canada’s Justice Committee.

Legal Reforms: Progress and Setbacks

Efforts to modernise or repeal unjust HIV laws gained ground in 2024, with notable victories including:

  • Mexico: Repeal of ‘danger of contagion’ laws in Colima and Mexico City.
  • Tennessee, U.S.: Elimination of mandatory sex offender registration for ‘aggravated prostitution’.
  • Singapore: Introduction of an undetectable viral load defence in HIV exposure laws.

In Uganda, the Constitutional Court struck down the death penalty provision in the Anti-Homosexuality Act 2023, but upheld other regressive aspects, highlighting the mixed fortunes of legal challenges in hostile environments.

There was also disappointing news from Canada, where a federal review of its legal approach to HIV non-disclosure was abandoned, despite tireless advocacy efforts. Other retrogressive moves included Guinea’s harsher penalties for ‘intentional HIV transmission’, Tennessee’s expansion of aggravated rape provisions to include people living with HIV, and reports from China that the municipality of Chongqing was revising laws concerning STI transmission as part of a broader crackdown on HIV.

Policy Developments and Advocacy Wins

Policy shifts in 2024 reflected growing recognition of human rights in public health.

In Uzbekistan, the Ministry of Health reduced the number of prohibited professions, including hairdressing, for people living with HIV.

In the U.S., once the global leader in HIV criminalisation, significant legal and policy improvements continue to be secured. Updated guidelines allowed parents living with HIV to breastfeed, while increased transparency on molecular HIV surveillance marked a small but critical step forward. Nevertheless, unscientific prosecutions were still seen in the U.S. in 2024: conduct that carries little to no risk of transmission was criminalised, including spitting, throwing blood, and sex with an undetectable viral load.

Dedicated advocacy also prevented new criminalisation laws in Uganda and Zimbabwe, the latter rejecting an attempt to reinstate a repealed law criminalising HIV transmission. These successes underscore the power of collective action in resisting harmful legislation.

Courts Upholding Justice

Courts in several countries provided a beacon of hope by rejecting unjust prosecutions:

  • Kenya: A court threw out a baseless charge of deliberate HIV transmission against a domestic worker accused of spitting in food.
  • Italy: A man was acquitted due to a ‘very low viral load’, with the court recognising the negligible transmission risk.
  • Greece: The European Court of Human Rights ruled that the forced testing and public shaming of sex workers violated their rights, setting a vital precedent.

The Road Ahead

Despite these wins, the persistence of HIV criminalisation laws and prosecutions and their disproportionate impact on marginalised communities serve as a sobering reminder of the work still required. As we move into 2025, facing an ever-emboldened anti-rights movement, we remain committed to challenging unjust laws, building power with affected communities, and advocating for evidence-based, rights-affirming approaches.

In a year marked by both setbacks and progress, the global movement against HIV criminalisation demonstrated resilience and resolve. The delicate balance of successes and challenges reminds us that vigilance, advocacy, and solidarity are more crucial than ever in our fight for justice and equality.

US: Trump’s promise of mass deportations is deepening mistrust of the health care system among California’s immigrants

Community health workers say fear of deportation is already affecting participation in California’s Medicaid program.

President-elect Donald Trump’s promise of mass deportations and tougher immigration restrictions is deepening mistrust of the health care system among California’s immigrants and clouding the future for providers serving the state’s most impoverished residents.

At the same time, immigrants living illegally in Southern California told KFF Health News they thought the economy would improve and their incomes might increase under Trump, and for some that outweighed concerns about health care.

Community health workers say fear of deportation is already affecting participation in Medi-Cal, the state’s Medicaid program for low-income residents, which was expanded in phases to all immigrants regardless of residency status over the past several years. That could undercut the state’s progress in reducing the uninsured rate, which reached a record low of 6.4% last year.

Immigrants lacking legal residency have long worried that participation in government programs could make them targets, and Trump’s election has compounded those concerns, community advocates say.

The incoming Trump administration is also expected to target Medicaid with funding cuts and enrollment restrictions, which activists worry could threaten the Medi-Cal expansion and kneecap efforts to extend health insurance subsidies under Covered California to all immigrants.

“The fear alone has so many consequences to the health of our communities,” said Mar Velez, director of policy with the Latino Coalition for a Healthy California. “This is, as they say, not their first rodeo. They understand how the system works. I think this machine is going to be, unfortunately, a lot more harmful to our communities.”

Alongside such worries, though, is a strain of optimism that Trump might be a boon to the economy, according to interviews with immigrants in Los Angeles whom health care workers were soliciting to sign up for Medi-Cal.

Selvin, 39, who, like others interviewed for this article, asked to be identified by only his first name because he’s living here without legal permission, said that even though he believes Trump dislikes people like him, he thinks the new administration could help boost his hours at the food processing facility where he works packing noodles. “I do see how he could improve the economy. From that perspective, I think it’s good that he won.”

He became eligible for Medi-Cal this year but decided not to enroll, worrying it could jeopardize his chances of changing his immigration status.

“I’ve thought about it,” Selvin said, but “I feel like it could end up hurting me. I won’t deny that, obviously, I’d like to benefit — get my teeth fixed, a physical checkup.” But fear holds him back, he said, and he hasn’t seen a doctor in nine years.

It’s not Trump’s mass deportation plan in particular that’s scaring him off, though. “If I’m not committing any crimes or getting a DUI, I think I won’t get deported,” Selvin said.

Petrona, 55, came from El Salvador seeking asylum and enrolled in Medi-Cal last year.

She said that if her health insurance benefits were cut, she wouldn’t be able to afford her visits to the dentist.

A street food vendor, she hears often about Trump’s deportation plan, but she said it will be the criminals the new president pushes out. “I’ve heard people say he’s going to get rid of everyone who’s stealing.”

Although she’s afraid she could be deported, she’s also hopeful about Trump. “He says he’s going to give a lot of work to Hispanics because Latinos are the ones who work the hardest,” she said. “That’s good, more work for us, the ones who came here to work.”

Newly elected Republican Assembly member Jeff Gonzalez, who flipped a seat long held by Democrats in the Latino-heavy desert region in the southeastern part of the state, said his constituents were anxious to see a new economic direction.

“They’re just really kind of fed up with the status quo in California,” Gonzalez said. “People on the ground are saying, ‘I’m hopeful,’ because now we have a different perspective. We have a businessperson who is looking at the very things that we are looking at, which is the price of eggs, the price of gas, the safety.”

Gonzalez said he’s not going to comment about potential Medicaid cuts, because Trump has not made any official announcement. Unlike most in his party, Gonzalez said he supports the extension of health care services to all residents regardless of immigration status.

Health care providers said they are facing a twin challenge of hesitancy among those they are supposed to serve and the threat of major cuts to Medicaid, the federal program that provides over 60% of the funding for Medi-Cal.

Health providers and policy researchers say a loss in federal contributions could lead the state to roll back or downsize some programs, including the expansion to cover those without legal authorization.

California and Oregon are the only states that offer comprehensive health insurance to all income-eligible immigrants regardless of status. About 1.5 million people without authorization have enrolled in California, at a cost of over $6 billion a year to state taxpayers.

“Everyone wants to put these types of services on the chopping block, which is really unfair,” said state Sen. Lena Gonzalez, a Democrat and chair of the California Latino Legislative Caucus. “We will do everything we can to ensure that we prioritize this.”

Sen. Gonzalez said it will be challenging to expand programs such as Covered California, the state’s health insurance marketplace, for which immigrants lacking permanent legal status are not eligible. A big concern for immigrants and their advocates is that Trump could reinstate changes to the public charge policy, which can deny green cards or visas based on the use of government benefits.

“President Trump’s mass deportation plan will end the financial drain posed by illegal immigrants on our healthcare system, and ensure that our country can care for American citizens who rely on Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security,” Trump spokesperson Karoline Leavitt said in a statement to KFF Health News.

During his first term, in 2019, Trump broadened the policy to include the use of Medicaid, as well as housing and nutrition subsidies. The Biden administration rescinded the change in 2021.

KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News, found immigrants use less health care than people born in the United States. And about 1 in 4 likely undocumented immigrant adults said they have avoided applying for assistance with health care, food, and housing because of immigration-related fears, according to a 2023 survey.

Another uncertainty is the fate of the Affordable Care Act, which was opened in November to immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children and are protected by the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. If DACA eligibility for the act’s plans, or even the act itself, were to be reversed under Trump, that would leave roughly 40,000 California DACA recipients, and about 100,000 nationwide, without access to subsidized health insurance.

On December 9, a federal court in North Dakota issued an order blocking DACA recipients from accessing Affordable Care Act health plans in 19 states that had challenged the Biden administration’s rule.

Clinics and community health workers are encouraging people to continue enrolling in health benefits. But amid the push to spread the message, the chilling effects are already apparent up and down the state.

“¿Ya tiene Medi-Cal?” community health worker Yanet Martinez said, asking residents whether they had Medi-Cal as she walked down Pico Boulevard recently in a Los Angeles neighborhood with many Salvadorans.

“¡Nosotros podemos ayudarle a solicitar Medi-Cal! ¡Todo gratuito!” she shouted, offering help to sign up, free of charge.

“Gracias, pero no,” said one young woman, responding with a no thanks. She shrugged her shoulders and averted her eyes under a cap that covered her from the late-morning sun.

Since Election Day, Martinez said, people have been more reluctant to hear her pitch for subsidized health insurance or cancer prevention screenings.

“They think I’m going to share their information to deport them,” she said. “They don’t want anything to do with it.”

Senegal: “The application of criminal law is an injustice against people living with HIV”

A magistrate laments the ‘unfair’ criminalisation of HIV transmission

Translated from French with Deepl.com. Scroll down for the original article.

The deputy director of human rights, Babacar Diouf, deems it unfair to criminalise the transmission of HIV-AIDS, except in cases of intentional transmission.

‘The application of criminal law is an injustice against people living with HIV, unless a person deliberately decides to infect another person’, said the magistrate.

He was hosting a conference on the theme of ‘Following the path of rights to eliminate AIDS in Senegal’, an event organised on Wednesday as part of the celebration of World AIDS Day by the National AIDS Council.

According to the deputy director of human rights at the Ministry of Justice, the right to health in Senegal is not subject to judicial review. ‘What’s not working is criminalisation. This is an obstacle to the fight against AIDS’, he maintained.

‘The criminalisation of HIV is detrimental to rights. It is unfair when it targets a person who cannot disclose his or her status’, he argued.

‘We need to be aware that proclaimed rights that are not effective are of no use’, he said, pointing out that “the law on AIDS is unknown to some judicial actors”.

‘The lack of information among the judiciary is a hindrance to the fight against AIDS. They have no information about certain health data’, he said.

With this in mind, Babacar Diouf called on the National AIDS Council to ‘equip the judiciary’ so that they can play a greater role in the fight against AIDS.

He believes it is imperative to combat stigmatisation and discrimination.

Samba Cor Sarr, Director of Cabinet at the Ministry of Health and Social Action, pointed out that the theme of World AIDS Day, ‘Following the path of rights to eliminate AIDS in Senegal’, revived the issue of human rights in the fight against HIV.

‘The path of the fight against AIDS is strewn with rights-related issues: the right to health, the right to access to care and treatment, the right to a favourable environment, the right to a fairer, more equitable world’, listed the representative of the Minister of Health.

He also spoke of ‘the right to life, to a positive life for all those directly or indirectly affected by HIV’.

He also emphasised that Senegal, like other countries, still faces ‘significant challenges in the fight against HIV/AIDS’, including strengthening the fight against HIV at community level.

These challenges include stepping up the fight against HIV at community level. These challenges include stepping up care for children living with HIV, engaging young people and combating stigma and discrimination. Samba Cor Sarr also cited the fight against inequalities in access to care and the strengthening of support mechanisms.

In the Senegalese context, he added, this year’s theme ‘takes on its full meaning insofar as it enables a more specific and tailored response to the needs of communities affected by HIV/AIDS in order to reduce stigma and discrimination’.

Un magistrat déplore la pénalisation de la transmission du Sida, « une injustice »

Dakar, 12 déc (APS) – Le directeur adjoint des droits humains, Babacar Diouf, juge injuste la pénalisation de la transmission du VIH Sida, sauf dans les cas de contamination intentionnelle.

« L’application du droit pénal est une injustice contre les personnes vivant avec le VIH, sauf si une personne décide délibérément de contaminer une autre personne », a déclaré le magistrat.

Il animait une conférence sur le thème « Suivre le chemin des droits pour l’élimination du Sida au Sénégal », une activité organisée mercredi dans le cadre de la célébration de la Journée mondiale de lutte contre le Sida par le Conseil national de lutte contre le Sida.

Selon le directeur adjoint des droits humains au ministère de la Justice, le droit de la santé n’est pas judiciarisé au Sénégal. « Ce qui ne va pas, c’est la pénalisation. Il s’agit d’un obstacle à la lutte contre le Sida », a-t-il soutenu.

« La pénalisation du VIH nuit au droit. Elle est injuste lorsqu’elle vise une personne qui ne peut pas dévoiler son statut », a-t-il argumenté.

« Nous devons savoir que des droits proclamés qui ne sont pas effectifs n’ont pas d’utilité », a-t-il dit, en faisant observer que « la loi sur le Sida est inconnue de certains acteurs judiciaires ».

« Le manque d’information des acteurs judiciaires est un frein à la lutte. Les acteurs n’ont pas d’information sur certaines données sanitaires », a-t-il indiqué.

Dans ce sens, Babacar Diouf invite le Conseil national de lutte contre le Sida à « outiller les acteurs judiciaires », afin qu’ils puissent mieux participer à la lutte contre le Sida.

Il juge impératif de lutter contre la stigmatisation et la discrimination.

Samba Cor Sarr, directeur de cabinet du ministère de la Santé et de l’Action sociale, a pour sa part relevé que le thème consacré à la Journée mondiale de lutte contre le Sida, à savoir « Suivre le chemin des droits pour l’élimination du Sida au Sénégal », fait renaitre la question des droits humains dans la lutte contre le VIH.

« Le chemin de la lutte contre le Sida est parsemé de problématiques liées aux droits : droit à la santé, droit à l’accès aux soins et aux traitements, droit à un environnement favorable, droit à un monde plus juste, plus équitable », a énuméré le représentant du ministre de la Santé.

Il a également évoqué « le droit à la vie, à une vie positive pour toutes les personnes touchées directement ou indirectement par le VIH ».

Il a par ailleurs souligné que le Sénégal, à l’instar des autres pays, demeure « confronté à des défis significatifs dans la lutte contre le VIH/Sida », parmi lesquels le renforcement de la lutte contre le VIH au niveau communautaire.

Le renforcement de la prise en charge des enfants vivant avec le VIH fait partie de ces défis, de même que l’engagement de la jeunesse, la lutte contre la stigmatisation et la discrimination. Samba Cor Sarr a également cité la lutte contre les inégalités en matière d’accès aux soins et le renforcement des mécanismes de soutien.

Dans le contexte sénégalais, ajoute-t-il, le thème retenu cette année « prend tout son sens dans la mesure où il permet une réponse plus spécifique et plus adaptée aux besoins des communautés touchées par le VIH/Sida afin de réduire la stigmatisation et la discrimination »