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

Enforcement of HIV Criminalization in Michigan

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

Executive Summary

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

General Findings

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

2019 Legislative Reform

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

Other Findings

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

Download the full report

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

Experts warn stigma, outdated laws obstacles to ending HIV transmission

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A history of acceptance – a present-day problem

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

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

Survey reveals widespread misunderstanding

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

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

Calls for law reform and access to medication

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

Gibbs said New Zealand was significantly behind other countries.

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

Government response

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Colin Hastings is an Assistant Professor at the University of Waterloo

André Capretti is a Policy Analyst at the HIV Legal Network

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

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

OPINION

By Belinda Agnes Namutebi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From Courtrooms to Communities:
Funding Advocacy to Sustain HIV Responses

Our Executive Director’s remarks on today’s webinar aimed at philanthropic funders, convened by Funders Concerned About AIDS.

Today, I’ll be connecting two major forces shaping the global HIV response: the wave of criminalisation targeting people living with HIV, people most vulnerable to HIV, and their advocacy organisations, as well as the expanding reach and impact of the Global Gag Order.

Both of these reflect the same problem – the use of law and policy to control bodies, silence communities, and restrict access to health and rights. By the end of this webinar, I hope it will be crystal clear why funding advocacy remains the single highest-impact investment funders can make.

The HIV Justice Network, which I lead, works to end the unjust use of criminal law against people living with HIV worldwide. We document laws and cases, support and train advocates, and co-ordinate the HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE coalition – connecting the global to local and back again, linking community organisations, lawyers, and human rights defenders across all regions of the world to reform laws and prosecutorial practices.

HIV criminalisation remains stubbornly and worryingly widespread. More than 130 countries have used criminal law against people living with HIV accused of non-disclosure, potential or perceived HIV exposure or unintentional HIV transmission. Currently, 83 countries have HIV-specific criminal laws. Others use general criminal laws like “bodily harm”, “endangering health,” and even “attempted murder.”

These laws, and their application, are often based on outdated science and moral panic. They make people living with HIV to be singularly responsible for HIV prevention. They punish us for transmission risks that no longer exist in the era of treatment as prevention – and consider the harm of HIV to be so exceptional they have special laws, or prosecutions, that specifically target people diagnosed HIV-positive. No other communicable disease is treated so problematically in law.

But HIV criminalisation doesn’t exist in isolation. It is part of a broader ecosystem of criminalisation that targets the very communities most affected by HIV – sex workers, migrants, people who use drugs, and LGBTQ+ people. When these populations are criminalised, they are pushed underground, excluded from health services, and made more vulnerable to violence and exploitation.

HIV criminalisation also has a gendered impact. Women are often the first to be diagnosed, especially during pregnancy, and therefore the first to face prosecution. In some countries, pregnant women living with HIV have been charged with endangering their unborn child or accused of transmission through breastfeeding.

Gender-based violence, unequal access to legal representation, and social stigma amplify these injustices. At the same time, the criminalisation of sex work and gender nonconformity exposes women – particularly trans women – to harassment and violence from authorities.

And increasingly, advocacy organisations themselves are being restricted by laws that limit freedom of association, deny foreign funding, or create a chilling effect through so-called “anti-propaganda” or “foreign agent” measures. In more and more countries, simply speaking out against criminalisation is considered to be subversive.

And then there is the Global Gag Order, reinstated and expanded in early 2025 under the Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance policy. This policy prohibits non-U.S. NGOs receiving U.S. global health funds from providing, referring for, or even discussing abortion as a method of family planning – even when using their own, non-U.S. resources. It now applies to all U.S. global health assistance, including HIV funding.

For communities and organisations already constrained by criminal laws, the gag order adds another layer of silencing.
• It disrupts integrated HIV and reproductive-health services.
• It forces organisations to choose between funding and integrity.
• It weakens partnerships built over decades of global health cooperation.
• And it amplifies the chilling effect – discouraging advocacy, speech, and even data collection on reproductive rights.

Once again, women and girls bear the brunt. When abortion access is restricted, maternal deaths rise, and the same clinics providing HIV care lose their ability to deliver comprehensive, rights-based health services.

So when we talk about decriminalisation, we’re not just talking about repealing one set of laws. We’re talking about defending the space for civil society, for public health, and for human rights to function at all.

Despite these challenges, advocacy works. Here’s some examples – with a focus on HIV decriminalisation.
• In the US, in the past year alone, Maryland and North Dakota have repealed their HIV-specific criminal laws, while Tennessee removed mandatory sex offender registration for HIV-related convictions.
• In Mexico, again thanks to community leadership, five states have repealed vague “danger of contagion” laws used for HIV criminalisation, with more to come.
• In EECA, civil society in Ukraine is working right now with parliamentary champions to remove an HIV criminalisation law from its criminal code, despite being in the middle of a war.
• In Africa, sustained community advocacy led to the repeal of Zimbabwe’s HIV-specific criminal law and the prevention of a new HIV criminalisation law in Malawi.

But these victories didn’t happen overnight. They resulted from years of partnership between communities, legal and scientific experts, and funders willing to invest in advocacy infrastructure.

Community-led organisations are the foundation of all this progress. We are the early-warning systems when new laws are proposed, and we are the first responders when individuals face charges. We mobilise people living with HIV, key population and women’s networks, and human rights defenders to speak directly with policymakers, prosecutors, and the media.

Philanthropy has a crucial role here. Advocacy funding remains a small fraction of global HIV philanthropy, yet it has exponential impact. Advocacy capacity cannot be switched on only when a law or case hits the headlines. It requires continuity, institutional memory, and relationships built over time.

Funding advocacy protects every other investment in prevention, treatment, and care. Without enabling environments – without legal and policy reform – those investments cannot succeed.

Funders can make the difference by:
• Providing core, flexible, multi-year support that allows community-led groups to stay engaged between crises.
• Investing in coalitions and regional and global networks, like HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE, linking legal, scientific and human rights expertise with communities.
• Supporting data, storytelling, and knowledge translation – turning lived experience and evidence into policy change.
• Protecting civil-society space, especially where advocacy itself is criminalised or restricted.

To close, I want to leave one thought: HIV justice is prevention.

Every law that criminalises people living with HIV, every law that targets LGBTQ+ people, sex workers, people who use drugs, or migrants – and every funding policy that silences reproductive rights – makes the global epidemic harder to end.

Ending AIDS requires more than medicines. It requires dismantling the legal and policy barriers that drive people away from care and from each other.

Ending HIV criminalisation is achievable. We have the science, the evidence, and the community power to do it. What we don’t always have is flexible, sustained, core funding. Advocacy is not optional; it is infrastructure – the connective tissue that holds the HIV response together.

Philanthropy has both the freedom and the responsibility to keep that justice space open – ensuring that evidence, human rights, and community leadership remain at the heart of the global HIV response.

That is how we move from courtrooms to communities – and closer to ending AIDS as a public-health and human-rights crisis.

Mexico: Baja California eliminates HIV Criminalisation from State Criminal Code

BC Congress eliminates crime of “danger of contagion”

Translated with Google Translate. Scroll down for article in Spanish.

Mexicali, Baja California.- The XXV Legislature of the Congress of Baja California approved the repeal of article 160 of the state Criminal Code, which considered the “danger of contagion” of communicable diseases a crime. The measure seeks to eliminate the criminalization of people with sexually transmitted infections (STIs), including HIV/AIDS, and reduce the stigma that hinders their access to prevention, diagnosis and treatment services.

The opinion, presented by the Diversity Committee and supported by deputies Liliana Michel Sánchez Allende and Jaime Eduardo Cantón Rocha, maintains that the criminal figure was ambiguous and contrary to the principle of minimal criminal intervention, in addition to being redundant compared to other legal provisions that protect health.

The legal analysis of the Congress pointed out that the repeal is in line with articles 1 and 40 of the Federal Constitution, with jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation and with international standards, including the guidelines of UNAIDS and the American Convention on Human Rights.

Deputy Cantón Rocha explained that the elimination of article 160 represents an act of progressiveness in the protection of human rights and a step to ensure that no person is criminally sanctioned for carrying a disease. “No one deserves to go to jail for having a disease,” he said.

The repeal of article 160 places Baja California in the line of other entities such as Mexico City, Nuevo León and Nayarit, which have already eliminated similar provisions and promote a preventive and non-punitive approach to public health.


Congreso BC elimina delito de “peligro de contagio”

Mexicali, Baja California.- La XXV Legislatura del Congreso de Baja California aprobó la derogación del artículo 160 del Código Penal estatal, que consideraba delito el “peligro de contagio” de enfermedades transmisibles. La medida busca eliminar la criminalización de personas con infeccionesde transmisión sexual (ITS), incluyendo VIH/SIDA, y reducir el estigma que obstaculiza su acceso a servicios de prevención, diagnóstico y tratamiento.

El dictamen, presentado por la Comisión de la Diversidad y respaldado por las diputadas Liliana Michel Sánchez Allende y Jaime Eduardo Cantón Rocha, sostiene que la figura penal era ambigua y contraria al principio de mínima intervención penal, además de redundante frente a otras disposiciones legales que protegen la salud.

El análisis jurídico del Congreso señaló que la derogación se alinea con los artículos 1 y 40 de la Constitución federal, con jurisprudencia de la Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación y con estándares internacionales, incluidos los lineamientos de ONUSIDA y la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos.

El diputado Cantón Rocha explicó que la eliminación del artículo 160 representa un acto de progresividad en la protección de los derechos humanosy un paso para garantizar que ninguna persona sea sancionada penalmente por portar una enfermedad. “Nadie se merece ir a la cárcel por tener una enfermedad”, afirmó.

La derogación del artículo 160 coloca a Baja California en la línea de otras entidades como Ciudad de México, Nuevo León y Nayarit, que ya han eliminado disposiciones similares y promueve un enfoque preventivo y no punitivo en salud pública.

Humanising the Law: Reflections on Two Decades of Advocacy Against HIV Criminalisation

This week, the international peer-reviewed journal, AIDS Care, published online a research paper that examines how two decades of scientific progress, community advocacy, and storytelling have come together to influence laws, policies, and public understanding of HIV in the context of the criminal law. 

In Humanising the law: harnessing science and community voices to end HIV criminalisation, I trace nearly twenty years of work to challenge HIV criminalisation, drawing on my own involvement and on the collective efforts of so many others in the HIV justice movement. 

Some of the key points include:

  • Science as evidence for change. The consensus that people on effective treatment cannot transmit HIV, and the 2018 Expert Consensus Statement, have reshaped legal reasoning and prevented unjust prosecutions.

  • Stories bring the impact to life. The ordeals of people such as Ugandan nurse Rosemary Namubiru and the real Malawian woman at the centre of our short film, Mwayi’s Story, highlight the human cost of HIV criminalisation and the resilience of those most affected.

  • Legal reforms are possible. Since the HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE coalition was created in 2016, over a dozen countries and jurisdictions around the world have repealed or modernised their HIV criminalisation laws.

But I also make it clear that much remains to be done. HIV criminalisation continues to undermine public health and human rights, particularly in environments shaped by authoritarianism, disinformation, and broader crackdowns on sexuality, gender, migration, sex work, and drug use.

That is why I argue for a paradigm shift – a humanisation of the law that centres lived experiences, affirms dignity, and ensures legal systems reflect science and rights rather than fear and prejudice. Achieving this requires:

  • Ongoing investment in legal reform, advocacy, and community-led monitoring.

  • Stronger cross-movement solidarity with those facing overlapping forms of criminalisation.

  • Sustained funding to support the global HIV justice movement for the long term.

As I conclude in the article: ending HIV criminalisation is not only about changing laws, but also about changing cultures. It is about recognising that our lives, our rights, and our voices matter.


A limited number of free eprints of this article are available from this link.

Canada: Reform of HIV criminalisation laws remains stalled amid political delays

Advocates against HIV criminalization decry Carney silence on reform Trudeau promised

OTTAWA — HIV activists say there is mounting frustration in communities affected by the virus, amid near-silence from the federal government nearly 10 years after the Liberals pledged to reform laws surrounding HIV disclosure.

“We’re coming up on a decade,” said Muluba Habanyama, head of the Canadian Coalition to Reform HIV Criminalization. “There definitely has been some exhaustion.”

Canadians living with HIV can be prosecuted for not disclosing their status to sexual partners, even when they are taking prescription drugs that the Public Health Agency of Canada says renders HIV “untransmittable” to someone without the virus.

The HIV Legal Network says more than 220 people have been charged in Canada for allegedly not disclosing their HIV status since 1989.

The Liberals have been promising to fix the issue since 2016, and issued advice to prosecutors in 2018 meant to prevent them from laying criminal charges when there is no realistic possibility of transmission.

Still, HIV service organizations in Habanyama’s coalition encounter situations every few months, such as someone being arrested when an aggrieved ex-partner claims they were exposed to the virus.

A prosecution under sexual assault can put them on the National Sex Offender Registry.

“We are demonized,” said Habanyama, who has had HIV since birth.

She has watched for 32 years as medical experts developed increasingly effective tools to treat and prevent the virus.

“I’ve literally grown up with the science, but then seeing the law be exactly the same,” she said.

Even if people aren’t being criminally charged for non-disclosure, the experience of police questioning someone or taking them into custody sends a message to others who suspect they have HIV that they might be better off not getting a test.

“People are like ‘well, I don’t know my status; I can’t get charged,’” Habanyama said. “If they don’t have a record of you getting tested, you can’t prove that you knew.”

The Department of Justice acknowledged the issue in an October 2022 notice, when it launched consultations for legal reforms, six years after the Liberals first pledged action on the issue.

“Criminalization can lead to the stigmatization of people living with HIV, which can often discourage individuals from being tested or seeking treatment,” the department wrote at the time.

Other countries have reformed their laws, in recognition that the threat of prosecution prevents reaching global public-health targets of having 95 per cent of people who have HIV aware of their status and on medication.

Only 89 per cent of people with HIV in Canada know their status, according to 2022 data.

A 2022 study of 600 Canadian women living with HIV found one-fifth faced more verbal, physical or sexual violence because of HIV criminalization, such as a man who rapes a woman and threatens to report they’ve been exposed to HIV if the woman files assault charges.

“This is really affecting the lives of people living with HIV, and stops them from taking care of themselves,” Habanyama said.

The Liberals have pledged to table legislation, but put froze those plans last fall, blaming Conservative filibustering for a logjam in Parliament. The government then prorogued Parliament and went into an election, followed by a brief spring sitting.

Prime Minister Mark Carney’s government has given no indication if it will table legislation.

Justice Minister Sean Fraser was not available for an interview despite repeated requests from The Canadian Press over several weeks. He has also not agreed to meet with the coalition, instead offering a meeting with his staff members.

“Our work is ongoing and we are engaging with stakeholders at this time,” wrote Lola Dandybaeva, a spokeswoman for Fraser.

André Capretti, a policy analyst with the HIV Legal Network, said it has been “mostly radio silence” since Carney took office, though he said it’s possible the government is still getting its business in order through the summer break.

“We were making a lot of progress with the Liberal government, who was very much committed to reform on this issue and showed real commitment to engaging us,” he said, noting Justin Trudeau’s justice ministers seemed attentive.

Still, there is inconsistent enforcement across provinces, with some largely ignoring Ottawa’s 2018 advice to prosecutors, which is only binding in the territories.

“We still know of cases in the past year, of prosecutions having been initiated against people living with HIV for non-disclosure,” Capretti said.

“There is definitely frustration that has built up, just based on how long this has been ongoing and the number of repeated commitments … from different justice ministers.”

Habanyama said Canada needs a rethink in how it legislates and thinks about HIV.

She recalls her Catholic elementary school in Oakville, Ont. teaching her in the mid-2000s that HIV meant death and was the result of reckless sex, with no mention that people like her contracted it in the womb or from their mother’s breast milk.

“I was raised (to understand) this is a shameful secret that we can’t tell anybody, that this is a really bad thing.”

When she visits schools to talk about HIV, she asks students what someone with HIV looks like, and the students often say they’d expect someone bald with scars on their body. They’re often surprised when she tells them she has HIV.

The threat of criminalization looms large among Black women and gay men. Multiple woman with roots in the Caribbean who live with HIV have told Habanyama to preserve evidence in case a sexual partner ever accuses her of exposing them to HIV — including their DNA.

“These groups of women were telling me that when I have sex, I should put the man’s condom in the freezer so that I have proof if the police ever come, that we used protection.”

She said Canadians should ask their politicians to do more, particularly when they show up at events like this weekend’s Pride parade in Ottawa.

“HIV can happen to anybody,” Habanyama said. “We are all supposed to be in this together.”

 

US: Missouri prison system ends solitary confinement policy targeting people with HIV

A Woman With HIV Spent Six Years in Solitary. She Sued and Missouri Will Change Its Policy.

Honesty Bishop was attacked by her cellmate. Prison officials deemed her sexually active and kept her in isolation for more than 2,000 days.

Honesty Bishop could hear the screams of other people in solitary confinement. Sometimes it was so cold in her cell, she could see her breath. She dealt with scabies and mold. Her days and nights were spent in extreme isolation.

The Missouri Department of Corrections kept her locked in a cell about the size of a parking space for over six years.

She wrote letters to her sister, Latasha Monroe, in St. Louis. They both wondered why Bishop continued to be held in such severe conditions at Jefferson City Correctional Center, a men’s facility.

Interviews and records on Bishop’s years in solitary confinement paint a dark picture of a person who felt alone and hopeless, and, in the depths of despair, was driven to self-harm.

Bishop, a transgender woman, initially landed there after her cellmate tried to sexually assault her in spring 2015.

She was HIV-positive and because of the assault was classified as “sexually active” — even though she was the victim and had been on medication, making the virus undetectable and therefore untransmissible, according to a federal lawsuit filed against the Missouri Department of Corrections.

Among the reasons people can be kept in isolation, according to the department’s policy, are murder, rape and being sexually active with HIV. In her suit, Bishop said corrections officials kept her in solitary confinement because of her HIV status.

Whenever she appeared before a committee that reviewed her placement in solitary, which generally took place every 30 or 90 days, corrections officials noted 15 times when Bishop had no violations since the previous review.

“I’ve been good,” she told them during a hearing on her solitary confinement in January 2016, and again that September.

Though she filed grievances about how long she had been kept in solitary, her pleas were ignored. Department of Corrections officials wouldn’t release her from the unit until 2021 — after more than 2,000 days.

Missouri is one of three states that singles out people with HIV when it comes to solitary confinement, according to a review of 49 states’ policies on administrative segregation and restrictive housing.

The department’s HIV policy will now be changed under the terms of an Aug. 20 settlement that resulted from the lawsuit.

The state agreed to remove language singling out people with HIV for segregation. The terms also include conducting an assessment of anyone with HIV who is sent to solitary and mandatory training for some prison staff.

The department would not comment specifically on the policy or the lawsuit. Karen Pojmann, a spokeswoman for the agency, said a committee is in the process of overhauling restrictive housing. Two prisons are piloting a new model that includes “meaningful hearings” and programming to help people reenter the general population in prison, she said.

Bishop did not live to see the policy change — she died by suicide on Aug. 13, 2024. She was 34.

US: Louisiana’s HIV laws lag behind HIV science

Louisiana upholds its HIV exposure law as other states change or repeal theirs

When Robert Smith met his future girlfriend in 2010, he wanted to take things slowly. For Smith, no relationship had been easy in the years since he was diagnosed with the human immunodeficiency virus, or HIV. People often became afraid when they learned his status, even running away when he coughed.

The couple waited months to have sex until Smith felt he could share his medical status. To prepare her, Smith said, he took his girlfriend to his job in HIV prevention at the Philadelphia Center, a northwestern Louisiana nonprofit that offers resources to people with HIV, which also provided him housing at the time.

Finally, he revealed the news: Smith was diagnosed with HIV in 1994 and started taking daily antiviral pills in 2006. The virus could no longer be detected in his blood, and he couldn’t transmit it to a sexual partner.

Smith said his girlfriend seemed comfortable knowing his status. When it came to sex, there was no hesitation, he said. But a couple of years later, when Smith wanted to break up, he said, her tone shifted.

“She was like, ‘If you try to leave me, I’m gonna put you in jail,’” recalled Smith, now 68. “At the time, I really didn’t know the sincerity of it.”

After they broke up, she reported him to the police, accusing him of violating a little-known law in Louisiana — a felony called “intentional exposure to HIV.” He disputed the allegations, but in 2013 accepted a plea deal to spend six months in prison on the charge. He had a few months left on parole from a past conviction on different charges, and Smith thought this option would let him move past the relationship faster. He didn’t realize the conviction would also land him on the state’s sex offender registry.

For nearly two decades, Smith had dealt with the stigma associated with having HIV; the registry added another layer of exclusion, severely restricting where he could live and work to avoid minors. Not many people want to hire a sex offender, he said. Smith has been told by the local sheriff’s office he’s not allowed to do simple things, like go to a public park or a high school football game, since the conviction.

“I’ve been undetectable for 15 years, but that law still punishes us,” Smith said.

Louisiana is one of 30 states with criminal penalties related to exposing or transmitting HIV. Most of the laws were passed in the 1980s during the emergence of the AIDS epidemic. Since then, several states have amended their laws to make them less punitive or repealed them outright, including Maryland and North Dakota this year.

But Louisiana’s law remains among the harshest. The state is one of five that may require people such as Smith to register as a sex offender if convicted, a label that can follow them for over a decade. And state lawmakers considered a bill to expand the law to apply to other sexually transmitted infections, then failed to pass it before the session ended.

Meanwhile, people with HIV also face the threat that federal funding cuts will affect their access to treatment, along with prevention efforts, supportive services, and outreach. Such strategies have proved to slow the HIV/AIDS epidemic, unlike the laws’ punitive approach.

The tax and domestic policy law previously known as the “One Big Beautiful Bill” will likely affect HIV-positive people enrolled in Medicaid by reducing federal support for Medicaid and restricting eligibility. About 40% of adults under 65 with HIV rely on Medicaid.

The Trump administration proposed in its fiscal 2026 budget request to eliminate HIV prevention programs at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and to cancel a grant that helps fund housing for people with HIV. The Ryan White HIV/AIDS program, the largest federal fund dedicated to supporting HIV-positive people, also faces cuts. The program serves more than half of the people in the U.S. diagnosed with HIV, including in Louisiana, according to the health information nonprofit KFF.

Public health officials maintain that state laws criminalizing HIV exposure hurt efforts to end the HIV epidemic. Epidemiologists and other experts on AIDS agree that the enforcement of such laws is often shaped by fear, not science. For example, in many states that criminalize HIV exposure, people living with HIV can face heightened criminal penalties for actions that can’t transmit the virus, such as spitting on someone. The laws further stigmatize and deter people from getting tested and treatment, undermining response to the epidemic, experts say.

At least 4,400 people in 14 states have been arrested under these laws, though data is limited and the actual number is likely higher, and the arrests aren’t decreasing, according to analyses by UCLA’s Williams Institute.

“ Some people think it’s an issue that’s gone away, and that simply isn’t the case,” said Nathan Cisneros, a researcher at the Williams Institute.

In Louisiana, a 2022 Williams Institute analysis found at least 147 allegations reported to law enforcement under the state’s HIV law from 2011 to mid-2022. Black people made up nearly three-quarters of the people convicted and placed on the sex offender registry. Most were Black men, like Smith. At the time of the analysis, Black people made up about two-thirds of HIV diagnoses in the state.

“ We see over and over that Black people are disproportionately affected by the HIV epidemic and disproportionately affected by policing and incarceration in the United States,” Cisneros said.

Nationally, other marginalized groups such as women, sex workers, the queer community, or people who overlap across more than one group are also disproportionately arrested and prosecuted under similar criminalization laws, Cisneros said.

Ensnared in the system

Louisiana’s law hinges on the requirement that if a person knows they have HIV, they must disclose their HIV status and receive consent before exposing someone to the virus.

Louisiana District Attorneys Association Executive Director Zach Daniels said these cases don’t come up often and can be difficult to prosecute. Daniels said the intimate nature of the cases can lead to little evidence in support of either side, especially if the accuser doesn’t contract HIV.

When it comes to talking about one’s sex life, Daniels said, “there are often no other witnesses, besides the two participants.”

Louisiana’s law is written so that “intentional exposure” can occur through “any means or contact.” That includes sex and needle-sharing, practices known to transmit the virus. But the language of the law is so broad that actions known not to transmit the virus — like biting or scratching — could be included, said Dietz, the statewide coordinator for the Louisiana Coalition on Criminalization and Health, an advocacy network founded by people living with HIV that has opposed the law.

The broad nature of the law creates opportunities for abuse, as the threat of being reported under the law can be used as a coercive tool in relationships, said Dietz, who goes by one name and uses they/them pronouns. Such threats, Dietz said, have kept people in abusive relationships and loomed over child custody battles. Dietz said they’ve supported people accused of exposing their children to HIV in ways that are not medically possible.

“ ‘Any means or contact’ could be just merely being around your kids,” they said.

The prosecutors’ organization still supports the law as a recourse for emergency responders who, in rare instances, come into contact with blood or syringes containing the virus. In one recent high-profile case in New Orleans, the law was used against a local DJ accused of knowingly transmitting HIV to several women without informing them of his status or using a condom.

The person accused of violating the law, not the accuser, must prove their case — that they disclosed their HIV status beforehand. Without a signed affidavit or tape recording, courts can end up basing their decisions on conflicting testimonies with little supporting evidence.

That’s what Smith alleged happened to him.

After his relationship ended, he said, he remembered being called into a meeting with his parole officer where a detective waited for him, asking about his former relationship and whether his girlfriend had known about his HIV status.

Smith said yes. But that’s not what she had told police.

Verite News could not find a working phone number for Smith’s former girlfriend but corroborated the story with the incident’s police report. His attorney at the time, a public defender named Carlos Prudhomme, said he didn’t remember much about the case, and court documents are sealed because it was a sex offense.

In court, it was her word against his. So when he was offered six months in prison instead of the 10-year maximum, he switched his plea from not guilty to guilty. But he said he didn’t know his new conviction would require him to register as a sex offender once he got out — worsening the stigma.

“When people see ‘sex offender,’ the first thing that comes to their mind is rape, child molester, predator,” Smith said. “This law puts me in a category that I don’t care to be in.”

He has tried to make the most of it, despite the expense of paying fees each year to re-register. After being rejected from jobs, he started a catering business and built a loyal clientele. But he said he’s still stuck living in a poorly maintained apartment complex primarily inhabited by sex offenders.

“I understand their strategy for creating this law to prevent the spread, but it’s not helping. It’s hurting; it’s hindering. It’s destroying people’s lives instead of helping people’s lives, especially the HIV community,” he said. “They don’t care about us.”

The case for reform

Since 2014, there has been a nationwide effort to update or repeal state laws that criminalize HIV nondisclosure, exposure, or transmission. A dozen states have changed their laws to align more closely with modern science, and four have gotten rid of them completely in hopes of reducing stigma and improving public health outcomes, according to the Center for HIV Law and Policy.

Sean McCormick, an attorney with the center, said these changes are influenced partly by a growing body of evidence showing the laws’ negative consequences.

McCormick said the laws offer a “clear disincentive” for people to get tested for HIV. If they don’t know their status, there’s no criminal liability for transmission or exposure.

A 2024 survey by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and DLH Corp. researchers found that after California updated its HIV criminalization law in 2018, respondents were more likely to get tested. Meanwhile, survey respondents in Nevada, which still had a more punitive law on the books, were less likely to get tested.

There’s no one-size-fits-all solution, McCormick said. His center works with HIV-positive people across the country to determine what legislative changes would work best in their states.

Texas was the first to repeal its HIV law in 1994.

“As a person living with HIV in Texas, I’m deeply appreciative that we don’t have an HIV-specific statute that puts a target on my back,” said Michael Elizabeth, the public health policy director for the Equality Federation.

But Elizabeth points out that Texans living with HIV still face steeper penalties under general felony laws for charges such as aggravated assault or aggravated sexual assault after state courts in Texas equated the bodily fluids of a person with HIV with a “deadly weapon.”

Louisiana activists have pushed lawmakers in the state to amend the law in three ways: removing the sex offender registration requirement, requiring transmission to have occurred, and requiring clear intent to transmit the virus.

“Our strategy, as opposed to repeal, is to create a law that actually addresses the kind of boogeyman that they ostensibly created the law for: the person who successfully, maliciously, intentionally transmits HIV,” said Dietz with the Louisiana Coalition on Criminalization and Health.

In 2018, a bill to narrow the statute was amended in ways that expanded the law. For example, the updated law no longer had any definition of which actions “expose” someone to HIV.

In 2023, state lawmakers created a task force that recommended updating Louisiana’s law to align with the latest public health guidelines, limit the potential for unintended consequences, and give previously convicted people a way to clear their record.

Lawmakers in the state House pushed forward a bill this year to criminalize other sexually transmitted infections, including hepatitis B and the herpes simplex virus. That bill died in the Senate, but it spurred the creation of another legislative task force with a nearly identical mission to that of the first.

“ This state has no idea how closely we just dodged a bullet,” Dietz said.

In the meantime, the Louisiana coalition is helping Smith petition the state to take his name off the sex offender registry. Louisiana law allows people to petition to have their names removed from the registry after 10 years without any new sex crime convictions. Smith expects his case to be approved by the end of the year.

Despite the difficulty of the past 12 years, he said, he’s grateful for the chance to be free from the registry’s restrictions.

“It’s like a breath of fresh air,” Smith said. “I can do stuff that I wanted to do that I couldn’t. Like, go to a football game. Simple stuff like that, I’m going to be ready to do.”

This story was produced in collaboration with KFF Health News. 

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.