US: Sex workers convicted of aggravated prostitution because of their HIV status to be removed from Sex Offender Registry

Tennessee agrees to remove sex workers with HIV from sex offender registry

The Tennessee government has agreed to begin scrubbing its sex offender registry of dozens of people who were convicted of prostitution while having HIV, reversing a practice that federal lawsuits have challenged as draconian and discriminatory.

For more than three decades, Tennessee’s “aggravated prostitution” laws have made prostitution a misdemeanor for most sex workers but a felony for those who are HIV-positive. Tennessee toughened penalties in 2010 by reclassifying prostitution with HIV as a “violent sexual offense” with a lifetime registration as a sex offender — even if protection is used.

At least 83 people are believed to be on Tennessee’s sex offender registry solely because of these laws, with most living in the Memphis area, where undercover police officers and prosecutors most often invoked the statute, commonly against Black and transgender women, according to a lawsuit filed last year by the American Civil Liberties Union and four women who were convicted of aggravated prostitution. The Department of Justice challenged the law in a separate suit earlier this year.

Both lawsuits argue that Tennessee law does not account for evolving science on the transmission of HIV or precautions that prevent its spread, like use of condoms. Both lawsuits also argue that labeling a person as a sex offender because of HIV unfairly limits where they can live and work and stops them from being alone with grandchildren or minor relatives.

“Tennessee’s Aggravated Prostitution statute is the only law in the nation that treats people living with HIV who engage in any sex work, even risk-free encounters, as ‘violent sex offenders’ subjected to lifetime registration,” the ACLU lawsuit states.

“That individuals living with HIV are treated so differently can only be understood as a remnant of the profoundly prejudiced early response to the AIDS epidemic.”

In a settlement agreement signed by Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee on July 15 and filed in both lawsuits on July 17, the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation said it would comb through the state’s sex offender registry to find those added solely because of aggravated prostitution convictions, then send letters alerting those people that they can make a written request to be removed. The language of the settlement suggests that people will need to request their removal from the registry, but the agency said in the agreement it will make “its best effort” to act on the requests “promptly in the order in which they are received.”

The Tennessee attorney general’s office, which represents the state in both the ACLU and DOJ lawsuits and approved the settlement agreement, said in an email statement it would “continue to defend Tennessee’s prohibition on aggravated prostitution.”

In an email statement, the ACLU celebrated the settlement as “one step toward remedying the harms by addressing the sex offender registration,” but said its work in Tennessee was not done because aggravated prostitution remained a felony charge that it would “fight to overturn.”

Molly Quinn, executive director of LGBTQ+ support organization OUTMemphis, another plaintiff in the ACLU lawsuit, said both organizations would help eligible people with the paperwork to get removed from the registry.

“We would not have agreed to settle if we did not feel like this was a process that would be extremely beneficial,” Quinn said. “But, we’re sad that the statute existed as long as it did and sad that there is any process at all that folks have to go through after living with this extraordinary burden of being on the sex offender registry for really an irrelevant reason.”

Michelle Anderson, a Memphis resident who is one of the plaintiffs in the ACLU lawsuit, said in court records that since being convicted of aggravated prostitution, the sex offender label has made it so difficult to find a home and a job that she was “unhoused for about a year” and has at times “felt she had no option but to continue to engage in sex work to survive.”

Like the other plaintiffs, Anderson said her conviction kept her minor relatives at a distance.

“Ms. Anderson has a nephew she loves, but she cannot have a close relationship with him,” the lawsuit states. “Even though Ms. Anderson’s convictions had nothing to do with children, she cannot legally be alone with her nephew.”

The Tennessee settlement comes months after state lawmakers softened the law so no one else should be added to the sex offender registry for aggravated prostitution. Lawmakers removed the registration requirement and made convictions eligible for expungement if the defendant testifies they were a victim of human trafficking.

State Sen. Page Walley (R-Savannah), who supported the original aggravated prostitution law passed in 1991 and co-sponsored the recent bill to amend it, said on the floor of the legislature that the changes do not prevent prosecutors from charging people with a felony for aggravated prostitution. Instead, he said, the amendments undo the 2010 law that put those who are convicted on the registry “along with pedophiles and rapists for a lifetime, with no recourse for removal.”

“Having stood, as I mentioned, in 1991 and passed this,” Walley said, “it is a particular gratifying moment for me to see how we continue to evolve and seek what’s just and what’s right and what’s best.”

Malaysia: Latest attempt to amend the Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases Act retains many of its controversial provisions

Act 342 Amendment Bill Treats Infection Like A Criminal Offence

By Alifah Zainuddin | 15 July 2024

The Act 342 Amendment Bill 2024 treats infection like a criminal offence, raising compounds on individuals to RM5,000 and granting Health DG vast powers over isolation and surveillance, among others, and CPC investigation powers for authorised officers.

The Ministry of Health (MOH) is making its latest attempt to amend the Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases Act 1988 (Act 342), while retaining many of the controversial provisions that led to previous failures.

The latest attempt is supposedly in line with a recent decision by the World Health Organization (WHO) member countries to adopt critical amendments to the 2005 International Health Regulations (IHR).

This was supposed to include provisions for a National IHR Authority, an entity established at the national level to coordinate the implementation of the Regulations within the country’s jurisdiction. However, this provision is absent from the new bill.

Instead, the Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases (Amendment) Bill 2024 curiously retains many of the contentious elements from the previous amendment.

These include a revised Section 25 proposing compounds of up to RM5,000 for individuals and RM50,000 for companies; a revised Section 24 imposing general penalties of up to two years’ imprisonment or fines of up to RM10,000 for individuals, and up to RM100,000 for companies; and a new Section 31 that stipulates penalties for specific breaches of regulations, including imprisonment for up to two years or fines of up to RM8,000 for individuals, and imprisonment for up to two years or fines of up to RM50,000 for companies.

The new bill varies slightly from the previous amendment in terms of penalty amounts. It appears to impose tougher penalties on individuals (increasing from a maximum RM1,000 in compounds and RM2,000 in general fines), while reducing fines for corporations (decreasing from a maximum RM500,000 in compounds and RM2 million in general fines).

The bill also retains controversial provisions, including Section 21(A), which grants the Health Director-General broad powers to issue directives for controlling infectious diseases, including lockdowns and isolation.

Non-compliance is a criminal offence, extending the DG’s authority beyond the current Act, which regulates diseases like Covid-19, HIV, dengue, and tuberculosis.

Section 14A allows an an authorised officer to order any person who is infected or who he has “reason to believe” has been infected with an infectious disease to “undergo isolation or surveillance” in a specified place and for a determined period as the authorised officer may think fit or until he may be discharged without danger to the public.

Section 15A enables an authorised officer to issue any order to be complied with by any person who is infected or whom he has reason to believe to be infected, or any contact, for the “purpose of tracking and monitoring”. Such order may include order to wear any form of tracking device provided by the authorised officer and to use any digital application in any digital device as determined by the authorised officer.

Section 21B empowers the authorised officers to carry out investigation under Act 342 in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code [Act 593], while Section 21C empowers the authorised officers to require any person to furnish any information relating to the prevention and control of infectious diseases.

Although the new bill does not explicitly reference the IHR, the powers granted to the Health DG and authorised officers imply that the MOH will effectively act as both the IHR Focal Point and the National IHR Authority, as outlined in Article 4 of the IHR amendments.

Under Prime Minister Ismail Sabri Yaakob’s administration, the government tabled an Act 342 amendment bill in December 2021 – during the Covid pandemic – that raised compounds of offences from the current RM1,000 maximum to RM10,000 for individuals and up to RM500,000 for corporate bodies.

Individuals convicted of offences under Act 342 faced penalties of a maximum RM50,000 fine, up to three years’ jail, or both under Section 24 on the proposed amended general penalties. For corporate bodies, a maximum RM2 million fine upon conviction was proposed.

The bill underwent two revisions before being shelved in March 2022 due to intense public backlash. The punitive approach faced criticism from ordinary citizens, businesses, lawyers, and doctors.

Current Health Minister Dzulkefly Ahmad, among other lawmakers, opposed the bill, calling the proposed amendments a “cataclysmic failure”.

Mexico: Activists push to repeal Morelos outdated HIV Criminalisation law

Activists seek to repeal the crime of “danger of contagion” in Morelos

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

Five people with HIV are in prison because of this article in the Morelos Penal Code, according to a civil association; in Mexico City this article has already been repealed.

Article 136 of the Penal Code of the State of Morelos reads: “Anyone who, knowing that he or she suffers from a serious illness during the infectious period, puts another person at risk of contagion, by any means of transmission of the disease, will be sentenced to six months to one year in prison and will be treated for up to one year”, a sanction that, according to the civil association Positivos Morelos, which works in favour of the rights of people with HIV in the state, should no longer exist.

This was stated by Carlos Batalla, founder of the association, who recalled that these sanctions were created during the 1980s, at the peak of HIV infections, thus contributing to a stigma that has been difficult to erase afterwards, in defence of the human rights of people infected by the virus.

What does the law say?

“According to this article, any person who can transmit any disease can be subject to a fine in the judicial system, and in this case it can go as far as imprisonment. It has already been repealed in Mexico City, because it is a very old law, created to mitigate the risk of contagion at the time, but people’s rights are more important,” said the activist.

“If the illness suffered by the agent is incurable, the prison sentence established in the previous paragraph shall be doubled,” the article continues.

According to Batalla, there are at least five people in the state of Morelos who are currently deprived of their liberty because of this article, citizens who were accused of having intentionally transmitted HIV:

“These cases have not been followed up, but we are looking to attend to them and see how we can help them,” he said.

He recalled that two years ago an initiative to repeal article 136 of the Penal Code was presented to the state Congress, but was unsuccessful.

Activistas buscan derogar delito de “peligro de contagio” en Morelos

Cinco personas con VIH están en prisión por la vigencia de este artículo en el Código Penal de Morelos, señala asociación civil; en la Ciudad de México este artículo ya fue derogado.

“A quien sabiendo que padece una enfermedad grave en periodo infectante, ponga en peligro de contagio a otro, mediante cualquier medio de transmisión del mal, se le aplicará de seis meses a un año de prisión y tratamiento en libertad hasta por un año”, se lee en el artículo 136 del Código Penal del Estado de Morelos, una sanción que, de acuerdo con la asociación civil Positivos Morelos, que trabaja en favor de los derechos de las personas con VIH en el estado, ya no debería existir.

Así lo expuso Carlos Batalla, fundador de la asociación, quien recordó que estas sanciones fueron creadas durante la década de 1980, en el auge de los contagios de VIH, contribuyendo así a un estigma que después ha costado trabajo borrar, en defensa de los derechos humanos de las personas contagiadas por el virus.

¿Qué dice la ley?

“De acuerdo con este artículo, cualquier persona que pueda transmitir alguna enfermedad puede ser acreedora a una multa en el tema judicial, y en este caso puede llegar hasta prisión. Ya se derogó en la Ciudad de México, porque es una ley muy antigua, creada para mitigar el riesgo de contagio en aquel entonces, pero son más importantes los derechos de las personas”, dijo el activista.

“Si fuese incurable la enfermedad que padece el agente, se duplicará la sanción privativa de libertad establecida en el párrafo anterior”, continúa el texto del artículo.

De acuerdo con Batalla, en el estado de Morelos hay por lo menos cinco personas que están actualmente privados de su libertad debido a este artículo, ciudadanos que fueron acusados de haber contagiado el VIH de manera intencional:

“A estos casos no se les ha dado seguimiento, pero estamos buscando atenderlos y ver de qué manera los podemos ayudar”, dijo.

Recordó que hace dos años se presentó una iniciativa para derogar el artículo 136 del Código Penal ante el Congreso del estado, la cual no tuvo éxito.

Zimbabwe: Retrogressive bill listing wilful HIV transmission as a criminal offence set to be withdrawn

Government withdraws wilful HIV transmission from Bill

The Bill sought to re-criminalise deliberate HIV/AIDS transmission despite the fact that the Marriages Act had decriminalised wilful HIV/AIDS transmission. Contributing to debate on the Bill in the National Assembly last week, Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Minister, Ziyambi Ziyambi, said prosecution under the Criminal Laws Amendment (Protection of Children and Young Persons) Bill should only apply when deliberate transmission of HIV/AIDS is done in aggravating circumstances such as rape and other sexual offences involving young persons

A CLAUSE in the Criminal Laws Amendment (Protection of Children and Young Persons) Bill that lists wilful HIV/AIDS transmission to a partner as a criminal offence, is set to be withdrawn by the Government as the Second Republic seeks to align with international trends.

The Bill, presently before Parliament, listed HIV/AIDS as one of the sexually-transmitted infections (STIs), whose deliberate transmission to a partner is a criminal offence. Others include syphilis, gonorrhoea and herpes.

The Criminal Laws Amendment Bill also sets out to raise the age of sexual consent from 16 to 18.

Earlier on, some legislators, including those in the Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Portfolio Committee chaired by Bikita South MP, Dr Energy Mutodi, had expressed reservations on the reintroduction of the clause that had been taken away by the Marriages Act.

Said Minister Ziyambi: “The way it is couched in the Bill is not correct. The policy direction from the Executive was, where you sleep with a young person and you have been convicted, it becomes an aggravating factor if you have wilfully transmitted an STI to that particular young person.

“The assumption that we are coming from is, young persons are not sexually active and it is not very difficult to prove once you have been convicted. Medical reports are there to prove that the young person contracted HIV and STIs and it should be an aggravating factor on sentencing.

“We are going to change this so that it does not appear like we have generally reintroduced the clause that we repealed the last time when we brought the Marriages Act. It is very difficult to prove and worldwide studies have shown that criminalising does not reduce transmission levels.”

Minister Ziyambi added that there were several discordant couples that can stay for years, “the other one not seroconverting”.

“So, if we say we are criminalising, we are saying, per chance, if you manage to contract, you are a criminal, but that one who has not contracted and nothing has happened, we say ‘they are okay’; there is discrimination, scientifically it does not mean that if people sleep together, automatically they will have HIV,” he said.

Minister Ziyambi said it would be difficult to implement, if the law was to be allowed in the country’s statutes.

“So I want to take it to agree that it is a law that is very difficult to implement, hence the reason why the Executive, the last time when we had the Marriages Act, agreed with the submissions from those within the Ministry of Health and Child Care that we need to repeal it.

“We now have an assumption that we have a case where somebody has been arrested for sleeping with a young person and medical reports are there that there has been an infection. Those reports will indicate whether that particular young person was sexually active or not, and there we are saying it becomes an aggravating factor if you have infected that particular young person with STIs and HIV. Therefore, that particular clause will be amended accordingly and hence we will be bringing those amendments,” he said.

Earlier on, presenting the Portfolio Committee’s report, Dr Mutodi said during their public hearings on the Bill, while some supported the clause, others expressed reservations.

He said some members of the public were against the clause, arguing that during the crafting of the Marriages Act in 2022, Government agreed to the lobbying of people with HIV and other support groups and civil society organisations to decriminalise wilful transmission of HIV.

“It was further submitted that there is no method of establishing the period one may have been infected with HIV and who would have transmitted the virus between the two, when the statuses of both were unknown before sexual intercourse happened,” said Dr Mutodi.

Dzivarasekwa MP, Mr Edwin Mushoriwa, said it was difficult to prove wilful transmission of HIV.

Hwange Central MP, Mr Daniel Molokele, said the removal of the clause had been celebrated last time, and reinstating it would be retrogressive.

“This bad law was repealed because it is not possible socially and legally to prove who, in a particular relationship, was infected first with HIV. Over the years, many countries have repealed this bad law and Zimbabwe was one of the last countries to repeal this law,” he said.

“Women are the ones who have been prosecuted under this law and it has been difficult to prove that they committed a criminal offence because we all know that in this country, women are the ones who have health-seeking behaviour; they are the ones who are willing to do HIV tests.

“Most men in this country are scared to do an HIV test. They are less scared of lions and other wild animals than having an HIV test. I can dare a man in this Parliament to have an HIV test in public and you see the reaction. Most of them will look for the nearest exit door.”

US: Shelby County, Tennessee, will no longer prosecute people living with HIV under Tennessee’s aggravated prostitution law

Justice Department Secures Agreement with Shelby County, Tennessee, District Attorney General to Cease Enforcement of State Law that Discriminates Against People with HIV

The Justice Department announced today that the Shelby County, Tennessee, District Attorney General (DA) has agreed to cease prosecution of individuals living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) under Tennessee’s aggravated prostitution law. The DA will also adopt reforms to correct discrimination against people living with HIV who were subjected to discriminatory and harsher penalties under the law.

This agreement resolves the Justice Department’s finding that the Shelby County DA violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by enforcing Tennessee’s aggravated prostitution law that imposed enhanced criminal penalties based on a person’s HIV status. The prosecutions were carried out without consideration of risk of transmitting HIV, and the harsher penalties included being charged with a felony (as opposed to a misdemeanor) and being required to register for life as a sex offender.

“Living with HIV is not a crime and the continued enforcement of laws that criminalize a person based on their HIV status, regardless of risk, perpetuate bias, stereotypes and ignorance about HIV,” said Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “We are pleased that Shelby County District Attorney has agreed to cease enforcement of this discriminatory law, and that future prosecution decisions will reflect the significant advances made in HIV prevention and treatment, consistent with the ADA.”

Under this agreement, the DA will not prosecute individuals under the aggravated prostitution law or for violations of the sex offender registry requirements that have resulted from prior convictions under that law. The DA will also notify anyone eligible of their ability to petition for vacatur of their convictions, termination of the remainder of their sentences and elimination of fees owed.

This agreement also requires the Shelby County DA to adopt policies and train prosecuting attorneys on the ADA’s anti-discrimination requirements relating to HIV, a disability under the ADA. Under the agreement, the DA will also report its compliance with the agreement to the department.

Uganda: Constitutional court dismisses argument that STI law contravenes provisions of the Constitution

Court dismisses petition challenging venereal disease law

The Constitutional Court has dismissed a petition in which health rights activists were challenging the legality of the Venereal Diseases Act, reasoning that the law has since been repealed. The Venereal Diseases Act was enacted in 1977 and provided for the examination and treatment of persons infected with venereal diseases and for other matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

Venereal diseases are those typically contracted by sexual intercourse with a person already infected, such as chlamydia, genital herpes, gonorrhea, HIV, HPV, and syphilis, among others. In a unanimous judgment, a five-member panel of justices held that it is futile to engage in a discourse regarding the constitutionality of the provisions of the Venereal Diseases Act after the repeal of the Act hence there is no live controversy before the court.

“In essence, while at the time the petition was filed it raised a question for the interpretation of the Constitution, by the time we heard the matter and delivered the judgment, the Act had been repealed. This means that the matters in controversy are moot,” held the judges who included Fredrick Egonda -Ntende, Catherine Bamugemereire, Irene Mulyagonja, Monica Mugenyi, and Christopher Gashirabake.

The court explained that having had a careful look at the Public Health Act of Uganda, it was found that at the time the petition was filed, the Venereal Disease Act was still good law but on March 24, 2023, the amendment to the Public Health Act 2O23 came into force and the disputed law was repealed.

Health rights body, Center for Health, Human Rights and Development (CEHURD) had sued the Attorney General (AG) challenging the provisions of the Venereal Disease Act Cap 284 for contravening provisions of the 1995 Constitution.

Through its lawyers, CEHURD had argued that the Uganda Law Reform Commission was duty-bound and therefore, ought to have studied, reviewed, and made recommendations for the systematic improvement, modernization, and reform of the Venereal Diseases Act as mandated under section 10 of the Uganda Law Reform Commission Act Cap 26.

It was further argued that as a result of the actions and, or inaction on the part of the ULRC, the law was inconsistent with and in contravention of Article 248 of the Constitution.

The petitioner had argued that Section 2 of the Venereal Diseases Act is inconsistent with and in contravention of Articles 8A (1), 21(1) (a), 45 and Objectives XIV (b) and XX of the National Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy of the Constitution.

They had also alleged that sections 3(1), (2), (3) and (4) of the Venereal Diseases Act are inconsistent with and in contravention of Articles 8A (1), 21(2), 24, 27(1), 27(2), 28(1), 42, 43(a), 44(c), 45 and objectives XIV (b) and XX of the National Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy of the Constitution.

Court documents show that section 5 of the Act is inconsistent with and in contravention of Articles 8A(1), 21(2), 23(1), (2), 24, 27(2), 43(2)(C), 44(a), 45 and Objectives XIV (b) and XX of the National Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy of the Constitution.
But the AG had argued that section 2 of the Venereal Diseases Act which provides for the examination of persons infected or suspected to be infected with venereal diseases is consistent with Article 8A of the Constitution which provides that Uganda shall be governed based on principles of national interest and common good enshrined in the National Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy.

US: NYCLU strongly supports the REPEAL STI Discrimination Act and encourages its expedient passage

Repeal STI Discrimination Act

While New York has made considerable progress in reducing the prevalence of HIV over the last decade, the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated hurdles to HIV prevention, testing, and treatment. Moreover, New York continues to see stark disparities in HIV’s impact with Black, Indigenous, and other New Yorkers of color, as well as transgender New Yorkers and young men who have sex with men, bearing the brunt of the epidemic. Repealing New York’s HIV and sexually-transmitted infection (STI) criminalization law, Public Health Law § 2307, is a critical step toward ending the epidemic.

The NYCLU strongly supports the REPEAL STI Discrimination Act and encourages its expedient passage.

2023 – 2024 Legislative Memorandum

REPEAL STI Discrimination Act
S.4603-A (Hoylman-Sigal) / A.3347-A (Gonzalez-Rojas)

Position: SUPPORT

While New York has made considerable progress in reducing the prevalence of HIV over the last decade 1, the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated hurdles to HIV prevention, testing, and treatment. Moreover, New York continues to see stark disparities in HIV’s impact with Black, Indigenous, and other New Yorkers of color, as well as transgender New Yorkers and young men who have sex with men, bearing the brunt of the epidemic.2

Repealing New York’s HIV and sexually-transmitted infection (STI) criminalization law, Public Health Law § 2307, is a critical step toward ending the epidemic.

Laws that criminalize people living with HIV/AIDS and STIs discourage people from learning and disclosing their status, ignore science, harm patient relationships with counselors and doctors, and perpetuate stigma. Recognizing these realities, 12 states have amended or repealed their laws criminalizing HIV/AIDS since 2014. New York must join them by passing the REPEAL STI Discrimination Act, S.4603-A (Hoylman-Sigal) / A.3347-A (Gonzalez-Rojas), which would repeal Public Health Law § 2307 and expunge past convictions under the law. The NYCLU strongly supports this bill and urges its immediate passage.

At present, New York criminalizes people for having sex if they have an STI. This crime carries no intent requirement and no transmission requirement, and open disclosure to one’s partners is no defense. Defense attorneys report that New York prosecutors have weaponized this statute to prosecute people living with HIV who have sex.

This is bad public policy. STI criminalization undermines public health and disproportionately impacts communities of color, particularly LGBTQ+ communities of color. For these reasons, the NYCLU strongly supports the REPEAL STI Discrimination Act and encourages its expedient passage.

1 New York State Budget and Policy Priorities NYS Fiscal Year 2025, Ending the Epidemic 2 (Nov. 2023).
2 Id.

US: Louisiana HIV decriminalisation bill to be revisited at a later date

Lawmakers stall on bill to change state’s HIV law

BATON ROUGE, La. (WAFB) – Some at the state legislature believe the penalty for intentionally passing it along to someone else should not be as harsh with HIV no longer being the death sentence that it once was.

“It really is now a chronic disease like diabetes, like hypertension even though the transmission is certainly not the same,” said Jennifer Avegno with the New Orleans Health Department.

A task force was recently created to review the current data we have around HIV and how our state can update its laws. Health professionals today claim the law deters people from getting tested or treated.

“Many states like Georgia, Texas, Florida, others like Virginia have updated their laws. So, we’re currently just trying to update the laws,” said Rep. Aimee Adatto Freeman (D-New Orleans).

Under HB436 Rep. Freeman, those convicted would have their fine be reduced from $5,000 to $1,000, reduce the amount of time behind bars from 10 years to 1 year, and also redefine the crime by calling it “intentional transmission of HIV” instead of “intentional exposure to HIV”. The argument is that transmission is specific to those who actually become infected, while exposure is too broad of a term that could result in someone who’s infected being arrested for exposure after they’ve spit on someone.

“In 2009 I was convicted of intentional exposure to the aids virus. Without my consent, my home was searched and ultimately, I was arrested at work. And I would add that I was an employee at the 2nd circuit court of appeal, so I was embarrassingly arrested in front of my co-workers and peers,” said Robert Suttle who has HIV.

However, some said the concerns about the laws vagueness was address in 2018 when the law was amended.

“And that is when spitting on someone and some of these other outdated methods of quote unquote transmission were repealed from our law. Those do not exist,” said Kathleen Barrios with the 19th J.D.

This caused some on the committee to take a pause on how they were about to vote. Before it got to that point Representative Freeman decided to pull her bill and bring it back for another try later after she’s had time to get on the same page with the district attorneys.

US: Bill to end felony charges for people with HIV in prostitution cases removes the last relic of HIV criminalization laws

Pennsylvania lawmakers introduce bills to repeal felony charge for HIV-related prostitution

HARRISBURG – March 21, 2023 – State Senator Vincent Hughes and Representatives Benjamin Waxman and Malcolm Kenyatta announced legislation on March 20, 2024 that will repeal Pennsylvania’s felony sentencing enhancement for people living with HIV who are charged with prostitution.

Removing the felony charge removes the last relic of HIV criminalization laws in Pennsylvania, one of nine states still subjecting people living with HIV to harsher penalties if charged with prostitution. In recent years other states including Georgia, Nevada, and California have modernized or repealed their prostitution laws.

“HIV is not a crime. This is 2024, not 1984,” said Senator Hughes. “We have evolved so much in the forty years since we were confronted with this virus. Stigma was wrong then, and it is wrong now. Let’s continue the journey of eliminating this issue of discrimination toward HIV from the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.”

HIV criminalization laws began to appear across the nation more than 30 years ago, and advocates have been pushing for reform ever since. Kenya Moussa, of the Pennsylvania HIV Justice Alliance, Positive Women’s Network – Pennsylvania Chapter, and Health Not Prisons Collective, said that “we should treat HIV like a health condition, not like a crime.”

The current law, according to Representative Waxman “does nothing for public safety. The only thing that the mention of HIV in the criminal code does is discriminate against people with a communicable disease and that is not right.”

“HIV is not a crime,” Representative Kenyatta emphasized. “When we criminalize a diagnosis, we encourage people to go untested and not seek treatment.” Kenyatta continued, “Pennsylvania has an opportunity to move the ball in the right direction and treat everyone, no matter what diagnosis with dignity and respect.”

Shekinah Rose, who has been “living, surviving and thriving with HIV/AIDS for 39+ years” and is a member of the Pennsylvania HIV Justice Alliance, Positively Trans, and Positive Women’s Network USA, said that “with the passage of this bill, we will remove stigma, encouraging people to get tested, get into care, and thrive!”

A September 2023 poll by Susquehanna Polling and Research shows that a majority of Pennsylvanians believe that the state’s HIV laws should be updated to reflect modern science. According to the poll, 76% of Pennsylvanians believe that current HIV laws should be modernized and updated. And 79% believe that people living with HIV should receive the health care they need, rather than face criminal charges that discriminate and discourage proper testing, treatment, and disclosure.

“Punishing people simply because they have a virus does not make anyone safe,” said Ronda B. Goldfein, executive director of the AIDS Law Project of Pennsylvania. “Instead, criminal penalties based on fear and misinformation contribute to the stigma fueling the HIV epidemic.”

US: Maryland lawmakers sponsor bill aiming to repeal HIV criminalisation law

Commentary: Maryland must stop criminalizing people living with HIV

State lawmakers moving to repeal law that stigmatizes people living with HIV, increases public health risk

Having a virus should not be a crime. Yet, in Maryland, people living with HIV can face prosecution and criminal penalties even when we have disclosed our status, used condoms or are virally suppressed through medication. Maryland has an outdated law from 1989 that makes it a misdemeanor for a person living with HIV who is aware of their HIV-positive status to “knowingly transfer or attempt to transfer” HIV to another person. A conviction under this law can carry a punishment of up to three years in prison, and the law has been used to charge people for behaviors that do not transmit HIV, such as spitting and biting.

As people who have lived with HIV for decades, we know firsthand that Maryland’s HIV criminalization law discourages people from knowing their status, fosters stigma and creates barriers to lifesaving health care. It’s time for lawmakers to repeal this deeply unjust law.

Legislation (HB 485/SB 1165) sponsored by Del. Kris Fair (D) and Sen. Sen. Karen Lewis Young (D), both from Frederick County, aims to repeal this law that punishes people living with HIV. It is a law enforced on deeply racist lines. A recent analysis by the Williams Institute revealed our HIV criminalization law is used disproportionately against Black Marylanders and Black men in particular, driving increased incarceration rates and fostering stigma and shame around HIV and knowing one’s status. People living with HIV need health care, not the threat of prison cells.

This law was passed 35 years ago, when little was known about the virus. If that seems long ago, it was: George H.W. Bush was president, cellphones were the size of bricks, and Janet Jackson and Paula Abdul topped the music charts. At that time, there was little hope for people living with HIV. Thankfully, much has changed since then.

Today, we are just some of the many people with HIV who are living long and fulfilling lives. Those of us living with HIV who achieve and maintain an undetectable viral load — the amount of HIV in our blood — by taking medication as prescribed cannot sexually transmit HIV to our partners. Furthermore, people who don’t have HIV have even more effective prevention tools and can take medications such as PrEP and PEP. All of these advancements were unheard of in 1989, when lawmakers responded with fear by criminalizing HIV.

If you are surprised to learn about the incredible medical advancements in the treatment and prevention of HIV, you are not alone. Stigma and racism around the virus run so deep that many people have an outdated understanding of HIV. In fact, today our goal of ending the epidemic of HIV is achievable in the coming years if we focus on expanding access to testing, prevention and treatment.

All of us should know our HIV status, but stigma, lack of access to health care and fear of criminal penalties under Maryland law are barriers to testing for many. Our state laws and policies should remove barriers to health care and encourage Marylanders to know their status. The compounding tragedy of our HIV criminalization law is it deters people from seeking testing and treatment, thus prolonging the HIV epidemic and its toll on our communities.

Repealing the HIV criminalization law would make it safer for people unknowingly living with HIV to get tested and access needed treatment. Nationally, a recent study showed that approximately 80% of new HIV transmissions were from people who do not know their HIV status or are not receiving regular care. Expanding access to testing could have a profound effect in our state. The Maryland Department of Health estimates over 34% of young people living with HIV in the state remain undiagnosed. It is clear we cannot meet our public health goals without repealing this law.

As community caretakers in the movement, we are committed to doing everything we can to reduce stigma around HIV and increase access to care for all Marylanders. For years, we have joined other people living with HIV to share our personal stories with legislators in support of updating our law. HIV is preventable and treatable, and we hope one day to end the epidemic. However, to achieve that goal, we must first end the criminalization of HIV in the state we call home. Removing harmful, stigmatizing criminal punishments for knowing your HIV status is a commonsense update that is long overdue for the great state of Maryland.