United States Conference of Mayors calls for “the elimination of HIV-specific criminal laws”

Today, the U.S. Conference of Mayors passed a resolution calling for “the elimination of HIV-specific criminal laws and implementation of approaches to HIV within the civil and criminal justice systems that are consistent with the treatment of similar health and safety risks.”

It goes on to support the REPEAL HIV Discrimination Act and endorses the recommendations of the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS for ending federal and state HIV-specific criminal laws, prosecutions, and civil commitments.

Full text below.

HIV DISCRIMINATION AND CRIMINALIZATION

WHEREAS, The U.S. Conference of Mayors has been a national leader on strategies to address HIV/AIDS for three decades, establishing in 1984 an HIV/AIDS Program and implementing a HIV/AIDS Prevention Grants Program with funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); and

WHEREAS, The National HIV/AIDS Strategy (NHAS) released by the White House includes a statement on the problem and public health consequences of HIV criminalization and notes that many state HIV-specific criminal laws reflect long-outdated misperceptions of HIV’s modes and relative risks of transmission; that criminal law has been unjustly used in the United States to prosecute and disproportionately sentence people with HIV; and that legislators reconsider whether these laws further the public interest and support public health approaches to preventing and treating HIV; and

WHEREAS, nearly all HIV-specific criminal laws do not consider correct and consistent condom use and effective antiretroviral therapy that reduces the risk of HIV transmission to near-zero as evidence of a lack of intent or ability to harm; and behaviors that according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have negligible risk of transmitting HIV, such as spitting and biting, have resulted in sentences as long as 35 years: and

WHEREAS, sound criminal justice and public health policy toward people living with HIV is consistent with an evidence-based approach to disease control and research demonstrates that HIV-specific laws do not reduce transmission or increase disclosure and may discourage HIV testing; and

WHEREAS, The Presidential Advisory Council on HIV AIDS, the Centers for Disease Control, and the United Nations Global Commission on HIV and the Law have conducted extensive scientific research and evidence reviews, finding that public health is endangered by HIV discrimination and criminalization and calling for comprehensive revision of state and federal laws and regulations,

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the U.S. Conference of Mayors calls for the elimination of HIV-specific criminal laws and implementation of approaches to HIV within the civil and criminal justice systems that are consistent with the treatment of similar health and safety risks; and supports legislation, such as the REPEAL HIV Discrimination Act, that advances these objectives: and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the U.S. Conference of Mayors endorses the recommendations of the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS for ending federal and state HIV-specific criminal laws, prosecutions, and civil commitments.

Projected Cost: Unknown

US Conference of Mayors HIV Criminalization Resolution, June 25 2013

US: Congress passes amendment allowing for review of US military policy on HIV non-disclosure/exposure prosecutions

A bipartisan amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act approved by the House Thursday evening requires the Department of Defense to conduct an internal review of policies and prosecutions related to military members living with HIV. Currently the military can try service-members with HIV under a variety of charges, including failing to obey an order for having unprotected sex, not disclosing an HIV-positive status, or for aggravated assault, wherein HIV is the factor for the more serious charge.

The amendment by Reps. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) is the first time Congress has voted on HIV-criminalization matters since the passage of the 1990 Ryan White CARE Act, which required states to certify they had a process to prosecute deliberate transmission of HIV. Rep Lee issued the following statement on the adoption of the amendment:

I’m so pleased that this is a bi-partisan effort and am proud that my colleague Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen has joined me in this effort. Modernizing laws when it comes to our military is essential, and the laws that dictate the lives of our service members should reflect contemporary understanding of the science of HIV. I’m proud that the House has recognized this essential piece of working towards an AIDS-free generation, and my amendment would take an important first step in ensuring that our laws reflect current scientific understandings of HIV.

The two lawmakers are also co-sponsors of the Repeal HIV Discrimination Act, which would push states to repeal HIV-specific statutes in favor of laws that would only allow prosecution against HIV-positive persons if there is evidence of intent to infect and/or actual harm caused.

The amendment requires the Defense Department to issue a report no later than 180 days after the bill is signed into law. This report would have to demonstrate that prosecutions related to HIV exposure and transmission are based on a medically accurate understanding of the infection and treatment. It would also require the U.S. Military to review all recent prosecutions and make recommendations to improve the system to ensure that prosecutions are based on scientifically accurate risks.

US: LA Times publishes editorial in favour of REPEAL Act, highlights spitting and biting prosecutions

By The Times editorial board

A bipartisan bill introduced in the House calls for a review of state laws that criminalize behavior by people with HIV, including many laws that seem anachronistic or inappropriate given what has been learned during the last three decades about the transmission and treatment of the virus that causes AIDS. The bill should be passed.

The Repeal HIV Discrimination Act of 2013, introduced by Reps. Barbara Lee (D-Oakland) and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), would not by itself repeal any state laws. The federal government can’t do that. But the bill would encourage state governments to repeal laws that are based on outdated fears. It is backed by the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS and is in line with the UN’s stand that criminalization should be limited to cases in which a person knows he or she has HIV, intends to transmit it and successfully does so.

There are HIV-specific criminal statutes on the books in 32 states, and some are fairly common sense. In California, which has one of the better laws, people who know they are HIV positive must disclose that fact to their sex partners before having unprotected sex. If they do not, and if they “act with intent to infect,” they may be charged with a felony.

But 13 states have laws that make it a crime for an infected person to spit at, bite or throw their blood on others. That might have seemed reasonable at the height of the panic over AIDS, but we now know it is not. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, only blood, semen, vaginal secretions and breast milk can transmit the virus. And to do so, they must come in contact with a mucous membrane or damaged tissue or be injected into the bloodstream. Saliva does not transmit HIV. It is extraordinarily rare for a human bite to transmit HIV.

In the last few years, there have been dozens of cases documented by the Center for HIV Law and Policy in which people have been charged with criminally transmitting HIV by biting or spitting (even though no transmission occurred) or convicted of failing to disclose to a sexual partner that they were HIV positive (even if the virus was not transmitted). In some states, people with these convictions have to register as sex offenders.

Though treatment has come a long way, HIV is still an extremely serious and basically incurable virus, and the House bill would not stop the prosecution of people who deliberately (and successfully) infect others. It is certainly wrong for infected people to cavalierly or maliciously have sex without disclosing their HIV-positive status and without taking precautions against transmitting the virus. But there is no reason to keep the laws against spitting and biting on the books. They are based on fears that have since been disproved by science.

GNP+ and the HIV Justice Network release ‘Advancing HIV Justice: a progress report of achievements and challenges in global advocacy against HIV criminalisation’

A new report released today by the Global Network of People Living with HIV (GNP+) and the HIV Justice Network highlights the tireless work of advocates around the world challenging inappropriate criminal laws and prosecutions for HIV non-disclosure, potential or perceived exposure and transmission.

Advancing HIV Justice shows that advocates around the working to repeal, modernise or otherwise limit laws and policies that inappropriately regulate and punish people living with HIV have achieved considerable success. This is especially the case when policymakers or criminal justice system actors are open to learning more about scientific and medical advances in HIV prevention, treatment, care and support, and involve civil society – led by people living with HIV – to ensure that critical criminal law and human rights principles are followed.

“That is why we welcome the new, detailed guidance on limiting overly broad HIV criminalisation that was released last week by UNAIDS,” says Kevin Moody, International Coordinator and CEO of GNP+. “The guidance will help to continue advancing HIV justice, serving as a powerful new tool for people living with HIV, and those advocating on our behalf, in our work with policymakers and criminal justice system actors.”

Writing in the foreword, Susan Timberlake, Chief, Human Rights and Law Division, UNAIDS Secretariat, notes that Advancing HIV Justice “powerfully demonstrates that civil society advocacy on this issue is not only alive – it goes from strength to strength.”

In the 18-month period covered by the report (September 2011 to March 2013), significant advances were made in terms of:

building the global evidence base in order to better understand the ‘who, what, where, when and why’ of laws and prosecutions around the world;
generating persuasive social science that shows exactly why overly broad HIV criminalisation does more harm than good, often achieving exactly the opposite of what law- and policymakers intend in terms of public health and human rights;
challenging inappropriate or overly broad new laws in Africa, Asia, the Caribbean, Latin America and the United States;
advocating for law reform in Europe and the United States, including successful repeal in Denmark and modernisation of one of Switzerland’s two laws used to prosecute potential or perceived HIV exposure; and
addressing legal processes and enforcement, including the creation of prosecutorial guidelines in Scotland.

However, the report also highlights that the road to law and policy reform is not always straightforward or easy, due not only to complex intersections of laws, policies and practices, but also because of each country’s unique social, epidemiological and cultural contexts.

“Despite the many incremental successes of the past 18 months, more work and more funding is required to strengthen advocacy capacity,” says the HIV Justice Network’s co-ordinator, Edwin J Bernard, who co-authored the report with Sally Cameron. “HIV criminalisation is a complex issue. It entails a detailed understanding of diverse aspects of the criminal justice system; collection and analysis of evidence of the scope and impact of prosecutions across local and national boundaries; articulation and argument about complex moral and ethical issues of trust, blame and responsibility; and inclusion of HIV prevention and human rights priorities. Development of strategies against HIV criminalisation relevant to each individual jurisdiction requires time, effort, and the involvement of multidisciplinary experts.”

Advancing HIV Justice: A progress report of achievements and challenges in global advocacy against HIV criminalisation is available as a 52 page pdf that can be read or downloaded at: http://www.advancing.hivjustice.net

Kenya: Advocates lobby to repeal HIV-specific law criminalising non-disclosure/'exposure'

SOME activists want a section of HIV/Aids Prevention and Control Act that criminalise willing infection of a person with the virus to be repealed. The activists said section 22-24 which say a person who is aware of being infected with HIV shall be prosecuted, a move they say will increase infection rate in the country.

REPEAL Legislation Seeks to End HIV Criminalization

REPEAL Legislation Seeks to End HIV Criminalization Spurred by the harsh criminal sentences implemented under an outdated law, on May 7, Representatives Barbara Lee (D-California) and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Florida) introduced the bipartisan legislation the REPEAL (Repeal Existing Policies That Encourage and Allow Legal) HIV Discrimination Act.

Interview with Iowa’s Tami Haught on building a broad law reform coalition

Meet Tami Haught: Iowa’s Anti-Criminalization Advocate

Tami Haught explains how, with the support of CHAIN (the Community HIV/Hepatitis Advocates of Iowa Network) and hundreds of Iowans living with HIV, she helped build a broad coalition to reform Iowa’s HIV criminalization statute, Iowa Code 709C. Haught discusses the small victories that the coalition has won over the past year.

What is the current HIV-specific law in Iowa and how does it affect Iowans living with HIV?

The old joke in Iowa is that if you’re HIV-positive and you go to a bar, make sure to bring a notary public with you, that way you can have your disclosure letter notarized to prove that you did disclose your status before you had sex. But this law is no joke, because it has negative public health consequences.

Under Iowa’s Code 709C you may be subjected to prosecution if you cannot prove that you disclosed your positive status to a partner, regardless of intent, regardless of condom use, regardless of an undetectable viral load, regardless of transmission, and the sentences can be very severe.

What are the negative public health consequences of Iowa’s HIV criminalization law?

The latest research shows that HIV criminalization legislation, like Code 709C, discourages HIV testing, treatment and care, which works against the public health recommendations being proposed by experts.

Can you tell me about your work to repeal and reform this legislation?

The bill that was proposed eliminated the HIV-specific part of the current law by including hepatitis, tuberculosis and meningitis. The proposed law would also create a tiered system of sentencing, which maintains severe sentencing in cases of intentional transmission of HIV but allows lesser sentencing in cases of nondisclosure when a condom was used, when there was no intent, or when HIV was not transmitted.

We also included direct language in the bill about what “exposure” meant, based on the latest scientific research. For example, in over 30 years of research there has been no documented case in which saliva transmitted HIV–yet, inexplicably, people are still being prosecuted in many states for spitting.

But the bill didn’t quite get passed. What happened?

The reformed bill passed through Iowa’s bipartisan Senate Judiciary Subcommittee (3 to 0) and the Senate Judiciary Committee (8 to 3), and we were very close to getting the bill passed in the legislature, but at the last minute one of our allies changed sides and introduced an amendment that scuttled the bill. Still, we’ve had great support from Senator Matt McCoy, Senator Steve Sodders, Senator Charles Schneider, and many more members of Iowa’s legislature, and we’re very grateful for the assistance we received from Deputy Attorney General Eric Tabor, and Randy Mayer from Iowa’s Department of Public Health.

One lesson we’ve learned is to never assume who is on your side, because we have some great advocates, both Democrats and Republicans, who are fighting for us. So don’t look at the “D” or the “R” behind a name, because you never know the personal story or how someone may have been personally touched by HIV/AIDS.

Why do you feel personally mobilized by this bill?

Toward the end of my husband’s life, in the mid-1990s after both of us had been diagnosed, he became very scared of laws that prosecuted people for HIV exposure. He was afraid that I would charge him with criminal transmission–which I would have never done. But my husband eventually had a nervous breakdown and the thought of these HIV criminalization laws really started his downward spiral even faster, because they increased the stigma and shame and guilt that he felt after first being diagnosed.

What are some of the lessons that you’ve learned in Iowa that can be applied elsewhere?

For HIV-negative people not familiar with these laws, it takes them a while to understand the issues. When I conduct HIV criminalization forums, I usually show Sean Strub’s documentary HIV is Not a Crime. Just seeing Nick Rhoades, Robert Suttle, and Monique Moree tell their stories does a lot to reverse people’s prejudices and preconceptions. They begin to understand that people living with HIV are just like their neighbors and families.

In Iowa we’ve found that personal stories matter in changing people’s minds about HIV criminalization laws. One focus this year is to collect people’s stories to show that disclosure is not always easy, and that sometimes disclosure comes with consequences. Many HIV-positive people still fear that they’ll lose employment or housing if they tell the wrong person about their status. Even for me, it took six years after my husband’s death to talk openly about my status.

For advocates trying to reform HIV criminalization laws in other states, I’m sure people can learn from our successes and mistakes here in Iowa. Hopefully, sharing our experiences will help advocates in other states save time and money so that we can get these laws changed faster.

From The SERO Project’s Spring 2013 Newsletter

What the REPEAL HIV Discrimination Act Means to Public Health | NASTAD Blog

By Oscar Mairena, Manager, Policy & Legislative Affairs and Viral Hepatitis This month, Congresswomen Barbara Lee (D-CA) and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) introduced bipartisan legislation, , the Repeal Existing Policies that Encourage or Allow Legal (REPEAL) HIV Discrimination Act.

US: HIV criminalisation survivor, Robert Suttle – why I support the REPEAL HIV Discrimination Act

When I was released from prison, in January 2011, I knew that I needed a new life plan. I was now not only a gay black man with HIV, but also a convicted felon and registered sex offender. My career had been in the state appellate court system, but they could not hire a convicted felon.

US: Poorly argued editorial against REPEAL HIV Discrimination Act

(The Root ) — It’s every parent’s worst nightmare. You raise your child to be cautious about strangers, only to discover that an adult you entrusted with his or her care is the one you should have feared most.