Canada: Decades of advocacy ignored as Canada rejects HIV criminalisation law reform

Why is the federal government still refusing to decriminalize HIV?

Advocates have demanded change for decades. Canada’s government says there’s no path forward for legal reform.

Since 1989 in Canada, more than 200 people have faced charges related to HIV non-disclosure. Here, a person can be charged for not disclosing their positive HIV status to someone they’ve had sex with, even if they have no intention of harming the other person, and even if they don’t transmit the infection. While activists have been fighting for nearly a decade to have these laws repealed, the federal government announced last year they would not be moving forward with efforts to decriminalize HIV non-disclosure. Xtra has spoken with the people at the front of the fight for decriminalization—and the people that these antiquated laws affect.

These are their stories.

The phone call

On November 5, 2024, a phone call that didn’t even last five minutes ended almost a decade of work to decriminalize HIV non-disclosure in Canada. Despite previously indicating that the law might be changed, a representative from the Justice Department told advocates that there would be no path forward to reform a set of policies that criminalize HIV non-disclosure in the country.

Never mind that for the past eight years, various promises had been made. Since 2016, Ottawa has acknowledged the overcriminalization of HIV non-disclosure in Canada. This recognition prompted hearings, consultations and studies that advocates had hoped would lead to reforming the country’s criminal code.

Despite not having HIV-specific legislation, Canada has some of the highest numbers of reported cases of HIV criminalization in the world—a burden, advocates say, that is felt disproportionately by LGBTQ2S+, Black and Indigenous peoples.

According to a 2022 report by the HIV Legal Network, from the first prosecution in 1989 until the end of 2020 in Canada, 206 people faced charges related to HIV non-disclosure in 224 separate cases. Of those cases, only the outcomes of 187 cases were known: 70 percent ended in convictions, and 83 of those convictions resulted from a guilty plea, rather than a guilty verdict following trial.

Although HIV non-disclosure prosecutions affect people of all genders in Canada, 89 percent of people charged are men, and nine percent are women. Of all prosecutions, an estimated 22 percent were Black men and 33 percent were Indigenous women.

On the day of the government’s phone call in November, André Capretti picked up the call on behalf of the Canadian Coalition to Reform HIV Criminalization (CCRHC), an organization founded in 2016 that calls on the federal government to engage in legal reform and limit HIV criminalization.

“It was, of course, very frustrating to hear. It felt like we had been taken for a ride and our time was wasted,” he says.

Capretti, who’s also a policy analyst and a lawyer at the HIV Legal Network, says that, at the time, he hadn’t been feeling optimistic, given the delays he and his fellow advocates had experienced while awaiting the federal government’s answer. In a way, he says, the phone call was a form of closure. However, he also felt frustrated—as an advocate but also on behalf of the people who are in the crosshairs of the criminalization of HIV non-disclosure in Canada.

“This is their everyday lived realities, and these are the risks that they face when they are in intimate relationships or choose to engage in sexual encounters with people,” he says.

“If they’re frustrated, disappointed or feel let down, that’s all completely valid.”

The human cost of a cruel policy

Tammy Jones still remembers the afternoon in July 2007 when she was arrested. (Xtra has given her a pseudonym to protect her privacy.) She was doing her chores and affirmations at a recovery home in Abbotsford, B.C., when she heard a knock at the door.

“Tammy Jones?” a police officer asked.

“Yeah,” Jones answered.

“We have a warrant for your arrest.”

The police didn’t explain what crime she’d committed. Jones thought to herself: Was it drug-related? Prostitution? Before going to the recovery house, Jones had worked as a sex worker in Vancouver and had been battling drug addiction.

Months before her arrest, a man with whom she’d had a relationship was diagnosed as HIV-positive. He confronted her and blamed her for transmitting the virus to him. At the time this ex-partner was diagnosed, Jones had been living with HIV for six years. She was on medication to treat her HIV, and sexual contact with him had always involved the use of condoms—her partner, she said, was aware of her positive status. But then, one night, Jones alleges, her ex-partner assaulted her while she was sleeping. He didn’t use a condom.

On the day of her arrest, Jones was driven about an hour away to Vancouver. When she arrived at the police station, she heard the cops saying: “She’s a sex offender.” She was confused by this remark initially, but she soon learned she was being charged with aggravated sexual assault for HIV non-disclosure.

Jones eventually met with a lawyer, who encouraged her to take a plea deal to shorten her sentence from eight years to three. She accepted the deal and was given a statutory release after serving two and a half years. But her guilty plea also meant that her name would be added to the national sex offender registry.

Jones and I first met in Vancouver last spring. While the sun was out, a slight breeze made us shiver. Jones cried as she remembered what had happened during her arrest and eventual release. She told me the lawyer who represented her didn’t put up a fight. She said she didn’t understand the implications of accepting the guilty plea—and didn’t grasp that she’d be registered as a sex offender—until after she got out of prison.

As we sat on a bench in the Olympic Village neighbourhood, Jones spoke so softly that the wind sometimes overpowered her voice. Recalling that day in 2007 and its implications to her life almost two decades later, she said: “They make me out to be this scary person, and I’m not that person. I’m not who they think I am.”

Jones said she feels there’s an irony—and an injustice—to being labelled as a sex offender when, she said, she was sexually assaulted by a family member as a kid, as well as by the man who laid the charges that led to her arrest. She turned to alcohol and drugs to cope with the trauma of both these abuses.

For people like Jones, who’s been on the sex offenders list for almost 20 years now, the brunt of the label reverberates in various aspects of her life, limiting her employment opportunities and holding her from achieving the future she dreams for herself.

Tricky legal ground

Despite the severity of punishment HIV-positive Canadians can face for non-disclosure, there is no specific law that explicitly prohibits the non-disclosure of HIV status in Canada. Instead, legal precedents have developed through court decisions. Courts have relied on existing criminal offences, such as criminal negligence causing bodily harm and aggravated sexual assault, to convict people who are HIV-positive and who have failed to inform their sexual partner of their status.

While arrests related to non-disclosure date back to 1989, it wasn’t until 1998 when the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that people must disclose their HIV status before engaging in any type of sex with a new partner. Failing to do so, the court ruled, could be interpreted as a form of fraud that invalidates consent. In the court’s eyes, if a person has sex without disclosing their status, that sex is seen as non-consensual, similar to coercion in sexual assault cases.

Capretti, the lawyer at the HIV Legal Network, says that before a case is seen as an act of fraud, it needs to have two elements: proof that a person lies or hides their status, and an element of harm. “There’s physical harm from contracting HIV,” Capretti says. “But the law also considers the risk of exposing someone to HIV, even if they don’t get it, as harm.”

According to him, the legal framework in Canada still relies on outdated understandings of how HIV is transmitted, which can lead to unjust criminalization. He says people with a suppressed viral load pose virtually no risk of transmitting the virus, yet the law still requires disclosure in situations where the actual risk is minimal. This disconnect, he says, leads to unjust charges and perpetuates stigma against those living with HIV.

In more recent history, the 2012 Supreme Court ruling, R. v. Mabior,has shaped how cases of alleged HIV non-disclosure are treated in the country. In this case, a man was charged with nine counts of aggravated sexual assault based on his failure to disclose his HIV‑positive status to nine complainants, although none of them contracted HIV. The Supreme Court ruled in that case that people living with HIV have a legal responsibility to disclose their status if they have a “realistic possibility” of transmitting the virus. (According to the ruling, an HIV-positive person is not required to disclose their status if they use a condom and have a viral load below 1,500 copies/ml.)

This precedent has since been interpreted differently in various parts of the country, Capretti says. For example, in 2018, a directive was issued to limit charges for HIV non-disclosure in the Northwest Territories, Nunavut and Yukon, ending the use of sexual assault laws in these cases; instead, they could be prosecuted on simple assault or other charges like criminal negligence. It also specified that individuals with a suppressed viral load (under 200 copies/ml) should not be prosecuted for HIV exposure, as they are unlikely to transmit the virus. Cappreti says using simple assault and other charges, as opposed to a sexual assault charge, is important to continue to fight stigma related to HIV.

“The whole country’s legal landscape has failed to evolve alongside the scientific advances in HIV research.”

In Ontario, B.C., Alberta and Quebec, prosecutors have been instructed not to charge individuals with a suppressed viral load, whether or not they used a condom. Policies differ on how long a person’s viral load must be suppressed—Ontario requires at least six months, while B.C., Quebec, and Alberta allow four to six months. There is no minimum time limit in the three territories, and information from other provinces is limited.

“The state of the law in Canada is inconsistent,” Capretti says. “It means that someone in Ontario would have different legal obligations than someone in Manitoba, someone in New Brunswick, or someone in British Columbia.” If a person travels outside their home province, they would be subject to the rules of the province in which sexual contact occurs.

On top of this, he says the type of sex a person has is significant because of the different levels of risk associated with HIV transmission. A partner who is receptive during anal sex, for example, has a higher risk of contracting HIV than someone who engages in oral sex.

“That’s relevant because certain provinces have prosecutorial directives,” Cappretti says. He gives B.C. and the Territories as an example. There, someone who has oral sex without disclosing their status would not be prosecuted.

These policy differences mean that while the whole country’s legal landscape has failed to evolve alongside the scientific advances in HIV research, some regions lag further behind than others.

A changing scientific landscape

While HIV prevention and treatment have greatly improved in the past decade, non-disclosure laws have not moved at the same pace. Daily antiretroviral medications now allow those who take them to lessen the amount of HIV in the blood to the point that the virus is undetectable through testing—and therefore untransmittable to anyone else. When taken correctly, HIV drugs that prevent infection, such as pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and Post-Exposure Prophylaxis (PEP), can also help those who are exposed to HIV avoid contracting the virus. In May last year, Health Canada approved APRETUDE, the first long-acting injectable for HIV prevention. Earlier this year, Quebec became the first province to offer injectable PrEP for free.

These massive scientific advancements have saved lives and transformed what it means to be diagnosed with HIV today. Still, Canada’s judicial system largely fails to take the usage of these drugs into account.

Capretti says this ultimately undermines public health by discouraging testing and treatment. In the recent national HIV estimates, 65,270 Canadians are living with HIV. Of this number, it’s estimated that around 10 percent don’t know their status.

HIV activist Muluba Habanyama says criminalizing HIV non-disclosure impacts treatment in Canada. She warns that fear of criminal charges may lead people to avoid testing. “If you don’t want to risk criminalization, you might not want to know your status.”

Habanyama was born with HIV and has long fought against HIV stigma. She recalls being eight when her mother told her: “You’re Black, you’re female and you’re living with HIV. You have to work three times [harder] to get half of what others have.”

The criminalization of HIV non-disclosure, according to Habanyama, creates a dilemma where people may avoid testing to escape legal risks, which in turn harms public health efforts. “It’s sad that people feel they have to pick one or the other,” she says. “I don’t think we should be a country that promotes that.”

Removing this barrier to testing is particularly urgent, as HIV is on the rise in Canada. According to the most recent data, 1,848 new infections occurred in Canada in 2022, a 15 percent increase from 2020. That means five people were infected with HIV in the country each day.

“On the one hand, the public health response is encouraging people to get tested, and then on the other hand, it’s putting them in jail.”

Canada has failed to meet its testing, treatment, and prevention targets. The country initially pledged to achieve a 90-90-90 target by 2020, meaning 90 percent of people living with HIV know their status, 90 percent of HIV-positive people have access to treatment and 90 percent of people receiving treatment are undetectable. However, by 2022, Canada had still not met those goals. The new target is to reach 95-95-95 by 2025.

Brook Biggin, director of Education, Knowledge Mobilization, and Policy at the Community-Based Research Centre (CBRC), an organization that promotes the health of people of diverse sexualities and genders, says the government’s investment in reaching undiagnosed individuals is a major focus of the public health response in Canada.

“On the one hand, the public health response is encouraging people to get tested, and then on the other hand, it’s putting them in jail. And so it’s contradictory,” he says. “Until that’s resolved, I think Canada’s HIV response will continue to be hobbled.”

How criminalization affects LGBTQ2S+ people

Biggin got involved in HIV awareness advocacy shortly after being diagnosed with HIV in 2011. Eight years later, he spoke in front of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights during one of its meetings to study the criminalization of HIV non-disclosure.

“I do not believe that we would have the rights that we have today as queer and trans people if it weren’t for people living with HIV,” he says. “I think it’s incumbent on us as queer people who gain so much from people living with HIV over the years to return the favour.”

In the 2022 report from the HIV Legal Network examining key trends and patterns of HIV criminalization in Canada, 27 percent of all the HIV non-disclosure cases from 1989 to 2020 involve gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (GBMSM). GBMSM are still the demographic that makes up the highest proportion of new HIV cases in the country, and according to the report, they also represent the highest risk of prosecution.

“I see criminalization as unhelpful and counterproductive to all the advances that have been made in science,” says Sean Hosein, science and medicine editor at CATIE, a national organization that aims to strengthen Canada’s response to HIV, hepatitis C and drug use.

Hosein was working in Toronto as a community educator when the AIDS crisis erupted. He turned his attention to HIV education and advocacy in 1986, motivated by the impact of HIV on his friends and community. Hosein watched some fall ill to the virus, and others die. “I have lost people, and it still hurts,” he says. “I want to try and make sure that doesn’t happen to other people.”

Biggin would like to see more people respond this way. “It’s a shame that so many years have passed and that we, as a community, have, in some ways, been relatively silent about this injustice that’s facing people living with HIV,” he says.

“Leaders in the early days of the AIDS crisis demonstrated that when something’s not right, when marginalized people within our communities are struggling, we have to respond.”

A string of broken promises

On June 3, 2011, Chad Edward Clarke’s family picked him up as he was released from prison in Ontario. He walked right past his teenage son. He didn’t recognize him; he had grown taller since the last time he saw him almost four years prior.

“Dad!” his son called. “What are you doing?”

Clarke had been incarcerated for more than three years after a former partner said she contracted HIV from him. He was charged with aggravated sexual assault and was put on the national sex offender registry for life.

His uncle and son had come to pick him up, and the trio drove away from the prison along the highway. As he looked around the areas they passed by, Clarke started to cry—it was the first time in more than three years that he saw the wide roads from a vast window and not through the peephole of the van they used to transport him on the way to court or the hospital.

Clarke’s uncle took him and his son to some of their favourite spots in Toronto, including a sandwich place he had missed and a harbour by Lake Ontario. As they stood by the water, Clarke and his son hugged. They skipped rocks. Clarke accidentally threw his ring, a Celtic knot, a homage to his Irish heritage, right into the lake.

“I guess it’s time for new beginnings, Dad,” his son said.

He was right; it was a new beginning in Clarke’s life. That year, he promised to fight so that other people would not experience what he and his family had been through.

Thirteen years later, in April 2024, Clarke spoke to me from his home in Chatham, Ontario. He told me about his family and how his home keeps him grounded. He then showed me a new tattoo he said he had just gotten the day before: a red ribbon that passes through another tattoo of a jail cell.

“It’s the cell I was in,” he said. “The red ribbon is the blood that runs through my body, which caused me to experience injustice in Canada.”

Since 2011, Clarke has become an advocate, sharing his story throughout his journey. Nine years ago, he even testified in front of the justice committee about the effects of the criminalization of HIV non-disclosure on him. He said he’s seen multiple cabinet shuffles and different ministers of justice come and go, yet there’s not much political will to change.

In a run-in with former minister of justice David Lametti in Ottawa, Clarke said he told the minister: “I’m tired of the lip service, ‘When are you going to fix this and give me my life back?’”

Clarke said the minister acknowledged his remark and said only: “Those are strong words, Chad.” That acknowledgment did not translate into meaningful action, Clarke said, which fuelled his determination to continue fighting for justice and reform in the system.

Being on the national sex offender registry has limited Clarke’s ability to find full-time employment and move through life. It’s also affected his family, as well as his children’s mental health. He knows sharing his story is essential, but he admits reliving it puts his mental health in a regressive state too.

“How many more times do I have to pull this scab off?” he asks.

In 2019, after meeting with scientists, researchers, and legal and public health experts, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights released a report that recommended the federal government limit the use of criminal law in dealing with HIV non-disclosure. It suggested that HIV non-disclosure should not be an offence punishable by sexual assault charges. The committee also recommended that the government limit the prosecution to extreme cases where it can be shown that a person intentionally transmits HIV with malicious intent.

In October 2022, the Department of Justice launched a consultation website to solicit input on possible criminal law reforms related to HIV non-disclosure—part of the federal government’s first 2SLGBTQI+ Action Plan, launched in August of that year.

The following June, the department released the result of the consultation in a report titled What We Heard. In an online survey responded to by 980 people, 85 percent agreed that the Criminal Code should be amended to ensure that sexual assault offences cannot be used where the only issue in the case is HIV non-disclosure, demonstrating the public’s will to reform the law.

Capretti says that after the release of What We Heard, the coalition had direct conversations with then justice minister Lametti and his policy advisors to discuss the decriminalization of HIV non-disclosure cases in Canada. He says it felt like the process was moving forward at the time. But things stalled after a 2023 cabinet shuffle, which saw Lametti removed from the Justice file and replaced by Arif Virani.

According to Cappretti, after Virani stepped in at the end of July 2023, the federal government scheduled—then postponed—multiple meetings with the CCRHC.

In May 2024, Virani finally met with the CCRHC for the first and only time. Advocates say it seemed like the meeting was an “appearance for the sake of an appearance” and still didn’t have any commitment to the promise of law reform.

Almost six months later, in November, Cappreti, on behalf of the coalition, received the call from the Justice Department saying there was no path forward in decriminalizing HIV non-disclosure in Canada.

“After years of promises and commitments, we have been told by the Canadian government that there is no longer a path forward on law reform as the federal election looms. Instead of demonstrating bravery and finally ending criminalization, our political leaders have shut down progressive reforms,” Alexander McClelland, chair of the CCRHC, said in a press conference weeks after the CCRHC received the phone call.

“They have told us they are not moving forward on evidence-based approaches, that they are not moving forward on findings from their consultations, and that they are not going to change this context, which puts the over 65,000 people living with HIV in this country at risk, who are currently made to live their lives in a context of fear and uncertainty and violence.”

Shortly after the press conference, Xtra contacted then minister of justice Virani to ask what he would say to the advocates who felt the federal government had abandoned years of discussion and collaboration. Virani’s spokesperson, Chantalle Aubertin, said via email at the time: “Minister Virani remains committed to listening and working toward evidence-based changes within the Canadian criminal justice system. This is a sensitive and deeply important matter that has required thoughtful input from all affected groups.

“Regrettably, Conservative obstructing and filibustering through privilege motions this fall has disrupted much of our Government’s ability to move forward on important priorities. This has forced us to make difficult decisions about what can be advanced in this session. We deeply appreciate the patience and resilience of advocates and want them to know that their efforts continue to inspire the work ahead.”

Various emails between the coalition and the federal government, however, show multiple attempts to meet the then minister before the fall of 2024 and before the federal NDP withdrew its support for then prime minister Justin Trudeau’s minority government in September of last year.

Since the Liberals won a minority government under Prime Minister Mark Carney, no further movement appears to have been made this spring.

When asked whether Sean Fraser, Canada’s new minister of justice, will pick up this file and continue looking into the issue that was dropped in the last Parliament, Aubertin, who still works as a spokesperson with the Justice Department, says Fraser has not yet been “fully briefed” on the file. She said that the department will “follow up as soon as [they’re] in a position to offer more detail.” They declined to provide any more information.

Capretti points out that the new Liberal justice minister already has access to the same resources his predecessors have. “We’ve come up with different proposals, we’ve come up with ideas. So he’s coming to the position with much of the work already done,” Capretti says.

“We’ve done a lot of groundwork. He’s not starting from zero, and we shouldn’t act like we’re starting from zero.”

A lasting legacy

For as long as the government fails to take action, Canadians will continue to suffer.

Back in Vancouver on that day in April 2024, Tammy Jones gave a small smile when asked how she’d been doing these days.

She said she’d been focused on improving her life for years, going to therapy and building bridges to rekindle relationships with her children. An Indigenous woman, she said she also tried traditional medicines and sweat lodges. But, amidst all the progress, one thing still haunts her: being listed on the sex offenders’ registry. Most devastating is the way it prevents her from strengthening her bond with her family. The “sex offender” label, she said, feels like a firm grip that keeps holding her to a past she doesn’t want to define her future.

“I’m supposed to meet my niece this weekend, and she has a daughter,” she said. “I’m kind of nervous because of my [sex offender] label.”

In the long term, Jones said she hopes to take her case to the Supreme Court to try to clear her name. She said it would be an uphill battle, but she told me she believed it was worth the fight for her freedom.

She said she’s not losing hope that one day she’ll just be able to be herself: a proud Indigenous woman, a mother and someone not defined by a harmful label.

In that future, she’s just Tammy, and Tammy is enough.

Mexico: HIV criminalisation in Tamaulipas fuels fear and discrimination

Activists in Tamaulipas denounce that criminalisation of HIV is an obstacle to health and human rights

Translated with Deepl. For original article in Spanish, please scroll down.

Cd. Victoria, Tamaulipas.- People living with HIV in the state of Tamaulipas face not only the challenge of their health condition, but also the threat of criminalisation. Furthermore, Article 203 of the state penal code allows anyone to report another person for ‘risk of contagion’, which generates fear, discrimination and hinders prevention and early detection efforts.
Celso Pérez Ruiz, president of the civil association ‘Tendremos Alas’ (We Will Have Wings), denounced that this legislation discourages citizens from getting tested for HIV, as the fear of being singled out and prosecuted outweighs the need to know their health status.
‘In Tamaulipas, people living with HIV continue to be criminalised, and the current policy of prevention and early detection cannot move forward precisely because there is a law that criminalises them; so who is going to want to get tested for HIV under the fear of being reported if they test positive?’
He recalled that despite the fact that the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation and the National Human Rights Commission have declared the law unconstitutional, the state has refused to repeal it.
In the last legislative session, Morena deputy Magaly de Andar presented an initiative to eliminate this article, but in her current term she has not followed up on it, leaving thousands of Tamaulipas residents in a situation of legal vulnerability.
This is not just a legal issue, it is a human rights issue. The criminalisation of HIV perpetuates stigma, alienates those living with HIV from health services and prevents them from exercising their right to a dignified life free from discrimination. It is time for Tamaulipas to move towards fairer and more humane legislation.
‘Article 203 of the Tamaulipas state criminal code criminalises people living with HIV, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity. All Tamaulipas residents living with the virus are under the premise that they can be reported by anyone for the risk of contagion,’ said Celso Pérez Ruiz.

Cd. Victoria, Tamaulipas.- En el estado de Tamaulipas viven con VIH enfrentan no solo el desafío de su condición de salud, sino también la amenaza de criminalización; además, el artículo 203 del código penal estatal permite que cualquier persona denuncie a otra por «peligro de contagio», lo que genera miedo, discriminación y obstaculiza los esfuerzos de prevención y detección oportuna.
Celso Pérez Ruiz, presidente de la asociación civil “Tendremos Alas”, denunció que esta legislación disuade a los ciudadanos de hacerse pruebas de VIH, pues el temor a ser señalados y perseguidos legalmente pesa más que la necesidad de conocer su estado de salud.
“En Tamaulipas se sigue criminalizando a las personas que viven con VIH, y la actual política de prevención y detección oportuna no puede avanzar precisamente porque hay una ley que criminaliza; entonces qué persona va a querer hacerse una prueba de VIH bajo el temor de que sea boletinada en caso de dar positivo”.
Recordó que a pesar de que la Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación y la Comisión Nacional de los Derechos Humanos han declarado la norma como inconstitucional, el estado se ha resistido a derogarla.
En la pasada legislatura, la diputada de Morena Magaly de Andar presentó una iniciativa para eliminar este artículo, pero en su actual gestión no le ha dado seguimiento, dejando a miles de tamaulipecos en una situación de vulnerabilidad legal.
Este no es solo un tema legal, es una cuestión de derechos humanos. La criminalización del VIH perpetúa el estigma, aleja a quienes lo viven de los servicios de salud y les impide ejercer su derecho a una vida digna y libre de discriminación. Es hora de que Tamaulipas avance hacia una legislación más justa y humana.
“El artículo 203 del código penal del estado de Tamaulipas criminaliza a las personas que viven con VIH, más allá de su orientación sexual o de identidad de género. Todos los tamaulipecos que vivan con el virus están bajo la premisa de que pueden ser denunciados por peligro de contagio por cualquier persona”, refirió Celso Pérez Ruiz.

[Update] US: Felony charges for intentional STD transmission one step closer in Louisiana

House committee votes in favor of STD criminalization bill with changes

A bill that would make it a felony to “knowingly and intentionally infect” someone with an incurable sexually transmitted disease, or STD, is one step closer to passage after a tight committee vote on Wednesday (May 28).

The bill — House Bill 76 — was first heard by the House Administration of Criminal Justice committee on May 7. Rep. Pat Moore, D-Monroe, who authored the bill, voluntarily deferred the legislation after significant pushback from public and sexual health advocates, as well as people living with sexually transmitted diseases and criminal defense lawyers.

The committee reheard an amended version of the bill on Wednesday , which raises the threshold for conviction to actual transmission of an STD, rather than simply exposure. Committee members voted 7-5 to advance the bill to the full House.

“If this is passed, it’s not going to please everyone,” Moore, who introduced a similar bill in 2021, said during the hearing. “But when you think about those victims who are asking for justice and say, ‘Do something about this,’ that’s in my heart and that’s in my mind. So, I think this can help.”

During the May 7 committee meeting, Moore brought along two women who claimed to have been unknowingly exposed and infected with incurable sexually transmitted infections, or STIs, including one who said she was infected by a DJ in New Orleans. The DJ was arrested earlier this year under Louisiana’s existing law that makes it a felony to intentionally expose someone to HIV without disclosure and consent.

The bill comes as other states have looked to reform or repeal similar laws, particularly those targeting people with HIV, over the past decade. Since 2014, 18 states have either loosened or repealed laws against exposure to HIV and other STDs, according to the Center for HIV Law and Policy. Studies have shown that criminalizing STDs does little to lower the number of cases and increase stigma toward people with STIs.

During testimony, public health advocates said Louisiana should invest more heavily in resources for testing and treatment, as well as sexual health education. They said these types of bills can reduce the incentive for people to get tested, since people can’t be prosecuted if they don’t know their status.

If the bill passes both legislative chambers and becomes law, a person found guilty of intentionally infecting someone else with an incurable STD without disclosing their own status could be fined up to $5,000 and be sentenced to up to 10 years in prison. The penalties would be worse if the victim is a minor, older than 65 or has an intellectual disability.

The four most common incurable sexually transmitted infections are hepatitis B, herpes simplex virus (HSV), human papillomavirus (HPV) and HIV. While no treatments exist to eliminate these viruses, all are treatable and manageable with medication, and HPV can sometimes clear up on its own.

Even with Louisiana’s current law against intentional HIV exposure, the state had the third-highest rate of new HIV diagnoses in the country in 2022, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Mexico: LGBTI groups ask for the repeal of HIV criminalisation law

LGBT+ groups demand legislation to punish discrimination against people with HIV

Translated with Deepl. Scroll down for the original article in Spanish.

They demanded to eliminate article 302 of the Tlaxcala Criminal Code, which criminalizes people living with HIV under the figure of “danger of contagion”, considering it obsolete and stigmatizing.

LGBTTTI+ collectives showed that in the state of Tlaxcala there are still areas with high levels of discrimination against people of diverse sexual orientation or with sexually transmitted diseases such as HIV.

In the framework of the International Day against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia, the collectives demanded a halt to legislative omissions that result in criminalisation and hate speech that violate justice, equality and dignity of people of sexual diversity.

They denounced that, according to the National LGBTQ+ Youth Mental Health Survey 2024, more than 50% of the LGBT+ community in Tlaxcala have been victims of discrimination, mainly by public institutions and in legal spaces.
“There is a systematic resistance of the local Congress to legislate in favour of equality. This phenomenon translates into omissions, freezing of initiatives and evasive speeches in the face of the urgency of guaranteeing human rights”, they affirmed.

Among their demands, they demanded the elimination of article 302 of the Penal Code of Tlaxcala, which criminalises people living with HIV under the figure of ‘danger of contagion’, considering it obsolete and stigmatising.

They also requested to sanction and eliminate hate speech on digital platforms and to establish protocols for institutional response to digital violence against LGBTTTI+ people.

It is worth noting that Congresswoman Mí Pérez Carrillo presented an initiative to reform the local Penal Code to criminalise hate speech against the LGBTIQ+ community, which is expected to be taken up in the coming days.

Exigen colectivos LGBT+ legislar para castigar discriminación a personas portadoras de VIH

Exigieron eliminar el artículo 302 del Código Penal de Tlaxcala, que criminaliza a las personas que viven con VIH bajo la figura de “peligro de contagio”, por considerarlo obsoleto y estigmatizante.

Colectivos LGBTTTI+ evidenciaron que en el estado de Tlaxcala persisten zonas con altos niveles de discriminación hacia personas con orientación sexual diversa o con enfermedades de transmisión sexual como el VIH.

En el marco del Día Internacional contra la Homofobia, la Transfobia y la Bifobia, los colectivos exigieron un alto a las omisiones legislativas que derivan en la criminalización y en discursos de odio que vulneran la justicia, igualdad y dignidad de las personas de la diversidad sexual.

Denunciaron que, de acuerdo con la Encuesta Nacional de Salud Mental de Juventudes LGBTQ+ 2024, más del 50% de la comunidad LGBT+ en Tlaxcala ha sido víctima de discriminación, principalmente por parte de instituciones públicas y en espacios legales.

“Existe una resistencia sistemática del Congreso local a legislar en favor de la igualdad. Este fenómeno se traduce en omisiones, congelamiento de iniciativas y discursos evasivos ante la urgencia de garantizar derechos humanos”, afirmaron.

Entre sus demandas, exigieron eliminar el artículo 302 del Código Penal de Tlaxcala, que criminaliza a las personas que viven con VIH bajo la figura de “peligro de contagio”, por considerarlo obsoleto y estigmatizante.

Asimismo, solicitaron sancionar y eliminar discursos de odio en plataformas digitales y establecer protocolos de respuesta institucional ante la violencia digital contra personas LGBTTTI+.

Es de destacar que la diputada Madaí Pérez Carrillo presentó una iniciativa de reforma al Código Penal local para tipificar los discursos de odio contra la comunidad LGBTIQ+, por lo que se espera que sea retomada en los próximos días.

[Update]US: STD criminalisation bill withdrawn as advocates call for education and resources

Louisiana lawmakers shelve bill criminalizing ‘intentional exposure’ to STDs

A Louisiana House committee shelved a bill Wednesday that would have made it illegal for someone to “intentionally” expose another person to an “incurable” sexually transmitted disease after steep concerns that criminalization could worsen the state’s proliferating STD rates.

This was the second time Rep. Patricia Moore, D-Monroe, had introduced such a bill in five years, despite opposition from public and sexual health advocates as well as people living with STDs. Moore said at a House Administration of Criminal Justice committee meeting that she wants to create a law that offers people recourse for when someone “knowingly and intentionally” doesn’t disclose their STD status.

The bill would have created a new felony, carrying up to 10 years in prison and $5,000 in fines, for someone who knows they have an “incurable” STD and exposes someone else without their knowledge and consent. Those penalties would have increased if the person exposed to the STD is a minor, over 65 years old or has an intellectual disability. The exposure under either charge would have needed to come through sexual contact, donating bodily fluids such as blood or sharing needles.

After pushback during public testimony, Moore voluntarily deferred House Bill 76.

In 2023, Louisiana had the highest rate of chlamydia cases in the country and ranked in the top 10 for syphilis, HIV and gonorrhea, according to data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The legislation comes as other states have repealed or modernized their own laws criminalizing STDs, especially HIV, over the past decade to align with the current medical landscape. An attempt to update Louisiana’s own law criminalizing HIV failed last year.

Before the bill was deferred, Moore amended it to just focus on “incurable” STDs, removing a proposal to create a new misdemeanor charge for exposing someone to a curable STD. The four most common incurable sexually transmitted infections are hepatitis B, herpes simplex virus (HSV), human papillomavirus (HPV) and HIV. While no treatments exist to eliminate these viruses, all are treatable and manageable with medication, and HPV can sometimes clear up on its own.

But the groups who opposed the bill, including several members of the Louisiana Coalition Against Criminalization and Health, said the bill would have the same problems as another state law on the books that criminalizes “intentional exposure” to HIV.

Data on how many people have been charged under the law is challenging to compile, but UCLA’s Williams Institute identified 147 allegations of HIV-related crimes between 2011 and 2022 in Louisiana, though researchers said that number could be higher.

Dietz, the coalition’s state coordinator, told the committee that said both the current law and bill contain “legal loopholes” that allow the law to be used against people living with HIV in their personal relationships, in part because it’s on the person living with the STD to prove they received the accuser’s consent.

In 2024, Dietz and other members of a state task force charged with researching the criminalization of HIV found that Louisiana’s current legal approach “can actually interfere with work to end the HIV epidemic,” according to its report.

“We’ve already made recommendations for the way the existing law allows for environments of coercion because again … proving that you disclosed your status is challenging,” Dietz said. “Even if you were to have proof in your hand, even if someone were to write it down, what if someone ripped it up? Or you lost it?”

St. Tammany Parish resident Katie Darling, who also serves as the vice chair of the Louisiana Democratic Party, shared the testimony of one of her residents who said she had been living with HIV for 25 years. Darling said the resident had her first husband sign an affidavit acknowledging that he knew she had HIV and consented, even though she was taking medication that prevented transmission. When the marriage turned physically abusive, the resident testified that her former husband threatened to take her to court over her HIV status.

“Thankfully, I had the document he signed on file at my doctor’s office. But what if I hadn’t?” Darling read from the testimony. The St. Tammany resident has now had her second husband sign a similar affidavit.

Those who opposed the bill also acknowledged that there is a need for people to have justice when they are unknowingly given an STD, whether that’s under new legislation or current laws around sexual assault.

Jennifer Tokarski, who is living with HPV, testified in support of the bill. She shared the story of her former husband who had sex outside of their marriage, refused to admit it and ultimately transmitted the virus to her.

“After five years in what I believed was a faithful relationship and Catholic marriage, I became severely ill,” Tokarski testified. “My husband attended appointments, rejected STD testing, reassuring doctors we were monogamous.”

When she learned of his infidelity, she said he battered her and filed for divorce.

“Only then did I learn he had infected me with a lifelong and incurable STD,” Tokarski said. “This is not just a private betrayal, this is a public health failure.”

Moore and Tokarski said they believed such a law would help promote honest conversations about sexual health that would lower the spread and give survivors a voice.

Studies have shown that criminalizing STDs do little to lower the number of cases and increase stigma. During testimony, public health advocates said Louisiana should invest more heavily in resources for testing and treatment as well as sexual health education, which isn’t required in schools.

At Wednesday’s meeting, Moore said she planned to work with the bill’s opponents to improve the language and possibly return the legislation to the committee if there’s time before the session. Otherwise, Moore said she will bring a form of the legislation back next year.

USA: Louisiana lawmaker renews push to criminalise STI exposure

Bill revives effort to criminalize non-consensual STD exposure in Louisiana

A Louisiana lawmaker has introduced a bill that would create new crimes for knowingly and intentionally exposing someone to a sexually transmitted disease without their informed consent.

House Bill 76, sponsored by state Rep. Patricia Moore (D-Monroe), would establish two separate offenses: felony intentional exposure for incurable STDs and misdemeanor intentional exposure for curable ones.

Felony Exposure (incurable STD)

Under the bill, a person could face felony charges if they knowingly have an incurable STD and intentionally expose someone without that person’s knowledge or informed consent through:

Sexual intercourse or sodomy.
Selling/donating blood, semen, organs, etc.
Sharing needles.

The proposed bill said the standard penalty includes up to 10 years in prison and/or up to a $5,000 fine.

There would be harsher penalties if:

The victim is under 13 and the offender is 17 or older: 25–99 years in prison, with at least 25 years served without parole.
The victim is under 18 with an age gap of over two years: 10–25 years, with at least 10 served without parole.
The victim is 65 or older: Up to 25 years
The offender has an intellectual disability: Up to 15 years’ sentence and up to a $10,000 fine

Anyone convicted would also be placed on lifetime electronic monitoring. Offenders must cover the cost of their monitoring unless deemed unable to pay, in which case the state may cover the expense. The Department of Public Safety and Corrections would be tasked with setting the payment rules.

The bill includes affirmative defenses:

If the exposed person knew the offender’s status, knew the risks, and gave informed consent.
If the offender disclosed their status and took preventative measures advised by a healthcare provider.

Misdemeanor Exposure (curable STD):

The bill also creates a misdemeanor offense for knowingly exposing someone to a curable STD without informed consent through the same methods listed above.

The penalty would be up to six months in jail and/or up to a $1,000 fine.

The bill’s current status is pending before the House Administration of Criminal Justice Committee.

Bill has faced past criticism

Rep. Moore filed similar legislation in 2021 (House Bill 238), which expanded an existing criminal statute that previously applied only to HIV exposure. The earlier bill drew criticism from some public health experts and LGBTQ advocates, according to a report from the Louisiana Illuminator. Opponents argued that the bill could discourage people from getting tested for STDs, since the enforcement hinges on the offender knowing their status. Groups like the HIV Medicine Association and the CDC have warned that criminalization laws can increase stigma, reduce screening, and undermine public health efforts.

Moore said at the time that her goal was to address high rates of infection in Louisiana and that she was open to amendments and input from healthcare professionals.

Canada: Canada’s broken promise on HIV criminalisation reform

HIV criminalization and the Canadian government’s failed law reform project: Another. Incredible. Disappointment. Surprise!

By Chad Clarke with contributions from Colin Johnson

The Government of Canada has broken its promise to reform the laws that criminalize people living with HIV. In November 2024, the Federal Justice Minister’s office informed the Canadian Coalition to Reform HIV Criminalization (CCRHC) that the federal government’s long-promised initiative addressing the “overcriminalization” (their term) of HIV was not going to move forward. This announcement came after almost a decade of difficult work on the part of the HIV community. Blood, sweat and tears and some lives were lost while we worked on developing a workable consensus statement that would satisfy a majority of Parliament.

The government squandered time, money, people’s energy and people’s lives. By conducting a public consultation on “reforming the criminal law regarding HIV non-disclosure” only to appear like they were doing something, when in fact they weren’t, the government failed to address the harms associated with stigma, discrimination and criminalization! It has failed to address the way our current Criminal Code harms people and communities affected by HIV. “Silence = Death” is an iconic slogan in the history of AIDS activism and we can not be silent on our incredible disappointment with the government’s inaction.

A backdrop of struggle

Back in July of 2024, I sat down with fellow CCRHC steering committee member Colin Johnson to discuss HIV criminalization and to urge the government to act. Our CATIE Blog article, entitled “HIV law reform”, began by listing some of the emotions that I was feeling at the time: “Anger! Disappointment! Betrayal!” I still feel these emotions as I write this follow-up blog post.

I feel like I’m playing a game of chess with this government and once again we’re locked in a stalemate. Our current feelings of disappointment are experienced against the backdrop of 44 years of struggle.

While there have been notable improvements in Canada for people living with HIV/AIDS, for example in antiretroviral medicines, in some respects we are backsliding. According to the Public Health Agency of Canada, we saw 2,434 new HIV diagnoses in 2023, a 35.2% increase from the previous year.

Consultation games

In the face of rising HIV cases, it makes sense to ask how the government is funding the HIV response. Short answer: it’s not funding it enough.

In 2003, more than 20 years ago, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health recommended that $100 million per year be allocated to support the HIV response in Canada. While funding did increase, it fell short of this recommendation. The government promised to spend $84.4 million annually as of 2008, but in reality, this figure has been frozen at about $73 million. This means over $123 million promised for the HIV response was never delivered. This lack of funding has had a crippling effect on the services and community organizations working to respond to and prevent HIV.

In 2019, the Standing Committee on Health, once again, recommended $100 million per year to fund the HIV response in Canada. But, we’re still waiting!

On the one hand, the government is clearly not spending enough on the HIV response. But on the other hand, how much money was spent on the nationwide consultation that was destined to go nowhere? We already had so much data showing that the criminal law needed to be changed. For example, back in 2019 the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights tabled a report calling on the government to change the criminal code.

The CCRHC even developed proposed language for reforming the Criminal Code. We didn’t need this expensive consultation.

A consequence of inaction

As I write this, people living with HIV are still being convicted of serious criminal offences and sentenced to years in prison for allegedly not disclosing their HIV status to sexual partners, even in situations where there was little to no risk of transmission.

Beyond the horrible, violent ways that HIV criminalization harms individuals—too numerous and too painful for me to recount here (see Alexander McClelland’s book on this topic)—we know that it has also caused significant harmful consequences for our wider communities. To quote a recent publication in the Canadian Journal of Public Health, HIV criminalization

“…is applied in uneven and discriminatory ways, hinders public health HIV prevention efforts, and has damaging effects on the everyday well-being, safety, security, and rights of people living with HIV. Studies also show that the mainstream press reinforces damaging, racist, stigmatizing messages about HIV in its coverage of criminal non-disclosure cases.”

If anyone reading this thinks they might be in favour of a criminal law response to HIV, let me ask you this: how many cases of HIV has the criminal law ever prevented? To answer this question, I’ll offer this quote from an article in the journal of Critical Public Health: “One of the defining features of the literature is the absence of a single study demonstrating that HIV criminalization has a positive impact on HIV prevention.”

HIV criminalization is killing people. I tell you this based on my own personal experience. As a criminalization survivor, I sometimes feel like I am being inexorably, slowly, killed by a brutal system that has abandoned me to poverty, precarious housing, stigma, discrimination and ongoing criminalization. I served my time, but there are so many other ways that my life is still criminalized today because of the unjust Criminal Code that persecuted me in the first place, and because of the government’s inaction and failure to right this historic wrong.

From inaction to action

I don’t want to end this piece with the government’s inaction. Instead, I want to leave us with a call to action. In the coming federal election, we can ask how parties and leaders will address community calls for criminal law reform. We can ask them to commit to taking real action: we don’t need another public consultation that goes nowhere.

Also, we can inform ourselves and others about the harms of HIV criminalization. I don’t know exactly where this quotation comes from, but it’s one that my friend, the late Cindy Stine, once told me: “If you don’t know your rights… you don’t have any!”

As we head into this next election, we as a community can keep HIV criminalization on the political agenda. We know that HIV criminalization harms public health—it harms everyone. Time to ACT UP!

I encourage you to stand with me by joining the Canadian Coalition to Reform HIV Criminalization. HIV IS NOT A CRIME!!

Chad Clarke has been living with HIV for more than 15 years. His personal experience of prosecution and imprisonment has transformed him into a passionate leader and activist working against the discriminatory criminalization of HIV non-disclosure. Chad’s voice has been a spark that has inspired many to get involved in the movement for change. He is a current member of the steering committee of the Canadian Coalition to Reform HIV Criminalization.

Colin Johnson is a Black gay man who has lived with HIV for the past 40 years. He has been an advocate for African, Caribbean and Black communities for decades, with a focus on queer folk and substance use. He is the co-chair of the Toronto Harm Reduction Alliance (THRA) and sits on the steering committee for the Canadian Coalition to Reform HIV Criminalization.

Australia: Controversial HIV testing bill in South Australia faces backlash from experts

Alarm raised over proposed HIV testing laws in South Australia

South Australia is moving to bring in laws forcing people to be tested for HIV despite a report in New South Wales describing similar legislation as ineffective and unneeded.

Health organisation Thorne Harbour Health has expressed strong opposition to the South Australian Government’s proposed Criminal Law (Forensic Procedures) (Blood Testing) Amendment Bill 2024, citing concerns over its scientific validity, potential to spread disinformation, and its exacerbation of stigma toward people living with blood-borne viruses (BBVs).

The bill intends to protect frontline emergency services workers by mandating blood testing of individuals who spit at or bite them. Yet, expert bodies such as the Australasian Society for HIV, Viral Hepatitis and Sexual Health Medicine have firmly stated that mandatory testing for BBVs is not an effective or evidence-based approach to public health.

“We support policies that ensure a safe workplace for all workers, including emergency services personnel. However, this bill is not an evidence-based approach to achieving that goal. It creates unnecessary anxiety for workers and does nothing to improve public health outcomes,” said Thorne Harbour Health Vice President and Secretary of the HIV Justice Network, Paul Kidd.

“The bill, as drafted, does not consider the actual risk of transmission,” said Kidd.

Throne Harbour Health argues that Testing should only be permitted where there is risk of transmission. HIV, Hepatitis B, and Hepatitis C cannot be transmitted through saliva, meaning spitting does not pose a risk.

They also advocate that testing should only be ordered within 72 hours of alleged exposure, as this is the window in which prophylactic interventions (such as post-exposure prophylaxis, or PEP) can prevent transmission. They say the proposed six-month time frame is ineffective and misleading.

They also highlight that emergency service workers should undergo immediate medical treatment if a risk is identified, rather than waiting for mandatory test results that may be misleading or delayed.

“People living with HIV continue to face stigma across many aspects of our lives, including in our interactions with police. It’s vital that emergency workers understand how HIV is transmitted and when they are at risk of transmission. There have been zero recorded cases of HIV transmission to an on-duty police officer in Australia,” said President of Positive Life SA, Kath Leane.

“By promoting inaccurate information about how BBVs are transmitted, this legislation does more harm than good. Not only does it put emergency workers at risk of misunderstanding real threats, but it also increases discrimination against people living with HIV,” said Leane.

Similar legislation has been passed in New South Wales and Western Australia. Last month the New South Wales Ombudsman questioned if the laws truly served the purpose they were designed for.

The NSW Ombudsman report monitoring the operation and administration of the Mandatory Disease Testing Act 2021, tabled in Parliament on 5 February, found the Act does not have “clear and measurable benefits” for workers.

The report recommends the NSW Government consider whether the Act “should be continued at all”. The report also found that the Act is mostly being used in situations where there is no risk of blood-borne transmission to a frontline worker.

Similar legislation was introduced in Western Australia by both the Barnett Liberal and McGowan Labor governments similarly against the recommendations of experts in the field of HIV. There were suggestions in 2019 that WA’s mandatory disease testing laws were being overused.

OUTinPerth recently approached both the Labor party and the Liberal party and asked if they still supported the Western Australian laws. We are waiting for a response.

US: Advocates hope report update will finally push Ohio to end HIV criminalisation

‘Guilty until our status is proven innocent’: Update on Ohio’s outdated HIV criminalization laws

With six Ohio decades-old laws still currently on the books that criminalize living with HIV, there is a new effort to give voice to the negative consequences and long-term impacts of the laws.

The Equality Ohio Education Fund and Ohio Health Modernization Movement (OHMM) released an update last week to their 2024 report, “The Enforcement of HIV Criminalization in Ohio,”which documents the use of Ohio’s HIV criminalization laws from 2014 to 2020 and the consequences of HIV criminalization across the state.

Key findings of the 2024 report include:

From 2014 to 2020, there were at least 214 confirmed HIV-related prosecutions in Ohio, of which over half (120 cases) came from the state’s “harassment with a bodily substance” law and about a third (77 cases) came under Ohio’s felonious assault law. The remainder (17 cases) were related to sex work.
The enforcement of Ohio’s HIV criminal statutes is geographically concentrated, with at least 26% (56 cases) of prosecutions occurring in Cuyahoga County (Cleveland). The other most-represented counties include Hamilton County (Cincinnati), with at least 26 cases, Lucas County (Toledo) with at least 16 cases, Franklin County (Columbus) with at least 15 cases and Montgomery (Dayton) and Warren counties, each with at least 10 cases.
Ohio’s HIV criminalization laws disproportionately impact Black communities, with at least 36% of defendants identifying as Black. Statewide, 29% of all defendants (62 people) were Black men.
In Cuyahoga County, 68% of HIV-related cases impacted Black Ohioans.

Most of the charges examined in the report fall under two Ohio laws.

One law makes it a crime for a person living with HIV (or hepatitis or tuberculosis) to “harass” someone with their bodily fluids. That would include spitting or throwing urine, feces or blood at another person.

Under the other law, a person can be charged with felonious assault if they have sex with another person without telling them that they are living with HIV.

The penalties for failing to disclose HIV status in Ohio are stiff regardless of whether the virus was actually transmitted or whether it was even possible for a person to transmit the virus. Possible sentences for individuals living with HIV can be anywhere from two to 29 times longer than those for Ohioans who are HIV-negative.

Most of the laws were passed decades ago, at a time fueled by fear and absent scientific understanding about how HIV is transmitted and before advancements in HIV-related treatment were widely introduced. Laws still remain in place in 34 states.

Giving voice

New to the report are the stories of three Ohioans who have been impacted by the state’s HIV criminalization laws.

Adam Reilly, OHMM legislative co-chair, said the goal of including these narratives is to humanize the laws to help Ohioans connect HIV criminalization to actual people.

“These are real people: your neighbors or even your family who have been directly affected,” said Reilly. “We hope that people finish reading the report, see the injustice and take action.”

One of those narratives came from Bryan C. Jones, a longtime HIV decriminalization advocate who lived with HIV for more than 42 years before passing away in December.

“To this day I’m still scared of having sex with someone,” Jones said. “The law says we are innocent until proven guilty, but for us [persons living with HIV/AIDS], we’re guilty until our status is proven innocent.”

Another narrative came from Anna – a pseudonym to protect her – a 37-year-old Black trans woman from Cleveland who was arrested for solicitation by an undercover detective. During the arrest, she confirmed her status of living with HIV.

“They asked me, was I HIV positive? I told them, ‘yeah,’” Anna said. “And next thing I know, they just blew it all out of proportion. Transgender woman, HIV positive, soliciting. They was trying to give me five years in prison.”

Anna took a plea deal, was sentenced to 18 months in a men’s prison – without access to gender-affirming care – and had to register as a sex offender, a consequence of Ohio’s laws that does not exist as a penalty in other states.

A part of her plea deal included making a mandated statement about her HIV status to the media.

“I [felt] like I was nobody. I mean, it’s like they made a debacle out of me,” Anna said. “Could you imagine walking out the courtroom and there’s cameras everywhere?”

The third narrative came from Kelley, a 46-year-old woman in Warren living with HIV. Kelley was was arrested and charged with felonious assault after her ex fiance claimed that she did not disclose her HIV status to him, which she states is untrue.

Kelley served five years of an eight year prison sentence.

“To this day, I still don’t understand why this is felonious assault,” Kelley said.

The hope for new legislation

Two bills were introduced in the Statehouse in late 2024 by then-Rep. Sara Carruthers (R-Hamilton) to bring the six laws more in line with modern science and research.

Although neither bill advanced beyond an initial November hearing, advocates are hoping future legislation is introduced to accomplish the same science-based approach.

“Spread the word about these narratives and contact your representatives,” the OHMM’s Reilly said. “The more that lawmakers hear from their constituents, the more that they will see that there is a want, a need and a desire to modernize these laws.”

At the very least, advocates hope the updated report educates more Ohioans and inspires strong emotion. In his other role as outreach and testing manager at Caracole – the Cincinnati-based AIDS-service organization – Reilly said he regularly speaks with clients who don’t know about the six laws, including those who are living with HIV.

“I have never had an experience of someone saying, ‘These laws sound like a good idea,’” Reilly said. “Maybe if people know more about the laws, they will become enraged and something can change.”

IGNITE ACTION

Read the updated report “The Enforcement of HIV Criminalization in Ohio” by going here.
To access The Buckeye Flame’s full 2025-2026 Guide to Ohio’s LGBTQ+ Legislation, click here.

Mexico: Criminalisation of HIV in Tamaulipas has a negative impact on public health

Danger of contagion: Tamaulipas criminalizes people with HIV

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

The offence that penalises HIV carriers who have sexual contact with others is still in force. Morena has not supported the initiative to repeal it presented by deputy Magaly Deandar.

Tamaulipas criminalises and stigmatises people with HIV or any other disease considered ‘contagious’, ‘incurable’ or a ‘bad gene’. The offence of risk of transmission, a measure that punishes the risk of spreading a virus with imprisonment, is still in force.

The Penal Code of Tamaulipas maintains this offence with penalties ranging from six months to three years in prison. In twenty-five other states in Mexico, the penalties include the impediment to marry, denial of custody of one’s children and financial fines.

State law stipulates that a person who knowingly carries a venereal disease or HIV in an infectious period and who puts another person at risk of infection through sexual relations commits the offence of danger of contagion. In the case of spouses or cohabiting partners, the offence only proceeds if the offended party files a complaint.

In particular, article 203 of the Penal Code of Tamaulipas punishes HIV carriers. In a large part of the country, the ‘danger of contagion’ sanctions other sexually transmitted diseases.

Criminalisation encourages discrimination

According to the Mexican Network of Organisations against the Criminalisation of HIV, the criminalisation of the ‘risk of HIV transmission’ or similar concepts that appear in the legislation of the federal states generate more harm than benefits in terms of impact on public health.

This criminalisation undermines respect for and guarantees of human rights by promoting fear, stigma and discrimination, reinforcing the idea that people living with HIV or AIDS are criminals, dangerous and immoral.

The organisation points to the criminalisation of HIV patients, turning carriers into both victim and perpetrator. Focusing efforts on judging and punishing rather than promoting the prevention of contagion.

Tamaulipas seeks to decriminalise the danger of contagion

In 2022, deputy Magaly Deandar Robinson presented an initiative to repeal Article 203 in the Tamaulipas Congress. The Morenista argued that this measure violates human rights rather than recognising the institutional vacuum on the part of the public health service.

‘More than a question of laws, it is a question of human rights. That is how it should be for everyone,’ the legislator for Reynosa explained in an interview for Elefante Blanco,

Despite international recommendations from organisations such as the United Nations (UN), this proposal was rejected by the Morena majority. However, Deandar Robinson emphasised, the state congress could take it up for a second time in the next three months.

Magaly Deandar recognised that although this illicit act sought to stop the HIV pandemic, it ended up criminalising and making it difficult for people and carriers to approach specialised care centres.

‘It is the perfect time to reactivate the government to carry out HIV prevention tasks,’ she added.

In 2024, Mexico City, Nayarit, Jalisco, Aguascalientes, San Luis Potosí and Tabasco removed the danger of contagion from their penal codes.

Peligro de contagio: Tamaulipas criminaliza a personas con VIH

El delito que sanciona a las personas portadoras de VIH que tienen contacto sexual con otras sigue vigente. Morena no ha acompañado la iniciativa para derogarlo presentada por la diputada Magaly Deandar.

Tamaulipas criminaliza y estigmatiza a personas con VIH o alguna otra enfermedad considerada «contagiosa», «incurable» o un «mal venero». El delito de peligro de contagio, medida que castiga con cárcel el riesgo de propagación de un virus, sigue vigente.

El Código Penal de Tamaulipas mantiene este ilícito con penas que van de los seis meses a tres años de prisión. En otros veinticinco estados de México, las penas incluyen el impedimento para casarse, negar la custodia de sus hijos y multas económicas.

La ley estatal estipula que comete peligro de contagio la persona con conocimiento de ser portador de un mal venéreo o VIH en periodo infectante y que pone en riesgo de contagio a otra mediante relaciones sexuales. En el caso de cónyuges o concubinos, el delito procede únicamente si él o la agraviada lo denuncia.

De manera particular, el articulo 203 del Código Penal de Tamaulipas castiga a portadores de VIH. En gran parte del territorio nacional, el “peligro de contagio” sanciona otras enfermedades de transmisión sexual.

Criminalización fomenta la discriminación

De acuerdo con la Red Mexicana de Organizaciones contra la Criminalización del VIH, la penalización del “riesgo de contagio del VIH” o figuras análogas que aparezcan en las legislaciones de las entidades federativas generan más daños que beneficios en términos de impacto en la salud pública.

Esta penalización atenta contra el respeto y garantía de los derechos humanos al promover el miedo, el estigma y la discriminación, fortaleciendo la idea de que quien vive con VIH o SIDA es criminal, peligroso e inmoral.

Dicha organización señala la criminalización de la que son víctimas los pacientes con VIH al convertir al portador en víctima y victimario. Centrando los esfuerzos en juzgar y castigar en lugar de fomentar la prevención del contagio.

Tamaulipas busca despenalizar el peligro de contagio

En 2022, la diputada Magaly Deandar Robinson presentó una iniciativa para derogar dicho el artículo 203 en el Congreso de Tamaulipas. La morenista argumentó que esta medida vulnera los derechos humanos antes que reconocer el vacío institucional por parte del servicio de salud publica.

“Más que un tema de leyes, es un tema de derechos humanos. Así debería de ser para todos”, explicó la legisladora por Reynosa en entrevista para Elefante Blanco,

Pese a las recomendaciones internacionales por organismos como la Organización de las Naciones Unidas (ONU), esta propuesta fue rechazada por la mayoría de Morena. Sin embargo, enfatizó Deandar Robinson, el Congreso estatal podría retomarla por segunda ocasión en los próximos tres meses.

Magaly Deandar reconoció que aunque esta ilícito buscó frenar la pandemia por VIH, terminó por criminalizar y dificultar el acercamiento de las personas y portadores a los centro de atención especializados.

“Es el tiempo perfecto para reactivar al gobierno para realizar tareas de prevención contra el VIH”, agregó.

En 2024, Ciudad de México, Nayarit, Jalisco, Aguascalientes, San Luis Potosí y Tabasco retiraron el peligro de contagio de sus códigos penales.