Experts agree: overly broad HIV criminalisation is doing more harm than good

The HIV Justice Network has today released a new documentary, More HARM Than GOOD: How overly broad HIV criminalisation is hurting public health which had its world premiere at the US Conference on AIDS in New Orleans on September 10th. We hope it will be useful for both education and advocacy. To watch the video and to see all the studies cited in the documentary, visit www.hivjustice.net/moreharm. Download the video from our Vimeo channel: www.vimeo.com/hivjustice/moreharm

In many countries around the world, people with HIV are being made criminally liable for HIV prevention.

Despite strong recommendations against this overly broad use of the criminal law by UNAIDS and the Global Commission on HIV and the Law, the latest report from the Global Network of People Living with HIV and the HIV Justice Network highlights that new laws continue to be proposed and enacted, and more prosecutions are taking place than ever before.

The most commonly cited rationale of the criminal law is to deter morally unacceptable behaviour through fear of punishment. Scott Burris and Zita Lazzarini were the first to explore whether US laws that criminalised HIV non-disclosure had the impact that the lawmakers intended.

Zita Lazzarini: We found that whether you lived in a state with a law or without a law had absolutely no effect.

Scott Burris: Criminal law is generally a very blunt tool, anyway. And if you think about it, punishment and fear rarely brings out the best in people, when they’re making individual behaviour decisions. And certainly, when it comes to sex, criminal law has a very limited record of getting people to change their behaviour.

Carol Galletly has added much to the body of evidence on the impact of laws that criminalise HIV non-disclosure. Working with a number of colleagues, she published a number of studies, including this one in 2006 and this one in 2012 examining whether or not these laws are having the impact they were intended to have.

Carol Galletly: We thought of every single way these laws could possibly be effective. Do HIV-positive individuals reduce number of sex partners? Do they choose only positive sex partners more than people who don’t know about the law? Are they abstinent more? Do they practice safer sex more? Do they engage in oral sex or less risky activities? So we looked at all these things and the data just stacked up – there were no significant differences. The strongest predictor of disclosure was actually comfort with disclosure. So what I concluded was, if you really want people to disclose, then what you should probably do is increase their comfort, do interventions, do whatever. And don’t do laws that could jeopardize people disclosing.

Most laws and prosecutions focus on disclosure – in other words, whether or not the person with diagnosed HIV told their sexual partner before having sex. Whilst this may be the right thing to do, does this actually benefit HIV prevention? Eric Mykhalovskiy organised an international meeting on HIV prevention and criminal law in Toronto in April 2013 precisely because his own research found that criminalising HIV non-disclosure was having the opposite effect of what was intended.

Eric Mykhalovskiy: We see how significant now disclosure, or questions around disclosure, are within HIV prevention counselling, to the point that there is too much of a focus. You know, Barry Adam and others have emphasised repeatedly that disclosure is not an effective HIV prevention mechanism. And yet what seems to have happened is that the criminalisation of HIV non-disclosure has placed disclosure at the centre of people’s concerns around HIV prevention. And that is, I think, a serious challenge for people who are enlisted with the responsibility of trying to ensure that HIV transmission is lessened.

Barry Adam is Senior Scientist and Director of Prevention Research at the Ontario HIV Treatment Network and lead author of How criminalization is affecting people living with HIV in Ontario.

Barry Adam: Disclosure has become a bit of a red herring I think, in terms of HIV prevention because HIV prevention can and has for a long time happened without disclosure, anyways. To require disclosure doesn’t necessarily help. Sometimes, it could even hinder the process by creating a false sense of security among those who think that, if disclosure doesn’t happen, that their partner is negative. The social science evidence shows that, when people often get into the disclosure area, it’s in order to give themselves permission to have unprotected sex! People actually do have to know what their HIV status is in order to disclose it. And, there is a good deal of science these days that suggests that, it’s people who don’t know, who are newly infected, who are actually doing a lot of the infection.

Studies by Eric Mykhalovskiy, Chris Sanders and Martin French (the latter two are currently undertaking research studies and have not yet published their findings) have uncovered an unanticipated negative impact of HIV criminalisation on the healthcare workers who test and treat people with HIV, complicating their practice as public health professionals. They found that the criminal law is creating a chill, closing down discussions about HIV on both sides. (An in-depth report on the impact of HIV criminalisation on nursing practice can be found here.)

Chris Sanders: Criminalisation has complicated post-test counseling. Nurses are finding that clients shut down, they become very unwilling to speak openly about their sexual behaviour and they don’t want to share contact information because they’re worried that it might come back if they’re later charged with non-disclosure. And so, it makes nurses’ work more difficult. And that can impact HIV prevention as public health relies on contact tracing to be able to do quite a bit of their prevention work.

Martin French: I’m looking at this in Canada and the United States, and in spite of the fact that there are different approaches to public health I’m seeing some similar effects in terms of the anxiety that a number of providers are feeling about the issue of criminalisation as they counsel patients with respect to disclosure.

Trevor Hoppe found another, more sinister impact on healthcare workers. During his PhD research he discovered that some heath officials in Michigan’s public health system appeared to be invested in prosecuting people with HIV for not disclosing their status, resulting in some potentially problematic outcomes for HIV prevention.

Trevor Hoppe: This is the first piece of evidence that some health departments may be playing a role in facilitating criminal prosecutions. I can understand why people living in some of these communities would think twice before talking to health officials about their lives openly and honestly, given what health officials reported to me.

One of the most worrying aspects of HIV criminalisation is the additional disincentive it plays in a person’s willingness to take an HIV test: a significant number of new infections come from people who are undiagnosed. But testing is not just about knowing one’s HIV status to modify behaviour, it’s also the gateway to accessing HIV treatment and care.

New guidelines from the World Health Organization now highlight that HIV treatment works not only to keep people alive and well for a lifetime, but also prevents new infections by reducing HIV to undetectable levels. Where there is no virus, there can be no transmission. Since treatment is also prevention, then not testing or accessing treatment, hurts not only the individual but also the communities in which they live, harming the broader public health.

Laurel Sprague is the Research Director of the Sero Project, and oversaw their 2012 national HIV criminalisation survey.

Laurel Sprague: We asked people whether they thought it was not reasonable, somewhat reasonable or very reasonable to avoid getting an HIV test, or to avoid accessing treatment if someone tested positive because of HIV criminalisation. Those numbers should be zero. We shouldn’t have legal reasons for people not to get tested. We shouldn’t have a legal reason for people not to access care. And half of our respondents said that it was reasonable to avoid HIV testing because of HIV criminalisation and 42% of our respondents said it was reasonable, somewhat, or very reasonable to avoid getting HIV care once you’ve tested positive.

Patrick O’ Byrne is lead author of the 2013 review article, HIV criminal prosecutions and public health: an examination of the empirical research. He has also studied the impact of HIV prosecutions on gay men and documented how fear of HIV criminalisation has impacted their sexual and testing practices.

$Patrick O\'Byrne$

Patrick O’Byrne: Nobody – guys who were negative, guys who were positive – could make a distinction between the public health department and the police. It was a single institution. And this is problematic, right? How can you provide health care services when people think that you are a police agency? How do you provide care when people won’t access it? The laws have effectively rendered your HIV prevention health professionals useless.

Richard Elliott is the Executive Director of the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, and was an intervenor when the Supreme Court of Canada heard HIV criminalisation cases in 1998 and 2012.

Richard Elliott: How can it not have an impact on people and their decision as to whether or not to find out their HIV status, if you risk becoming a criminal. It may not at the end of the day dissuade a large number of people, but I think, it does dissuade a significant number of people and it probably, based on the evidence we have, dissuades some of those who are most likely to actually benefit from learning their HIV status, and all of the potential benefits to them, and others that may flow from that. So, why would we want to create an additional barrier, and why would we want to create a barrier to people actually seeking help from the helping professions? Because if we conscript those helping professions, to basically, become agents of law enforcement, that undermines their ability to help people, and that actually undermines the health of all of us.

Criminalisation is a divisive issue with strong opinions often informed by morality and a desire to achieve justice by punishing perceived wrongdoing. However, understanding the impact of HIV criminalisation on public health is critical to making informed policy decisions.

The 2013 UNAIDS guidance note, Ending overly-broad criminalisation of HIV non-disclosure, exposure and transmission: Critical scientific, medical and legal considerations aims to ensure that any application of criminal law in the context of HIV achieves justice and does not jeopardise public health objectives.

The guidance can be downloaded here.

Feature: Why overly broad HIV criminalisation is doing more harm than good

More HARM Than GOOD

Image 1 of 10

In many countries around the world, people with HIV are being made criminally liable for HIV prevention.

Zita Lazzarini: We found that whether you lived in a state with a law or without a law had absolutely no effect.

Scott Burris: Criminal law is generally a very blunt tool, anyway. And if you think about it, punishment and fear rarely brings out the best in people, when they’re making individual behaviour decisions. And certainly, when it comes to sex, criminal law has a very limited record of getting people to change their behaviour.

Carol Galletly: We thought of every single way these laws could possibly be effective. Do HIV-positive individuals reduce number of sex partners? Do they choose only positive sex partners more than people who don’t know about the law? Are they abstinent more? Do they practice safer sex more? Do they engage in oral sex or less risky activities? So we looked at all these things and the data just stacked up – there were no significant differences. The strongest predictor of disclosure was actually comfort with disclosure. So what I concluded was, if you really want people to disclose, then what you should probably do is increase their comfort, do interventions, do whatever. And don’t do laws that could jeopardize people disclosing.

Most laws and prosecutions focus on disclosure – in other words, whether or not the person with diagnosed HIV told their sexual partner before having sex. Whilst this may be the right thing to do, does this actually benefit HIV prevention? Eric Mykhalovskiy organised the workshop precisely because his own research found that criminalising non-disclosure was having the opposite effect of what was intended.

Eric Mykhalovskiy: We see how significant now disclosure, or questions around disclosure, are within HIV prevention counselling, to the point that there is too much of a focus. You know, Barry Adam and others have emphasised repeatedly that disclosure is not an effective HIV prevention mechanism. And yet what seems to have happened is that the criminalisation of HIV non-disclosure has placed disclosure at the centre of people’s concerns around HIV prevention. And that is, I think, a serious challenge for people who are enlisted with the responsibility of trying to ensure that HIV transmission is lessened.

Barry Adam is Senior Scientist and Director of Prevention Research at the Ontario HIV Treatment Network and lead author of How criminalization is affecting people living with HIV in Ontario.

Barry Adam: Disclosure has become a bit of a red herring I think, in terms of HIV prevention because HIV prevention can and has for a long time happened without disclosure, anyways. To require disclosure doesn’t necessarily help. Sometimes, it could even hinder the process by creating a false sense of security among those who think that, if disclosure doesn’t happen, that their partner is negative. The social science evidence shows that, when people often get into the disclosure area, it’s in order to give themselves permission to have unprotected sex! People actually do have to know what their HIV status is in order to disclose it. And, there is a good deal of science these days that suggests that, it’s people who don’t know, who are newly infected, who are actually doing a lot of the infection.

Chris Sanders: Criminalisation has complicated post-test counseling. Nurses are finding that clients shut down, they become very unwilling to speak openly about their sexual behaviour and they don’t want to share contact information because they’re worried that it might come back if they’re later charged with non-disclosure. And so, it makes nurses’ work more difficult. And that can impact HIV prevention as public health relies on contact tracing to be able to do quite a bit of their prevention work.

Martin French: I’m looking at this in Canada and the United States, and in spite of the fact that there are different approaches to public health I’m seeing some similar effects in terms of the anxiety that a number of providers are feeling about the issue of criminalisation as they counsel patients with respect to disclosure.

Trevor Hoppe: This is the first piece of evidence that some health departments may be playing a role in facilitating criminal prosecutions. I can understand why people living in some of these communities would think twice before talking to health officials about their lives openly and honestly, given what health officials reported to me.

Laurel Sprague is the Research Director of the Sero Project, and oversaw their 2012 national HIV criminalisation survey.

Laurel Sprague: We asked people whether they thought it was not reasonable, somewhat reasonable or very reasonable to avoid getting an HIV test, or to avoid accessing treatment if someone tested positive because of HIV criminalisation. Those numbers should be zero. We shouldn’t have legal reasons for people not to get tested. We shouldn’t have a legal reason for people not to access care. And half of our respondents said that it was reasonable to avoid HIV testing because of HIV criminalisation and 42% of our respondents said it was reasonable, somewhat, or very reasonable to avoid getting HIV care once you’ve tested positive.

$Patrick O\'Byrne$

Patrick O’Byrne: Nobody – guys who were negative, guys who were positive – could make a distinction between the public health department and the police. It was a single institution. And this is problematic, right? How can you provide health care services when people think that you are a police agency? How do you provide care when people won’t access it? The laws have effectively rendered your HIV prevention health professionals useless.

Richard Elliott is the Executive Director of the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, and was an intervenor when the Supreme Court of Canada heard HIV criminalisation cases in 1998 and 2012.

Richard Elliott: How can it not have an impact on people and their decision as to whether or not to find out their HIV status, if you risk becoming a criminal. It may not at the end of the day dissuade a large number of people, but I think, it does dissuade a significant number of people and it probably, based on the evidence we have, dissuades some of those who are most likely to actually benefit from learning their HIV status, and all of the potential benefits to them, and others that may flow from that. So, why would we want to create an additional barrier, and why would we want to create a barrier to people actually seeking help from the helping professions? Because if we conscript those helping professions, to basically, become agents of law enforcement, that undermines their ability to help people, and that actually undermines the health of all of us.

The guidance can be downloaded here.

The HIV Justice Network has produced an accompanying video, ‘More HARM Than GOOD’ that we hope will be useful for both education and advocacy. Watch and/or download the video on our Vimeo channel: www.vimeo.com/hivjustice/moreharm

Canada: Woman found not guilty of aggravated sexual assault for HIV non-disclosure before oral sex

A court in Barrie, Ontario has found a woman, ‘JM’ not guilty of aggravated sexual assault for not disclosing her HIV status before her male partner performed oral sex on her.

The Barrie Advance reports that

Justice Gregory Mulligan… ruled [‘JM’] was not guilty of the same charge when a man performed oral sex on her in a public park, stating the chances of a man contracting the disease in that manner were so “miniscule” she wasn’t required to inform him.

“This is considered a low risk. There are no documented cases of HIV being transmitted in this way,” Mulligan said. “It is so low that it does not give rise to a risk of bodily harm.”

In his ruling, Mulligan relied on evidence from Dr. Irving Salit of the Toronto HIV Clinic who said the chances of a man contracting the disease by performing oral sex on a woman with a low viral load were the same “as having a piano fall on you while walking down the street”.

Dr. Salit also testified that it was nearly as unlikely for a man to get the disease if he had unprotected intercourse with a woman in [‘JM’]’s symptom-free condition. As well, clinical trials show using a condom to protect against HIV is of little benefit when a person has a low viral load.

It was the oral sex incident that led to [‘JM’] being arrested and having police put out a public notice looking for other men who may have had unprotected sex with her.

A group of HIV organizations, including the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network and the International Community of Women with HIV/AIDS, issued a press release (available in full below) welcoming the verdict.

“She should never have had to fight the oral sex charge,” said Jessica Whitbread, Global Chair of the International Community of Women with HIV/AIDS. “We deplore the Crown’s insistence on prosecuting this charge despite what the science tells us about the risk of transmission in cases of oral sex.”

“Today’s decision sends an important message to Crown prosecutors who have tried to expand the scope of the criminal law on HIV non-disclosure: criminal prosecutions for oral sex are not warranted,” said Richard Elliott, Executive Director of the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network.

However, ‘JM’ was nevertheless convicted of one count of aggravated sexual assault for not disclosing her HIV status before having unprotected vaginal sex, although at the time her viral load was undetectable (meaning the risk of transmission was close to zero).

As the press release chillingly reminds us, “she now faces potential jail time on charges similar to those faced by violent rapists.” Her sentencing is next week.

According to the Barrie Advance

Defence lawyer Angela McLeod expects “a battle” during the hearing because she has been told the Crown’s office is seeking a “multiple-year” penitentiary term, which could mean up to five years. “That’s outrageous,” McLeod said outside the court. “The men who going out trolling for prostitutes and not wearing condoms should be the ones going to jail.”

McLeod said she was somewhat perplexed by a finding of guilt because Justice Mulligan dismissed the oral sex charge based on scientific evidence but gave little weight to the same science for the intercourse charge. “I don’t understand it because he relied on the science for one charge but not the other,” McLeod said.

‘JM’ is only one of a handful of people in Canada who have been charged for HIV non-disclosure more than once. According to this 2012 article in The Toronto Star, in 2005, she was convicted of failing to disclose her HIV status to two soldiers from CFB Borden before they engaged in unprotected intercourse. She was sentenced to one year of house arrest. In 2007, she was charged again with aggravated sexual assault, accused of having unprotected sex with a man in Barrie, Ontario and not disclosing, although the charge was ultimately withdrawn by the Crown.

The case highlights the urgent need for prosecutorial guidelines in Canada. More than 1,000 supporters of the Ontario Working Group on Criminal Law and HIV Exposure (CLHE) have already called on the Ministry of the Attorney General of Ontario to consult with the HIV community as well as experts in HIV medicine and science when they put together their long-awaited prosecutorial guidelines later this year.

“We continue to press the Ministry to fulfill its promise and develop prosecutorial guidelines in accordance with science, international recommendations and the expertise of people living with HIV and their allies to put an end to unjust and harmful prosecutions against people living with HIV,” concludes Elliott.

Woman found not guilty on oral sex count, court sends important message to prosecutors

US Public Health Service updates occupational PEP guidance

Healthcare workers exposed to HIV at work should immediately begin four weeks of post-exposure prophylaxis with three antiretroviral drugs, according to new recommendations. The three-drug guideline is a change from the 2005 recommendations of the U.S.

US: House Appropriations Committee passes amendment that would fund review of HIV-specific criminal laws

The United States is closer than ever before in ensuring that their HIV-specific laws are reviewed and amended in order to be consistent with current medical and scientific knowledge.

Earlier this week, the U.S. House Appropriations Committee passed an amendment proposed by Congresswoman Barbara Lee to the FY2014 Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations Act that would require the Attorney General to initiate a review of Federal and State laws, policies, and regulations regarding criminal and related civil commitment cases involving people living with HIV.

This wording is very similar to the content of Lee’s REPEAL HIV Discrimination Act, which was re-introduced in May with bi-partisan support, and which currently has 32 co-sponsors.

“HIV criminalization laws breed, discrimination, distrust, and hatred. These laws are based on fear, not science. This is an important first step in ensuring that our laws reflect current scientific understandings of HIV.” notes Congresswoman Lee in a press release. This amendment passed on a voice vote as part of the manager’s amendment.

The amendment reads as follows:

Modernizing laws with respect to people living with HIV/AIDS.

The Committee is aware of the position of the President’s Advisory Council on AIDS (PACHA) that current criminal laws require modernization, should be consistent with current medical and scientific knowledge and avoid imposition of unwarranted punishment based on health and disability status. The Committee directs the Attorney General, within 90 days following enactment of this Act, to initiate a review of Federal and State laws, policies, and regulations regarding criminal and related civil commitment cases involving people living with HIV/AIDS. The Committee further directs the Attorney General, no later than 180 days from initiating the review, to make best practice recommendations to ensure such policies do not place unique or additional burdens on individuals living with HIV/AIDS and reflect contemporary understanding of HIV transmission routes and associated benefits of treatment.

The Appropriations Act (officially titled ‘S.1329 : An original bill making appropriations for Departments of Commerce and Justice, and Science, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2014, and for other purposes’) has now been placed on Senate Legislative Calendar.

The Sero Project has issued a press release welcoming the amendment and explaining what it means for advocacy against overly-broad HIV-specific criminal laws in the United States.

SERO. Appropriations Amendment Release

UK: NAT (National AIDS Trust) produces new guide for police on occupational exposure to HIV

NAT (National AIDS Trust) is calling on all UK police forces to ensure their guidance and policies on HIV are up-to-date – and to use NAT’s new resource ‘HIV: A guide for Police Forces’ for this purpose.

“HIV: A guide for police forces” is endorsed by BHIVA (the British HIV Association) and includes information about how HIV is and isn’t transmitted, what to do if you are exposed to HIV, how to respond to someone with HIV, and information about criminal prosecution for HIV transmission. It also includes an easy-to-use check-list to ensure blood borne virus training and occupational health policies are fit for purpose and up-to-date.

The guide was produced in response to a review of a sample of policies and guidelines from 15 police constabularies out of the 50 in the UK, revealed in a 2012 report. NAT found some forces wrongly cited spitting, scratching, urine, sharing toothbrushes and handling or lifting of people as routes to transmission and also found policies recommending the use of “spit hoods” to protect police from HIV transmission, or stating that people living with HIV and in custody should be held separately and that interviews should be conducted through cell doors or cell door hatches.

The guide is especially targeted at police occupational health trainers, health and safety officers and medical advisers in police forces to improve existing HIV training and guidance. Advocates working with police in jurisdictions around the world may also find this guide useful as a way to encourage the police to update their training and improve the way they treat people living with HIV.

“By producing this guidance we have given police forces the information and evidence they need to ensure their policies and procedures on dealing with HIV are up-to-date and non-stigmatising and to help reduce unnecessary worry about HIV transmission amongst police officers. We are now calling on them to make sure it is put into practice.”

Deborah Jack, Chief Executive of NAT

HIV: A Guide For Police Forces

US: Sero Project and Transgender Law Center highlight the threat to transgender health created by HIV criminalisation

People living with HIV (PLHIV) who identify as transgender or third sex are more likely than any other group to feel that it is reasonable to avoid HIV testing (58%), disclosure of one’s HIV positive status to sex partners (61%) or accessing HIV treatment (48%) because of fear of HIV criminalization and distrust of the U.S. criminal justice system. The new findings from the National HIV Criminalization Survey were presented at the National Transgender Health Summit on May 15, 2013.

“These findings don’t surprise us,” said Cecilia Chung, Senior Strategist at the Oakland, California-based Transgender Law Center. “The data speaks to the long-standing history of stigmatization and discrimination of trans people, especially trans people of color, by the criminal justice system, because of either their race or their gender identity.” Chung was the first trans woman elected to chair the San Francisco Human Rights Commission, and she is currently a board member of the Global Network of People Living with HIV (GNP+).

More than 3,000 people living with and affected by HIV participated in the National HIV Criminalization Survey from June to August 2012, conducted online by the Sero Project in conjunction with Eastern Michigan University. The principal investigator, Laurel Sprague, is the Sero Project’s Research Director, Regional Coordinator of GNP+ North America, and a PhD candidate at Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan.

Sprague noted, “Laws that criminalize non-disclosure of HIV status raise key issues about community norms, expectations of fair treatment by authorities, privacy and the increased vulnerability of certain communities.”

While the results revealed that HIV criminalization can discourage HIV testing—nearly 25% of HIV-positive respondents said that they knew one or more people who did not get tested for fear of criminal prosecution—when researchers returned to the survey results to closely examine transgender and third sex responses, they found that these particular respondents faced increased levels of vulnerability in relation to the U.S. justice system.

The majority of transgender and third sex respondents living with HIV (57%) reported that they feared false accusations of non-disclosure either a few times or frequently—a figure higher than that of any other group surveyed. Only 14% of transgender and third sex respondents living with HIV felt that a U.S. person living with HIV could get a fair court hearing if accused of non-disclosure.

When transgender and third sex respondents were asked their opinions about HIV criminalization, two out of three respondents (67%) said that non-disclosure of HIV status should not be criminalized. When asked if a sex worker living with HIV should disclose to clients, most transgender and third sex respondents (41%) said it depends on the circumstances. In fact, transgender and third sex respondents were the most likely to focus on the context (“it depends on the circumstances”) when determining whether there should be criminal charges for non-disclosure related to sex, drug use or sex work.

The transgender community’s historically fraught relationship with public health authorities, law enforcement and the criminal justice system also likely affects transgender and third sex attitudes about HIV criminalization.

Sprague shared a range of quotes from the survey to illustrate various nuanced transgender and third sex experiences and opinions regarding HIV criminalization:

• One trans woman explained why she didn’t press charges for non-disclosure: “In order to file charges, I [would have] had to disclose my rape, my [HIV] status and I would have to give up my privacy and be subjected to public scrutiny.”

• A third sex respondent said, “I think in cases of rape, incest and other power- or force-related situations, prosecutions should go forward. Otherwise, NO!”

• Another trans woman said that she didn’t press charges for non-disclosure because of the “difficulty in proving in court that he had infected me—and also accepting that we took equal risk in being intimate without protection.”

For policy makers and public health workers, the transgender and third sex responses to Sero’s National HIV Criminalization Survey should raise concern, especially the survey results that show increased barriers to HIV testing and treatment, as well as deep feelings of legal vulnerability due to HIV criminalization.

The responses highlight a critical need for access to legal education and legal services, safe and confidential locations for accessing health care, and support for spaces where transgender people living with HIV can share their experiences, provide mutual support, and work together to identify resilience strategies and advocacy priorities.

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.