US: HIV Medicine Association calls for repeal of HIV-specific laws

The HIV Medicine Association (HIVMA) of the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) has issued a strong statement urging the repeal of HIV criminalisation statutes in the United States.

 

The HIVMA statement, which represents physicians, scientists and other health care professionals across the United States, demands the following:

• An end to punitive laws that single out HIV infection and other STIs and that impose inappropriate penalties for alleged non-disclosure, exposure and transmission
• All state and federal policies, laws and regulations to be based on scientifically accurate information regarding HIV transmission routes and risk; 
• A federal review of all federal and state laws, policies, and regulations regarding the criminal prosecution of individuals for HIV-related offences to identify harmful policies and federal action to mitigate the impact of these laws, including the repeal of these laws and policies or guidance for correcting harmful policies; and
• Promotion of public education and understanding of the stigmatising impact and negative clinical and public health consequences of criminalisation statutes and prosecutions. 

The HIVMA statement is another extremely important development in the Positive Justice Project's campaign to repeal HIV-specific criminal laws in the United States.

In March 2011, the National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directors (NASTAD) – a highly-respected organisation of public health officials that administer state and territorial HIV prevention and care programmes throughout the US – issued a similar statement.

The full HIVMA statement, which can be downloaded here, is published below.

HIVMA URGES REPEAL OF HIV-SPECIFIC CRIMINAL STATUTES
(Approved: October 16, 2012)

The HIV Medicine Association (HIVMA) of the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) represents physicians, scientists and other health care professionals who practice on the frontline of the HIV/AIDS pandemic. HIVMA strongly advocates public policies that are grounded in the science that has provided the tools and knowledge base to envision a world without AIDS.

Stigma and discrimination continue to be major impediments to the comprehensive response necessary to address the HIV public health crisis. Policies and laws that create HIV-specific crimes or that impose penalties for persons who are HIV- infected are unjust and harmful to public health around the world.

In the U.S., HIV criminalization has resulted in unacceptable human rights violations, including harsh sentencing for behaviors that pose little to no risk of HIV transmission. Thirty-two states and two U.S. territories have HIV-specific criminal statutes. Thirty-two states have arrested or prosecuted individuals with HIV infection for consensual sex, biting and spitting. These laws and prosecutions unfairly target individuals with HIV infection and are not based on the latest scientific knowledge regarding HIV transmission, including the finding that transmission risk from biting or spitting is negligible.

Individuals with HIV infection can live healthy lives and approach near normal life expectancies with access to HIV care. Early diagnosis and effective management of HIV infection not only improves clinical outcomes for infected individuals but significantly reduces their risk of transmitting the virus to others. Laws that criminalize HIV infection discourage individuals from learning their HIV status and from receiving care. In doing so, they jeopardize the lives of HIV-infected individuals and place more individuals at risk of contracting an infectious disease that remains fatal if untreated.

HIV-specific criminalization fuels the stigma associated with HIV infection that slows efforts to combat the disease. Despite the availability of highly effective treatment for HIV infection, of the 1.1 million individuals living with HIV infection in the U.S., nearly 20 percent remain undiagnosed, only 37 percent are in care and just 25 percent have undetectable levels of the virus in their blood which makes it unlikely for them to be infectious to others.

All individuals must take responsibility for protecting themselves from HIV infection and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs). All persons engaging in unprotected or potentially risky sexual behavior are encouraged to discuss and disclose HIV and STI status except in situations where disclosure poses a risk of harm.

HIVMA Position: 

HIVMA urges a coordinated effort to address and repeal unjust and harmful HIV criminalization statutes. We support the following:

• An end to punitive laws that single out HIV infection and other STIs and that impose inappropriate penalties for alleged nondisclosure, exposure and transmission;
  All state and federal policies, laws and regulations to be based on scientifically accurate information regarding HIV transmission routes and risk; 
• A federal review of all federal and state laws, policies, and regulations regarding the criminal prosecution of individuals for HIV-related offenses to identify harmful policies and federal action to mitigate the impact of these laws, including the repeal of these laws and policies or guidance for correcting harmful policies; and
• Promotion of public education and understanding of the stigmatizing impact and negative clinical and public health consequences of criminalization statutes and prosecutions.

Norway: Dissenting Law Commission member, Kim Fangen, 'stands alone'

Norwegian Law Commission member, Kim Fangen.

Last week's publication of the Norwegian Law Commission's disappointing report was "a crucial moment for us in Norway – actually for all HIV activists in the Nordic countries," says Kim Fangen, the only member of the Commission to vote against the use of a specific law to control and punish people with HIV and other sexually transmitted infections.

Kim's alternative vision, as detailed in Chapter 10 of the report (only available in the full Norwegian version, not the English summary, but translated into English by the HIV Justice Network and included in full below) is one of a supporting and enabling environment, where people living with HIV are seen as part of 'the solution' and not 'the problem.'

"It is not through criminal law that we reduce the spread of HIV," he writes. "I believe that HIV and other sexually transmitted infections are solely a health issue. That's where the focus should and must be, if one wants to prevent more infections. This means that we must change our mindset and change our course from criminal regulation to a health-related approach."

His solution is a uniqely Norwegian version of the new paradigm of HIV prevention for people living with HIV, known as Positive, Health, Dignity and Prevention –  a comprehensive approach to supporting people living with HIV with their prevention and social needs, not through fear or coercion but through empowerment and with dignity.  Much of the solution is already there in Norway's HIV Action Plan - but as Kim notes, with a few exceptions, little of the plan has actually been actioned.

In his first interview since the Commission report was released, Kim tells the HIV Justice Network how feels about the report and what the rest of us can do to help effect a change for the better to mitigate the Nordic region's overly harsh and punitive approaches to people living with HIV.

Q: As the only person openly living with HIV on the twelve person Commission, what did you hope to achieve?

When I was asked to be asked to be part of the Norwegian Law Commission, I was very happy and proud.  I, and many of my friends and colleagues living with HIV, believed it was a promising sign that they had reserved one of the Commission's twelve seats for someone living with HIV.

I actually believed that there was a genuine will and desire to investigate the issues raised in our mandate and to produce recommendations that hopefully would point Norway in a new direction, towards decriminalising potential HIV 'exposure' and unintentional transmission.

I did not think that it would be easy, but I thought it would be possible. I honestly thought that finally there would be no need to single out people with HIV as group so hazardous that Norwegian society felt the need of a specific law to protect itself.

What I never envisaged was that, in the end, I would be standing alone.

Q: When did you realise that you point of view was not going to be supported by the rest of Commission?

It was quite early in the process. I realised that not only was it going to be difficult, but that I was quite alone not wanting a specific law.

I really feel that the reason for my inclusion on this Commission was not to learn more from those of us living with HIV, but was instead a kind of tokenism – by having a person living with HIV on board I believe they thought they would be able to silence us once and for all.

Q: What disappoints you the most about the report?

I cannot help feeling that a great opportunity has been lost and the goodwill of people with HIV misused. This is a sentiment I share with many of my friends and colleagues both at home and abroad. Many of us are so very disappointed. We honestly believed we would finally experience a change now,  just as we, ironically, are about to commemorate 30 years since the first Norwegian was diagnosed with HIV.

And so I am afraid that we will not get the debate we so desperately need. I worry that this report will provide politicians with easy solutions, something Norway will not benefit from.  

Q: Is there anything positive in the report's recommendations that you would like to highlight? For example, I was impressed by the recognition that people with HIV (and other communicable diseases) require "psychosocial support to enable them to handle the risk of infection properly, and assistance in dealing with any underlying problems such as mental illness or substance use."

I'm glad that you pointed this out. I do feel that I have been listened to when I have spoken of supporting people living with HIV, and the clinics can do much more to help in guiding and strengthening each individual. This is the kind of work I am directly involved in myself.

Q: Do you think the report's content and conclusions are completely consistent with Norway's commitments to human rights and in terms of making laws based on evidence and not ideology?

No, I do not. I have on several occasions talked about our responsibility to practise what we preach. I do not think Norway is doing that.

Q: How might the report impact the rest of the Nordic region?

HIV and the law are being debated and discussed all over the Nordic region. All of the four countries are at different stages but our goals are the same, to end the overly broad criminalisation of HIV.

My hope is that Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Norway will join forces. We will be so much stronger if we pull together. Next year will we will be commemorating 30 years since Norway had its first HIV diagnosis.  We, in the newly-established HIV Patient Network will be using that to the fullest and, of course, criminalisation will be on top of the list.

Q: The process will take another 18 months before parliament decides on whether or not to enact or abolish a specific criminal law. What are your plans?

My only hope now is that the international response to this report will be so substantial, so clear, and so loud that it will have an impact on Norway's politicians.

I am hoping to organise a joint Nordic meeting in Oslo sometime during 2013, preferably before the deadline for the hearing letter goes out, when we are still able to influence the process before it is finalised some time in 2014.

If we can thoroughly examine the situation in all of the Nordic countries, invite politicians, medical and legal practitioners, experts and specialists in fields like sexuality, ethics and human rights, as well as members of the international civil society, we should be able to strengthen our arguments and support those in office who actually can directly influence the debate.

In the meantime, for those who haven't already signed the Oslo Declaration on HIV Criminalisation, please take a moment to read it and support our efforts. I would like thank everyone who contributed, who made this possible, and especially to the HIV Justice Network.  I know that it has already caused a stir in Norway, and I feel that there is so much more to gain from it. It's like a tool that is still in its wrapping, and it has yet to reach its full potential. 

Below is the full English translation of Kim's submission to the Commission, outlining his alternative vision, from Chapter 10 of the report.

One of the committee members, Kim Fangen, lives with HIV and has been involved in working in this field for many years.

As stated during the assessments in Section 11.2.1.2, Mr Fangen says that there should be no special penal targeting disease transmission directly between humans. Mr Fangen believes that any criminal proceedings should take place using the general penalty provisions of bodily harm, and that these penal provisions should only be applied where the perpetrator acted with the intent to infect another, and the disease is transferred.

The rationale for this position is stated in the following that Mr Fangen has written on this matter:

New time. New inspiration.

HIV has been a part of our global reality for over 30 years. It is estimated that 60 million people have been infected during this period, 35 million of whom are alive today. For the first time in the history of HIV in the world, data show that the number of people that are newly diagnosed HIV positive is on a downward trend. This is primarily because many people with HIV have access to treatment. Treatment not only allows people with HIV to live a long healthy life, but the majority who are on treatment have a fully suppressed HIV viral load and are thus very unlikely to be infectious. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently reviewed the latest research data and concludes that antiretroviral therapy reduces the risk of a person with HIV transmitting the virus to an HIV-negative person by 96%. UNAIDS has begun to talk about a world without HIV in its 2011-2015 strategic plan, 'Getting To Zero'. Medical progress has thus changed the situation in a very positive direction. This change should also be reflected in legislation and case law.

However, the situation is not only positive. In some countries and in some groups, we are seeing an increase in the number of new HIV diagnoses. In Norway, the number of annual new HIV diagnoses among gay and bisexual men and other men who have sex with men has tripled since 2002. This increase is very serious and requires that we strengthen and develop prevention among both HIV-negative and HIV-positive individuals.

Does HIV belong in the criminal code?

As person living with HIV, my primary focus has been on HIV when the committee has discussed details of the currently adopted provisions for serious communicable infectious diseases in the 2005 Penal Code § § 237 and 238. Most of my arguments stem from the experiences we have had with HIV in the applicable provisions of the 1902 Penal Code § 155, which for years has rightly been called the 'HIV paragraph'. As you know, this is not an HIV-specific law, but in practice it has, almost without exception, been used to prosecute HIV. There are only a few cases where it has been applied with another communicable disease (respectively, hepatitis B and hepatitis C).

I think that HIV-related work, both in terms of caring for people with HIV, and preventing new infections, has not well been served by such legislation, which stigmatises  those of us with HIV and creates the perception that were are potential criminals, and does not take into account that people with HIV have the right to a good sex life. The legislation does not relate to the psycho-social challenges it means to live with HIV, and is not adapted to the fact that the reduced quality of life and difficulty in coping with safer sex are often intertwined. The legislation has not been clear on what constitutes unlawful sexual behaviour, and criminal liability is not consistent in relation to current knowledge about HIV and the risk of transmission.

Furthermore, I believe that the implementation of this legislation violates the fundamental principles of equality before the law. It seems as if the law is both random and unfair when only a few cases have been filed in recent years, despite the fact that several hundred people are diagnosed with HIV each year. It also seems unfair and counterproductive that all responsibility should rest on those of us who are familiar with our own HIV status, when we know that many are not aware of their own status and that new infections require HIV-negative individuals to choose to have unsafe sex.

In light of the increasing number of new HIV diagnoses among gay and bisexual men and other men who have sex with men, one can rightly ask what does that suggest for this law in terms of HIV prevention? My contention is that it has not served its purpose, whether viewed from a public health perspective or an individual prevention perspective. HIV is no longer a threat to public health, as one assumed it was going to be early in the 1980s. We have been aware of this for many years now. Even before effective treatment arrived, this was a fact. Nevertheless, it seems that the 'epidemic' mentality lingers in the minds of many people.

A public health perspective, however, is important when it comes to the spread of other communicable diseases through air, water and food. I have therefore, together with a committee unanimously decided that § 238 should be amended to apply only to such infections, see chapter 11 and the committee draft laws in Chapter 14

It is not through criminal law that we reduce the spread of HIV. I believe that HIV and other sexually transmitted infections are solely a health issue. That's where the focus should and must be, if one wants to prevent more infections. This means that we must change our mindset and change our course from criminal regulation to a health-related approach. Both partners should be responsible for their own sexual health, but this should not be linked to punishment. I do not believe that criminal law is a suitable tool for regulating health-related behaviours. Using the Penal Code, however, can make it appear as if the Government has been pro-active on this issue when instead it actually creates a false sense of security.

Decriminalisation

I believe that one should not criminalise unprotected sex and consequently the transmission of sexually transmitted infections. In sexual relations between two equal  partners who voluntarily decide to have sex, no heed is given to criminalisation / criminal law at home, regardless of whether HIV is transmitted or not. I believe that punishment should only be used in cases where you can prove that someone has intended to transmit a communicable disease and succeeded in doing this. Then the general provisions on bodily harm can be used, but in all other cases general laws on 'offences against the person' should not be used.

My suggestion therefore implies a clear decriminalisation, as I suggest that prosecutions should only occur where there is intent in the form of wilful intent and infection actually occurs. Transmission that occurs through dolus eventualis [recklessness] should, I suggest, not be prosecuted, even if infection actually occurs. This also applies to cases where there is only a negligent state of mind. If there has only been the potential for exposure, i.e. infection has not occurred, as I have already suggested, this should not be punished.

People with HIV - an untapped resource

Those of us who are living with HIV want to be involved in reducing infection rates. We want to be "part of the solution" and not be seen as a "problem". Just as our society desires that all groups of patients are equal partners in health, I believe that people with HIV in particular are an important group to include. I think we are an untapped resource in prevention. We have unique knowledge in that can say something about why we were infected. This knowledge has so far not been made use of - no one asks us about possible underlying / contributory reasons why we were infected. Here, there is a great potential in terms of prevention of new infections, and we want to be involved in this work.

Common goals

Whatever we may think of the Penal Code as all actors within the HIV field (whether government, organisation or activist) a common goal is to prevent people from becoming infected with HIV.

How do we reach this goal? Measures should focus on the HIV-positive and HIV-negative. We must strengthen and set clear requirements for disease control. We need to improve the coping ability of all people living with HIV. We need more testing, more often. Those who are newly diagnosed who wish to start treatment should be allowed to do so. We need to focus on the importance of risk/harm reduction, and realise that it can make a substantial contribution to 'traditional' prevention. Doing even something right is better than doing nothing at all. 

There is no reason that Norway might not become the best in the world in this area - we have the knowledge, skills and the economy. We have a clear situation, and we are able to reach everyone.

Sexually transmitted infections are a part of our shared reality. It's not just HIV that is increasing in scope, but other infections. There are an increasing number of challenges, such as treatment-resistant gonorrhoea. We do not yet know the extent to which this will continue and what consequences will ensue. The more times a person is treated for a sexually transmitted infection, the greater the risk of complications or of developing resistance potentially resulting in a chronic condition. Although this information has reached the majority of the population it does not change the habit of having unprotected sex. We can surmise this from the ever increasing number of cases of sexually transmitted infections.

We should find a way to prepare a comprehensive plan as to how Norway should tackle all areas of sexual health. This plan must address both the dark and light sides of sexuality and must deal with sexuality throughout our life. Such a plan must aim to enhance the general population's sexual health, while also dealing with special measures for vulnerable groups with special challenges, such as gay and bisexual men and other men who have sex with men, refugees, asylum seekers and their families.

This could be done by a committee that will have the mandate to prepare an action plan to enhance overall sexual health, including prevention of sexually transmitted infections. The current national strategic plan for improving sexual health is too one-sided by focusing on the prevention of unwanted pregnancies. Such a committee should have representatives of health authorities as well as representatives of relevant groups and relevant organisations.

National Action Plan

There are many HIV-positive people who believe that the National Action Plan 'Acceptance and Coping, 2009-2014' is a very important and appropriate plan for HIV prevention efforts. Here are six ministries and several agencies that are committed to comprehensive efforts in HIV-related work by defining objectives and strategic actions in a number of areas. Some of this is already implemented, but much remains to be done, and the recent mid-term conference showed that things are tough and that there is great frustration among the players.

What has been implemented includes the initiation of the first learning and activity courses for people with HIV. This course was developed through a partnership between The Health Information Centre and Department of Infectious Diseases, both at Oslo University Hospital, and the newly established Council for Patients with HIV has also contributed. Here, among other things, the mastery of sex life is an important part. This has been a successful pilot project that is supposed to be a constant for all who are living with HIV, and to all who are diagnosed with HIV, regardless of nationality, ethnicity and sexual orientation. We believe this is an important service for this patient group that until now has received little follow-up beyond the purely medical field. Another important measure implemented under the HIV plan is the training of health professionals who work with people with HIV to assist in their conversations with patients about changes in health-related behaviours, including sexual behaviour. The tool used is a method called motivational interviewing (MI) which increases the patient's motivation to change. In 2011 almost 100 health professionals participated in such courses organised by the Directorate of Health. More such courses are needed, and these courses should be offered at different levels, so that MI is an integral part of care.

Such courses for both patients and healthcare providers is something that can increase both the efficacy and quality of life for people with HIV and are therefore very important health promotion and HIV prevention measures. Earlier initiation of treatment and increased focus on testing for HIV and other sexually transmitted infections are other measures that work to prevent new infections.

Apart from the above-mentioned exceptions, very few of the other parts of the HIV plan have been completed. Why has this happened? Why has this work come to a standstill? Why have we not managed to achieve several more goals outlined in the plan? Is it due to a lack of real will of the health authorities and other ministries to drive this plan forward? Have they declared themselves satisfied with making a good plan, and then delegated the responsibility for implementation to civil society and health care providers? Success requires national management and monitoring.

The way forward - a new tool offers new opportunities

I believe we have a unique opportunity now to show other countries how HIV and other sexual transmitted infections can and should be dealt with in a constructive and inclusive manner. By focusing on sexual health in general, and for the whole population, we could experience a reduction of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections. We must work to motivate and to inspire each individual and thus safeguard the best interests of society.

It's a new era that should inspire all who live and work in this field. We know so much more now than when HIV was incorporated into the Penal Code. We have completely different opportunities today to fight this virus, by helping as many as possible to independently maintain their health. This is where we can help to reverse the negative trend we are experiencing nationally, and it will also give us an opportunity to show the way internationally. There are many eyes focused on Norway these days who are most interested in how we choose to move forward with this challenge. We have a responsibility to make this our opportunity to achieve the very best possible outcome.

US: Sero Project to present new data on harm of HIV criminalisation to Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS (PACHA)

Photo credit: Queerocracy

Tomorrow, Thursday October 25th, the Sero Project, a human rights organisation comprised of people living with HIV who seek to end inappropriate criminal prosecutions for HIV non-disclosure or for potential or perceived HIV exposure or transmission, will present new data to the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS (PACHA) showing the harm of HIV criminalisation.

Preliminary data from the Sero Project’s national criminalisation survey were presented at the International AIDS Conference in Washington, D.C. last July. Among the latest survey findings to be released on Thursday:

●      46 percent of respondents reported that they were not clear about what is required under state laws to protect themselves from prosecution.  Another 32 percent were only somewhat clear about the legal requirements.

●      59 percent of young gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) of color reported that they were not clear about what behaviors related to HIV-positive status put them at risk for arrest, compared to 48 percent of all other men.

●      Despite the fact that female respondents were the most likely to indicate complete clarity, only slightly more than 1 in 4 women (26%) said they felt completely clear about what behaviors put them at risk for arrest.

●      49 percent of male respondents, 46 percent of female respondents, and over 57 percent of transgender respondents said that it was “very” or “somewhat” reasonable for people to refuse to take an HIV test for fear of prosecution resulting from a positive test.

●      42 percent of male and female respondents, and 47 percent of transgender respondents, said that it was “very” or “somewhat” reasonable for PLHIV to refuse treatment for fear of prosecution resulting from others discovering their HIV status.

●      A full 24 percent of respondents reported knowing at least one person who declined to take an HIV test for fear of prosecution.

●      10 percent of young gay, bisexual, or other MSM living with HIV, and 13 percent of transgender PLHIV, said that they might advise someone to avoid HIV testing because of the possibility of prosecution. 

Notes Sero’s executive director, Sean Strub: "We need stronger leadership from PACHA and the federal government to stop the creation of a viral underclass in the law.  Most efforts to combat stigma and discrimination are long and arduous and take many years; but by repealing HIV criminalisation statutes, government can take a big step all at once. We need our federal government’s effort to reflect the urgency the criminalisation crisis requires."

In addition, five survivors of HIV criminalisation prosecutions from around the United States will speak to the panel, as well as the mother and sister of a sixth person prosecuted. "We believe this is the first time any official forum of the federal government has heard directly from a group of people with HIV who have been criminalised," says Strub. "They are helping to make history and Sero is proud to have brought them to Washington for this important meeting."

The entire Sero Project press release is republished below.

NEW DATA ON HARM OF HIV CRIMINALIZATION TO BE PRESENTED
SURVIVORS OF CRIMINALIZATION PROSECUTIONS TO SPEAK
TO PRESIDENTIAL AIDS COUNCIL

WHAT: On Thursday, October 25, at the Washington Marriott at Metro Center (775 12th St NW),  The Sero Project, a human rights organization comprised of people with HIV who seek to end inappropriate criminal prosecutions of people living with HIV (PLHIV) for non-disclosure of their HIV status or for potential or perceived HIV exposure or transmission, will present to the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS (PACHA).

Sero will reveal highlights of findings from their survey of over 2,000 people living with HIV (PLHIV) and 800 people from affected communities in the U.S., illustrating how the impact of HIV criminalization drives stigma, discourages HIV testing, disclosure and access to treatment, and disproportionately impacts young people, as well as gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (MSM) of color.  At the PACHA meeting, Sero will screen HIV Is Not a Crimea short film about the harm criminalization does to PLHIV and HIV prevention.

Five survivors of HIV criminalization prosecutions from around the country (Louisiana, South Carolina, Arkansas, Iowa, and Washington) will speak to the panel, as well as the mother and sister of a sixth person prosecuted. Those charged faced prosecution, incarceration, and/or required sex offender registration for not disclosing their HIV positive status to a partner. None were accused of transmitting HIV.

Sero’s survey was conducted under the direction of principal investigator Laurel Sprague, with the oversight of the institutional review board (IRB) at Eastern Michigan University.  Sprague is the regional coordinator for the North American chapter of the Global Network of People with HIV and Sero’s research director, and has herself lived with HIV for more than 20 years.

Sero’s survey shows a profoundly disabling legal environment for people with HIV in the U.S., with many PLHIV uncertain about what is required of them in terms of disclosure and uncertain what behaviors put them at risk of arrest.  Many PLHIV and members of affected communities believe that fear of prosecution makes it reasonable for people to refuse to get tested for HIV, disclose their status or access treatment.  Nearly a quarter report knowing one or more people who told them that they did not want to get tested for fear of being criminalized.

Among the survey findings to be released on Thursday:

●    46 percent of respondents reported that they were not clear about what is required under state laws to protect themselves from prosecution.  Another 32 percent were only somewhat clear about the legal requirements.
●    59 percent of young gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) of color reported that they were not clear about what behaviors related to HIV-positive status put them at risk for arrest, compared to 48 percent of all other men.
●    Despite the fact that female respondents were the most likely to indicate complete clarity, only slightly more than 1 in 4 women (26%) said they felt completely clear about what behaviors put them at risk for arrest.
●    49 percent of male respondents, 46 percent of female respondents, and over 57 percent of transgender respondents said that it was “very” or “somewhat” reasonable for people to refuse to take an HIV test for fear of prosecution resulting from a positive test.
●    42 percent of male and female respondents, and 47 percent of transgender respondents, said that it was “very” or “somewhat” reasonable for PLHIV to refuse treatment for fear of prosecution resulting from others discovering their HIV status.
●    A full 24 percent of respondents reported knowing at least one person who declined to take an HIV test for fear of prosecution.
●    10 percent of young gay, bisexual, or other MSM living with HIV, and 13 percent of transgender PLHIV, said that they might advise someone to avoid HIV testing because of the possibility of prosecution.

Sean Strub, Sero’s executive director, said: "We need stronger leadership from PACHA and the federal government to stop the creation of a viral underclass in the law.  Most efforts to combat stigma and discrimination are long and arduous and take many years; but by repealing HIV criminalization statutes, government can take a big step all at once. We need our federal government’s effort to reflect the urgency the criminalization crisis requires."

Continued Strub: "We believe this is the first time any official forum of the federal government has heard directly from a group of people with HIV who have been criminalized. They are helping to make history and Sero is proud to have brought them to Washington for this important meeting."

Said Monique Moree, Sero Advisory Board member, director of Monique's Hope for Cure Outreach Service in Holly Hill, SC, and a criminalization survivor: "Criminalization is wrong and it hurts women.  A lot of women can't disclose because it invites violence, or because it jeopardizes their housing, employment, family situation or custody of their children.  I told my boyfriend he had to use a condom; that's how I said I had HIV.  But I got prosecuted anyway.

"Even though the charges were eventually dropped, they made me feel like a criminal even though I knew I wasn't.  We are treated like monsters instead of human beings. If someone maliciously and intentionally harms someone else, then there should be consequences, but those circumstances are rare and to put everyone with HIV who can't prove they disclosed in the same category is wrong.  HIV criminalization needs to change."

Said Laurel Sprague, Sero’s Research Director:  “There is a clear mismatch between the intention to reduce HIV transmission and deaths and the laws that criminalize HIV non-disclosure or exposure. Instead of working to create a social and legal environment within which people can safely disclose, the laws make people living with HIV deeply vulnerable to violations by the legal system and by partners or former partners.  The laws send a message that people living with HIV cannot be trusted to make the right decisions about disclosure on their own and that legal coercion is required. Yet the responses given by people living with HIV to describe their motivations for disclosing their status to a partner indicate that they choose to disclose for fundamentally moral reasons, not because of the existence of the law.”


WHEN/WHERE

October 25, 2012
9:30 to 5:00 pm
Late morning (TBD): Screening of HIV is Not a Crime late morning
3:30 PM: HIV criminalization survivors to speak
Meeting of the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS (PACHA)
Washington Marriott
775 12th Street NW
Washington, DC  20005

WHO:

Sean Strub, Executive Director and founder of Sero.  Strub is a writer and long-time activist who has lived with HIV for more than 30 years.  He founded POZ Magazine, co-chairs the North American regional affiliate of the Global Network of People Living with HIV (GNP+/NA) and co-founded and is a member of the Positive Justice Project.  He has been engaged in HIV-related stigma, discrimination, criminalization and empowerment issues since the earliest days of the epidemic.

Laurel Sprague, Research Director of Sero.  Laurel Sprague is Sero’s Research Director and works with grassroots and community-based organizations to conduct qualitative and quantitative program evaluation to support participatory, community-based research projects. She has provided technical assistance to local, national, and global organizations and to networks of people living with HIV throughout the US and Canada, as well as in Sub-Saharan Africa, Central and Eastern Europe, and Central Asia.  She teaches in the Department of Political Science at Eastern Michigan University and is a PhD candidate at Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan. Her research focuses on the resiliency and capability of HIV-positive people, particularly when faced with HIV stigma and discrimination, criminalization, human rights abuses. She is the Regional Coordinator for GNP+NA and has lived with HIV for 20+ years.

In addition, the presentation will feature testimony from the following individuals, all of whom have been prosecuted as a result of HIV criminalization, despite not being accused of transmitting HIV:

●    Nick Rhoades, an Iowan, used a condom, had an undetectable viral load and was convicted on a non-disclosure charge and sentenced to 25 years in prison.  Advocates helped get the judge to reconsider the sentence and he was released after a year, but is subject to lifetime sex offender registration.  Lambda Legal Defense is representing him in an appeal to the Iowa Supreme Court.
●    Robert Suttle served six months in a Louisiana prison and is required to register as a sex offender for 15 years.  He was in a contentious relationship; after it ended, the former partner pressed charges against Robert for not initially disclosing his HIV-positive status. Robert is the assistant director of the Sero Project and has worked as an HIV prevention outreach worker, focused on African American MSM.
●    Monique Moree, of South Carolina, was in the Army and pregnant when she found out she was positive.  When the Army found out she had a relationship with another soldier, they prosecuted her, despite the other soldier reporting that she told him to use a condom.  She faced up to 12 years; although the charges were dropped, Monique had to leave the Army.
●    Edward Casto, of Washington State, was born with HIV and was recently released from prison after serving a year and nine-months on an HIV-related charge.
●    Mark Hunter and his brother, Michael, were born with hemophilia and acquired HIV as children from blood products. Michael died of AIDS in the early 90s; Mark was prosecuted after he and his fiancee broke up.  He served 2 1/2 years in an Arkansas prison.  He is represented at the PACHA meeting by his mother, Hazel, and his sister, Faith.
●    Donald Bogardus was charged with non-disclosure in Iowa and is presently on a pre-trial release program.  He faces up 25 years in prison and lifetime sex offender registration.

About The Sero Project

Sero is a not-for-profit human rights organization comprised of people with HIV who promote the empowerment of people with HIV, combat HIV-related stigma, discrimination and criminalization and advocate for sound public health and HIV prevention policies based on science and epidemiology rather than ignorance and fear.

Sero’s HIV criminalization work includes research, raising awareness and outreach to people with HIV who have been criminalized to create a network of advocates to speak first-hand about the effects of criminalization on their lives.  Sero seeks to build a grassroots movement to mobilize the advocacy necessary to end HIV criminalization and promote a human rights-based approach to end the HIV epidemic.  Sero is a member of the Positive Justice Project, a national collaboration of activists, professionals and policy leaders combating HIV criminalization, and the HIV Justice Network, a global network of anti-criminalization advocates.

Sero is supported by the Elton John AIDS Foundation, Broadway Cares/Equity Fights AIDS, the H. van Ameringen Foundation and the Global Forum on MSM & HIV.

For more information, see www.seroproject.com.

Video: Seminar on HIV Criminalisation, Berlin, 20 September 2012 (EATG/DAH/IPPF/HIV in Europe)

Video produced by Nicholas Feustel, georgetown media, for the HIV Justice Network.

This international conference on the criminalisation of HIV non-disclosure, potential or perceived HIV exposure and non-intentional HIV transmission took place at the Rotes Rathaus in Berlin on 20th September 2012. HIV advocates, law and human rights experts and other concerned stakeholders – including parliamentarians, prosecutors, clinicians and representatives of UNAIDS and UNDP – shared information regarding the current legal situation in Europe and Central Asia and explored ways to ensure a more appropriate, rational, fair and just response.

Europe is second only to North America as the region with the most convictions. In recent years, some countries such as Denmark, Norway and Switzerland have started to revise their legislation. "These are encouraging signs", says Edwin Bernard, project leader of the seminar, co-ordinator of the international HIV Justice Network and a member of the European AIDS Treatment Group. "In contrast, we are very concerned about developments in countries like Romania, which recently enacted an HIV-specific criminal law, or in Belgium, where new legal precedents were created allowing prosecutions for the first time. We are also hearing news about absurd and problematic trials for perceived HIV exposure in Austria. The conference was designed to help advocates move forward in these particularly repressive countries."

Professor Matthew Weait presents his initial analysis of advocacy against HIV criminalisation in Scandinavian and Nordic countries

The conference took place on the occasion of the twentieth anniversary of the European AIDS Treatment Group (EATG). The meeting was co-organised with Deutsche AIDS-Hilfe (DAH), the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), and HIV in Europe, a multi-stakeholder initiative exchange on activities to improve early diagnosis and earlier care of HIV across Europe.

Watch the video on the HIV Justice Network Vimeo site here.
Download the agenda here.
Download the concept note here.
A meeting report will be available soon.

US: Public health experts and politicians support advocacy to modernise Iowa's HIV law

Activism to modernise the unscientific, unjust and stigmatising HIV-specific criminal statute in Iowa is heating up.  Last month, the Iowa HIV Community Planning Group voted to support advocacy efforts to have HIV treated like other similar conditions and threats to public health. To accomplish this, they have called for the repeal of Iowa’s HIV criminalisation statute.

Next Monday, October 15th in the state capital, Des Moines, there will be another of a series of planned CHAIN/Sero Project community forums highlighting these efforts. All Iowa legislators within a 30 mile radius of Des Moines have been invited and Iowa Senator Matt McCoy (Democrat), who earlier this year introduced a bill to repeal and modernise the law, will be in attendance.  Although the bill didn't make it out of subcommittee, he plans to reintroduce another in the legislative session that begins in January.

HIV is not a crime: Monday 15 Oct, 6:30pm at the First Unitarian Church of Des Moines,1800 Bell Ave, Des Moines, Iowa.

Globegazzette.com covered the last community forum, held in Mason City in September, in their story, 'Groups call for revising HIV disclosure statute.'

The state of Iowa currently has one of the strictest HIV laws in the nation, making the lack of disclosure a Class B felony, punishable by up to 25 years in prison and a lifetime of sex offender status.

The statute makes no exception for lack of transmission of the HIV virus, nor does it take into account the fact that a person infected with HIV is taking the prescribed medication and has very little or no chance of passing it on.

Gay rights groups and others, including the Iowa Department of Public Health, are calling for modernization of the 1998 statute to focus penalties only on intentional or documented transmission of the HIV virus.

They say Iowa’s law is having the unintended effect of discouraging individuals from undergoing HIV testing and from obtaining access to medications that could save their lives and the lives of everyone with whom they may have intimate contact.

Iowa, which has a relatively low HIV incidence rate, ranks second in the nation in prosecutions for nondisclosure.

Pictured Left to Right: Iowa State Representative Sharon Steckman and State Senator Amanda Ragan, CHAIN community organizer and Sero Advisory Board Member, Tami Haught leading Iowa's campaign to modernize the HIV criminalization law and Sero Advisory Board Member and Activist, Nick Rhoades at a community forum in Mason City on Iowa’s HIV Criminalization Law on Monday, September 10, 2012. (Picture courtesy of The Sero Project)

Reproduced below is the press release from CHAIN (Community HIV/Hepatitis Advocates of Iowa Network) announcing the Iowa HIV Community Planning Group vote and providing background to their advocacy.

HIV Community Planning Group Supports Repeal of Iowa HIV Criminlization Statute

Des Moines, September 25, 2012

In an historic move, the Iowa HIV Community Planning Group has voted to support advocacy efforts to have HIV treated like other similar conditions and threats to public health. To accomplish this, they have called for the repeal of Iowa’s HIV criminalization statute.

Iowa, like most states, has a law that prohibits intentional transmission of communicable diseases. This statute, Iowa Code 139A.20 is part of public health code. HIV, however, is covered by a separate criminal code, Iowa Code 709C, which makes exposing someone to HIV without their consent a felony punishable by up to 25 years in prison. Repeal of 709C would allow HIV to be covered by the same public health code that governs other infectious diseases.

The National HIV/AIDS Strategy and the National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directors has called for review of HIV criminalization statutes to bring them in line with contemporary science and knowledge about the real routes, risks, and consequences of HIV transmission. The Iowa Department of Public Health has echoed the call for review of the statute. In a letter to the editor of The Des Moines Register on July 29, Randy Mayer, Chief of the Bureau of HIV, STD, and Hepatitis, asked that HIV be treated in the same way as other serious infectious diseases.

“Testing and treatment are our best tools for fighting the epidemic in Iowa Research has now demonstrated that the statutes haven’t had the intended effect of promoting disclosure. We believe that our public health efforts will be more successful without having to fight the stigma that these statutes can create,” said Mayer.

“Having the prestige and expertise of the HIV Community Planning Group working to repeal Iowa’s criminalization statute is vitally important,” said Tami Haught, an HIV+ Nashua resident who is coordinating CHAIN’s statewide campaign to reform the Iowa statute. “The members of the CPG include some of the best-informed and most respected public health professionals and community advocates combating HIV We believe their recognition that the criminalization statute is hurting the public health will be persuasive with legislators.”

Iowa’s statute 709C imposes harsh penalties on persons with HIV who cannot prove they disclosed their HIV status in advance to sex partners. About 25 Iowans with HIV have been charged to date, with some convictions resulting in lengthy sentencing and lifetime sex offender registration requirements, even though HIV was not transmitted and there was little or no risk of it being transmitted.

The statute has been criticized by public health officials, legal experts, and patient advocates in Iowa and across the country as counter-productive, discriminatory, and contributing to further stigmatization of people with HIV. About 36 U.S. states and territories have HIV-specific criminal statutes Originally intended to slow HIV transmission, these laws were typically passed years ago when much less was known about HIV transmission A growing body of research shows how these statutes drive stigma, discourage testing, and are making the epidemic worse.

“HIV criminalization discourages people from getting tested—you can’t be prosecuted if you don’t know your HIV status—yet we know that most new infections are transmitted by people who have not yet gotten tested,” said Jordan Selha, co-chair of Iowa’s Community Planning Group “It’s time we treat HIV like other communicable diseases and use public health science rather than criminal law to guide our approaches to prevention No other disease is singled out as a criminal threat in this way.”

CHAIN has coordinated a statewide campaign to educate and mobilize communities to lobby lawmakers to review the statute when the legislature goes into session in January 2013. They have held community forums in Mason City and Ames.

You can help efforts to repeal the statute by contacting your state legislators and the governor’s office and asking that Iowa Code 709C be repealed. CHAIN will be holding an educational forum on October 15th at the First Unitarian Church of Des Moines and at Simpson College in Indianola on January 16, 2013.

The HIV Community Planning Group promotes, through an ongoing participatory process, effective HIV programming in Iowa in order to reduce the spread of HIV and to provide access to services for those infected. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) mandated community planning for HIV prevention in 1993. The process is designed to create a collaborative effort between public health and the communities they serve.

CHAIN is very excited to have the support of the Iowa HIV Community Planning Group. To join CHAIN’s listserve or get involved with CHAIN and the education and mobilization campaign, contact tami.haught2012(at)gmail.com, or follow CHAIN on Facebook.

Sweden: Majority of MPs want to reform HIV disclosure obligation and 'HIV exposure' criminal liability

Two articles commemorating 30 years of HIV in Sweden in Svenska Dagbladet by journalist Tobias Brandel suggest that public – and political – opinion is being positively impacted by a two-year campaign by RFSU (the Swedish Association for Sexuality Education), HIV-Sweden, and RFSL (the Swedish Federation for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Rights) to raise awareness and advocate against overly-broad HIV criminalisation.

The first article, with the headline, 'HIV-positive convicted harsher in Sweden' focuses on the fact that although HIV has been transformed from a fatal to a chronic disease, more people with HIV have been jailed in Sweden in the 2000s than in the 1980s and '90s combined.

The second, with the headline, 'HIV-law divides Government' highlights the fact that a majority of MPs want to revise both the Communicable Diseases Act (with its 'information obligation') and the criminal law that currently allows prosecutions for people with HIV for potential or perceived HIV exposure as well as transmission. However, there are divisions within both the coalition Government and the leading opposition parties.

Since these articles are the most up to date descriptions of the current moves towards law and policy reform in Sweden, I am including (in English via Google translate, with slight amendments for clarity) the full text of both articles below.

This is the Google-translated version, read the original article here

When Joakim Berlin received his diagnosis, HIV was a death sentence.

"The big question my relatives asked was when I was going to die. Of course, I thought it would go pretty quickly," he says.

It was 1991, five years before the arrival of antiretroviral drugs. Today he leads a "totally normal" life.

"Sometimes I get side effects such as cramps and fatigue. But HIV's biggest impact has been on my social life. Human ignorance is problematic. The fear is still there." Neither legislation nor case law has followed the progress of medicine. Although HIV has been transformed from a fatal to a chronic disease more people with HIV have been jailed in Sweden in the 2000s than in the 1980s and '90s combined. Anyone who has HIV - and knows it - and has unprotected sex with another person is at risk of prosecution for 'aggravated assault', 'attempted aggravated assault' or 'creating danger'.

The last year has seen four such convictions in Sweden,  according to a review by Svenska Dagbladet. All have resulted in prison sentences - even though they were not convicted of infecting their sexual partners. Only in one case was found to be HIV-positive plaintiff, but failed to clarify whether it was the offender who infected him.

A total of 44 people have convicted of crimes related to HIV since the late 1980s. This makes Sweden one of the countries in the world with the largest number of prosecutions in relation to the number of HIV-positive people, according to the Global Criminalisation Scan.

Sweden was also singled out as a bad example of how the law is used against people with HIV at the International AIDS Conference in Washington last summer. Even UNAIDS, the UN organisation for HIV / AIDS, criticises Sweden.

Ake Örtqvist, an infectious disease physician for Stockholm County Council, is critical of the Swedish court's reasoning over risk and intent.

"The courts judge very differently which is very unfortunate. Courts and prosecutors should have an increased knowledge about the disease and the concept of risk," he says.

Last year Denmark abolished a law that criminalises people with HIV referencing the current effective HIV drugs.

"The impact that treatment has in lowering viral load and infectiousness is very real, even if it is scientifically always hard to say zero. I think the courts reasoning is odd and they should embrace the fact that infection risk today is extremely small. One must ask whether it is reasonable to judge according to the Penal Code when the infection is well controlled and transmission has not occurred," said Jan Albert, Professor of Infectious Disease at the Karolinska Institute. In other words, the virus is spread very rarely by "HIV-men" as the condemned is usually called in the media. The real vectors are people who do not know they have HIV and therefore do not receive treatment.

According to the Communicable Diseases Act HIV-positive individuals must inform their sex partners of their status before having sex. Although it is not possible to judge according to the Infectious Diseases Act so courts often refer to information obligations.

Both RFSL and RFSU argue that the law is actually counter-productive.

"Of course you should tell if you have HIV before sex, but you should not risk punishment if you fail to do so. Criminalisation can also lead to a false sense of security, to believe that the person who is not saying anything does not have HIV," says RFSU President Kristina Ljungros.

She also believes that the prosecutions may deter people from testing. Even the UN-backed Global Commission on HIV and the Law concludes in a new report that criminalisation contributes to fewer people knowing their HIV status.

Preliminary data from a new U.S. study, received by Svenska Dagbladet, supports these ideas. The Sero Project, in collaboration with Eastern Michigan University interviewed more than 2000 HIV-positive individuals in the United States. Half of the respondents believe that it is reasonable to avoid HIV testing for fear of prosecution, and one in four say they know one or more individuals who chose not to test for fear of being prosecuted.

Joakim Berlin has lived with the virus for over 20 years and works at Positive Group West [part of HIV Sweden] as well as being a member of RFSL's board.

"It is the responsibility of both parties to protect themselves, so you cannot have laws that criminalise only one party," he said.

Is it not reasonable to tell your sexual partner so that he can make an informed decision?

"I have the responsibility to ensure that you do not get HIV, and you have the responsibility to ensure that you are not putting yourself at risk," he says. "The law places full responsibility on the HIV-positive person while everyone else thinks that they can do whatever they want without consequences. Most people get HIV from someone who does not know their HIV-positive status."

This is the Google-translated version, view the original here

Legislation and case law surrounding HIV has not kept pace with developments in medicine, as Svenska Dagbladet showed yesterday. Although modern HIV treatment reduces infectiousness dramatically, the law is the same as in the 1980s. There is now a majority in parliament who want a review of the Communicable Diseases Act, which forces people with HIV to disclose their status before having sex.

"We think that the issue should be revisited. Our knowledge about HIV is changing rapidly. We can not have laws that are outdated," says Barbro Westerholm, Liberal Party social policy spokesperson.

As previously reported to Svenska Dagbladet both infectious disease doctors and scientists are critical of Swedish courts that sentence HIV-positive people to prison for unprotected sex, despite there being no alleged transmission. As well as revisiting the Communicable Diseases Act, the Liberal Party would  like there to be a review of judicial practice.

The position of the Moderate Party is that there is no need for such a review, but the Party is now in discussion.

"We have not changed our minds, but we're talking about it. It is clear that we must keep up with new facts and analyses. There is a debate," says Mats Gerdau, a member of the social committee [which would recommend such a review to the Government].

The Centre Party is open to an amendment of the Penal Code in respect of how the courts reason about intentional and negligent [states of mind] - but they are clearly against removing the Communicable Diseases Act's notification requirement.

"There is an information obligation for all diseases that are generally hazardous. It is completely illogical to say that it should be removed only for HIV," says Anders W Jonsson, chairman of the social committee.

The Christian Democrats see no need for any kind of review. All four Alliance parties must agree before the law can be reviewed. The [opposition] Social Democrats, The Green Party and the Left are all clear that they want the information requirements to be removed for HIV.

"The law is counterproductive. It places responsibility solely on the person with HIV. It is a repressive law which, at worst, means people do not get tested," says Eva Olofsson (Left), also a member of the social committee.

Agneta Luttropp (Greens), another member of the social committee, believes that the law creates a false sense of security.

"The responsibility to protect is on both sides, on both the person who may have HIV and the person who does not. We hope and believe that a change in the law could lead to people being more invested in having protected sex," she says.

However, the Social Democrats want to keep the information obligation and do not believe that judicial practice needs to be reviewed.

Overcoming HIV criminalisation together! (Press release)

This is an unofficial English translation of the press release: Deutsche AIDS-Hilfe: Overcoming HIV criminalisation together!

Berlin - An international conference on the criminalisation of HIV non-disclosure, potential or perceived HIV exposure and non-intentional HIV transmission will take place at the Rotes Rathaus in Berlin on 20th September. Well-known activists and experts – including from UNAIDS, the HIV/AIDS programme of the United Nations – will share the current legal situation in Europe and Central Asia, network with each other, and explore ways to ensure a more appropriate, rational, fair and just response to the issue.

Experts agree that the criminalisation of non-intentional HIV transmission, and sexual behaviour that risks HIV exposure or transmission, contributes to the spread of HIV. Even where people with HIV are legally obligated to disclose their HIV status prior to sexual encounters, this does not help to prevent infection, but harms HIV prevention.

Carsten Schatz, member of the Board of Deutsche AIDS-Hilfe, therefore argues that:

"Criminalisation runs against successful communication on prevention in Germany – that every person ought to be responsible for protecting themselves from HIV infection. The criminal law offender-victim logic is not suited to consensual sexual encounters. To place the entire responsibility for HIV prevention on the shoulders of persons with HIV contributes to their stigmatisation. Recent judgments and media reporting brand people with HIV as potential offenders. HIV criminalisation fosters fear and thereby jeopardises exactly what it is supposed to bring about: open communication about HIV prevention. It can also discourage people from seeking an HIV test since only those aware of their status can be prosecuted. Those who wish to limit new HIV infections to a minimum, should ensure that criminal law stays out of the matter."

Morever, again and again, people are being prosecuted and punished despite there being no significiant risk of HIV transmission. Effective HIV treatment is now considered as reliable against HIV transmission as a condom. However, such scientific advances are rarely heard or regognised in German courts. In Germany, people with HIV, in line with established case law, have a duty to ensure the protection of the partner or to inform them about their HIV statuts.

Europe is second only to North America as the region with the most convictions. In recent years, some countries such as Denmark, Norway and Switzerland have started to revise their legislation.

"These are encouraging signs“, says Edwin Bernard, project leader of the seminar and co-ordinator of the international HIV Justice Network and a member of the European AIDS Treatment Group. "In contrast, we are very concerned about developments in countries like Romania, which recently enacted an HIV-specific criminal law, or in Belgium, where new legal precedents were created allowing prosecutions for the first time. We are also hearing news about absurd and problematic trials for perceived HIV exposure in Austria. The conference is designed to help advocates move forward in these particularly repressive countries."

The conference is taking place on the occasion of the twentieth anniversary of the European AIDS-Treatment Group (EATG). The meeting is co-organised with Deutsche AIDS-Hilfe (DAH), the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), and HIV in Europe, a multi-stakerholders initiative exchange on activities to improve early diagnosis and earlier care of HIV across Europe.

The seminar will take place in English. Representative of the media may attend all three plenary sessions as well as workshop two about the legal situation in Germany, Austria and Switzerland. This workshop will take place in German.

Download the agenda and concept note (in English).

HIV Criminalisation Discourages HIV Testing, Creates Disabling and Uncertain Legal Environment for People with HIV in U.S. (Press Release)

The SERO Project: National Criminalization Survey

Washington, D.C. July 25, 2012

Preliminary data from the Sero Project’s ground-breaking survey of more than two thousand people living with HIV (PLHIV) in the U.S., released July 25, 2012, at the International AIDS Conference in Washington, D.C., reveals HIV criminalization is a significant deterrent to testing, accessing care and treatment for HIV:

• One quarter of respondents (25.1%) indicated they knew one or more people who told them they did not want to get tested for HIV because of fear of prosecution if they tested positive; more than 5% indicated that “many people” have told them this.

• Almost half of respondents (49.6%) felt it could be reasonable for someone to avoid testing for HIV, and 41.6% felt it could be reasonable to avoid HIV treatment for fear of prosecution.

“We expected the survey to show criminalization is a deterrent to HIV testing, but these findings indicate it is an even bigger obstacle than previously believed,” said Laurel Sprague, the project’s principal investigator who is also Sero’s Research Director. “The community’s response has been tremendous; it is obvious there is tremendous concern about HIV criminalization. I look forward to further analysis of the survey responses, including of those who are HIV negative or do not know their HIV status, which will be released in a report later this year.”

Sean Strub, Sero’s executive director and the founder of POZ Magazine, said “This is a wake-up call for public health officials and policymakers who have failed to recognize the extent to which HIV criminalization hampers efforts to combat AIDS. We’ve known for years that HIV criminal statutes do not achieve their intended purpose, to reduce HIV transmission. Now it is clear that these statutes are driving the epidemic, because of how they fuel stigma and discourage HIV testing and accessing the treatment that reduces transmission.”

Strub and Sprague are both long‐term HIV survivors and advocates who have championed self‐empowerment for people with HIV to combat stigma and improve health outcomes for themselves and their communities. The 2,076 people living with HIV in the United States who responded to the Sero survey also painted a disturbing picture of a disabling legal environment for people with HIV:

• More than a third (38.4%) reported they worried a few times or frequently about being falsely accused of not disclosing their HIV positive status; amongst transgendered persons that cigure rose to 60%.

• Respondents in the Midwest (45.9%) and South (40.9%) were more likely to express fear about false accusations than those in the West (35.1%) and Northeast (32.3%).

• Just less than two‐thirds (62.7%) of respondents were not certain whether or not their state required people with HIV to disclose their status to a partner before having sex, with the uncertainty highest in the Northeast (72.4%) and West (71.3%) and South (61.6%) and lowest in the Midwest (40.4%).

• There were significant regional differences amongst those reporting that they were informed about potential criminal liability at the time of their diagnosis. The highest rate was in the Midwest (28.8%) and South (14.8%) and lower rates were seen in the West (7.5%) and Northeast (4.1%).

• Respondents also indicated a lack of clarity about what could subject them to prosecution (47.7% “not clear”, 30% “somewhat clear” and 22.3% “completely clear”). Men reported a greater lack of clarity on this point.

The top reasons cited for disclosure were that it is “the right thing to do”, “to have honest relationships” and “not cause harm to another” or “to protect their partner”, not that it was required by law or because of fear of criminal prosecution. More than 8 in 10 PLHIV in the study said that they believe that sexual partners share equally in the responsibility for HIV prevention.

The detailed survey, which required 20 to 25 minutes to complete, was conducted online in June and July of 2012, and is the first in‐depth examination of the effect of HIV criminalization on people with HIV and one of the largest surveys of people in the U.S. with HIV ever conducted. Further results and analysis will be released later in the year.

The Sero Project is a not‐for‐profit human rights organization combating HIV‐related stigma by working to end inappropriate criminal prosecutions of people with HIV for non‐disclosure of their HIV status, potential or perceived HIV exposure or HIV transmission.

The Sero Project is supported by the Elton John AIDS Foundation, Broadway Cares/Equity Fights AIDS and the H. van Ameringen Foundation as well as many individual supporters. Special thanks to POZ Magazine, the North American regional affiliate of the Global Network of People Living with HIV/AIDS, the Positive Women’s Network, The Body and other community resources that assisted in survey promotion.

Special thanks also to Thom Riehle, Ian Anderson, Edwin Bernard, Regan Hofmann, Cecilia Chung, Julie Davids, Mark S. King and Alex Garner for their expertise and support.


Download the press release here.  More detailed preliminary data can be downloaded here.

HIV Criminalization – An Epidemic Of Ignorance? Press Conference at AIDS 2012 (Press Release)

For Immediate Release

****MEDIA ADVISORY****

Press Conference: 10am, Wednesday 25th July, Press Conference Room 2

HIV Criminalization – An Epidemic Of Ignorance?

Laws and prosecutions that single out people with living with HIV are ineffective, counterproductive and unjust.

As delegates from around the world meet this week in Washington DC at AIDS 2012 to discuss how to "end AIDS" through the application of the latest scientific advances, laws and policies based on stigma and ignorance are not only creating major barriers to prevention, testing, care and treatment, but also seriously violating the human rights of people living with HIV.

This is especially true in the United States, where 36 states and 2 territories have HIV-specific criminal statutes that single out people living with HIV as potential criminals. However, this growing epidemic of bad laws and prosecutions is a global problem that requires an internationally co-ordinated and concerted effort to overcome.

Come meet people living with HIV who have been involved in both sides of a prosecution as well as some of the experts and advocates who are part of a growing global movement, supported by UNAIDS and the UNDP-led Global Commission on HIV and the Law, working to ensure that the application of criminal laws, if any, to people living with HIV is fair, consistent, restrained, proportionate and appropriate, and serves justice without jeopardising public health objectives and fundamental human rights.

As well as two very personal stories that embody just how HIV criminalization is fundamentally wrong-headed and unjust, presentations will include:

·          New data on the Top 15 global HIV criminalization hot-spots

·          Preliminary results of SERO criminalization survey highlighting the devastating impact of HIV criminalization in the United States

·          The Positive Justice Project's consensus statement and the latest information on Congresswoman Barbara Lee's REPEAL HIV Discrimination Act

Hosted by (in alphabetical order): 

·          The Center for HIV Law & Policy / Positive Justice Project, United States

·          Global Network of People Living with HIV (GNP+), Netherlands

·          HIV Justice Network, United Kingdom/Germany

·          INA (Maori, Indigenous & South Pacific) HIV/AIDS Foundation, New Zealand

·          The SERO Project, United States

·          Terrence Higgins Trust, United Kingdom

·          UNAIDS, Switzerland

Chaired by Paul de Lay, Deputy Executive Director, UNAIDS, Switzerland, speakers will include:

·          Nick Rhoades, HIV criminalization survivor, United States

·          Marama Pala, former complainant, New Zealand

·          Edwin J Bernard, Co-ordinator, HIV Justice Network, and Consultant, GNP+ Global Criminalisation Scan

·          Laurel Sprague, Research Director - SERO, United States

·          Lisa Fager Bediako, Congressional Black Caucus Foundation/ Positive Justice Project, United States.

A question and answer session will follow.  The press conference will end at 10.45am.

To arrange interviews with any of the speakers please contact Edwin J Bernard via email or mobile.

Media Contact

Edwin J Bernard, Co-ordinator, HIV Justice Network

Mobile: +1.347.681.8411

Email: edwin(at)hivjustice.net