HIV Criminalization Law in Iowa

1. HIV Criminalization Law in Iowa Tina Hillman English 250, Section VC November 7, 2012

2. What exactly is an HIV criminalization law? • HIV positive individual found guilty of not disclosing their HIV+ status to their sexual partner(s)  major criminal charges • AIDS epidemic of 1980s: Ryan White CARE Act • federal law requiring states to prosecute intentional transmission of HIV • Thirty-four states, including Iowa, have some form of HIV criminalization law • varies state by state • Iowa’s law harsher than most

3. Iowan Statistics • Law enacted in 1998 • Considered Class B felony • Forefront leader in pursuing HIV criminalization cases (second behind Tennessee) • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: “low-prevalence” rate for HIV/AIDS • 37 Iowans have been charged with criminal transmission of HIV; 22 individuals were convicted and sent to prison • only four people actually contracted HIV

4. Is this law necessary? Scott Burns, an executive director of the National District Attorney’s Association: “If someone with HIV has unprotected sex with somebody who does not, and doesn't reveal that or doesn't disclose that and the other person becomes HIV-positive, I think that's unconscionable.”

5. Protecting the people: an argument for keeping the law • Objective: to protect the public from those who may abuse their condition and intentionally cause harm to others by not disclosing, or even lying about, their HIV status • Nushawn Williams

6. A counter-productive law: an argument to end the discrimination • cases of intentional transmissions are very rare • “decades out of date” • “counterproductive, discriminatory, and contributing to further stigmatization of people with HIV” • discourage people from being tested for HIV • “he said/she said” in court cases

7. Where is the middle ground? • Both sides agree that intentional transmission of HIV is wrong • Same goal, different means and methods to achieving that end goal • Pros: keeping dangerous murderers off the street and discouraging risky sexual behavior • Cons: unfairly charges people already suffering with the “medical, psychological, social and financial ramifications” of HIV

8. A new law is needed • the act of transmission must prove to be intentional • biting and spitting cannot be used against someone with HIV, because this does not actually transmit the disease • criminal transmission no longer includes kissing as part of its definition of “sexual contact” • the usage of barrier contraceptives such as condoms exempts someone from being prosecuted • consideration of viral load – the amount of the virus in the body – is necessary before prosecution • prosecution occurs only if the disease is actually transmitted

9. Works Cited • Gardenhire, Ramon. "How Illinois' HIV Criminalization Law Has Changed." AIDS Chicago. 27 July 2012.Web. 02 Nov. 2012.  • Merrell, Jim. "Iowa Activists Advance in Push to Repeal HIV Criminalization Law."Prevention Justice. 27 Sept. 2012. Web. 01 Nov. 2012.  • Moon, Lindsey. "Critics Address Flaws in Iowa's HIV Criminalization Law." The Daily Iowan. 09 Feb. 2012. Web. 31 Oct. 2012.  • Pena, Layla. "Law Criminalizing HIV Transmission Imprisons Iowans Even If Virus Is Not Transmitted." The Iowa Center for Public Affairs Journalism. 29 Nov. 2011. Web. 03 Nov. 2012. • "The History of HIV & AIDS: United States of America." AVERT: AVERTing HIV and AIDS. Web. 04 Nov. 2012 • Young, Saundra. "Imprisoned Over HIV: One Man's Story." CNN. 03 Aug. 2012. Web. 01 Nov. 2012. • http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/c0.0.403.403/p403x403/224542_410126472387731_969402304_n.jpg • http://www.ippfwhr.org/sites/default/files/imagecache/resource_main_imge/blog-wad2.jpg